Young people and our movement

[Subversive Pessimist]

Why are younger people overrepresented in our movement?

Is it because young people are more naive? Idealists?'


Is the communist belief something most people walk away from when they grow older?

[NovelGentry]

I'd say a huge part of it is idealism, the idea that there has to be something better out there. I'd hate to grow up and politically become like my mother who sadly proclaims "That's just the way things are."

[Djehuti]

I do not think its about younger people being more naive (ofcource some are though), but rather about older people being more dejected. Young people (15-35) have always dominated the more radical and revolutionary movements. So it was at the french revolution, and so it was at Marx' and Engels' time. However, the older population often joins together with the younger as the struggle develops.

[redstar2000]

There are lots of reasons.

One of the most important is that young people don't "know" that "it can't be done"...consequently, they sometimes go out and do it.

Another reason (which our critics delight in pointing out) is that young people are not "married with children" -- the terrible burden of having people depend on you is not present. When conservatives say that "family is the foundation of society", this is what they're referring to...and why they find the disintegration of the family cause for such alarm.

People in their 30s or older often have "something to risk" -- or at least think they do. It might be a job or a "career", or a small amount of property...or even what they imagine to be their "status". The young often really do "have nothing to lose but their chains".

"Burn out" was a big factor in the 20th century...Leninist parties habitually "work people to exhaustion" and then denounce them for "not being good enough".

Sheer physical energy is a factor in itself; I look back in disbelief at all the stuff I did in the 60s and 70s...when the hell did I sleep?

Finally, and I know I've said this so many times that some people will probably want to scream, still I will say it again: if you really want to get involved in revolutionary politics, you have to think in terms of a lifetime commitment.

That doesn't mean that you won't be doing different things at 40 than you did when you were 20, or different things at 60 than you did when you were 40. It means that whatever your chosen activity you will still be struggling for the revolution.

You just never give up!

You just never surrender to the ruling class.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)

A site about communist ideas

[BOZG]

I think redstar summed it up pretty much do I disagree on him attributing 'burn out' to just Leninism. 'Burn out' was a common occurance within the entire left-wing and trade union movement, not just Leninist organisations.

[NovelGentry]

I also just want to note as an addition to what I said about idealism, I think much of the misguided reasons for pushing to the left outline the reactionary nature of many people who are openly accepted in the leftist community, but their reasons for being there never shine through. Many people will join a revolutionary movement for reactionary reasons, the hope is that given enough time they will truly understand and promote the right reasons for revolution. This, however, is not always the case and it would appear to me that one can find reactionary people within any group or party claiming to be revolutionary, both young and old, but certainly more amongst youth.

[Zingu]

The older people get, generally, in most cases they more conservative they get, once they get kids, a settled down life, loved ones.....there is more to risk, well, thats my theory, I'm only 16 at the moment *mumbles*.

[Don't Change Your Name]

It's obvious: when you get older you realize that you won't be able to spend all your life fighting the class struggle, so you start considering a "normal life": getting a job, getting a boy/girlfriend, getting married, having children, and trying to get as much money as you can.

[NovelGentry]

It's obvious: when you get older you realize that you won't be able to spend all your life fighting the class struggle, so you start considering a "normal life": getting a job, getting a boy/girlfriend, getting married, having children, and trying to get as much money as you can.

No offense to the creator of this argument, or others who have argued similar, but I think this is complete bollocks. While this may very well be the case for people who already are older and who have already chosen that route but are only now being introduced to communism and the various movements surrounding it, I don't think it pertains to younger crowds.

I'm very much interested in a "normal" life, but I don't see that as a cause for giving up revolutionary activity at all. If anything I can only see it as more of a reason to push for revolutionary thinking -- we need to destroy the abomination which the family has become due to the socio-economic factors. There is nothing I would like more than to see whatever children I have grow up realizing this from a very young age, and even better, growing up in a time where such thought is far mor prominent than it is today, and I don't see how dropping out of that line of thought would be helping that situation.

Not to mention I think it'd be very difficult for me to be with a woman who doesn't understand my ideology and to some extents follow it. I think it should be our responsibility (that is youthful communists responsibility) to ensure that this doesn't happen with us personally and with our generation as a whole. The money factor does play a role in terms of your family matters, as I would plan to save for my children's future as well as my own when I'm no longer able to work, however, I don't see this as conflicting with my ideas. While living in a capitalist society this is always something I'm going have to worry about, the point is to look beyond that and realize it's not just "life" and all there is to life.

As we get older we should only come to the realization more and more why our current society and political situations are not viable.

[commiecrusader]

The more money, power and influence people get, the more corruptible they become, and the more appealing capitalism becomes. I think a lot of old people get lured away by the money they are making.

[HueyPNewton26]

As a young member of our movement, I would suggest that it is a result of a new generations openmindedness. Being from the United States, as I am, I should be very brainwashed into the Capitalistic Society's view of right and wrong and what our goals should be. We are told from a young age that communism is wrong. However previous generations in capitalistic societys were stressed this more so then we are. And being that it is a common characteristic of many young people to question many things[and look for answers] to things that we previously just accepted. When we search hard enough for truth we find it. I and many other of my fellow youthful comrades found our anti-capitalist views in our search for truth.

