I do think the us has an unhealthy obsession with communism but I don’t think any radicalism is good. A bit of capitalism with a lot of social policies and laws focused in keeping everyone in line would be better
Why is radicalism bad? A viewpoint being closer or fartger from the median viewpoint in society has no bearing on its correctness or incorrectness. At one point, heliocentrism was radical, most people used to see the Earth as the center of the solar system. At one point, abolition of slavery was radical. Radicalism isn’t bad in and of itself.
As for the system you describe, it’s just not possible. In a capitalist economy, ie one where the large firms and key industries are privately owned, through ownership of the economic base the bourgeoisie has control of the political arms of society, the state. As such, regulation will only be with the explicit consent and approval of the bourgeoisie, including at the expense of lesser capitalists and of course the working class. The system cannot genuinely be tweaked into working better, even the Nordic countries are decaying, and they already depend on imperialism to function.
What works is socialism, ie public ownership of the large firms and key industries, with the working class in control. Rather than the ruthless nature of monopolized markets, we should work towards collectivizing and planning the economy. Humanity can become the masters of its destiny, rather than profit. In time, this results in gradual sublimation of all property, until all of production is collectivized and classes cease to exist, ie communism.
Im not sure how to properly quote here (pls educate me) but regarding this:
“A viewpoint being closer or fartger from the median viewpoint in society has no bearing on its correctness or incorrectness.”
This is inherrently correct. This of course applies to both the middle or the edges of the political and economic spectrum. I think what they and I are arguing is that the “median” tends to be more acceptable for a majority, which is sort of the point.
I for one think that the state should own and exercise control over necessities or “key” industries as you describe them. But I also think it has no business sticking it’s ugly nose in the property I own. Sure - tax the shit out of me if I’m super rich, but that is it.
I’m a materialist, not an idealist. If a stance is correct, then it should be pushed for, regardless of its acceptability. In tine, through testing theory to practice, acceptability will rise. Commandism and tailism are wrong, but pushing for the correct line is correct.
As for the state owning the large firms and key industries, and allowing the bourgeoisie only small and medium firms (and siezing them if they grow to be large), is socialism, which is the path to communism. The state does not need your toothbrush, but if you own a large company? Too bad.
This is the way in my opinion. Proper anti-monopoly laws, solid progressive taxation, public (state) control of the “necessities” such as electricity and water, a working social security system, free education and healthcare while maintaining private medical practicioners and schools as an co-existing paid alternative.
There is no chance of genuine “anti-monopoly laws” in an economy where the bourgeoisie is in control of the large firms. Even if necessities are publicly owned, the proletariat and even lesser bourgeoisie lose out in influence over the state, lacking the political control to enact such laws that directly go against the most powerful in society. The only way is socialism, which requires that not just the necessities, but also the large firms be publicly owned, and the medium firms tightly controlled by the state.
I do think the us has an unhealthy obsession with communism but I don’t think any radicalism is good. A bit of capitalism with a lot of social policies and laws focused in keeping everyone in line would be better
Why is radicalism bad? A viewpoint being closer or fartger from the median viewpoint in society has no bearing on its correctness or incorrectness. At one point, heliocentrism was radical, most people used to see the Earth as the center of the solar system. At one point, abolition of slavery was radical. Radicalism isn’t bad in and of itself.
As for the system you describe, it’s just not possible. In a capitalist economy, ie one where the large firms and key industries are privately owned, through ownership of the economic base the bourgeoisie has control of the political arms of society, the state. As such, regulation will only be with the explicit consent and approval of the bourgeoisie, including at the expense of lesser capitalists and of course the working class. The system cannot genuinely be tweaked into working better, even the Nordic countries are decaying, and they already depend on imperialism to function.
What works is socialism, ie public ownership of the large firms and key industries, with the working class in control. Rather than the ruthless nature of monopolized markets, we should work towards collectivizing and planning the economy. Humanity can become the masters of its destiny, rather than profit. In time, this results in gradual sublimation of all property, until all of production is collectivized and classes cease to exist, ie communism.
Im not sure how to properly quote here (pls educate me) but regarding this:
“A viewpoint being closer or fartger from the median viewpoint in society has no bearing on its correctness or incorrectness.”
This is inherrently correct. This of course applies to both the middle or the edges of the political and economic spectrum. I think what they and I are arguing is that the “median” tends to be more acceptable for a majority, which is sort of the point.
I for one think that the state should own and exercise control over necessities or “key” industries as you describe them. But I also think it has no business sticking it’s ugly nose in the property I own. Sure - tax the shit out of me if I’m super rich, but that is it.
I’m a materialist, not an idealist. If a stance is correct, then it should be pushed for, regardless of its acceptability. In tine, through testing theory to practice, acceptability will rise. Commandism and tailism are wrong, but pushing for the correct line is correct.
As for the state owning the large firms and key industries, and allowing the bourgeoisie only small and medium firms (and siezing them if they grow to be large), is socialism, which is the path to communism. The state does not need your toothbrush, but if you own a large company? Too bad.
This is the way in my opinion. Proper anti-monopoly laws, solid progressive taxation, public (state) control of the “necessities” such as electricity and water, a working social security system, free education and healthcare while maintaining private medical practicioners and schools as an co-existing paid alternative.
There is no chance of genuine “anti-monopoly laws” in an economy where the bourgeoisie is in control of the large firms. Even if necessities are publicly owned, the proletariat and even lesser bourgeoisie lose out in influence over the state, lacking the political control to enact such laws that directly go against the most powerful in society. The only way is socialism, which requires that not just the necessities, but also the large firms be publicly owned, and the medium firms tightly controlled by the state.