Socialism More Popular Than Capitalism Among Millennials

full_1325738615socialismHere’s what the kids are into: sexting, Bieber, and dialectical Marxism. Good writes:

According to a new study conducted by the Pew Research Center, 49 percent of [people] age 18 to 29 view socialism in a favorable light, compared to 43 percent who view it unfavorably. What’s more, they like the sound of “socialism” slightly better than capitalism—46 percent have positive views of capitalism, and 47 percent have negative views. This is dramatically different from the country’s population overall: 60 percent say they have a negative view of socialism, versus just 31 percent who say they have a positive view. Young people are the only age group whose support for socialism outweighs that of capitalism.

It’s telling that the number of socialism-friendly young people is on the rise from just 20 months ago, when 43 percent of Millennials favored the word. Between now and then, Occupy Wall Street has swept the country and the headlines, and there are more unemployed teens and 20-somethings than ever. It’s not hard to figure out why our generation isn’t so gung-ho about capitalism—it has disappointed and, in some cases, straight-up failed us.

, , , , ,

98 Responses to Socialism More Popular Than Capitalism Among Millennials

  1. Jin The Ninja January 6, 2012 at 5:26 pm #

    surprising yet unsurprising.

    • Anarchy Pony January 6, 2012 at 5:52 pm #

      Now if we could just make them anarchists…

      • Jin The Ninja January 6, 2012 at 7:27 pm #

        having started out life as a democratic socialist, i can say from experience, the leap to anarchism is not a large one. in fact it’s the most logical step when looking at socialism from a historical context and factoring in democracy. i will admit though, the love of rulers/leaders/ruling elite is still strong. people have difficulty admitting the systemic fallacy of representative democracy.

        EDIT: i still assert that the basic principles of anarchism ‘rule’ our most basic social interactions, most people would consider themselves anarchist if they realised what the word REALLY means.

        • Anarchy Pony January 6, 2012 at 7:38 pm #

          Yes, people within the culture of hierarchy have been so accustomed to it and even been taught to romanticize it, that they have a hard time conceptualizing life without it. But I learned long ago that representative democracy is far too susceptible to corruption to be considered desirable.

        • Anarchy Pony January 6, 2012 at 9:37 pm #

          I agree with that edit. You have to take into account the way the term anarchism was tainted to become synonymous with chaos and disorder.

      • Monkey See Monkey Do January 6, 2012 at 11:47 pm #

        I believe every true anarchist is also a socialist, but every socialist is not an anarchist. All in all its good to hear that the next generation of America has good potential. Only when the revolution is global i believe we will see real change.

        • Jin The Ninja January 7, 2012 at 12:54 am #

          you are right. every left anarchist is definitively a socialist. even situationists, and post-left anarchos. much of the ‘old guard’ on the left whom would defend the untenable positions of historical state-socialist models have abandoned that position. those in the old school have become jaded, and many became neo-liberal parliamentarians. the emergent group (mostly of younger gens) is much broader in their awareness/acceptance of holistic and alternative models of governance which anarchism offers.

        • Josh Adkisson January 8, 2012 at 3:57 pm #

          The more I’ve been thinking about it, right-libertarians don’t really even deserve to be acknowledged as the right to anarchism’s left. Insofar as I can determine, the real right to anarchism’s left seems to be more in the vein of Wendell Berry’s agrarianism.

          Of course, every such statement is provisional, and meant to draw out a comparison, not to make any sort of totalizing statement.

  2. Jin (仁) January 6, 2012 at 9:26 pm #

    surprising yet unsurprising.

  3. Anarchy Pony January 6, 2012 at 9:52 pm #

    Now if we could just make them anarchists…

  4. Jin (仁) January 6, 2012 at 11:27 pm #

    having started out life as a democratic socialist, i can say from experience, the leap to anarchism is not a large one. in fact it’s the most logical step when looking at socialism from a historical context and factoring in democracy. i will admit though, the love of rulers/leaders/ruling elite is still strong. people have difficulty admitting the systemic fallacy of representative democracy.

    EDIT: i still assert that the basic principles of anarchism ‘rule’ our most basic social interactions, most people would consider themselves anarchist if they realised what the word REALLY means.

