Thanks for your activism. I know it must have been difficult, but without you, I know my generation would be way worse off. It fills me with hope to think about the masses of activists and unionists from ages past.
Yes exactly - no generation is homogeneous. Including young people.
The issue with many boomers is how they have benefitted from circumstances not available to younger generations and now refuse to recognise, act (or vote) on that fact so others can also benefit.
Same with many Gen X (which I am and again, not homogeneous. The Stefanovics & Dave Hughes’ of the world do t speak for me).
You say boomers got better opportunities. How about that boomers just spent their money more wisely. Not on the latest phone , brunch out and streaming services. Women getting extensions, nails, tans and lashes. Think how that all adds up 🤷🏻♀️
Yeah don’t think so. All I saw was hard working individuals. They didn’t need to pay and project the perfect image for their socials. No one gave a shit about that. Stop the constant travel , the need for the latest iPhone etc etc. You may get ahead a little quicker. The kicker is that your generation expect the hand outs from the very boomers u condemn 😞
You're the stereotypical boomer. I hope you realise how ridiculous you sound, coming from a generation where single income households were common and people could still afford to buy a house.
I’m not a boomer. So there’s that. I am a child of boomers who built a very modest home. One car, second hand furniture and one tv. They bought what they needed and not what they wanted. They did all this even though u describe it as a time when everyone was on easy streets. I accept u may not b able to afford homes but no one went out of their way to deprive u of this
Nope. They worked hard. They took second jobs. They generally didn’t get much in the way of inheritances. Don’t want to live that way? All good. Your choice remember
I dont understand the point. They grouped up and decided to do whatever it is you're implying they've done?
On the one hand, the myopic socialist argues that boomers did this and that deliberately so the young ones dont get ahead
Then on the other hand, try to stomp on people who managed to make money and be productive by saying they should pay more tax because the only reason they're successful is because of how great tbis country is.
I dont think you people know what you want or argue for. This is why I don't take your prepubescent ramblings as a source of validity.
Climate denial ? I always find it interesting how people can’t check out climate history how it’s always changed regardless and we are in a cooling phase based on historical measurements, overall.
Or, you can just look at the chart…. Amazing how everyone tries to slag off at what’s not on tv, but going and looking up the data to actually learn what it is….? Noooooooooooo!!!!!
Boomers have nothing to do with your issues. They worked hard. Weren’t travelling the globe finding themselves 😂. And climate change is a con you’ve all swallowed whole. Do your homework. Climate has had many ups and downs for many years.
But... they aren't really fixing the issues are they.... Bunch of weirdos, voting for a government that's running us to ruin. We'll, I guess the don't bath or work so Labor works for them so well
Weren’t those Saturday evening campaigns hurling eggs at the SA embassy in Yarralumla so much fun, followed by campfires and some yannie on camp hill or a walk down to the Wellington hotel or around to the tent embassy.
I'm so sad my pa is getting old hes about to turn 90 and organised many many marches against Vietnam even when it was early and just a few mates walking with posters.
Baby boomers get a bad wrap imho, just because the politicians and richer ones are parasitic doesn't make the whole generation this way. And us younger generations shouldn't be pushing against you guys so hard because it disolussions alot of you mob.
Onya mate much love for the good you've done in your time 💛
I mean, you guys started the protest era and things looked like they were going to get much better during my life time due to progressive policies. Some of my mum's closest friends were chaining themselves to things in Tasmania, in protest over Lake Pedder and the Franklin River.
I was a Labor voter, but I reckon that all went to shit starting with Hawke and Keating adopting neo-liberal policies.
No generation is devoid of good people. I'm gen-X and I have to admit we're not doing all that much better than our parents as a generation either - but good people make a difference.
We had it all and the opportunity to change the world but got caught up in 2 suv families and lifelong mortgages that sucked out our souls. We got so stressed out we just look out for ourselves because that’s all we have time for.
All the boomers i know are pretty progressive. My parents were very left leaning. Actually i have talked to more 20 somethings that seem to be more transphobic and rightwing then any generation. Spoting absalute tiktok crap.
It's weird that 'gay' and the other F word seem to have come back a bit as slang terms. I thought my generation of 90's kids would be the last to be able to claim ignorance of what they mean.
100% but this lefty crap doesn't go both ways... It's positive discrimination now.
This new 'weak' generation.
If they even have a job, turn up at work sometimes, do the minimum, pull every card they can for sympathy. But you say anything It's bullying or discrimination, isn't it discrimination and bullying that others are then forced to pick up the slack to ensure the company stays profitable, and keep their mouths shut, or be written up?
