"You'll grow out of it"

[X5N]

I've been wanting to ask this ever since I joined, but I never did for some reason.

If you're a young leftist, you've probably heard this before -- that we don't understand the "real world," and that when we grow up and get out into this real world, we'll realize that radical leftism doesn't work, or something like that.

And it's true, to some extent -- a lot of young leftists do later on turn away from that, and become "normal." But I contend that it isn't because they "realize" anything. But I've been trying to make sense of just what it is that does this.

So, what is it that turns a freewheeling, marriage-rejecting, window-smashing, anti-capitalist anarchist eighteen year old into a suit-wearing, children-having, newspaper-reading thirty year old? I contend that it has to do with peer pressure and socialization -- for example, people who say they'll never have kids still have family and are interested in relationships, and people who subscribe to anti-capitalist ideas may be discouraged to express them if they get some sort of "real" job, or something.

Any ideas?

[Red_sickle]

Interesting , the media maybe ? If your surrounded by people who think Communism is "evil"?
I am young left my self , but im determined not to change my beliefs

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Well, your definition of the "window-smashing" anarchist tend to be not really convicted to the ideas of the left but instead say they are apart of the left to be "cool".

[Ostrinski]

Adaptation to disagreeable enviornment.

[NewLeft]

Alot of anarchists tend to be anarchists for ethical/lifestyle reasons. It's just unpractical once you're past a certain age. :confused:

[Delenda Carthago]

So, what is it that turns a freewheeling, marriage-rejecting, window-smashing, anti-capitalist anarchist eighteen year old into a suit-wearing, children-having, newspaper-reading thirty year old?



Natural develpment of things and a bourgeois backround.

[OHumanista]

A combination of all of these things. Capitalistic society is quite good at nailing you down and making you believe there's no alternative.

[Anarpest]

It's perhaps pertinent that most famous communists are usually pictured with white beards.

As far as turning from socialism, I'm sure that there are lots of possible reasons, especially in a time like the 20th Century where socialism appeared to 'fail', there were World Wars and such to breed pessimistic 'realism', and the capitalist economy seemed in perfectly good condition until the late 60s. Peer pressure probably comes into it, but only because there were conditions which rendered the proponents of socialism seemingly unable to respond when challenged.

In addition, these workers as much as any other would have probably ended up competing with others for good jobs, etc., which needless to say encourages capitalist 'realism' over notions of proletarian unity; this would have been a significant factor during the fairly long post-war boom, while it's less tempting in times of high unemployment like the present. Further, you also have to take into account the fact that many of these people would have learnt about leftism through popular distortions just as much as any conservative, so they may not have been entirely clear what they were putting forward and quite liable to change.

Incidentally, has anyone else heard a teenager using the 'if you're under 19 and not a leftist, then you have no heart...' line to scold another teenager for their 'unrealistic' leftism? It's great.

[X5N]

Well, your definition of the "window-smashing" anarchist tend to be not really convicted to the ideas of the left but instead say they are apart of the left to be "cool".

I was just using a bit of...flare? I wasn't being quite serious.

But yes, some of the most radical young leftists aren't truly leftist at heart -- they still value the same things as any bourgeois member of society.

[bcbm]

So, what is it that turns a freewheeling, marriage-rejecting, window-smashing, anti-capitalist anarchist eighteen year old into a suit-wearing, children-having, newspaper-reading thirty year old?

well part of the problem may be pro-revolutionaries viewing your two descriptions here as mutually exclusive. why can't a suit-wearing, children-having, newspaper-reading (like this is seriously a bad thing??) also be a marriage-rejecting window smashing anti capitalist anarchist?

and anyway i think there are plenty of older pro-revs they just don't necessarily associate with the younger folks for a variety of reasons. i mean if nothing else i would feel like a creep getting loaded with a bunch of 18 year olds. i thiink as you get older you also tend to develop more nuance or cynicism in your ideas which isn't as appealing to the 'get it now!' younger crowd. but the more i am 'in the real world' the more i am firm in my convictions.

[X5N]

well part of the problem may be pro-revolutionaries viewing your two descriptions here as mutually exclusive. why can't a suit-wearing, children-having, newspaper-reading (like this is seriously a bad thing??) also be a marriage-rejecting window smashing anti capitalist anarchist?

I wasn't being literal (which is what I should've said in my last post). I meant "what turns someone from a radical anticapitalist into a moderate bourgeois?"

[bcbm]

i got that i am just saying i think a lot of people kind of hold that view. like if i showed up at an anarchist meeting in a sharp suit with some loafers and a briefcase i doubt the reception would be the same as if i was wearing all black american apparrel gear that was covered in dirt or whatever

[X5N]

i got that i am just saying i think a lot of people kind of hold that view. like if i showed up at an anarchist meeting in a sharp suit with some loafers and a briefcase i doubt the reception would be the same as if i was wearing all black american apparrel gear that was covered in dirt or whatever

I do tend to be the sort of person who believes in challenging all elements of the ancien regime, but I've got nothing against those who behave in a way most would call normal. We'll never get anywhere if we only accept dregs like me.

[bcbm]

yeah i think lots of pro-revs are like afraid of the idea that our ideas will have to be mainstream if we want to win or whatever. like joe six pack and his wife and kids and dog are gonna have to be down for the barricades too

[Anderson]

Keep the will strong

Radical leftism can work

Don't grow out of it - GROW IT COMRADE

[Delenda Carthago]

http://x.pstatic.gr/media/n/i/4/4011/14037.jpg
I wonder when they ll grow out of it.:lol:

[Stadtsmasher]

People will use all sorts of excuses to not engage with the truth. The one you mentioned is a popular one.

Actually "you'll grow out of it" is a popular debate-killer for anyone who is young, no matter what the topic. Its a particularly annoying one if you are young, but part of being young is having to deal with stuff like that.

If its any consolation I was a leftist when I was a teen and Im a leftist now as an adult, I never wavered. If your grasp of the truth is strong, neither will you.
:)

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

In my experience, being active in the real world; that is, working, raising children, making "ends meet" etc. does a lot more to consolidate and foster communist convictions than living your life in a radical activist millieu, doing activism all the time.

[Comrade Samuel]

Not many actual leftists ever grow out of it and that goes for all tendencies. Those who do usually are just confused teenagers looking for a place to fit in before eventually deciding it was all just teenage angst fueling their hatred of "the system". I would say many members here who actualy devote their time to leftism through organizing protests, learning about theory and practice, educating others, attempting to improve conditions for fellow workers in real life, ect. will not one day say "this was stupid" On the other hand those sitting in their bedrooms arguing with conservatives on YouTube and never actualy contributing to anything but their over-blown ego probably will.