  5. Anarchy Pony January 6, 2012 at 11:38 pm #

    Yes, people within the culture of hierarchy have been so accustomed to it and even been taught to romanticize it, that they have a hard time conceptualizing life without it. But I learned long ago that representative democracy is far too susceptible to corruption to be considered desirable.

  6. Anarchy Pony January 7, 2012 at 1:37 am #

    I agree with that edit. You have to take into account the way the term anarchism was tainted to become synonymous with chaos and disorder.

  7. Stumage January 6, 2012 at 10:41 pm #

    Well some young people need a history lesson eh? And the Path that socialism leads to.

    • Anarchy Pony January 6, 2012 at 10:53 pm #

      Yeah you go ahead and pretend to know what you’re talking about.

      • Stumage January 6, 2012 at 11:07 pm #

        I’m sorry, i don’t understand your response to my statement, perhaps, you could elaborate on my situation, and the situation you infer from my comment. That is, if you desire to do so. Perhaps you could inform me on what i am pretending at, then I will check the logic of my premise, come up with a response, and indeed see if that is true or not.

        • Anarchy Pony January 6, 2012 at 11:29 pm #

          The path that “socialism” leads to, I imagine is a reference on your part to the disaster that was the United Soviet Socialist Republic. Despite the fact that genuine socialism for all intents and purposes never emerged from that particular experiment thanks to the vicious and cruel regime that was the bolshevik party with their fears of counter revolution, and further along the various perversions implemented by Stalin. And how subsequent governments could not have extricated themselves from such totalitarian statist circumstances without fear of foreign intervention coming in and raiding their nations’ wealth and taking control. 
          And I also imagine that you’ll posit the “superiority” of capitalism despite its vast problems with social stratification, inequity, the coercive dilemma it forces upon all non capital/property owners and its inherent un-sustainability(though that may be a function of industrialism or possibly even of “civilization” itself not explicitly capitalism). 

          • Stumage January 7, 2012 at 5:01 am #

             Socialism in it’s pure form, in theory has many benefits in my opinion.However it could be argued that the very conditions of socialism led to opportunists to take control, and turn it into the very disaster you just described, for the reasons you mentioned above.

            Secondly I really don’t think Capitalism, especially in its current form is very good at all, for more or less the reasons you described above.
             My personal belief is that people should be free to govern themselves in a way they see fit, without any governing body deciding on their actions (In whatever form that may take). After all, if you are a free and sovereign individual, why do you need someone else to tell you what to do?
            Realistically if we want to talk about socialism in its “pure” form, there is nothing from stopping a collective of people coming together now to achieve a common goal, without the benefit of capital, and mainly for the accomplishment for whatever it is that they set our achieve. That is the benefit of living in a free society. You can do these sorts of things. If you can not do these things, then you have to ask yourself, “How free is the society in which i live?”  So, we now find ourselves in our current situation. In North America, for the most part, due to the systems that have been in place, people have been more or less free to act in a manner that best suited their individual needs, what  were the conditions here, that allowed for this to manifest, as opposed to other parts of the world?

          • Anarchy Pony January 7, 2012 at 1:02 pm #

            So you are more or less an anarchist then? 

            “So, we now find ourselves in our current situation. In North America, for the most part, due to the systems that have been in place, people have been more or less free to act in a manner that best suited their individual needs, what  were the conditions here, that allowed for this to manifest, as opposed to other parts of the world?” That is a rather loaded question, and there are numerous extenuating circumstances behind it, and you have to analyze the history of european settlement of the continent to get to the facts behind. After the land was essentially cleared of the indigenous population it was more or less empty and the government allowed the homestead movement to move out so people could claim land for themselves, there was much space, many resources and a fairly small population at first, giving people much freedom over how to govern their affairs. 
            But after the population expanded to cover the entire region, struggles of and between private capital begin to become quite common. The higher the population gets the larger the labor pool, the more power to private capital holders have over the lives of others. 
             The colonists throughout most of north american history have simply been able to take advantage of special circumstances that are now beginning to disappear, and the freedom that those circumstances allowed is disappearing with it. That’s a large reason that social mobility is dying under modern capitalism, resource/land constraint. Too many people not enough space and resources. The more that particular screw tightens down, the more any semblance of freedom will disappear.
            That is not an entirely satisfactory answer but, trying to analyze every aspect of this would likely spiral out into a huge explanation. 

