Friday, November 10, 2017

Majority of Americans with a favorable view of communism are non-white

In this week's Power Hour, Z-Man discussed a poll headlining with the finding that more millennials say they'd rather live in a socialist country than a capitalist one. Z gives several reasons not to read too much into this, the most salient one being that millennials don't know what socialism is--just 33% of millennials surveyed correctly defined socialism from a list of five possibly choices.

That understood, here are a few other observations of potential interest from the survey:

- Among whites, Gen Z has a less favorable opinion of communism certainly than do millennials and also probably than Xers. The survey doesn't breakdown results by both race and generational cohort, but as seen below, support for communism is much higher among non-whites than it is among whites.

Given that Gen Z is about 55% white while Gen X is closer to 70% white, it's likely that white Gen Zs report being modestly less favorably inclined towards communism than even white Xers do. Again among whites, zyklons are probably even knocking on the door of boomers, as the latter generational cohort is over 80% white.


- The following pie charts show the racial distribution of survey respondents who report having a favorable view of capitalism and who report having a favorable view of communism:



With demographic change comes economic change.

Libertarians, are you taking note? Libertarianism is a white thing. No amount of Mises or Rothbard is going to convince non-whites to come on board. The aggression principle exercised by the state on their behalf is how the gibs are got!

Non-whites understand interests come before principles. If you want a society where principles come before interests, your society has to be a white one. Being white isn't a sufficient condition for the existence of a libertarian society, but it is a necessary one.

- Gen Z's whites presumably tend towards free speech absolutism more than white millennials, boomers, and silents do, and possibly even more so than white Xers--71% for Gen Z on the whole compared to 80% of Xers on the whole support free speech being "protected regardless of what is said"--though it is again uncertain due to the survey failing to breakdown responses by both race and generational cohort.

30 comments:

Sid said...

I agree absolutely with your meta point that non-whites prefer Communism more than whites do in the US, as a general thing.

When it comes to white Millennials and white Zyklons, I expect there are reasons why the Zyklons hate it far more than Millennials do, hence the different opinions in polling.

The most significant difference, I imagine, is how they were raised and into which environments they came of age.

Millennials are notorious for suffering from helicopter parents. They grew up being told they were special, but still had a highly regimented school curriculum and extracurricular activities. They were not encouraged to play or explore outside unsupervised. They were consistently told that education was the only means they had of economic advancement, and the "jobs of the future" required having extensive educational credentials. Success in school and in their sanctioned activities largely meant drawing within the lines and implementing what adults told them to do. As such, they never really learned growing up how to think for themselves or act on their own initiative.

I've been a dissident thinker and a contrarian all my life, and hence resisted Millennial groupthink. Even so, learning how to live independently and executing my own decisions has been a challenge. Even while rejecting the value systems around me, I still had relatively few opportunities to learn to stand on my own. I've developed more executive faculties over time, but I still have a ways to go and I can see lots of other people in my age group suffering from a similar problem.

This is a milder form of what you'll find in people who have lived in Communist and unreformed post-Communist systems. Read about North Korean emigrees - they have what Millennials suffer from, only taken up to eleven!

As I journeyed through a number of post-Communist countries, I heard from a number of people that what they missed about Communism was how it was so orderly and regimented. Learn in school, strive to be the very best student, and in the end you will be all but guaranteed a safe, stable job implementing what will be given to you. For those who thrived in such a system, the uncertainties of life are challenging if not unbearable.

Look at Millennials today: they're struggling to take their overeducated credentials and apply them to a rapidly changing economy. Even those who studied more immediately remunerative subjects want structure and predictability. All the guys I know who studied finance want to be part of a bigger machine, rather than find and deliver on their own niche. The point of tech start ups that were all the rage a few years ago wasn't to create a viable, independent company, but to eventually be bought out by more established empires like Google and Facebook. This isn't to say that there are no Millennial entrepreneurs or that no one has achieved the Boomer cuck ideal of being the "next Steve Jobs or Bill Gates," but it is to say that Millennials like structure and being incorporated into something larger.

