We are a deeply unserious joke of a nation.
Change my mind.
That one time when that one dude uhhhhhh 🤔. Nahhh you right!!!
No
Helen Cox Richardson notes that accusation of socialism have been levied by the owner class as far back is the antebellum plantations, arguing the working class are not stakeholders and even basic infrastructure such as roads, schools and libraries were blasphemous.
The red scare started as early as Wilson, as soon as the Red Army beat the White. Wilson petitioned the league of nations to embargo the USSR simply because the ideology was a threat to capital driven industry.
I think the US public needs to deliberate if our intention is to be a public-serving government that holds everyone equal under law and values human rights over property rights. Or, if our intentions are for something else.
Right now the federal government is captured by a movement that does the opposite, with a propaganda machine propping up pro-business (anti-person) ideology, using socialism and communism as scare words.
We’re seeing the end result of this as corporations have captured regulatory bodies, they are left to govern themselves as top-down feifdoms, and the working class is left choking on data center fumes, monitored by mass surveillance and unable to afford fuel and food at the same time.
(We’re also seeing the US state, representing the US public to the international community, getting played by its national rivals, and our military misused and abused.)
Even when it benefits businesses to support the working class (and increase productivity, therefore profitability) businesses fall down, driven by the owner class’ pure resentment of their own workforce. (This is what drives the AI dream of full automation.) To business, the economy is for them, and if they can shut out the workforce to languish on their own and starve, no sleep will be lost over the tragedy.
So the people of the US, if they don’t want this outcome, need to consciously and deliberately choose to create a society that serves the people unconditionally in favor of the businesses. The public-serving infrastructure, the social safety nets, the investment into education and liberal arts, the clear establishment and enforcement of civil rights, the regulatory institutions that protect workers and consumers from the neglect and antagonism of the owner class, all follow naturally.
And that said, it means we are going to have to take business influence on government and excess hoarding of wealth extremely seriously.
And the end result may look a lot like socialism or communism, whether or not we’re working towards adopting either specific ideology.
Our intentions are for something else, but we will use the propaganda of liberty, freedom, and representation to try and convince people otherwise.
Its so obvious when progressive candidates are starting to get momentum. We immediately get back to the red scare except this time with a nice helping of Islamophobia sprinkled on. The playbook is exhausting…
Seems like that is the end state of any kind of system. Has to be torn down every once in awhile.
Yeah I’ve been saying this for a while, I think like a lot of other animal species we have a certain way we like to arrange ourselves as a group and we pretty much always stick to that, just with different names. Essentially, we just naturally seem to end up with a figurehead leader and a little group of powerful people surrounding them, while everyone else just does their best under whatever system them impose.
Democracy = a president/prime minister and a senate/parliament.
Monarchy = A king/queen, and a bunch of lords.
Dictatorship = A dictator, usually with a small group (often a military junta or something similar) surrounding them.
Communism = A chairman and the party heads.
The Vatican = A pope/cardinals.
Businesses = A CEO and then the rest of the C-suite people/a group of shareholders.
Army = General/Sergeants or whatever
Even families tend to often have a kind of matriarch/patriarch figure, and sort of arrange themselves in the same way.
It’s not a complicated system and it makes sense why we do it, I just think it’s kind of interesting that we pretty much always arrange ourselves in the same pattern without even really thinking about it. It might also explain why some things like anarchism don’t often tend to work out in the longer term, they don’t really fit the pattern.
Even things like the internet, which started out with most websites having a more-or-less equal footing, we’ve gradually arranged it over time so that there’s usually one big ‘main website’ for each thing, with a bunch of slightly less powerful but similar sites orbiting them.
communism isnt a structure of government like these
The french revolution was a failure tho.
Always gotta keep an eye on those popular generals
how far the line are you drawing that choppy? are you chopping the head off the piss boy? i think he got sold into servitude. you only get one point choppy.
Last time choppy chopped mostly commoner’s heads off. Is this what you are suggesting!?
And then you wonder why Trump won…
I’m curious as to why you think he won.
When you artificially limit the number of political parties to two, people are forced into voting against things, rather then for them.
Also it limits heavily the competition in the electoral system, which leads to incredibly weak leadership and a stagnation of new ideas and people.
Replacing First-past-the-post voting with a more representative voting system would give voters the freedom to transfer their vote if their preference doesn’t win. No spoiler effect
This keeps the feet of larger political parties in the fire, lest they are replaced with more representative political parties.
But this was all stuff that should have happened decades ago. The horses have escaped the stable and the barn is on fire. None the less, this is all something to keep in mind when new countries are formed out of the ashes of what was.
Strap up and stay frosty out there strangers. Peace.
My guess is your intimating that trump and musk rigged the election? Because I don’t think it’s that far fetched of a theory.
I’m not saying they did, but I will say I wouldn’t be surprised if they did.
Not being suspicious of a man who is notorious for cheating, lying, stealing, etc… try not to cheat, lie and steal an election that puts him in a very powerful position, I feel is lazy and dangerous.
especially when every accusation they make is basically confession.
