fwiw, the Russian people of 1916 didn't have an intensive understanding of Marxism either, they were just pissed off at the status quo and knew the tsar needed to go. You don't need your whole population to be learnt, just eager for change and open to new leadership.
Not that we have the makings of a Vanguard party either, but it's a lot less bleak of a prospect than getting 51% of Americans to read Capital.
I agree with the overall sentiment that a significant portion of the population needing to understand theory for a revolution is completely false (that's what the vanguard is for!) but it's gonna be a long while (like probably at least a century or so) for Americans material conditions to be anywhere near poor enough for them to want to risk their lives
You're completely correct. And the Bolsheviks also faced the issue of being outright atheistic in a country where the vast majority were fairly devout peasants for many of whom the Tsar was still a religious figure and who couldn't really imagine what developed capitalism, let alone socialism, would mean. It's also important to note that this was not an exclusively rural issue, as the majority of urban workers and soldiers had come fairly recently from peasant contexts.
In other words they had their work cut out for them in many ways that contemporary communists in the Imperial core do not.
On the other hand, Russia in 1917 was not a society in which the core values necessary for the functioning of a capitalist society had fully imbued everyday culture and life in the way they had already done in Western countries and as is the case in the contemporary world, which is more capitalistic than any point prior to the 1980s (though I would argue that this peaked in the late 90s/early 2000s). The transformation of politics into another identitarian symbol and virtue-signalling component of western ultras' personal aesthetics is a reflection of this conception of politics as a part of personal identity, of the construction and selling of oneself as a purely aesthetic product. For many leftists in the west their leftism amounts mainly to a form of lifestyle aesthetics, and often as a kind of surrogate or substitute form feelings of communal belonging and spiritual, religious or historical meaning and significance. Now I'm not saying the latter are unimportant or necessarily bad in every respect, but it does seem to be the extent of the political participation of most people self-identifying as socialist in the west. Capitalism obviously sells us the opiates to lessen the anguish of the sense of nihilism it also naturally produces, and it has become less and less shy or reluctant to do so by repackaging leftist, socialist or communist symbols. This has a broader, more indirect effect on culture, which doesn't reduce to, say, a capitalist firm selling Che Guevara t-shirts. A great example from American popular culture is Hip Hop. Contemporary mainstream rap, especially trap, in many ways reflect how the political radicalism of 70s black politics was transmuted into the popularized black petit bourgeois entrepreneurialism of the 1980s, and which you see in contemporary rap music everywhere, only where the American dream ideology takes the classic form of socio-economic ascent from the lumpenproletariat as opposed to the traditional working class. Political radicalism is far less at the forefront of Hip Hop than it was in the 80s.
The key thing that the West is lacking is not dislike for the conditions of capitalism. Your average worker also does not think that the conditions capitalism forces them to live in are acceptable. The issue is that they do not think of these as the natural or inevitable conditions of capitalism. Most people cannot define capitalism, let alone correctly. One of the issues for contemporary communists definitely seems to me to be that of how to make clear sense of the fact that while the conditions of capitalist life in the West are worsening for the majority, there has not been more impulse towards the construction of vanguard parties. Definitely relevant is the general cultural factor mentioned above, as well as a truly industrial propaganda-media complex that leverages the 'failures' (real and imagined) of previous attempts at socialism and plays without shame on ideas of nationalism (including liberal ones of very limited modern progress on social issues in the US) in order leave little room for people to feel comfortable expressing openly communist ideas. Poor education is also an issue.
I would disagree that it doesn't mean anything. At the very least it shows half of young Americans are open-minded enough to consider an alternative to the unrestrained liberalism that they've been soaked in their entire lives.
Young people of every generation are statistically more open-minded than their older counterparts. It doesn’t necessarily indicate a generational shift until it can be demonstrated that the ideology persists in traditionally pro-capitalist age groups.
Was it not the boomers who were the edgy anti-capitalist hippies during the 60s and 70s?
I’m not holding my breath; I fully expect millennials and gen Z to go full grillpill when they have more stake in the status quo (401k, house, kids, career goals, etc).
I hope I’m wrong. But we should oppose simple optimism. Optimism doesn’t change the world, it encourages an attitude of helplessness and complacency at times when direct action is necessary.
I fully expect millennials and gen Z to go full grillpill when they have more stake in the status quo (401k, house, kids, career goals, etc).
so when do you think millennials are going to have those things? the youngest millennials are 27 and the oldest are 42. will we be able to afford housing and kids and have careers any day now?
About half of American millennials own homes, based on a quick Google search. I agree it’s bad for far too many younger Americans, but they also aren’t a uniform bloc all facing the same material conditions.
Possessing this or that particular stake in the status quo was not the essential point. The point was that having any stake at all tends to deradicalize people over time. This is all the more true when someone’s anticapitalism has no leftist theoretical basis or social organization.
Optimism doesn't change the world, but if you don't take time to recognize something might be a positive, that just seems to increase helplessness even more to me. Like there has been action done to encourage the growth of socialism by people for decades, so seeing that there seems to be a least one indicator of it not going further backwards, we should reflect on that lest our spirits be completely crushed.
