I Went to a Socialism Conference. Here Are 6 Shocking Things I Learned.

Were you shocked by what he learned? How does this bode for the country? Will the Democratic Party ever come back from the brink?

 

They are not socialists. They are capitalist authoritarians with a totalitarian streak.

 

And no, I'm not shocked. I would have been more shocked if they had actually shown themselves to be the real thing.

 

The new American left is heavily influenced by European marxists.

They want to bring it here-but Americans are horrified by it.

 

news flash... a certain party of people are socialist. SHOCKING!!!

 

They think they are, but they really are nothing of the sort. The litmus test is cheap to buy and easy to run. Just ask those who profess socialism if they believe that everyone must work. If they pass that (hint - they won't), ask them if they're prepared to live collectively. IOW, no freedom of choice in terms of job or where they live, no luxuries, and no 'spending money' etc. If they pass that (hint - they won't), ask them if they're happy to reduce their lifestyle to something between Third and Second World. You should be home and hosed by then

 

Marxism is already in the US. It's difficult, for example, to explain the tendency of the economy towards crisis without it.

It's always been "melded" within the orthodox viewpoint. The failure to derive full employment? Steal from Marxist ideas.

 

Again, your comments suggest a lack of understanding.

You can't just say that wasn't real socialism.

 

You may not have understood the point, but you can't blame me for that. Marxism is needed if you want to understand capitalism.

Socialist political economy is vibrant. It's not for me to decide which is real and which isn't. I'm no anarchist, for example, but I respect their approach. The real question with socialist schools of thought hasn't changed: is it feasible?

 

At the end of the day all political and economic philosophies are beholden to what is possible in the real world.

The problem of socialism is it has never been shown to develop into communism - a classless society. The vanguard party has a habit of consolidating power to the degree necessary to transform the economy, then seizing power in authoritarian regimes.

Capitalism by contrast is resistant to such coups, because the keys to the kingdom are generally pretty well spread out in market economies. Their issue is corruption within the system - we give so much power to leaders in liberal democracies that the natutal human tendency is to siphon some of this power off for themselves through tit for tat backroom deals and K street.

_______________

The problem with both models as I see it is that governments have become far too large. A one size fits all system will not work for all humanity, not even all of Europe or North America. We should decentralise power to the best of our ability.

I also note that several notable left wing writers go down this path. What's the point of democracy when each representative represents 700,000 people? The individual has no power to change anything.

Only when democracy is close to the individual is it substantive.

I lean more in that direction, not so much caring about the actual character of your state, but its size and involvement of local communities.

 

There is no need to refer to communism. While Marxist analysis is needed within political economic understanding, Non-Marxist socialism is just as relevant. Christian Socialism gives the game away somewhat.

There is a natural tendency towards market concentration in capitalism. The outcome of neoliberalism has highlighted that, with market fundamentalism engineering crass inequalities inconsistent with worth. Self-interest runs amok, with the controls offered through liberal democracy or social democracy eliminated.

That is difficult to support. The ultimate example of influence costs is provided by the military industrial complex. And that's liberal analysis. It's also lefties, such as Galbraith, who have understood how capitalism naturally blurs the private and public sectors.

Exact argument used to push the neoliberal agenda. The effects have been disastrous. There would need to be a change in the economic paradigm to reduce the need for government discretionary power. Anarchy and market socialism offers two feasible approaches.

It's certainly important to see devolution in power. That can be key for regional policy success. The model provided by Cleveland/Preston is apt.

The purpose is key. Take Conservatism in the UK. That generated deindustrialisation and an unnatural shift to the finance sector. That was desired due to the blurring of the private and public sectors. The politician becomes a multimillionaire.

Compare that to Corbyn's Labour. Demanding a system of regional aid through investment banks, the power shift goes to the entrepreneur and the local small business.