this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2025

98 points (92.2% liked)

Asklemmy

49521 readers

637 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

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

Open-ended question
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.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 6 years ago

MODERATORS

Why do some people want to go back to the 1950’s? (lemmings.world)

submitted 1 week ago by anthony@lemmings.world to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

79 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

(page 2) 38 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Alaik@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 week 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...

[+] umbrella@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

[deleted]

[–] otp@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 week ago (3 children)

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

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] Alaik@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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

[+] umbrella@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (3 children)

[deleted]

[–] Alaik@lemmy.zip -1 points 1 week 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.

[–] zenforyen@feddit.org 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week 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.

[+] umbrella@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] zenforyen@feddit.org 0 points 1 week ago (8 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.

[+] umbrella@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] zenforyen@feddit.org 0 points 1 week 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.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (7 replies)

[–] Barbarian@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week 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.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 week 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.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] BilboBargains@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

Because white guys.

[–] IWW4@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 week ago

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

[–] belated_frog_pants@beehaw.org 2 points 1 week ago

Hate

[–] Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 week ago

He was young.

Being young, is nice. Mostly because you don't have to deal with a lot of the issues that e.g. a house, children and maybe the marriage is not as loving as it used to be.

So he misses being young, but instead of realizing that he was just young. He thinks about what was different and as your responses imply, he blames foreigner for the change. As you expressed that he thinks of you as just a girl, he is probably also sexist and the 50s were much more sexist as it still is.

In other words, culture changed, he didn't and he is old.

[–] Sandouq_Dyatha@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 week ago

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

This is why they want it

load more comments