Angela Davis said a few days ago: “Hope is the condition of all struggles.” I believe this is true and don't desire for leftists to lose hope. But just as deadly to movements is blind optimism, the belief that things will necessarily improve automatically and without struggle.
Religion may help the masses cope with the world, but it is still illusory and often leads to counter revolutionary thought, if one puts more faith in external causes rather than revolutionary ie human-driven change.
A poll of youth opinion of capitalism is meaningless in itself and needs to be normalized with historical data, such as the tendency for younger age groups to be historically more optimistic by default before those same people become more cynical and reactionary in later life.
That is true, much more important than faith and optimism or anything like that is determined action. I think I've just been feeling a bit too pessimistic/stressed lately so felt like I needed to defend positivity haha.
I feel you, it’s hard lately especially with Palestine. In spite of everything I said, there are still things which make me hopeful. There is more support for Palestine among western citizens than I remember from past events in the region. Leaders from the global majority countries are cooperating more and more, and the disproportionate influence of the US has been waning in significant strides in the last 20 years. These occurrences of blatant imperialism will hopefully grow more infrequent as a result. Of course, that’s what the neoliberals also promised in the 1980s, but I think there is a stronger case for it this time.
I fully expect millennials and gen Z to go full grillpill when they have more stake in the status quo (401k, house, kids, career goals, etc).
Thats a reasonable expectation. I don't know how much of a stake in the staus quo anyone from these generations will ever have though. Which is bad to live through, but promising in terms of radicalizing
No boomers were always incredibly reactionary. The 60's was driven by a minority of radicals and young people who were rebelling against the draft in a context of heavy unionization and the existence of the ussr. If you look at the actual polling though boomers were actually more economically conservative than their parents.
I would say this is unnecessarily pessimistic view of things. People like to make eternal pronouncements about the "nature" of labor in the imperial core being inherently reactionary, but the truth is that most of those are base off of a limited historical data set that is much more nuanced than most admit. I think things are unquestionably looking up and this polling is just one bit of evidence of that. I know for my part I have had infinitely more luck trying to organize my work place over the past 4 years than I ever had before. People aren't going to magically become Marxists in America, but we will have a significantly better go of it if people are starting from a position of "capitalism sucks" rather than "capitalism is the most perfectest ting ever!"
This "the youth will always just hate the establishment" meme is still harmful and based on very little. The only basis for the idea that people will become more pro-capitalist with age is based on a very weak correlation of the parties voted for by populations as they age, which is just not great data on so many fronts.
deleted by creator
fwiw, the Russian people of 1916 didn't have an intensive understanding of Marxism either, they were just pissed off at the status quo and knew the tsar needed to go. You don't need your whole population to be learnt, just eager for change and open to new leadership.
Not that we have the makings of a Vanguard party either, but it's a lot less bleak of a prospect than getting 51% of Americans to read Capital.
deleted by creator
I agree with the overall sentiment that a significant portion of the population needing to understand theory for a revolution is completely false (that's what the vanguard is for!) but it's gonna be a long while (like probably at least a century or so) for Americans material conditions to be anywhere near poor enough for them to want to risk their lives
You're completely correct. And the Bolsheviks also faced the issue of being outright atheistic in a country where the vast majority were fairly devout peasants for many of whom the Tsar was still a religious figure and who couldn't really imagine what developed capitalism, let alone socialism, would mean. It's also important to note that this was not an exclusively rural issue, as the majority of urban workers and soldiers had come fairly recently from peasant contexts.
In other words they had their work cut out for them in many ways that contemporary communists in the Imperial core do not. On the other hand, Russia in 1917 was not a society in which the core values necessary for the functioning of a capitalist society had fully imbued everyday culture and life in the way they had already done in Western countries and as is the case in the contemporary world, which is more capitalistic than any point prior to the 1980s (though I would argue that this peaked in the late 90s/early 2000s). The transformation of politics into another identitarian symbol and virtue-signalling component of western ultras' personal aesthetics is a reflection of this conception of politics as a part of personal identity, of the construction and selling of oneself as a purely aesthetic product. For many leftists in the west their leftism amounts mainly to a form of lifestyle aesthetics, and often as a kind of surrogate or substitute form feelings of communal belonging and spiritual, religious or historical meaning and significance. Now I'm not saying the latter are unimportant or necessarily bad in every respect, but it does seem to be the extent of the political participation of most people self-identifying as socialist in the west. Capitalism obviously sells us the opiates to lessen the anguish of the sense of nihilism it also naturally produces, and it has become less and less shy or reluctant to do so by repackaging leftist, socialist or communist symbols. This has a broader, more indirect effect on culture, which doesn't reduce to, say, a capitalist firm selling Che Guevara t-shirts. A great example from American popular culture is Hip Hop. Contemporary mainstream rap, especially trap, in many ways reflect how the political radicalism of 70s black politics was transmuted into the popularized black petit bourgeois entrepreneurialism of the 1980s, and which you see in contemporary rap music everywhere, only where the American dream ideology takes the classic form of socio-economic ascent from the lumpenproletariat as opposed to the traditional working class. Political radicalism is far less at the forefront of Hip Hop than it was in the 80s.
