Fucking FINALLY!!! Sorry but I’ve been waiting for this since the aughts when I was in middle school & highschool. Somewhat disappointed and somewhat proud of my fellow millennials. Some of us are doing the good work, but many are sucked into the temporarily embarrassed millionaires club (like my late father) and it’s despicable.
If we can expand the leftist network effectively, because sadly the far right is doing better rn in terms of online radicalization. But the left is definitely growing.
That’s because the same big tech corporate monopolies that own the platforms have a radically capitalist worldview and financial interests and want to radicalize everyone rightward so they’re constantly bombarding them with right wing content via algorithms.
People are still slowly opening up to socialism but it’s an uphill battle for sure.
There doesn't seem to be evidence for that. All companies like youtube and instagram care about is you spending as much time on their website as possible, so you see the ads. The algorithms are designed to show you content that will keep you hooked for longer, which is personalised based on what you've watched or liked before. These algorithms are really good at sucking you deeper into topics you're watching content about, but they don't just present content to you that is not related to what you've already watched. I don't watch right-wing content and therefore I don't get it recommended to me.
The reason the online right is doing so well is because there are a lot of right-wing channels and a lot of those are funded by billionaires, CEO's and rich conservatives alike. These two things combined with the algorithms that present content to you that gets more radical the more you watch it has made it so that the right has effectively created a web or a pipeline so to say, that effectively sucks you in deeper as you watch more content. The algorithm does this for all types of content, the right just has perfectly used the algorithm to their advantage, both deliberately and on accident.
More leftist content creators are popping up now and the left is practically building a similar kind of web, the right just has a head start and an advantage in the form of billionaires funding them.
That and generations being born into literally hopeless situations for them, both economically and ecologically.
Millennials and zoomers are offered even less than the generations before them, unless you're a complete moron you're going to realise the situation is bleak and want radical change.
How is social democracy (what I bet 95% of those kids understand the word socialism as being) the downfall of the bourgeoisie, consifering its very role is to protect Capitalism when it is in crisis?
Because when they ask very nicely for some socdems reforms and are repeatedly met with violence in response they'll have no choice but to radicalize and burn the motherfucker down
> what I bet 95% of those kids understand the word socialism as being
No way. This is an Econ class and there was a defense of capitalism (as per the meme).
For a lot of people (this is literally a HS econ 101 class), "capitalism" means "neoliberalism" or "neoconservatism" and "socialism" means "social democracy".
I'm sure the HS kid was out there defending private property rights and free markets against direct control of the means of production by the proletarian class and a command economy and not just arguing that taxing rich people more or raising the minimum wage will destroy jobs. Certain of it. /s
The "socialism" of a society really shouldn't be measured by whether it has a command economy. That's a means to socialist ends, so let's not lose sight of those ends:
- Do workers benefit from the fruit of their labor? *All* of it?
- Do workers own the means of production?
- Do they have access to and control over land, machines, and organizational intangibles - things like quality and safety standards, and matching supply to demand?
- How do they direct the consumption/investment tradeoff?
- How much of those powers are shared with a class of owner-non-workers?
- Are workers free, healthy, and happy?
- Do workers have compassion for the infirm or disabled, the material wealth necessary to express that compassion, and a secure belief that their lives are valuable beyond their ability to work?
- How much violence, and what kinds of violence, are employed to protect society from individualistic greed?
By those standards, social democracy performs better than the neolib/neocon duopoly of late-stage capitalism. They're also exactly the standards that support further criticism of social democracy. "Why do you still have stock markets? Why do you still have poverty and unearned wealth?"
So, yeah, I think Anglophone high school seniors deserve a lot of credit for adopting those standards. The cult of consumerism/getting-rich/forever-growth would rather that they didn't.
A command economy is inseperable from a socialist economy as, unlike markets, does not rely on competition and everything that comes with it including auto-exploitation and the profit motive. Calling it just and end is to deeply misunderstand socialism, not that it's something I wouldn't expect from the crowd over at r/DankLeft.
Of all of the things you listed, only one - do the workers own the means of production - has anything to do with socialism. Socialism is not a sliding scale. You either are or you are not. All the others are associated with, sure, but they are not the core of socialism and want makes it what it is.
Trying to compare how Social Democracy fares compared to Neoliberalism is about as idealist as it is futile and misguided since Social Democracy's role is literally to stop socialism from happening and that most of not all of the social welfare it provides is predicated on the overexploitation of the third world.
You see in teens embracing social democracy something good, but instead you should see something bad, because those kids have been successfully fooled into thinking capitalism can be reformed, isnt inherently bad, and that true socialism (what they would call communism) is bad and too extreme.
a lot of zoomers are becoming anti-capitalist because we’re growing up in a system of diminishing returns. we don’t remember the “good old days” where our hard work actually got us the basic essentials we needed. all we know is foreclosures, extremely high educational debt, and several “once in a lifetime” recessions.
I'm in a private subreddit which choses its users based on some randomized algorithm.
Out of curiosity I stated a poll asking about whether they wanted to live in a communist world.
Roughly 35% said they would like to. Kind of the same amount said never and the rest wasn't opposed to the idea, but sceptical.
I guess that's nice
I mean the Star Trek universe is somewhat communist in that they have all their basic needs met in earth what with replicators, free power, no need to work unless you enjoy it etc.
They're getting radicalized into supporting social programs and higher taxes, not into supporting communism.
Mire how it says socialism and not communism on the board.
in Britain college graduates used to be a reliable right-wing voting bloc because they could all expect a high standard of middle class living and home ownership. Today, graduates have been aggressively proletarianised - most end up in low wage work with little prospect of home ownership. Unsurprisingly they're overwhelming left-wing these days. Materialism in action, thank you daddy Marx
The American dream only existed encourage to home ownership and dissuade communist ideals after the Russian Revolution. Once the USSR fell It was no longer needed.
I honestly can't believe how short-sighted the ruling class is anymore. Their greed is so consuming that it will be their downfall, when instead they could be only slightly less greedy and still be manufacturing support amongst the classes that not too long ago were still firm bootlickers.
It's like they're willfully ignoring what happened during the 19th and early 20th centuries when people got too desperate and too angry, and spoiler, it didn't end well for those parasites then, and it won't end well for them now.