With this in mind, it's not surprising so many of them find the idea of Communism, and a rigid life of going to school before becoming a functionary appealing.

In contrast, Zyklons came of age while the internet had come into maturity, and unlike so many Millennials, couldn't simply subsist on their Boomer parents. Observers state that Zyklons show more self initiative and an understanding that economic success can come from going to short term gig to gig. With that mindset, it's understandable they detest Communism more than Millennials do.

I expect that as Zyklons and Millennials alike advance in age, the Zyklons will resent Millennials for our sense of entitlement, emotional sensitivity and instability, and plenty of other things.

Chuck11 said...

I saw GSS had a question about Things versus People orientation. Can you try to match that with profession by sex. I might make for a simply paper.

Anonymous said...

If this is the same "poll" I saw a short while back,
the results are GARBAGE!

Look at the (wikipedia - UGH!) DEFINITIONS they use for
Socialism, Communism, Fascism and Capitalism.

They are distorted to favor the first two.

Anonymous said...

Communism is a story to them, Star Wars more real.
LOTR more real.
Shoah now THAT'S REAL.

Racial Breakdown of Socialist/Communist favorability by race:
White: they're taking our shit and we work they get in line at cash register pay w/EBT.
Non-White: we're taking their shit and partying on it all day long...sing a Caribbean song..

Hard America/Soft America: Hard America begins when you leave school which is why older workforce Americans much harder than in school nursery younger Americans- or Europeans.

Soft America is school. A nursery. Of course they like "socialism" they have no idea what work or real life is..

That by the way is the thrust and the dichotomy of the book Hard America/Soft America.

Mind you I was K-8 Catholic school and those bitches were tough as Drill Sergeants at Basic Training [11B Ft. Benning Harmony Church]. High School was not as tough but still not fucking around. College was a party zone.

Yet another reason I advocate the razing of public education K-PhD.

We'll man these younglings up by fire. Nothing less. Nothing less than fire will see us through to survival. Then our own nation, then the stars.

vxxc

Audacious Epigone said...

Sid,

Very well put, thanks.

Chuck11,

Have more specificity on what the question(s) ask about? I'm not familiar but would be interested at taking a look.

Anon,

Yes, there is plenty of reasons to take issue with the definitions used in the poll. On top of that, most Americans apparently mixed fascism, socialism, and communism up.

It's more interesting for the relative differences (by age, race, etc) than for any supposed absolute information being captured.

VXXC,

Hard times create strong men.
Strong men create good times.
Good times create weak men.
Weak men create hard times.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

Socialism means different things to different people.

For minorities, it just means more gibs. That's all they actually care about and don't really care what comes at the expense of it. It's why most of the third world embraced socialism at some point in the 20th century. The only reason why the third world advances at all is due to coincidences relating to white capitalism, such as ubiquitous amounts of smart phones or fabric that is so cheap that the free shirts they give away are better in quality than domestically produced fabrics.

For whites, socialism is more "fuckyoudadism" than actual socialism. They are increasingly placing more eggs in the universal basic income basket because it means they can sit on their ass all day and play video games. They believe in the free market (after all, they want the latest iPhone to fix all the problems they have with the current iPhone), they just think that they reserve the right to not participate in it but still get all the benefits of it. However if you ask who should pay for all of this, the income level is always above their own because hell if they're going to cover it.

Anonymous said...

TO Random Dude

While you're talking about practical reality,
look at how the stupid poll describes each "system"
(not that you or I would agree with it)
and then wonder less "why" people chose what they did.

COMMUNISM: Socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the
means of production and the absence of social classes, money and the state.
[NOTE: "dictatorial," "suppression" NOT used to describe Communism]

SOCIALISM: Economic and social systems characterized by social ownership and state control of the means of production, as well as the political theories, and movements associated with them.
[NOTE: "dictatorial," "suppression" NOT used to describe Socialism]

FASCISM: Form of radical authoritarian nationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and control of industry and commerce.

CAPITALISM: Economic system based on free markets and the rule of law with
legal protections for private ownership.