A fatal mix of bigotry and stupidity.
He won because his promises were better aligned with voter demands. In short: Dems neglected large part of voters and he simply targeted that neglected population.
You can be cynical and say he was a better liar. Which is fair, but truth doesn’t really matter in this race. It’s all about promises and appearences.
I think it goes deeper than that. We have a problem with hierachical thinking in general. We expect our kids to follow their leaders, without question, there is little room for kids to participate in society in a meaningful way.There is no way for them to change anything.
Than they get to an abitrary age and we expect them to suddenly transition to involved voters.
I don’t believe that people raised to question why a system works how it works, who were allowed to argue , whos curiousity got rewarded, who simply had a real voice in their upbringing, would have fallen for him.
They would have learned that things are more complicated and they would trust themselves more to be able to change society than they would trust authority to fix things for them.
He won because they cheated. You can look at the results of Rockland county election where a democratic majority voter demographic did not report one single vote for Harris. “The anomalies in the presidential race include multiple districts where hundreds of voters chose the Democratic candidate Kirsten Gillibrand for Senate, but where zero voters selected the Democratic Presidential candidate Kamala Harris…” (smartelections.us)
In addition- “Plaintiffs additionally presented the Board with the first in a series of inquiries including questions about modem, Wi-Fi, or cellular connections to Rockland County’s election systems; whether the county was using either Starlink’s Direct to Cell service, or a program known as Ballotproof[1]; and if any irregularities in the 2024 election were reported or investigated.” (smartelections.us)
It’s statistically impossible and hundreds of voters from the district indicated voting for Harris. The case went to the State Supreme court and is currently on appeal. Should have been a front page story post election, relegated to the bone yard to all but those who saw it for what it was. Nevada elections (and most swings states) had similar anomalies.
Get rid of machines and hand count no matter the cost or time.
He won because they cheated.
If cheating the elections is even remotely possible then you have much bigger problem than Trump. But there’s a due process to ensure elections are fair, right?
The voting machines can be accessed via wifi so it is possible (likely not the first time). Due process would be great if the Supreme Court wasn’t completely compromised. Thus far (if you read the articles) the NY state Supreme Court case is on appeal. It seems that the judge doesn’t want to touch it given its volatility. How does one explain, in a county of democrats, votes for the US Democratic senator but not a single vote for Harris?
He targeted stupid hateful people with stupid hateful bullshit. No matter how you look at it, that he won once nevermind twice is an absolutely damning indictment of the average US Americans ignorance and belligerence.
Avg American isn’t much smarter or dumber than European or Asian. Have you considered that there might be some other factors?
Are you seriously suggesting the American education system is remotely on par with the rest of the developed world? If you’re US American you’re proving my point.
Yes, we are highly regarded in the dumbass competition that is called the human race.
Are you suggesting right wing parties are not making gains electorally in europe?
If people were dumb enough to believe him there’s not much anyone can do about it other than hope they figure out they were duped.
How about this revolutionary idea: They aren’t all dumb.
Yes, most of them are hateful too. Especially the ones that aren’t both.
You’re trying to tell me that half of all American voters all are hateful morons?
Voterparticipation was 64% So more like 30%.
People can be hateful AND other things. They aren’t raging monsters but for one reason or another when making one of the most important desicions they let themselves be guided by hate, doesn’t mean they don’t love their dog or hug their kids.
You slso don’t need to put all the blame on them, propaganda is a powerful tool,they might very well have turned out fairly decent without it. They aren’t born like that but it doesn’t change what they have become.
I’d say hateful AND/OR morons. Some are just hateful. Some are just morons. Some are both.
And it wouldn’t be the first time in history a massive segment of a population was and/or. Propaganda and shitty culture are a hell of a drug.
I mean the proof is in the pudding. Half of voting Americans voted for a convicted felon, adjudicated rapist, lifelong conman, and probable pedophile who instigated an insurrection and utterly failed at his previous term as president. What else would you consider them other than hateful and/or morons?
No I’d say it’s most of the voters, but yeah a solid half the full population sounds about accurate.
The only people that voted for him that aren’t dumb are the abnormally wealthy who knew they could benefit financially. And they represent such a small percentage of the whole that it’s reasonable to simply state all Trump supporters are fucking idiots.
And you could even call that small percentage stupid because they’re shitting where they eat. If you live in a country you are actively voting to make worse for the vast majority…well, that’s bad business in the big picture. They’re focused on short term gains.
The Republicans seem to be stumbling around helplessly trying to explain why they should get votes, but they keep using descriptions that could be turned around on them.
I’m thinking of Vance’s comment at President Pedo’s, circle-jerk-a-thon:
“The contrast in this election, ladies and gentlemen, it’s not about this or that policy. It’s about the party of common sense vs the party of the crazies.”
He’s 100% correct there.
Communism promised abolishing classes, but failed.
