99
65

Why do some people want to go back to the 1950’s?

11mon 11d ago by lemmings.world/u/anthony in asklemmy@lemmy.ml

As a queer person (agender) with a conservative dad, I don’t get why he says he wants to go back to the 1950s. What was so special back then besides his reasoning that times were simpler? I feel like it would be harder for me then as a queer person.

Most people have an idyllic view of certain childhood years, usually around the ages 5 to 10 or so. It's before you start to understand just how broken the world is, and your worldview gets more complex and nuanced.

Many people wrongly assume that the world really was simpler when they were that age. The truth is, the world was just as messed up--they were just blissfully unaware.

Next time your dad complains, remind him that we still have milkshakes and racism.

Agreed on all points, and also would like to point out most of the people who want to "go back" are not the ones who were oppressed during that time. It's no surprise that the people who want to go back are mostly those who grew up in the white suburbs and small towns, where it was simple and easy.

The oppressed are conveniently left out of those conversations. Where were the black people, or the gay people during those times? They existed, but in a very simple worldview it's easy to forget that.

Unless you grew up in the '80s. Jesus, what a shitshow. Though I notice a lot of nostalgia for the '80s from people who aren't old enough to remember it.

Yeah, there's a reason GenXers are generally known to be cynical.

Right on!

I think people who think the past was better are all white men, and it's because they didn't have to think about other people. They want to go back to ignorance.

He literally says that to you? The 1950s? Have you asked him specifically why? My mom had a great time in the 1950s and no way would she ever have wanted the world to go backwards to that time. She recognized, as she became older, how bad things were for her mom, for black kids (her school was segregated), for so many people.

The only reason I can imagine wanting to go to the past, is to try to make this future better, but I know better than to fuck with the timeline and can't imagine I'd be able to do anything about it anyway.

well, for one, i think he said because something to do with white people. the same reason he likes europe. europe is primarily white people, he says, and segregation was still a thing in the 50s.

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but your dad is a racist.

I would say it's a shining example of my theory. He wants to go back to when he was ignorant of the struggles of other people. They did exist, he just didn't know and now he does.

Europe is primarily white people

Hah, that's telling. Just FYI, there's been generations upon generations of racism and ethnic hatred here in Eastern Europe. I guess we have the advanced racists: the ones who don't hate you for your skin colour, but who your parents were, religion and primary language.

I'll bet that if your dad grew up here in Romania, he'd be complaining about those sneaky Szeklers trying to steal Transylvania and Roma people being subhuman.

Also, he seems the type to pine for Europe because "We're all Christian!". Trust me, you haven't seen "Christian love" like state religions persecuting people of the wrong sect. Orthodox Christianity is the state religion here, and Protestants of all stripes get treated like heathens.

Ah, but discrimination against Roma isn't racism because they actually are all dirty thieves!

  • said to me by an actual European lacking all self-awareness

Why I never ever ever mention my Roma ancestry to any European, ever

I think it's pretty common when you reach a certain age to want to go back to a more nostalgic time for you personally. There's a certain level of bias and rose tinted glasses to it, no doubt.

For instance, I myself would kill for it to be 1992 again.

This is a very surface level observation. For your father there might be more nuance to the sentiment.

While I also liked the 90s, because that's where the most pivotal part of my childhood took place, I'd never want to go back. That was also the time where air pollution was insane, older kids bullied little children and drank beer on the playgrounds, there was dog shit everywhere, car stereos were constantly stolen, cars were put on bricks to steal the wheels, litter was everywhere, people smoked everywhere etc. etc. Fuck all that. I just wish we could go back to pre internet times. Maybe the beginnings of the internet. That'd be nice.

Social safety nets were stronger and income inequality was lower, largely thanks to the post-war economy retaining a lot of its state planning towards full employment, and largely due to the expansion in safety nets under FDR as a response to the Soviet Union's massive improvement in safety nets. Time was good, if you were a hetero white man. The US was also emerging as the clear imperial hegemon.

Reactionary rhetoric tries to turn the clock backwards, to when the contradictions of society weren't as sharpened. It's usually a petite bourgeois conception, but can also be a part of other classes. It's the opposite of progressive movement, trying to move the clock forward into the next mode of production, socialism in the case of the US.

Well, having sat with people of that age bracket when they were sick or dying, when most people drop pretence, I have a different opinion than those already presented.

It isn't necessarily about "simpler times", though some folks that age use the term. And it isn't about racism or sexism either, because it isn't just white folks or men that express the idea.

