I support greater equality and egalitarianism, and, although there are many various flaws to socialism, as there are to every other form of government, I do see it as the best engine for creating a fairer society can be.
Big government is like a necessary evil to me. I'd ideally prefer to see more power invested in the masses, and fewer, not more, laws. Unfortunately, the reality is that if we don't have a strong, relatively powerful, government, with robust oversight and legislation, individuals will take advantage of the weaker among them.
Conversely, as the U.S.S.R. and, currently, Venezuela, has demonstrated, socialist systems have been abused by the people in charge, and simply exploited by a minority who have usurped the tyranny of the previous regime to replace it with their own tyrannical system that once again invests most of the wealth and power in the hands of a small number of 'elites' (look at how Chavez and Maduro became multi-millionaires out of their 'socialist' regime, whilst their mismanagement of the country's economy has left the rest of the population in poverty). As the song lyric goes: 'Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.'
That said, the Western capitalist system definitely ain't working either. A system in which half of the world's wealth is in the hands of 2% of the population and where the richest fifth of households are earning eighty-eight times what the poorest earns (Plato recommended a maximum differential of five, and George Orwell suggested six) is severely screwed up.
reply
share
eYeDEF (5050)
5 years ago
Capitalism is working just fine. It's the system of Democracy that Capitalism is married to in the western world that's failing. There's a natural tension between the two because they're fundamentally at odds. Democracy is egalitarian and prioritizes the needs of the majorities. Capitalism is a contest of the accumulation and concentration of wealth, making it naturally elitist. For the marriage to work democracy must act as an effective check on capitalism by redistributing wealth via appropriately progressive taxation. Otherwise with the wealth only trickling up to the growing exclusion of the majorities democracy is doomed to devolve into a plutocracy (our current state) and ultimately turn into an oligarchy.
It's not an entirely fair and equal marriage because the wealthy will always seek to use their affluence to undermine the democratic system to accumulate more wealth and power. Therefore democracy must remain hyper vigilant in order to make the marriage work.
Marx was a fine economist even if he was a terrible political theorist. He foresaw this natural tension of the rich unfairly using their wealth to game the political system in democracies to gain an ever larger piece of the pie over the poor and working classes. Unfortunately, the radical solution he proposed to what he saw as the failing marriage was seen to brutal effect in the atrocities and famine from failed totalitarian economic systems of the 20th century formed on the basis of his theorizing.
Right now in the US we suffer the problem that elites have successfully gamed our democratic system by recently getting laws changed that removed spending limits and now allows unlimited flows of money on campaign donations. It's totally corrupted our political process to where 100% of Republicans and about 80% of Democratic members of congress serve the interests of their wealthy donors they depend on to finance their campaigns over the majorities that elected them. It's our democracy that's failing.
reply
share
McQualude (4231)
5 years ago
Capitalism has already failed multiple times but keeps getting bailed out with tax payer money. The biggest welfare recipients in this country are capitalists. Banks have a tradition of privatizing profits while publicizing debt that predates America. The war on drugs is nothing but a system of funneling tax money into pockets of the rich and drug money into the election funds of politicians.
reply
share
eYeDEF (5050)
5 years ago
And in those instances capitalism failed it's because our democracy failed to provide vigilant oversight and appropriate regulations to keep it in check. Like in the last recession George Bush and especially Alan Greenspan failing to recognize all the symptoms of an oncoming bubbles due to their rigid free market orthodoxies and reigning it in. Instead they allowed unchecked bubbles from unfettered capitalism to lead directly to the housing and derivatives markets crashing us into the Great Recession. We know how capitalism works and properly managed and regulated capitalism has had the most success of any economic system in history. We also know and have seen the results of how unchecked capitalism is disaster.
Failure of the elected leaders to properly manage and reign in the worst macro effects of capitalism is what leads to those failures.
