First of all, I absolutely agree that the Democrats are a right-wing party, and the center-right European Social Democracies generally have higher living standards for most people than in America. However, I believe you have overlooked what I believe are critical factors, and you can correct me if I’m wrong here:
The Social Safety Nets in these Social Democracies are shrinking in most cases
Most of the Value consumed in these Social Democracies, the grear, vast majority, comes from countries in the Global South paid far less than the Value created for the Global North, meaning they depend on Imperialism
Disparity continues to rise as Capitalism continues to centralize into fewer and fewer larger and larger Monopolist syndicates, the trend is still towards instability
The reason they haven’t “turned to Communism” is because they have never wanted to, they have been fundamentaly structured around Capitalism as the dominant Mode of Production and rely on Imperialism to subsidize their cost of living.
The reason America is different is because it is the global Hegemonic power. The “World Police.” Why is it that the US outspends the rest of the world on the military? So it can project soft power all around the world, securing unequal trade deals with the wealthy Capitalist classes in the Global South. The world trades in US dollars, which the US fights to maintain because it profits from that. This internally causes hyper-disparity between the wealthy and the poor in America.
Finally, I want to ask why you say Communism is an “unattainable utopia.” Marxists have thus far been proven correct in their thesis that markets trend towards centralization through competition over time, and that as firms get larger they begin to develop infrastructure for their own internalized planning. The concept of a fully publicly owned, centrally planned economy is built up by Capitalism itself. That’s without speaking to the fact that there are already Socialist states working towards said goal of full public ownership and central planning.
Why do you say the answer is a “middle ground?” What does this look like?
Honestly… I’m not sure at this point. I was somewhat nihilistic before, but these past few years have brought that sentiment to a whole new level for me…
The main limiting factor towards a true communist utopia is one: we’re human. As such, we are unfortunately individualistic by nature, and it’s been proven time and time again that the accumulation of wealth and power only strengthens that sentiment in the vast majority of the population. Under these constraints, I don’t see a path to fully public, decentralized governance and economic equality, someone will always attempt to centralize both.
What can be done is increase regulations, break up monopolies, put on safety guards and ensure better redistribution, and use, of wealth by increasing taxes to the ruling class. So basically yeah, some form of democratic socialism.
But then again, since decisions are made by the ruling class, that is unlikely to happen, it’s not in their best interest.
And as we’ve seen this time around, you just can’t beat stupidity. All the good intentions and overwhelming proof in the world won’t do you any good if people are unwilling to listen. Oftentimes, even the highly educated are unwilling to listen, what chance do you have with the average person?
I’ll address what you said in a moment, but I really do think you should read theory. If nihilism is overtaking you, in my opinion that means you have likely not properly analyzed our conditions, nor how to fix them. I keep an “introduction to Marxist theory” reading list I can link if you want.
First, no Communist is “Utopian.” Utopianism refers to the strategy of trying to figure out the right formula and directly create it, rather than analyzing existing structures and where they are headed. Communists analyze Capitalism and advocate for Socialism because Capitalism creates the conditions for Socicalism naturally, over time, by forming monopolies that can be folded into the public sector and centrally planned.
Secondly, you are making a critical misunderstanding of Communism. Communism is fully publicly owned and centrally planned. This is the entire purpose of public ownership, once you have public ownership you can plan things centrally, along democratic lines.
Thirdly, human values and thinking is guided by their social relations and material conditions. In Capitalism, a highly individualistic system filled with competition, these values are expressed at greater levels among Capital Owners. However, as it centralizes, the working class becomes more associated, and communal values are expressed at greater levels. This process has been reflected throughout all of history, from the tight-knit family structure of Feudalism to the modern era, the Mode of Production has formed the Base of society, and influenced the laws, culture, art, and so forth forming the Superstructure that reinforces the base, in a cycle that continues to evolve over time as one Mode of Production slowly leads to the next.
As per your “Democratic Socialism,” you are describing “Social Democracy.” There is nothing Socialist about what you described, a Capitalist state with large safety nets is Capitalist regardless. As such, you retain the inherent unsustainability of Capitalism and the further rising disparity it contains, until it is eventually overthrown and Socialism is achieved.
Regarding people’s receptions to ideas, this gets back to the Base and Superstructure argument. As the Base shifts over time, people become accepting of new ideas and values. Focusing on literacy and organizing are the best ways to increase social awareness of systemic issues, and figuring out how to solve them.
I maintain that you should read theory. I can offer a reading list, or answer any questions you might have. I don’t think it’s fair for you to denounce Communism as impossible if you haven’t engaged with the literature enough to fully understand what it even is, or how Communists want to achieve it and why they believe it not only to be possible, but necessary.