          • Jin The Ninja January 7, 2012 at 2:11 pm #

            stu is only an anarchist in so much as he places individual liberty high on the list of societal values, but he codes his langauge in the same way a hyper individualist/randroid does. he would have us all be free marketeers without a collective consciousness/cowboys with a wallet in essence.

          • Anarchy Pony January 7, 2012 at 2:22 pm #

            Are you sure of that? And if he is, is he amenable to a change of perspective? 
            But then again, convincing people on the intertubez to change their minds is like trying to herd cats… Why I grow so very weary of continuing to argue with people on it. I’m more likely to just walk away these days, I don’t need ulcers. 
            But so far he seems at least slightly more reasonable than the average randriod.

          • Jin The Ninja January 7, 2012 at 3:22 pm #

            double post.

          • Jin The Ninja January 7, 2012 at 3:22 pm #

            i can’t be on the one hundred, but i have strong ninja intuition.

          • Anarchy Pony January 7, 2012 at 3:37 pm #

            I get that. But don’t always write people off, they can occasionally surprise you.

          • Jin The Ninja January 7, 2012 at 8:50 pm #

            holla.

          • Stumage January 7, 2012 at 5:26 pm #

            That is something that i do indeed try to practice, is changing my perspective. I believe one should not get stuck in any particular “world view”,  but alternate perception and what conclusions can come from those alterations of perception.

          • Anarchy Pony January 7, 2012 at 6:17 pm #

            Well good, that’s not something that is easy for many people.

          • Stumage January 7, 2012 at 5:24 pm #

            Jin, I don’t want you to be anything, I personally like Ninjas. I think the world needs more Ninjas actually, of course there in fact could be more Ninjas, and since they are so good at being Ninjas, I’m simply not aware of them.

          • Ronniedobbs January 7, 2012 at 9:49 am #

            buuuuuurrrrrrnnnnnnnnn

        • Jin The Ninja January 7, 2012 at 12:49 am #

          the title of the book you fraudently cited, has been throughly discredited by mainstream academia for more than 3 decades. the path of capitalism has led to genocide, ecocide, corporatocracy and systemic corruption. how exactly has that worked well?

          • Stumage January 7, 2012 at 3:42 am #

            I did not quote any book.

          • Jin The Ninja January 7, 2012 at 2:04 pm #

            “The Road to Serfdom” actually.

  8. Stumage January 7, 2012 at 2:41 am #

    Well some young people need a history lesson eh? And the Path that socialism leads to.

  9. Anarchy Pony January 7, 2012 at 2:53 am #

    Yeah you go ahead and pretend to know what you’re talking about.

  10. Stumage January 7, 2012 at 3:07 am #

    I’m sorry, i don’t understand your response to my statement, perhaps, you could elaborate on my situation, and the situation you infer from my comment. That is, if you desire to do so. Perhaps you could inform me on what i am pretending at, then I will check the logic of my premise, come up with a response, and indeed see if that is true or not.

  11. Anarchy Pony January 7, 2012 at 3:29 am #

    The path that “socialism” leads to, I imagine is a reference on your part to the disaster that was the United Soviet Socialist Republic. Despite the fact that genuine socialism for all intents and purposes never emerged from that particular experiment thanks to the vicious and cruel regime that was the bolshevik party with their fears of counter revolution, and further along the various perversions implemented by Stalin. And how subsequent governments could not have extricated themselves from such totalitarian statist circumstances without fear of foreign intervention coming in and raiding their nations’ wealth and taking control. 
    And I also imagine that you’ll posit the “superiority” of capitalism despite its vast problems with social stratification, inequity, the coercive dilemma it forces upon all non capital/property owners and its inherent un-sustainability(though that may be a function of industrialism or possibly even of “civilization” itself not explicitly capitalism). 

  12. Monkey See Monkey Do January 7, 2012 at 3:47 am #

    I believe every true anarchist is also a socialist, but every socialist is not an anarchist. All in all its good to hear that the next generation of America has good potential. Only when the revolution is global i believe we will see real change.

