US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2285

(neo)Liberalism/Conservatism argues the churning of people pursuing their own rational self-interested goals results in a cream rising of the best of both those capitalist competitors and the "best" or most valued goals to serve the market/rational self-interested parties. Their argument is about the quality and legitimacy of a superimposed meritocracy.

Basically Conservatives/Republicans/Libertarians will argue the meritocracy is best in it's "traditional"/"most-free" form. That regulation and government intervention is merely a not-so-secret cabal of savvy capitalists seeking to futilely levy a corrupt government system to enrich themselves by way of exploiting a governments monopoly on force rather than in a market where individuals are free to choose by way of their own rational self-interest. This culminated in some ways with Ron Paul's debate moment on healthcare.

+ Show Spoiler +

Neoliberals will argue that is fantasy/borderline psycho/sociopathy and that without strict oversight and regulation the power and influence of those with capital will quickly overrun those without undermining what they believe can/should be a valid meritocracy. Thwarted by the previously mentioned parties and "infighting" with those to their left they insist if they were only empowered (in a meritocracy they acknowledge won't empower them righteously) they would make right the meritocracy (through government regulation/intervention) and they typically endorse some bare minimum social safety nets.

Social Democrats and Progressives endorse the conceptual framework of capitalism and the meritocracy virtually indistinguishable from neoliberals and differentiate themselves by advocating more comprehensive social safety nets, regulations/interventions and less hawkish foreign policy than the previous groups. The New Deal is widely seen as a historical milestone with this general sense. Similarly (although certainly things change with time) they are definitively more socially progressive than the other groups mentioned thus far (other than libertarians for different reasons). However, The New Deal and it's historical context serves as an illustration of the compromises made among lines of capital/ownership and race/civil rights that were set aside and what went from WWII into the "Cold" War This is illustrated in how MLK was painted a communist long before he had abandoned capitalism, despite capitalism indisputably abandoning of the people he spoke for. As well as the ongoing poor people's campaign that lives in the shameful legacy of the US.

Democratic Socialists (in theory) are anti-capitalist and advocates of socialism, but (without delving into socialist disputes) favor a more reformist path toward socialism. But importantly the abolition of capitalism and advocacy of socialism is intrinsic to distinguishing them from social democrats and progressives. DSA and Bernie basically muddied the waters as you suggest leading to people getting the impression that Democratic Socialism and Social Democratic policy are one in the same. They clearly aren't, with the main distinction being whether they aim to preserve capitalism and make it/the meritocracy "more fair/forgiving" or aim to end it in favor of socialism (even if in a transitory nature). The blurring of this is especially bad in the US where ubiquitous developed world expectations like universal healthcare are considered unreasonable pipedreams rather than basic social democratic safety nets.

ML/MLM/Revolutionary socialists look at the October Revolution, Cuba's liberation, the Haitian Revolution, etc. and while we'd be thrilled for the other parties to bring us and other marginalized peoples peacefully into a system of equity and sustainability, literally all of those capitalist groups (as represented in the US) have made it abundantly clear they'll literally watch them die by the thousands. Men, women and children alike, starved to death in Yemen, imprisoned in Gaza, enslaved in Libya, etc. and in many cases argue it necessary collateral damage for the perpetuation of an "admittedly imperfect" capitalist system that is inherently dependent on maintaining those exploitative relationships with marginalized peoples. Though the better/wealthier societies have the sense to externalize the majority of most horrific suffering needed to sustain their empires outside their own border.

The last group would also argue that the inevitability of that exploitation creeping inside the borders and up the social/economic meritocracy is foreseeable (and/or transpiring as we speak in the US).

+ Show Spoiler +