Jim Bowery said...

Several million years of group selection in the primate line starting with CHLCA, left an indelible mark on the 600 million years of individual selection in the sexual line. "Whites" are characterized by an instauration, during the pleistocene, of that 600 million year old culture of sexual selection among individuals. This is why sex is being attacked as non-"whites" invade "white" territory.

Jim Bowery said...

By the way, AE, you may find my Red Ice interview of a couple of days ago interesting as it focuses on bringing the esoterics of AI to the exoteric importance of lossless compression to individualistic cultures obtaining actionable intelligence in the undeclared war on sex and individualistic peoples.

'Reality' Doug said...

Sid, great comment. I'm Xer, but I feel a kindred struggle there. Not wanting to lose oneself in the greater organization, but...

As a philosophical thinker I hate the canonical shibboleth of 'being a part of something greater than yourself'. A la the Hegelian dialectic most Xians are on the 'other side' with their better brand of herd mentality and safety. I know ppl here are Xian and don't want to hear more, and this comment could get deleted. The facts are in your face any time you darn look with your mind, but faith in a blind spot is easier. No one wants big government except for getting their own way with no immediate personal risk: socialized medicine or no abortion, government regulation of marriage or government regulation of marriage, enforcing conformity at home or enforcing conformity abroad, welfare spending on butter or 'defense' spending on guns, etc., etc. I don't thank ppl for their service because I know what the other end of the stick does. Eurabia is a done deal, and Amerabia is seriously starting to happen. Who will make sure 'the laws' are obeyed? Pesky facts cut through post 'sides'. A struggle to assert oneself individually indeed. Those who struggle that way are the only decent adults in my opinion. What competence compared to not trying!

DissidentRight (the millenial) said...

Free helicopter rides for Millenials.

The most significant difference, I imagine, is how they were raised and into which environments they came of age.

This 100%.

I've been a dissident thinker and a contrarian all my life, and hence resisted Millennial groupthink. Even so, learning how to live independently and executing my own decisions has been a challenge. Even while rejecting the value systems around me, I still had relatively few opportunities to learn to stand on my own. I've developed more executive faculties over time, but I still have a ways to go and I can see lots of other people in my age group suffering from a similar problem.

This 101%. Translated into the Black Speech: "So brave. Thanks for this."

Paul Bonneau said...

"Libertarianism is a white thing. No amount of Mises or Rothbard is going to convince non-whites to come on board."

Strange that you say that, given that your very own pie chart shows over a quarter of capitalism supporters are non-white. And that's not even controlling for wealth; naturally, a more wealthy population will have more support for capitalism than a poor one. If you considered only people in the same income range, a more honest picture would appear.

It's collectivist to treat people as identical cogs, differing only in skin color. What are you going to do? Tell non-whites who support capitalism that we don't need their help, because they aren't white?

Audacious Epigone said...

Random Dude,

A lot of them are putting those eggs in the UBI basket because they figure that when the point finally comes that their parents kick them out, they'll be able to transition over to an apartment to share with a couple other friends and continue the same lifestyle in perpetuity.

Anon,

In the vernacular, "fascism" is worse than "communism", and way worse than "socialism".

Jim,

I surprised myself in being able to comprehend the entirety of that second post. I'm watching it now.

Reality Doug,

What you refer to as herd mentality and safety misses a lot. It's biology and it's immortality (or as close as we're getting, anyway). Being part of something larger than yourself is a prerequisite to being a parent, an uncle, grandfather, etc. Tribe matters.

Paul Bonneau,

All three non-white groups were overrepresented (relative to their size in the total respondent pool) among communism approvers. Whites were underrepresented.

In the case of capitalism, it was the reverse.

Not all Latin American immigrants will vote for the left, support the growth of the state, etc. But most of them will.

Paul Bonneau said...

It's clear whites were overrepresented in supporters of capitalism. But the question comes up, why? It's possible the *only* reason whites were overrepresented, is because they are on average richer than the others; naturally, the more rich are going to be more satisfied with the thing that made them rich. If that is the case, then what is the point of going on about race?

