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 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.
Not exactly. Liberals are very consistent in what they define as liberty, it’s just that this definition of liberty only matters to the wealthy. If you’re not wealthy you will suffer immensely under Liberalism. This is different than what came before Liberalism. Before Liberalism was monarchy and hereditary aristocracy. They knew they were concentrating wealth and therefore they had to provide public welfare for the peasants (nobilesse oblige). But Liberals wanted that wealth to be more fluid, to change hands, and to become a form of competition where the best could win their fortune and do what they pleased with it. They really did think that not being able to buy a castle for cash was a reduction in liberty and an affront to universal human rights. But they also thought that nobilesse oblige was also an affront to individual autonomy. They wanted all peasants to be “free” to work for whoever would pay them the most, and whoever paid them would have zero obligation to them at all.
And that’s what they got. The rich and the poor alike are free now. Free to sleep under a bridge or to buy a private island. Free to trade their labor for a wage or free to invest their fortunes in weapons manufacturing and hedge it with commodities in oil, gold, and food. Free to send their children to enriching experiences all over the world or to have them working two jobs and failing school to help the family survive. Free to work in coal mines or uranium mines or to buy and sell coal mines or uranium mines.
Freedom. Liberty. Achieved. Liberalism actually really believes that.
But yes, they also used it as propaganda to get the peasants to fight on their behalf.
I really like what you have to say here. I have often wrestled with the real meaning of liberty that explains what the rhetoric really means. I think liberty is the absence of rules, laws, and regulations. Freedom from these things but not really freedom as most people have come to believe its meaning. This is a toxic form of freedom that informs us we are only free as we have money.
We even have sayings that support this worldview like “Fuck you” money. The type of money that would allow you to walk away from any situation. It is the ultimate in freedom in US society. This says a lot about our culture.
It not just US culture. Liberalism was born in Europe. Locke put it into high minded abstract philosophy but before Locke there were so many people, all wealthy merchants who could afford printing press time, who would put out arguments that basically said “I have money but the king won’t let me buy land because he says it’s only for nobility with titles. Well fuck that! What about the nobility I earned through human trafficking?! I should have just as much power, or more even, then some inbred aristocrat!”
That was all over Europe. Hell, the wealthiest merchants even bought charters from kings to create their own cities and run them like liberal experiments, which is where a lot of liberal ideas and practices were incubated. The idea of fuck you money was a dream in the heads of European merchants and bankers for centuries.
The US is just an extension of Europe anyway, so it shouldn’t really be a surprise.
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.
The fundamental problem with stakeholder socialism isn’t the ideas, it’s the reality that the ideas need to supervene on. If you tried to apply this model to the USA today, there would be such a massive disparity in what we can do versus what we actually need that you would need some way to collate all the information and plan a path towards sustainability. And that’s a central planning function. Remember that Marx wasn’t advocating central planning because it was inherently good and exactly what socialism is. He was advocating for it because it’s what is necessary to get us from where we are today to where it becomes to apply a distributed, dynamic, horizontal system like you’re proposing. We all know the problems with horiontalism - existing imbalances will threaten equilibrium and horizontal attempts to address them will create systemic oscillations that will threaten the entire system’s stability. Most horizontal systems collapse into a perverse vertical system with the power elite being defined by those who were sociopathic enough to destroy the horizontal system for their own benefit.
Instead, a centralized system needs to be designed and adapted over time to manage the extant imbalances in society, and indeed between the society and the larger world, until such time as the imbalances become small enough in magnitude to horizontal power structures can remain stable. But since we have literally never seen a stable sustainable horizontal system work at the scale of a single society for a couple centuries, we don’t even have good theories as to what makes them stable and how they can fail and what we can about those failure modes. We need to test these horizontal systems out, gather analyses, and get empirical data about failure modes. And to do that? Yup. Central system. Unless of course we’re OK with one of the failure modes being a return of sociopathy qua state bring out a new form of megalomaniacal fascism and forcing everyone back into a arms race for survival. I’m not, which is why I support a centralized governing function.