[Anti-Prophet]

I look back in disbelief at all the stuff I did in the 60s and 70s...when the hell did I sleep?

What exactly did you do during the 60s and 70s? Sounds like an interesting story. Were you a hippie in a commune? Were you in the Weather Underground? Were you a Black Panther (are you black?). What leninist organization were you in?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Anti-Prophet
What exactly did you do during the 60s and 70s? Sounds like an interesting story. Were you a hippie in a commune? Were you in the Weather Underground? Were you a Black Panther?

I don't think this is the right place for an auto-biography of redstar2000...which wouldn't even be that interesting to anyone but the author. :lol:

I only raised it to point out that when one is young, a tremendous amount of political activity is physically possible in a way that becomes more and more difficult as one gets older.

Once I took part in a plenary assembly that lasted 28 consecutive hours...the issue was contentious and the debate was very heated.

I can't do that any more. :(

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Hiero]

Can we stop saying "our" movement as you are young and your true class is not known, we dont know if you are Proleteriat so it sounds degrading in a way for someone to say our movement with no confirmationm of you being apart of the proleteriat movement.

Whether you like it or not you are going to need a job, while your young you have the illusion that being political means you can do this as a job WRONG.

When you leave school you need a job now some political left wingers may go into jobs that are going to lead to either to middle class positions or proleteriat positions or the Capitalist class.

For the proleteriat class they will continue the movement because they are lead into direct class warfare on the proleteriat side. So ofcourse anyone who falls into this class is going to probaly join a union and with there past political activities will continue this and build there knowledge.

They people who may go to uni and fall inot middle class jobs sooner or later, may not have as much need to really be class conscious. Being in there situation they may have a good pay and rarely need to fight for wagers or other rights. Althougth due to there past tehy may still help out at political activities and such, but not being from the proleteriat class they are not going to have the same class interest.

With thoose who enter the highest class they have no need for left wing politics they need the liberal economy to help build there buisness and expand, so they will become apolitical or change their ideaology.]

Anyway that is my idea, that it all depends on what class you fall into and the class interest that are brought with it.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Er, comrade, yr analysis has a big stinkin' hole in the middle of it - the "Middle Class" well-paid folk who still work for a wage or salary are still proletarians. Just because the old struggles of the labour movement (Seemingly dead, *Sigh*) have raised them to a point where they might live comfortably does not change the objective facts of their relationship to the means of production.

[RagsToRevolution]

Originally posted by Virgin Molotov [email protected] 14 2004, 02:56 PM
Er, comrade, yr analysis has a big stinkin' hole in the middle of it - the "Middle Class" well-paid folk who still work for a wage or salary are still proletarians. Just because the old struggles of the labour movement (Seemingly dead, *Sigh*) have raised them to a point where they might live comfortably does not change the objective facts of their relationship to the means of production.
The middle class, which I am part of, can be proletarian, however, they are often petty bourgeousie (sp?). But yes, the living standards of the proletariat have increased somewhat after the labour movement, however, this is more of a fragile illusion, as the basis of capitalistic economies lead to the oppression of some working class. It isn't the urban, Western workers anymore, its the Eastern workers being paid with slave wages. Because living conditions have increased for the western worker, the capitalist bastards now look to the East, or in some cases, Latin America for their labour, now that the Western Labour movement has gotten comfortable.

EDIT: As for Hiero, I plan on going to college, I plan on gettign a good education, I plan on getting money, just because it doesnt directly benefit me doesn't mean I understand that others live in poverty and discomfort. One of the best things that I think Lenin said was (note that I am not a Leninist, just quoting):


Sometimes you have to pull from the other side to straighten things out.

[Note: I do not have the specific quote with me, so that may not be a perfect quotation.]

Class warfare is necessary, however, to destoy the class system, it would be profitable to the revolution for there to be fighting from both sides, not that non-reactionary petty bourgeoisie and peasants can be part of a socialist revolution. I certainly would never become a capitalist, but I am saying, that the proletarian is not the only that is oppressed by the capitalist, which extracts it profit from all classes, not just the proletarian exclusively, though it is the proletarian who suffers the most and is key to revolution.

[NovelGentry]

On the topic of "Middle Class" :

Personally I think it should be part of our job to dispell such stupid pseudo-classes which are based on wealth and the illusion of wealth. Traditional classes labelled with these names are often more indicative of your standard of living... while this should not be completely ignored it shows little of the true nature of a person. For example, at a very young age my family was on welfare getting food stamps so that we could eat. My mom decided that she would refinance our home (which was still not done being paid off from when they initially bought it) in order to get more money. Since that age I have never known my mother to work less than two jobs (both full time). It is certain that our conditions have improved, we have food on the table whenever we need, we all have necessary means of transportation, and she helped me and my brother out a bit with school so that we would not be stuck in a complete rut. I have very few (if any) things that I can call my own. Surely if I were to sell everything I owned I would not cover even a significant percentage of my individual debt. I have very few material posessions with the exception of my computer equipment and books Judging by my living conditions I would certainly say I am upper class, yet because of my debt already I will never escape being working class and more than likely my children will inheret a portion of it and my mothers.

