Liberalism is the ideology of capitalism. When you are called a liberal, here, it does not mean that people think you support the democrats or whatever ‘progressive’ wing/party of US electoral politics. The republicans are liberals, too. Any party that gets close to power in the US will almost certainly be liberal. The greens included (or whatever their official name). [Edit: so the next US president is going to be a liberal whatever happens.]
When you criticise the US for being run by corporations and oppose socialism/communism, you are not challenging capitalism i.e. liberalism. The same for when you argue that things will never be better, as if capitalism/liberalism is all that can exist. That’s called the ‘end of history thesis’ and it functions to support capitalism. Hence people calling you liberal.
Unfortunately US political discourse has distorted certain words beyond all meaning. This makes it harder to have rigorous conversations about political economy, which is why they do it.
When you criticise the US for being run by corporations and oppose socialism/communism, you are not challenging capitalism i.e. liberalism.
I think that’s where our discourse is having a hiccup. I don’t oppose socialism/communism. I simply understand it’s as capable of being manipulated by those in power as capitalism is. My whole reason for commenting on this post has nothing to do with socialism/communism and everything to do with the OP being a sycophantic cheerleader for an ideological utopia that doesn’t exist. The actual discussion I’ve had in the comment section(for the most part) has been by intellectuals that I’ve enjoyed having and I’ve learned a lot. The OP, however, is just a dumpsterfire of a shitpost which was my siren call to have fun with.
I don’t oppose socialism/communism. I simply understand it’s as capable of being manipulated by those in power as capitalism is.
You’re right and this is where we contrast how socialist governments handle corruption vs how capitalist ones do. China is a good, contemporary example to show how a communist party deals with external corruption, creating laws with consequences for corruption that have a meaningful impact on those in charge, meaning everyone in positions of power are less likely to repeat those actions. A CEO who commits financial fraud or oversees a company that commits fraud sees jail time or even execution under extreme circumstances (this happened recently in Vietnam). The company can also be seized by the state so that it continues operating, changing little for the workers, but removing the ability for those at the top to profit from the business any longer. Under capitalist governments, they get a fine that is small relative to their crime, so crime becomes a cost of doing business, which just serves to encourage those crimes.
For internal corruption, the communist parties themselves conduct purges, meaning they review the quality of their members and expel those who are not committed to the values of the party through a democratic process. Members found guilty of crimes can be punished similar to the CEOs. Ineffectual leaders can be removed from power. Effectual leaders (such as Xi and Stalin) can be voted in for much longer periods of time, allowing them to progress long-term projects that are not possible within the term limits often used in liberal states. What checks against corruption do we see for politicians in liberal parties? Charges of corruption are frequently dismissed.
Power can corrupt in all societies, but it’s important we focus on how to deal with that corruption instead of writing everything off because corruption exists. A dictatorship of working people allows the working class to hold everyone accountable in ways that dictatorships of the owner class choose not to.
Power can corrupt in all societies, but it’s important we focus on how to deal with that corruption instead of writing everything off because corruption exists. A dictatorship of working people allows the working class to hold everyone accountable in ways that dictatorships of the owner class choose not to.
This seems to be my struggle. Cynicism and the sheer amount of flagrant corruption I have seen over the course of my lifetime has made it very hard for me to trust in any system, it seems.
Just an FYI.
Liberalism is the ideology of capitalism. When you are called a liberal, here, it does not mean that people think you support the democrats or whatever ‘progressive’ wing/party of US electoral politics. The republicans are liberals, too. Any party that gets close to power in the US will almost certainly be liberal. The greens included (or whatever their official name). [Edit: so the next US president is going to be a liberal whatever happens.]
When you criticise the US for being run by corporations and oppose socialism/communism, you are not challenging capitalism i.e. liberalism. The same for when you argue that things will never be better, as if capitalism/liberalism is all that can exist. That’s called the ‘end of history thesis’ and it functions to support capitalism. Hence people calling you liberal.
Unfortunately US political discourse has distorted certain words beyond all meaning. This makes it harder to have rigorous conversations about political economy, which is why they do it.
I think that’s where our discourse is having a hiccup. I don’t oppose socialism/communism. I simply understand it’s as capable of being manipulated by those in power as capitalism is. My whole reason for commenting on this post has nothing to do with socialism/communism and everything to do with the OP being a sycophantic cheerleader for an ideological utopia that doesn’t exist. The actual discussion I’ve had in the comment section(for the most part) has been by intellectuals that I’ve enjoyed having and I’ve learned a lot. The OP, however, is just a dumpsterfire of a shitpost which was my siren call to have fun with.
You’re right and this is where we contrast how socialist governments handle corruption vs how capitalist ones do. China is a good, contemporary example to show how a communist party deals with external corruption, creating laws with consequences for corruption that have a meaningful impact on those in charge, meaning everyone in positions of power are less likely to repeat those actions. A CEO who commits financial fraud or oversees a company that commits fraud sees jail time or even execution under extreme circumstances (this happened recently in Vietnam). The company can also be seized by the state so that it continues operating, changing little for the workers, but removing the ability for those at the top to profit from the business any longer. Under capitalist governments, they get a fine that is small relative to their crime, so crime becomes a cost of doing business, which just serves to encourage those crimes.
For internal corruption, the communist parties themselves conduct purges, meaning they review the quality of their members and expel those who are not committed to the values of the party through a democratic process. Members found guilty of crimes can be punished similar to the CEOs. Ineffectual leaders can be removed from power. Effectual leaders (such as Xi and Stalin) can be voted in for much longer periods of time, allowing them to progress long-term projects that are not possible within the term limits often used in liberal states. What checks against corruption do we see for politicians in liberal parties? Charges of corruption are frequently dismissed.
Power can corrupt in all societies, but it’s important we focus on how to deal with that corruption instead of writing everything off because corruption exists. A dictatorship of working people allows the working class to hold everyone accountable in ways that dictatorships of the owner class choose not to.
This seems to be my struggle. Cynicism and the sheer amount of flagrant corruption I have seen over the course of my lifetime has made it very hard for me to trust in any system, it seems.