With all the uber/temporary employment and lack of unionisation. People start to look at socialism, not as a counterpoint to capitalism, but the marginalisation of many in society.
I, for instance, understand and believe in Capitalism, so as I do in Socialism. I'm in a very privileged position in society, with everything I need in terms of compensation, career etc. But I can't close my eyes to how everybody around me is suffering even to find a real job.
For many Americans, they would be better off by using a travel machine and being on the workforce in the 70's. Which tells me that they feel left behind, and of course, they will want a solution, which socialism "seems" to offer. At least in the short term. They get things for free. And forget that one must have worked for that thing to be created.
If society doesn't work in a way that people are able to produce and create things, as it currently is for many americans, they will defend whatever systems that tells those people that *ism will fix their problems.
In the very deep end, I think Americans haven't changed much. They want to be able to conquer their own future, the American Dream is still alive, but how society is organised in America very much suck for most young Americans.
What all Americans don't want to admit is that the US isn't as important anymore. Other countries are catching up and that will make US even poorer in relation to them.
Lately the only real product that the US has been selling is the dollar, and this won't last. The country must adapt to a new reality, which the eyes of many doesn't want to see.
And that's very different than historical socialism which looks more like Venezuela than Denmark.
In my experience, no need to point out that it's not universal, the US is the only place that worships the profit motive whilst aspiring to fascism. Lots of places have those things by de facto argument but nowhere else does conservative thought mean desiring a state where these things come as a secondary consequence if not a primary motivation.
Let alone while being championed as freedom(tm). The US is a very strange place; perhaps the one metric it is most exceptional. I've met, lived & worked with and admired many American people. I can appreciate the American experiment and ideals. It's just too bad what those Americans do in the name of those American ideals that seems so very.... unamerican.
This is such a red herring and quite impossible to argue with.
Among my age cohort (29), most of my peers have received an élite education, and this included a study of Hegel, Marx, Adam Smith, Kropotkin, Lenin, Trotsky, Deleuze, etc. Nearly all of us identify as socialists of varying stripes (syndicalists, trade unionists, communists, anarchists, and so on)
Nearly everyone I've interacted with who has espoused similar views to yourself has in fact never read even the introductory text of socialism, and this ignorance leads to debate in bad faith.
In the interest of meeting the debate on its own terms, you should have at least read an introductory pamphlet presented by your opponent. We have of course, The Communist Manifesto. It's a 20 page propaganda pamphlet that has been translated for over a century now into every language, and is of course freely available on the internet. You should be able to get through it in a few hours.
You may be surprised to find that your strawmen do not exist.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-m...
> These are all simple platitudes, provided without reference. Imagine believing that 'socialism is just a phase' -- as if the entire history of the USSR, the Eastern bloc, most of Asia, and the 20th century history of labor and social activism can be reduced to just 'idealistic children'!
Any cursory study of the history of the USSR, Cuba, Marxist China, Cambodia, etc shows a very small minority group of radical, violent thugs taking power through intimidation, assassination, political propaganda and getting lucky from the presence of destabilized imperialistic regimes. It was indeed 'just a phase' and a god-awful phase at that. As an example, the proletariat that Lenin and the Bolsheviks claimed to liberate hated the Bolsheviks, and instead supported the Socialist Revolutionaries, who were actually a center-left agrarian reform party who won the first and only election in revolutionary Russia (1917) before being disbanded by Lenin.
> Among my age cohort (29), most of my peers have received an élite education, and this included a study of Hegel, Marx, Adam Smith, Kropotkin, Lenin, Trotsky, Deleuze, etc. Nearly all of us identify as socialists of varying stripes (syndicalists, trade unionists, communists, anarchists, and so on)
I don't see your point here. People with elite educations can obviously go both ways. I myself have an education from an elite institution, for instance. And obviously many people without so-called elite educations have been known to support leftist politics.
> Nearly everyone I've interacted with who has espoused similar views to yourself has in fact never read even the introductory text of socialism, and this ignorance leads to debate in bad faith.
While that's definitely something I can't argue with, but I'll say that I have closely read Hegel, Marx, Smith, Trotsky, Engels...that said, political persuasion tends to be based on moral precepts more than intellectual ones. Political differences in human societies far precede reading. It's a fair point that debating particular ideas requires the reading of those ideas, but it's also a fair point that practice trumps theory -- I don't need to read anything to know that Capitalist China is better than Communist China on all meaningful metrics of human development and thriving; that Capitalist Korea is better than Communist Korea, etc.
> In the interest of meeting the debate on its own terms, you should have at least read an introductory pamphlet presented by your opponent. We have of course, The Communist Manifesto. It's a 20 page propaganda pamphlet that has been translated for over a century now into every language, and is of course freely available on the internet. You should be able to get through it in a few hours.
Don't know how to deal with the patronization here. I've read it! Although of Marx's writing, I find Das Kapital to be the most persuasive, though weak as a justification for political action.
Historically, young people always prefer socialism, because they tend not to have a firm idea of what capitalism is, or how they benefit from it. They are still learning how the world works and what their place is in it. They are more prone to utopianism and idealism. This generation, in particular, has no historical knowledge of the great human cost of socialism to the billions of people who, in the last century, suffered under socialist regimes.
Hence the well-known quote that no one can definitively attribute[1]: "A young man who isn't a socialist hasn't got a heart; an old man who is a socialist hasn't got a head."
[1] https://katecarruthers.com/2005/02/11/alleged-quote-by-churc...