[Rafiq]

You'll grow out of it if you don't have a strong scientific base for your views. You will either dump Leftism, or (for better) mature into a Leftism much more realistic and possibly just as radical.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Goblin]

Something i have noticed is that alot Trots, like myself, are former Stalinists...

[Left Leanings]

I think most of the posters have just about covered it already.

Some students at university are just playing at being revolutionaries. others are serious about their beliefs and politics and continue.

One point I would suggest, is disillusionment. Dr Marx passed away in the late nineteenth century, the Russian Revolution came and went, there is infighting between leftist groups, and between factions within groups too, etc etc.

Many simply ask, are we any further on, and they retreat into the personal, especially when they have jobs to go to, kids to raise, mortgages to pay etc. It doesn't mean they lose their beliefs. But it often means they steer clear of activism.

When I left uni, a schoolteacher I visited with, told me I was at the point in my beliefs he was at when he graduated. But he said, "Believe me, it all changes". He seemed to think I would give it all up, and become either a moderate or a non-activist.

Well I was leftist at 18. I still am at 44.

There's still a world to win, and in the words of Phil Piratin, "Our Flag Stays Red" :)

[Ele'ill]

I'm in a pretty radical area and the ages of participants on the barricades are from toddlers (with their parents of course) up through 60's + and I think it's kind of a really big deal. I point towards the ILWU actions in Longview WA, those folks weren't young kid revolutionaries. There were some ILWU peeps at some of the occupy stuff here and they were younger probably 25-35 age range. The more lively activities have people 15-35 participating. Don't give up.

[Tim Cornelis]

I've actually already matured out of "leftism" and back into it.

I started out as a naive, Tankie, nationalist, who equated state-capitalism and communism. Then I matured into liberalism, and developed into anarcho-communism. The problem is, many people think that the former me is the average revolutionary leftist.

And also, I know many old anarchists. The problem is, when you're young you have the energy and time to engage in activism, while when you're older you don't always have this. You may also grow disillusioned. So many revolutionary leftists stick to the ideals, but give up the movement.

[MotherCossack]

puleaze!!
i was born a baby all pink.....
a creamy pink child i was i think.
the very night i hit the teens...
i saw red with my beans....
i knew the very next day...
that the red was here for a very long stay.

my teenage years were shaped by hate
of thatcher and our butchered state
on and off i marched the marches
along the way broke both arches.

these days i have changed a bit
i'm older and look like shit
but red i was and red i am
and red ill be forever fam.

[Agent Ducky]

Something i have noticed is that alot Trots, like myself, are former Stalinists...
One, two, three, four, I declare a tendency war!
Actually, everyone seems to be really chill about it. Faith in Revleft restored. For now.

Also, props to MotherCossack for another coolbeans poem :thumbup1:

[Manic Impressive]

shitty parties are also part of it. There are certain parties (naming no names) who have shitty politics, advocate reform and so on. If you're in a radical party who advocates reform then it's no wonder that members get tired of the minimal progress and turn back to mainstream reformist politics. Reformist parties create reformist members.

Rafiq nailed it, if you have a scientific outlook to your politics then it's highly unlikely that you'll change your mind.

[Hiero]

The point, is you will grow. Which ever way depends on your position in the heiarchy.

[Veovis]

If you're a young leftist, you've probably heard this before -- that we don't understand the "real world," and that when we grow up and get out into this real world, we'll realize that radical leftism doesn't work, or something like that.

Lawl, it's often quite the opposite. For me, coming out of college and landing a shit job that I could have gotten with just a high school diploma and a lot less debt was what turned me from a liberal-progressive into a radical socialist.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

I hated the idea of kids until my son was born. I thought marriage was an out-moded institution until I proposed to the mother of my child, first and only love of my life. My politics had a brief moment of liberalisation / moderation in my early 20s because the 'reality' of work, bills, baby on the way etc made the leftist ideas seem impractical or a waste of time.
Now I'm motivated by the fact I want my kid and his future siblings to have a better society to grow up in and raise their own kids, if they choose to.

[Hiero]

Something i have noticed is that alot Trots, like myself, are former Stalinists...

Their delusions evolve into madness.

[OnlyCommunistYouKnow]

I guess I finally found a good side of being autistic. I don't have to adapt to anything.

[Strannik]

This is thread is exactly right thing after a long day in bourgeois society. :) I also grew into socialism once I met the hardships of real world and discovered I have conscience. As a teenager I was right-wing liberal.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

So, what is it that turns a freewheeling, marriage-rejecting, window-smashing, anti-capitalist anarchist eighteen year old into a suit-wearing, children-having, newspaper-reading thirty year old?

No idea.


Any ideas?

I don't really buy into this whole "once you'll get in the real world, you'll see," mentality in that, while I have called myself an Anarchist for years, I didn't become genuinely become political up until I was out in the "real world," and discovered, wow, it really fucking sucks and I don't and didn't like the idea that every day when I wake up I have absolutely have nothing to look forward to except wake up, work some shit job, starve, drink, sleep, repeat until I'm 65 (assuming I even make it to 65).

[The Douche]

When I was 15 I only knew three or four communists over 25, now that I'm 24, I don't know any communists who're under 18.

Its all about perspective.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Pessimism is the key; I.E not expecting the revolution will happen tomorrow will do a lot to maintain your revolutionary discipline.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Something i have noticed is that alot Trots, like myself, are former Stalinists...

No flame bait, consider this a verbal warning.

[Questionable]

I began studying Marxism because it provided a method of analyzing the world that explained all of its woes to me, and provided a way of finding the solution to those woes, not because of some romantic image of being a revolutionary bad boy.

Real life may not permit me to become a professional revolutionary, but unless I find a theory that makes more sense, I'll always believe in Marxism. In fact, after reading and understanding what it is that makes our society tick, I don't see how anyone could simply forget and become "normal." The concept reminds me of a quote from Watchmen by Rorscharch (Who was ironically an anti-communist).

"Once a man has seen society's black underbelly, he can never turn his back on it."

[Bloodwerk]

You're preaching to the choir here. That's my (probably biggest?) dilemma at the moment.
I'm 18 now, preparing for college. And I still can't see myself in some formal clothes, checking some documents and driving a car to work.
I simply can't stomach that kind of lifestyle. :thumbdown:
But - the problem is, if you don't conform, today's society will eat you whole. And shit you out.

