Iuvenism (Youngism)

[Kohai]

Iuvenes Sunt in Potentia

A new age is upon us. Capitalism, once the major source of innovation in the world has now become the oppressor of the world by having major Corporations taking control over Presidential Campaigns such as Hillary Clinton and her Super-PACs and her Wall Street financial aid. These same Corporations are controlling the policies of the Political Parties and their Platforms. The urge for a single, One-Party state has been trying to make its entrance into the Liberal World of Politics. Fascism has entered Neo-Liberalism in America and the effects of this has been a major angst from the younger generations.
The younger generation, people from ages 16-29 are coming up and changing the the major voting turnouts and popular votes for the presidential candidates than ever before, especially Sanders, Johnson and Stein. The importance of this generation’s future is not being preserved as a special necessity for the two major candidates that are up for the 2016 elections. During the caucuses, the younger people voted for Sanders a lot more than any of the other two major candidates in this nomination season. The younger generation has always pushed for what they wanted because it was damaging their generation otherwise. For example, in the Vietnam War, the younger adults were being drafted into the military and it was killing lots of people, especially the younger men who were still in college. Massive protests on the war began after the draft had started to take place and many college students were taken away from their education and some never got to come back.
During the late 50s and throughout the 60s, the younger generation began to push for Civil Rights for the people of color in the United States. It was led by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr and Malcolm X, but the followers were very young and strong adults. And remember, that it was John F Kennedy that passed the Civil Rights laws and ended segregation, and he was the youngest president the US has ever had!
The younger people are the ones that are making the choices that matter to them, the options that are laid out before them however, are not what they are seeking. They are asking for freedom and they are thrown a key; they request food and receive a seed. The younger generation is not able to take control of their lives due to the older generation’s tyranny. We must dismember the power that the older generation has on us.
Iuvenism

The apprentice is the most important in the working class; the student is the most important in school; the young are more important than the old.
When a student is learning, it is usually not just a single student, it is typically a group of pupils that are learning within a classroom. The student is the most important in the classroom; the apprentice is the most important in the working class. But I must explain my reasonings for these declarations that I have been making:
The student is the one that continues on. The teacher, teaches for at least 20 years and each year, they taught 50 students. A single teacher can teach at least 1,000 students in their career. Those 1,000 students can go on to be great thinkers, leaders and become teachers themselves as well. The student carries the knowledge further than the teacher does.
So what is Iuvenism? How does it relate to revolution and liberation of the proletariat? The answer can be executed simply:
Iuvenism is the belief that the younger are more suitable to be in power, not as dictators, but to dictate themselves and their future. However, in a literal sense in some cases it is not needed, such as the student being in control over the teacher when that would result in a destruction of knowledge and the philosophy of Iuvenism has a strong implication on the effectiveness of learning and the importance of knowledge.
As seen in many revolutions before, the young were the ones that were Politically Awake and were the ones that were fighting for their freedom. The younger generations were the ones that were being hurt the most, because when it would be their time to become independent in their society, they would be hurt by the actions of the previous generations.

[Konikow]

Hitler, Mussolini and Margaret Thatcher were young once.

Student youth were the shock troops of Nazism.

You have a bright future ahead of you.

P.S. You have some pretty crappy ideas but the boldface font really adds weight to them. Plus the Latin stuff is so distinguished. Someone should blow a solemn trumpet whenever you enter a room.

[(A)]

You could solve your problem by addressing the Tyranny of the Majority. There is no need to go and "Logan's run" the old.

The problem is not old people voting is that their vote has the power to ruin your life. The voter should have no more power over you then you have over your neighbor.

To be bound to the rule of 50%+1 is no better then being bound to the rule of 1. A dictatorship of the Masses is no less a dictatorship then the Dictatorship of a Despot.