Capitalism promised protecting the elite class above all else, and succeeded.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of Marxism. While a communist society is indeed classless, it can only be achieved when there is no need for a state to defend the people from capitalist reaction, ie when communism is the globally dominant system. Until then, communist counties practice socialism, where the state is controlled by the working class, with the goal of increasing global worker power and eventually achieving the conditions where communism can exist.
Marxism has never existed outside of mental exercise. Every single time it has been imposed it has failed to do anything but act as a rhetoric for power and control. We desperately need something modern to look up to and we should drop Marxism in the dustbin of failed historical movements. A great idea for its time.
A nation guided first and foremost by Marxist philosophy (with a lot of modern development for sure) is currently #2 by GDP and is poised to be the main driver of human development in the next half-century at least. But sure, it’s only a mental exercise.
Oh fuck, I hope to God your not talking about China who has pumped out more billionaires than the US for the third straight year. The one that used a planned economy to corner the global markets. They are so far from Communism or Socialism it isn’t funny.
China who has pumped out more billionaires than the US for the third straight year
They also have about 4x the population.
China’s mixed model does unfortunately still allow haute capitalists to spring up in certain industries. However the worst offenders are regularly captured and imprisoned, their wealth redistributed.
When was the last time a US or EU billionaire went to prison for any serious length of time and got their wealth confiscated?
The one that used a planned economy to corner the global markets
Oh no, a centrally planned & industrialized economy works better than unplanned, de-industrialized and over-financialized economy. Evil asians are cornering the market!
They are so far from Communism or Socialism it isn’t funny.
They are really far from communism as Marx defined it still. But they do have a working “mixed” system, with workers principally in control of the state, the state planning the economy, and the state directly controlling most important industries including finance, with regulated&limited capitalist development strategically allowed in some sectors of economy in order to advance the productive forces. This is consistent with (initial stages of) socialism in the most commonly understood Marxist-Leninist sense, similar to NEP if you’re familiar with the history of USSR. It is not socialism in the Stalinist or classical Maoist sense but I don’t think you are advocating for either of those.
They also have about 4x the population.
But the amount of billionaires the US is printing is already problematic and that’s a capitalist country. The US should not be a country to compare to. It’s like if someone said “Well the Rwanda genocide actually caused more deaths than the Israeli one against Palestine”. Like yes, technically true, but the fact that there’s even a comparison to be made should be a big enough red flag.
When was the last time a US or EU billionaire went to prison for any serious length of time and got their wealth confiscated?
Unfortunately doesn’t happen nearly as often as it should, but with China since they seem to prefer executing them, I do suspect they’re largely political opponents they’re trying to keep quiet for good, not just criminals.
Oh no, a centrally planned & industrialized economy works better than unplanned, de-industrialized and over-financialized economy. Evil asians are cornering the market!
You DO realize China uses underhanded tactics, right? Subsidizing goods to be sold overseas is called dumping and there’s a reason the EU throws tariffs on tons of categories of goods from China. If it costs 20€ to make something in the EU but 15€ in China and then the Chinese government throws in another 5€ so the company could sell it even cheaper, that’s a bit of an issue for the EU’s industry.
But the amount of billionaires the US is printing is already problematic and that’s a capitalist country.
Yes, fully agreed. China is producing haute capitalists and it’s a problem they need to deal with.
The US should not be a country to compare to.
Both China and the US are global superpowers so a comparison is a necessary tool.
Out of two bad things, I will choose the less bad one.
they seem to prefer executing them
If you actually look at the last decade or so, they don’t actually execute most of them and it’s pretty much a “life without parole but you shouldn’t be naughty in prison”. I am also against capital punishment in all forms, and most prisons, I believe that even the worst billionaires can be reformed if you give them the chance. So this is indeed a valid criticism of China and I hope they can improve on that front.
largely political opponents they’re trying to keep quiet for good, not just criminals.
Yes, capitalists are the natural political enemy of the working class. You do not earn a billion dollars, you rob others of a billion dollars, and it’s only natural that people who did that will not have the best political intentions in mind. They all need to be kept at bay (actually just stripped of wealth and sent to do community service for a long time or smth).
Subsidizing goods to be sold overseas is called dumping
China is subsidizing its economy primarily to develop productive forces which is seen as a necessary step towards communism. This means also that it will be more competitive at the international stage; this is primarily just socialism winning in the “free market of ideas”.
there’s a reason the EU throws tariffs on tons of categories of goods from China
Or, hear me out, they could also subsidize their industries where it matters. But they can’t really because most of that subsidy will be promptly absorbed by the capitalist in charge, and that is primarily the point.
Like, think about this on a global scale. If every state stopped subsidizing all industries, we would only be left with what’s most profitable or the most popular with the working class, depending on the dominant mode of production. If everyone subsidized the industries necessary for human development, we would get human development. How is that not a win?
They are not socialist or communist period. They have some socialist policies but they are ruled by an oligarchy and are more fascist than the US.
Also, bad when US corners market on China but good when China does similar. Pure garbage.