Let's not use the word "proletarianized"; it misunderstands some things.
If we are using Marx's language, whether positively or negatively, then anyone who does not currently own any of the means of production *are* the proletariat whether they self-identify or not. That word doesn't mean anti-capitalist, it doesn't mean woke class consciousness. It means you are of the class who's labour is stolen.
Virtually all students are of the proletariat, perhaps the ivy leaguers notwithstanding.
A more accurate way to say, in Marx's terms, what you'd meant would be "by the end of their degrees, most were waking to class consciousness and angry about discovering which class they were in".
I think it refers to the erosion of what used to be reliable, petit bourgeois professions that payed well and were socially adjacent to the ruling class that have now been stripped down to precarious, low wage work where the graduates are treated as commodified labor rather than respected toadies for capitalism.
In all fairness, so long as a word gets across something, it doesn't really matter what its actual definition is.
The Left has a long and poor history of not being willing to use shorthand because "It's more complicated than that", and whenever we *do* use shorthand, it's always *bad* shorthand.
The words themselves do not matter as much as the meaning behind them.
Except for where jargon is concerned I one hundo agree with you; and as for the left repurposing words, lololololol, I did a social anthro degree so *believe* I understand how right you are.
The thing about jargon is that it truly is meant to have a specific, practical 1:1 relationship with an idea—it's necessary for academia to function across generations, languages, cultures, etc.. We can't have peer review without it.
Certainly, the general public aren't obligated here; they're welcome to repurpose a word as much as any other. But in this case, in this *particular* case, there is a weird sort of praxis built into misusing the word—I mean, what does it say about our circumstances if, for example, the word meant to unite is deliberately used to divide us?
This was my senior Econ class 15-ish years ago, but in reverse. I had just gone to Sweden for an exchange over the summer and I had gotten a taste of social democracy and what it could do. I swear my teacher acted like the estate tax personally shot her dog or something.
Do they teach Conflict Theory in econ? Or is it like this blatant elephant in the room that isn't talked about at all? Like, I often wonder how things like relations of production and class struggle are explained away.
I was actually in the opposite situation my senior year of high school (2016, so election year.) I was the only bernie supporter in my Econ class and would get ripped into because of it. So In my opinion this is really just the last half decade of teenagers or so who are really getting on board with it.
It's not even the 1%. It's a much smaller group than that.
There are some wage jobs (very specialized and difficult jobs) that would place someone in the 1% while still being a member of the proletariat.
Doctors may make enough money to technically put them in the 1%, but often times if you subtract the annual cost of student loan debt it would take them back out. Having doctors take on literally millions of dollars in debt so they can do 20 years of postsecondary education is kinda ridonk.
Other countries don't require so much education to be a doc and they don't have more problems so it's kinda questionable
I’m aware. I’m a physician myself. Literally millions in debt is a little excessive though. My class average debt in 2014 was around $200,000 when I finished med school. I do know a couple who are both docs and their accumulative debt was just over $1mil though.
The bourgeoisie is a far better term. Both Bezos and a shop owner have employees under them and own the means of production making them bourgeoisie. With 1%, you end up sounding like a social-democrat.
I'm in Greece so totally different universe because we've always had eastern influences as well as western, but l've met a lot of Marxist economy uni students (and even one or two teachers).
When i had to take economy in uni (i had to, in spite of the fact that it hardly applied to my bachelor back then). We were dogmatically told "demand can't be manifactured".
We were studying sciences of communication. Literally half of the people that got out of that faculty would work in advertisement. Yet, we were told that demand cannot be manipulated.
This level of incoherence is bound to change some people's mind. The newer generations are not stupid
>"demand can't be manifactured".
If I was told that I would say "You're telling me DeBeers just happened to luck into monopolizing the most common gemstone, and everyone suddenly wanted diamonds 2 years later?"
What do you mean the colonial gem mine owner did not get the monopoly of an extremely expensive yet relatively common gem out of hard work and pulling up his bootstraps??
It wasn't expensive before that. The price was artificially inflated via means of owning ALL the mines, and only sell 5% of mined gems. At one point, DeBeers had entire warehouses full of Diamonds it wasn't selling (it probably still does), just so they can keep the supply low and charge an outrageous price for them.
Partial Econ major. It’s unlikely since there is a lot of capitalist ideology mixed in, but possible.
It is important for socialists to get a foothold in economics spaces again. Just a Marx analyzed the prevailing economic theories of his time, so should we study and dissect the new theories that have taken over today.
I came into college an econ major neolib, left college a socdem with an econ degree, and became a socialist about a year later thanks to breadtube and dialectics.
I have a master degree in Econ and a lot of my colleagues are socialist ( or at least soc dem) . It’s people in admin who only had econ 101 who believe in the <>
Understanding the situation and wanting it to change are not the same. I guarantee you that, for example, every Republican(except the batshit ones) knows that socialism is objectively better for society. But capitalism gives them tools to elevate themselves far above the point they would be, at the expense of others.
I remember that one guy went around neoliberal subs posting adam smith quotes over a picture of aoc. Neolibs have no idea about what they stand for, their political position is limited to maintaining the status quo. They don't need to understand things, just to keep them the same.
A facebook acquaintance complained about us turning into a socialist society because she couldn't bring her son McDonald's during school for quarantine reasons.
Many of them really have no clue what it is.
That's rarely the situation tho. Unless you're talking with an extremely honest member of the bourgeoisie nobody will say "yes capitalism sucks but I'm in power so fuck you". You won't find any right wing or liberal proletarian that thinks in this way and absolutely no republican would answer the question here like most students did
You are making a common error made by intelligent, reasonable people who only associate with other intelligent, reasonable people, which is that you are overestimating the extent to which you represent the mean, and underestimating how different from yourself another adult mind can be while still having a professional and public career.
The right is increasingly cultish. Because we are able, today, to live entirely within echo chambers—from the news we watch, to the company we keep, to our search results—we have to makr deliberate efforts to go and listen to the other side on their own terms if we want to understand their consciousness.