The drug war was a purely political problem created by our politically elected leaders. It wasn't a failure of capitalism.
reply
share
Thrillhouse (1509)
5 years ago
"Failing to recognize all the symptoms of an oncoming bubbles"??? They used regulations to deliberately cause the bubble. Paul Krugman specifically demanded they inflate a housing bubble to replace the dotcom bubble:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/19/paul-krugman_0_n_3118069.html
The far left really needs to get over their love for central banks. This is what people are talking about when they say the system is rigged. There's no central bank in a free market. You're the one with rigid orthodoxy.
reply
share
eYeDEF (5050)
5 years ago
We've already been over this when you tried to bring up the same fallacy months ago. Krugman was clearly joking in original article. Like I said, there's no possible way a Keynesian like Krugman was serious when he offhandedly suggested creating a housing bubble when Keynsians abhor bubbles. He was repeating a joke by another economist and even cited it in his article.
Furthermore, Krugman is just a guy that writes for the NY Times. It was Greenspan in charge of the Fed responsible for that policy. So maybe instead of repeating your oft told lies you should put the blame on the poor grasp of the wreckage from bubbles on the conservative in charge of the Federal Reserve where blame belongs. Krugman has no power.
reply
share
maximmm (3041)
5 years ago
I'm sorry, amigo, but you said that democracy and capitalism are at odds with each other.
Furthermore - what democracy are you talking about exactly? US is already governed by the oligarchs, their lobbyists and their unlimited funds for various political candidates. It's also why the current failed US democracy has no shot at providing any sort of oversight of the greed rampant in the political and corporate circles.
At the same time, that's why many people are supporting this new wave of 'socialist' candidates - I put socialist in quotation marks because I have a strong suspicion they'd keep maybe 10% of their promises just like the rest of the presidents have in the past. US has a problem - it's democracy is broken - but so is its economic system, perhaps because when one fails, so does the other.
We've all seen socialist states fail in the past - now we are seeing the same occurring to the capitalist system as well. I don't think going back to the socialist system is the answer -
I suspect an entirely new sociopolitical system has to be implemented altogether in order for some sort of stability. So, in my opinion, there's a need for revolution, but not without some sort of a sociopolitical end goal.
reply
share
eYeDEF (5050)
5 years ago
"I'm sorry, amigo, but you said that democracy and capitalism are at odds with each other."
Because they are. What are you disputing exactly? I already outlined the natural tension between these two systems as to why they are at odds in an earlier post. Western governments like the US have wed capitalism to a "democratic" system of government that is supposed to keep capitalism regulated and in check of its worst excesses. Like I said, it's the democracy that's failing.
"Furthermore - what democracy are you talking about exactly? US is already governed by the oligarchs, their lobbyists and their unlimited funds for various political candidates."
I already noted the US is no longer a democracy, but a plutocracy. Should democracy fail to keep capitalism in check its natural devolution is to transition into a plutocracy and ultimately an oligarchy. I said this already. We can debate whether we're currently a plutocracy or oligarchy, the latter is just a smaller subset of the former, but I clearly implied this when outlining the how the failure of democracy means a natural transition to plutocracy that this is the current state of the US. What did you think I said?
"I don't think going back to the socialist system is the answer"
No one is advocating transitioning to a purely socialist government. That's a terrible idea. But implementing specific socialist policy like Medicare for All at the expense of the plutocracy/oligarchy (higher taxes on the rich) would be a great first step in reclaiming a democracy. The US has been here before, specifically in the early 20th century when monopolies and oligarchs had a great concentration of power. It took a leader like Teddy Roosevelt to take on the oligarchs and move to break up the monopolies, and further a leader like Franklin Roosevelt to implement a vast array of socialist policy reform in the New Deal to redistribute wealth more equitably to the people and reclaim democracy.
reply
share
maximmm (3041)
5 years ago
I think my main issue is that you say democracy is failing - but as you've said yourself, there is no longer democracy in the US. Furthermore, is it democracy failing, or is it capitalism simply subverting the political system to its needs/greed? You say it is democracy's job to put checks and balances on capitalism - but how is that going to be done when the oligarchs pay off the judges, sponsor their own presidential candidates (a consequence of the supreme court decision - paid off judges) and control the mass media?
reply
share
eYeDEF (5050)
5 years ago
Well if there's one branch of government that's maintaining its independence right now as far as we're aware it's the judiciary. We haven't yet seen oligarchs "paying off" judges and the practice remains highly illegal. Unlike, say, the utterly normalized and sanitized practice of oligarchs paying off members of congress and presidential candidates to do their bidding through completely legal uncapped campaign contributions.