China is verifiably a socialist country in Marxist-Leninist sense. Unless you also want to claim that USSR under NEP was not a socialist country in a Marxist-Leninist sense in which case cool, you know Marxism-Leninism better than Lenin, congrats.
If you want to critique China there are hundreds of ways to do so, from human rights to urbanism to policing issues, but the economic equality or non-adherance to socialist principles is far down the list.
Also, bad when US corners market on China but good when China does similar. Pure garbage.
US “corners” the market by bombing countries and/or forcing them into forever austerity traps via IMF’s policies.
China “corners” the market by subsidizing national industry and development.
Neither is particularly great but the two are not identical.
Failed as in transforming lives of billions of workers and giving them path towards liberation of mankind
Marxist doctrine is omnipotent because it is scientific and hence it is the TRUTH.
You are speaking of it being more along the lines of religion. I reject this. He had some interesting things to say for his time and that is about it. We desperately need something modern and frankly Marxism fanatics are never going to move the needle.
the fact that something was written 150 years ago doesnt make it outdated, you have to prove with facts as to why you think its outdated. Something isnt always something better
We either go marxist, or we perish.
But it does, listen to yourself. 150 years ago still relevant to this day! A lot has changed since then and no one cares about Marx except fanatics. The time has passed and you need something new to remain relevant.
“No one cares about marx”
buddy, the whitehouse is putting up deranged tweets against communism and kamal herself called trump a communist dictator. Communism is very well alive
you rarely see one of these guys admit their core belief lol
Ahistorical and incorrect. Marxism has never been more relevant.
Sure whatever you say /s
“Marxism has never existed outside of mental exercise. Every single time it has been imposed it has failed to do anything but act as a rhetoric for power and control.”
This, as the last commenter said, is completely ahistorical and incorrect. Every society in which Marxists have come to power was previously unequal, impoverished, unindustrialized, and most of the time a colony of another power. Every time this has happened the countries end up industrializing and eliminating severe poverty within a few decades, as well as providing housing, healthcare, food, transportation, work, and every other basic necessity for each one of their citizens. This can be seen with a simple look past the cold war rhetoric and into the actual history of the world.
Communism was also the primary force which defeated fascism everywhere that it popped up up until the 80s or 90s.
I am not counting a bunch of olgiarchy’s that used communist rhetoric to enrich themselves while never even getting close to actual communism or socialism. Please try again. Where is the shinning example of any of these nations? What is that, they all failed and became fascist… That is right kiddo!
Defeated fascism, oh wow you have got to be fucking joking me right? By what measure has fascism ever been defeated and please do not list Germany or Italy as the US industrialists helped bankroll both countries before WWII. Fascism has never been defeated. Some nations that are fascist have fallen, but not specifically because of fascism.
You see, in Capitalist America, man oppresses man. In Soviet Union it is the other way around.
Under Communism, Man exploits Man, but under Capitalism it’s the other way around!
(Sorry, I’ll return this joke to the museum now)
I don’t like communism. I don’t like capitalism. I don’t give a fuck about your petty squabbles and philisophical debates.
But I do find the imbalance of wealth power concerning and I’m supporting whoever will do something against it.
But I do find the imbalance of wealth power concerning and I’m supporting whoever will do something against it.
This is an issue related to the political and economical system that you said you don’t care about
You don’t understand.
80% of people will think you’re an idiot if you advocate for communism.
60% of people will think you’re an idiot if you advocate for capitalism.
90% of people will agree with you if you tell them the growing power of elites and the gap between the rich and the poor is a problem.
If you’re trying to convince people that communism is a great idea, you’re fighting a lost cause. If you use either the word communism or capitalism, you have already lost the argument and people’s attention. On the other hand, if you address actual problems, people will support you. Language matters!
(Btw, I pulled these numbers out of my ass. But you get the idea.)
The majority of people a century ago though you are stupid if you support women voting. It is a shame that most people has no principle anymore and abondon easily when something is too hard
It’s two sides of the same coin.
Anarchism is the best solution for everyone but i think this is only feasible in a planet where everyone shares the same values, customs and norms. To allow mutual trust and respect not to pilfer and attack each other. The best example is in Dune with the Fremens. Each communities still have local quirks and there is slight cultural differences between the Northerners and Southerners but they all aid each other and identify as one people. The threat is from outside Arakkis. So, even anarchist values would have to extend universal wide for anarchism proper to work.
anarchism is idealist bullshit debunked by engles himself in 1st communist internationale. Cry
Ahh yes, the workers should have just subjugated themselves to the authority of the steam engine.
deleted by creator
Why do you take the word of someone whose ideology collapsed under its own weight? Cope.
“collapsed under its own weight”
JFC go read history blud.
Cope
amrikkkans and europeans after invading, bombing and overthrowing every single socialist experiment:
See socialism doesnt work
dumbfuck
Russkies after invading and bombing and overthrowing every small countries and then collapsing anyway.
See socialism indeed does not work.
Simperialist.
You hate everyone cos you lost. That’s why you invaded a country 1/5 your size and into day 1,664 of three day special operations. You enjoy being a cuck and that’s why you are letting Putin sell your kids and grandkids to CCP vassalage.