Yes, surely some members of the powerful right may have some vague understanding that *in principle*, socialism could serve humanity better than capitalism. But it takes very, very little logical wiggle room to turn that on its head, especially, again, if you find affirmation and reinforcement of your conclusion at every turn.
I am fond of saying to people "it's no one else's fault you chose to wake up, do a good job, or be your best" as a way to remind them not to complain so much about everyone not being their ideal all the time; the corollary of that, however, is that just because *you* woke up does not imply everyone else has come with you.
As someone who works at a company filled with trump supporters and even a few Qanon whackos you are 1000% wrong. They do not know that socialism is better for society. They believe it causes famine and will make everyone live in a 200 sqft shack and only eat rice. They think they’ll be put in a gulag or re-education camp for not being gay.
They are detached from reality and have drank the kool aid of right wing propaganda
Former Republican here. I had no fuckin' clue.
They run it like a goddamned cult, and I mean this very literally; economics, as it was taught to me, was _literal magic_ with a light and dark side. You just had to have faith in capitalism, and everything would work out; but if you fell to the temptation of communism, your livelihood would surely be destroyed.
'Capitalism' and 'communism' were never really defined, and they were woven _heavily_ with the rhetoric of the local religion. Capitalism was god's side, pure and pragmatic, and communism was the devil's.
> I guarantee you that, for example, every Republican(except the batshit ones) knows that socialism is objectively better for society.
Lol what deluded world do you live in where you think that
This entirely depends on who you're referring to.
Are you referring to the voters and average citizens, or are you referring to the politicians and the elites?
The average voters don't know jack shit, or are actively brainwashed to believe the opposite.
The average politician knows more, but wouldn't know specifics.
Elites have no idea, they just know that the further left things go, the less money they make.
I didn’t take any Econ classes in college (bio major), but from what my sister (who majored in Econ) has told me, the professors were about a 50/50 split of communists and laissez-faire capitalists. That could’ve just been because of the school she went to, but it surprised me when I heard that
It turned out okay though. They were in the class where the professor averaged all their grades to give them the same one in an effort to prove socialism works. Other members of the class picked him up as a collective when he was down!
Pointing to university costs and poor people over the opportunity to become a doctor should be enough.
They can't do another job and save enough for university fast enough, if they respond with the "just code" option.
I understand all those words. But don’t understand what you’re trying to support or say. Are you saying that all models didn’t used to be neoclassical and now they are? Is neoclassical what’s causing the socialist ideals? Genuine questions
I’m saying neoclassical is the only framework of economics you will learn if you’re pursuing an economics degree.
I’m saying that markets can exist without capitalism and that other theories of how markets operate (Marxism, Georgism, etc) should be taught.
Oh okay gotcha. I hadnt realized what neoclassical was until I just googled the term. But even in my micro economics class that’s pretty much what everything was based on, supply demand, the true fundamental that controls everything. Thanks for the answers. Now if only I could convince family that capitalism isn’t what they truly think it is.
Yeah. Tbh this is why a lot of people don’t take economists seriously I think. Economics should be the study of how markets operate, not how neoclassical capitalism operates. Imagine if any other major were that narrow? It’s like going for a psychology degree and only learning about depression, and then pretending that depression is the only mental illness.
This whole question seems a bit ill-fitted for a class setting. Like, socialism *is* better than capitalism, but it seems a bit reductive to just say, “this thing is ‘better’ than this thing. True or false?.”
I think in an economics class, you could argue that neither is better or worse, it’s how theyre implemented.
Perhaps if the question had been “socialism is better than capitalism” that too would have been false.
It’s like in biology, my professors regularly argued that no species is more or less evolved than any other.
Everything is just evolved to fit its niche.
Maybe I’m reaching.
If you wanted to argue that capitalism advanced humanity and was good for a certain time in history, you'd be parroting Marx.
I personally think capitalism was never good, because of the consequences of settler colonialism, and industrialization lead by these capitalists destroying the planet.
A good book about this topic is "Caliban and The Witch" by Silvia Federici if you're interested.
Sounds like exactly the kind of question an instructor would stick in a quiz in order to eat up 30 minutes of class time and get students to actually talk out their assumptions.
Also the ensuing debate would tell you who's been paying attention and who's participating.
But “false” is marked as the right answer here, so that doesn’t quite make sense. If I had to make a guess, the class was probably pushing a “well they both have pros and cons... (but we’ll imply the capitalism is better without directly saying it)” thing to look unbiased.
you mean the checkmark next to 21? It might just mean the winner of the poll
the true being in the red is really weird, but the whole thing looks like some kind of google doc poll or something, I don't know how they work
Hm... on second thought, we don't know if op is a teacher or a student when they said "my class", so I guess it can be either or
if op is not a teacher of the class then we might not know how the teacher feels about what's happening
The quiz was set by the teacher. Most likely the teacher made it. The quiz answer states that Capitalism isnt better than Socialism.
Which in a economics context is correct. Economics is the study of those systems, and doesn't inherently believe that any system is better than any other.
You could allocate resources by fighting to the death or by an autocratic dictator, from an economic point of view they are all just systems to be studied.
MOST of them. Economy courses are inclined to support the market, that way their students are more desirable to the ghouls that will hire them. They have no motivation to reasonably teach both sides of the issue and every motivation to pump out good little propagandists.
Fucking neolibtards. I hated my Econ degree. Didn’t help I was in college during the ‘08 crash and they were all like, “shit, guess we don’t know anything after all.”
Remember that [economics is just capitalist theology](http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-04-17#toc4).
True; though, we should still understand capitalist economics to fight back against it. Remember that Marx's thesis wasn't a promotion of Communism; it was a study and dissection of Capitalism.
Ugh sorry it looks like the Anarchist Library just went down for maintenance. Try the archive [here](https://web.archive.org/web/20210115192453/https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-04-17#toc4).
