Will Capitalism Die With Baby Boomers?

[therealbowser]

I'll just say this much, capitalism is flawed, but socialism is impossible. Human nature prevents such a system from being possible. Until we have a society where people are content to work hard for eachother without the prospect of personal gain, it will never really be possible.

Capitalism is stronger than ever, for better or for worse, so I have no idea where the OP is getting this insane conclusion from.

[Slicer299]

It's laughable at all the pro communist threads this guy starts. Go to any socialist or communist country in the world, either current or in history, and see how well publicly complaining about the government works out for you. Russia (or the former Soviet Union), China, Cuba, Venezuela, Nazi Germany, take your pick. They all strictly control the sharing of information and either kill you or throw you in prison for insulting or complaining about the government. You can't even access forums like this one in most of those countries, the ones still in existence that is, because the government doesn't have control over what's posted here. You can't access MMO-C from behind the Great Firewall of China. Not without using a VPN, which are also illegal in China.

[kasuke06]

I'll just say this much, capitalism is flawed, but socialism is impossible. Human nature prevents such a system from being possible. Until we have a society where people are content to work hard for eachother without the prospect of personal gain, it will never really be possible.

Capitalism is stronger than ever, for better or for worse, so I have no idea where the OP is getting this insane conclusion from.

My working theory is the OP is either a slightly sophisticated bot or a troll.

[Forogil]

It doesn't say "sort of" It says "disciplines that use science, like engineering, can be considered applied sciences" Obviously engineering uses engineering, right?

That it "can be considered applied science" implies that it is a point that people don't agree on - thus it is a hedging term like "sort of".

People don't write "penguins can be considered birds" - they write "penguins are birds".

The point is that you are grasping for these straws because engineering is normally not part of liberal arts - and thus you don't find anyone directly saying otherwise (the professional, vocational and technical part of engineering is on the other hand quite central for actual engineering). Obviously there are exceptions - but in those cases it is often "Liberal Arts and Engineering" - not "Liberal Arts with Focus on Engineering"; indicating that Engineering isn't part of Liberal Arts in itself.

- - - Updated - - -

I'll just say this much, capitalism is flawed, but socialism is impossible. Human nature prevents such a system from being possible. Until we have a society where people are content to work hard for eachother without the prospect of personal gain, it will never really be possible.

Stalin agrees.

As I recall that is one of the reasons he promoted Lysenko as a scientist. Lysenko rejected Darwinism and genes and instead had the idea that acquired characteristics could be inherited - making it easier to grow more resistant wheat - or better humans. (In reality it led to famine.)

[bladeXcrasher]

Both a BS and BA degree can be liberal arts degree.

I'm astounded by the number of posters so ignorant on this topic. I assume you just all never went to a university.

You guys are getting so hung up on the "art" part of liberal arts and taking the word too literally. It has a very broad, and inconsistent, definition. Which is my entire point. A liberal arts degree isn't inherently useless and it's fucking retarded to say otherwise.

I didn't ask you if a BS can be a liberal arts degree, I asked you how many universities have a BA of "insert engineering discipline here", but please, continue with the ad hominem attacks now that you have backed yourself into a corner.

[Keeponrage]

Stalin agrees.

As I recall that is one of the reasons he promoted Lysenko as a scientist. Lysenko rejected Darwinism and genes and instead had the idea that acquired characteristics could be inherited - making it easier to grow more resistant wheat - or better humans. (In reality it led to famine.)

1. Stalin supported Lysenko cause he promised a better output of wheat ASAP, and some of his "findings" were kinda supported even by his opponents (like renowned Vavilov). Moreover, there is a secondary sources about what views Stalin really had on this "versus" between Lysenko supporters and critics. For example, Vernadsky wrote in his diary:

Лысенко возбудил против себя чистых генетиков (статья в «Правде» с Презентом). Отрицает «гены». Комиссия для исследования на месте: Рихтер, Лисицын, Прянишников, Муралов и ещё кто-то. Думают, что он толкует свои опыты неверно. Говорят, по поводу подготовленных статей против Лысенко дошло до Сталина. Сталин сказал: пусть будет дискуссия — если теория правильна — она только окрепнет.

translation:

Lysenko has agitated pure genetics against him. Denies "genes". Research commission has arrived: Richter, Lysytsin, Pryanishnikov, Muralov and someone else. They think that he interprets his experimental results incorrectly. They say, that articles against Lysenko reached Stalin. Stalin said: discussion must be held - if theory is correct - it would only get stronger. (Source is Archives of Russian Academy of sciences: Архив РАН. Ф.518. Оп.2. Д.7. Л.49 об.–50.)


