Is it time to dispose of capitalism?

[Greater Cosmicium]

i never ceased to be amazed by the absolute nonsense people can churn out
ideology is what determines the metric by which we measure policy in the first place, how we structure governments and policies, what rights people are owed
it's the lens through which the political world is viewed

Alright I'll concede on the point of how "ideologies" formed the basis of policy, but like, dude, all people really need to know is what policy the parties have and don't have, not this trivial "left" and "right" nonsense that gets churned out by the media to dismay people from voting a certain way.
Imagine this, right, your nation has mandatory voting, has its entire existence, and roughly 70-80% of the population believes that climate change is a serious issue that needs to be addressed immediately, but because of the mining magnates in the press' ears don't like that, the media starts pushing "Party X is filled with a bunch of soy boy leftists that will DESTROY the country if they take charge", and Party X has the perfect solution for climate change and has a real chance of winning the election. Boom, roughly half of the people who believe climate change is an issue goes "I don't want to vote for those soy boy leftists, I'm going to vote for the other guy who isn't a lefty". Sounds like I'm pulling this from my ass, right? Well guess what, this literally happened in the 2019 federal election in Australia, and we've been stuck with Smoko From Marketing for the past 2 years who is actively taking no stance on climate change because both the media and mining magnates don't like the shift towards renewable energies.

Then there is also the fact that the average joe discussing 'Politics' sees "Oh, those guys are left as well, I like you even though I have no idea who you are or what your policies are, all I know is that left=good, and right=bad", same for the inverse. And then you get other stupid idiots jerking eachother off about how much they hate Y or love Z without looking at the outside world and realising how pathetic clamouring over some ideology that will be next to impossible to implement in a liberal democracy without something major happening. Why? Because they've been brainwashed into thinking that "Ideology" is important in the 21st century. It's not, the time of "ideologies" has long passed, all that really matters now is "Will this policy help my people, or will it actively hurt my people?"

So go ahead, vote for whatever "Leftist" or "Righty" you want, I'm going to vote for the party that has a practical solution to most problems here and actually has its head straight on what needs to happen for the country

Good luck with that. I'll be waiting for the party* that's actually relevant and that'll actually do something other than endlessly promise "reforms" and never deliver on them, that'll begin seriously working to beat climate change beyond putting some solar panels and calling it a day, that'll give the working class more than a bone to keep them just loyal enough to hopefully vote in the next election, you get the idea.

I'll be waiting...

*in the Western world

[UniversalCommons]

Ideology does not determine if you are corrupt. Corruption is separate from party affiliation. Also, if you help people in local things like potholes in the roads or getting a business license are not determined by party affiliation. Also if you are a legitimate party and there are elections, fair elections should not be determined by party affiliation. This is the problem with talking about ideology. It does not adequately deal with corruption, proper representation, and elections. All three can be problematic under any party system. This is who so many people don't pay attention to party affiliation. They look at the different party promises and often turn against them because they don't address these things. There can be lots of problems under any system capitalist, communist, or other systems.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

As the attack on the US capital occurred I feel like I have gone a bit more left.

I don't think it is now the time nor will it ever be the time to fully ditch capitalism. However, a 50/50 system of socialism and capitalism should be married.

Both are imperfect systems and need each over to balance each other out.

What I'm trying to say is that the US capitalism system needs libertarian socialist reforms, and that these reforms should be done democratically and peacefully.

[Nejii]

As the attack on the US capital occurred I feel like I have gone a bit more left.

I don't think it is now the time nor will it ever be the time to fully ditch capitalism. However, a 50/50 system of socialism and capitalism should be married.

Both are imperfect systems and need each over to balance each other out.

What I'm trying to say is that the US capitalism system needs libertarian socialist reforms, and that these reforms should be done democratically and peacefully.

The Capitol attack and the later days of the Trump admin caused me to sway left just a little.

I actually would be more left than if not for the PC cancel culture and WOKE idiocy that’s taken hold of the left wing. That and the hardline push for Marxism. (I mean yes I’m tired of assembly line overpriced cooperate consumerism too but I’m not boarding the Marx and Lenin trains.) That said, the right has a steady growing extremist element that’s concerning, but I can’t help but feel like that’s a symptom in itself.

I do agree that there need to be reforms and such needs to be done so peacefully. Unfortunately I feel like the left-v-right bitterness has rooted itself too deep and the division is just worsening. Plus, with what you’ve proposed, you’ll have the challenge of getting both sides to cede on issues that their passionate about.