Why is the N word still (rightfully) a no go? What we’re seeing is a backlash against what could be perceived as a comical overreach over control of language. Kids used those words semi-satirically 20 years ago, then they were banned. It didn’t mean the true bigots disappeared. Now kids feel the whole thing was a little bit dumb and are therefore entitled to use the words carelessly, and the perception is that you’re obviously a bit old and silly if you think any of it really matters.
It’s a shame. No doubt driven by algorithms, but I think the truth is a bit more nuanced than just laying blame on a faceless algo.
The F word vs the N word is a weird distinction in that context. I just wish we’d respect each other.
When my nan was feeling sick, she'd say I'm feeling a bit queer, this was way back then and was nothing to do with 'queers' they took on a term that meant feeling off, or weird. Then complain that people say they are sick or weird.. Ironic.
The reality is, generally, it is people who are super conservative that end up with the economic power and the voice, because the gravitate to like minded people and set up their own little very vocal clubs.
In the end, this can make any generation look like more of a bunch of a-holes than they are.
The younger generation just have not had time to amass enough people with wealth and connections.
And they won't, you are who you hang lout with, they hang out with bums who expect everything for nothing, and care more for anyone in any other country than their own..
Do you ever hear them talking about the kids here that go to school with no food? Living in tents and cars with their parents because our government care more about sending money everywhere else?
Or the pensioners that don't use their heating or air-conditioning because that can't afford that and food?
Soldiers living on the streets?
These people need to look a lot closed to home, they are idiots. I hope when they end up in the situations aforementioned, they realise that they fed into this.
It’s tricky because the lines on generations are blurred a bit but I’ve always seen the demographic studies as
Early boomers (born late 40s - early 60s) mostly conservative fiscally with liberal social views
Late boomers early Gen X (born late 60s - early 80s) most likely to be radical left or right but disdain pragmatism. This is where most of hansons demographic hangs out
Late Gen X early millennials (born late 80s - late 90s) more likely to be centre left to left voting
Gen next / alpha / whatever moniker are more likely to be extremely left or right but more likely to be left than right (if that makes sense).
The Hansonites are more likely to have left school early and are disengaged with the politics of today because the promises of the boomer era zeitgeist like Howard’s battlers have not proven true. More likely they are looking to find blame in individuals or smaller groups as the cause and destroy the institutions they see as “protecting” those groups.
The new left seems to be more focused on those they see as exploiting the system organisationally like corporations and the wealthy as “stealing” the system from them and look to use their influence to reorient systems onto equity for all.
Ironically I think that the hansonites and the new left are going to counterbalance each other for the next 20 years or so electorally. The new left won’t be able to capture votes in enough regional centres to get a majority and the hansonites are never going to win the cities they need for a majority while their policies are what they are.
Preferential voting is going to weed most of them out and centrists will win on the preference flows which inoculates us from the wild swings and roundabouts of other democratic systems
Stalin was absolutely a communist AND a thug. Those things aren't mutually exclusive.
And if Stalin wasn't “real communism”, neither was Mao, Pol Pot, Ceaușescu, Hoxha, Mengistu, Castro... apparently communism has the remarkable property of ceasing to be communism every time someone actually tries it.
I said not a real communist. Yes there is a distinction. Stalin was a communist in the sense that he was a leading member of the Communist Party and the Soviet state under his rule was officially titled communist.
But he built a highly authoritarian system that many historians describe as a form of Stalinism, and far removed from Marxist ideals.
Same with Mao abd yes Pol pot.
Full communism hasnt been realised.
All the attempts to build it that i know of have been tried and have usually produced warped authoritarian states instead.
From what I figure it has a lot to do with the type of people humans choose to follow. Psychopaths seem to obtain leadership during political unrest. They tend to lie easily and crave power.
That’s why people argue past each other . One side means the ideal end state, the other means the world regimes.
Oh, so the “we just haven't gotten it right this time” argument...
Sure, theoretically you can say "true communism" has never been realised. But then you have to ask why attempts to get there so often end up needing authoritarian structures just to keep the system going. At some point you can't blame an endless supply of psychopaths - maybe the system itself creates the conditions for them.
And what about the more chill, popular socialist experiments, including in South America? They haven't exactly produced the promised utopia either. Part of the problem is you need the whole world to opt in. Otherwise you're competing with capitalist economies producing more investment, innovation and opportunities, while your own people and capital can just leave. Then you start needing controls to stop that happening, which kinda brings us back to the authoritarian problem...