  13. Monkey See Monkey Do January 7, 2012 at 3:47 am #

    I believe every true anarchist is also a socialist, but every socialist is not an anarchist. All in all its good to hear that the next generation of America has good potential. Only when the revolution is global i believe we will see real change.

  14. Jin (仁) January 7, 2012 at 4:49 am #

    the title of the book you fraudently cited, has been throughly discredited by mainstream academia for more than 3 decades. the path of capitalism has led to genocide, ecocide, corporatocracy and systemic corruption. how exactly has that worked well?

  15. Jin (仁) January 7, 2012 at 4:54 am #

    you are right. every left anarchist is definitively a socialist. even situationists, and post-left anarchos. much of the ‘old guard’ on the left whom would defend the untenable positions of historical state-socialist models have abandoned that position. those in the old school have become jaded, and many became neo-liberal parliamentarians. the emergent group (mostly of younger gens) is much broader in their awareness/acceptance of holistic and alternative models of governance which anarchism offers.

  16. Stumage January 7, 2012 at 7:42 am #

    I did not quote any book.

  17. Stumage January 7, 2012 at 9:01 am #

     Socialism in it’s pure form, in theory has many benefits in my opinion.However it could be argued that the very conditions of socialism led to opportunists to take control, and turn it into the very disaster you just described, for the reasons you mentioned above.

    Secondly I really don’t think Capitalism, especially in its current form is very good at all, for more or less the reasons you described above.
     My personal belief is that people should be free to govern themselves in a way they see fit, without any governing body deciding on their actions (In whatever form that may take). After all, if you are a free and sovereign individual, why do you need someone else to tell you what to do?
    Realistically if we want to talk about socialism in its “pure” form, there is nothing from stopping a collective of people coming together now to achieve a common goal, without the benefit of capital, and mainly for the accomplishment for whatever it is that they set our achieve. That is the benefit of living in a free society. You can do these sorts of things. If you can not do these things, then you have to ask yourself, “How free is the society in which i live?”  So, we now find ourselves in our current situation. In North America, for the most part, due to the systems that have been in place, people have been more or less free to act in a manner that best suited their individual needs, what  were the conditions here, that allowed for this to manifest, as opposed to other parts of the world?

  18. Hadrian999 January 7, 2012 at 9:15 am #

    no “ism” will make a difference as long as people remain the same. capitalism isn’t the reason for the state of the world, the world is in the shape it’s in because people have abandoned Honor and ethics in favor of a “end justifies the means” mentality. without changing this no ism will lead anywhere different. socialism would be a tyranny of party leaders instead of bankers, anarchy would give rise to a new age of robber barons like the U.S. had or warlords similar post imperial china.

  19. Hadrian999 January 7, 2012 at 5:15 am #

    no “ism” will make a difference as long as people remain the same. capitalism isn’t the reason for the state of the world, the world is in the shape it’s in because people have abandoned Honor and ethics in favor of a “end justifies the means” mentality. without changing this no ism will lead anywhere different. socialism would be a tyranny of party leaders instead of bankers, anarchy would give rise to a new age of robber barons like the U.S. had or warlords similar post imperial china.

    • Andrew January 7, 2012 at 12:25 pm #

      The ends do justify the means, because the means determine the ends.

      • Josh Adkisson January 8, 2012 at 3:41 pm #

        If how you mean this is to say that the ends and means are basically the same, I agree. Gandhi used the example of a watch, I believe, saying that whether you steal, buy, or beg for a watch you desire determines what kind of end ensues. If you steal it, it’s a stolen watch, not just a watch. If you buy it, it’s your watch. If you beg for it, it’s a gift. It’s really just a recognition of the existence of social reality.

    • Josh Adkisson January 8, 2012 at 3:47 pm #

      Perhaps you should look up anarchism. Your conception of it has little to do with the theory itself, except the so called “anarcho-capitalism,” which is a bit of an oxymoron.

      • Hadrian999 January 8, 2012 at 4:47 pm #

        I am not saying that theory is bad, what I am saying that unless we change as a people whatever system we use will be manipulated and used by a few people for personal gain at the expense of others, and yes there are still ways to do that with anarchism unless we decide to revert a subsistence agrarian economy.

