America is moving toward an oligarchical socialism
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Yet before they can seize power from the president and his now subservient party, the Democrats need to agree on what will replace Trumpism.
Conventional wisdom implies an endless battle between pragmatic, corporate Clintonites on one side, and Democratic socialists of the Bernie brand. Yet this conflict could resolve itself in a new, innovative approach that could be best described as oligarchal socialism.
Oligarchal socialism allows for the current, ever-growing concentration of wealth and power in a few hands — notably tech and financial moguls — while seeking ways to ameliorate the reality of growing poverty, slowing social mobility and indebtedness. This will be achieved not by breaking up or targeting the oligarchs, which they would fight to the bitter end, but through the massive increase in state taxpayer support.
Conflicting visions
Historically, liberals advocated helping the middle class achieve greater independence, notably by owning houses and starting companies. But the tech oligarchy — the people who run the five most capitalized firms on Wall Street — have a far less egalitarian vision. Greg Fehrenstein, who interviewed 147 digital company founders, says most believe that “an increasingly greater share of economic wealth will be generated by a smaller slice of very talented or original people. Everyone else will increasingly subsist on some combination of part-time entrepreneurial ’gig work‘ and government aid.”
Numerous oligarchs — Mark Zuckerberg, Pierre Omidyar, founder of eBay, Elon Musk and Sam Altman, founder of the Y Combinator — have embraced this vision including a “guaranteed wage,” usually $500 or a $1,000 monthly. Our new economic overlords are not typical anti-tax billionaires in the traditional mode; they see government spending as a means of keeping the populist pitchforks away. This may be the only politically sustainable way to expand “the gig economy,” which grew to 7 million workers this year, 26 percent above the year before.
Handouts, including housing subsidies, could guarantee for the next generation a future not of owned houses, but rented small, modest apartments. Unable to grow into property-owning adults, they will subsist while playing with their phones, video games and virtual reality in what Google calls “immersive computing.”
The socialist challenge
Particularly since Donald Trump’s election, the leaders of corporate America — especially in tech and finance — have merged with the Democrats. They appeal to progressives by advocating politically correct views on immigration, gender rights and climate change, while muzzling conservatives both inside and outside their companies.
But now the socialists have raised the ante for progressive credibility. Going beyond green and identity issues, they are raising issues that impact most families. Arguably their strongest case can be seen in health care, now the top issue with voters, according to Gallup. In some states, notably California, socialists are also backing a drive for rent control to help families cope with high rents and low wages.
A focus on such basic issues could reorder not just the Democratic Party but the country itself. Faced with limited future prospects, more millennials already prefer socialism to capitalism and generally renounce constitutionally sanctioned free speech — not something you like to see in what will soon be the largest voting bloc in the country.
A New Deal for oligarchs
Theoretically, the Democrats moving to the left should terrify the oligarchs. Yet increased income guarantees, nationalized health care, housing subsidies, rent control and free education could also help firms maintain a gig-oriented economy since these employers do not provide the basic benefits often offered by more traditional “evil” corporations in energy, manufacturing and basic business services.
Such subsidies would help millions of gig workers, as well as the vastly underpaid production workers at Amazon’s warehouses, erratically paid workers at the Tesla car factory or the contract labor who clean the tech firms’ buildings and provide security. As historian Jeff Winters has pointed out, the oligarchy, representing basically the top .01 percent of the population, are primarily interested not in lower taxes but in protecting their market shares and capital; they have been at least as brilliant in avoiding taxes as developing innovative products. He points out the very rich have maintained their share of assets even in welfare states such as Sweden and Finland.
The losers here will be our once-protean middle class. Unlike the owners of corporations in the past, oligarchs have no interest in their workers become homeowners or moving up the class ladder. Their agenda instead is forever-denser, super-expensive rental housing for their primarily young, and often short-term, employees.
There’s surely a compelling logic for oligarchic socialism. The tech moguls get to remain wealthy beyond the most extreme dreams of avarice, while their allies in progressive circles and the media, which they increasingly own, continue to hector everyone else about giving up their own aspirations. All the middle and upwardly mobile working class gets is the right to pay ever more taxes, while they watch many of their children devolve into serfs, dependent on alms and subsidies for their survival.
