Marxism, Communism, and the Generational Divide: Why Young People Prefer a Socialist Future

Why is Marxism and communism, in general, still popular among younger generations? The answer lies in the stark contrast between the ideals of these ideologies and the experiences of their elders. For many young people, their parents and grandparents are a 'terrible example' of how to govern. Let's delve into the reasons behind this generational divide and explore the societal shifts that have led the youth to favor a more socialist approach.

The Terrible Example of Our Elders

Younger generations often perpetuate the idea that their elders are a 'terrible example' of governance and political thought. This is not merely a blanket generalization but a result of the socio-political experiences that their parents and grandparents have had. Many in the Boomer generation, for instance, were active in various social and political movements during their youth, but their actions and policies have often deviated significantly from the ideals they espoused.

Boomer Generation's True Credentials

Contrary to what the Boomer generation claims, the era when they came of age and dominated the voting bloc was not one of unadulterated freedom. Far from it. A look at the policies and actions of several notable figures within this generation reveals a different narrative:

The 1960s and the Great Society program aimed at alleviating poverty and inequality. The Guns Control Act of 1968, which sought to regulate the sale of firearms. The 1986 amnesty for illegal immigrants, a precursor to current immigration policies. The Brady Bill in 1993 and numerous state-level bans on assault weapons in the 1990s. The Patriot Act came into effect in 2001, following the September 11 attacks. Medicare Part D, introduced in 2003, aimed at providing prescription drug benefits to seniors. The controversial No Child Left Behind Act of 2002, which expanded the role of federal education policy. The formation of the TSA and DHS in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, expanding government surveillance.

These measures, often cited by the Boomer generation as proof of their commitment to freedom, actually represent a significant expansion of government intervention in personal liberties and a burgeoning of bureaucracy. How is this effectively freedom-loving?

Freedom, Not Just Citizenship, Is at Stake

The question remains: how can allowing the government to dictate what firearms you can own or limit the number of rounds a magazine can hold be seen as upholding freedom? These policies, while well-intentioned, often infringe upon the fundamental rights of citizens, undermining the very principles of freedom.

Furthermore, the September 11 attacks, which prompted the implementation of the Patriot Act and enhanced surveillance, have drawn comparisons to the viewpoint that the state can justify infringing on personal freedoms in the name of security. However, this trains a blind eye to the ethical considerations of such measures, particularly when they disproportionately affect vulnerable populations.

The Morning After: Abortion and Double Standards

Moreover, it is a stark reality that when statistics reveal that approximately 3,000 or more unborn babies are illegally aborted every day, the outcry is notably muted compared to the frenzied protests against gun control. Anti-abortion activists have faced significant pushback from the current administration, further cementing the discrepancy between ideological ideals and practical governance.

Proverbs 16:31 states, 'The hoary head is a crown of glory, if it be found in the way of righteousness.' Young people today are simply learning what their parents taught them. However, the question remains: if the Boomer generation is hardly the freedom fighters they claim to be, then why are they held up as models?

Learning from History and Deconstructing Ideologies

History, as they say, teaches us nothing. But studying it does offer us an opportunity to ask the right questions: How? Why? Socialists, in particular, do study history and question the status quo, rather than contenting themselves with simple slogans. Deciding which facts are pertinent involves both an art and a science, and the line between acceptable and unacceptable government action is not always clear.

It is argued that socialism, or at least a form of it, works when introduced into a hybrid system where the principles of capitalism coexist with collective welfare. The problem, as with any ideology, lies in understanding exactly what socialism means and what it aims to achieve. Only then can we hope to evaluate its effectiveness and draw meaningful conclusions from historical examples.

Those who brandish the Boomer generation's political achievements as evidence of their commitment to personal freedom should be made to reconsider their positions. The youth's preference for a more socialist future may indeed be a commentary on the limitations of the policies implemented by the Boomer generation.