But that might not matter when conservatives, Mitch McConnell specifically, has managed to engineer stuffing the Supreme Court with pro-corporate judges who effectively opened the floodgates for unlimited money to flood our political system with the Citizens United ruling. That was where they ruled that money is speech and corporations are people, therefore campaign contribution limits were unconstitutional because it placed limits on free speech. It was a terribly nefarious argument that served as the final nail in the coffin for democracy.
But you're right that it could very well be too late to ever reclaim a democratic system of government. The longer our system continues to allow unlimited money to corrupt our political process, the harder it will be to ever clean it up. When special interest groups grow comfortable they calcify into institutions and become increasingly difficult if not impossible to ever get rid of.
The only thing that gives me any hope this might be reversible is because the US has been on this path before and it took major reforms by Teddy and FDR to get things back on track. But that would require a strong leader willing to take on the oligarchs and corporate power. It's hard right now to see who that could be. Maybe Bernie.
reply
share
McQualude (4231)
5 years ago
I do agree that capitalism needs government regulation or it fails but unfortunately our Democracy and Capitalism are entangled. I do not agree that capitalism "works." It works when it has a market or resource to exploit but much like a pyramid scheme there are diminishing returns for the bottom of the system.
The drug war is all about capitalism. I am close enough to see the incredible amounts of money siphoned into private pockets, in fuel, vehicle and aircraft maintenance parts, equipment, surveillance, and yet employees had their wages frozen for years and are barred from overtime. And that's just at a county level. Many of the arrested 'catch and released' on the condition they provide information so there are fewer arrests than you would expect for such a massive expenditure. It's a scam.
reply
share
eYeDEF (5050)
5 years ago
"It works when it has a market or resource to exploit but much like a pyramid scheme there are diminishing returns for the bottom of the system."
That's what I mean when I say it "works". We know it works exactly this way, warts and all. It's the job of functional democratic governments to keep its worst excesses in check in order to maintain the democratic charter of their countries. When you say it "fails" it can only fail within a democratic paradigm. Capitalism itself will continue to succeed doing exactly what we know it does within the plutocratic or oligarchic systems of governments it transitions into when left unchecked. That's because capitalism itself is agnostic to what system of government it operates under. It just works and it works the way it does.
All capitalism actually is is the economic system where the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned, so it's not quite accurate to say capitalism "fuels" the drug war. High consumer demand on one side and government policies designed to demonize and prevent those products from reaching market on the other is what fuels it. Instead they should be decriminalizing, taxing, and regulating illicit substances with sane policies like they do in Portugal or Switzerland that has proven to bring down fatalities. Just like how prohibition ended up creating this huge criminal market for bootleggers and thugs like Al Capone with dirty money paying off police to look the other way, the War on Drugs has created a similar sleazy pipeline, like some of the things you describe seeing.
The drug war was started by Nixon whose true intent was to implement harsh anti-drug laws as the means of locking up blacks and protesters known to use pot and Chinese immigrants known to smoke opium. This was admitted in an interview with Nixon aide John Ehrlichman a few years back. It's a purely political problem that was started for corrupt and racist reasons.
reply
share
maximmm (3041)
5 years ago
Bernie is a not a fighter - that much became clear when he started supporting Clinton after he lost due to her illegal dirty tactics. People do not forget cowardice.
Ocasio-Cortez could have been the one - but I doubt she'll get elected - not with oligarchs controlling the media - she's already being demonized in both conservative and liberal mainstream media (I'm not talking independent news media, its presence is very small - most of the western mainstream news media is owned by a few oligarchs) and it will get worse.
But even Ocasio-Cortez .... my experience is such that most candidates say one thing when campaigning and do the opposite when elected. Trump is being said to be different, but that's bullshit. Did Clinton get locked up? Did Mexico pay for shit? Did Trump even bother with the wall when he had control of senate and house? Did he improve relationship with Russia?