Old clown yells at clouds! 🤡🤡
No matter the political or economic system, what is to be avoided is the concentration of power, both “soft” and “hard”. Alas, I’m more convinced than ever before that this is a feature of homo sapiens, and not a bug.
I’ve been listening to The Dawn of Everything, a New History of Humanity the past couple weeks and it’s been quite interesting. Particularly relevant to this topic is how many societies we have evidence for — through actual contact and documentation or through archaeological findings and anthropological research — that either consciously did not develop or later abolished a ruling class, whether as devolved cultural groups or even in cities of tens of thousands. Examples are given for cities in Mesopotamia, Yucatan, iirc north of the Black Sea, and other areas.
Lots of interesting stuff on personal freedom, collective decision-making, community care, agriculture and conscious lack thereof, etc.
Distributism is interesting on this front I think, it’s sceptical of power and wealth being concentrated by anyone public or private and instead advocates widespread ownership of the means of production.
I agree that social hierarchies are a feature of homo sapiens, hence why any good form of governance should be based on restricting our worst instincts. That’s what the original liberalism improved with the separation of political power into executive, legislative, and judicate branches. Unfortunately, the same was not done for economic power, which - most liberal democracies - allowed to keep concentrating with few to no safeguards.
The entire point of liberal “democracies” is to provide the conditions so that capitalists could concentrate wealth and power without meddling from the nobility class of feudalism.
This is not a bad take, but I think there is no point other than propaganda for the simple structure of those who have the most get to get the most.
A great example of this is the French revolution that just transferred wealth and power from one ruling class to another. Democracy and Liberty is just a window dressing to this reality, a way to placate the masses if you will.
This is why you have to insure the alignment of direct stakeholders and not overly broaden it above those who are directly impacted. You never want the same guy selling your food to be the same guy that verifies that it is safe.
A Stakeholder Socialist system, I think, is that ideal as it utilizes coöp commonwealths, democratic workerplaces, muti-stakeholder and syndicated ownership models, and federated levels of oversight such that power only escalates for things necessary and narrowly at that scope like interconnected grids or safety in international food trade.
I stand against communism and socialism in general, but not remotely for the same reasons Republicans do.
The Republican and right-wing practice of using “socialism” the same way it was used as propaganda during the Red Scare of the 1950s has seriously run its course. Of course, the problem is that many of the people who continue to vote for these politicians still genuinely believe the United States is facing some kind of communist takeover. That is precisely why this rhetoric continues to work.
Just in case anyone is wondering, I oppose socialism and communism based on the principles and practical merits of those systems, not because someone told me to fear the word “socialism.” I fully support things such as social democracy and a democratic mixed economy. What I do not support is replacing a democratic, market-based economy with a centrally planned socialist economy and coupling that with an authoritarian communist government. Historically, that combination has produced some very serious economic and political failures.
At the same time, I do not support using “socialism” as a political scare tactic to advance someone else’s agenda. Morally, I see little meaningful difference between Stalin using communist propaganda to serve his political objectives and a modern politician using distorted anti-socialist propaganda to serve theirs. Propaganda is reprehensible regardless of whether it is coming from the political left or right.
I can oppose an ideology on its merits without turning the word itself into a political weapon.
What I do not support is replacing a democratic, market-based economy with a centrally planned socialist economy and coupling that with an authoritarian communist government.
You’re conflating a capitalism with market commerce. Markets long predate capitalism, markets function in socialist paradigms. Capitalism does not mean democracy, authoritarian regimes coexist just fine with capitalist economics.
Communist government is itself an oxymoron because communism is, by definition, stateless.
I don’t think many people would, in good faith, support a transition to a centrally planned authoritarian state - but also no one would, in good faith, be able to call such an end goal socialism or communism.
Capitalism does not mean democracy, authoritarian regimes coexist just fine with capitalist economics.
In fact capitalism as it currently exists is the antithesis of democracy. It takes control, in the form of money/capital, away from the people and into the hands of the few business owners.
I definitely understand how you could interpret the two as being antithetical, but I think you’re conflating the system of government with the economic system. Those are two separate things, and there are a tremendous number of combinations that can exist between the two.
In fact, democratic capitalism is one of the dominant political-economic arrangements in the world. And some of the countries that combine capitalism with the most extensive welfare states are the Nordic social democracies. They maintain market-based, capitalist economies while using taxation, regulation, labor protections, and extensive social programs to constrain some of capitalism’s more destructive effects. The OECD explicitly describes the Nordic model as demonstrating that a strong welfare state can coexist with strong economic growth.
That’s where I think democracy becomes particularly important. In principle, democratic institutions should give the public the ability to regulate and rein in the excesses of capitalism rather than allowing economic power to become so concentrated that it begins to dominate the political system.
And that’s ultimately the concern I have with the United States: not capitalism itself, but what happens when concentrated economic power becomes sufficiently influential that it begins to undermine the democratic mechanisms that are supposed to regulate it.