There is a big dose of nostalgia involved, but you don't see the desire to return to the era of childhood or teen years as much in older or younger generations.

The common thread that makes 50 kids yearn for the era is largely that they lost a sense of their place in the world. The 50 were before vietnam made the big schism it did, before men and women needed to examine their own expectations for themselves, and before the post war wave of optimism faded.

You gotta know, the kids and teens in the fifties, despite the cold war and nuclear bomb drills, had an optimistic world around them. Well, in the "western" world mostly. The good guys won the war, and regardless of what anyone else thinks now, that's what the perception was. To someone growing up then, the prospect of being able to have a career, family, and eventually retirement with relative ease was real.

Again, this isn't just for white men. Black people have expressed to me that despite the awareness there was going to be a fight for equality, the hope of success was strong. Little girls had moms that had worked during the war, and gained the prestige that comes with it, but came back to being moms and wives because they didn't need to work (again this was perception, and that matters more than current ideas about that for this purpose).

That post war generation, the literal boomers, had hope, even the ones that were dirt poor, even some of the black people, and most of the women. By the time the sixties came around, that hope was changing. They were reaching young adulthood among the earliest boomers, and they started to see that the world wasn't what they thought it was.

Sexual revolutions, the pill, the civil rights struggle, vietnam, things were no longer as rosy as they were promised, though many of them were finding freedoms as much as they were finding struggles. They just couldn't look at the world with those rosy, optimistic glasses any more. Shit got complicated and confusing and it was the boomers and the younger segment of the preceding generation that drove some of the positive changes at the same time they were being chewed up by the meat grinder of capitalism and war.

Who wouldn't look back at a period of optimism as a better time? If the eighties had been as promising as the fifties, I'd be looking back on it as a golden era too.

But hey, us Xers and millennials, we will look back on the nineties as a better time most likely. We saw a lot of good happen. It's largely being undone now, but damn it was nice while it lasted seeing the expansion of acceptance of gay people, reduced barriers between black and white people in specific (less so with other "races") as the freedom to marry and blend together worked its chemistry. Even some of the racists backed off once their grandbabies were mixed.

Yeah, like the fifties, that optimism covered an ugly reality, but it was still better than the seventies had been, and we thought that the worst aspects of the Reagan era were going to eventually get fixed.

Now, OP, I can't speak for your dad. The above definitely didn't apply to everyone I've ever known from that generation. Some of them were racist assholes even then. Some of them still think women are only good for one thing (and some of those are women). And you're definitely right that living queer back then would be horrible even in more accepting cities. To gain access to all those things people were optimistic about, you'd have to be closeted and very very careful.

But it isn't as simple as folks tend to think. Your dad's generation wasn't a monolith, and even the more progressive among that peer group often look back on the fifties as a great era to be born into. I can't even entirely disagree tbh. Looking back on it from now, the thirty years after 1950 were amazing in the amount of progress made socially, technologically, and economically for a lot of people. It's easy to ignore the bad parts when we're/they're sitting here with these magic devices in our hands.

Conservatives are more prone to wanting to return everything to the way life was then, but plenty of us liberals, progressives, general liberals, and even full on leftists can see that we lost some of the good stuff when we had to root out the bad (despite failing to do so)

You could beat your wife, she couldn't really divorce you, and couldn't open a bank account. That's usually why they love the 50s.

What? That sound whack

Buying a house, a car, a golden retriever, having a wife and two kids by the age of 22.

Personally, I want to go back to the way in the 1950's had livable wages where people could afford housing, food, and health services. I would also like to go back to an internet before corporations destroyed it with all their AI and tracking.

In both cases, only a minority of us got to enjoy those benefits.

Yeah, I wish more of us could enjoy that today, but who will think of the poor investors

If you were a straight, white man it was a good time to exist economically with a high degree of social cohesion. Oppression was worse, but it probably was much less visible to your dad's sort of person.

And the economy was booming. My own dad went to college full time and worked 20 hours a week loading trucks in his 20s. On this salary, he was able to buy a starter house, marry his first wife, have 2 kids, and complete his degree.

It fucking sucked if you were literally anyone else though. Married women were barely better than property, and they frequently killed themselves to escape their husbands. Spousal abuse was common and not really looked down on in many communities unless you took things "too far" and sent them to the hospital. Being queer was just straight up illegal, and you'd be imprisoned and ostracized if you were caught. Racism was...worse to say the least.

