Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Why are so many young people Marxists? Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Because they don't understand it fully, and don't understand that it isn't just relocation of assets, but the destruction of the family unit.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by eugaurie)
    Title really. I'd love for some advocates of Marxism to explain why they believe this ideology will be good for British society. Thanks.
    Marxists have full control over state education.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Young people tend to be more to the left and more liberal than older generations because they tend to be idealists

    You seem to be confusing "Left" and "Marxist", they aren't the same thing
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Whiskey&Freedom)
    It is a consequence of envy and resentment of hard working successful people and a state school education that fails to teach critical thinking.
    By gosh you actually said something I agree with!

    Just a shame I know all your other views form the almost perfect counterpoint to Marxism.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    Death by a thousand cuts: first it'd be renationalisation of various entities, the creation of a massive national investment bank (a nod to China's brand of state Capitalism), doubling down on debt, and going after the top 5% of earners, then (if they got away with that), who knows? They've clearly determined to tone it down to try to avoid shedding too many votes but this does not mean they have turned their back on Marxism

    True story? :wizard:
    I'm not saying that they've turned their backs on Marxism but rather that it's laughable to think of them as Marxists at all. They're social democrats intent on endless reforms within capitalism, in strict contrast to the doctrine of Marx.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TrelaiBoy)
    Young people tend to be more to the left and more liberal than older generations because they tend to be idealists

    You seem to be confusing "Left" and "Marxist", they aren't the same thing
    And you're confusing the OP saying 'so many young people' with what ever arbitrary segment you're discussing.

    There are Marxists within the young, educated demographic. I've a friend who's a Marxist and it makes me cringe every time he uses the phrase comrade. I know he thinks his heart is in the right place, and while the ideology is no better than Nazism, I think there is a more forgivable element to people who consider themselves Marxists compared with people who are supremacists.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Whiskey&Freedom)
    It is a consequence of envy and resentment of hard working successful people and a state school education that fails to teach critical thinking.
    I'm not quite sure you know what you're talking about considering the underpinning idea is that workers should have control over the wealth they've produced as supposed to one group reaping the benefits. See, not one mention of resentment or taking anything from, well, anyone.
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Because they've been raised in a degenerate individualist culture which, as you'd expect, needs a reliance on the state and not the family/charity to provide support for the weak and marginalised in society. Young people tend to fall into the latter categories, having limited representation in politics, earning power, or, in many cases, career and family prospects.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BigYoSpeck)
    And you're confusing the OP saying 'so many young people' with what ever arbitrary segment you're discussing.

    There are Marxists within the young, educated demographic. I've a friend who's a Marxist and it makes me cringe every time he uses the phrase comrade. I know he thinks his heart is in the right place, and while the ideology is no better than Nazism, I think there is a more forgivable element to people who consider themselves Marxists compared with people who are supremacists.
    "So many young people" implies that quite a lot of them are Marxists

    Perhaps its because people more readily associate Marxism with the actual political theory rather than with the atrocities committed by Stalin whilst when someone says "Nazism" most people think of the Holocaust/skinheads

    I agree, when someone says stuff like "Comrade" seriously it's cringe worthy
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TrelaiBoy)
    "So many young people" implies that quite a lot of them are Marxists
    I couldn't provide statistics, but my friend is not alone in his views. The amount that is Marxist by admission is not an inconsequently small number.

    Perhaps its because people more readily associate Marxism with the actual political theory rather than with the atrocities committed by Stalin whilst when someone says "Nazism" most people think of the Holocaust/skinheads
    Which is dangerous. They need properly educating on the ~100 million deaths this vacuous ideology is responsible for and they need to apply their intelligence to be sceptical and critical of it to see it for the failed concept that it is rather than just being apologists for it.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TrelaiBoy)
    "So many young people" implies that quite a lot of them are Marxists

    Perhaps its because people more readily associate Marxism with the actual political theory rather than with the atrocities committed by Stalin whilst when someone says "Nazism" most people think of the Holocaust/skinheads

    I agree, when someone says stuff like "Comrade" seriously it's cringe worthy
    The political theory of Nazism is as abhorrent as the Holocausts/skinheads. The communist manifesto does not advocate for gulags. That's the difference.

    The thinkings of Marx are separable from the Stalins. Mein Kampf is not separable from what Hitler did. It's possible to use Marxist thinking to be very negative of Stalinism, you can't really use Nazi thought to be against what Hitler did.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Conceited)
    I'm not quite sure you know what you're talking about considering the underpinning idea is that workers should have control over the wealth they've produced as supposed to one group reaping the benefits. See, not one mention of resentment or taking anything from, well, anyone.
    Take a look into Holodomor.

