Gerontobigotry.
- This topic has 6 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 2 weeks, 5 days ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Not a rare happening. We nod hello to an old man or woman in a wheelchair or with a cane, and say it’s a nice day. Soon they bring in, out of the blue sometimes, what a pain immigrants are. They’ve probably never met an immigrant apart from those who nurse them when in hospital, provide them with meals at the door, take them out from the nursing home now and then; in short, help and provide for them.
“Bloody immigrants!” goes the monotonous refrain. Or, “Bleedin’ youngsters! Bring back conscription, that’s what I say!”
Not wanting to be reported for upsetting the elderly, we say asap “Sorry, got to rush”, and get away as fast as we can.These bigots will vote Reform, many even breaking a lifelong tradition of voting Tory to do so. Doesn’t Reform intend to slash PIP and scrap ‘light touch’ reviews of benefits, which will mostly affect adversely these very same voters?
No matter. These voters’ hatred of immigrants is far greater than concern for their own welfare – until it’s too late.Why does age intensify reaction and conservatism? The elderly talk on and on about WW2, but the only WW2 experience most now still living have had has been watching movies about it. They would already have to be 81 to have been born when it ended!
It must be easier than to face the fact that capitalism has robbed them all their lives and that now, as wage-slaves past their sell-by date, all that’s left is to ensure the young suffer as they have done.
Anything rather than scrap capitalism, eh?This kind of scene is sadly familiar, and from a socialist critique of the system the issue isn’t “old age” itself, but how capitalism makes people grow old.
The racism and reactionary attitudes that surface among many elderly people don’t appear out of nowhere. They are the product of a lifetime of frustration redirected toward convenient scapegoats. The system promised security, dignity and stability in exchange for obedience, hard work and national loyalty. What many end up with instead are inadequate pensions, cut-back services and the bitter feeling of having been discarded. Rather than turning their anger against the system that exploited them for decades, they are offered an easier emotional outlet: blaming immigrants or the young.
Nationalism and nostalgia play a key ideological role here. World War II, often experienced only through films, becomes a myth of order, sacrifice and belonging. It’s not really history; it’s a psychological refuge from a present they feel powerless over. To accept that capitalism robbed them throughout their lives would mean admitting that much of their suffering was for nothing. That’s a painful conclusion, so it feels easier to demand that others endure the same hardships.
Support for parties like Reform, even when those parties openly attack the material interests of their own voters, shows how far consciousness can drift from economic reality. Hatred of “the other” outweighs concern for one’s own welfare because that hatred has been carefully cultivated for years.
None of this is unique to older people, but capitalism sharpens it with age. Once you can no longer sell your labour, the system leaves you with fear, resentment and nostalgia. The problem isn’t immigrants, or the young, or even “the elderly”: the problem is a system that pits workers against each other so they never confront their common cause.Very well said.
In a similar vein, an American made a quip that many love their cars more than their children. S/he pointed out that people whose sons/daughters/grandsons/grandaughters have been killed or mutilated through war don’t hate the authorities that sent them to war. Instead, they become even more militaristic, jingoistic, and fawning than they were before.
Whereas, if someone damages their cars, they know whom to blame straightaway!How many times do we hear from elders: “Youngsters don’t know how lucky they are!” “In my day they’d have got what was coming!” “Bring back hanging. That’ll sort them!”
And “Our dad would take his belt off to us”, said with great relish as though it were a virtue?When older people say, “Youngsters don’t know how lucky they are,” what often lies underneath is not objective comparison, but a lifetime of normalized hardship. If you endured low wages, strict discipline, corporal punishment, rigid authority at work and at home, you can either conclude, “That shouldn’t have happened,” or, “It did me good.” The second option is psychologically easier. It turns suffering into virtue.
“In my day they’d have got what was coming” and “Bring back hanging” reflect something deeper: a belief that social problems are caused by moral decline rather than material conditions. But crime, alienation, and frustration don’t arise from a lack of punishment; they arise from insecurity, inequality, and a system that constantly generates stress and competition. More repression doesn’t solve those causes — it just expresses anger.
The nostalgia for belts and beatings is especially revealing. Violence is reframed as discipline; fear is reframed as respect. When authority dominated workplaces, schools, and homes, harshness was normal. To question it now feels, to some, like questioning their entire upbringing.
What’s rarely acknowledged is that younger generations face different but equally real pressures: precarious work, housing crises, debt, climate anxiety. Every generation under capitalism struggles — just in different forms.
Instead of competing over who had it worse, the more useful question is: why do these hardships keep reproducing themselves at all? The answer isn’t generational decline. It’s a social system that continually produces insecurity and then encourages people to defend the very discipline that kept them in line.
The problem was never that people were “too soft.” It’s that they were made to endure too much — and taught to call it character.Exactly, and brilliantly put.
In the workplace today, and in schools and, yes, even in universities, colleges, and leisure groups (!), the bullies in authority have been largely replaced with the bullies who are colleagues, fellow-students, fellow-enthusiasts etc.
In the past, domination was more overt and vertical: the foreman, the headmaster, the patriarch. Power was clearly located “above.” Today, many institutions present themselves as flatter, more participatory, even informal. But the pressures of competition, insecurity, and performance haven’t gone away. In many cases, they’ve intensified.
When work is precarious, promotions scarce, grades competitive, and social status tied to visibility and approval, people are subtly pushed into policing one another. Colleagues compete for contracts. Students compete for rankings. Even leisure spaces become arenas for recognition and influence. The system externalizes pressure, and that pressure circulates horizontally.
So instead of the obvious authoritarian boss, you may get peer surveillance, social exclusion, reputational attacks, or informal cliques that discipline behaviour just as effectively. It can feel less official but no less coercive.
This isn’t because people have suddenly become worse. It’s because when survival and advancement depend on outperforming others, cooperation becomes fragile. A competitive structure breeds competitive behaviour — whether imposed from above or reproduced among peers.
The deeper issue, then, isn’t simply replacing one set of bullies with another. It’s questioning why our workplaces, schools and even hobbies are organized around rivalry, scarcity and status in the first place. As long as insecurity and competition remain built into the structure of society, the forms of bullying may evolve — but the underlying pressures that generate them will persist
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.