        • Josh Adkisson January 9, 2012 at 12:07 am #

          A lot of us are actually for something along the lines of a subsistence agrarian economy, relatively speaking…

          But I get your point. Which is why anarchism can’t *only* be a political philosophy.

  20. Tibus Heth January 7, 2012 at 11:22 am #

    I wouldn’t say its the prevailing view, but it’s actually accepted as a viable position among my generation. It’s Market Socialism for me, personally.

  21. Redacted January 7, 2012 at 7:22 am #

    I wouldn’t say its the prevailing view, but it’s actually accepted as a viable position among my generation. It’s Market Socialism for me, personally. Anything to give the merited a fighting chance to succeed, and at least a baseline standard of living for everyone else.

    And nobody tell those damn Gallente I said anything about “Socialism”

  22. Anonymous January 7, 2012 at 1:47 pm #

    ‘lol’bertarians might not like this. More swivel-eyed ranting about markets and an incomplete concept of liberty, please.

  23. MrSta January 7, 2012 at 9:47 am #

    ‘lol’bertarians might not like this. More swivel-eyed ranting about markets and an incomplete concept of liberty, please.

  24. Ronniedobbs January 7, 2012 at 1:49 pm #

    buuuuuurrrrrrnnnnnnnnn

  25. Scott Remington January 7, 2012 at 2:14 pm #

    It’s ironic how the 1% and the .1% groups are making socialism popular.  Yep, THEY are doing it.

    By sucking up resources and denying the 99% access to them, the 1% FORCE socialism to be be much more appealing than abject poverty – which appears to be the goal of the 1%.

  26. DesertSun59 January 7, 2012 at 10:14 am #

    It’s ironic how the 1% and the .1% groups are making socialism popular.  Yep, THEY are doing it.

    By sucking up resources and denying the 99% access to them, the 1% FORCE socialism to be be much more appealing than abject poverty – which appears to be the goal of the 1%.

    • MrSta January 7, 2012 at 11:36 am #

      Yes, the 1% want to encourage demands for public ownership of their companies and redistributive tax-policies that will increase their tax bill.

      • Andrew January 7, 2012 at 6:40 pm #

        No, the 1% want to bring back slavery.

    • Haystack January 7, 2012 at 3:50 pm #

      I think hearing Obama called a “socialist” so many times for backing a moderate healthcare reform plan has got people asking “…and what was wrong with socialism again?” 

      • Monkey See Monkey Do January 8, 2012 at 3:05 pm #

        The healthcare situation you have in america is truly appalling. Most of the rest of the western world are pretty shocked you dont have a public healthcare system (even some of the poor countries are shocked). I really hope you guys sort that out, Godspeed.

  27. Anonymous January 7, 2012 at 3:36 pm #

    Yes, the 1% want to encourage demands for public ownership of their companies and redistributive tax-policies that will increase their tax bill.

  28. Dunzain January 7, 2012 at 4:11 pm #

    Why not go the middle way between socialism and capitalism. That seems to work for the nordic countries.

  29. Dunzain January 7, 2012 at 12:11 pm #

    Why not go the middle way between socialism and capitalism. That seems to work for the nordic countries.

    • Andrew January 7, 2012 at 12:23 pm #

      Exactly.  Every person gets to own some means of production to help take care of themselves and the state gets to own some too to help those down on their luck.

  30. Andrew January 7, 2012 at 4:23 pm #

    Exactly.  Every person gets to own some means of production to help take care of themselves and the state gets to own some too to help those down on their luck.

  31. Andrew January 7, 2012 at 4:25 pm #

    The ends do justify the means, because the means determine the ends.

  32. Anarchy Pony January 7, 2012 at 5:02 pm #

    So you are more or less an anarchist then? 