[Zostrianos]

I think it usually comes down to disillusionment: when you're young, you think you can change the world and do all sorts of wonderful things. Over time you realize most of those things are a lot harder to accomplish than you thought, and you lose hope and discard them. I'm over 30, I still believe that Socialism is possible, but I realize how unbelievably hard it will be to bring about a revolution (humans generally are too busy indulging in tv and consumerism to care about making the world a better place :thumbdown:), and I doubt it will ever happen in my lifetime- but I still hope.

[MarxSchmarx]

I hate to admit it, but there is a kernel of truth to the claims of the likes of Bob Avakian or Maoist-3rd worldists that capitalism, at least in the global north, does provide a modicum of comfort to those who basically desert activism and embrace things like family, reading the paper at breakfast, and a detached home that this places a substantial constraint on the ability of the left to appeal to a huge segment of the population even on materialist grounds. Trotsky has this patronizing perhaps somewhat quaint, but still dead on line about how in Soviet America:

It is the task of your communist statesmen to make the system deliver the concrete goods that the average man desires: his food, cigars, amusements, his freedom to choose his own neckties, his own house and his own automobile.

I think to some degree capitalism has accomplished this on a large scale in much of the global north. This is not true at all in the third world, and such comfort is vanishing quickly or was remains precarious in places like Greece or among inner cities in America or aboriginals in Australia. But for better or worse, in places like France, Japan, Canada, Germany and America, between 2/3 and 3/4 of the population live in reasonably impressive comfort. Their children might be a different story, sure, but that hasn't sunk in quite yet given that since the end of wwii every generation has done progressively better and things like ipads come out often enough to impress people. Capitalism's internal logic, of course, cannot sustain such level of widespread comfort. That is why the welfare state is rotting, even in scandinavia. But it can survive long engugh, in enough minds, to take perhaps generations of fighting to eradicate.


In my experience, being active in the real world; that is, working, raising children, making "ends meet" etc. does a lot more to consolidate and foster communist convictions than living your life in a radical activist millieu, doing activism all the time.
I agree. On some level, the eighteen year old punk (and I use that term respectfully and desparigingly) thinks they ahve nothing to lose, and that is why they waste so much of their time on useless activist activities.

But the flip side is that the more one realizes how the system is rigged, the more one appreciates just how massive the risks of fighting it are, compared to the odds of success. YOu may feel that much more passionate about how much your sitution is deplorable, but if you understand that organizing a union in your workplace can get you fired and risk what little consolations you have (which are that much MORE precious given how awful everything else is), does it really matter how much stronger those convictions are?

[ridethejetski]

radical politics is always more popular among the young. young people are generally more idealistic and have less of an interest in the present state of affairs than an older person with a family and mortgage. It doesn't matter though, any sort of communism isn't going to come about due to radicalised young people, but the working class taking society into their own hands.

[Elsa]

You're preaching to the choir here. That's my (probably biggest?) dilemma at the moment.
I'm 18 now, preparing for college. And I still can't see myself in some formal clothes, checking some documents and driving a car to work.
I simply can't stomach that kind of lifestyle. :thumbdown:

I don't think leftism is about clothing (although obviously buying some ridiculously expensive shit because of the label isn't the best thing to do. but you can wear cheap formal clothes, I doubt anyone would care). You'll manage somehow :cool:

[Keath]

Its possible for people to change as they get older. Some people who were right wing in their youth become leftists when they are older and vice a versa. Political ideology though is not related to a persons age. If ideology was a product of age Noam Chomsky would be a republican.

[seventeethdecember2016]

Plain and simply, influences.

When I was your age, I got the same stuff. Ironically I became that newspaper reading suit-wearing gentleman, but I stayed Lefty.

Nowadays when someone criticizes me for being a Socialist, I give them some arrogant remark.

[Loozr]

Most of the people I've met over the internet just come to realize that most human are scum and'll become centrist nihilist that — in consistence with the word "nihilism" — just don't give a fuck anymore. I wouldn't recommend that lifestyle, but ya' know, depression and anxiety does a lot to a person who's embedded in a capitalist system who can't really do anything but rant and theorize about how we could live a better life.

[Raúl Duke]

I've been wanting to ask this ever since I joined, but I never did for some reason.

If you're a young leftist, you've probably heard this before -- that we don't understand the "real world," and that when we grow up and get out into this real world, we'll realize that radical leftism doesn't work, or something like that.

And it's true, to some extent -- a lot of young leftists do later on turn away from that, and become "normal." But I contend that it isn't because they "realize" anything. But I've been trying to make sense of just what it is that does this.

So, what is it that turns a freewheeling, marriage-rejecting, window-smashing, anti-capitalist anarchist eighteen year old into a suit-wearing, children-having, newspaper-reading thirty year old? I contend that it has to do with peer pressure and socialization -- for example, people who say they'll never have kids still have family and are interested in relationships, and people who subscribe to anti-capitalist ideas may be discouraged to express them if they get some sort of "real" job, or something.

Any ideas?

While I believe it's totally possible for a leftist to remain leftist...

Usually, as one grows older, one gets a more 'nuanced commitment' to the whole idea. When I was younger I was probably more fiery and all like "yeah" but now, and I'm not even that old, I'm more apathetic and/or laid-back about it.

Also, those who start early always treat it in an almost moralistic fashion. If I had a chance to be a part of the bourgeois I may probably just take it, but when I was younger I would've said I would never. As I mentioned in the thread about "what would you do if you had a billion dollars?" I would invest that money like those Wall St. bastards. My current commitment is based entirely on my current class outlook/position. From my position as someone who will for all intents and purposes need to make a wage for a living, the idea of socialism and communism are appealing and even exciting.

Also, due to that perspective based on class, I tend to take a more nuanced view of things. For example, I don't think reforms are knee-jerk "bad" as long as they materially benefit me (and the rest of the people who works for a living) however I don't believe reforms are possible in the US and many nations (i.e. I don't mind if people vote, but I'm not interested in any sort of activism or an organization that revolved around an electoral solution; I mentioned this in another thread.). But say I was a Greek worker, I might consider voting for SYRIZA just on the sole fact that they're anti-austerity, etc. I have no pretensions that either they or the KKE are revolutionary (they're fucking electoral parties, for fucks sake) but an end to austerity would be beneficial to me and members of my class materially. However, I'm also cynical of that prospect, increasingly I think reformism is dead for the developed world and soon the common person will realize this, and thus I would also do other forms of activism, etc to try and stop it (which I assume many Greeks are doing anyway).