    Millions died, people ate their own children all because of the man-made famine which should rightly be treated as a holocaust. And the people who were starved to deaths crime? They had food and the Marxists wanted it. Because they were the bourgeoisie it was fine to take it from them.

    It was a class war and the perfect example of what a bitter, resentful and twisted ideology Marxism is.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Conceited)
    I'm not saying that they've turned their backs on Marxism but rather that it's laughable to think of them as Marxists at all. They're social democrats intent on endless reforms within capitalism, in strict contrast to the doctrine of Marx.
    Actually Marx did think socialism could be achieved via peaceful parliamentary means in countries like England with more established democracies.

    You have to remember that in Marx's time Socialist parties in other countries were banned or there was no notion of democracy at all, eg Russia. Marx was not against the idea of a peaceful reform to socialism, he was just sceptical of its possibility. I imagine if Marx were alive today, with all the development in human rights and democracy, even compared to England in the 19th century which was still a very limited democracy, he would be more willing to concede the possibility of more peaceful reformist route. That is if the history of real existing 20th century communisms didn't make him question the fundamentals of what he believed in.

    This is from Engels.


    "Will the peaceful abolition of private property be possible?", Friedrich Engels wrote:

    "It would be desirable if this could happen, and the communists would certainly be the last to oppose it. Communists know only too well that all conspiracies are not only useless, but even harmful. They know all too well that revolutions are not made intentionally and arbitrarily, but that, everywhere and always, they have been the necessary consequence of conditions which were wholly independent of the will and direction of individual parties and entire classes. But they also see that the development of the proletariat in nearly all civilized countries has been violently suppressed, and that in this way the opponents of communism have been working toward a revolution with all their strength. If the oppressed proletariat is finally driven to revolution, then we communists will defend the interests of the proletarians with deeds as we now defend them with words."
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Actually Marx did think socialism could be achieved via peaceful parliamentary means in countries like England with more established democracies.

    You have to remember that in Marx's time Socialist parties in other countries were banned or there was no notion of democracy at all, eg Russia. Marx was not against the idea of a peaceful reform to socialism, he was just sceptical of its possibility. I imagine if Marx were alive today, with all the development in human rights and democracy, even compared to England in the 19th century which was still a very limited democracy, he would be more willing to concede the possibility of more peaceful reformist route. That is if the history of real existing 20th century communisms didn't make him question the fundamentals of what he believed in.

    This is from Engels.


    "Will the peaceful abolition of private property be possible?", Friedrich Engels wrote:

    "It would be desirable if this could happen, and the communists would certainly be the last to oppose it. Communists know only too well that all conspiracies are not only useless, but even harmful. They know all too well that revolutions are not made intentionally and arbitrarily, but that, everywhere and always, they have been the necessary consequence of conditions which were wholly independent of the will and direction of individual parties and entire classes. But they also see that the development of the proletariat in nearly all civilized countries has been violently suppressed, and that in this way the opponents of communism have been working toward a revolution with all their strength. If the oppressed proletariat is finally driven to revolution, then we communists will defend the interests of the proletarians with deeds as we now defend them with words."
    Granted, although that doesn't take away from the fact that McDonnell and Corbyn aren't Marxists.

    (Original post by BigYoSpeck)
    Take a look into Holodomor.

    Millions died, people ate their own children all because of the man-made famine which should rightly be treated as a holocaust. And the people who were starved to deaths crime? They had food and the Marxists wanted it. Because they were the bourgeoisie it was fine to take it from them.

    It was a class war and the perfect example of what a bitter, resentful and twisted ideology Marxism is.
    Although I'm not particularly well-versed about 'Holomodor' (in fact, I'm not quite sure what it is) I could just as easily tell you about the horrors, economic oppression and societal decay brought about by Classical Liberalism in this country and equally say that about Capitalism - that it's bitter, resentful and twisted.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    When we dissociate failed communist states from Marxism it is not hard to see the appeal of it to young people. A lot of people on here are saying young people believe in Marxism because they're self-entitled and have never held a job. It is the opposite really. Young people feel they are getting nothing from this society. Some of them have jobs but they are in apprenticeships that exploit their hard work thanks to the government's pittance that they call an apprentice minimum wage. Becoming a homeowner is merely a dream for many young people. Marxism promotes a solution to this even if it is unrealistic.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Conceited)
    Although I'm not particularly well-versed about 'Holomodor' (in fact, I'm not quite sure what it is) I could just as easily tell you about the horrors, economic oppression and societal decay brought about by Classical Liberalism in this country and equally say that about Capitalism - that it's bitter, resentful and twisted.
    I'm deeply opposed to the austerity this country is being forced to endure. I'll also just add into the mix I voted and encouraged everyone I know to vote Labour.

