this post was submitted on 26 May 2025
23 points (76.7% liked)
United States | News & Politics
8048 readers
198 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That's not actually true. The very idea that Democrats are even left-of-center as it is, is completely disingenuous. It's a fiction created by the US media's intentional misrepresentation of policy. The majority of Americans want left-wing economic policies.
They also don't care as much about culture war issues, as the media likes to make it appear. That is mostly a right-wing driven idea, while everyone left of that would simply rather focus on more practical concerns, without infringing on anyone's rights. But that doesn't mean they want politicians to abandon minority issues altogether. They just don't agree that it should be such a hot-button topic. Catering to the kinds of narratives pushed by right-wing media, is not what the majority of Americans want from their politicians.
If Democrats want to start winning again, they need to start focusing on working-class issues. That means a hard shift to the left on economic policy. Trump and the Republicans have already figured this out, even if their rhetoric is total bullshit...they know what people want to hear, and they're saying it. What Democrats need to do, is walk that kind of talk for real. That means reaching out to the actual majority of voters...not just the ones with the most money...and deliver real policy changes that will improve regular people's lives.
tbf, Democrats moving "towards the center" would mean moving left
The economy is always the top issue in any presidential election. Most Americans will not want a leftist economic policy. It will certainly mean high taxes in order to pay for all the social programs.
Most Americans do want left-wing economic policies...they just don't like the word "socialism". But they all want Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid...along with pretty much everything else you can describe to them, without using the "S-word".
As I said...most of what people object to, is based on the right-wing narrative that the media pushes in order to prevent those kinds of policies from being implemented or expanded. It's the trigger words that have been incorporated into that narrative that drive people to vote against what they all agree, is good policy.
To be clear, social programs are not "Socialism," Socialism is a separate organization of the economy where public ownership makes up the principle aspect.
That's why I keep calling it a right-wing, media driven narrative. They use that word to create a negative stigma towards any left-wing economic policy. And social safety net programs are definitely left-wing economic policies, because they rely on pooled and redistributed resources. but you are absolutely correct...calling it "socialism" is hyperbolic.
I don't really agree with designating social programs themselves as "right" or "left," I think once you move outside the umbrella of Socialism vs Capitalism those descriptors cease to be useful. Something being paid for with taxes doesn't make it anti-Capitalist, Lockheed Martin for example is quite right wing but depends entirely on tax dollars.
That being said, I do agree that conservative media calls social programs "Socialist" or "Communist" to fear-monger, but I also think liberal media uses terms like "Socialist" for distinctly Capitalist economies like Norway in order to blunt what Socialism actually is and make it compatible with Capitalism, defanging revolutionary and radical sentiment.
That is true, that "Socialism / Capitalism" isn't the be-all-end-all of the conversation...but it is how things are commonly framed these days. And from an economic standpoint, the categorization fits. You can have mixed systems, but at the fundamental level, Socialist policies are those that share resources amongst the population, while Capitalist policies tend to favor concentrating those resources into fewer hands.
That's too broad for both, even if people occasionally follow your usage. Feudalism was not Capitalism, but definitely had resources in few hands. In fact, Capitalism extended the number of wealthy individuals over feudalism. Traditionally, Socialism and Capitalism are seen as modes of production, the former based on public ownership as the principle aspect of the economy (such as in Cuba, the PRC, former USSR, etc) while the latter is based on Private ownership as the principle aspect (such as in the US, Norway, or Argentina).
Your description is basically the same as mine. You just use specific examples in yours. But it's essentially no different.
But, according to Marx, Feudalism was Capitalism. Or at least, that's essentially what Capitalism evolved out of. Most of the bourgeoisie during his lifetime were descendents of royalty, their extended families and other elites granted wealth and status by said royalty and their extended families. These were the ones who controlled all the capital. They had access to the kind of wealth regular people couldn't even imagine. They "owned" everything, while rest of us simply worked for them.
