Hey, that would be great if it isn't too big of an ask.
Personally, I think I'd lean more toward a social democracy than democratic socialism.
Political and Economic Theory Thread
- Thread starter TheMonkey
- Start date
Personally, I think I'd lean more toward a social democracy than democratic socialism.
PJ-OSU
Deputy
Not sure if this link works or not, but it hits me straight in the feels.
Many nations often described as "democratic socialist" are actually mixed economies with strong safety nets, not economies where the state owns the means of production, which is a core tenant of socialism. I would be a fan of a mixed economy.
JTOSU
Ranger
The United States is a great example of a highly successful mixed economy.
I’ve come to the conclusion that pure libertarianism requires everybody to have a reasonable level rational self interest along with a certain level of respect, civility, and humanity for others.
I don’t see that being the state of humanity at any point in the foreseeable future.
That was beautiful.
I'm a bleeding heart liberal commie pinko who believes every damn person in the country lives under the Constitution of the United States whether or not they are here legally and are thus covered by equal protection and due process. Furthermore, short-circuiting that for anyone, whether they are in this country illegally or not, endangers all of us.
Agreed. I also think there cannot be a libertarian society without power and influence being in a similar place for people across society. That isn't possible with the wealth stratification that we have now. This is why I think democratic socialism has to be part of the solution.
American Libertarianism is rightfully suspicious of state power, but the problem is, they are not equally suspicious of corporate power. They are upset with the proverbial federal or state boot on their necks, but are ok with the corporate boot being on their neck. Its a pretty wild inconsistency and its natural conclusion would be a neo-feudal society with corporate run fiefs taking the place of the state. People like Balaji Srinivasan & Peter Thiel have openly pushed for this, they call it the "Network State". It is antithetical for anyone's liberty outside of their own liberty.
That isn't a future I want to be a part of.
The problem is they are the same power right now. Congress is bought and paid for and only represent their corporate donors. I think if we could sever those ties and the government actually regulated properly, American capitalism could work a lot better for a lot more people.
But again, I always say it's a little Column A and a little Column B.
A free market, capitalist economy with strong safety nets and unions. Deregulation in some places, heavy regulation in others.
The root of the problem is people or evolution rather. And that will never be fixed. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
It could, but I don't think it would. Capitalism will always seek to undermine the system that made it successful at the outset. It always moves over time to create monopolies in every sector it is able to do so. It inevitably runs counter to free markets. There is a better way.
I will try to get the big post up on democratic socialism later this week when I have a bit more time to put pen to paper.
Capitalism is to economics as atheism is to religion. It's the absence of a system. It's just people free to be people. Unfortunately we're a tribal, territorial species.
But socialism requires power being given to a few people to centrally plan an economy. I think everyone always looks at it from a pie in the sky viewpoint.
I like my economies decentralized. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
First of all, our current economy is centrally planned in a lot of ways.
Secondly, socialism does not require central planning. That is what economic democracy/market socialism is about. I don't have interest in a centrally planned economy and I think it would create more problems than it would solve.
Yes. We live in a mixed economy. And that's the ideal scenario. I'm not for laissez faire capitalism and I know you're not pushing for complete socialism.
All of these discussions are really just about what ratio of each we think would work.
Hi all!
I wanted to create a thread as a place to discuss Political and Economic Theory, similar to the Religion and Philosophy thread. I will pin both of these threads at the top of the forum to encourage posts within those respective domains being posted there instead of a brand new thread for each topic when it comes to theory. I will move posts from the middle east thread on this topic here.
I wanted to create a thread as a place to discuss Political and Economic Theory, similar to the Religion and Philosophy thread. I will pin both of these threads at the top of the forum to encourage posts within those respective domains being posted there instead of a brand new thread for each topic when it comes to theory. I will move posts from the middle east thread on this topic here.
Is this true?
Capitalism is a system that supports the accumulation of capital—hence CAPITALism. This means we can privately own means of production and the capital can then be reinvested into that production to create market leverage that increases profitability. So, there is a system: property rights, contracts, markets, wage labor, and competitive pricing all form the backbone that makes reinvestment and growth possible.
The "absence of a system" view usually points to laissez-faire ideals (minimal government), but even those require legal structures to protect ownership and exchange—otherwise, it's just chaos, not capitalism. Calling it "just people free to be people" ignores those built-in rules that channel resources into scaled production and profit. Your tribal/territorial point is spot-on, though. And capitalism harnesses that behavior through incentives.
We’ve obviously got some well versed posters on here.
What are the long term implications for Capitalism in an economy that moves away from manufacturing/creation of tangible goods and moves towards service? In particular how workers in increasing numbers don’t need skills or education (general/higher/vocational). Not just retail/ restaurant but also warehouse/delivery?
Same question but instead of service, look at technology. Not hardware but coding/social media/ai. Not so much Bill Gates/Steve Jobs where you have tangible products but Social media/chat gpt?
What are the long term implications for Capitalism in an economy that moves away from manufacturing/creation of tangible goods and moves towards service? In particular how workers in increasing numbers don’t need skills or education (general/higher/vocational). Not just retail/ restaurant but also warehouse/delivery?
Same question but instead of service, look at technology. Not hardware but coding/social media/ai. Not so much Bill Gates/Steve Jobs where you have tangible products but Social media/chat gpt?
First of all, the bolded part is a feature not a bug.
Maybe my definitions are too rudimentary. I always learned that it's based on where the means of production are owned.
Communism - Communally owned
Capitalism - Privately owned
Socialism - State owned
Capitalism needs none of those things you listed. You're thinking of modern American capitalism, sure. But not capitalism at a basic level.
I think the biggest mistake democratic socialists make is using the word socialism. Really need a new word. Because first, I don't think it's really socialism. And second, people especially older generations compare it to actual socialism like North Korea, the Soviet Union, etc.
I’ve heard it said there are two ways to make money.
1. Bundling
2. Unbundling
The internet was the unbundling of the Information Age. AI may seem like an extension of that, but in reality it is rebundling the means of production. Compute, IP, and data storage are being fenced off in ways that the general population cannot participate in. The systems being created will attract users, which will extract more data and synthesis to increase their assets and create lock-in and incumbency that will discourage new entrants and competition. Continuing a trend toward monopolies.
AI and robotics will also rebundle manufacturing and distribution in ways that will add to the bifurcation of our economy. What happens to trickle-down economics then? Does it trickle down to the robots?
This is all creating a flywheel that gives more and more wealth and power to the billionaires as a reward for investing early. I think we’ll see a shedding of blue collar and white collar jobs. The middle class will continue to be hollowed out. We will likely need to institute a UBI to create a safety net for lower income homes.
Eventually, this too will be unbundled, but it may take a while. I think we will eventually move to a Relationship Economy where we actually begin to use technology to bring us together and enhance the human element. But that is just a hair-brained thought I’ve had. Not grounded in research or any objective data.
Similar threads
