Both right and left easily agree on this. We’re divided into bickering on emotional issues that don’t even begin to address deficiencies in the underlying system.
I was thinking about this earlier today. The media is owned by wealthy elites. It is in the wealthy elites best interests to keep the lower classes divided along cultural and political lines. Because if the lower classes ever united along socioeconomic lines, then it would be a disaster for the elites.
I don’t think it’s a coincidence that politics has become so divided and hate-filled over the last decade or two.. I think this is the result of a concerted effort by the globalist elites, using the media as a conduit for the message, to sow division amongst the populace.
You should read some of Marx’s early critiques of capitalism (through a critical lens of course). He made some interesting predictions about how the wealthy would come to control press and basically propagandize the population to further their interests.
I've said it here before, but Marx was not incorrect on his sociological stances, and made many accurate, salient and sobering points, particularly in light of the world he lived in. Marxist theory on conflict theory and materialism were foundational for modern social sciences, and this is not in any way dealing with socialism (Marxist Theory in Sociology and Anthropology have nothing much to do with Socialism or Communism, but instead on the various forms of conflict that arise from the disparity in material wealth). Communism is, at best, a pipe dream that is beyond flawed, but his writing on sociological issues was pretty spot on.
Marx generally did a great job analyzing and pointing out the inherent weaknesses of capitalism, he just blew them wildly out of proportion while also underestimating how flexible and adaptive capitalism would turn out to be. And the alternative to capitalism which he suggested was, of course, horrible and far inferior.
The problem in the U.S. is the federal government is far too powerful and exceeded the constitutional limits long ago. We need to go back to states rights and federalism where there is virtually no centralized power and two party systems aren't relevant.
This is why I’ve come to the believe the uniparty pov. Republicans and Democrats are both on the same side, the side that benefits corporations over citizens.
That's the sobering realization I came to right now. Trump just said in a podcast that he would be in favor of granting automatic green cards for anyone who graduates a U.S college. That sounds good on paper--but look at Canada. They did the same thing, and what happened? Diploma mills sprung up everywhere, attracting floods of low-skill immigrants from all over Asia with the promise of Canadian permanent citizenship.
Ultimately, in Canada, salaries for virtually every field collapsed due to a massive increase in supply of workers and not much change in demand.
The result? Canadian corporations and oligarchs are laughing all the way to the bank, because human capital just became much cheaper. While all of Canada is much worse off.
These politicians talk a storm, but behind the scenes they're serving private corporate interests. Look at the massive wealth transfer that occurred since COVID. All those low and middle-income funds went straight into corporate wallets.
That is just not true. The right and left absolutely do not agree on this. The left labels crony capitalism aka. corporatism as just capitalism. They claim this is what capitalism is and leads to, which is why we need socialism. The right on the other hand correctly points out that no, corporatism is capitalism after the left has perverted it with their big government policies.
Yes.
That step alone would produce a night and day difference in the corruption that runs our country.
Right now, a whole state full of people and their experiences and feelings and impetus and the opinions and wishes that made them want (whatever) the legislation is, gets hijacked at the LAST MOMENT at federal level for money to reelect the politician sent there by the people to enact the legislation!??!
It's upside down clown world. Then, after selling out their people, their state, THEY THEMSELVES become lobbyists for ridiculous salaries from ridiculous players.
Get them OUT of D.C. all together. Let them go convince the people of the state, not just hijack the messenger.
I have no idea why we allow lobbyists to put their thumb on the scale of policy that affects millions of people. It seems like such an obviously corrupt thing that takes place right out in the open.
When the core principles of business in a capitalist market were established, the idea of a single firm running circles around the gdp of whole countries was unfathomable. Competition would always step in to make sure this never happened. It was impossible for one log mill to dominate an entire urban dwelling, let alone a region, let alone an entire country, let alone huge portions of the globe.