[Narland]

Ideology does not determine if you are corrupt. Corruption is separate from party affiliation. Also, if you help people in local things like potholes in the roads or getting a business license are not determined by party affiliation. Also if you are a legitimate party and there are elections, fair elections should not be determined by party affiliation. This is the problem with talking about ideology. It does not adequately deal with corruption, proper representation, and elections. All three can be problematic under any party system. This is who so many people don't pay attention to party affiliation. They look at the different party promises and often turn against them because they don't address these things. There can be lots of problems under any system capitalist, communist, or other systems.

I agree with the specifics of your post on every point except one. I disagree with the statement that ideology does not determine if one is corrupt. That corruption is specific to the act is solid, but it necessitates that the ideology is itself not corrupt.

Any ideology that through its system of beliefs sanctions deception as a fundamental tenant of governance is irredeemably corrupt. It can only build upon the snowballing machinations to the inevitable destruction of its adherents and those who were unfortunate enough to be silenced for speaking truth under their rationalization of delusional government. Those who hold to despotic ideologies (e.g., the truth is what i say it is (or what the amenability the narrative allows)) cannot be anything but corrupt.

Any system of political beliefs that defraud or coerce without recourse to just recompense is pervasively corrupt.

Any ideology that through its system of beliefs deviates from the lawful constitutional due process inherent in the rights of any and all people(s) such that it that impairs obligation of public service causing deprivation of or infringement upon the rights, privileges (legal definition), and immunities of any and all individual (natural persons), singularly or severally regardless of intent or lack thereof, is self-evidently corrupt.

Marxism by its very nature is irredeemably, pervasively, and self-evidently corrupt.

That property is theft is untrue. Property is property. It just sits there subject to entropy until somebody utilizes it. What someone does with said property determines if it is has then been used for good or ill.

To say that exercising one's right to one's justly gained property is theft is like saying that exercising one's right to life is murder; or exercising one's right to liberty is slavery. One can make a word game out of it (and many do, e.g., freedom of association is kidnapping, etc.), but to believe it is so, is ludicrous. To believe it to the point of forcing it upon others with the barrel of a gun is deranged. It is a form of criminal insanity responsible for the inescapable death, destruction, and destitution of 100s of millions of people in the last 120 years alone.

[Adamede]

As the attack on the US capital occurred I feel like I have gone a bit more left.

I don't think it is now the time nor will it ever be the time to fully ditch capitalism. However, a 50/50 system of socialism and capitalism should be married.

Both are imperfect systems and need each over to balance each other out.

What I'm trying to say is that the US capitalism system needs libertarian socialist reforms, and that these reforms should be done democratically and peacefully.

I really don’t see how that would’ve prevented the rise of the alt right.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

As the attack on the US capital occurred I feel like I have gone a bit more left.

I don't think it is now the time nor will it ever be the time to fully ditch capitalism. However, a 50/50 system of socialism and capitalism should be married.

Both are imperfect systems and need each over to balance each other out.

What I'm trying to say is that the US capitalism system needs libertarian socialist reforms, and that these reforms should be done democratically and peacefully.

I really don’t see how that would’ve prevented the rise of the alt right.

It wouldn't have, but a mixed system would have given Americans much needed mental and physical health care, better education, less homeless, ect.

As the attack on the US capital occurred I feel like I have gone a bit more left.

I don't think it is now the time nor will it ever be the time to fully ditch capitalism. However, a 50/50 system of socialism and capitalism should be married.

Both are imperfect systems and need each over to balance each other out.

What I'm trying to say is that the US capitalism system needs libertarian socialist reforms, and that these reforms should be done democratically and peacefully.

The Capitol attack and the later days of the Trump admin caused me to sway left just a little.

I actually would be more left than if not for the PC cancel culture and WOKE idiocy that’s taken hold of the left wing. That and the hardline push for Marxism. (I mean yes I’m tired of assembly line overpriced cooperate consumerism too but I’m not boarding the Marx and Lenin trains.) That said, the right has a steady growing extremist element that’s concerning, but I can’t help but feel like that’s a symptom in itself.

I do agree that there need to be reforms and such needs to be done so peacefully. Unfortunately I feel like the left-v-right bitterness has rooted itself too deep and the division is just worsening. Plus, with what you’ve proposed, you’ll have the challenge of getting both sides to cede on issues that their passionate about.

Corporate wokeness would die down under a 50/50 capitalism socialism system.

Sadly, yes this is unlikely to happen for the reasons you said, but It is what I want to happen.

And I'd agree, I would not nor I ever will be all aboard the Lenin train. Lenin was an asshole with good ideals that he corrupted into the authoritarian hell that was the USSR.