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Well, another consideration is thus, if you want a different spin on things think about it:

Socialism is achieved by the self-emancipation of the working class. The working class, until this point/period of self-emancipation and overthrow of the bourgeoisie, are inextricably tied to Capitalism by their subordinate relationship to the ruling class.

So, if you are not willing to put on a 2 or 3 piece suit, sit at a desk 9-5 and drive the family round to your parents on the weekend, then what are the implications of this rejection:

Are you saying that you want to work outside of the system? Surely this is lifestylism, or if you are thinking of becoming a bank robber to aid the revolution, then be prepared to spend most of your life in solitary, with no role in the revolution!

Are you saying you want to work within the already-existing left apparatus? Well, you'll still be doing the same 9-5 shit, you'll still be either a wage slave or you'll become part of the petty bourgeoisie.

Let me get this straight. I love punk spirit. I love rejection Capitalist orthodoxy, for rejecting Capitalist orthodoxy's sake. But is this the basis for an actually productive and happy life?

Personally, I have no intention of ever selling out, but equally i'm not gonna be a rebel for a lost or lagging cause, i'm not gonna rage against the machine just out of crass determination to show my opposition to Capitalism. I can be a salaried worker and people will still know that I am against Capitalism. I can save up, buy a house, send my kids to university and buy a Porsche Boxster second hand, and people will still know that I am against Capitalism.

The reality is that, as said above, a large proportion of the developed west have been delivered material comfort and relative liberty by Capitalism. As Marxists, we are materialists. It would be wrong to throw this away simply because we don't agree with the system: that would be moralist and anti-materialist and, at teh end of the day, as long as you don't sell out by becoming (or aspiring to) a member of the bourgeoisie or a pig, then you shouldn't be depressed by the thoughts of mundane, un-individual material comfort.

[Zav]

Are you saying that you want to work outside of the system? Surely this is lifestylism.
No, it's not wanting to contribute to Capitalism. "Lifestylism" is the radical equivalent of "politically correct", i.e. a meaningless smear term used in place of a valid argument.



Personally, I have no intention of ever selling out, but equally i'm not gonna be a rebel for a lost or lagging cause, i'm not gonna rage against the machine just out of crass determination to show my opposition to Capitalism.

I see what you did there.

[DiaperGrandpa]

As an Adult Baby, I think I can relate to being told "you'll grow out of it" to a greater degree than most people. But ultimately, if you are deliberate with how you live your life, honest, principled, and seeking truth, you probably won't stray too far from where you are now over the course of your life (unless there is good reason to!) :lol:

[Jimmie Higgins]

So, what is it that turns a freewheeling, marriage-rejecting, window-smashing, anti-capitalist anarchist eighteen year old into a suit-wearing, children-having, newspaper-reading thirty year old? I contend that it has to do with peer pressure and socialization -- for example, people who say they'll never have kids still have family and are interested in relationships, and people who subscribe to anti-capitalist ideas may be discouraged to express them if they get some sort of "real" job, or something.

Any ideas?It's different at different times. But really I think in general you can say this tendency happens because of the ups and downs of struggle.

During upsurges in struggle many radical arguments are shown to be true and people learn in large numbers many of the basic things we know about class struggle: that reforms only go so far, that the cops, media, and bourgeois parties can't be trusted, that you have to fight in your own interest etc. So there is a huge wave of radicalization and often it's the youth who take this up first because they are less likely to have baggage left from past-defeats and are less likely to have ideologically cemented their opinions of the world.

But this spontaneous upsurge and radicalization also has a pit-fall of once the surge is over, people get disillusioned quickly. Every downturn sees a decline of political ideas and a move towards self-help or spiritual ideas or po-mo idealism or whatnot. New Left radicals literally thought that a revolution was coming and when it didn't and the capitalists fought back and reversed the political upsurge, then people got demoralized and most said that our options are limited to what's "realistic" within the system: basically backing the Democrats or doing small local NGO-style charity-politics.

This is part of the reason I think revolutionary organizations are important, they can potentially carry on some of the lessons of the past, the pitfall is that they can sometimes internalize the politics of the downturn and the negative lessons. But you don't need organization to do that as many new-lefters internalized this sort of negative stuff without any organization; so on the whole the potential of the IWW or a Radical Party to carry on the traditions of past struggles to new waves of radicals is important.

[Mr. Natural]

I'm an old fart, and I've grown into it. "It"--Marxism--understands and illuminates capitalism and the human condition, and forms of anarchism/communism will be the human condition if there is to be a human future.

Marxism, however, needs re-revolutionizing. Its revolutionary spirit seems to have died with the degeneracy of the Soviet Union. Marxism has become an archaeological exercise. Why are the few remaining Marxists so obsessed with rummaging through the classics yet again, despite the long-established ultimate sterility of such efforts?

Why has Marxism ignored the revolutionary developments in science--revelations that work with the organization of life, hence society--when Marxism cannot organize and Marx and Engels eagerly engaged and employed scientific developments as they appeared?

In the meantime, people will continue to "mature" into The System. It's all there is at present.

Marxism has become un-Marxian. Engels at Marx's funeral: "Science was for Marx a historically dynamic, revolutionary force."

My red-green, scientific Marxist best.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Marxism has become an archaeological exercise.

Anarchism is more radical (if you know what I mean(if you don't please ask before you accuse me of such things as flaming)) than marxism, therefore it atracts more people (expecially during economic crisis).

I don't think it is possible to "grow out of" communism, for example: my seventy-something year old grandfather is still a communist, but it is possible to stop beleiving that revolution will happen in your lifetime.

[black magick hustla]

i probably been some sort of radical since i had access to the internet and idk i probably are much more of an extremist/zealot than when i was like 14

[Pretty Flaco]

You're preaching to the choir here. That's my (probably biggest?) dilemma at the moment.
I'm 18 now, preparing for college. And I still can't see myself in some formal clothes, checking some documents and driving a car to work.
I simply can't stomach that kind of lifestyle. :thumbdown:
But - the problem is, if you don't conform, today's society will eat you whole. And shit you out.

shit ill do it for you because that beats a hard days work. :thumbup1:

[Yugo45]

Usually because their views weren't strong enough and they became pacifised. It's simple. If you live in the capitalism system, you either adapt to it or you die (or, well, you overthrow it.). Now if your views aren't strong enough.. It's very easy to wonder off in such a position.