While things might have been better in the past for a specific population or from a specific point of view, always remember that we have made substantial progress even in the past decade or two. Living in the past is a fool's paradise.

It was before the Voting Rights Act of 1965, before women could open their own bank accounts, and before no fault divorce was legalized. In other words, white men had almost all of the power, both politically and socially.

People who pine for the fifties are mostly white men, and it just means they are racist and/or sexist. That’s not the only reason, but it’s a big one.

Other than that, they just want things to go back to the way they never were.

It's never about the real past for them. It's about the fake shallow image of the past they yearn for.

The 50s, yeah, when 'howl' was published and every single adult was on meth qaaludes cocaine and a BAC that would today get you rushed to the ER for just about every waking moment. But thats not what they remember. They get the simplified idealized propaganda version, and like it. Everything is fantasy rp to them.

Same with the crusades, early america, and everything else they like.

Because they were young then.

Yes. Nostalgia softens sharp edges, brightens sunny spots.

people that wax nostalgic for the 1950s are either:
A) folks who only see how advantageous it was for a white middle class cis straight man with a GI Bill, and just forget and ignore the rest of the reality of the era, or
B) folks that actively want to roll back civil rights for minorities, and would probably prefer the 1850s, if only they had pickup trucks back then.

I have a feeling it has to do with a lot of the things that you and I would consider societal progress.

A little later, maybe, but much the same... on the upside:

  • we were optimistic.
  • we were going to conquer space, and it was going to be real live humans, not semi-autonomous robots
  • society (in the US and W. Europe) was (very) slowly getting more progressive.
  • Hitler had been killed, and fascism defeated forever. Never again would we have another dictator; never again would we watch a country commit genocide against a people.
  • life was slower. TV was the bad influence rotting kids brains. We didn't have an entire industry focused on commoditizing us.
  • computers were fucking incredible. The future we imagined coming from computers was very, very different than what we ended up with. For one thing, we didn't imagine a single-minded focus of all software and computing power on commercializing every aspect of our life.
  • no Facebook, no Twitter, no TikTok
  • Income disparity was far less extreme, and class mobility was a realistic dream. You could imagine buying a nice house and raising a family on a single income. If you worked hard and had a little luck you could pass on some reasonable wealth to your kids.
  • shit really was - in the aggregate - getting better all around. Technology was advancing and bringing amazing products; science was being discovered that you could basically wrap your head around. Lives (in the Western world) were improving (relatively, compared to previous decades) for most people, and all this happened at a pace that didn't up-end your world every day, 365 days a year.
  • you could get all the news you needed for a fairly rounded world view in a single newspaper, much of which you could read over breakfast. There was no information overload.

On the downsides,

  • dad beat us with a belt as punishment
  • we were having wars that were disrupting society. The draft was a real worry.
  • we were constantly afraid that nuclear war could happen at any time
  • commies were hiding under our beds
  • minorities of all kinds were fighting for their rights, and fighting to get them enforced. It sucked to be gay, or black, or a woman (but it was getting better, slowly)
  • most people didn't have access to a computer, much less a PC until well into the 80's, so you had to infiltrate University computer labs.

It was a slower world, with fewer consumer goods, fewer conveniences, and worse medical care. Everybody smoked, all the time. But slower was good, and - best of all - we didn't realize yet that we were killing the planet; the world wasn't ending.

The USSR existed back then and the USSR was doing very well at the time up until 1975,
right after the petrodollar scheme was made and SWIFT was introduced.
Because of that, the US had strong labour unions.
Socialism was popular back then,
although the US was also able to propagandize that it was explicitly not doing that in the slightest.

Nowadays, the US will have to fight again against capitalism.
And capitalists are warring to survive, not just abroad,
but at home as well.
Their ideology currently is that capitalism has won,
communism has lost and therefore any concessions to the left
will no longer have to be made.

And US Social democracy isn't coming from the top this time,
when FDR decided to take a turn for the left and continued going left,
up until Jimmy Carter was replaced by Ronald Reagen.

This time it's coming from Zohran Mamdani
and this time it looks like it's taking the form of democratic socialism,
a step more to the left than social democracy.

With better job availibility, your father would have had a much easier time
maintaining a good income and thus a family.
You however, would have a trade-off.
Better job security, but little to no knowledge of your sexuality.
Also terrible medical practises, barbaric in some fields.

Because I could by my amphetamines legally and the doctor would give me a steady supply of heroin if I paid him under the counter

/s

Idk why people want to go back to the 1950s they sucked.