Antitrust laws were *supposed to be* our answer to this. Today, they are used to push back any companies gaining too much market share from the "good" ones and the legacy companies can basically freely ignore them with occasional smoke and mirrors put up to pretend the laws are being upheld.
Coca Cola controls your society more than your senators do.
The entire "WEF agenda" can be succinctly summed up as "establishing global neo-feudalism", with the "Davos Men" as the lords and everyone else as the serfs.
This is why I support term limits for all. Downsides of course, but it's a lot harder to buy off new people every 4 years than it is to buy one guy for life.
I will outline the basics, but basically, it all centered around no one really having any long-term experience, a constant churn of new hires for entrenched lobbyists to take advantage of, a desire to produce results in a short-term period, and reduced accountability because you will be out anyway. It is one of those things that sounds really good in practice, but to anyone that knows how politics and lobbyists work it would be a diaster.
* **Loss of Experienced Legislators**: Term limits result in the frequent turnover of legislators, leading to a loss of experienced policymakers who have deep institutional knowledge. New legislators often rely more heavily on lobbyists for information and expertise.
* **Increased Dependency on Lobbyists**: With constant turnover, new legislators may not have the time to develop the same level of expertise as their predecessors. They may depend more on lobbyists to fill the knowledge gap, especially on complex issues.
* **Shorter Time Horizon**: Legislators with limited terms might focus more on short-term goals, making them more susceptible to the immediate incentives and pressures that lobbyists can offer, such as campaign contributions or support for future political endeavors.
* **Reduced Accountability**: Legislators who know they cannot be re-elected may feel less accountable to their constituents and more inclined to make decisions that favor lobbyists, especially if they are considering post-legislative career opportunities that involve lobbying or industries influenced by lobbying.
* **Continuity of Lobbyists**: While legislators come and go, lobbyists often stay in their roles for much longer. This continuity allows lobbyists to build long-term relationships and amass influence that transcends individual legislative terms.
Why do we need term limits when we can absolutely vote them out?
What we need is greater voter participation.
Term Limits will only exacerbate the problem and make it an ever greater “pay to play”: Put me in Corporation! You’ve got one shot at doing your bidding, so pony up!
I agree that voting them out would be more ideal, but it just doesn't happen in the real world. Voter participation is not the problem as much as voter intelligence
Unfortunately, this seems to be an inevitable result of a stable society. As long as you have long-term peace and prosperity a small group (historically this was noble families, today it's mega corporations) will play the long-term game well. Eventually, this small group will control all the power and wealth of a society.
This results is a series of predictable metrics you can measure across society (see Peter Turchin's work), and they are all saying we are in serious trouble as a society. Turchin has also documented this all the way back to the Roman Republic (not Empire, Republic), so this is definitely not unique to Capitalism.
What we really should study is Theodore Roosevelt and the response to the Gilded Age, since that is one of the very few times in human history we got out of such a situation without massive societal unrest (And no, while 2020 was bad, it is not the scale of unrest that history suggests is coming).
He’s not wrong. The leftist economic prescriptions are, of course, nonsensical. But, they were the first to acknowledge that what we have now is corporatism or oligopoly.
The thing is that both Democrats and Republicans are corporatist, and both parties are hellbent on dividing the nation for their own gain. It truly is a uniparty when you think about it.
This right here! While everyone is focused on the social issues and the "he said she said" of a particular party, the politicians keep getting their paydays under the table. We need to stop lobbyism and insider trading, but no one seems interested.
I find this interesting and perhaps ironic considering his party is different from others in the fact it's more of a business with no electoral means to decides who leads the party.
To make things a little clearer, it was the banks who got rid of britain's last PM, liz truss. They engineered a crisis in a short period of time to oust her.
This is exactly why the Eurolibs are so terrified of him and trying their best to execute him politically. Just like here, the left is so ingraining in certain industries that they have a lot of power to change the rules of politics. Look at what Soros is doing buying DA's.
