USA Politics

Marx does a great job of analyzing the flaws in Capitalism. However, he never really left a blueprint or architected what a functioning communist society would look like.
Communism falls apart once your collective gets bigger than about two dozen people, because interpersonal politics and corruption start to find their way in. This has happened repeatedly in intentional communities. The idea of implementing it at a national level and having it actually work is kind of laughable.
 
Communism falls apart once your collective gets bigger than about two dozen people, because interpersonal politics and corruption start to find their way in. This has happened repeatedly in intentional communities. The idea of implementing it at a national level and having it actually work is kind of laughable.
You’re not wrong in how human nature tends to work. But, corruption and interpersonal politics are already inherent in capitalist societies, too. For a long time, it persisted under the illusion that capitalism = freedom and democracy. When, really, freedom and democracy are their own things and capitalism is just an economic system.

I think a form of socialism (as in state guaranteed healthcare, education, measures to ensure housing affordability, worker protections against being fucked over by their employers, etc) with some free market elements around things that aren’t basic necessities, along with a democratic government can work fine. Pure communism would require a mass change in human behavior. Also, according to Marxism, communism becomes stateless. I’m not sure how that could ever work.
 
Re: Communism, I'm in favor of Socialism, not full-blown Communism, but we need to add some significant context to the discussion. The Communist endeavors in South America were severely sabotaged by the US and the CIA. Communism isn't inherently authoritarian; it's an economic model. Just because the USSR/Russia twisted it into an abomination doesn't mean that the general principle is utopian and doesn't work. At the end of the day it's about who owns the means of production. I've seen smaller corporations that have incorporated a communist hierarchy, where each worker has their basic needs met and owns the worth and value that they are producing. And while they are still trying to operate in a capitalist system, since you can't divorce yourself from your country's economic system, they are succeeding. There's no reason why this shouldn't be scalable to larger models.

Before we start with the "but human greed, corruption, yadda yadda yadda", we are already experiencing these very same things under capitalism. The biggest corporations are owning the majority of brands we come into contact with on a daily basis. They exploit, not only the lower classes in the West, but also entire nations world wide. They use child slavery so that we can get cheap phones or chocolate. People are forced into poverty, are starving, are dying due to weak or even corrupt healthcare systems. There's a reason why the murdered insurance CEO was such a big story; across the political spectrum people were actually happy and united. It says a lot about the type of work you do, when instead of sympathies people rejoice in your death.
The CEOs are getting paychecks in the millions-range, while the workers are dreaming about becoming a millionaire, at the same time as they are becoming poorer and poorer.

And that's just what is actively happening to humans. The constant striving for endless growth is destroying our planet. We are consuming resources at a rate that cannot be replenished, even though there's absolutely no reason to do that except for corporate greed. Scientists have been warning us for decades, but the mega corporations are spending money to smear climate activists and spread misinformation about climate change. We are barreling towards certain doom in the name of short-term profits, but hey, at least the CEOs can become even richer. So, if we want to throw all possible criticisms at communism, we need to do the same with capitalims, and at some point we need to talk about the seemingly inevitable drift into fascism that can be observed in late stage capitalism.

------

So much for that topic, the whole Epstein thing is clearly rattling Trump. It's apparently the only thing that actually bothers him. Other stuff, like his Russia connections, were always used as talking points by him at his rallies and campaigns. The Epstein stuff he'd rather ignore or have it disappear somehow. I'm glad, that for once, the media are managing to properly keep this story in the news, instead of focusing on his deflections.
 
The DOJ is meeting with Ghislaine Maxwell today.

The DOJ and Bondi = Trump’s lackeys. There is no question in my mind that the DOJ will do all it can to shield him through the scandal.


Is this a deal making meeting ahead of the congressional oversight committee hearing?
 
Thinking about taking my Thai wife to the Def Leppard residency in Las Vegas but the "big beautiful bill" proposes an additional $250 "integrity tax" for her so visa costs would be $435 for a 5 day trip. ESTA to increase from $20 to $40. Makes trip very doubtful, unless "integrity tax" is refunded which has been suggested.