But, those good ideals can still be achieved. And now more then ever need to obtained.

I have no idea how to do this, not with terrorist originations like the Proud Boys spreading division and hate still hanging around. Also left v right fighting has gone on way way too long.

[Greater Cosmicium]

I don't think it is now the time nor will it ever be the time to fully ditch capitalism. However, a 50/50 system of socialism and capitalism should be married.

What you describe as a "50/50" mixture of socialism and capitalism, with the context given, is just social democracy (aka capitalism with strong welfare systems), there is no such thing as a mixture of socialism and capitalism, they're separate economic systems, sometimes with elements of the other system.

[Nejii]

I don't think it is now the time nor will it ever be the time to fully ditch capitalism. However, a 50/50 system of socialism and capitalism should be married.

What you describe as a "50/50" mixture of socialism and capitalism, with the context given, is just social democracy (aka capitalism with strong welfare systems), there is no such thing as a mixture of socialism and capitalism, they're separate economic systems, sometimes with elements of the other system.

Elements of socialism within our current capitalist system I’m not opposed to. However these elements are very select and I feel like my approach would be very different than your run-of-the-mill pink-haired collegiate socialist.

[UniversalCommons]

The Middle Way is specifically a mix of capitalism and socialism. It is designed that way. Capitalism and socialism are not mutually exclusive. They are very similar in a lot of ways. They react with each other. There is not as much difference as you may think. A lot of the argument is about belief more than practice.
https://www.dailyscandinavian.com/swedens-middle-way/

[Repubblica Fascista Sociale Italiana]

The Middle Way is specifically a mix of capitalism and socialism. It is designed that way. Capitalism and socialism are not mutually exclusive. They are very similar in a lot of ways. They react with each other. There is not as much difference as you may think. A lot of the argument is about belief more than practice.
https://www.dailyscandinavian.com/swedens-middle-way/

Social democracy is still capitalism, though. Capitalism and socialism are mutually exclusive, because one involves the abolition of capital itself

[Labbos]

The Middle Way is specifically a mix of capitalism and socialism. It is designed that way. Capitalism and socialism are not mutually exclusive. They are very similar in a lot of ways. They react with each other. There is not as much difference as you may think. A lot of the argument is about belief more than practice.
https://www.dailyscandinavian.com/swedens-middle-way/

Capitalism and socialism are mutually exclusive.

From Wikipedia:

"Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit"

"Socialism is a political, social and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production and workers' self-management of enterprises"

So the choice comes down to: are the means of production privately owned? I suppose that you could have half of the means of production privately owned and half socially owned, but that just means that half the population works under capitalism and half under socialism. No worker is reaping the benefits of both at the same time.

And Sweden is capitalist. It is not socialist. To quote Wikipedia again "The vast majority of Swedish enterprises are privately owned". Welfare programmes do not socialism make.

[Adamede]

I really don’t see how that would’ve prevented the rise of the alt right.

It wouldn't have, but a mixed system would have given Americans much needed mental and physical health care, better education, less homeless, ect.

Yah no. Also none of that is a “50/50”system.

[Stylan]

Yes, it is obviously high time to rid ourselves of capitalism and progress to the next historical stage (socialism.) Unfortunately many people are still skeptical of socialism and class consciousness has not yet reawoken in people, so it will probably be another 20 years until we actually see the final collapse of capitalism.

[UniversalCommons]

Socialism is a 19th century philosophy much like Marxism and capitalism. There is no advancement in adopting ideologies from the past that don't fit in a modern setting. Things like post scarcity, participatory democracy, electronic democracy, and even technocracy are advancements. There is comfort in looking to the past, but it is the present leading into the future and it is better to live in the future than the past.

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

As old as Marxism and socialism are, it is possible to adapt them to a modern context. Capitalism is long past its use by date.

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

The Middle Way is specifically a mix of capitalism and socialism. It is designed that way. Capitalism and socialism are not mutually exclusive. They are very similar in a lot of ways. They react with each other. There is not as much difference as you may think. A lot of the argument is about belief more than practice.
https://www.dailyscandinavian.com/swedens-middle-way/

SocDems are still capitalist, and yes, they engage in imperialism and exploitation but with a more friendly face to give the impression of progressivism.

[The Lone Alliance]

As the attack on the US capital occurred I feel like I have gone a bit more left.

I don't think it is now the time nor will it ever be the time to fully ditch capitalism. However, a 50/50 system of socialism and capitalism should be married.

Both are imperfect systems and need each over to balance each other out.

What I'm trying to say is that the US capitalism system needs libertarian socialist reforms, and that these reforms should be done democratically and peacefully.