And that’s ultimately the concern I have with the United States: not capitalism itself, but what happens when concentrated economic power becomes sufficiently influential that it begins to undermine the democratic mechanisms that are supposed to regulate it.
This is the inevitable conclusion of capitalism. People who support capitalism are like that crazy guy who lived with bears. It doesn’t have a happy ending no matter how good it is to have cute bear pets.
For example, Glass Steagall was an important regulation that capitalism eventually removed from itself through the capture of the government by the 1%. This is not a solvable flaw. The best you can do is make end stage capitalism your child/grandchild’s problem. It isnt very nice of you to treat your future decendants like this IMO.
I agree. Capitalism isn’t a very good system it’s just the best one so far and what we have now, arguably, isn’t capitalism but a corporatocracy, which is much worse.
I think you’re conflating the system of government with the economic system
I am not. An economic system can also be democratic or non-democratic, same as a political system, depending on who it is primarily controlled by. Both are intertwined and influence each other. Capitalism is not a democratic economic system on its own (since “the people” definitionally do not control the economy), and it is also incompatible with a stable democratic political system.
In fact, democratic capitalism is one of the dominant political-economic arrangements in the world.
What you are describing is usually called a “liberal democracy”.
In principle, democratic institutions should give the public the ability to regulate and rein in the excesses of capitalism rather than allowing economic power to become so concentrated that it begins to dominate the political system.
This is precisely what Marxists call “contradictions of liberalism”.
The social tenets of liberalism preach equality before law, human rights, the rule of people, and consent of the governed. To be clear, all good concepts necessary for true democracy.
The economic tenets of liberalism (a.k.a capitalism) establish the primacy of private property, including private property over capital. (there are other tenets as well, such as a “free market” but they are not as important to this discussion)
The two are simply incompatible. Private property over the means of production definitionally gives control over economy to those who own that property. This is fundamentally antithetical to the social tenets of liberalism, and this contradiction can not be totally resolved within the framework of a liberal democracy. Even ignoring imperialism, “regulated capitalism” is an unstable equilibrium even within a closed society, a band-aid that will eventually have to be torn off one way or another; for as long as a society upholds private property as its economic model, those who control capital will be able to accumulate it exponentially, eventually being able to simply brute-force their way into politics through corruption or nepotism to remove whatever limits may be set on their power — even one slip-up can be enough to disturb the equilibrium and start the downward spiral into fascism, see the socio-political effects that Nixon had in the US.
Thus, for a society to achieve a stable political democracy, private property must be eschewed and relegated as a secondary mode of production, at least initially. Whatever that system would be, it would not be capitalism.
You’re essentially making a Marxist argument using many of the same premises Marx and later Marxists used. I actually had to do some research to respond to this because I wanted to make sure I wasn’t misunderstanding the argument. But I have to admit, I do wonder whether you actually wrote this yourself.
Normally, I would start by defining the terminology you’re using: liberalism, capitalism, socialism, etc. But I’m not going to do that here. I don’t think getting bogged down in definitions is going to resolve the fundamental disagreement, because I think we’re operating from completely different assumptions about how these systems actually function.
I could obviously be wrong. Maybe you’re an economics professor at Harvard and I’m completely out of my depth here. Somehow, I doubt it, though.
So instead, I’ll counter the broader argument with one word: history.
Marx and the other early socialist and communist theorists identified some very real problems with capitalism. Their criticisms of concentrated wealth, class power, exploitation, and the political influence of capital are not inherently irrational. In fact, many of those criticisms remain relevant. The problem is that the theoretical solution has repeatedly run into the same obstacle: human beings.
The historical record does not demonstrate that attempts to replace capitalism with comprehensive systems of collective ownership have produced the stable, classless societies Marx envisioned. Whatever the theoretical merits of the argument, the practical results have repeatedly been far more complicated.
Meanwhile, some of the world’s most prosperous democracies have developed in the opposite direction: capitalist economies combined with democratic institutions, extensive welfare states, strong labor protections, taxation, and significant regulation. The Nordic countries are probably the clearest examples. The OECD itself classifies the Nordic countries within the social-democratic welfare-state tradition, while still describing them as developed capitalist economies.
China is an interesting example from the other end of the spectrum, although I wouldn’t describe it simply as “socialism.” China officially describes its system as a socialist market economy, with substantial state and collective ownership alongside extensive private economic activity and legally protected private property.
So ultimately, I don’t actually disagree with the fundamental observation that there is a tension between concentrated economic power and democratic political equality. That’s a legitimate problem, and I think democratic institutions absolutely need mechanisms capable of preventing economic power from becoming political domination.
Where we disagree is what follows from that observation.
I think Marx’s critique identifies a real structural problem, but I don’t think the historical evidence demonstrates that abolishing private ownership of the means of production is the necessary solution. In practice, the systems that have proven most durable have generally been mixed systems: markets and private property combined with democratic government, regulation, redistribution, social insurance, and public institutions.
