Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Finance, the economy & Economics The Debate: Is America’s future capitalist or socialist?

Politics is always a lot of things. I think I started with class struggle. It is always, and always has been, a struggle between the rich and the poor.
The rich have money and power...the poor outnumber them. This struggle has gone on since the dawn of time.

And it has always been entertainment. From the great orators of history to the Yellow Journalism of the 1890s, to the sensationalist radio shows of the 1930s to FOX News.


Nazi? I'm guessing you're off your rocker.

Well nazis were one form of fascism. Italians another. Japan too.
Now we are getting ours.
If the left manages to gain more support the Petite bourgeoisie always move to the authoritarian/fascist side. When there's a serious threat to the 'socially liberal fiscally conservative' types they go to where there interest are aligned. They will side with the authoritarian ultranationalist.
They like the idea of an idea but, when you get down to it, it's self interest at its core and their material interests aren't that much different from what fascist want. At least it's not threatened in any material way.
When Weimar Germany was collapsing and the socialists rose in popularity the Petite bourgeoisie threw in with the national socialist.
You saw the same recently in Brazil.

We've already got economic fascism calling the shots in this country with both political parties serving its interests very handsomely while doing very little for the citizenry.
If socialist ideas make more headway with the public watch the reaction from the Libs.
They'll go fascist as they did in Brazil. They always do. They will here too if pressed.

If Sanders enters the 2020 race and mounts an even greater challenge to the Democratic Party I could easily see a split within the party with the centrists siding with the hard right from a real socialist challenge as just one scenario.

Maybe off the rails speculating but hey.... Trump...

It does't make any difference: If Sanders runs again, win or not, I think the Republicans win the Presidency again. Maybe not Trump, and certainly not Pence, but some other GOP knuckle-dragger. This is exactly why Democrats in his home state are begging him NOT to run.

It's no shock to find Vermont has Neoliberals PIA.
If Sanders somehow wins the primary you gunna vote for him or are you going to sit it out with the rest of the 'adults in the room'?
I think for many, sanders is a rubber hits the road moment to all their political posturing. He's the equivalent of a put up or shut up moment for all the platitudes of phoney support Neoliberals say they have to progress.
And they resent it

That's not a simple answer, it's simplistic. Politics is much more complicated than the dialectic Marx imagined. There are many classes, many interests, and none of them are pure - either self-interested or altruistic. As Greger said, "Politics is always a lot of things."

Too often, here, and in other discussions, people tend to take the simplistic way out - especially with labels. For anything you disagree with, it is "neoliberal"; for Ma Republican it is just plain "liberal". There is no amelioration, compromise, or subtlety. And it is not just y'all. The media, the parties, pundits, everywhere, people want to simplify things to "us" - the good guys - vs. "them" - whatever "us" is agin'. That's the basis for nationalism, racism, xenophobia, the "Wall", Republicans, Democrats, progressives, PETA, vegans, etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseum. I don't think that way (although, being human, of course I react that way).

Trump got elected (sort of), but it wasn't just "deplorables" that elected him (even Hillary didn't claim that). There were, I suppose, some decent (if misguided) people who joined that cabal. Virtually none of them were pure Trumpists, but enough of them had enough "reasons" that 60+ million or so probably cast votes that way, holding their nose or enthusiastically.

And that is why I started this thread, because neither position in "the Debate" was even close to right, but followed the same old, same old pigeonholing process that all such debates begin and end with. I have some very strong (mostly "progressive") views, but they are ameliorated by practicalities. I believe in environmentally stringent requirements - to combat climate change and so much more, but I like my creature comforts and recognize that others do as well. I want the things years of labor and privation have allowed me to accumulate, but worry about those that have less, or are hindered in attaining the same, so I believe and support "social justice" campaigns. I passionately believe Black Lives Matter, but also understand that we need police to "serve and protect" - those are not mutually exclusive sentiments. Corporations lift billions from poverty, but suppress them at the same time. Governments have a responsibility to everyone they serve, but they have economic, logistical, and even moral limitations. I spent three decades in uniform to protect the rights of people that I detest, and would do it again, in spite of them. I like guns, and understand others that do, but I'm all for gun restrictions that are practical, moral, and reasonable. I revere the Constitution, but I also appreciate its glaring defects and those of the aspirants who created it.

Anyone who limits their imagination to a dichotomy is missing a lot of the puzzle.

"That's not a simple answer, it's simplistic." - So isn't "politics is a lot of things". If you could you reduce it to a simple sentence, the closest I've heard is either

Who's interests are being served?
or
Politics is the struggle over resources.

Both are simple but say a lot. 'Politics is a lot of things' could be replaced with 'carpet scraps are a lot of things'.

Classical liberalism, neoliberalism, conservatism, paleoconservatism are all terms referencing ideology. Do you consider my use of the word "Neoliberalism" incorrect NWP?

If so, how?

I don't use the term lightly and have tried to understand the ideology to spot it's reference points in conversations here as elsewhere. Here is one of the better articles that have tussled with what is Neoliberalism that I have read recently:

"People throw the term around loosely, as they do with “fascism,” with the same confounding results. Imagine living under fascism or communism, or earlier, classical liberalism, and not being allowed to acknowledge that particular frame of reference to understand economic and social issues. Imagine living under Stalin and never using the communist framework but focusing only on personality clashes between his lieutenants, or likewise for Hitler or Mussolini or Mao or Franco and their ideological systems! But this curious silence, this looking away from ideology, is exactly what has been happening for almost thirty years, since neoliberalism, already under way since the early 1970s, got turbocharged by the Democratic party under the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) and Bill Clinton.[1]We live under an ideology that has not been widely named or defined."

What is Neoliberalism?

Neoliberalism is like syphilis. It presents itself in many ways and is a master of disguises to go undetected. One of it's strengths is it's weird refusal to be acknowledged at all. Not a bad hat trick but, thankfully, there are history books written and people old enough to not buy into it's immaculately conceived deceit.

It's a con and most folks know they're being ripped off. It blunts progress, for a fee from the interest it serves, by managing the lowering of expectations of the citizenry.

Neoliberalism.

An insult used to denigrate anyone who isn't a card carrying socialist.


That's like some white ass idiot asking a bunch of black guys if he's using the N word incorrectly....!

That's one way to look at it Gregor.
If I use it to describe a political ideology that someone's selling as 'progressive' (whatever that may mean to them) but it smells like neoliberal market oriented consensus speak then I will call it for what it is.
I'm not sure what the racial slur comparison is trying to say cept I'm a dolt about the use of a word that displays my ignorance?
You think neoliberalism is an insult and not an ideology?
I've been unfair in my using it as NWP implied and your affirming?
Back it up. Call me out if I'm getting it wrong and why.

Absolutely, I would vote for the winner of the Democratic primary. Because above all else I don't want to let the Republicans drive us right into the ground to benefit a few rich guys.

I just don't want to see another fiasco like 2016.

I suspect even the most neo of Democrats would vote for him as well, just to prevent Republican mischief. Remember, even a full blown Socialist President would have to enforce laws passed by a pretty centrist mixed-bag of Democrats in Congress. Socialist Paradise is not going to happen by one Socialist in the White House.

I'm not sure what socialist paradise is.
I'll settle for a raise in the minimum wage, medicare for all, an end to the war on drugs/mass incarceration, minority voter disenfranchisement, a green new deal for starters.

All of this will be fought by neoliberalism as I understand it.

In a way the coming elections will be about supporting real progress or supporting the idea of supporting real progress within the democratic party.