I really don’t see how that would’ve prevented the rise of the alt right.

The alt right and the Populist Republicans (Which were the two elements involved in that situation) would likely not exist had the US engineered market reforms, hell if the US had remained under the systems established under the New Deal Coalition era instead of embracing Neo-liberal globalism it's highly likely that both groups wouldn't exist.

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

I really don’t see how that would’ve prevented the rise of the alt right.

The alt right and the Populist Republicans (Which were the two elements involved in that situation) would likely not exist had the US engineered market reforms, hell if the US had remained under the systems established under the New Deal Coalition era instead of embracing Neo-liberal globalism it's highly likely that both groups wouldn't exist.

Given that these movements are reactionary to any and all progress, the New Deal would have given rise to a similar attitude anyway. In fact, Reagan and his ilk ensured that they undid the New Deal to the extent in which it might as well never had happened. That was reactionary and populist, the Moral Majority and other Christian pressure groups were reactionary.

So yeah, mixing capitalism and socialism still gives you capitalism. It pacifies the working class to give the illusion that they no longer need their own autonomy, when in reality their chains are in a different coat of paint.

[New haven america]

Sure, why not?

[New haven america]

I really don’t see how that would’ve prevented the rise of the alt right.

The alt right and the Populist Republicans (Which were the two elements involved in that situation) would likely not exist had the US engineered market reforms, hell if the US had remained under the systems established under the New Deal Coalition era instead of embracing Neo-liberal globalism it's highly likely that both groups wouldn't exist.

I'm with you on New Deal Economics, but lol, no, globalism is an inevibility of a more and more connected world.

Unless you want to get rid of the internet or global trade? Or only have intranet systems a la North Korea and make it so you can only have food and products made in your home country? Is that what you really want?

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

The "rise of the alt-right" imo, is the coalescence of a tiny minority who previously did not dare talk about their beliefs. In real life, that attitude would get them excluded, lose them jobs, repel partners and basically be self-ostracism. The most important factor that changed was anonymity.

But they have grown? Yeah, fascist ideas seem to have some popular appeal. Tough shit, we're not putting that ugly genie back in a bottle. Fundamentalism is the belief that a moral code can be finite, yet all encompassing, and entirely learnable to the individual. It can only be defeated by letting the believer try to apply all of the code they have learned in real life (or virtual life if they venture out of their echo chamber) and having it fail the way moral codes are all susceptible to: regret for something major, done according to code, and the gradual rotting outwards from that point of failure.

"My woman should have accepted my physical discipline for her misbehaviour, any worthy woman would ..." and then "his" woman is gone. And the obedient mail-order bride from Malaysia doesn't take the discipline well either, and she's gone with a court order which really sows cluster-bombs of doubt. "My code doesn't say anything about going to prison, am I being persecuted?" Suppose he avoids jail, and tries to date some local women for a less possessive relationship. But he keeps getting rebuffs like "I heard what you did to your first wife" and "It's true what they say about you, you're a bully, you haven't changed." So it's time for a long retreat at a Boot Camp for single men, which turns out to be more religious than military, but it does him good. Far away from his old life he realizes it wasn't just the attitude to women which was wrong, it was pretty much everything about his previous ideology. A false consistency lends itself to total belief, but is very fragile. Proven wrong at any key point, it all falls apart.

I was a teenage Nazi, or so others thought. Even at the time I knew it was a defensive mechanism: a shell to cover my own metamorphosis from the politics of my parents to a politics "all my own". Having uncut scraggly hair and the dress sense of a tramp, and barely noticeable Nazi dress details (and doodles) the only sign of me being a Nazi were inscrutable slogans and vile opinions only hinted at. If I'd met a real Nazi I would probably have been beaten up, and even other boys who were knowledgeable about Nazism and the Second World War could tell I didn't know a lot about Nazism. It was just a way of holding off any political conversations, which previously I'd been quite forward with.

After my Nazi phase, I adopted the more vulnerable position of Soviet-line Communism. This was the late 70's, Cold War still quite dominating many political subjects. I learned more about Communism than I ever did about Nazism. For one thing, I was more genuinely appreciative of Marxism and classical Communism. But also, spouting some Communist stuff would not at all repel other kids looking for a political discussion. It attracted them. Kids (boys and girls) I'd never known to have a political opinion of any sort would come at me about the gulags or something, so I learned what I had to, to defend Soviet State Communism. It came at a cost of separating that from the wider ideological field. It all kind of petered out as I had to admit that Sovietism was more bad than good for the people, and could only be pulled into the positive overall by the Soviet Union's role in defeating Hitler. My opponents considered me sufficiently defeated, and were not inclined to press on into the question of Communism itself.