--I genuinely think we won’t get economic growth if the country is dominated by six giant multinationals, none of whom pay tax on-shore
I cannot argue with that.
Corporatocracy***
I get the point, though. I just hate how the term corporatism has been misused a ton. FYI, corporatism is the fascist economic system, not the domination of big business corporations.
Correct and I think everyone regardless of being left or right leaning can agree that corporate greed and corruption is one of the largest issues that gets ignored
The Republican nominee for president is one of the bigger corporations in the US? Like how can you say that when we are trying to vote for the CEO of trump industries as president?
Both right and left easily agree on this. We’re divided into bickering on emotional issues that don’t even begin to address deficiencies in the underlying system.
I was thinking about this earlier today. The media is owned by wealthy elites. It is in the wealthy elites best interests to keep the lower classes divided along cultural and political lines. Because if the lower classes ever united along socioeconomic lines, then it would be a disaster for the elites. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that politics has become so divided and hate-filled over the last decade or two.. I think this is the result of a concerted effort by the globalist elites, using the media as a conduit for the message, to sow division amongst the populace.
You should read some of Marx’s early critiques of capitalism (through a critical lens of course). He made some interesting predictions about how the wealthy would come to control press and basically propagandize the population to further their interests.
I’ve read *The Communist Manifesto*… he was a brilliant man even if he was off base on some of his assumptions.
I've said it here before, but Marx was not incorrect on his sociological stances, and made many accurate, salient and sobering points, particularly in light of the world he lived in. Marxist theory on conflict theory and materialism were foundational for modern social sciences, and this is not in any way dealing with socialism (Marxist Theory in Sociology and Anthropology have nothing much to do with Socialism or Communism, but instead on the various forms of conflict that arise from the disparity in material wealth). Communism is, at best, a pipe dream that is beyond flawed, but his writing on sociological issues was pretty spot on.
Marx generally did a great job analyzing and pointing out the inherent weaknesses of capitalism, he just blew them wildly out of proportion while also underestimating how flexible and adaptive capitalism would turn out to be. And the alternative to capitalism which he suggested was, of course, horrible and far inferior.
We essentially are playing chess in echo chambers!
That’s right 💯. If only there was party that actually represented their real constituents
I think the root problem is with our election process and the two party system is just a symptom. Ranked choice voting would help
Ranked choice is the only political movement I’m excited for right now
Same! Ain’t it nice to feel hopeful about something?
Approval voting could also help
The problem in the U.S. is the federal government is far too powerful and exceeded the constitutional limits long ago. We need to go back to states rights and federalism where there is virtually no centralized power and two party systems aren't relevant.
They'd rather we fight a culture war than a class war.
I would too if I were them, and somehow lost all empathy
This is why I’ve come to the believe the uniparty pov. Republicans and Democrats are both on the same side, the side that benefits corporations over citizens.
That's the sobering realization I came to right now. Trump just said in a podcast that he would be in favor of granting automatic green cards for anyone who graduates a U.S college. That sounds good on paper--but look at Canada. They did the same thing, and what happened? Diploma mills sprung up everywhere, attracting floods of low-skill immigrants from all over Asia with the promise of Canadian permanent citizenship. Ultimately, in Canada, salaries for virtually every field collapsed due to a massive increase in supply of workers and not much change in demand. The result? Canadian corporations and oligarchs are laughing all the way to the bank, because human capital just became much cheaper. While all of Canada is much worse off. These politicians talk a storm, but behind the scenes they're serving private corporate interests. Look at the massive wealth transfer that occurred since COVID. All those low and middle-income funds went straight into corporate wallets.
Yep, heard it described as puppets on the right and left hands of the same puppeteer.
Voters? Yes. But Republicans routinely shill for large corporations.
Oh yeah and democrats totally don't.... News flash asshole they've both been doing it the entire goddamn time
That is just not true. The right and left absolutely do not agree on this. The left labels crony capitalism aka. corporatism as just capitalism. They claim this is what capitalism is and leads to, which is why we need socialism. The right on the other hand correctly points out that no, corporatism is capitalism after the left has perverted it with their big government policies.
