I think the youth are I'll informed, indoctrinated by liberal schools and colleges. It seems like the cool thing to believe in. On the issue of actual substance I think that our current economics and laws have some socialistic aspects and reflects that our capitalistic society is failing. So these misinformed, confused individuals believe the left's narrative that we need more socialism is the answer.

I’m a millennial socialist. The appeal to socialism is multi-faceted, so I wouldn’t dare answer for all. To level set, the popular brand of socialism that is on the rise today is democratic socialism, as opposed to authoritarian socialism—though it’s poorly compared for straw man talking points. I personally have drawn inspiration from Germany’s “Social Market Economy,” which means German society has a free market economy that considers the whole via robust welfare and regulation. This effort was initiated post national socialism (NAZism) via the Christian Democratic Union. <br><br> For those wondering, yes, you can be Christian and still like socialism, democracy, unions, and other seemingly asinine, political ideas estranged from popular American evangelical conceptions. In fact, Christians (including those who are not limited to Western nations) are perplexed that American Christians can support war or guns in school but not healthcare for all.* <br><br> But why, as this article beckons, would I be drawn to socialism? Very simply, I’ve been allured because of a growing distaste of the outworking of American capitalism on many socio-political fronts. Indisputably, my generation has grown up in a historically unequal society and will be worse off than our parents. With inequality, a host of problems ensue, such as as the erosion of the middle class, health, education, and no less democracy itself (cue Teddy Roosevelt’s quotes). America lags behind in statistic after statistic—such as life expectancy, political corruption, or economic mobility for starters—consistently behind those “socialistic” nations like Switzerland, Denmark and the Netherlands. The so-called “American dream” is measurably less attainable for all because our present form of capitalism is rogue.** <br><br> Americans work some of the longest hours in the world, rank as one of the most productive nations in the world, and yet the earnings still have been rapidly concentrated to the few (for example, see Keith Ellison’s study called “Rewarding or Hoarding?” as it includes data on almost 14 million workers at over 200 companies). But the discussion gets framed around the entitlement of the poor? Now that is peculiar. <br><br> Anyways, I hope this helps to shed some small measure of light on one millennial’s appeal to socialism. Feel free to reach out with rebuttals or high fives. Always bring data. <br><br> Thanks for reading,<br> Gump <br><br> *It’s also worth checking at the door the common presupposition that the Constitution outlines a particular brand of economic theory over another. Shouldn’t we consider how America’s Constitution succeeded on the economic disasters of slavery and Jim Crowe, lest we fear that a socialistic return to progressive taxation (as was in the 1950’s) for the sake of distribution would bring down the nation. <br><br> **For the sake of another time, typical African American households have 10c on the dollar compared to the white households. In Boston, MA, the median white family has $250k in wealth while the median black family has $8. Has there ever been a substantial black middle class?

Every one should read this book: The Darwin Effect: Its Influence on Nazism, Eugenics, Racism, Communism, Capitalism & Sexism Book by Jerry Bergman When people reject God very terrible results are inevitable. I am wondering though if the 'socialism' of the Millennials is not really just what we in Canada call 'a just society'. Universal health care is central to that as we all know anyone can get sick at any time. It is an easy way to have mercy on your neighbor.

Because they are clueless about the real founding of America. 1,) They must first be able to read and understand what the words say in the 1783 Definitive Treaty of Peace to understand who won the war and received the spoils of the war and what that means compared to what they thought they knew. 2.) 1789 First Act of Congress. Read and understand why they changed the wording of the Constitution's Preamble for purposes of taking the oath of office. Hint: A CYA effort to hold themselves harmless should they be charged with breach of "the Constitution for the United States of America". 3.) To continue to follow the money they must know the first use of the Emergency and War Power Act was by George Washington in 1791. Washington used the Emergency Power portion of the Act. This was to enable Washington, at Hamilton’s insistence, to use an existing private bank, controlled by the Crown through its British Board of Trade, to become the first bank of the United States. Jefferson and two other men wrote constantly to Washington telling him that there was no such authority in the Constitution to create a bank. Neither Jefferson nor the other two men could sway Washington. Washington, using the Emergency Powers Act, went ahead and created the First Bank of the United States. Also at this time he overlaid the states into "districts of the United States." He did this so that those state banks, who after the creation of the first Bank, were forced to contract with the First Bank in New York so they could continue to operate with United States money. Washington did this because the United States deposited all the money it collected into all the private banks in each of the states from before the Revolutionary war to the institution of the first Bank of the United States. The United States wanted to centralize all its accounts in this First Bank while allowing the hundreds of other banks scattered throughout all the states to continue to hold its money. This is much like the corporate takeovers of today, where a large bank absorbs small banks that continue to operate as satellite banks with all the accounts having to clear through the parent bank. This then allowed the foreign British controlled bank to more easily collect and pay back the debt owed the Crown by the State and United States as was directed in Article VI of the United States Constitution. The First Bank The First Bank of the United States was not at all owned by the Congress but was privately controlled by the British Board of Trade stockholders. The Bank, if begun in France, would be called the First Bank of France. Do not let the terminology fool you into thinking that it was a Bank created by Congress. The ownership was foreign. The "foreigners," noted as Stockholders, were many Americans and therefore, foreigners to the international banking industry. Most of these foreign bankers came from England. Chief Justice John Marshal held the second highest shares in this bank. The documents I have, show that Marshall was considered a "foreign stockholder." He was foreign because the bank was a foreign concern operating within America. Marshall, being a United States citizen, was a foreign Stockholder. The Tories were helpful in setting the stage for the inception of the Bank. The Tories were people controlled and working for the King. The King did not want the Rothschilds or the Lombards to take control of the first bank in the United States. The King wanted his bank of England to control the first bank. This setup went back to the Treaty of 1783 and emanated from that treaty and those created after that. See the Millennials don't know zip and who actually represents them.