My Soviet Apologist phase did continue the "hard shell" function of protecting my real opinions, begun with Teenage Nazism, except that other teenagers (and adults) were eager to argue with my shell, forcing me to reinforce the cracks they made in it. I wasn't ready to have my sincerely held beliefs argued with, but I did want to argue politics and I dealt with a wider variety of viewpoints and argumentative styles by holding out a shell (or shield) of beliefs that I didn't hold that sincerely.

Well I think that might be happening on a grand scale. Teenagers, but also 20-somethings now who with the benefit of anonymity (or ambignymity) choose to stay longer behind a shield of opinions which are related to, perhaps exaggerations of, sincere opinions which are still too tender to expose to public attack. Of course I shouldn't project my experience, but you know what? I actually see my own ridiculous teenage self in a better light after writing all this. I wasn't just being a jackass and looking for an argument regardless of my real thoughts: I was exaggerating my views in order to get wider and more vehement attacks, and to learn from them. Some of the failures of Soviet-line Communism were failures of one-party Statism, but some I think were also failures of communist principle.

I took a long break from politics after university. Attempted suicide, spent two months in a mental hospital, did dumb shit after that. I'll be honest, I didn't take much interest in my own country's politics, or anyone else's, until PM Rudd contributed troops in the name of the UN, to East Timor (many other nations too, notably NZ). And around that time someone told me about Aaron Sorkin's The West Wing, which reignited my interest in US politics (my parents were JFK fans). But I still have a longing for post-scarcity communism, and more immediately for a strong State which intervenes as necessary in capitalism, for low borders but low for all not just the rich, and admiration for the US constitution which might not come through with all the criticism I make of it. Certain features of that constitution strongly influenced the Federation of Australia 1901, notably the equal representation of states and the Senate being elected in staggered classes (Aus has 2 classes, US 3) and that it's a much laxer constitution does not reflect badly on the US one: more than a century of observation led our Founders to leave out far more than they added.

I'm not editing it. A rant is a rant. Apologies only to blind readers who didn't know how long it would be

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

As old as Marxism and socialism are, it is possible to adapt them to a modern context. Capitalism is long past its use by date.

Capitalism was never nice. To say it's long past its use-by date, implies it is rotten.

I take the view that capitalism always had a streak of evil in it.

It would be much much worse without government regulation. Employers complain about the paperwork involved in certifying their business to be in compliance with regulations. Fair enough, we could minimize that ... by giving the workers power to sue companies they work for. It's a question of standing: workers can sue for injury to themselves, due to the company's negligence or mismanagement. Widen that. Simply make all workers de facto government inspectors, and allow them to anonymously report and prosecute, and be witness to any violations of government regulation. And duh, they get they money.

I expect businesses will favor the stupidest workers, those most desperate for a job, and those most inclined to take the blame for any dumb shit that happens in the workplace. We're talking the long term unemployed, so good luck to them, also employers will run out of them quick. Employers will have to take on adversarial workers who have a monetary interest in busting them, so employers will have to comply with the regulations and we will hear no more whining from them about having to fill out paperwork.

Most of the ills of the Western world follow from government falling behind with regulation. Industry and the service industry are surviving and growing slowly, despite regulation. But the financial sector is growing like crazy as they trade material businesses back and forth, and speculate on currency and generate imaginary money (which dilutes real money) in trades of abstract value like futures or puts. We need to regulate the bastards. And when I say regulate, I mean tax.

[Chan Island]

Socialism is a 19th century philosophy much like Marxism and capitalism. There is no advancement in adopting ideologies from the past that don't fit in a modern setting. Things like post scarcity, participatory democracy, electronic democracy, and even technocracy are advancements. There is comfort in looking to the past, but it is the present leading into the future and it is better to live in the future than the past.

Nice. Wish more people considered this point.

Basically my stance as well. Capitalism is this stage of civilisation, but we have many new social ideas swirling around that would upgrade us to the next stage.

[Coanin]

As the attack on the US capital occurred I feel like I have gone a bit more left.

I don't think it is now the time nor will it ever be the time to fully ditch capitalism. However, a 50/50 system of socialism and capitalism should be married.

Both are imperfect systems and need each over to balance each other out.

What I'm trying to say is that the US capitalism system needs libertarian socialist reforms, and that these reforms should be done democratically and peacefully.

there was no attack on american capital, what do you mean?
also, you can't be "half-socialist", that's completely disregarding what socialism and capitalism are