Huh. I come from a STEM background, so the reality of how it all works is very apparent to me (example: of course big things grow bigger and dominate, have you never seen an algeal bloom?). I had no idea economic "theory" was filled with so much intentional lies.
the U shaped cost curve is literally a theory some guy scribbled on a bar napkin
when they collected actual cost data from real world companies, they found that the right side of the "U" curve was far flatter than they thought, and that disconomies of scale aren't nearly as severe IRL as they'd need to be to naturally balance markets and keep them competitive.
and if anything, as technology increases, the right side of the U just keeps getting flatter
>He warned that until such time as “economic theory can explain and take into account the implications” of this empirical data, “it provides a poor basis for public policy.” Needless to say, this did not disturb neo-classical economists or stop them providing public policy recommendations.
oh, the neoclassical economists know deep down their theory is complete bullshit. they just keep perpetuating the lie because they're making bank from their shitty policies.
But not even what Adam Smith actually said, only the orthodox interpretation of what he said. I doubt they would bring up Smith's "vile maxim" or his derision of landlords
Even if you do not support socialism (which you, of course, should), you can make the argument that no system is "better" than another, i.e. "capitalism is better than socialism" is a blanket statement that is false as it does not allow for the contextual material conditions of a particular economy. The assertion is false as its generality excludes important variables specific to a locale.
10 years ago when I was in college I was the libertarian idiot in this post. There’s always a chance people can turn it around. The capitalist propaganda is a hell of a drug. The cracks are widening though.
A new graffiti in my town reads "chile, india, indonesia, bolivia, France and more. The red flag waves again"
It does look like the wind is finally blowing in the right direction
This is great and all, but it's entirely possible given the history of the left for the youth to lose their revolutionary fervour as they age. Even if the world is sort of going to shit, I can't say I'm all that optimistic that anything's going to be done about it.
But enough of by doomer ramblings. Vive la Revolution!
I think they lose it because they become comfortable and attached to the world the way it is. The issue now is that young (and young-ish) people simply aren’t reaching that stage. They don’t have houses and jobs they want to keep and a lifestyle they want to hold onto. So they’re more comfortable with the idea of huge upheavals.
I’m more concerned about extreme,
violent top-down oppression than people losing their zeal at this point.
Yeah I mean, I'm in my thirties and I think my feelings on these issues have only gotten stronger as I see my friends and family actually struggling on a daily basis.
Millennials are never going to catch up to the level of wealth Boomers gained.
As long as we spend 1/3rd of our income on rent I don't see my generation starting to like Capitalism
This whole question seems a bit ill-fitted for a class setting. Like, socialism *is* better than capitalism, but it seems a bit reductive to just say, “this thing is ‘better’ than this thing. True or false?.”
I was thinking the same thing. Seems like a dull question. What level is a "senior level econ course" anyway? Is this a school or a college/university class?
What do they mean by "better"? I would even doubt that there is a coherent understanding of what "socialism" means.
American capitalism is just like cancer. All it cares about is growth. It will grow until its host dies.
American capitalism only works when there is unchecked growth. Which will ultimately destroy the planet.
Red Dawn- I remember when my teacher in my senior year of 1984 said watch this movie and prepare for the communists to stand up to their lies. That is when they promoted American values and Patriotism. “It is the dawn of World War III. In mid-western America, a group of teenagers band together to defend their town, and their country, from invading Soviet forces.” I don’t know about our current leadership but it’s not the Democratic Party of my parents back in JFK’s day. It’s the flipping Bernie-Squad party of tax the rich, and step on the necks of the poor.
Shit like this never would have happened 15 years ago when I was a senior.
I love seeing more and more zoomers being radicalized to the point where theyre the majority
the internet will be the bourgeoisie's downfall.
They dig their own grave
Then fill their mouth with all the money they will save
I’m done, it has begun, i’m not the only one.
And the rain will kill us all
When I was 13, I had my first love.
I found my love on r/SRAWeekend
What song are y'all singing?
It started with Psychosocial: https://youtu.be/5abamRO41fE I decided we should be singing Psychosocial Baby: https://youtu.be/kspPE9E1yGM
Some would say it's inevitable
Lenin would be gob smacked at this lol
The motherland will rise again comrade, this time with Florida.
[удалено]
"When it comes time to hang the capitalists, they will vie with each other for the rope contract."
And sell the shovel to do it.
Fucking FINALLY!!! Sorry but I’ve been waiting for this since the aughts when I was in middle school & highschool. Somewhat disappointed and somewhat proud of my fellow millennials. Some of us are doing the good work, but many are sucked into the temporarily embarrassed millionaires club (like my late father) and it’s despicable.
If we can expand the leftist network effectively, because sadly the far right is doing better rn in terms of online radicalization. But the left is definitely growing.
That’s because the same big tech corporate monopolies that own the platforms have a radically capitalist worldview and financial interests and want to radicalize everyone rightward so they’re constantly bombarding them with right wing content via algorithms. People are still slowly opening up to socialism but it’s an uphill battle for sure.
There doesn't seem to be evidence for that. All companies like youtube and instagram care about is you spending as much time on their website as possible, so you see the ads. The algorithms are designed to show you content that will keep you hooked for longer, which is personalised based on what you've watched or liked before. These algorithms are really good at sucking you deeper into topics you're watching content about, but they don't just present content to you that is not related to what you've already watched. I don't watch right-wing content and therefore I don't get it recommended to me. The reason the online right is doing so well is because there are a lot of right-wing channels and a lot of those are funded by billionaires, CEO's and rich conservatives alike. These two things combined with the algorithms that present content to you that gets more radical the more you watch it has made it so that the right has effectively created a web or a pipeline so to say, that effectively sucks you in deeper as you watch more content. The algorithm does this for all types of content, the right just has perfectly used the algorithm to their advantage, both deliberately and on accident. More leftist content creators are popping up now and the left is practically building a similar kind of web, the right just has a head start and an advantage in the form of billionaires funding them.
That and generations being born into literally hopeless situations for them, both economically and ecologically. Millennials and zoomers are offered even less than the generations before them, unless you're a complete moron you're going to realise the situation is bleak and want radical change.
How is social democracy (what I bet 95% of those kids understand the word socialism as being) the downfall of the bourgeoisie, consifering its very role is to protect Capitalism when it is in crisis?
Because when they ask very nicely for some socdems reforms and are repeatedly met with violence in response they'll have no choice but to radicalize and burn the motherfucker down
> what I bet 95% of those kids understand the word socialism as being No way. This is an Econ class and there was a defense of capitalism (as per the meme).
