this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2025
97 points (92.9% liked)

Asklemmy

49381 readers
594 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 5 points 20 hours ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 day ago

He was younger…. He wants to go back to a time when he was young and free perhaps

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

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.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 day ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 day ago

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

This is why they want it

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago

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

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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...

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

I want the economy of the 50s

so, prosperity based off of genociding and overworking brown people abroad?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

in the me*

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

no, you don't seem to know what i meant.

your comfort and booming economy is a direct result of your imperialism and owning the world's currency. "the economy of the 50s" was fueled by blood.

don't be an apologist for it. don't be like a republican.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago

yup. and the us was specially positioned to take advantage of it the most after ww2.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

It’s grade school history.

that you appear not to know. which is easy for you because you were not on the receiving end of the violence.

I’m going to assume you know why someone would want that without the abuse of minorities

you are arguing with a strawman. thats not what us capitalism did in the 50s.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 13 hours ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

The main problem of all theories is the confrontation with reality

heres the actual material reality: western capitalists control the world, they are fucking us over. it was only ever "prosperous" to a select few countries.

socialism is historically one of the only ways to defeat it, i get the people who like it.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

Socialism was never implemented in good faith. Oh, you're talking about the Soviet Union? Try to run a planned economy on a scale of a modern society. And tell me about equality and freedom where you gotta be in the party to have access to better stuff.

Or you are talking about China? Well, they are pragmatic and apparently learned. That's why China is not a planned economy, but state capitalism. Sadly, it's heavily authoritarian.

Capitalism and the idea of markets is not the problem. The problem is if it becomes an end in itself. So if you ask me, economically, the model that China is doing right now is right and obviously pretty successful. It is the rest I would rather not copy.

I neither want to live in a country run by oligarchs, nor by a self-serving elite of authoritarian bureaucrats. The rotten form of capitalism is the neoliberal dystopia we see in the west right now, the rotten form of socialism is what the Soviet Union was by the end.

You want a socialist revolution? Good luck. But please think about how to prevent just shifting the wealth and power from one group of bad people to another over the course of a few decades.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 13 hours ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (1 children)

yes it was. how do you think socialist countries went from pisspoor poorest in the planet to industrial powerhouses in just a few decades?

if you like the status quo fascism for whatever reason, why not say it in a less roundabout way? i mean why would you be punching left so fiercely in the face of it?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

You want to see enemies, so you picture me like one.

Tell me one country that absolutely without doubt was able to improve the living standard and bring masses of people out of poverty, which is not China.

I am not a fanboy of China, but I respect that whatever they are doing in the last 30-40 years, because it works. Even through a biased Western lens it's hard to deny that they are extremely successful. But China does not count. They drifted away from pure socialism right after Mao was done. The legacy of Mao is not that great. Both Stalin and Mao mainly produced repressions and famines.

And where is the rest of the "socialist block" which is supposedly successful right now, and not an authoritarian corrupt backwater? I know what you'll say. The evil West has torpedoed everything everywhere. That's too convenient.

I read the Capital, did you?

Don't you dare telling me I hate the left.

I just dislike people who think they have found the ultimate answer and love their answer more than other people.

Economical and organizational structure is a tool to manage societies, not a fucking religion.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)
  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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago)

please engage with reality, my man. i don't want to "see" anything. the us have been killing and invading for decades all around the globe. my country was couped by it (and that doesnt narrow it down).

and yes china's living standard improved in an unprecedented way since the revolution. they are not the only ones, btw, socialism does that.

the only reason i can think of for this detachment from facts is you don't really care about the fascist status quo.

i mean its not you in the receiving end of any physical, psychological or economic violence.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 13 hours ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago

~~Better~~ good wages

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago

Because white guys.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 day ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 day ago

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

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It’s literally why they’re called β€œboomers”, it was an economic boom.

It's short for "Baby Boomers", because there was a huge baby boom after WW2.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

By that logic, there must have been a baby zoom in the '90s

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

Just a stupid joke on the tendency people have to try to reconstruct etymology from the top down rather than bottom up, often using tenuous logical connections lol

Boomers are called that because they were born after the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Zoomers are the generation of high speed rail and fast cars

Gen alpha are all chads due to the hormones used in agriculture

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 day ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 day ago

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.

load more comments
view more: next β€Ί