Better good wages

The 50s were objectively a time of prosperity and entitlement for the US. It's literally why they're called "boomers", it was an economic boom. We had high taxes on the rich, people saw those tax dollars translate into quality public services like highways, corporate competition was high, education was affordable, housing was plentiful. It was undoubtedly the best time to be a while male in US history.

And then capitalism did its efficient best to buy up the govt and begin squeezing all that prosperity into their pockets. And here we are.

Boomers were named after the Baby Boom, not the economic boom.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_boomers

There was also an economic boom, but that's absolutely not where the name comes from.

It's all the same post war boom. It all happened, and is named for the same reason. People didn't suddenly have a lot of babies because they were on hard times. There's nothing to nitpick here.

i completely agree. people felt the economic upwind and decided to have children because they could afford that.

I thought it was more about coming back from the war combined with advances in healthcare. The economic aspect makes sense, but families were bigger throughout history even in poorer economic times.

The successful end to the years-long world war that the whole country felt unified behind, and the sudden influx of money away from that war and into disposable income made it very easy for families to flourish in the US.

Advances in healthcare played a part, sure, but not that much in that short of time, and eventually the baby boom faded but the advances continued.

Have your asked your dad? What does he say? Did you tell him that you think it would be harder for you and ask what his opinion is?

Not saying you have to, just curious if you did how it went. I'm in a similar boat.

He just says times were simpler and i think something about segregation still being a thing. i haven't told him because he just thinks i'm a girl.

Lol, so racism.

I kind of think of the 50s as kind of a major turning point for the US. There were a lot of seeds of greatness then that weren't properly nurtured in the following decades so that they could grow.

While just about every other country in the world was trying to put themselves back together from WWII, we had emerged not only unscathed, but in almost every measure better than we were before. We had military might, we had a booming economy, manufacturing, science, technology, arts, entertainment, cars, appliances, TV, electricity all on a scale previous generations could only dream about.

Even if you were part of a marginalized group- black, LGBTQ, female, etc. there were some glimmers of hope that looked like things might get better soon- the civil rights movement was picking up steam, there were some early LGBTQ rights movements and demonstrations taking shape, women entered the workforce in a big way during the war, and after the war mostly returned to the home afterwards but those seeds were planted, I don't think it's a coincidence that little girls growing up in the 40s watching the women in their lives being the Rosie the Riveter would become the ones who embraced 2nd wave feminism 20 or so years later.

And of course we had high corporate taxes helping to fund it all.

It wasn't all sunshine and roses of course, and you will certainly find no shortage of people here on Lemmy who will happily spell out all of the many reasons the 1950s sucked, and I don't disagree with them, but that's not what you asked, so I'm not going to go into that.

The 50s were a major leap forward in the quality of life for many people in america, and while far from perfect, there is definitely an angle you can look at it from where things looked like they were more-or-less on the right track.

White privilege.

Because the propaganda aimed at getting women to remember their place and get back to domestic chores, still lingers today and people think that's HOW it was, not that they had to try and shove a cat back in a bag, somehow. When women had to do all the blokey jobs while the men's were all at war, and realised, yeah, they're capable of this, sometimes better at it, earning a wage, something unheard of for women, as they would still need a man to have a bank account or credit card or sign anything or have a lease on a house, until the 1970s, in some places. But yeah. It wasn't like that. Women were miserable and oppressed and drugged up just to get by. Grandma's hydrangeas were sometimes the only way to leave a violent relationship. But yeah, probs was fine for the blokes. They got to fight in a war, pocket some trauma to take home, force themselves back into the daily grind with no recognition of that trauma and nowhere to outlet it... I'm not going to start on intergenerational trauma, I promise.

Either that or, the grass is always greener.. Yk.

I want the economy of the 50s and civil rights for everyone.

Sadly, it seems like we're moving the economy further away from the 50s and only bringing civil rights back there...

There were plenty of local jobs that paid better than jobs today do (adjusted for CoL) and needed less education etc.

I wasn't alive back then, so I guess you mean

in the me*

We both know you know what was meant. Don't be like a republican. Have a good day.

there was literal outright colonialism in the 50s, white people don't get this

Oh I know what you meant, exactly. It's grade school history. It's also the same take repeated endlessly on internet forums where pedantry and needing to spell out every single facet rule supreme. So I guess I'll spell it out. "The economy refers to the fact someone was able to pay for a home, family, and yearly vacation on an entry level, high school diploma as the only requirement job. The civil rights and liberties people are stating as the one thing they didn't want to bring to modern times."