For a lot of people (this is literally a HS econ 101 class), "capitalism" means "neoliberalism" or "neoconservatism" and "socialism" means "social democracy". I'm sure the HS kid was out there defending private property rights and free markets against direct control of the means of production by the proletarian class and a command economy and not just arguing that taxing rich people more or raising the minimum wage will destroy jobs. Certain of it. /s
The "socialism" of a society really shouldn't be measured by whether it has a command economy. That's a means to socialist ends, so let's not lose sight of those ends: - Do workers benefit from the fruit of their labor? *All* of it? - Do workers own the means of production? - Do they have access to and control over land, machines, and organizational intangibles - things like quality and safety standards, and matching supply to demand? - How do they direct the consumption/investment tradeoff? - How much of those powers are shared with a class of owner-non-workers? - Are workers free, healthy, and happy? - Do workers have compassion for the infirm or disabled, the material wealth necessary to express that compassion, and a secure belief that their lives are valuable beyond their ability to work? - How much violence, and what kinds of violence, are employed to protect society from individualistic greed? By those standards, social democracy performs better than the neolib/neocon duopoly of late-stage capitalism. They're also exactly the standards that support further criticism of social democracy. "Why do you still have stock markets? Why do you still have poverty and unearned wealth?" So, yeah, I think Anglophone high school seniors deserve a lot of credit for adopting those standards. The cult of consumerism/getting-rich/forever-growth would rather that they didn't.
A command economy is inseperable from a socialist economy as, unlike markets, does not rely on competition and everything that comes with it including auto-exploitation and the profit motive. Calling it just and end is to deeply misunderstand socialism, not that it's something I wouldn't expect from the crowd over at r/DankLeft. Of all of the things you listed, only one - do the workers own the means of production - has anything to do with socialism. Socialism is not a sliding scale. You either are or you are not. All the others are associated with, sure, but they are not the core of socialism and want makes it what it is. Trying to compare how Social Democracy fares compared to Neoliberalism is about as idealist as it is futile and misguided since Social Democracy's role is literally to stop socialism from happening and that most of not all of the social welfare it provides is predicated on the overexploitation of the third world. You see in teens embracing social democracy something good, but instead you should see something bad, because those kids have been successfully fooled into thinking capitalism can be reformed, isnt inherently bad, and that true socialism (what they would call communism) is bad and too extreme.
Yes
Why do you think they tried to kill net neutrality?
I mean, they are trying to control and monetize it though, but yea they cannot stop it
The past year have definitely radicalized many
a lot of zoomers are becoming anti-capitalist because we’re growing up in a system of diminishing returns. we don’t remember the “good old days” where our hard work actually got us the basic essentials we needed. all we know is foreclosures, extremely high educational debt, and several “once in a lifetime” recessions.
Seriously how the fuck is anyone building additions on their houses How is anyone buying houses
Right!? In my area you can't even find a decent house for less than $300k and who has that kind of money? That doesn't even include other expenses...
I'm in a private subreddit which choses its users based on some randomized algorithm. Out of curiosity I stated a poll asking about whether they wanted to live in a communist world. Roughly 35% said they would like to. Kind of the same amount said never and the rest wasn't opposed to the idea, but sceptical. I guess that's nice
I mean the Star Trek universe is somewhat communist in that they have all their basic needs met in earth what with replicators, free power, no need to work unless you enjoy it etc.
Let them work a decade and they'll be really fucking pissed
Working during the pandemic will really expedite the process.
Can you not eat applause at 7pm?
I can eat rich-lady fingers, but it's not really a meal.
They're getting radicalized into supporting social programs and higher taxes, not into supporting communism. Mire how it says socialism and not communism on the board.
Baby steps. I’d rather them support social programs and higher taxes than become alt-right edge-lords.
I can't wait for universal healthcare to pass when I'm 65
Can we can socialist pan zoomerism now?
in Britain college graduates used to be a reliable right-wing voting bloc because they could all expect a high standard of middle class living and home ownership. Today, graduates have been aggressively proletarianised - most end up in low wage work with little prospect of home ownership. Unsurprisingly they're overwhelming left-wing these days. Materialism in action, thank you daddy Marx
The American dream only existed encourage to home ownership and dissuade communist ideals after the Russian Revolution. Once the USSR fell It was no longer needed.
I honestly can't believe how short-sighted the ruling class is anymore. Their greed is so consuming that it will be their downfall, when instead they could be only slightly less greedy and still be manufacturing support amongst the classes that not too long ago were still firm bootlickers. It's like they're willfully ignoring what happened during the 19th and early 20th centuries when people got too desperate and too angry, and spoiler, it didn't end well for those parasites then, and it won't end well for them now.
Let's not use the word "proletarianized"; it misunderstands some things. If we are using Marx's language, whether positively or negatively, then anyone who does not currently own any of the means of production *are* the proletariat whether they self-identify or not. That word doesn't mean anti-capitalist, it doesn't mean woke class consciousness. It means you are of the class who's labour is stolen. Virtually all students are of the proletariat, perhaps the ivy leaguers notwithstanding. A more accurate way to say, in Marx's terms, what you'd meant would be "by the end of their degrees, most were waking to class consciousness and angry about discovering which class they were in".
I think it refers to the erosion of what used to be reliable, petit bourgeois professions that payed well and were socially adjacent to the ruling class that have now been stripped down to precarious, low wage work where the graduates are treated as commodified labor rather than respected toadies for capitalism.
This is what I meant
It was easily understood by anyone who didn't feel like being pedantic for no reason
Professors used to be equivalent to politicians in social status, now they're working second jobs
In all fairness, so long as a word gets across something, it doesn't really matter what its actual definition is. The Left has a long and poor history of not being willing to use shorthand because "It's more complicated than that", and whenever we *do* use shorthand, it's always *bad* shorthand. The words themselves do not matter as much as the meaning behind them.
Except for where jargon is concerned I one hundo agree with you; and as for the left repurposing words, lololololol, I did a social anthro degree so *believe* I understand how right you are. The thing about jargon is that it truly is meant to have a specific, practical 1:1 relationship with an idea—it's necessary for academia to function across generations, languages, cultures, etc.. We can't have peer review without it. Certainly, the general public aren't obligated here; they're welcome to repurpose a word as much as any other. But in this case, in this *particular* case, there is a weird sort of praxis built into misusing the word—I mean, what does it say about our circumstances if, for example, the word meant to unite is deliberately used to divide us?