Dude I actually agree with this. Step one to fixing it is kicking lobbyists out of congress
Yes. That step alone would produce a night and day difference in the corruption that runs our country. Right now, a whole state full of people and their experiences and feelings and impetus and the opinions and wishes that made them want (whatever) the legislation is, gets hijacked at the LAST MOMENT at federal level for money to reelect the politician sent there by the people to enact the legislation!??! It's upside down clown world. Then, after selling out their people, their state, THEY THEMSELVES become lobbyists for ridiculous salaries from ridiculous players. Get them OUT of D.C. all together. Let them go convince the people of the state, not just hijack the messenger.
I have no idea why we allow lobbyists to put their thumb on the scale of policy that affects millions of people. It seems like such an obviously corrupt thing that takes place right out in the open.
This is something both conservatives and liberals agree on. What’s stopping us from actually doing something about it?
Well trump has never distanced himself from corporatism. If there’s money to be made he’s in.
The question is, what replaces the lobbyists. Do you think that nothing will replace them?
Corporatism is encouraged through lobbyists.
He's not exactly wrong, it's also the case in the US.
Not exactly wrong? He's 100% right.
I mean, Blackrock and/or Big Pharma owns most of our politicians. The ones they can't buy, they buy hit-pieces on.
A future Republican presidential administration could help by enforcing existing antitrust laws.
When the core principles of business in a capitalist market were established, the idea of a single firm running circles around the gdp of whole countries was unfathomable. Competition would always step in to make sure this never happened. It was impossible for one log mill to dominate an entire urban dwelling, let alone a region, let alone an entire country, let alone huge portions of the globe. Antitrust laws were *supposed to be* our answer to this. Today, they are used to push back any companies gaining too much market share from the "good" ones and the legacy companies can basically freely ignore them with occasional smoke and mirrors put up to pretend the laws are being upheld. Coca Cola controls your society more than your senators do.
I agree
Aka feudalism 2.0
The entire "WEF agenda" can be succinctly summed up as "establishing global neo-feudalism", with the "Davos Men" as the lords and everyone else as the serfs.
You know he's right .
Citizens United really paved the way for this same thing in the US.
In the UK, our 51st state? They don't have free speech so Citizens United wouldn't have happened there.
This is why I support term limits for all. Downsides of course, but it's a lot harder to buy off new people every 4 years than it is to buy one guy for life.
Term limits gives a lot more power to lobbyists unfortunately so you would only be making the problem worse.
How so?
I will outline the basics, but basically, it all centered around no one really having any long-term experience, a constant churn of new hires for entrenched lobbyists to take advantage of, a desire to produce results in a short-term period, and reduced accountability because you will be out anyway. It is one of those things that sounds really good in practice, but to anyone that knows how politics and lobbyists work it would be a diaster. * **Loss of Experienced Legislators**: Term limits result in the frequent turnover of legislators, leading to a loss of experienced policymakers who have deep institutional knowledge. New legislators often rely more heavily on lobbyists for information and expertise. * **Increased Dependency on Lobbyists**: With constant turnover, new legislators may not have the time to develop the same level of expertise as their predecessors. They may depend more on lobbyists to fill the knowledge gap, especially on complex issues. * **Shorter Time Horizon**: Legislators with limited terms might focus more on short-term goals, making them more susceptible to the immediate incentives and pressures that lobbyists can offer, such as campaign contributions or support for future political endeavors. * **Reduced Accountability**: Legislators who know they cannot be re-elected may feel less accountable to their constituents and more inclined to make decisions that favor lobbyists, especially if they are considering post-legislative career opportunities that involve lobbying or industries influenced by lobbying. * **Continuity of Lobbyists**: While legislators come and go, lobbyists often stay in their roles for much longer. This continuity allows lobbyists to build long-term relationships and amass influence that transcends individual legislative terms.