In short, stick to Marxist classes, they make a lot more sense when we're talking about Marxist issues.

[Andrei Kuznetsov]

I think the main reason that revolutionary movements seem so "youthful" is that youth in general a very audacious, more apt to challenging tradition and the status quo, and are very concerned about their future and what it entails. Old people tend to get settled into "normal life" as many have said, and this is a big problem that we must face. It is something that we must challenge, and we have to figure out how to get people to see the need for revolutionary work while showing them that they don't need to sacrifice everything they have just to do it. Youth are a major, dynamic force in society that can be unleashed to challenge this notion of "settling down" in a powerful way, as well as challenge convention and the "force of habit" in general.

We, as youth, should be constantly full of fire, rebelling and challenging the "old fogeys" (both under capitalism and under socialism). We must inspire the rest of society to do the same.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 01:41 PM
No offense to the creator of this argument, or others who have argued similar, but I think this is complete bollocks. While this may very well be the case for people who already are older and who have already chosen that route but are only now being introduced to communism and the various movements surrounding it, I don't think it pertains to younger crowds.

I'm very much interested in a "normal" life, but I don't see that as a cause for giving up revolutionary activity at all.
I'm not saying that. I just think that revolution becomes less relevant when you have to spend more time in other things that are more important to your life than a revolution. What I'm trying to say is that young revolutionaries spend more time and energy in their ideals than when they get older. And in many cases this forces people not to think of the revolution as one of their priorities, so they won't risk that much for it.

[RevolverNo9]

Socially the new generation has to assert itself and ultiamtely take control of society. This is what makes the younger mind, I believe, so challenging to the status-quo: the need to assert itself. The ranks of the establishment are filled by the older generations and therefore the state is what come under fire from the burst of idealism or whatever sentiemnts maybe coming out of mind developing itself and ready to make some noise.

Secondly the young are a revolutionary class of itself. I believe Isidore Isou, founder of the Lettrist Movement, was the first to clarify this in the 50s. They are not represented, they have little commitments, they are, crucially, disenfranchised. It is this mix of helplessness and alienation, the littleness of youth, with the hope and promises of life really beginning...

As one gets older they see defeat and loss. Is this possible? Do people care? They become more pragmatic as they become less immortal. And yes commitments grow, perhaps even the comfort of high living standards. The older gernations often want satbility in the days of less energy, not uncertainty! In the end, it is no wonder so many loose the will.

On the class issue, a proletarian is someone who is not in control of their lives. To be honest, he is more defined in the postmodernist world as consumer rather than worker. And lets be frank, it would be spurious to only repsect revolutionaries and socialists who were from the industrial working classes. In fact it is difficult enough to name ONE leftist revoltuinoary in history. Marx, a lawyer's son and very middle class, likewise Engels, a factory owner. Lenin, though he claimed to be a worker, actually fully trained to be a lawyer. Che was a fine doctor, his father a middle class plantation owner, Bakunin an aristorat... I needn't go on. My father also claims that when with the SWP in London the 70s, not one of his associates was from the industrial working classes, as Paul Foot, who recently died, demonstrates having gone to a top English public school, like old Etonian Orwell.

[Rasta Sapian]

regardless of our ages or the classes in society that we are living in we all must acknowlege that idealism has opened up the door to truth and enlightenment.

if we can all visualize the giant cogs that keep turning in their engineered directions keeping the system in motion; ie. societies stuggle of classes, the economy, trade, everything that we take for granted in our capitalist lives.

these cogs can be torn down, society can change, the economy can trade can be re-organized or destroyed, revolution is possible!

anarchists and communists alike must seize power only through force, working together we can defeat the impirialist pigs, with the strength of youth and the wisdom of the aged.

[encephalon]

I am a little surprised that nobody has really said anything about much of today's youth not being raised from birth fearing the evil communists on the other side of the world just waiting to blow up everything the little kid wants and loves. Since the soviet collapse, there hasn't been much of a "communist threat" by which to train children to hate (even though it wasn't communism they actually hated, but I think we all know that).

I think, honestly, that the collapse of the soviets actually furthered the cause of communism, allowing people to once again approach it without being trained to hate it. It gives communists much needed time, at the very least, to reflect on both failures and successes, and garnish popular support that wasn't viable before with the "soviet nuclear threat."

I could be wrong, but I think communism is actually once again on the rise in post-industrial societies, though I could simply be looking through rosy lenses.. anyone else noticed this trend?

[RevolverNo9]

Actually all socialist politics took a big hit when the Soviet Union collapsed. It was seen by the general public that socialism had failed. Parties everywhere, I don't mean just Leninist, Trotskyists and reformists alike, were seriously damaged.