2. Lysenko never rejected Darwinism, he never rejected inheritance. His so-called "theory" was a theory on how inheritance is done exactly and argued a theory accepted in the west and supported by his critics.
3. Famine happened before Stalin supported Lysenko. Lysenko's promotion by Stalin was done in 1936, and famine happened in 1932-1933. At the time of this famine Lysenko was only experimenting on small portions of land, so insignificant by their relative size that in couldn't possibly affect whole-USSR food supply.

[Deleted]

It is known that boomers are staunch supporters of capitalism, but their generation is on the last steps of being pushed out. Millennials are more and more in support of socialistic systems, and stand poised to take the reigns of power as the boomer generation dies out.

Will capitalism (in its current form) finally tumble when the boomer generation loses its power?

Nobody actually supports a Socialistic system, they merely use the lie of Socialism to further their own power grabs.

[d00mGuArD]

I didn't ask you if a BS can be a liberal arts degree, I asked you how many universities have a BA of "insert engineering discipline here", but please, continue with the ad hominem attacks now that you have backed yourself into a corner.

a friend of mine is doing bachelor of liberal arts with major in Computer Science at Harvard distance learning HES
they also offer Master of Liberal Arts, Software Engineering

[RicardoZ]

The thing is that the "socialism" Millennials point to isn't really socialism...it's Capitalism with higher taxes, a larger government, and more public services. They throw the term "socialism" around because they know it triggers their parents and sounds edgy and rebellious.

[Deleted]

The thing is that the "socialism" Millennials point to isn't really socialism...it's Capitalism with higher taxes, a larger government, and more public services. They throw the term "socialism" around because they know it triggers their parents and sounds edgy and rebellious.

Pretty much: They pretend Philanthropy was invented by Marx. When the Irony is Marx was a leech on the underbelly of the rich.

[Kathandira]

No, millenials are nothing. Generation X are conservative and will keep capitalism alive.

<- Gen X. Not all that Conservative.

[igualitarist]

The thing is that the "socialism" Millennials point to isn't really socialism...it's Capitalism with higher taxes, a larger government, and more public services. They throw the term "socialism" around because they know it triggers their parents and sounds edgy and rebellious.

This.

What they want is social democracy, but their teachers lie to them, teaching socialism and social democracy are the same thing.

On socialism property rights are reduced dramatically and the government gets the monopoly on public services and on many economical sectors. On social democracy property rights are maintened, government may provides basic services, but allow the private sector to offer them too, and may have some state owned companies, usually strategic ones.

[A dot Ham]

No, millenials are nothing. Generation X are conservative and will keep capitalism alive.

Baseless comments. Stop allowing yourself to spoon fed partisan bullshit. Take the time to educate yourself.

Gen X is just as liberal as millenials.

The data here actually shows that millenials are slightly more free thinkers than Gen X is. With 14% as non-partisan, vs the 13% non partisan coming out of Gen X.

Furthermore, addressing the OPs @nanook12 equally ridiculous claim that a specific generation is responsible for an economic system.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...-baby-boomers/

Millennials have surpassed Baby Boomers as the nation’s largest living generation, according to population estimates released this month by the U.S. Census Bureau. Millennials, whom we define as those ages 18-34 in 2015, now number 75.4 million, surpassing the 74.9 million Baby Boomers (ages 51-69).

Data from 2015.

Lastly the death of capitalism will also coincide with the death of democracy.

F. A. Hayek [1899-1992] was an economist, a supporter of classical liberalism, and an opponent to keynesian economics (prevailing conservative economic theory) had this to say about socialist systems: "A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers."

That being said the death of democracy is inevitable, if true democracy exists, it must be allowed to destroy itself. But those are very sad days. The hope that people have under a social democracy is that those freedoms and liberties that we hold dear will remain, the reality is they are not guaranteed.