Tags
Who is online
73 visitors
Socialism = Helping people that need help.
Capitalism = Helping people that do not need help.
Socialism= the largest killer of human beings in the history of the world. Read a history book for crying out loud. Better yet move to Venezuela , I hear they are looking for more Socialists there.
America Is Moving Toward An Oligarchical Socialism
No surprise there-- Trump is doing exactly what his Russian masters want him to do!
LMAO! Trump is moving us towards Socialism?
Look at how this author defines socialism. This author equates 'socialism' with public programs and services.
You, in contrast, equate 'socialism' with brutal authoritarian rule with a command economy. Others equate 'socialism' with an egalitarian nightmare where everyone is 'equal'. The definitions are all over the map - especially here in the USA. It is embarrassing.
That is the problem with people operating at a level of understanding that goes no deeper than repeating a label or a slogan.
Then you are simply rejecting a label. That method is as mindless as categorically rejecting every idea proposed by a member of the other party while accepting every idea proposed by a member of your party.
'What, that was originally proposed by a Democrat? I reject it!'.
Do you see the problem?
My suggestion is to go below the label and understand the subject matter. Then reject or accept or modify or whatever. Don't blindly reject (or accept) something simply because of a label.
My problem with your definition of Scoialism is out of step with, and completely ignores, the history, and REALITY of socialism. My definition of Socialism comes from it's history. Simple as that.
You repeat slogans and point to nations that self-label as socialism. You have yet to show any understanding of the subject matter. You are stuck at the label level and clearly refuse any information that runs contrary to your superficial understanding of this subject.
Ignorance of this complex subject is cool; I have no problem with that and am quite willing to share what I have learned. However, willful, stubborn -even militant- ignorance is offensive.
I see
One of the core beliefs of socialism is the governments involvement in privately owned business's. Trump has done that since he took office. Carrier ring a bell? How about his constant crying about the NFL? His attacks on FB and Amazon?
You are supporting a president that is more socialist than you think. Congrats!
Absolutely. It is hard to imagine that anyone would promote the slogan-level meaning of 'socialism' which includes:
The term 'socialism' is so overloaded with nonsense nowadays that it has lost all relevant meaning. It just means 'something I dislike'.
LMAO! Trump is moving us towards Socialism?
Well, one thing we can be grateful for- in Capitalist societies there is not now- no has there ever been-- human suffering!
"Oligarchical Socialism." ? ? Another made up 'fear word' by the dead and buried conserva/krats to hide everything they've failed and those things yet to be failed.
Supply Side Economics still breathes. The wealth is concentrating and the power is consolidating. Hence the conservative 'nattering nabobs of negativism' for any connotation of social, socialistic and socialism. Be afraid! The conserva/message.
Hell, the last thing the right wing and conservatives can accept is when the 'tax dollars' actually and finally do something for those who paid them.
"Oligarchical Socialism." Yikes! There's a fly in the soup! Save us! Holy crackers!
My guess is the seeder heard someone, somewhere say that trump is beholden to russian oligarchs, which he is. So go search for an article that plays to the, "I know you are but what am I" argument and post it here.
When someone called trump a fascist, within 24 hours, there was an article here saying how the left is all fascists, (which is ridiculous since fascism is a far right wing ideology).
It is articles like this that contribute to the widespread confusion on socialism. The word means so many things nowadays - probably because every time someone declares something as 'socialism!' it sticks. Ironically the original meaning is largely lost. In this case, this author equates socialism with public programs and services. To this author, universal healthcare is an example of socialism when in reality it is statism or -as commonly practiced- social democracy.
Oligarchal socialism is a perfect oxymoron. It is also a sad indication of the level of misinformation posed by 'experts' that only serve to lower the collective intelligence in our nation.
No, Joel Kotkin, you simply are describing a strategy for a more concentrated form of capitalism. The described system is capitalism that is protected by a careful balance of giving the people just enough to keep them passive. It will probably work too.