There is a hypothesis here, that race doesn't matter; that there is no "capitalism gene" or set of genes more common in whites. The only way to check for that is to run the survey again while controlling for income, and other such complicating factors like inheritance. If that is not done, it is just an example of "How to lie with statistics".

Beyond this question of *why* the difference, there still is the notion of *what* to do about it. Even assuming a genetic difference, you don't want to alienate those who have the gene, no matter what their race is. In a fight, you need all the allies you can scrape up. Treating people in a collectivist manner like this cannot help.

Audacious Epigone said...

Paul Bonneau,

It's possible the *only* reason whites are more overrepresented among those who want penalties for violent assault is because they're more likely to be violently assaulted and less likely to perpetrate violent assault than the others; naturally, the victims of assault are going to be more satisfied with the thing that keeps them safe from assault.

For those concerned about interests rather than principles, the underlying causes don't matter. If the evidence is, currently--not just in the US, or even in the West more generally, but throughout the world--that those of non-European descent tend to be more favorably inclined towards socialism and communism than those of European descent are, why should we want to become less European (as current immigration trends are making us)?

dc.sunsets said...

-isms matter to people looking for scapegoats. As more young people are crushed by corporatism, blaming so-called capitalism is easy.

That minorities hate anything smacking of meritocracy is hardly a surprise. Libertarianism dies as soon as does Blank Slate.

Feryl said...

Teeing the ball up, I see. We don't have the luxury of taking everyone on a case by case basis anymore. That's not inherently un-American or communist. Times of prosperity and peace create the conditions under which individualism thrives and is sought after. People born in the 30's, 40's, and 50's were brought up in a time of unprecedented prosperity and idealism; feeling as though they had so much, it became easy to feel obligated to give so many people (no matter their race, religion, or nationality) the benefit of the doubt. The movements of the 50's and 60's were predicated on blank-slatism; invariably the true enemy was prejudice promoted by archaic institutions and older generations. Generations born after the 60's take it for granted that sometimes violent racial tension just is; they have no clue how much camaraderie developed between some white and black Boomers.

Nowadays those born in the 40's-60's are adamantly insisting on 1960's values being promoted essentially forever; they already failed to convince many X-ers to passionately fight Boomer battles, and liberal Boomers are nervous that Bernie Sanders style economic collectivism is gradually persuading more and more Millennials that the future ought to be different than the past (as in the paradigm the Boomers created in the 60's and 70's).

The crisis produced by too much individualism over the last 40-50 years is spurring each respective side to pick their spears and form phalanxes dedicated to defending a particular champion who, whether they admit it or not, intends to bring victory to a particular people at the expense of the "other". This isn't John Lennon's "Imagine" world anymore; nobody believes that "we all" can reach a utopia where everyone's needs are accounted for. Hell, even the Left itself openly gloats that whites and Christians are becoming less relevant; this ain't the 60's Left which praised all of humanity and blamed "the system" for keeping people down. The Left of course became the system over the last 30-40 years, as more and more Boomers took command.

Feryl said...

X-ers and Millennials are less trusting and less friendly than Boomers; Boomers grew up in a homogeneous country where the prevailing mood was that anything was possible with enough effort and the right attitude. The "live and let live" values promoted by mature generations in the 50's-70's are just not relevant, nor are they very helpful, to younger generations burned by the mercenary attitudes and multi-cultural overkill of the past 40 years.

What's telling is when you talk about what's permissible and what isn't. While Boomers have learned to frown on drugs and sexual perversion (after they overdid both in their youth), it gets more tricky when you talk about "victim-less" and seemingly mundane behavior. For example, ought we try and place severe restrictions on the movement of people to try and limit disease epidemics? X-ers and Millennials are more likely to say yes, given that both generations have never had the "live-large" attitude common among Boomers. Boomers, on the other hand, would find such restrictions to be an affront to their ability to live it up. For what it's worth, libertarian type beliefs are fading, even among Boomers. I think we all finally understand that the time for just looking out for what you want out of life is over. It's time to be more mindful of what't good for the long-term survival of our tribe and nation. Now we just need to get cracking on smothering the relevance of nerds and hedonistic doofuses who won't shut up about muh freedom and muh principles.