Wife has seen Maiden 3 times now in Paris, Madrid and Lisbon, a brave new world for her!
 
theoretically, you're supposed to get the $250 back but no mechanism for returning funds has been created, so...

It's a shame, Vegas is a ton of fun. I'd go again if it wasn't for the whole "the American president is an enemy of the free world" thing.

I always viewed Vegas as a very American thing. Never got the alure TBH. Maybe because I don't gamble.
 
I always viewed Vegas as a very American thing. Never got the alure TBH. Maybe because I don't gamble.
It’s not so much the gambling as it is Vegas is a 24/7 party. Many people go because Las Vegas has a much higher tolerance for behavior that would otherwise be frowned upon (at best) or get one arrested for public intoxication (at worst). The French Quarter of New Orleans, Louisiana is similar but a much smaller area than the whole of Las Vegas.

Books/movies like Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, Leaving Las Vegas, or the Hangover movie series illustrate to a degree the city’s higher tolerance for debauchery.

Additionally, Las Vegas has a high concentration of restaurants and entertainment. It has, to an extent, rebranded itself as a more family- friendly and less lowbrow tourist destination. In recent years, it’s also acquired several professional sports teams.

So, yes, people go there to gamble but a portion of the tourism is non-gamblers or maybe people who gamble a few times but do other things for most of their trip.

But’s it’s also a symbol for American excess and certainly doesn’t appeal to everyone.

It also gets incredibly boring after about 3-4 days. Most frequent visitors have their personal Vegas limits (usually between 2-4 nights, mine is 3) before they want to go home.
 
For a long time, it persisted under the illusion that capitalism = freedom and democracy. When, really, freedom and democracy are their own things and capitalism is just an economic system.
True, though trying to insert capitalism into an authoritarian system is often an awkward fit, as we’ve clearly seen in China. If the government can quickly change the rules and pull the rug out from under companies, it makes it very difficult to plan and very risky to do business in that country. We’re seeing this on a smaller scale with Trump’s authoritarian moves within the executive branch in the U.S.

I think a form of socialism (as in state guaranteed healthcare, education, measures to ensure housing affordability, worker protections against being fucked over by their employers, etc) with some free market elements around things that aren’t basic necessities, along with a democratic government can work fine.
Someone needs to tally up the per capita cost of implementing that approach in the U.S. and see what it would really mean, and what would be required to cover it with tax revenue. I don’t think Americans would respond well to European-level gas prices and a 20% VAT.
 
Communism isn't inherently authoritarian; it's an economic model.
True, but once corruption sets in on a system without extensive checks and balances, the march toward authoritarianism becomes inevitable, either to impose control on a system that’s spiraling out of control, or to impose the will of the corrupt people who managed to weasel their way into decisionmaking roles.

There's no reason why this shouldn't be scalable to larger models.
Why is that, and why are there no real world examples of it succeeding at scale, then?

Before we start with the "but human greed, corruption, yadda yadda yadda", we are already experiencing these very same things under capitalism.
Yes, but that’s the whole point. Capitalism tends to work better because it harnesses greed for the greater good, but it requires extensive checks and balances and regulation to prevent that greed from biting the hand that feeds. Just like harnessing dangerous animals and putting them to work, you have to have and enforce strict safety protocols to avoid having your head bitten off.

Basically, any place where the profit motive acts against the wellbeing of the people, you need a regulation to keep that danger in check. But you need to temper that with risk assessment so you don’t go overboard like California frequently does.

They use child slavery so that we can get cheap phones or chocolate.
…and yet I assume you still own a phone and eat chocolate…?

The CEOs are getting paychecks in the millions-range, while the workers are dreaming about becoming a millionaire, at the same time as they are becoming poorer and poorer.
Yes, this is obscene. We should consider capping total executive compensation at 40x the total compensation of the lowest-paid employee or contractor at the company. That way they can still be paid a massive premium, but if they want more, they have to raise all the boats with them, or start to dump unrealistically cheap overseas labor.