Obama - same as Trump - great speeches when campaigning though, but the actions upon being elected? Peeps left the hope train with a bitter taste in their mouths.
The truth is, you need an entirely different political system. Political leaders should not be immune to criminal prosecutions. US has had presidents who have committed many war crimes - not one ended up serving time. The fact that you have candidates saying a pile of hope and dream crap during campaigns and then do the opposite when elected - that causes people to lack any sort of trust in the system. Until campaign promises turn into contractual obligations, not keeping which leads to a criminal prosecution, it's not likely that you'll ever get honest politicians getting into the office - because people will continue to elect a person with the bigger and sweeter lie.
reply
share
eYeDEF (5050)
5 years ago
"The truth is, you need an entirely different political system ... Until campaign promises turn into contractual obligations, not keeping which leads to a criminal prosecution, it's not likely that you'll ever get honest politicians getting into the office - because people will continue to elect a person with the bigger and sweeter lie."
I hear the what you're saying with regards to the flaws inherent in the "democratic" system we have now. But I question the feasibility of what you're suggesting, that politicians should be held criminally liable for unfulfilled campaign promises. There's lots of reasons why legislation intent on reform might fail, not the least of which because there are many different competing interests and constituents who are represented by their elected representatives in congress. Campaign promises are a general roadmap of the kind of reforms a well intentioned candidate would like to enact, they are not final resolutions on what will pass after all representatives in congress have weighed in on the matter to hash out the best legislation where each ensures their constituents interests are represented.
Therefore, presidential candidates cannot execute a campaign promise by fiat if you want to preserve the democratic charter of representative government in this country. Are you really proposing the chief executive should have greater power to institute reform without congress? If not, then it's hard to see how you can imagine a system where presidential candidates are held criminally liable for unfulfilled campaign promises. Proposals for reform still must go through due diligence to ensure legislation subject to the compromises of living in a democracy.
Yes, it does lead to the unfortunate outcome that politicians might say many things they don't mean in order to get elected. But it's hard to envision your "alternative system" that remains "democratic" in theory that holds candidates to criminal liability.
reply
share
maximmm (3041)
5 years ago
Only elected candidates would be held liable. Furthermore, in case a campaign promise is found to be broken, there would be a trial - mitigating factors would be considered.
Presidents already have a fairly encompassing executive powers - congress can be bypassed. If not, that would be one of the mitigating factors.
In addition, in such a system, it's unlikely that people would make empty promises if they are unwilling to keep them. It's likely that the rhetoric would change - there would be by far fewer absolute statements made.
At the same time, it's not unfeasible to imagine a system without congress. Though governors are still necessary, as otherwise the power structure would become too centralized.
At the end of the day, a presidential candidate once elected should keep his/her promises or at least attempt to do so, unless a crisis emerges. If it is found that he/she lied to the people, there should be criminal charges. People vote for politicians who say many things - the things that politicians promise is essentially the will of the people. If the will of the people is not upheld (or even attempted to be upheld), it's not much a democracy then, is it? So, in that sense, this system is by far more democratic than the spectacle you have now.
reply
share
eYeDEF (5050)
5 years ago
Congress can't be bypassed for anything having to do with the power of the purse. That's part of the separation of powers designated to the legislature written into the Constitution. Trump is currently trying to circumvent congress by siphoning money already allocated by congress to the military for his stupid wall, but it'll be instantly challenged in courts and will never hold up.
So that takes any domestic policy promises off the table. All domestic policy decisions of any consequence require changes in spending which would necessarily have to go through congress.
The difficulty of determining criminal liability based on a list of potentially mitigating circumstances just goes to show the inherent problems with the system you're proposing. Who would determine the legitimacy of these circumstances and how do you expect these won't turn into political witch hunts? How can you expect this to be fairly adjudicated? To give you a hint, just look at how impeachment itself is a political prosecution and completely subject to which party in congress is empowered to impeach.
It's textbook democracy to vote out leaders that don't fulfill promises. This is fundamental to the checks and balances of how democracies work; leaders typically try to fulfill promises to get re-elected. There's already a deterrent in place for elected leaders that don't fulfill promises; the dustbin of history.
reply
share