Even after societies shifted away from that style of leadership, that enormous wealth remained concentrated in the hands of the ruling class. It was delegated to ministers and representatives who decided how and where it was spent. And again, the rest of us simply worked for them. Regardless of how many layers of illusion you place in front of them, it's really all the same underneath.
What socialism attempts to do, is redistribute that wealth evenly amongst the population. Instead of that wealth being concentrated in the hands of a small group of elites controlling everything...it should be given back to the workers who actually produce it. This is always framed in terms of production, because at the most fundamental level, all capital is derived from labor. That makes labor the true source of all wealth.
It only makes sense that those who produce it, should have a greater share in its benefits. As opposed to a parasitic class of "owners" who simply exploit that labor for their own benefit...giving back the bare minimum to the ones actually producing it.
I think you're a bit confused. Marx in no way stated that Capitalism was Feudalism, in fact much of Capital is focused on the specific characteristics of Capitalism, and how it emerged. Both Feudalism and Capitalism are class societies, but these aren't the same in any stretch. Moreover, the Bourgeoisie largely emerged from merchants who through primative accumulation managed to gather the seed Capital to build up industry and bring about Capitalism, and thus overthrow the aristocracy and Feudal lords. The Bourgeoisie overthrew the aristocracy, some aristocrats fell into the Bourgeoisie, but the Bourgeoisie emerged and overtook them as a class.
You are correct that both Capitalism and Feudalism are class societies, but you're entirely off the mark on the Marxist interpretation of them. I think reading Capital would be good for your understanding if you want to be a Marxist about it.
This is a bit pedantic, but Marxism has never been about equal wealth. Marx actually rails against "equalitarians" in Critique of the Gotha Programme:
Unequal needs with equal pay results in unequal outcomes, hence "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs."
All in all, the problem with classifying social programs as "Socialist" or "Capitalist" doesn't really mean anything, because what matters is the overall context of the system. This is the purpose of Marx's Dialectical Materialism, rather than judging discrete elements, it must be judged in context. Social programs like healthcare in the Nordic countries are not "Socialist," they are funded through Imperialism and exist to limit revolutionary pressure, as these safety nets came about via proximity to the USSR which provided similar or greater safety nets. I'm being pedantic, admittedly, but because I am trying to espouse the importance of taking a consistent stance among Socialists, chiefly Marxists as I myself am a Marxist-Leninist.
No, they like some social programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid but things such as free education beyond high school and guaranteed minimum income will require high taxes.
You put "no" at the front of that comment, but then agreed with me. Then you listed two other very popular ideas that haven't been implemented because conservative politicians won't agree to do it.
But even among conservative voters, higher paying jobs and tuition free college are also popular ideas. Up until the 80's, conservatives were all pro-union. Better pay and safer work conditions were a conservative point of pride. That was what made the American dream possible.
And community colleges were incredibly popular with the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" crowd. Any hard-working American could improve their lot in life, simply by taking night classes after work. You want an opportunity, you make one for yourself.
But since then, they've all been convinced that things like that are "Socialist", and bad for society. Why? Because the politicians want more money for defense contractors, pharmaceutical executives, and health care insurance providers. Now, your tax money is being spent subsidizing the richest people in the country, who make all their money exploiting the working class.
If Democrats want to win back those voters, they need to start fixing that shit. Because that's what they were told Trump was going to fix. He was going to make everything less expensive and make everyone more money. Sure...they were lied to. But that's what they were promised. That's what they were voting for.
Too much socialism is bad because it will certainly involve increasing taxes to pay for social programs. High taxes discourage people from working hard. Why would you work hard knowing much of your earnings would be taken away? Free education beyond high school would mean higher taxes not only to pay for the school but to spot scams. Scam trade schools would pop up which don't teach well and pass students who don't perform well.
Socialism is not "social programs," it's an economic mode of organization where public property is the principle aspect. Further, higher social programs invests in a more productive working class. Finally, Capitalists don't create any value, they exploit their wealth, it should be returned to the working class.
Lol! Wut? smh.
Lol!! Also....wut? JFC. Dude, everything you just said is ridiculous.