[Logwyn]

Much Irony as the Boomers were the ones responsible for the 60s and social programs. Or the ones before it and FDR and the New Deal......

[Knyx]

offcourse, college educated will vote against trump. They are taught in LIBERAL academia by liberal professors. Why do you expect any different? And let us be honest about democrate minority voters, they too don't have college education and voting due to welfare the democrates provide.

Did Hannity tell you that? I went to college. No one tried to change my beliefs. In fact,t he only people that EVER even mentioned political affiliation of any kind was the group of young republicans that stood outside one of the dining halls trying to recruit people. The idea that universities are some big liberal indoctrination stations is so stupidly overstated.

[Forogil]

I'm not grasping at anything. My point is that a liberal arts degree is a very broad thing that very often can include sciences. So, saying it is useless is fucking stupid.

I guess that moving the goalposts happens when you stop grasping at straws.

My point was about engineering not normally being part of liberal arts.
You have not provided any evidence to the contrary. (Obviously there are exceptions - but exceptions are just that: exceptions.)

Note that I explicitly stated "Engineering" - not "Science" (they differ even if there is some overlap); and I didn't write anything about usefulness - that is just moving the goalposts. If you really have a liberal arts degree you are not really doing a good job promoting it.

[BuckSparkles]

If Capitalism dies, the free world dies with it.

[Molis]

I know you're getting the point that our quality of life in the US is in decline, I think you're deliberately trying to be obtuse. We still have manual labor in the US and have have been in several wars up to recent history.

You would have had a much better argument if you had tried to argue from a medical advancement/equality for women and minorities perspective but the reality is that nothing you said counters what I said about changes to cost of living,opportunities for upward mobility and job insecurity.

Also if you don't live here you can take a seat, you don't see me commenting on Australian quality of life. Because I wouldn't know. Since I don't live there.

You should really stop listening to your college Professors.
The US is not all doom and gloom and going to go into a nose dive in 50 years.

[Forogil]

1. Stalin supported Lysenko cause he promised a better output of wheat ASAP, and some of his "findings" were kinda supported even by his opponents (like renowned Vavilov).

And also (according to many) because it fit a political narrative - https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfe.../#7f2ec3287ac8

Lysenkoism was “politically correct” (a term invented by Lenin) because it was consistent with certain broader Marxist doctrines. Marxists wanted to believe that heredity had a limited role even among humans, and that human characteristics changed by living under socialism would be inherited by subsequent generations of humans. Thus would be created the selfless new Soviet man.

That was the my main point. The idea that socialism required different humans - and Stalin though Lysenko might have the key to understanding that.

3. Famine happened before Stalin supported Lysenko. Lysenko's promotion by Stalin was done in 1936, and famine happened in 1932-1933. At the time of this famine Lysenko was only experimenting on small portions of land, so insignificant by their relative size that in couldn't possibly affect whole-USSR food supply.

Sorry about that, I agree - most famine in USSR was caused by socialism and lack of democracy - not Lysenko.
However, Lysenko may still have caused some famine: in particular in China during the Great Leap Forward (even bad theories can spread).

[vaeevictiss]

Honestly millennials are pretty pissed about their overall job prospects which are extremely shitty no matter what you major in, and school is expensive. I would not be surprised to see a pushback from late stage capitalism in the US sometime during my lifetime. Mostly because we're seeing quality of life in the US degrade to an extent we have not seen since the Great Depression. Young adults are feeling like they can't afford to move out of the house let alone secure a mortgage and have children, and the stupid fucks at the top in charge of policy making are too dense to see that they're going to have to make some sweeping changes if they want to avoid protests in the streets within the next couple of decades.

Communism is a shit idea but stronger safety net programs + quality of life changes in the US are still an excellent idea. We also need to make alternatives to expensive college degrees be the norm for employment purposes and advocate for a wage that sufficiently covers the basic needs of life.

there are alternatives; military and trade schools. there are so many jobs in this country that people do not want because they feel the job is beneath them or cant get because they dont have the required skill set. Both of these options can get you in a career you can afford to survive with.

but we get it, you're (not you specifically) a special millennial and you certainly are too good to be an electrician or welder...for example.