And perhaps the deeper problem with Marx’s theoretical framework is that it assumes we can fundamentally restructure the economic system without having to account for the behavior of the human beings operating it. Until scarcity itself is substantially reduced, I don’t see a realistic path toward the kind of society Marx envisioned.
But I have to admit, I do wonder whether you actually wrote this yourself.
I can assuage you that all text I post on here was written myself by typing on this keyboard. All stupidity is my own, none of that artificial stuff.
And I honestly want to say, kudos to you for looking into this.
I don’t think getting bogged down in definitions is going to resolve the fundamental disagreement, because I think we’re operating from completely different assumptions about how these systems actually function.
I don’t think we necessarily disagree on most fundamental things.
I think Marx’s critique identifies a real structural problem, but I don’t think the historical evidence demonstrates that abolishing private ownership of the means of production is the necessary solution. In practice, the systems that have proven most durable have generally been mixed systems: markets and private property combined with democratic government, regulation, redistribution, social insurance, and public institutions.
I agree that currently all non-failed states contain a component of capitalist mode of production. It seems unavoidable at the current level of development of productive forces and human society to use greed as a (limited) motivator. There are two questions to be answered: which component is primary for each state, and how does imperialism tie in to this.
Now on to where I think we will disagree:
The problem is that the theoretical solution has repeatedly run into the same obstacle: human beings.
The actual problem that most socialist states ran into was not the abstract “human beings” (all systems run into that one). It was imperialist aggression waged by capitalists to prevent a similar organization of workers in their respective states. This, together with internal mismanagement by bureaucrats, are the main contributing factors to the fall of USSR.
The historical record does not demonstrate that attempts to replace capitalism with comprehensive systems of collective ownership have produced the stable, classless societies Marx envisioned. Whatever the theoretical merits of the argument, the practical results have repeatedly been far more complicated.
I think it’s important to not underestimate the real achievements of socialist state, for all their failings they did move humanity forwards significantly, even if communism is still far away.
Early USSR was on the forefront of many social-progressive issues, from feminism to LGBT rights to ethnic equality. This was gradually worn down during Stalinism and stagnated in the later stages, but it is still impressive for a state to pick the right answer on so many controversial topics.
Early USSR was also on the forefront of worker’s rights and many human rights. USSR was the first country to introduce free universal healthcare. Wealth inequality dropped quickly. It industrialized with immense speed, and was the country that de-facto defeated nazism and fascism. Access to housing and food was made practically a guaranteed right for all.
It had a lot of issues, from the overly punitive prison system to deterioration of social justice and human rights under Stalin to the formation of a “bureaucratic class”, etc. All those are things that have been taken into consideration, to various degrees, by most currently existing socialist states.
(also I’d like to note that no currently existing communist party has a classless society as a short-term goal; since ML is a dominant ideology in socialist states, it is believed that a “dictatorship of proletariat” needs to be established, productive forces need to be sufficiently developed, and there need to be mass education and cultural changes before communism is possible)
Meanwhile, some of the world’s most prosperous democracies have developed in the opposite direction: capitalist economies combined with democratic institutions, extensive welfare states, strong labor protections, taxation, and significant regulation.
I don’t think those are opposite directions, actually. Today’s welfare states were all originally “inspired”, or at least significantly developed, by the ruling classes of their corresponding countries fearing a scenario similar to USSR, and placating the workers by providing them with similar benefits. Thus, the two systems developed in parallel directions, and with the fall of USSR you can see a (delayed) deterioration of welfare systems in many capitalist countries, since the fear motivator for the capital is reduced - this is also a parallel “development”, just in the opposite direction.
China is an interesting example from the other end of the spectrum, although I wouldn’t describe it simply as “socialism.” China officially describes its system as a socialist market economy, with substantial state and collective ownership alongside extensive private economic activity and legally protected private property.
This is where the concept of “dominant mode of production” comes in. China’s economy is centrally planned and managed, most critical industries are tightly controlled by the state, the state owns most big corporations and has significant influence in internal structure of others. Capitalist mode of production is allowed to exist, but it is secondary, thus preventing the worst excesses. This was actually also advocated by Lenin in his NEP program, and is consistent with the ML definition of socialism.
And perhaps the deeper problem with Marx’s theoretical framework is that it assumes we can fundamentally restructure the economic system without having to account for the behavior of the human beings operating it.
Marx does not assume this. In fact he specifically talked about the Base-Superstructure dialectic and “definite forms of social consciousness” (currently this is usually unified with the Superstructure), and this ties closely into the subject of our discussion. Human behavior will indeed need to change in order to achieve communism, however those changes are only likely to come once the base (the economic relations) surpasses the capitalist mode of production. Lenin postulated that to surpass capitalist mode of production, it is necessary to first achieve “dictatorship of proletariat” — a state in which the working class is the ruling class and exerts authority over all others — which is usually called socialism.
Until scarcity itself is substantially reduced, I don’t see a realistic path toward the kind of society Marx envisioned.