[LeftistsAreRadical]

To be quite frank, this is one of the most reactionary ideas I have seen on this site, maybe one of the most reactionary ideas I've seen anywhere. I know plenty of 16-29 year olds that are exceedingly far right. About 20% of 18-34 year olds see Trump positively, does the fact that they are younger make them right? Marx, at 64, died holding the same radical leftist views that he held when he wrote the Communist Manifesto at age 30. Eugene Debs first ran for president at age 45, and died at 70 with the same amount of conviction and fire that he had through his younger years. You are dealing with absolutes in one of the most disastrous and reactionary ideas I have yet seen. Hillary Clinton was an intern for Barry Goldwater, who voted against the Civil Rights Act, when she was just 17 years old. Your use of Hillary Clinton as an argument for your idea is actually, if anything, an argument against it. You also reference John F. Kennedy as an argument for your idea. JFK was one of the most devoted anti-socialists in the White House, and under his direction the Bay of Pigs Invasion on Cuba was launched. This is not revolutionary, it is reactionary.

[Kohai]

didnt necessarily mean this as a fascist ideal, didnt realise it was either. appreciate the feedback

[Heretek]

You could solve your problem by addressing the Tyranny of the Majority. There is no need to go and "Logan's run" the old.

The problem is not old people voting is that their vote has the power to ruin your life. The voter should have no more power over you then you have over your neighbor.

To be bound to the rule of 50%+1 is no better then being bound to the rule of 1. A dictatorship of the Masses is no less a dictatorship then the Dictatorship of a Despot.

What are you talking about. Votes hold no power in bourgeoisie democracy, money and the interests of the ruling class do. The problem is not "votes," the problem is capitalism.

And what? What exactly do you think a Dictatorship of the Proletariat is? How is that anything other than the masses? Are you proposing rule by 'the Party,' a nicer name for oligarchy?

[Konikow]

What are you talking about.

Libertarian Socalism! It's socalism based on the scientific truths about human nature that Karl Marks wrote about in his classic socological work, Robinson Crusoe.

[(A)]

What are you talking about. Votes hold no power in bourgeoisie democracy, money and the interests of the ruling class do. The problem is not "votes," the problem is capitalism.

And what? What exactly do you think a Dictatorship of the Proletariat is? How is that anything other than the masses? Are you proposing rule by 'the Party,' a nicer name for oligarchy?

I would disagree. It is possible for our votes to lack power due to a lack of choice or a bottle necking of political processes I.E. Clinton/Trump2016 but the state has real power. If the state had no power the capitalist class would not fund it so thoroughly.

Look at Brexit; The Uk voted and 52% voted to leave and now the other 48.9% are being forced into a decision that they do not want. This is the Tyranny of the Majority. Probably the best example. What about representatives. The majority votes in a representative who now passes authoritarian laws such as Banning Pit-bulls, handing out fines for people for driving within a meter of cyclists and other authoritarian laws.

I agree that money plays a large part of the action of representatives but that does not rule out that our democracy can be tyrannical.

[Ale Brider]

The cult of youth, so innocently and unknowingly leading to fascism while using the disguise of progression... This is almost literally what Marinetti advocated for in his concept of democrazia futurista, and (surprise!) he later became a full-blown fascist. I don't like old people in general (it's a personal thing), but this kind of gerontophobia is just too much.

[Heretek]

I would disagree. It is possible for our votes to lack power due to a lack of choice or a bottle necking of political processes I.E. Clinton/Trump2016 but the state has real power. If the state had no power the capitalist class would not fund it so thoroughly.

Look at Brexit; The Uk voted and 52% voted to leave and now the other 48.9% are being forced into a decision that they do not want. This is the Tyranny of the Majority. Probably the best example. What about representatives. The majority votes in a representative who now passes authoritarian laws such as Banning Pit-bulls, handing out fines for people for driving within a meter of cyclists and other authoritarian laws.

I agree that money plays a large part of the action of representatives but that does not rule out that our democracy can be tyrannical.

Its only 'our' democracy if you are a part of the ruling class. It's tyrannical by it's very nature against those it does not represent (ie, the proletariat). And this is why leftists are generally against paralimentarianism, and advocate the literal *overthrow* of the current order. Politics, as they are, represent contradictory interests of the bourgeoise, and elections simply determine which capitalists will profit for the next term the most.

Why is cyclist safety "authoritarian?" This point is completely irrelevant to the rest of what's being talked about. To call this 'authoritarian' is a disservice to those who struggle against real authoritarianism, like the struggle against austerity.

I'm going to just pull a quote from multiple Marxist sites around about brexit: What is in the interests of capital is not in the interests of the working class. Choosing between British capital and Euro capital is a false question to us, it does not matter who is doing the oppressing. What matters to us is the fact we *are being* oppressed.