We are consuming resources at a rate that cannot be replenished, even though there's absolutely no reason to do that except for corporate greed.
Well, there’s also the standard of living that richer countries have become accustomed to, and whose populations would be unlikely to give up willingly.
 
Why is that, and why are there no real world examples of it succeeding at scale, then?
The Sweden (and in part others, although multiple historians claim Sweden were in many ways the most leftist of the democratic western states) of the late 1960-1970s were doing this, but in a light version and more importantly, pre internet and pre globalization (the late 70's saw the first election of a right-center coalition that started to implement european liberal policy). It was a mix of capitalism and socialism, though with some obvious flaws with authoritarian, or at least, non-capitalist overtones with few or none non-public options of core services like TV, Radio, infrastructure etc with mountains of bureaucracy and non-individualist policies. Hell, the early 80s had the Social Democrats adopt (although with the party leader and Prime Minister in an under-the-radar internal opposition) wage earner funds - though it never materialized in any meaningful way and was a contributing issue in getting the right-center elected in 1977.

Would I want to live in the 60's-70's Sweden? No, though I wouldn't mind a variation of the late 80's as I think the U.S. economic neo-libereralism influences here have gone too far (after all, Sweden has one the largest western ratios of GDP/billionaires, an ever shrinking welfare state and more and more capitalist and upper middle-class policies).
 
Last edited:
True, though trying to insert capitalism into an authoritarian system is often an awkward fit, as we’ve clearly seen in China. If the government can quickly change the rules and pull the rug out from under companies, it makes it very difficult to plan and very risky to do business in that country. We’re seeing this on a smaller scale with Trump’s authoritarian moves within the executive branch in the U.S.


Someone needs to tally up the per capita cost of implementing that approach in the U.S. and see what it would really mean, and what would be required to cover it with tax revenue. I don’t think Americans would respond well to European-level gas prices and a 20% VAT.
You make some good points and thanks for debating without it getting personal - I appreciate and respect that.

Authoritarian capitalism — there isn’t much precedent for something like this but an oligarchy system like Russia currently has sort of fits. Authoritarian leadership with a few powerful business interests.

Taxation is another sticking point but some of that could be alleviated by where the government prioritizes spending. We spend the highest GDP percentage of any country on defense. I’m a veteran and recognize defense spending is important but some of that could be shifted.

Gas taxes — are levied by the states, as are sales and property taxes. The only direct federal taxation is the income tax.

A national VAT type of tax would be different but it’s tied to sales. If people got the necessities for cheap or free then really the price hike would be on non-essential purchases.

But, the US is far more car-dependent than Europe. Even with electric vehicles charging on the grid, many people would still need to buy cars. Cars would be more expensive for sure.

To me, though, I’d much rather know a medical issue or unexpected job loss won’t cripple me financially than have cheaper luxury or entertainment items. I’d pay higher taxes and forgo a buying few more luxuries for that safety net personally.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Jer
The Sweden (and in part others, although multiple historians claim Sweden were in many ways the most leftist of the democratic western states) of the late 1960-1970s were doing this, but in a light version
Vaenyr was talking about scaling up pure communism, though.
 
…and yet I assume you still own a phone and eat chocolate…?
we should improve society somewhat.jpg

Not intending to just dunk on you here especially because I think you and Vaenyr are actually having a discussion worth having, but I do think this jab is a bit silly. Vaenyr never said he's against phones or chocolate, just the way they are often produced under capitalism. You've pointed out a lot of fallacies on the board before so I'd hoped you'd be above a tu quoque.
 
Vaenyr never said he's against phones or chocolate, just the way they are often produced under capitalism.
Just checking his level of commitment to his principles. It’s actually possible to get phones and chocolate that don’t fall prey to his stated concerns, but you have to pay a premium for them. I should have been more clear about that in how I worded my response, but he still had (and has) an open-ended opportunity to explain his walk vs. his talk.
 
Just another thought — if we had public healthcare in the US and paid higher taxes, we also wouldn’t need to pay out for our employer sponsored or private health insurance

That would offset the tax increase somewhat but I’d also want quality public healthcare
 
Back
Top