Scarcity is not the issue. Existing food and housing scarcity is almost entirely artificial, imposed by imperialists and capitalists to keep a more obedient labor force. There is an issue of greed; however, the capitalist superstructure supercharges the existing natural greed in humans to a horrifying degree.
Agreed.
But I am definitely not saying that capitalism equals democracy I’m simply saying that I would be opposed to replacing the system that we currently have with socialism as a market I specifically did say that I support social democracy and by extension Democratic socialism.
So not entirely sure what it is that I’m completing here.
It’s funny because no ideology will work if the people are corrupt, and no ideology will fail if the people have character.
They’re using divide and conquer to make us fight each other over concepts, when what we all really want is people in power with character and accountability - which is the one thing they won’t give us regardless of system.
I’ll take a good man with a bad ideology over a bad man with a good ideology any week in any era.
I think George Carlin said it best garbage in garbage out.
Most governments with the Communist in the name, are just state run capitalists
-
‘Communist’ party
-
has nothing to do with communism
-
‘Democratic’ party
-
has nothing to do with democracy
Republican fits too, but Democratic is more obvious.
-
Yes… China is state capitalist… Meanwhile, here in the Burger Reich, corporations routinely get bailouts from Uncle Sam paid for by the taxes of the workers.
If China is State Capitalist, what do you consider the USA?
Fake communist societies being state capitalists doesn’t preclude other societies from being state capitalist.
Yeah, if the response to “this system doesn’t work” is “neither does yours” then we agree that neither system works, and need to find one that does. And if no system will ever work, we need to find some way to live safely and securely without systems.
And if no system will ever work, we need to find some way to live safely and securely without systems.
one just has to look to anthropology, we know what works, the Khalari Bushmen lasted 100,000 years, The Australian Aborigine lasted 60,000 gears, we won’t last another 50.
We won’t go back voluntarily but we will go back
for example
https://aeon.co/essays/why-inequality-bothers-people-more-than-poverty
Up until then, it was widely believed that hunter-gatherers endured a near-constant battle against starvation, and that it was only with the advent of agriculture that we began to free ourselves from the capricious tyranny of nature.
When in 1964 a young Canadian anthropologist, Richard Borshay Lee, conducted a series of simple economic input/output analyses of the Ju/’hoansi as they went about their daily lives, he revealed that not only did they make a good living from hunting and gathering, but that they were also well-nourished and content. Most remarkably, his research revealed that the Ju/’hoansi managed this on the basis of little more than 15 hours’ work per week. On the strength of this finding, the anthropologist Marshall Salinas in Stone Age Economics (1972) renamed hunter-gatherers ‘the original affluent society’.
Liked your comment, stalked you, liked your comment history. How do I permanently follow you on Lemmy?
We are animals. This will never happen.
Anthropological evidence suggests otherwisee
If China is State Capitalist, what do you consider the USA?
State capitalist with no tooth. The enemy of your enemy isn’t always your friend, stop defending the bad of the other camp just because you hate the bad from this camp.
Fascist with some vestigial elements of liberalism (or maybe liberalism rapidly descending into fascism if you’re feeling generous). In state capitalism, the state controls the corporations. In fascism, the corporations control the state.
going to quibble just because fascism is a reaction against a threat of a worker’s movement.
That has been totally crushed in the US currently.
You are missing class context. In China, the working class control the state, and through them the corporations. In the US, the capitalist control the state and the corporations, and do fascism to prevent the workers from gaining any control over anything.
How exacty is the working class controlling the state in China?
The CPC is made up of members of the working class, who both elect higher representatives and vote directly on numerous issues. Any member of the working class can join the CPC, provided they agree to the system of centralized democracy that governs the party.
By that definition most ‘western’ countries are controlled by the working class too, with the addition that literally everybody in the working class gets to vote.
Except in practice, when rich people are allowed to participate in the political process, they use their wealth to influence everything. So in the West, we technically have democracies, but in practice we actually have oligarchies where the entire system is set up to empower the wealthy and prevent the working class from gaining real power. Since China doesn’t allow the capitalists to participate in politics, their democracy remains in the hands of the people.
Crony Capitalism
that’s the only kind there is
👆🏽
Do you… do you really think china isnt capitalist?
So why doesn’t the US adopt their system, which is doing much better?
Most hatred for ‘capitalism’ is specificly for “American capitalism”. Even though the problem isnt the economic system, as in reality they all suck arse. Capitalism just sucks the least.
Capitalism in Europe is quite social in comparison.
yes for all the wrong reasons
Capitalism in Europe is quite social in comparison.
indeed but still completly unsustainable
you mean the kind that was constrained by the threat of communism?
deleted by creator
I mean of all the things to criticize China about, a planned economy should be one to avoid.
Yes, using a planned economy to corner the market is such an amazing capilitistic accomplishment.
In Hungary, healthcare privatization got called “communism” every time someone thought about doing it. Even Fidesz got called “communist” for not doing what the Reagan-era capitalism was in theory, but what the Reagan-era capitalism was in practice.