First of all, I absolutely agree that the Democrats are a right-wing party, and the center-right European Social Democracies generally have higher living standards for most people than in America. However, I believe you have overlooked what I believe are critical factors, and you can correct me if I’m wrong here:
The Social Safety Nets in these Social Democracies are shrinking in most cases
Most of the Value consumed in these Social Democracies, the grear, vast majority, comes from countries in the Global South paid far less than the Value created for the Global North, meaning they depend on Imperialism
Disparity continues to rise as Capitalism continues to centralize into fewer and fewer larger and larger Monopolist syndicates, the trend is still towards instability
The reason they haven’t “turned to Communism” is because they have never wanted to, they have been fundamentaly structured around Capitalism as the dominant Mode of Production and rely on Imperialism to subsidize their cost of living.
The reason America is different is because it is the global Hegemonic power. The “World Police.” Why is it that the US outspends the rest of the world on the military? So it can project soft power all around the world, securing unequal trade deals with the wealthy Capitalist classes in the Global South. The world trades in US dollars, which the US fights to maintain because it profits from that. This internally causes hyper-disparity between the wealthy and the poor in America.
Finally, I want to ask why you say Communism is an “unattainable utopia.” Marxists have thus far been proven correct in their thesis that markets trend towards centralization through competition over time, and that as firms get larger they begin to develop infrastructure for their own internalized planning. The concept of a fully publicly owned, centrally planned economy is built up by Capitalism itself. That’s without speaking to the fact that there are already Socialist states working towards said goal of full public ownership and central planning.
Why do you say the answer is a “middle ground?” What does this look like?
Honestly… I’m not sure at this point. I was somewhat nihilistic before, but these past few years have brought that sentiment to a whole new level for me…
The main limiting factor towards a true communist utopia is one: we’re human. As such, we are unfortunately individualistic by nature, and it’s been proven time and time again that the accumulation of wealth and power only strengthens that sentiment in the vast majority of the population. Under these constraints, I don’t see a path to fully public, decentralized governance and economic equality, someone will always attempt to centralize both.
What can be done is increase regulations, break up monopolies, put on safety guards and ensure better redistribution, and use, of wealth by increasing taxes to the ruling class. So basically yeah, some form of democratic socialism.
But then again, since decisions are made by the ruling class, that is unlikely to happen, it’s not in their best interest.
And as we’ve seen this time around, you just can’t beat stupidity. All the good intentions and overwhelming proof in the world won’t do you any good if people are unwilling to listen. Oftentimes, even the highly educated are unwilling to listen, what chance do you have with the average person?
I’ll address what you said in a moment, but I really do think you should read theory. If nihilism is overtaking you, in my opinion that means you have likely not properly analyzed our conditions, nor how to fix them. I keep an “introduction to Marxist theory” reading list I can link if you want.
First, no Communist is “Utopian.” Utopianism refers to the strategy of trying to figure out the right formula and directly create it, rather than analyzing existing structures and where they are headed. Communists analyze Capitalism and advocate for Socialism because Capitalism creates the conditions for Socicalism naturally, over time, by forming monopolies that can be folded into the public sector and centrally planned.
Secondly, you are making a critical misunderstanding of Communism. Communism is fully publicly owned and centrally planned. This is the entire purpose of public ownership, once you have public ownership you can plan things centrally, along democratic lines.
Thirdly, human values and thinking is guided by their social relations and material conditions. In Capitalism, a highly individualistic system filled with competition, these values are expressed at greater levels among Capital Owners. However, as it centralizes, the working class becomes more associated, and communal values are expressed at greater levels. This process has been reflected throughout all of history, from the tight-knit family structure of Feudalism to the modern era, the Mode of Production has formed the Base of society, and influenced the laws, culture, art, and so forth forming the Superstructure that reinforces the base, in a cycle that continues to evolve over time as one Mode of Production slowly leads to the next.
As per your “Democratic Socialism,” you are describing “Social Democracy.” There is nothing Socialist about what you described, a Capitalist state with large safety nets is Capitalist regardless. As such, you retain the inherent unsustainability of Capitalism and the further rising disparity it contains, until it is eventually overthrown and Socialism is achieved.
Regarding people’s receptions to ideas, this gets back to the Base and Superstructure argument. As the Base shifts over time, people become accepting of new ideas and values. Focusing on literacy and organizing are the best ways to increase social awareness of systemic issues, and figuring out how to solve them.
I maintain that you should read theory. I can offer a reading list, or answer any questions you might have. I don’t think it’s fair for you to denounce Communism as impossible if you haven’t engaged with the literature enough to fully understand what it even is, or how Communists want to achieve it and why they believe it not only to be possible, but necessary.