[Bronco]

I'm quite surprised I haven't grown out of it tbh

[Firebrand]

It's probably to do with hormones. The same thing that drives middle aged men to buy expensive sports cars and go out clubbing with kids half their age also drives them to start reading the times wearing posh suits and joining the neighbourhood watch.:D

Seriously though I think it's not so much that people stop believing, its more that the strain of day to day living in a capitalist society wears people down. If asked they will identify as leftist but the strain of working the nine to five, raising their kids, paying the mortgage and generally just getting by leaves them with little time to think about politics let alone taking any action beyond shouting at the TV. Come election time they will vote tactically because it might make life a bit easier if labour was in power and while they are delighted when people go on protest they never quite manage the time to go themselves. They don't stop believing but they do run out of steam.

Not that this happens to everyone, its just an explaination for some of the people who stop being active.

[Rafiq]

I'm an old fart, and I've grown into it. "It"--Marxism--understands and illuminates capitalism and the human condition, and forms of anarchism/communism will be the human condition if there is to be a human future.

Marxism, however, needs re-revolutionizing. Its revolutionary spirit seems to have died with the degeneracy of the Soviet Union. Marxism has become an archaeological exercise. Why are the few remaining Marxists so obsessed with rummaging through the classics yet again, despite the long-established ultimate sterility of such efforts?

Why has Marxism ignored the revolutionary developments in science--revelations that work with the organization of life, hence society--when Marxism cannot organize and Marx and Engels eagerly engaged and employed scientific developments as they appeared?

In the meantime, people will continue to "mature" into The System. It's all there is at present.

Marxism has become un-Marxian. Engels at Marx's funeral: "Science was for Marx a historically dynamic, revolutionary force."

My red-green, scientific Marxist best.

Stop lumping Marxism in with Communism. Marxism doesn't need to reinvent itself, but socialism does.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Hiero]

Stop lumping Marxism in with Communism. Marxism doesn't need to reinvent itself, but socialism does.

Marxism was writen at a time when there was a large coherent group known as the 'proletariat'. What 'Marxists' fail to realise is Marx and Engels saw the end of the bourgeois revolution where thousands of peasants were freed from the land and move to the city to work in factories. That created the 'working classes', a large group of men (and I mean men) who shared a common experience of work, living conditions, social and cultural life. Experience of working men was homogeneous. The conclusion from Marx and Engels on the basis on how the bourgeois came to be the ruling class would be that the proleteriat would become a ruling class. What 'Marxists' do is realy on reductionist logic of 'if you work for a wage' 'if you don't own the means of production' you are a worker.

Today in the west the proleteriat is no more, the working classes are a minority. There is no large homogenous working class experience. Australia is an example of this fragmented working class. Skilled workers with trades in some sectors of the economy earn a comfortable living, even some unskilled workers in the minining industries earn a comfortable living that see their living standards above the people engaged in traditional white collar and middle class work. The other sector of the working classes who income is below the middle classes are engaged in itinerant work (causual, unskilled) and don't hold a position that Marx saw as being fundemental for objective reasoning for overthrowing the ruling class (that is sitting neatly in that dialectical condtradiction of social relations and productive forces), infact itinerant workers merely want to work.

People who say Marxism does not need to reinvent itself are completly blind to the structural changes between the times Marx and Engels wrote and the times we are living.

[Mr. Natural]

In my post in which I noted I had grown into Marxism and not out of it, but that Marxism needs a radical revolutionary updating, I wrote, "forms of anarchism/communism will be the human condition if there is to be a human future."

Rafiq then posted a puzzling response: "Stop lumping Marxism in with Communism. Marxism doesn't need to reinvent itself, but socialism does."

I am guessing Rafiq ignored my "small 'c' communism" to protest the Soviet Union's "socialist" degradation of Marxism. My "small 'c'" had already acknowledged this situation, though. Perhaps Rafiq was just demonstrating his penchant for "arguing for no reason" mentioned in his personal profile.

Rafiq is quite wrong, though, that Marxism does not need the radical updating that Marx and Engels would have been providing if they were alive. Indeed, I find it astonishing that a leftist would not see the passivity and intellectual conservatism affecting Marxism nowadays.

Hiero's post pointed to the reality that the Marxist concept of class needs a radical reworking. Capitalism has undergone a radical reworking (globalization), therefore its classes have, too. Who is the modern proletariat who must make the revolution?

My short answer is that we have all been "proletarianized." We all work for The System that is cashing humanity in. The bourgeoisie and the reserve army of the unemployed all fit into my "new class" in which everyone has been subsumed within capitalist relations. And yes, much liberal mischief can be injected into this deeply radical vision of the "new proletariat."

Capitalism is the enemy of all forms of life on Earth. Capitalism is killing the human species, and as all humans now "work" for The System, I believe this reality is the basis from which a new revolutionary theory and revolutionary processes can be developed.

My red-green best.

[Rafiq]

Eurocentrist a bit, no? Considering the west doesn't make up for the majority of hte world, and if your hypothesis is correct, that would mean that the only reason there isn't one is because the proletariat exists in other countries. But that's third worldism. The Proletariat does exist in the West, just in a different form (than it did in Marx and Engel's time). It's just that fictitious capital became so powerful, the proletariat even lost what makes them identifiable.

[Rafiq]

Mr. Natural, there's a difference between Socialism/Communism and Marxism. Marxism a science that is deployed as a means of analysation while Socialism and Communism are revolutionary ideologies. Marxists tend to end up being revolutionaries because they understand the systemic contradictions within capitalism, but that doesn't make it inherently revolutionary, or communist.

[X5N]

Shit, wasn't expecting this thread to still be alive.

[Regicollis]

I guess I'm not doing what I'm supposed to do. Instead of getting more moderate and conservative as I grow older I get more radical as I see that bourgeois democracy which I used to believe in is democracy in name only; that the system is rigged in favour of the bourgeois elite, that although we have elections we have no choice.

As I've seen reformist politicians betray their ideals or succumb to the demands of Realpolitik I've grown more and more radical.

When my daughter was born I realised that if she is to grow up in a liveable world small gradual reforms constantly undermined and set back by bourgeois politicians is not going to do it - a revolution is the only hope.

Thus I've not grown out of socialism - I've grown into it.