Seems like that is the end state of any kind of system. Has to be torn down every once in awhile.
The french revolution was a failure tho.
Not really. It was a successful liberal revolution, just like in the US. It’s just that liberalism trades out the hereditary aristocracy for the mercantile and financial aristocracy
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.
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.
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.
So liberal democracies promised universal rights and utopia. Instead each Liberal state produced between 100 and 150 years of abject poverty, massive wars, and domestic repression of labor movements with the military or paramilitary police.
Communism promised universal rights and utopia. Instead they produced about 10 - 30 years of major famines and poverty and displacement and then after that initial period eliminated abject poverty while speed running industrialization without creating a class of robber barons that ran the government.
Fascism was defeated in its objective of destroying the world’s first workers’ state. The US and UK supported the rise of the Third Reich and Germany fielded the most powerful military ever fielded at that time. The USSR lost 7M people fighting all the way across Europe to sack Berlin and end the Nazi project. And for that, they will never be forgiven.
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 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.
Buddy. People are still invoking John Locke’s concepts of private property that he penned in the 1600s. What are you talking about Marx is irrelevant because a lot has changed in 150 years. You think Marx’s arguments are based on the level of technology at that time? Hell, the US constitution is 250 years old and it runs the country. The Doctrine of Discovery is based on the papal bulls from the 1400s and RBG cited them in the mid 2000s to explain how the USA’s claim to territory is fundamentally based on those documents.
But Marx is relevant for more reasons than just that his writing is recent. Hundreds of millions of people in China study Marx every year. It’s part of the core curriculum, it’s part of business theory, it’s part of their economics writing, their political writing, it’s part of party entrance exams.
Yes the books Marx wrote are dead and old. But the ideas are very much alive and adapting today just like the ideas of Locke and Burke.
I know it’s hard for Americans because their country is so young, but ideas don’t become irrelevant just because they age. Ideas that maintain their life despite their age are the most relevant ideas of our society. And Marx’s ideas inform so much from politics and economics to psychology to sociology to media and journalism.
Don’t most communists claim they want to eliminate class though? Capitalists enbrace it while communists pretend that their government gets rid of class, so this framing is misleading.
Yes that’s… what this post is about.
I dunno, it seemed like the post was arguing in favor of communism to me, but I could be wrong. Wouldn’t be the first time I misintrepreted something and got everyone to turn on me, lol
Capitalist ideology sees class as unavoidable and so it strives to make it meritocratic and unstable. This was a radical idea in an era of nobility or castes, but ultimately resulted in the merchant class basically seizing control of society.
Communism strives to eliminate it entirely, but you wind up with some leaders being insincere or incapable of letting go of power. But you also have the fact that it’s difficult to completely eliminate class.
What happens is that authoritarians wrap their fake promises in “communism” because it’s what actually appeals to most people, only to drop their facade once in power.
Then idiots point and say Ha! See? Communism evil!Kinda an inevitably under communism though. If the people who run a communist government stops actually believing in communism after being a couple generations removed from the revolution, what is exactly going to oppose them when they absolute power over their citizens?
Thus why the communist governments we’ve seen end up being contradictory. You could argue that we try to achieve communism by establishing a stateless society like marx adovcated for, but then how is communism going to be enforced without a state? With a state though, they end up being the very upper class that communism seeks to eliminate but this time with a centralized force of power.
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?
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.
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.
Do not delude yourself into thinking the class divide in the US is as bad as in the east block countries.
Elon Musk has a trillion dollars. I’m pretty confident that the class divide has never been this bad ever.
Nah, because there are plenty of powerful middle class in between him and a homeless person.
What power do you think the middle class wields? Our paltry life savings can’t buy us a politician or a judge, but to the billionaire elites, it’s pocket change to do so.
There are only two classes in America. The Owner/Donor class, and everyone else. If you aren’t one of the upper echelon, any power you wield is illusory and can be revoked at any time as soon as it is no longer convenient for you to exercise it freely.
And you think this difference is on the level of the USSR