I'm going to assume you know why someone would want that without the abuse of minorities, immigrants, or third world countries.

Or you can just pull the same thing everyone else does and state, "A society like that couldn't exist without that exploitation." like the true unique free thinker you are. To which I say prove it. We've always had a rich parasite class that needed exploitation, those who are fine without being far wealthier than others are perfectly capable of doing fine without the exploitation, its the leeches that require it.

Ah it's always the same with those ideologically blinded people.

Capitalism is inherently bad blah blah

Socialism can never work blah blah

It's all bullshit. Capitalism does not matter, socialism does not matter. How we call it does not matter. What matters is that a society is healthy, sustainable and prospering.

The main problem of all theories is the confrontation with reality - each set of values or ideology is as much worth as the people who (supposedly) follow it.

In any system we ever built, there are greedy, corrupt, powerful people, who like shit, always somehow end up swimming at the top. And then everything begins to rot.

This is nonsense, again.

  1. The Soviet economy worked very well, and was one of the fastest growing economies of the 20th century. The difference between the wealthiest and the poorest was about 5 times, compared to hundreds to thousands in capitalist countries (and even more).

  2. The PRC has a Socialist Market Economy, the large firms and key industries are state owned and planned. They are pragmatic and learned, which is why they maintained socialism.

  3. Yes, the PRC is proof that socialism works astoundingly well.

  4. Again, you return to vibes-based nonsense. The Soviet Union was more democratic than capitalist countries, and the PRC is as well.

I'm not trying to be mean here, but I really don't care about anecdotes. When I say that the Soviet economy was strong and maintained some of the highest rates of growth in the world all while having a lower disparity, it's because I've done the reading and research to see that. A quick article like *Do Publicly Owned, Planned Economies Work? by Stephen Gowans, or a full book like Is the Red Flag Flying? The Political Economy of the Soviet Union by Albert Syzmanski or Blackshirts and Reds by Michael Parenti all do a far better job than anecdotes at seeing what conditions were actually like systemically.

From the moment in 1928 that the Soviet economy became publicly owned and planned, to the point in 1989 that the economy was pushed in a free market direction, Soviet GDP per capita growth exceeded that of all other countries but Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. GDP per person grew by a factor of 5.2, compared to 4.0 for Western Europe and 3.3 for the Western European offshoots (the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) (Allen, 2003). In other words, over the period in which its publicly owned, planned economy was in place, the USSR‘s record in raising incomes was better than that of the major industrialized capitalist countries. The Soviet Union’s robust growth over this period is all the more impressive considering that the period includes the war years when a major assault by Nazi Germany left a trail of utter destruction in its wake. The German invaders destroyed over 1,500 cities and towns, along with 70,000 villages, 31,000 factories, and nearly 100 million head of livestock (Leffler, 1994). Growth was highest to 1970, at which point expansion of the Soviet economy began to slow. However, even during this so-called (and misnamed) post-1970 period of stagnation, GDP per capita grew 27 percent (Allen, 2003).

I'm also not saying the Soviet Union was perfect. There indeed were issues with black markets, misplanning, etc, but they didn't outweigh the dramatic benefits the system provided. It's no wonder that the majority of people who lived through the Soviet system wish it had remained. With the reintroduction of capitalism in the 90s, an estimated 7 million people died due to a loss in safety nets and a dramatic increase in poverty around the world.

The achievements of the USSR and its failings need to be contextualized in the fact that, unlike western countries, the USSR was a developing country. With it, however, came around the developed world a mass expansion in safety nets in order to provide what the USSR was already providing for its people. With the fall of the USSR, wealth disparity around the world began to climb more rapidly than ever:

As for the PRC, "Socialist Market Economy" is the official term for its economy. The fact that you admit to never hearing that term before means you haven't actually done much research into it. State Capitalism refers to countries where private ownership is principle, ie governs the large firms and key industries, but with strong state influence, like Bismark's Germany, the Republic of Korea, and Singapore. In the PRC, it's public property that governs the large firms and key industries.

The system overall is called Socialism With Chinese Characteristics, or SWCC. Here's a study guide for it, in more depth. The key takeaway is that private property and markets existed in Mao's era, in the USSR, etc, the modern PRC isn't very different from those in terms of where the balance of power lies. Trying to plan all of the small, underdeveloped industry can often slow growth, while planning and controlling the large firms and key industries is not only more effective economically, also retains proletarian control over the economy. As the small and medium firms are developed through market forces, they can be better intrgrated into central planning and have their property gradually sublimated. It's Marxism-Leninism applied to the conditions of modern China, also called Marxism-Leninism-Xi Jinping Thought. So yes, China is absolutely socialist.