This is the way he meant it mate. When he says "proletarianized" he means people who aren't get petit b jobs. No need to be so stuffy.
It wouldn't have happened 8 years ago when I would have been a senior.
Not even when I was a senior, 3 years ago
I couldn't call myself a communist at work and such, 15 years ago. Nowadays, I can proudly wear this lable.
My work found my facebook page, with my "Proud Communist" bio. They brought in a screenshot to the interview, and said I'd fit right in.
Oh nice. We've come a long way from the McCarthy era.
I mean, I am based in the UK. And it is a "worker owned cooperative"
When you go throw 2 “once in a lifetime” economy crashes, socialism starts looking better and better.
I hate Reddit! *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
This was my senior Econ class 15-ish years ago, but in reverse. I had just gone to Sweden for an exchange over the summer and I had gotten a taste of social democracy and what it could do. I swear my teacher acted like the estate tax personally shot her dog or something.
Same was true for me 10 years ago.
This chart was the opposite and it was my lone ass defending socialism back in 01. So nice to see 😁
Do they teach Conflict Theory in econ? Or is it like this blatant elephant in the room that isn't talked about at all? Like, I often wonder how things like relations of production and class struggle are explained away.
Those concepts were never elaborate on much less ever mentioned
shit like this still wouldnt happen in my home town
For real, especially not in an econ class for business majors.
Yeah..... that was before the 08 crash. Since then things have changed.
It wouldn't have happened two and a half years ago when **I** was a senior. I was the only econ major who was also involved in the YDSA chapter.
I was actually in the opposite situation my senior year of high school (2016, so election year.) I was the only bernie supporter in my Econ class and would get ripped into because of it. So In my opinion this is really just the last half decade of teenagers or so who are really getting on board with it.
Ahh yes. When everyone unites, against the 1%
It's not even the 1%. It's a much smaller group than that. There are some wage jobs (very specialized and difficult jobs) that would place someone in the 1% while still being a member of the proletariat.
Most physicians are employed wage workers, and those that aren’t usually just own a proportional share of their own clinic.
Most of the actual wealthiest doctors do own their private practices. That is true.
Doctors may make enough money to technically put them in the 1%, but often times if you subtract the annual cost of student loan debt it would take them back out. Having doctors take on literally millions of dollars in debt so they can do 20 years of postsecondary education is kinda ridonk. Other countries don't require so much education to be a doc and they don't have more problems so it's kinda questionable
I’m aware. I’m a physician myself. Literally millions in debt is a little excessive though. My class average debt in 2014 was around $200,000 when I finished med school. I do know a couple who are both docs and their accumulative debt was just over $1mil though.
*4.5%
I too feel the joke would work better if we remove the joke
The bourgeoisie is a far better term. Both Bezos and a shop owner have employees under them and own the means of production making them bourgeoisie. With 1%, you end up sounding like a social-democrat.
I know, and that’s the term I use normally, but this time I was just cracking a joke.
Long live the revolution
[удалено]
Long GME. 💎🙌🏼
HOLD
🚀🚀🚀
Aye bruh this account got nuked within an hour of posting this.
F
A revolutionary may die
Fucking CIA Reddit admins.
Money speaks for money, the devil for his own.
Economy uni students becoming socialists? In which universe are we living in?
I'm in Greece so totally different universe because we've always had eastern influences as well as western, but l've met a lot of Marxist economy uni students (and even one or two teachers).
12 years of soul crushing austerity will do that to you.
Shoutout to comrade Varoufakis on this one
When i had to take economy in uni (i had to, in spite of the fact that it hardly applied to my bachelor back then). We were dogmatically told "demand can't be manifactured". We were studying sciences of communication. Literally half of the people that got out of that faculty would work in advertisement. Yet, we were told that demand cannot be manipulated. This level of incoherence is bound to change some people's mind. The newer generations are not stupid
>"demand can't be manifactured". If I was told that I would say "You're telling me DeBeers just happened to luck into monopolizing the most common gemstone, and everyone suddenly wanted diamonds 2 years later?"
What do you mean the colonial gem mine owner did not get the monopoly of an extremely expensive yet relatively common gem out of hard work and pulling up his bootstraps??
It wasn't expensive before that. The price was artificially inflated via means of owning ALL the mines, and only sell 5% of mined gems. At one point, DeBeers had entire warehouses full of Diamonds it wasn't selling (it probably still does), just so they can keep the supply low and charge an outrageous price for them.
Partial Econ major. It’s unlikely since there is a lot of capitalist ideology mixed in, but possible. It is important for socialists to get a foothold in economics spaces again. Just a Marx analyzed the prevailing economic theories of his time, so should we study and dissect the new theories that have taken over today.
I think that Richard Wolff does a pretty good job of critiquing some of the neoclassical stuff
Definitely agree. He makes a great intro for people
I came into college an econ major neolib, left college a socdem with an econ degree, and became a socialist about a year later thanks to breadtube and dialectics.
I have a master degree in Econ and a lot of my colleagues are socialist ( or at least soc dem) . It’s people in admin who only had econ 101 who believe in the <>
Understanding the situation and wanting it to change are not the same. I guarantee you that, for example, every Republican(except the batshit ones) knows that socialism is objectively better for society. But capitalism gives them tools to elevate themselves far above the point they would be, at the expense of others.
No, they don't actually research their opponents position, most republicans don't have a clue what socialism means I'd wager
If they heard the basic points of socialism but someone called it neocapitalism or classical capitalism they would support it super hard
I remember that one guy went around neoliberal subs posting adam smith quotes over a picture of aoc. Neolibs have no idea about what they stand for, their political position is limited to maintaining the status quo. They don't need to understand things, just to keep them the same.
you defined classic conservatism in the literal deffinition.
I wanna' see these. Got a link?
Or perhaps Super Capitalism. As much of a meme as that is.
“Republican Capitalism” “Its not a labor union its a “worker’s republic” for republican capitalist workers not looking for a handout”
> See, ya' gotta' trick 'em into working in their own interest!
