JCC Lord Vivec Was Right: Socialism is Better than Capitalist Identity Politics

@Lord Vivec was right.

First of all, a disclaimer: I am a social and political scientist by trade, and am aware of the works of Marx, Engels, Gramsci, etc. I know the difference between socialism and social democracy. Here I am attempting to deliberately make basic points striking at the heart of an untenable social ill in America that I detect today.

In a post long ago in a thread I can’t remember, @Lord Vivec noted that identity politics (of any kind) are both symptomatic of an unequal capitalist society and could drive additional conflict and inequality. This perspective was broadened when discussing the class politics messaging around a mistaken proposal by “Mayor Pete” to provide universal free education to only poor and middle class kids, and not to the wealthy. They have to pay. Setting the stage for reinforced class divisions.

If, instead, the focus was on providing equal support to all segments of society, as would be ideal in a properly socialist society, identity (and class) divisions would eventually - if successful - cease to be sources of conflict and social instability.

A contemporary example for clarity: In the gender and race politics of today, it has sometimes been argued that white males are frustrated because they can no longer live life on “easy mode” - ironically using a gaming analogy that is presumably well understood by privileged white makes. But scrutinizing this sentiment, is it not the harsh one of an overly brutal, capitalistic society? And will it not inevitably breed more conflict and social instability? Why should we expect people to go from living on easy mode to hard mode, and accept it? Shouldn’t the purpose of government be to make it so that everyone can live on easy mode, as much as possible? Free from the struggle of providing for one’s healthcare, one’s housing, one’s water, one’s power, one’s source of income, one’s everything necessary for survival and well-being?

If we accept the form of identify politics as defined within an overly capitalistic society, we are accepting the construct that the gains of people who did not “have” before are the losses of those who “had” before. And so we drive resentment among those who feel, rightly or wrongly, as though they are losing social stability as a result. And inevitably, we drive social conflict until the system can no longer sustain it, which is where I believe the US stands now.

But why accept this construct? In my view, we should be advocating to our government for a social reality wherein the gains of those who did not have before are…the gains of all. In such a society, there is no “affirmative action” in its broadest sense, because all are provided for. Now such an ideal would obviously necessitate the dismantling of the oceans of wealth accumulated by a small segment of society that’s been living life on “super super easy mode,” but the objective, even for them, would be a comfortable existence wherein all needs are met.

Therefore, universal free healthcare, universal free education, and all the other universals, could be a unifying goal in a society that’s undoubtedly fraying at the seams. The first objective is to dismantle the stigma of “socialism” in America, somehow.

Like @Lord Vivec said once, I think.

So yeah, socialism is better than capitalist identity politics. Discuss.

 

Flattery is usually employed by people looking to impress another in order to extract something from them. What could I possibly want to extract from Lord Vivec?

The reason I credited here by name is because it was actually a comment he made that inspired me to create the thread (and to reevaluate some positions I previously held on how quickly and strategically we should advance certain social policies in the US). Credit where it’s due, simply put.

Though in a cynical time, I don’t expect that interpretation from most.

 

You need the right kind of music for this discussion, imho

 

COUNTERPOINT:

 

You young folks can just wait out the collapse of the United States and then form your socialist utopia out of the ashes. But first you have to survive the thousand years of darkness.

 

Good, at last, some optimism

 

Welcome to the Bernie 2020 campaign, Bor Mullet! Now on to the White House!

 

You're just tempting someone to make a parody thread with a title that's the opposite of this one.

 

Scorn?

 

Touché! Though no. I don’t want scorn from Lord Vivec. I just have a traditional approach to the etiquette of giving credit where it’s due. I do it!

The interesting thing, for me personally, is that I was a diehard socialist in my late teens. And thirty years later, I’m coming back to it as an ideal that remains worthwhile, and I believe necessary.

Though I’m a democratic socialist, which is different from where Lord Vivec is, I believe the social ills that define us are still those that were identified and left unresolved at the start of the 20th century. The end of the Cold War only proved that Soviet-style communism wasn’t tenable or desirable. It did nothing to address the fundamental regressive inhumanity of a capitalist society.

And so far, we’re going about addressing social ills the wrong way in America. We’re still putting a brutal face on everything. It should not be about making different classes of people suffer. It should be about making no classes of people suffer.

 

1. Literally no one argues that the gains of minorities should or must equate to “losses” on the particular whites except outright racists. This hasn’t been a feature of “capitalist” discussions and doesn’t have to do with a country’s economic system.

2. Socialist countries also have persistent problems with racism and social inequities.

What we can learn from all this is that there are separate forms of injustice and trying to pretend like addressing any single one will magically fix everything is stupid. Let’s move on to a thread topic that is actually good,

 

You're not going to get anywhere so long as one party continues successfully convincing their base to vote against their own economic self-interest.

 

That's the spirit!

 

I think that party can lose that argument if the other party simply…gives people more social security.

 

Oh, you mean things like Obamacare and economic stimulus during the pandemic?

 

1. Not nearly enough and still expensive af
2. Not nearly enough and temporary

 

Oh, well, then I guess the Democrats should just give out more, right?

Ah, but wait! They can't because the GOP will block their every effort, and any laws they pass can be struck down by the GOP-controlled Supreme Court

 

Yes, I guess the Democrats’ hands are tied and those poor lawmakers just can’t do anything about it.

 

We all want rainbows and lollipops and being able to go to the doctor when we're sick without potential financial ruin, but we can't just have everything, can we?

Boom! Psaki bomb!

 

If this thread survives, you might want to switch the tag to Senate.

 

There are limits to what they can do, especially given all the gerrymandering at the state level and the stacking of the courts by the GOP.

 

Oh.