First off, I apologize if I came off as hostile. That's not really my intent, I try to correct misconceptions and misunderstandings surrounding Marxism and Marxism-Leninism when I see them.

Overall, the Marxist view on markets is that at lower stages of development, they can serve a progressive role, but at higher stages they impede progress and even turn into imperialism, as we see in Europe and the US, ie the global north. Capitalism is best described as a system by which private property is the principle aspect of an economy, ie the large firms and key industries are privately owned. In such a condition, this means private property also has control of the state, so markets will largely play a reactionary role in exploiting and oppressing the masses. Socialism can make use of limited markets while retaining state control of the large firms and key industries to get the good growth of markets in lower development while taking advantage of the numerous benefits of central planning at higher stages in development.

Capitalism itself leads to inequality and fascism. There isn't a way to escape this, there is no such thing as a static capitalism. It either forces imperialism outwardly, is stuck at simple reproduction in imperialized countries (rather than reproduction on an expanded scale), or turns to fascism, if it doesn't have a socialist revolution.

As for the PRC, they are firmly Marxist-Leninist, specifically Marxism-Leninism-Xi Jinping Thought, which is largely a synthesis of ML-Mao Zedong Thought and Deng Xiaoping Theory, itself an addendum to MZT. Their system is firmly socialist, their use of markets and private property is in a controlled manner that can only be controlled as such in a primarily planned economy. Without understanding this, you won't be able to see why the PRC is on the rise and is so stable, while Social Democracies in Europe are on the decline.

You're welcome for the links. If you want a standard reading list for Marxism-Leninism, I made an introductory one you can check out if you ever get the interest. You'll be able to better understand the USSR, it's strengths and weaknesses, and why the PRC is currently succeeding.

I don't really blame many of the Marxists here for being short on patience, much of the arguments we have are the same exact arguments we've had day after day. I do think patience tends to be more useful in dialogue, but I also can't expect everyone else to uphold that.

Take care!

  1. Cuba, USSR, Vietnam, etc. Socialism works.

  2. China 100% counts as socialist. The Gang of Four diverged from Marxism-Leninism into ultraleft dogmatism. Ultraleftism is not "pure socialism," there is no such thing as "pure" socialism, capitalism, etc. The PRC under Mao had markets, private property, etc, as did the USSR. As a consequence, the modern CPC is course-corrected to a standard Marxist-Leninist outlook. Both Mao and Stalin are seen as 70% good by the modern CPC.

  3. The claims of "authoritarianism" are the repression of capitalists.

  4. Yes, I've read Capital, volume 1. I'm on volume 2 right now. More importantly, I've read a ton of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and far more Marxist authors, all who speak about Dialectical Materialism and socialism, how to bring about communism, and more, all of which you won't find in Capital. I'm skeptical that you've even read Volume 1, to be honest, your understanding of Marxism is incredibly poor. Using "I've read Capital" as an "I win the argument" tool is incredibly poor rhetoric, if you have a good argument, make it, don't appeal to your own authority.

  5. Yes, political theory isn't a religion, you seem to think it is though.

This is just you replacing sound economic analysis with vibes-based idealism, ironically you're divorcing yourself from reality while claiming others need to see it better. A quick example is that socialism has resulted in far lower inequality while maintaining stable growth than capitalism has, yet you pretend they are the same in disparity. Connect with reality.

Could not agree more. I'm a democratic socialist. I firmly believe that the ideas of that ideology, properly implemented, can drastically improve the standard of living for a huge percentage of the population.

I live in a country where our democratic socialist party is fantastically corrupt, lazy and completely bereft of any motivation to do anything that doesn't directly benefit themselves. Consequently, I don't support them. Results over ideology is an important mantra no matter what you believe.

All socialism is democratic, "democratic socialism" normally refers to reformist socialism. The corruption, in that case, makes sense, as reformism is usually conceding to the status quo.

They like Jello as much as they love Jim crow

Because white guys.

Hate

It is because he has a mythical view of that decade.

I'd only be in it for the ability to buy a house, except that I'd share it with friends instead of getting married and settling down. I'm a bit too demiromantic for that right now.

I feel like it would be harder for me then as a queer person.

This is why they want it