[Qavvik]

.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Marxism was writen at a time when there was a large coherent group known as the 'proletariat'. What 'Marxists' fail to realise is Marx and Engels saw the end of the bourgeois revolution where thousands of peasants were freed from the land and move to the city to work in factories.This process had started long before Marx in England - and it began in rural mills. In Marx's time there was a sharp shift towards industrialization and so more artisans and other workers were being brought into the factories.


That created the 'working classes', a large group of men (and I mean men) who shared a common experience of work, living conditions, social and cultural life. Experience of working men was homogeneous.Women were a large part of the early industrial working class, it was during this time that bourgeois reformers were creating a "family wage" and encouraging the idea of working class family life with one man as the breadwinner and the wife as the home caretaker.


Today in the west the proleteriat is no more, the working classes are a minority.No, it's a much larger percentage of the population. Most people in the US were individual farmers until WWII - I'm sure it is similar for Australia.


There is no large homogenous working class experience. I think you may be romanticizing and oversimplifying the past. There were many divisions among workers, not just nationality and culture. I think these divisions seem smaller in retrospect because their concerns aren't always the same as ours are now.


Australia is an example of this fragmented working class. Skilled workers with trades in some sectors of the economy earn a comfortable living, even some unskilled workers in the minining industries earn a comfortable living that see their living standards above the people engaged in traditional white collar and middle class work. The other sector of the working classes who income is below the middle classes are engaged in itinerant work (causual, unskilled) and don't hold a position that Marx saw as being fundemental for objective reasoning for overthrowing the ruling class (that is sitting neatly in that dialectical contradiction of social relations and productive forces), infact itinerant workers merely want to work.How are these conditions fundamentally different? In the US there were guilds for skilled workers; artisans saw industrial labor as a threat to their way of producing; petty-bourgeois business was much more common and a part of daily life and small town petty-bourgeois elites were actually a powerful group in many places.

If anything, I think workers are MORE similar today than in the past and are much more the world-wide popular majority.


People who say Marxism does not need to reinvent itself are completly blind to the structural changes between the times Marx and Engels wrote and the times we are living.First of all, I totally reject this straw-man. How can anyone with any familiarity with the history of the left say that people just read the Manifesto and that's it, done. There've been developments good and bad out of the framework of marxism pretty consitantly throughout all this time. Sure some people treat it as dogma, but the most useful revolutionary traditions treat it as a living guide to action, not a road-map or recipe book.

It's also not true that people don't look at new developments in capitalism. What was all the writing and debates on Imperialism, on Credit, on Reformism, on the nature of the USSR, on the cold war, on capitalist hegemony in advanced states, on capitalist globalization, on national liberation movements, on how countries that haven't developed capitalism like England did can have revolutions, and so on.

None of this was talked about directly by Marx. People had to elaborate, create new theories, correct previous assumptions etc. But the thing is IMO, these are developments of the same system that existed in Marx's day. Maybe then it would be a strike at a mill supported by workers in neighborhood small businesses and with the solidarity of dock-workers that would shut down an industrial city. Well today, how would it be any different if Wal-Mart clerks struck and were backed by teamsters who refused to deliver to Wal-Mart - it would have a similar effect. Relative conditions have changed, but the fundamental divisions and workings of the system that Marx pointed out remain the same.

[Rafiq]

Marxism doesn't need to re invent itself, it needs to, as it did around the time of the First World War and before, enhance itself. The "Old" Marxism doesn't need to be abandoned, but exemplified.

[ellipsis]

I've been wanting to ask this ever since I joined, but I never did for some reason.

If you're a young leftist, you've probably heard this before -- that we don't understand the "real world," and that when we grow up and get out into this real world, we'll realize that radical leftism doesn't work, or something like that.

And it's true, to some extent -- a lot of young leftists do later on turn away from that, and become "normal." But I contend that it isn't because they "realize" anything. But I've been trying to make sense of just what it is that does this.

So, what is it that turns a freewheeling, marriage-rejecting, window-smashing, anti-capitalist anarchist eighteen year old into a suit-wearing, children-having, newspaper-reading thirty year old? I contend that it has to do with peer pressure and socialization -- for example, people who say they'll never have kids still have family and are interested in relationships, and people who subscribe to anti-capitalist ideas may be discouraged to express them if they get some sort of "real" job, or something.

Any ideas?

I had a history teacher who would tell the class about how people like me would get older and become less idealistic. Fuck him.

The more I learned, the more radical I have become, so the trend has been the opposite of what he predicted.

[znk666]

Sadly enough,teenagers tend to be Anarchists just so they could resort to vandalism and to be ''hard-core'' or ''edgy''

[Azraella]

I am about thirty years old. I have been a revolutionary leftist for about... ten years now. I've never given up activism or the revolution, but my focuses these days are very different than what they were when I was younger. These days I mostly do mutual aid projects and local activism.

[Hiero]

Jimmie Higgins (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=9434):

Marx and Engels described a working class/proleteriat who had nothing to lose but their chains. Today there is a working class with things to lose, they have loans, families they invest money into, personal property etc. It is quite alienating when Communist talk about objective interest when not even considering the situation that workers find themselves.

My overall point was that fundemental divisions have changed in the first world and third world, because production has changed. Now in the first world class factions and fractions basically make bids for power and try to increase their stake in things, rather then an attempt to owning the means of production or revolution.

What some people tend to do is cram Marx into modern society, they don't look at the cultural and political context that Marx and Engels wrote in. So there often is a real disjunture between the theory and real society.

[Firebrand]

Jimmie Higgins (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=9434):

Marx and Engels described a working class/proleteriat who had nothing to lose but their chains. Today there is a working class with things to lose, they have loans, families they invest money into, personal property etc. It is quite alienating when Communist talk about objective interest when not even considering the situation that workers find themselves.

What some people tend to do is cram Marx into modern society, they don't look at the cultural and political context that Marx and Engels wrote in. So there often is a real disjunture between the theory and real society.

Things have changed less than you seem to think. There have been cosmetic changes and jobs that were once considered middle class are now working class, many jobs have vanished or deskilled, but fundamentally, the division between the owners of the means of production and the producers is if anything even clearer now. Give me some real deep differences between Marx's time and ours, honestly there are none. There have been technological advances and changes in the types of work carried out and there is now a welfare state but the relations of production haven't changed. The tasks that wage slaves do has changed but not the fact that they are wage slaves.

In Marx's time there were plenty of workers who had plenty to lose, people still had families back then, still needed to eat, needed to have somewhere to live, if you had a job and income you had a lot to lose. the point that Marx was trying to make was as far as I can make out that workers would not lose anything in the revolution except their chains, not that there was nothing that they could lose if things went wrong.