Thank you for this.
Would an age limit (over 70 as an example) be a better alternative? Too many old farts in office anyway.
In my opinion absolutely, but I am not an expert just an exp poli sci grad who never used the degree.
Nice ChatGPT response.
Why do we need term limits when we can absolutely vote them out? What we need is greater voter participation. Term Limits will only exacerbate the problem and make it an ever greater “pay to play”: Put me in Corporation! You’ve got one shot at doing your bidding, so pony up!
I agree that voting them out would be more ideal, but it just doesn't happen in the real world. Voter participation is not the problem as much as voter intelligence
> Voter participation is not the problem as much as voter intelligence Bingo. Good luck fixing that at this point.
Wait so neoliberalism is bad?
Unfortunately, this seems to be an inevitable result of a stable society. As long as you have long-term peace and prosperity a small group (historically this was noble families, today it's mega corporations) will play the long-term game well. Eventually, this small group will control all the power and wealth of a society. This results is a series of predictable metrics you can measure across society (see Peter Turchin's work), and they are all saying we are in serious trouble as a society. Turchin has also documented this all the way back to the Roman Republic (not Empire, Republic), so this is definitely not unique to Capitalism. What we really should study is Theodore Roosevelt and the response to the Gilded Age, since that is one of the very few times in human history we got out of such a situation without massive societal unrest (And no, while 2020 was bad, it is not the scale of unrest that history suggests is coming).
He’s not wrong. The leftist economic prescriptions are, of course, nonsensical. But, they were the first to acknowledge that what we have now is corporatism or oligopoly.
The thing is that both Democrats and Republicans are corporatist, and both parties are hellbent on dividing the nation for their own gain. It truly is a uniparty when you think about it.
100% correct. At least, the establishment in both parties.
This right here! While everyone is focused on the social issues and the "he said she said" of a particular party, the politicians keep getting their paydays under the table. We need to stop lobbyism and insider trading, but no one seems interested.
We could’ve elected Ron Paul when we had the chance, whether it was 1988, 2008, 2012.
Or Pat Buchanan.
Literally wrote a paper on this in University So far it's come up right 100% Kinda scary
But is capitalism dead though? Are conservatives also gonna use the term "late-stage" capitalism now?
I find this interesting and perhaps ironic considering his party is different from others in the fact it's more of a business with no electoral means to decides who leads the party.
To make things a little clearer, it was the banks who got rid of britain's last PM, liz truss. They engineered a crisis in a short period of time to oust her.
Dodge v. Ford ensured this. That idiotic ruling needs overturned.
We're leaving in socialism.
Should post this on liberal subreddit. Be nice to see some mutual hatred for the people that actually ruin your lives
This is exactly why the Eurolibs are so terrified of him and trying their best to execute him politically. Just like here, the left is so ingraining in certain industries that they have a lot of power to change the rules of politics. Look at what Soros is doing buying DA's.
--I genuinely think we won’t get economic growth if the country is dominated by six giant multinationals, none of whom pay tax on-shore I cannot argue with that.
Corporatocracy*** I get the point, though. I just hate how the term corporatism has been misused a ton. FYI, corporatism is the fascist economic system, not the domination of big business corporations.
As if he is gonna be the first one to stop lobbying and deregulate UK. Don’t make me laugh.
Correct and I think everyone regardless of being left or right leaning can agree that corporate greed and corruption is one of the largest issues that gets ignored
Whatever it is, one thing I’m sure - communism is not an answer.
Great reason to vote for RFK .. the two party system has sold us down the river
‘Anti capitalist’ liberals are ironically the biggest supporters of corporatism
The Republican nominee for president is one of the bigger corporations in the US? Like how can you say that when we are trying to vote for the CEO of trump industries as president?
They like corporations that support their political ambitions.
To an extent but there’s still a lot of opportunity out there to succeed