    “So, we now find ourselves in our current situation. In North America, for the most part, due to the systems that have been in place, people have been more or less free to act in a manner that best suited their individual needs, what  were the conditions here, that allowed for this to manifest, as opposed to other parts of the world?” That is a rather loaded question, and there are numerous extenuating circumstances behind it, and you have to analyze the history of european settlement of the continent to get to the facts behind. After the land was essentially cleared of the indigenous population it was more or less empty and the government allowed the homestead movement to move out so people could claim land for themselves, there was much space, many resources and a fairly small population at first, giving people much freedom over how to govern their affairs. 
    But after the population expanded to cover the entire region, struggles of and between private capital begin to become quite common. The higher the population gets the larger the labor pool, the more power to private capital holders have over the lives of others. 
     The colonists throughout most of north american history have simply been able to take advantage of special circumstances that are now beginning to disappear, and the freedom that those circumstances allowed is disappearing with it. That’s a large reason that social mobility is dying under modern capitalism, resource/land constraint. Too many people not enough space and resources. The more that particular screw tightens down, the more any semblance of freedom will disappear.
    That is not an entirely satisfactory answer but, trying to analyze every aspect of this would likely spiral out into a huge explanation. 

  33. Jin (仁) January 7, 2012 at 6:04 pm #

    “The Road to Serfdom” actually.

  34. Jin (仁) January 7, 2012 at 6:11 pm #

    stu is only an anarchist in so much as he places individual liberty high on the list of societal values, but he codes his langauge in the same way a hyper individualist/randroid does. he would have us all be free marketeers without a collective consciousness/cowboys with a wallet in essence.

  35. Anarchy Pony January 7, 2012 at 6:22 pm #

    Are you sure of that? And if he is, is he amenable to a change of perspective? 
    But then again, convincing people on the intertubez to change their minds is like trying to herd cats… Why I grow so very weary of continuing to argue with people on it. I’m more likely to just walk away these days, I don’t need ulcers. 
    But so far he seems at least slightly more reasonable than the average randriod.

  36. Jin (仁) January 7, 2012 at 7:22 pm #

    double post.

  37. Jin (仁) January 7, 2012 at 7:22 pm #

    i can’t be on the one hundred, but i have strong ninja intuition.

  38. Anarchy Pony January 7, 2012 at 7:37 pm #

    I get that. But don’t always write people off, they can occasionally surprise you.

  39. Haystack January 7, 2012 at 7:50 pm #

    I think hearing Obama called a “socialist” so many times for backing a moderate healthcare reform plan has got people asking “…and what was wrong with socialism again?” 

  40. Stumage January 7, 2012 at 9:24 pm #

    Jin, I don’t want you to be anything, I personally like Ninjas. I think the world needs more Ninjas actually, of course there in fact could be more Ninjas, and since they are so good at being Ninjas, I’m simply not aware of them.

  41. Stumage January 7, 2012 at 9:26 pm #

    That is something that i do indeed try to practice, is changing my perspective. I believe one should not get stuck in any particular “world view”,  but alternate perception and what conclusions can come from those alterations of perception.

  42. Anarchy Pony January 7, 2012 at 10:17 pm #

    Well good, that’s not something that is easy for many people.

  43. Andrew January 7, 2012 at 10:40 pm #

    No, the 1% want to bring back slavery.

  44. Jin (仁) January 8, 2012 at 12:50 am #

    holla.

  45. jasonpaulhayes January 8, 2012 at 2:28 am #

    “What do you think the Russians talk about in their councils of state,
    Karl Marx? They get out their linear programming charts, statistical
    decision theories, minimax solutions, and compute the price-cost
    probabilities of their transactions and investments, just like we do. We
    no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies,”

    Arthur Jensen – NETWORK (1976)

  46. jasonpaulhayes January 7, 2012 at 10:28 pm #

    “What do you think the Russians talk about in their councils of state,
    Karl Marx? They get out their linear programming charts, statistical
    decision theories, minimax solutions, and compute the price-cost
    probabilities of their transactions and investments, just like we do. We
    no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies,”

    Arthur Jensen – NETWORK (1976)

  47. Monkey See Monkey Do January 8, 2012 at 7:05 pm #

    The healthcare situation you have in america is truly appalling. Most of the rest of the western world are pretty shocked you dont have a public healthcare system (even some of the poor countries are shocked). I really hope you guys sort that out, Godspeed.

  48. Josh Adkisson January 8, 2012 at 7:41 pm #

    If how you mean this is to say that the ends and means are basically the same, I agree. Gandhi used the example of a watch, I believe, saying that whether you steal, buy, or beg for a watch you desire determines what kind of end ensues. If you steal it, it’s a stolen watch, not just a watch. If you buy it, it’s your watch. If you beg for it, it’s a gift. It’s really just a recognition of the existence of social reality.