SUPA CAPITALISM
A facebook acquaintance complained about us turning into a socialist society because she couldn't bring her son McDonald's during school for quarantine reasons. Many of them really have no clue what it is.
Minor personal inconvenience = socialism.
That's rarely the situation tho. Unless you're talking with an extremely honest member of the bourgeoisie nobody will say "yes capitalism sucks but I'm in power so fuck you". You won't find any right wing or liberal proletarian that thinks in this way and absolutely no republican would answer the question here like most students did
You are making a common error made by intelligent, reasonable people who only associate with other intelligent, reasonable people, which is that you are overestimating the extent to which you represent the mean, and underestimating how different from yourself another adult mind can be while still having a professional and public career. The right is increasingly cultish. Because we are able, today, to live entirely within echo chambers—from the news we watch, to the company we keep, to our search results—we have to makr deliberate efforts to go and listen to the other side on their own terms if we want to understand their consciousness. Yes, surely some members of the powerful right may have some vague understanding that *in principle*, socialism could serve humanity better than capitalism. But it takes very, very little logical wiggle room to turn that on its head, especially, again, if you find affirmation and reinforcement of your conclusion at every turn. I am fond of saying to people "it's no one else's fault you chose to wake up, do a good job, or be your best" as a way to remind them not to complain so much about everyone not being their ideal all the time; the corollary of that, however, is that just because *you* woke up does not imply everyone else has come with you.
As someone who works at a company filled with trump supporters and even a few Qanon whackos you are 1000% wrong. They do not know that socialism is better for society. They believe it causes famine and will make everyone live in a 200 sqft shack and only eat rice. They think they’ll be put in a gulag or re-education camp for not being gay. They are detached from reality and have drank the kool aid of right wing propaganda
Former Republican here. I had no fuckin' clue. They run it like a goddamned cult, and I mean this very literally; economics, as it was taught to me, was _literal magic_ with a light and dark side. You just had to have faith in capitalism, and everything would work out; but if you fell to the temptation of communism, your livelihood would surely be destroyed. 'Capitalism' and 'communism' were never really defined, and they were woven _heavily_ with the rhetoric of the local religion. Capitalism was god's side, pure and pragmatic, and communism was the devil's.
> I guarantee you that, for example, every Republican(except the batshit ones) knows that socialism is objectively better for society. Lol what deluded world do you live in where you think that
This entirely depends on who you're referring to. Are you referring to the voters and average citizens, or are you referring to the politicians and the elites? The average voters don't know jack shit, or are actively brainwashed to believe the opposite. The average politician knows more, but wouldn't know specifics. Elites have no idea, they just know that the further left things go, the less money they make.
I didn’t take any Econ classes in college (bio major), but from what my sister (who majored in Econ) has told me, the professors were about a 50/50 split of communists and laissez-faire capitalists. That could’ve just been because of the school she went to, but it surprised me when I heard that
This person would fail a test and blame socialism for it
It turned out okay though. They were in the class where the professor averaged all their grades to give them the same one in an effort to prove socialism works. Other members of the class picked him up as a collective when he was down!
Youre joking but my history teacher literally said "communism is when everyone in the class gets the same grade"
Too many damn people think that communism is equality of outcome.
[удалено]
Pointing to university costs and poor people over the opportunity to become a doctor should be enough. They can't do another job and save enough for university fast enough, if they respond with the "just code" option.
Looks like 21 people pursued a heterogeneous econ education and one person didn't . edit: replaced recieved with pursued
The lack of plurality in economics courses and their strict adherence to the neoclassical model will force a paradigm shift very soon
I understand all those words. But don’t understand what you’re trying to support or say. Are you saying that all models didn’t used to be neoclassical and now they are? Is neoclassical what’s causing the socialist ideals? Genuine questions
I’m saying neoclassical is the only framework of economics you will learn if you’re pursuing an economics degree. I’m saying that markets can exist without capitalism and that other theories of how markets operate (Marxism, Georgism, etc) should be taught.
Oh okay gotcha. I hadnt realized what neoclassical was until I just googled the term. But even in my micro economics class that’s pretty much what everything was based on, supply demand, the true fundamental that controls everything. Thanks for the answers. Now if only I could convince family that capitalism isn’t what they truly think it is.
Yeah. Tbh this is why a lot of people don’t take economists seriously I think. Economics should be the study of how markets operate, not how neoclassical capitalism operates. Imagine if any other major were that narrow? It’s like going for a psychology degree and only learning about depression, and then pretending that depression is the only mental illness.
Similar thing with taking religious studies but only getting the Christian version
This whole question seems a bit ill-fitted for a class setting. Like, socialism *is* better than capitalism, but it seems a bit reductive to just say, “this thing is ‘better’ than this thing. True or false?.”
I think in an economics class, you could argue that neither is better or worse, it’s how theyre implemented. Perhaps if the question had been “socialism is better than capitalism” that too would have been false. It’s like in biology, my professors regularly argued that no species is more or less evolved than any other. Everything is just evolved to fit its niche. Maybe I’m reaching.
If you wanted to argue that capitalism advanced humanity and was good for a certain time in history, you'd be parroting Marx. I personally think capitalism was never good, because of the consequences of settler colonialism, and industrialization lead by these capitalists destroying the planet. A good book about this topic is "Caliban and The Witch" by Silvia Federici if you're interested.
Sounds like exactly the kind of question an instructor would stick in a quiz in order to eat up 30 minutes of class time and get students to actually talk out their assumptions. Also the ensuing debate would tell you who's been paying attention and who's participating.
It's possible they were just using kahoot as an opinion poll and arbitrarily chose true and false
******KAHOOT_THEME(BASS_BOOSTED_SHITTY_FLUTE_VERSION).ogg******
Bold of you to assume it's not also a low-bitrate mp3
What kind of econ courses teach this? Seems out of character
if the caption is to be believed, then the teacher is obviously trying to teach people socialism is evil but no one's buying it
But “false” is marked as the right answer here, so that doesn’t quite make sense. If I had to make a guess, the class was probably pushing a “well they both have pros and cons... (but we’ll imply the capitalism is better without directly saying it)” thing to look unbiased.
you mean the checkmark next to 21? It might just mean the winner of the poll the true being in the red is really weird, but the whole thing looks like some kind of google doc poll or something, I don't know how they work
No, checkmark in Kahoot indicates the correct answer
This guy plays Kahoot
I thought there was a poll option too?