[Deicide]

Our Marxist-Leninist comrades from the Soviet Union certainly grew out of it :lol: Most of them are now either nationalists or liberals in bourgeois governments.

[Mr. Natural]

To Deicide's observation that "Our Marxist-Leninist Comrades from the Soviet Union certainly grew out of it," I must retort that few of them were ever in it (Marxism). The primitive conditions obtaining in the Russian Empire militated against the development of both Marxist minds and a Marxist society.

There were many brilliant scientists and philosophers who were exceptions to my statement, but these Marxist minds were soon extinguished by the profoundly un-Marxist society that developed.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

Rafiq is quite wrong, though, that Marxism does not need the radical updating that Marx and Engels would have been providing if they were alive. Indeed, I find it astonishing that a leftist would not see the passivity and intellectual conservatism affecting Marxism nowadays.
I would recommend that an important first step is to break Marxism out of bourgeois academia. This naturally entails the need for a new and revolutionary party, since a lot of the most important work written in the previous century was based around the party's interactions with, and sensitivity to, the proletariat itself; Wilhelm Reich's psychoanalytical work with workers in Germany comes to mind. Socialism as an ideal cannot be revived if it is stuck in an elitist institution.

[MotherCossack]

In my post in which I noted I had grown into Marxism and not out of it, but that Marxism needs a radical revolutionary updating, I wrote, "forms of anarchism/communism will be the human condition if there is to be a human future."

Rafiq then posted a puzzling response: "Stop lumping Marxism in with Communism. Marxism doesn't need to reinvent itself, but socialism does."

Rafiq is quite wrong, though, that Marxism does not need the radical updating that Marx and Engels would have been providing if they were alive. Indeed, I find it astonishing that a leftist would not see the passivity and intellectual conservatism affecting Marxism nowadays.
Capitalism is the enemy of all forms of life on Earth. Capitalism is killing the human species, and as all humans now "work" for The System, I believe this reality is the basis from which a new revolutionary theory and revolutionary processes can be developed.

My red-green best.


Mr. Natural, there's a difference between Socialism/Communism and Marxism. Marxism a science that is deployed as a means of analysation while Socialism and Communism are revolutionary ideologies. Marxists tend to end up being revolutionaries because they understand the systemic contradictions within capitalism, but that doesn't make it inherently revolutionary, or communist.

that up there.... is a very important bit of stuff which needs sorting....

both views are interesting and worthy of merit.....
Rafiq is right.. about the basis of marxism being a science of ecomomic configuration and financial engineering..... but at the same time ......
Marx was closely associated with communist doctrine and he did write the manifesto after all [with his political pal engels].... so it is a tad disingenuous to entirely refute any close ties.....
anyway.... the important thing is........
what we should all address...... asap......
is where we go from here....
How can we use/learn from the wisdom of these dead dudes....
how can we arrange for marxist economics to be put into practise ... show all them monetarists how it should be done.........

Equally and at the same time but on a different front we need to modernise socialist doctrine.... so that nlo wanky blue-blood can laugh about the quaint , archaic lingo, or well old-fashioned references and out-moded ideas.
we need to do this.... if Marx thought it necessary way back when..... then he would think it so now......
Do you not think that if the great man came back for a visit, he would take one look about and cry

"everything is different.... what about the internet.... what about the drug culture..... what about the youth.... what about all these robots.... and these people who do not work... and dont want to.... there are so many of them.... and reality tv !!!!! omg what a mess"

i mean we owe the man that much.... he couldn't help dying...... no-one is immortal.... but it is up to us to ensure that his ideas dont die too..... he can not keep them fresh but we all believe in them... we can!

[MotherCossack]

sorry this is not really relevant to the thread.... i responded... got carried away...

[Internacional]

Funny thing I've got about "You'll grow out of it."
My first exposure to Communism was a book on the Cold War in the sixth grade. I hadn't even heard of the Soviet Union up until then. So, I looked more into the USSR and found Lenin, who was influenced by Marx, and both inspired dozens of leaders (Stalin, Mao, Kim Il-Sung, Tito, Hoxha, Ho Chi Minh.) With that said, my first true reading of any communist literature was "What Is to Be Done?" by Lenin. From then on, I became self identifying as Communist in seventh grade. My English teacher said "You'll grow out of it."
Here I am, 19 years old. I took macro/micro economics, getting the best grade out of my class, all thanks to Kapital. That teacher tried to "Convince me out of my blindness," but my grades said that I wasn't blind, but bold.
That's my model for how a revolution should be won: Beat the overlords at their game and then show them a better path. It's what the course of anti-fascism I think should be; show them that they're wrong instead of confront them about it.
7 years since that book, I still haven't been convinced otherwise. You've just got to stick with it. Join a party. If you can't, read every piece of literature that comes across you, leftist or not.

[Ocean Seal]

Mr. Natural, there's a difference between Socialism/Communism and Marxism. Marxism a science that is deployed as a means of analysation while Socialism and Communism are revolutionary ideologies. Marxists tend to end up being revolutionaries because they understand the systemic contradictions within capitalism, but that doesn't make it inherently revolutionary, or communist.
I disagree, the information that comes with accepting Marxism necessarily leads to anti-capitalist conclusions. It ceases to be a method of analysis when one understands it.

[zoot_allures]

I'm 21, and no - I've never had anybody tell me that before. I've heard it said to other people, though, and I can imagine it's reasonably common.

I used to be a hardcore free-market libertarian - for a while I was a market anarchist - and although I didn't like to identify as capitalist (because I preferred to encourage the proliferation of different economic systems), I did think that capitalism was probably best. That was my position from about 13-16. During this time, I had plenty of people (parents, teachers, even friends my own age) tell me that I didn't understand the world, and that once I grew up, I'd see the necessity for government intervention.

Whenever I talk about my current political views - which are (unsurprisingly given my presence here) pretty far left - people seem to take me much more seriously, and many of them agree. Even those who disagree don't respond as though my comments are borderline delusional, and they don't give me crap about how I just need to wait until I grow up and then I'll change my mind.

Which leads me to wonder if most people are perhaps rather more socialist than they might take themselves to be. Or maybe it's just ageism. I'd like to believe it's the former, but the latter is, unfortunately, extremely pervasive.