  49. Josh Adkisson January 8, 2012 at 7:47 pm #

    Perhaps you should look up anarchism. Your conception of it has little to do with the theory itself, except the so called “anarcho-capitalism,” which is a bit of an oxymoron.

  50. Josh Adkisson January 8, 2012 at 7:57 pm #

    The more I’ve been thinking about it, right-libertarians don’t really even deserve to be acknowledged as the right to anarchism’s left. Insofar as I can determine, the real right to anarchism’s left seems to be more in the vein of Wendell Berry’s agrarianism.

    Of course, every such statement is provisional, and meant to draw out a comparison, not to make any sort of definitive statement.

  51. Hadrian999 January 8, 2012 at 8:47 pm #

    I am not saying that theory is bad, what I am saying that unless we change as a people whatever system we use will be manipulated and used by a few people for personal gain at the expense of others, and yes there are still ways to do that with anarchism unless we decide to revert a subsistence agrarian economy.

  52. Hadrian999 January 8, 2012 at 8:47 pm #

    I am not saying that theory is bad, what I am saying that unless we change as a people whatever system we use will be manipulated and used by a few people for personal gain at the expense of others, and yes there are still ways to do that with anarchism unless we decide to revert a subsistence agrarian economy.

  53. Hadrian999 January 8, 2012 at 8:47 pm #

    I am not saying that theory is bad, what I am saying that unless we change as a people whatever system we use will be manipulated and used by a few people for personal gain at the expense of others, and yes there are still ways to do that with anarchism unless we decide to revert a subsistence agrarian economy.

  54. Josh Adkisson January 9, 2012 at 4:07 am #

    A lot of us are actually for something along the lines of a subsistence agrarian economy, relatively speaking…

    But I get your point. Which is why anarchism can’t *only* be a political philosophy.

  55. Adrik January 30, 2012 at 8:04 pm #

    Well, it makes sense. Earlier generations were spoon-fed propaganda that turned them against anything slightly associated with the term ‘socialism’. Now that the USSR is gone and the only major ‘Communist’ country hides it’s capitalist nature behind the term, ‘socialism’ isn’t so scary anymore.

    Not that it’ll stop the old men in Congress.

  56. Patrick S. Miller March 18, 2012 at 2:58 am #

    that would be called democratic socialism. 

    • Patrick S. Miller March 18, 2012 at 2:58 am #

      where the people put democracy into economics.

      • Patrick S. Miller March 18, 2012 at 2:59 am #

        dem socs of america are not the socialist party. they seek to have something like sweden. 

  57. Patrick S. Miller March 18, 2012 at 3:05 am #

    more oung people need to start co-opted businesses. syndicalist trade federations eliminate the current corporate structure and eliminate the need to have unions. instead the workers’ self-manage and decide on things democratically. if someone doesn’t pull their weight they get voted off the island… so to speak. the mondragon corp. of spain does this and they rake in about 2.5 billion euro a year… they followed the tradition of the anarchists in 36 that took over the factories. they all knew their skills and put them to use to benefit the community and fought back against the fascists and communists. they created the black and red flag you see at occupy events these days. anarcho-syndicalists. private property is limited to your body and your home and the rest is commons. mutual aid and voluntary interaction. as noam chomsky put it, libertarian socialism. 

  58. Patrick S. Miller March 18, 2012 at 3:06 am #

    too late…

  59. Patrick S. Miller March 18, 2012 at 3:12 am #

    alex jones should call himself the great cat herder… in his world this is what he does… 

  60. Patrick S. Miller March 18, 2012 at 3:20 am #

    this is what i tried to explain to some of my fellow club members at the college. i decided to finally go to college after i discovered there is nothing else i can do. so i signed on with the students for democratic socialism. one of the professors by the name of dr. j theis is a self-proclaimed libertarian socialist. i thought if anything this cat could be rare. his license plate said fresh and he had dice in the mirror… ok i’ll stop trolling. but yeah to be dem socs are cute and all but i got several to admit they’re all out anarchists. some tend to think that dem soc is better than what we have now.. but dem soc is just to soften the blow of the inevitable collapse of the global economy.   

Leave a Reply