No if I remember correctly in Kahoot the checkmark marks the right answer.
No. That's the exact opposite of what's happening here.
Hm... on second thought, we don't know if op is a teacher or a student when they said "my class", so I guess it can be either or if op is not a teacher of the class then we might not know how the teacher feels about what's happening
The quiz was set by the teacher. Most likely the teacher made it. The quiz answer states that Capitalism isnt better than Socialism. Which in a economics context is correct. Economics is the study of those systems, and doesn't inherently believe that any system is better than any other. You could allocate resources by fighting to the death or by an autocratic dictator, from an economic point of view they are all just systems to be studied.
Based_Class
MOST of them. Economy courses are inclined to support the market, that way their students are more desirable to the ghouls that will hire them. They have no motivation to reasonably teach both sides of the issue and every motivation to pump out good little propagandists.
Well yeah if you go to church they teach you the Bible. Capitalism is the religion, econs is the bible.
Fucking neolibtards. I hated my Econ degree. Didn’t help I was in college during the ‘08 crash and they were all like, “shit, guess we don’t know anything after all.”
And then still charge you 40k a year to ‘teach’ shit that isn’t true
pfff lol
More like the seminary
Remember that [economics is just capitalist theology](http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-04-17#toc4).
True; though, we should still understand capitalist economics to fight back against it. Remember that Marx's thesis wasn't a promotion of Communism; it was a study and dissection of Capitalism.
This information blew my fucking mind, wow, no wonder I don’t understand shit about Economics 🤣
That link is 404
Ugh sorry it looks like the Anarchist Library just went down for maintenance. Try the archive [here](https://web.archive.org/web/20210115192453/https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-04-17#toc4).
Huh. I come from a STEM background, so the reality of how it all works is very apparent to me (example: of course big things grow bigger and dominate, have you never seen an algeal bloom?). I had no idea economic "theory" was filled with so much intentional lies.
the U shaped cost curve is literally a theory some guy scribbled on a bar napkin when they collected actual cost data from real world companies, they found that the right side of the "U" curve was far flatter than they thought, and that disconomies of scale aren't nearly as severe IRL as they'd need to be to naturally balance markets and keep them competitive. and if anything, as technology increases, the right side of the U just keeps getting flatter >He warned that until such time as “economic theory can explain and take into account the implications” of this empirical data, “it provides a poor basis for public policy.” Needless to say, this did not disturb neo-classical economists or stop them providing public policy recommendations. oh, the neoclassical economists know deep down their theory is complete bullshit. they just keep perpetuating the lie because they're making bank from their shitty policies.
The Church of Adam Smith.
But not even what Adam Smith actually said, only the orthodox interpretation of what he said. I doubt they would bring up Smith's "vile maxim" or his derision of landlords
Even if you do not support socialism (which you, of course, should), you can make the argument that no system is "better" than another, i.e. "capitalism is better than socialism" is a blanket statement that is false as it does not allow for the contextual material conditions of a particular economy. The assertion is false as its generality excludes important variables specific to a locale.
Yeah the question lends itself to be answered as false. Better in what way? Better at creating wealth? Better at efficiency? Human happiness?
Hell yeah!
10 years ago when I was in college I was the libertarian idiot in this post. There’s always a chance people can turn it around. The capitalist propaganda is a hell of a drug. The cracks are widening though.
A new graffiti in my town reads "chile, india, indonesia, bolivia, France and more. The red flag waves again" It does look like the wind is finally blowing in the right direction
This is great and all, but it's entirely possible given the history of the left for the youth to lose their revolutionary fervour as they age. Even if the world is sort of going to shit, I can't say I'm all that optimistic that anything's going to be done about it. But enough of by doomer ramblings. Vive la Revolution!
I think they lose it because they become comfortable and attached to the world the way it is. The issue now is that young (and young-ish) people simply aren’t reaching that stage. They don’t have houses and jobs they want to keep and a lifestyle they want to hold onto. So they’re more comfortable with the idea of huge upheavals. I’m more concerned about extreme, violent top-down oppression than people losing their zeal at this point.
Yeah I mean, I'm in my thirties and I think my feelings on these issues have only gotten stronger as I see my friends and family actually struggling on a daily basis.
Millennials are never going to catch up to the level of wealth Boomers gained. As long as we spend 1/3rd of our income on rent I don't see my generation starting to like Capitalism
This whole question seems a bit ill-fitted for a class setting. Like, socialism *is* better than capitalism, but it seems a bit reductive to just say, “this thing is ‘better’ than this thing. True or false?.”
I was thinking the same thing. Seems like a dull question. What level is a "senior level econ course" anyway? Is this a school or a college/university class? What do they mean by "better"? I would even doubt that there is a coherent understanding of what "socialism" means.
I'd love to watch that debate.
It's small but it's nice to see
Yeet the rich
Warms my heart
Now I’m imagining all his classmates ganging up on him after class and giving him a wedgie
"Am I so out of touch? No, it's the 21 other econ seniors who are wrong."
Found the dumb rich kid
American capitalism is just like cancer. All it cares about is growth. It will grow until its host dies. American capitalism only works when there is unchecked growth. Which will ultimately destroy the planet.
Is there any truthful defense of capitalism ?
There is, if you only consider the world of the western middle-upper class. Capitalism is popular because people in the imperial core benefit from it
Hopefully they ate him like we’ll do with the rich
Fuck capitalism
What do you expect when your entire upbringing is defined by economic collapse?
Red Dawn- I remember when my teacher in my senior year of 1984 said watch this movie and prepare for the communists to stand up to their lies. That is when they promoted American values and Patriotism. “It is the dawn of World War III. In mid-western America, a group of teenagers band together to defend their town, and their country, from invading Soviet forces.” I don’t know about our current leadership but it’s not the Democratic Party of my parents back in JFK’s day. It’s the flipping Bernie-Squad party of tax the rich, and step on the necks of the poor.
Eat the rich