Feryl said...

There's also a divergence with the sexual harrasment scandals going on. Boomers are more likely to be indifferent to or skeptical towards the idea that carousing is just not ok. X-ers and Millennials are more prone to shame and embarrassment regarding bold sexual behavior, so they're more grossed out by the idea of being subjected to a horny dude whipping his schlong out. See also the decline in younger actresses willing to disrobe over the last 20 years, and the decline in public nudity compared to the 70's and 80's.

Within peer groups, X-ers and Millennials learned that being a perv is just not cool. Keep your body and your fantasies to yourself, unless you're with a trusted partner behind closed doors.

DissidentRight said...

@Paul Bonneau: It's clear whites were overrepresented in supporters of capitalism. But the question comes up, why?

Blacks in America are predisposed to socialism because 1) it feeds into their historical anti-white grievances, 2) because white society does not care about black interests any more than the government cares about spending taxpayer money frugally, 3) because blacks benefit disproportionately from socialism, and 4) because white socialists found blacks to be useful political allies, thus creating a force multiplier on reasons 1), 2), and 3).

There is no strong reason to think that a black nation would, in and of itself, trend to socialism. If anything, socialistic attempts would fail far faster with blacks, theoretically inoculating them against its nonsense.

there still is the notion of *what* to do about it.Political partition, of course. Blacks, like everyone else, are entitled to a country that will secure the Blessings of Liberty to them and their posterity (or whatever it is that they want out of a country).

In a fight, you need all the allies you can scrape up.You can accept help from blacks who want to give it without modifying your statements and your behavior to accommodate them.

'Reality' Doug said...

I see that Paul Bonneau presents the blank slate theory with the merits of a troll. When blacks make civilization not as slaves get back to me. Egyptians were Caucasian. It's not even debatable,...

and yet I blog and comment to appeal to others as the chaser fool. Should have done work this afternoon, but for some reason I had to finish my argument reply to what AE said. No social life I expect is the reason. The quick reply morphed into a polemic to argue that Xians should unplug. I'm not exactly promoting it here, but I'm not pretending I did not do it to get along here either. So before anyone can be offended, yah, I did it. The case in point from the comments here was just too damned salient on what I care about to let it go without a primary exposition.

Audacious Epigone said...

'Reality' Doug,

Are you saying they wuzn't kangs?

Paul Bonneau said...

I notice nobody addressed my suggestion to avoid the problem of fake statistics. Perhaps nobody understands the problem with them. Oh, well.

As to partition, sure, why not? I'm all for it, even if done for suspect reasons. I have been for quite a while:

http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2008/tle485-20080921-03.html

Feryl said...

"Egyptians were Caucasian"

Errr, they weren't exactly Teutonic, but they weren't black as coal either. And the elites were certainly lighter and had straighter hair than ur typical modern Egyptian.

It's been said that in their declining phase, inter-breeding with other ethnic groups, including blacks, became a lot more common. Well, multi-culturalism/inter-ethnic breeding sure seems to become more common.....When TSHTF.

Carlton Coon said that in many of the more diverse and non-Northern places he studied, usually the merchant/political class got lighter and lighter as time went on.....Elite males tend to be somewhat lighter and they usually have kids with light women. Since they're not part of the labor class, nor are there descendants slated to toil in the sun, there's no huge setback for elites becoming lighter after several generations. If it's true that Egyptians went from enslaving blacks to at least occasionally reproducing with them, therein lies there downfall. In America, blacks were granted greater and greater freedoms after the Civil War.....And proceeded to invade many American cities and within several generations basically evicted First World norms from large sections of urban America.

The social and economic toll of American blacks has got to be enormous at this point.

Feryl said...

"Treating people in a collectivist manner like this cannot help."

