Forum Replies Created
-
Not sure I have the background to respond to you other than in very simplistic terms. Yes Capitalism by its nature, in theory, affords people the freedom of gathering for themselves at the expense of others. No other political systems gives one as much freedom to do good and do bad. There is no perfect economic system be it capitalism, socialism, or communism. The theory of capitalism , at least as I understand it, is that private ownership allows the development of ideas, the fuel for growth, and without growth, by its nature capitalism will die. So there must be innovation which can be accomplished better with freedom to make both gains and losses at one’s own expense. The problem arises when it becomes totally free without governance because human nature kicks in and the more I get the more I want; the the more I got the more I need prevent others from getting what I got. (I love that sentence precisely because of its grammar)And that leaves others behind-further and further behind. Private ownership simply cannot be unfettered otherwise we reduce ourselves to selfish robots. And I think we’ve been headed that way too long. We seem to care less and less about those less fortunate. Perhaps someday this direction will reverse itself simply because we want it to. Maybe it won’t. I don’t know.
The thing is, as you know, capitalism is an economic system/theory, not a political system/theory. It can be matched with various political systems, but it isn’t one on its own. The best match, I think we’d all agree, is democracy, but I’d argue that the autocratic, anti-democratic nature of capitalism itself cancels out most of the benefits of that match, which is why I advocate for economic democracy as well as political.
Currently reading a really good book by Jonathan Israel, The Revolution of the Mind. He’s arguably the foremost historian of the Enlightenment, and his book focuses primarily on the split between the Radical and Moderate wings. Almost finished with the section that talks about laissez faire economic theorists, supported, with few exceptions, by the Moderates, and rejected, with even fewer exceptions, by the Radicals. That focus is primarily in the late 1700s, and even then, there was recognition of the illogic of just letting “providence” or “the markets” decide.
My take is that this would only have a snowball’s chance of working if we started off in a world of equality, already. But we obviously don’t. So any system that allows “freedom” of this kind just multiplies and expands the privileges and advantages already in place, which can’t help but widen the gaps.
Diderot, Baron D’Holbach, Hevetius and Thomas Paine are some of the major figures in the Radical camp, arguing for true democracy, an end to all privilege, rank, churchly powers, etc. etc. . . . with Hobbes, Hume, Voltaire and others in the Moderate camp, trying to hang on to some of those privileges.
Worth a read, W.
Anyway, IMO, capitalism is just incompatible with the kind of society you’re talking about. We’re bombarded 24/7 with messages of me me me, instant personal gratification, and endless scaremongering about how ghastly it would apparently be if we actually shared the planet with each other.
Again, I find the entire capitalist mindset to be a form of mass delusion and amnesia. It’s also killing the planet.
Well, what exactly are Democrats supposed to do? Trump is taking cases to court. Courts will decide them.
w
vSirota is arguing that the Democrats should be out there controlling Spin as well. He’s right. They do a very poor job of framing issues. They should be out there using language like “Coup, unAmerican, Democracy” Whatever. Call them out for what they are doing.
I think they need to do more than just counter the narrative, but that is essential. I think they need to bring counter-suits, alleging voter suppression by the GOP. They can easily show evidence of Trump and GOP efforts to jam up voting via the Postal Service, purging voter rolls, reducing polling places in areas dominated by Dem voters, etc.
They can’t count on the courts to rule in their favor. The system is far too political and partisan for that.
Trump and the GOP have shown that reality can be overturned by unified, relentless, unwavering lies. He would have been booted from office already if that hadn’t been surprisingly successful. They created an alternative reality, which means we have a duel.
If one side doesn’t even show up, the lies and the alternative reality win.
I’m a ‘little’ worried. But not a ‘lot’ worried.
Mainly because i think the System is fine with Biden. The CIA, NSA, Pentagon, Military, etc. If Bernie had won….i dunno.
w
vYou may be right, WV. But I think Trump has, ironically, proved that his own conception of the supposedly awesome power of the Deep State is nonsense, and that the Greenwalds of this world were wrong to cast it as a monolith. It if were all powerful, Trump never would have survived the Mueller probe, which we’ve recently learned, was purposely limited and truncated up front . . . nor would he have survived the impeachment process.
No president has been this systematic in his takeover of the Executive branch, with a combination of angry threats, intimidation, and firings, especially of Inspector Generals, which once was unheard of.
You can blunt the impact of an entrenched bureaucracy by killing off the watchdogs, appointing loyalists to manage it, and scaring everyone to death about their own futures. When you have the full support of half the duopoly, and a fanatical cult, egged on by a well-heeled mediaverse, it’s even easier.
I’m getting worried, and I fear the Dems will be all too passive, as is their wont.
WWDJD* in their place? The Dems don’t have that in their DNA.
*What would Deacon Jones do
There is a real progressive movement in the country. In terms of what voters want, when polled, they identify with progressive positions, too. It is also true that unlike more advanced democracies (in Europe for example), the USA is still dealing with good old-fashioned red scare tactics. But I will say this. People who warn us about that kind of thing actually reinforce those tactics. Sometimes I even think that’s the point.
I think its quite complicated. Lots of different political-factions and movements swirling in a vortex of American politics.
Biden/Obama/Clinton/DNC use the same formula over and over to win or sometimes lose elections. They do that because they are moderate-republicans. Thats what they are. So they just do what those people do. And its always the same formula.
The question the progressive movement asks is — Is there another formula that could actually Win? I mean win big. Nationally. Not just a small district like AOC’s etc.
I dont think we know the answer to that question.
w
vAgree with all of that. Another factor, or two, or three:
Clinton/Obama/Biden/DNC govern like moderate Republicans, but those moderate Republicans no longer exist in the GOP. So what is it they’re mimicking, exactly? A phantom, a mirage, a myth?
Both parties also have their own gravitational pull, and the influence of their “bases,” which alter words and deeds and ideologies. So a “moderate Republican” who actually resides IN the GOP is going to be much, much further to the right than a “moderate Republican” who resides in the Dem Party. They won’t speak or act in the same way. Not ever.
I’d much rather have the kind of society described in Martin Hägglund’s This Life. But if I have to choose between a moderate Republican in Dem clothes, or a moderate Republican in Republican clothes, I’d take the former. And in this election, it was a much easier choice than that:
Moderate Republidem versus fascist POS.
I hope I live long enough to see a true leftist in the White House and leftists controlling Congress, etc. etc. Who then work to change the system entirely: fully realized economic and political democracy.
We can dream.