As for why do so many radical leftists end up becoming more conservative later in life - well, some of them just change their minds of their own accord, some of them are, as you said, probably swayed by peer pressure and such... we also have to remember that I think some people view radical leftism as something like a fad or fashion statement. I had a few friends in school who called themselves "Marxists" or "communists", and maybe they had some basic idea of the theories and some knowledge of the major historical figures and events... but I really think it was just a fashion thing to them. It seemed to me that they never devoted much time to learning anything about it. And, indeed, within a few years they weren't at all interested anymore.

[cyu]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

Stockholm syndrome, or capture-bonding, is a psychological phenomenon in which hostages express empathy and have positive feelings towards their captors, sometimes to the point of defending them. victims essentially mistake a lack of abuse from their captors for an act of kindness. The FBI’s Hostage Barricade Database System shows that roughly 27% of victims show evidence of Stockholm Syndrome.

Stockholm syndrome can be seen as a form of traumatic bonding, which does not necessarily require a hostage scenario, but which describes "strong emotional ties that develop between two persons where one person intermittently harasses, beats, threatens, abuses, or intimidates the other."

Battered-wife syndrome is an example of activating the capture-bonding psychological mechanism, as are military basic training and fraternity bonding by hazing.

When I left high school in 1991 (which would make me pretty old now unless you think I was some baby genius =) I considered myself a "general liberal" in the American Democratic Party sort of way - not super involved in politics.

After I started discussing politics in internet forums, I switched to democratic socialism. That lasted for a few years until I got tired of the lack of progress and sick of the lack of ideas to bring about immediate change. That's probably what made my mind open to the idea of anarchism, and when I came across some of the different tactics in direct actions, it only served to radicalize me more.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Even if it was the case that you grow out of it, does it matter?
Do we have to change what we think now because of what we may think in the future?
I don't think we should.

[Prof. Oblivion]

My take on this is that when you're young, or maybe it's just when you first start adhering to ideas, is that you are really dogmatic about it, but as you get older and have more experiences your perspective is expanded. This leads a lot of people to drop revolutionary politics entirely, but I like to think that for me it gave me a wider perspective on it, to be less dogmatic about it, and to realize that it shouldn't be as life-consuming or mind-consuming as a lot of younger people are with it, as I was.

It's a lot more refreshing to read Marx nowadays because I don't really put it into an inherent ideological framework, and it's a lot easier to assess what people are saying, I think.

I'm 25, FWIW.

EDIT: Also I think a lot of people develop and nurture revolutionary politics in uni, and when you graduate and leave uni to go into the real world that's a really big life change that changes all of your beliefs, including your political ones, which is probably another reason a lot of people drop rev politics or politics altogether when they get into the workforce and see what "real life" is like. Some people maintain their revolutionary ideas by just staying in uni, or in the academic system. Others manage to hold onto them in the "real world".

[cyu]

Fear.

After "adults" go into the "real world" they are forced by the capitalist system to find jobs. Then they come to live in fear of losing their job, not being to find a new job, or not being able to get loans if capitalists run a background check.

Of course nobody likes to call themselves a coward, so they rationalize it by saying "you gotta work within the system" or "more radical ideas are unrealisitc" or "it's not so bad I live under someone else's thumb for the rest of my life" (well, ok, they don't say that last part ;)

[Ostrinski]

Junior year my AP english teacher said this to me on the last day of school: "The key thing for the youth to remember about intellectual discourse is to never respect it when those older than you insult you and try to pass it off as wisdom."

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Junior year my AP english teacher said this to me on the last day of school: "The key thing for the youth to remember about intellectual discourse is to never respect it when those older than you insult you and try to pass it off as wisdom."
You're English teacher sounds awesome!

Mine said something along the lines of 'The pope is always right'.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I've been wanting to ask this ever since I joined, but I never did for some reason.

If you're a young leftist, you've probably heard this before -- that we don't understand the "real world," and that when we grow up and get out into this real world, we'll realize that radical leftism doesn't work, or something like that.

And it's true, to some extent -- a lot of young leftists do later on turn away from that, and become "normal." But I contend that it isn't because they "realize" anything. But I've been trying to make sense of just what it is that does this.

So, what is it that turns a freewheeling, marriage-rejecting, window-smashing, anti-capitalist anarchist eighteen year old into a suit-wearing, children-having, newspaper-reading thirty year old? I contend that it has to do with peer pressure and socialization -- for example, people who say they'll never have kids still have family and are interested in relationships, and people who subscribe to anti-capitalist ideas may be discouraged to express them if they get some sort of "real" job, or something.

Any ideas?

Largely this is a stereotype. I'd be curious if anyone knows when this became an idea - has it always been around?

I wouldn't be surprized if it really didn't become "common sense" until the 1960s/70s because of the level and clear youthful character of rebellions and radicalization of that time. And of course because those young black power militants and counter-cultural left-wing rebels then had to deal with a major push-back from the ruling class many of them did either break or become part of the system: a new generation of Democratic party activists who then came of career age just as the whole country began shifting to the right. So yesterday's organizer became tomorrow's local Democratic party machine operative - the ex-Hippie "radical" group that runs Berkeley California (and has for about 20 or more years) is in the pocket of rich developers and just pushed a sit-lie law in the last election. So from sitting-in at People's Park to jailing homeless runaways who come to Berkeley hoping for a place where you can sleep in a park.

But in general, annecdotally, it looks like there's some truth to the idea that young people are more likely to radicalize - but I think it may be the case that young people are more likely to radicalize quicker than other people. This could be because they have less at stake, less stress of daily work if they are just out of school or working part-time. But I think it's also because young people have less baggage - are less likely to be as demoralized by losses just for inexperience. People are also more fluid in their views when they are younger.

As for becoming more conservative as they age - well I guess it depends on how you look at it. The baby boomers as a group definately went more conservative, but they also lived through a massive poltical attack from the top which demoralized everyone and turned all politics to the right. In fact, it also annecdotally seems like the New Right was also young for the most part. These are the people who came of age in the late 70s and early 80s - the whole tea-party age-group.

So my best guess is that there seems to be a tendency for age-groups to generally respond slightly differently to the larger political and social situation, but that if a age-group becomes more conservative, liberal, or radical - it has more to do with the larger context, than their age group. So people growing up and seeing the civil rights movement and US hypocracy in forign policy, radicalized. While a generation later, 20-somethings growing up in an economic crisis and the collapse of Keynsianism and a massive push from the ruling class in both attacks on people and propaganda and adapted to more conservative ideas.