The key thing that the West is lacking is not dislike for the conditions of capitalism. Your average worker also does not think that the conditions capitalism forces them to live in are acceptable. The issue is that they do not think of these as the natural or inevitable conditions of capitalism. Most people cannot define capitalism, let alone correctly. One of the issues for contemporary communists definitely seems to me to be that of how to make clear sense of the fact that while the conditions of capitalist life in the West are worsening for the majority, there has not been more impulse towards the construction of vanguard parties. Definitely relevant is the general cultural factor mentioned above, as well as a truly industrial propaganda-media complex that leverages the 'failures' (real and imagined) of previous attempts at socialism and plays without shame on ideas of nationalism (including liberal ones of very limited modern progress on social issues in the US) in order leave little room for people to feel comfortable expressing openly communist ideas. Poor education is also an issue.
I would disagree that it doesn't mean anything. At the very least it shows half of young Americans are open-minded enough to consider an alternative to the unrestrained liberalism that they've been soaked in their entire lives.
deleted by creator
Young people of every generation are statistically more open-minded than their older counterparts. It doesn’t necessarily indicate a generational shift until it can be demonstrated that the ideology persists in traditionally pro-capitalist age groups.
Was it not the boomers who were the edgy anti-capitalist hippies during the 60s and 70s?
I’m not holding my breath; I fully expect millennials and gen Z to go full grillpill when they have more stake in the status quo (401k, house, kids, career goals, etc).
I hope I’m wrong. But we should oppose simple optimism. Optimism doesn’t change the world, it encourages an attitude of helplessness and complacency at times when direct action is necessary.
so when do you think millennials are going to have those things? the youngest millennials are 27 and the oldest are 42. will we be able to afford housing and kids and have careers any day now?
I've never even had avacado toast and i still can't own a house!
About half of American millennials own homes, based on a quick Google search. I agree it’s bad for far too many younger Americans, but they also aren’t a uniform bloc all facing the same material conditions.
Possessing this or that particular stake in the status quo was not the essential point. The point was that having any stake at all tends to deradicalize people over time. This is all the more true when someone’s anticapitalism has no leftist theoretical basis or social organization.
Own a home or own a mortgage ? Not the same thing
the millennials who were going to de-radicalize mostly have by now
Optimism doesn't change the world, but if you don't take time to recognize something might be a positive, that just seems to increase helplessness even more to me. Like there has been action done to encourage the growth of socialism by people for decades, so seeing that there seems to be a least one indicator of it not going further backwards, we should reflect on that lest our spirits be completely crushed.
Angela Davis said a few days ago: “Hope is the condition of all struggles.” I believe this is true and don't desire for leftists to lose hope. But just as deadly to movements is blind optimism, the belief that things will necessarily improve automatically and without struggle.
Religion may help the masses cope with the world, but it is still illusory and often leads to counter revolutionary thought, if one puts more faith in external causes rather than revolutionary ie human-driven change.
A poll of youth opinion of capitalism is meaningless in itself and needs to be normalized with historical data, such as the tendency for younger age groups to be historically more optimistic by default before those same people become more cynical and reactionary in later life.
That is true, much more important than faith and optimism or anything like that is determined action. I think I've just been feeling a bit too pessimistic/stressed lately so felt like I needed to defend positivity haha.
I feel you, it’s hard lately especially with Palestine. In spite of everything I said, there are still things which make me hopeful. There is more support for Palestine among western citizens than I remember from past events in the region. Leaders from the global majority countries are cooperating more and more, and the disproportionate influence of the US has been waning in significant strides in the last 20 years. These occurrences of blatant imperialism will hopefully grow more infrequent as a result. Of course, that’s what the neoliberals also promised in the 1980s, but I think there is a stronger case for it this time.
Thats a reasonable expectation. I don't know how much of a stake in the staus quo anyone from these generations will ever have though. Which is bad to live through, but promising in terms of radicalizing
No boomers were always incredibly reactionary. The 60's was driven by a minority of radicals and young people who were rebelling against the draft in a context of heavy unionization and the existence of the ussr. If you look at the actual polling though boomers were actually more economically conservative than their parents.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I would say this is unnecessarily pessimistic view of things. People like to make eternal pronouncements about the "nature" of labor in the imperial core being inherently reactionary, but the truth is that most of those are base off of a limited historical data set that is much more nuanced than most admit. I think things are unquestionably looking up and this polling is just one bit of evidence of that. I know for my part I have had infinitely more luck trying to organize my work place over the past 4 years than I ever had before. People aren't going to magically become Marxists in America, but we will have a significantly better go of it if people are starting from a position of "capitalism sucks" rather than "capitalism is the most perfectest ting ever!"
This "the youth will always just hate the establishment" meme is still harmful and based on very little. The only basis for the idea that people will become more pro-capitalist with age is based on a very weak correlation of the parties voted for by populations as they age, which is just not great data on so many fronts.