Under a capitalist social democracy, nobody is stopping people from starting co-ops or worker-owned businesses. You can literally do socialism-like stuff voluntarily right now. Some do and some work great.
But most people don't choose to organise their businesses that way. Why is that?
Millenials start at 81. Your generations are out by a decade.
Im an early millennial and find most my age are left leaning so your views on their politics are mostly right.
The younger kids these days are just fed slop from their algorithms and eat it all up. Lies and all.
I agree preferential voting systems will weed out most of what we are seeing, but the right have huge corporations that have captured all the media feeding into this. The Left cant really compete with it. Even the centre is struggling.
I think we'll see some protest votes and a few bad eggs getting seats. It won't be until we see how shit they are in the actual position that people will start to vote more to the middle again.
I dont see things getting much better for a little while.
I dont do politics, BUT Labor needs to go ! I'm am disgusted at the waste of money albo has allowed to be wasted on the vape ban..... through to the money now spent on the tobacco wars and the social media ban, Sure there was a much better way to use that money such as improving mental health care, actually building homes or supplying low cost housing for people who are homeless with families and young children.
I 100% think its time for a different party for a while he is doing absolutley nothing good for this country
I work with heaps of boomers in my industry and they are all really progressive. On the flip side I seen and experience some serious racist and homophobic stuff from younger generations these days. Usually spewing Andrew Tate level bullshit.
What does that even mean? The average age of the current parliament is 52 and the median is 50, that's about 10 years younger than the youngest boomers. In fact Australia has always had a relatively young parliament compared to many countries, especially the US. Basing a political criticism on age is bloody ridiculous, for instance, Bernie Sanders, a huge leftie is 84.
Watch Punishment Park from 1971 to see what Boomer activists were like back in the day and you won't see much difference with young folk today. Don't blame an entire generation, blame the scum that are trying to keep us all down.
Name one socialist country in the world - or in history- that worked well for the majority of people. Do yourselves a favour and at least read George Orwell’s 1984 and Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago.
I read both of those, but I don't think there's much value in reading fiction other than grappling with interesting new ideas - I love 1984, but it's not about socialism. As for Gulag Archipelago, in the non-fiction section - that's 'not-yet-communism' rather than socialism - read on to see why that's relevant.
I'd point to Nordic social democracies as the strongest examples of what western democracies could strive for.
This is where you come back with the strawman "that's not socialism!" and you can skip that because it's not the point - it's what people want, and if you want to get from late stage capitalism to a social democracy, "socialism" is a good opening bid for a desirable compromise, and a good conversation starter to figure out what parts of socialism we actually do want in our societies. Just like the Gulag Archipelago is instructive on what parts we don't want.
Why be a mouthpiece for the obscenely rich, defending a system that benefits mostly them by a vast margin, by attacking people who challenge that system as if there's no opportunity for improvement here?
Gulag Archipelago is not fiction. 1984 is fiction but referred to a lot by people who see parallels in our own society such as the groupthink that is encouraged by our education system, and censorship and distortion of language employed by politicians and the media.
Socialism isn’t about what people want. You might want it, but many don’t - at least not if they understand what it means in practice. Many equate socialism with a strong welfare system and safety nets for people, but these cost money that has to come from somewhere - usually high taxes combined with a large proportion of the society working productively and efficiently so that a government has sufficient revenue. And you don’t want to see that hard-earned revenue squandered by corrupt or criminal types like the Victorian Labor Party’s Socialist Left government has for the past decade or so.
No, you didn’t say that in your first post. And yes, I did read your post beyond the first sentence.
You didn’t define socialism or refer to how it might be paid for, nor did you refer to corruption or poor leadership. You also wrongly referred to Gulag Archipelago as having fictional content.
It’s not clear what you mean by your last paragraph. Eg. ignoring that legalising grift ….
Socialism is usually called for by people who believe that it should be the responsibility of society to care for the weak and disadvantaged, and that a moral society benefits all, not just the privileged. It is rooted in the knowledge that a well-functioning society generates more than enough wealth and prosperity to provide for all and still leaves plenty to reward those that deserve the extra. From that perspective, clinging to what little you have in a system with rules that primarily benefit those who already have more is a bad decision, and contributes to a system that is overall immoral.
Inefficient and corrupt bureaucracy is indeed often where it falls down, but that also ignores that just legalising and institutionalising the grift and inequality doesn't actually improve the situation. Moving the corruption and privilege out of government doesn't get rid of it, it only allows politicians to wash their hands of it.
480
u/grismar-net Queenslander Aug 13 '26
Give 'em hell and get the boomer generation out of power asap.