Let me add another source from “mere orthodoxy” about anti-racism, and the section on “anti capitalism.”
“ Defining what an ideology is, by what it does, is wrong. There will always be a difference between the aspirations of a system of thought and the actual results of that system of thought. Knowing what an ideology is, as both the idea and the results of that idea is of critical importance, but it is a critical distinction that Kendi does not allow here. Given Kendi’s openness to critique and reevaluation, it would not surprise me if, in a few years, he acknowledges this as a procedural failing, even if his conclusions about capitalism remain the same.”
This can of course be used to support or refute both of our arguments, but there are nuggets that are valuable here in either case...
Let’s take the “balance” approach for the sake of argument. (The approach that says there is a happy medium between socialism and capitalism. I don’t really think that’s the most accurate or rational approach, but I’m happy to take it on those terms for the sake of discussion):
“Balance” is subjective. To assume that our system (the American one) is purely or completely capitalistic and free market/laissez faire would obviously be inaccurate. We have many of the things that Marx had on his list of “administrative” or policy prescriptions. (Just went through the Manifesto this last week in our Great Ideas Discussion).
Actually in the US we have roughly half (including a free public education, progressive tax code, etc).of the ten things on Marx’s list.
If we had ALL of those things would that make us more “balanced” or tilted towards Marxism? It can easily be argued (with this line of thinking, which again makes me a little crazy) that the US is at least half Marxist already and that the other countries have gone way too far in that direction.
And let’s look at it over time.
Nobody can deny that on the “net net” we’ve increased the size, scope and regulatory prowess of our government. With a few exceptions (no longer have a 90% tax bracket, interstate banking is a thing, etc), we have gotten more socialistic, and it hasn’t really helped solve any of the issues that it is purported to solve. Why not?
And when it doesn’t the solution always seems to be: MORE. And we point across the pond to universal healthcare or wage caps for CEOs...or the $15 minimum wage or free college and keep adding... just one more thing (or six) and we’ll be “balanced.” Meanwhile the rest of the world is backing off of their extremes... because they’re really not that balanced.
Name any of Bernie’s favorite “Democratic Socialist” countries and ASK them if they are socialist or want to be socialist, and they all say “no” and “no.”
Are they “more socialist than us”?
Sure. But so what? Is that better? Are there other differences that are relevant? What is the difference between Norway and the United States that could be relevant regarding “universal healthcare” for instance? It’s NEVER as simple as “it works well for them...” I mean... should we rejoin the Commonwealth? Maybe a monarch is the secret to success? :)
“Sustainable balance” is not “socialism”... not Marxist, and nothing in the government structure which seeks to accomplish the goals of socialism or communism.
You want to know what all those countries have in common though?
Butch, You have some of your definitions backwards. Socialism is what we saw in the Soviet Union. Communism as defined by Marx is what you get AFTER socialism and it is the secular utopia where society transforms into a post scarcity end-state. Socialism is defined as the 'dictatorship of the proletariat'. The state is a dictatorship and controls the means of production. Marx never explained how to get from Socialism to Communism. Why? Because even according to Marx Communism is a utopian dream to be preceded by a dystopian state where retribution is exacted upon the bourgeois by the proletariat.
Fascinating segments of an argument but it does leave me wondering about New Zealand, Finland and Denmark just to name three other government structures besides Sweden which seem to have struck a sustainable balance of socialized democracy + fundamental parliamentary structure. These countries also have rich histories of honoring the capabilities of women in leadership although I am quite convinced one must have nothing to do with the other for the sake of bipartisan review. :)
Let me add another source from “mere orthodoxy” about anti-racism, and the section on “anti capitalism.”
“ Defining what an ideology is, by what it does, is wrong. There will always be a difference between the aspirations of a system of thought and the actual results of that system of thought. Knowing what an ideology is, as both the idea and the results of that idea is of critical importance, but it is a critical distinction that Kendi does not allow here. Given Kendi’s openness to critique and reevaluation, it would not surprise me if, in a few years, he acknowledges this as a procedural failing, even if his conclusions about capitalism remain the same.”
This can of course be used to support or refute both of our arguments, but there are nuggets that are valuable here in either case...
I enjoy listening to Brett Weinstein in general but this interview with Brendan O’Neill is a “great conversation” on this topic:
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/bret-weinstein-darkhorse-podcast/id1471581521?i=1000489057928
And just ... another tidbit:
Let’s take the “balance” approach for the sake of argument. (The approach that says there is a happy medium between socialism and capitalism. I don’t really think that’s the most accurate or rational approach, but I’m happy to take it on those terms for the sake of discussion):
“Balance” is subjective. To assume that our system (the American one) is purely or completely capitalistic and free market/laissez faire would obviously be inaccurate. We have many of the things that Marx had on his list of “administrative” or policy prescriptions. (Just went through the Manifesto this last week in our Great Ideas Discussion).
Actually in the US we have roughly half (including a free public education, progressive tax code, etc).of the ten things on Marx’s list.
If we had ALL of those things would that make us more “balanced” or tilted towards Marxism? It can easily be argued (with this line of thinking, which again makes me a little crazy) that the US is at least half Marxist already and that the other countries have gone way too far in that direction.
And let’s look at it over time.
Nobody can deny that on the “net net” we’ve increased the size, scope and regulatory prowess of our government. With a few exceptions (no longer have a 90% tax bracket, interstate banking is a thing, etc), we have gotten more socialistic, and it hasn’t really helped solve any of the issues that it is purported to solve. Why not?
And when it doesn’t the solution always seems to be: MORE. And we point across the pond to universal healthcare or wage caps for CEOs...or the $15 minimum wage or free college and keep adding... just one more thing (or six) and we’ll be “balanced.” Meanwhile the rest of the world is backing off of their extremes... because they’re really not that balanced.
Name any of Bernie’s favorite “Democratic Socialist” countries and ASK them if they are socialist or want to be socialist, and they all say “no” and “no.”
Are they “more socialist than us”?
Sure. But so what? Is that better? Are there other differences that are relevant? What is the difference between Norway and the United States that could be relevant regarding “universal healthcare” for instance? It’s NEVER as simple as “it works well for them...” I mean... should we rejoin the Commonwealth? Maybe a monarch is the secret to success? :)
“Sustainable balance” is not “socialism”... not Marxist, and nothing in the government structure which seeks to accomplish the goals of socialism or communism.
You want to know what all those countries have in common though?
Butch, You have some of your definitions backwards. Socialism is what we saw in the Soviet Union. Communism as defined by Marx is what you get AFTER socialism and it is the secular utopia where society transforms into a post scarcity end-state. Socialism is defined as the 'dictatorship of the proletariat'. The state is a dictatorship and controls the means of production. Marx never explained how to get from Socialism to Communism. Why? Because even according to Marx Communism is a utopian dream to be preceded by a dystopian state where retribution is exacted upon the bourgeois by the proletariat.
Fascinating segments of an argument but it does leave me wondering about New Zealand, Finland and Denmark just to name three other government structures besides Sweden which seem to have struck a sustainable balance of socialized democracy + fundamental parliamentary structure. These countries also have rich histories of honoring the capabilities of women in leadership although I am quite convinced one must have nothing to do with the other for the sake of bipartisan review. :)