For several generations, our society has been sick.....Sick from a ghastly double standard that many whites aren't aware of, or actively enforce if they have elite status or elite aspirations. That double standard is saying that whites are guilty of various original sins (colonialism, oppression, all-purpose racism, pollution, etc.) and must always be apologetic and deferential to other ethnic groups., while on the other hand nobody is supposed to "stereotype" or be otherwise unflattering to a non-white ethnic group.

Western Europeans who are very individualistic and have been privileged for many generations buy into this crap way too easily. We're uncomfortable writing off a given person on account of their ethnicity because it we like to think that we're too kind and fair to do that. And it comes as no surprise that highly educated people are the most credulous, since after all, how can you convince a lower-class person that they're "privileged"? It's laughable. Prole whites who have no desire to enter the coastal striver maelstrom know that ivory tower true believers have been pushing utter horseshit since the 60's; problem is, since the late 60's more and more people want to have their own ivory tower, so the numbers of no-nonsense whites has been dwindling for a while.

How did we get here? Non-white groups remain fairly chauvinistic and disinterested in magic dirt/blank slate mythology. Meanwhile, within-in whites the gap between what elite whites want and want prole whites need has been growing for 50 years.

Audacious Epigone said...

Paul Bonneau,

Your disagreement with a response to the data does not make it "fake statistics". The source is linked to directly. Check it out and tell me how it is being faked.

Feryl,

I remember a study recently showing that ancient Egyptians were more Greek and less African than modern Egyptians are. The Nubians, who controlled the upper (southern) part of Egypt for awhile were black but that was it afaik.

DissidentRight said...

Paul:

AE already clearly responded to your accusation of lies. You weren’t paying attention. The question of how many X-colored marbles are in a bag is not a question of WHY they are there. And your assumption that there is some underlying cause and that the distribution of X-colored marbles should actually be such-and-such certainly isn’t evidence of a lie.

'Reality' Doug said...

Paul's a troll. It's so obvious. Giving cultural inferiors and political enemies equal rights as peers has been the death of the Western man.

@Feryl, who said, "Errr, they weren't exactly Teutonic, but they weren't black as coal either."
Let's see. Stone builders like the Celts/Stonehenge? Check. Thin lips, straight hair, and thin noses like black people--not? Check. Caucasian as in the Caucasus, a place north of Iran? Check. Western culture derives from Sumer and Mesepotamia and ancient Egypt? Check. Africa is not the monolithic cradle of Negroids. Only sub-Saharan Africa. The Mediterranea Basin is the cradle of classical Western civilization. Egypt has been both Middle Eastern and Western, depending on the
relative ebb and flow. East and West trade was a big deal, north of the Sahara Desert.

There are other important phenotype markers besides skin tone. The lines between race and any other demographic group are not without grey, but nevretheless culture matters greatly to a person's welfare and lifestyle, and there is no doubt that race and ethnicity correlate better than just about any other markers we have on a person's nature and value, and we use them. Some just lie about it. I don't have time or other resources to vet every piece of s*** and neither does anyone else, even before factor the opportunity and moreover suppression costs of 'our' gubbermont.

If you look at face structure and hair follicles, and you had to pick, it's pretty damn obvious. To those you won't pick with such a false binary, your conclusion is that they must have been black anyway to the credit of blackemurica because its about parasite power. Day wernt black, yo. I repeat: When blacks make civilization not as slaves get back to me. Egyptians were Caucasian. It's not even debatable,...

tl;dr Skin shade is not the complete story on 'race', though tanning is clinically proven to make white people dumber.

Jon Sumisu said...

Gen Z is making it hard for me to give excuses for Millennials anymore. After all, yes, our generation was raised with multiracialist, anti-White, pro-communist indoctrination, but White GenZers had that to an even greater degree.

Audacious Epigone said...

Jon,

For one thing, they've seen how it's played out and the perceptive ones can see the writing on the wall. Secondly, new media is huge. High school and college-aged students weren't listening to Rush Limbaugh or watching Sean Hannity a decade or two ago.

Now, they make up a huge share of Milo/Shapiro/Molyneux/Crowder/Southern/etc. It's not stodgy and staid to be on the right now, it's exciting and rebellious.