And so what if 48% aren't getting what they want, whatever that means? Are the 52% that voted as they did to submit to the authority of the literal minority? Democracy, which is what socialists advocate, has a literal definition of "rule by the people." If the people do not want something to go a certain way, why would that be contradicted by the interests of the minority? Of course its more nuanced in communism, but this is general. *Minority rights* are a construction of capital. Without them, the ruling class would be removed (first the aristocrats such as the 'founding fathers,' and now capitalists) in favor of popular rule. The only reason racial and gender issues create 'minorites' is to divided the working class. "No you aren't all the same, see they're different." And this leads to systematic oppression. Racism is used to keep the working class divided, and has lead to actual "racial differences" that would not naturally exist, and nor would they exist in communism. We support 'minorities,' but that is not the point of the struggle.

Choice is irrelevant and will continue to be "bad or worse." For the simple reason capital will not allow a contrary element to take power willingly. Even if the 'lord of socialism' Bernie Sanders was elected, he would not have the power to destroy the system the state empowers, nor the ability to destroy the state. The state is not designed for that, it designed to empower itself and capital. "Better capitalism" is still capitalism. The only solution is revolution, and a complete overthrow of all states and capitalism.

And yes, we will do this despite the cries of the bourgeoise telling us to stop. We do not care about them, just as they will only care about the proletariat when they are a threat.

[(A)]

Is it possible that people actually support capitalism from the bottom to the top and the reason our system sucks is because the people generally think the Capitalism works? In the western world we have benefited so so much from capitalism off of the backs of everyone else that the proletariat considers themselves to be the bourgeois. In America your not poor; your a Millionaire who is down on their luck.

Sometimes Communists really sound like they want to be wearing a tinfoil hat. Democracy is a real thing. Yes it is Influenced by money but change can occur; its just that its a tiny minority wants the change we are offering. Back in the day entire army's and people fought against Capitalism; Now you would be lucky to find a few thousand here in the west who would gather and fight.

[Ale Brider]

Is it possible that people actually support capitalism from the bottom to the top and the reason our system sucks is because the people generally think the Capitalism works? In the western world we have benefited so so much from capitalism off of the backs of everyone else that the proletariat considers themselves to be the bourgeois. In America your not poor; your a Millionaire who is down on their luck.

Sometimes Communists really sound like they want to be wearing a tinfoil hat. Democracy is a real thing. Yes it is Influenced by money but change can occur; its just that its a tiny minority wants the change we are offering. Back in the day entire army's and people fought against Capitalism; Now you would be lucky to find a few thousand here in the west who would gather and fight.

As long as capitalism will be convenient or people don't see that other alternatives could work and grant them the same standard of living that capitalism does, change will not come. Of course many people are disillusioned with capitalism, but most of them are disillusioned with socialism as well - without looking into it deeper. Can't say I blame them, though. Yes, there are a few who read Marx, a few who not just sense, but can point out the exploitative nature of capitalism, but this is not enough.

As for contemporary democracies, they are of course certainly more convenient and for most of the time, less authoritarian and less violent than other forms of government. This is one thing we, as socialists should admit. However, we should strive for more, we should express our opinion that this is not enough, that we want a higher level of democracy, where participation means more than voting on some issues. I think we should point out, that as long as capitalism exists, democracy will have it's limits, and for a more complete democratic society we will eventually need to establish a different kind of economic system.

[Konikow]

As for contemporary democracies, they are of course certainly more convenient and for most of the time, less authoritarian and less violent than other forms of government.

In point of fact, the most violent regimes on the planet in the history of the human race are the so-called "democracies."

Convenient for who?

[Ale Brider]

In point of fact, the most violent regimes on the planet in the history of the human race are the so-called "democracies."

Convenient for who?