    But say what you will about capitalism, despite the poverty levels in this country and how unacceptable it is that people are using food banks, at least millions haven't died through a man-made famine and our government isn't having to do public service announcements reminding us it's wrong to eat our own children.

    Marxism in all its applications globally has at best failed, and at worst resulted in atrocities that make the Nazi's look like Amnesty International. The measure of an idea is its ability to predict future outcomes, and when Marxism fails so spectacularly time and time again an intelligent person would come to the conclusion that the idea is rotten to its core.

    Capitalism and democracy are by no means perfect. But for all their vices they haven't failed, hence our being among the most privileged individuals to have ever occupied this planet even if I am at the bottom of the food chain socially speaking.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    From my experience, it is an ideology that is progressively attractive among those unwilling to attain wealth or betterment for themselves - the lower working class and the lapdogs of dole sappers. It is a political exercise that, put into practice, would morally enable their counter-conducive lifestyles, with accessible gains at the expense of others. Of course, this is not how it would work or could work.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BigYoSpeck)
    I'm deeply opposed to the austerity this country is being forced to endure. I'll also just add into the mix I voted and encouraged everyone I know to vote Labour.

    But say what you will about capitalism, despite the poverty levels in this country and how unacceptable it is that people are using food banks, at least millions haven't died through a man-made famine and our government isn't having to do public service announcements reminding us it's wrong to eat our own children.

    Marxism in all its applications globally has at best failed, and at worst resulted in atrocities that make the Nazi's look like Amnesty International. The measure of an idea is its ability to predict future outcomes, and when Marxism fails so spectacularly time and time again an intelligent person would come to the conclusion that the idea is rotten to its core.

    Capitalism and democracy are by no means perfect. But for all their vices they haven't failed, hence our being among the most privileged individuals to have ever occupied this planet even if I am at the bottom of the food chain socially speaking.
    Marxism makes no pretenses to being able to predict the future, it is a tool for analysing society. It is a means of accessing that which is inaccessible through 'mainstream' liberal interpretive analysis, which is burdened with the task of having to reproduce current society (capitalism) at the level of ideology.

    Marxism on the other hand, is not burdened with having to reproduce current society in thought, and thus can engage in a ruthless criticism of existing society at a level which gets to the real meat and bones, that which is concealed/obfuscated by liberal idealism, class struggle.

    I know how ridiculous this appears to the casual political observer, but communism will never die. Communism forever haunts capitalism as the prospect of it's (capitalism's) negation. This is true even if there are no living Marxists, because what Marx outlined was not some kind of nice, pleasant utopia, but the bones, the mechanism by which capitalism operates, which would be true even if there were no engaged communists on the planet.

    In fact there are most probably fewer Marxists alive today than there have been at any point in history since the late 19th century. This is for a variety of reasons it would be too long to explain here.

    Shocking right? Especially when right-wing 'cultural marxist' conspiracy theorists seem to be spotting Marxists everywhere, even among the left-liberal movement within the Labour Party (Momentum etc.)

    It's not that young people in the UK are not left-leaning in a broad sense, but there is a large difference between a leftward bent and Marxism. In most cases I would argue, young people or people generally in the UK who are left-leaning are such, not because of Marxist conviction, but via some appeal to 'common-sense', various moral platitudes etc. which belong more in the camp of liberalism (idealism) than the Marxist tradition, with it's theoretical sophistication, intellectual self-disciple and boundless self-criticism.

    Having said that, this it is not an all-to-easy dismissal of those democratic forces which are mobilising in and around the Labour Party today, for the struggle to democratise the economy, reverse privatisation etc. are worthy struggles.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    It is widely taught in a number of high school/college courses.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Conceited)
    I'm not entirely sure how one would perceive a violent overthrow of government as romantic. Also, it's entirely possible for a young person to look at the 'real' world and come to the conclusion that socialism is a better alternative to capitalism and develop appropriate views as a result. Beyond that, I reckon it'd be more apt to say that quite a lot of young people are actually adopting views considered 'right-wing' in contrary to what's being suggested here.
    I actually agree. Socialism has always been popular on campuses, but with the advent of the Internet more people from outside hear about it, hence the backlash and the formation of the "New Right". Which is a mixture of Libertarians and those who call themselves "Alt-Right".Socialist attitudes on Campuses has always been the same since the 70's. The difference is the public is now more exposed to it.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Should Spain allow Catalonia to declare independence?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.