You can't seriously claim that Pinochet's regime (for example) was the same in terms of authoritarianism and violence as the Republic of Finland. Trying to equate liberal democracies to athoritarian and totalitarian regimes is futile. They are, of course, not perfect democracies, and class rule is still persisent, and thus most countries that claim to be democratic have some oligarchic or even authoritarian tendencies. It's convenient for most of the people however, in the sense that in a liberal democracy they don't have to fear of death squads, political police, and to some extent, they can shape politics as well, and usually dissent is not considered a deadly crime. Of course democracies have their problems, but this is why we should strive for something better. The many conflicts and growing authoritarian tendencies within some countries (mainly in Europe) are disturbing. Or the recent events in the USA, where you simply can't feel safe if you're black... Yes, contemporary democracies are facing serious problems. But to demonize them in an exaggerated way is not just vile, but also serves no real purpose; crypto-fascists and outright fascists do that all day. I refuse to view democracies as regimes that are somehow "just as bad" as authoritarian dictatorships. Of course this is not we want, but while advocating for a different system, I think we can acknowledge and appreciate the undeniable achievements of liberal democracies.

[Konikow]

3 million Vietnamese, 3 million Koreans, nearly every country in Latin America and Africa, millions of Iraqis, need I go on?

And "peaceful" Finland is a base for nuclear-armed NATO.

I said the [capitalist] democracies are the most violent regimes on the planet. It is wealth that comes from their position as imperialist masters of the world that allows them the luxury of a semblance of "democracy" at home.

To take only the latter aspect as a measuring stick for a classless, vague contrasting of "democracy" to "authoritarianism" is to prettify the actual structure of the "democratic" rule of imperialist capital.

Most people in the world don't have that "convenient" perspective.

[Ale Brider]

3 million Vietnamese, 3 million Koreans, nearly every country in Latin America and Africa, millions of Iraqis, need I go on?

And "peaceful" Finland is a base for nuclear-armed NATO.

I said the [capitalist] democracies are the most violent regimes on the planet. It is wealth that comes from their position as imperialist masters of the world that allows them the luxury of a semblance of "democracy" at home.

To take only the latter aspect as a measuring stick for a classless, vague contrasting of "democracy" to "authoritarianism" is to prettify the actual structure of the "democratic" rule of imperialist capital.

Most people in the world don't have that "convenient" perspective.

I think it was clear that my original comment was about the domestic policies of liberal democracies and why they are more livable than authoritarian regimes (despite usually having the same bourgeois character). And I think that answers the question why it is hard to build up class consciousness and why it is hard to spread a left-wing alternative to liberal democracy and capitalism. Because on domestic levels, liberal democracies are livable, not outright oppressive, thus more convenient than the regimes of the past. Thus, just the sheer material and political conditions in these countries (as long as some great recession and/or political crisis don't comes) will be not enough to fuel a great change. Imperialism is a different issue, it existed long before contemporary democracies did, and, so I thought, it was not the issue we are dealing with here. Of course imperialistic foreign policies which are enacted by self-described liberal democracies are terrible and not "convenient" for those who are affected by it. No one with a bit of sanity would think that.

[Konikow]

But "the domestic policies of liberal democracies" and "authoritarian regimes" are two interdependent facets of the same thing: imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism.

The domestic policy of "liberal democracy" is the home front of imperialist war.

"it is hard to spread a left-wing alternative to liberal democracy and capitalism." Because the "left wing alternative" is class collaboration, the destruction of class consciousness.

It is not hard to build up class consciousness. But Revolutionary Leftists are opposed to class consciousness.

[Exterminatus]

"it is hard to spread a left-wing alternative to liberal democracy and capitalism." Because the "left wing alternative" is class collaboration, the destruction of class consciousness.

It is not hard to build up class consciousness. But Revolutionary Leftists are opposed to class consciousness.

Various Trotskyist sects have been doing what you are espousing for at least roughly 50 years. And where are the results, Konikow? How do you explain the fact that congruently with this the Left has been systematically destroyed by her enemies? How do you explain the fact that you failed to exploit the crisis of 2008 and all those preceding it? How come no one even knows about you after all this time, and those who do consider you cancer? What else needs to happen that will make you come to peace with the fact that you are doing something very fucking wrong. How do you explain the fact that your analysis of Capitalism has not moved one inch since Lenin's? And how can you be anything but reactionary with such analysis? Let's be serious Konikow, people like you are nothing but a tumor on the left, desperately trying to delay the rebirth of a new communist movement. In this respect, you are no different than fascists, except you know, they are actual pretenders to power while you are an irrelevant cult waiting to be swept away by the red tide of Communism.