Supply Side Economics. Trickledown. Whatever you want to call it is still the American economic system.
Capitalism is dead. Bait and switch has been accomplished.
Yep some of we the people dont want the country to move forward. Too bad the past is done. trump is but a temporary set back, ya can't stop the world from progressing forward, its against the laws of nature.
(hint) Every economic system (of modern, established nations) is a variant of capitalism. All of our systems involve a minority controlling the productive resources of the economy. Sometimes the minority are private sector capitalists and other times it is government officials and politicians. Some variants are better than others but the economic system is always capitalism.
Capitalism = minority control over the productive resources of the economy.
Unfortunately HA I see a future much different that we have now one way or another.
As tech takes over and mankind gets lazier we'll (for a time) probably become more a society of leisure and slaves.
What we now see as the wealthy and the poor. (But on steroids!)
I also see that as inevitable. Barring a catastrophe such as nuclear war.
First off Hillary wasn’t fit to walk my dog. (neither is trump).. Seriously, I would not trust either of them with my chows !
But as far as the Midwest, I honestly can’t speak from firsthand experience in today’s worlds but when I did live there (from birth till about 19 ) I found Bartonville Illinois very stagnant and unfortunately many people were pessimistic because the work force was going backwards.
Caterpillar even had figured out it did not need to pay the wages it paid because they had no competition. Backwards.
PS: Cat WAS Peoria, and Peoria was Bartonville. Period ! ... (40 years later that hasn't changed from what I'm told by family who are still there.) And Cat still pays crap because they still have no competition !
IMO: People in the Midwest have been waiting and hoping the government would turn corn fields and baseball fields into productive means for many many years. I did not think that was the government's job nor that they would do it, so I relocated many years ago.
Also IMO: trump exploited that situation to gain power, now that he has power what he does with it is yet to be seen.
As I have said before, most of what president trump has begun is just that... begun. Time will tell the end results. Positive,or negative. I figure we'll see a mixed bag like with most presidents before him.
What president trump seems to want may be good for the interior but may not be so right for the exterior and with America already being so divided all I can say is Good Luck America. One way or another America is moving forwards. Time will tell which way it really is.
Good Luck to ALL of America !!
United we all once stood. Unfortunately, not so much today.
No. SSE is not capitalism. Even GHWBush referred to SSE as, "Voodoo Economics."
SSE continues its exploitation only because the wealth is more powerful than the people. This is why Citizens United is so important to so few.
So trump is going to get rid of Twitter? You may be in for a very long wait.
Stay safe. I am not all that far North of you and we have had an extraordinarily dry and hot summer. Not even indoor wood stoves are allowed, (people burn their junk mail in them in the summer). Living in a forest, me and my neighbors tend to take red flag warnings pretty seriously.
Yes-- but guess what?
Under Communism (USSR, Communist China, etc) who do you think controls/controlled the economy? Who had the large dachas, expensive cars, etc in the USSR? What was life like for the average peasant? For the average factory worker?
In every large society, there is an elite that controls things. And who are obscenely wealthy.The only difference between a so-called Capitalist" society, a "Communist Society" . . . a "Democracy".....even a religious theocracy-- is that in some societies the elites are successful at giving the illusion that its all very democratic-- in other countries they don't even try to!
BTW,before we get into out own political biases (and/or conspiracy theories) the reason for this should be made clear. People are different. Some are just really considerably smarter than others. But that's not the only factor.
Whether extremely intelligent of not, some people a quite practical, others (including some who are highly intelligent) lack common sense.
But perhaps most important of all-- regardless of brain power, or even common sense, some people are really driven to succeed. Others are not. (Some people are obsessed with money..others may not be but are obsessed power. Others don't care. about those things. Its a question of what a person values.
Which is the intent, of course.
I notice you don't (can't) address TiG's comment about socialism being, by definition, not oligarchical. You choose instead to try scare tactics and insults.
If they're ruled by oligarchies, then by definition, they're not socialist.
That plus the fact that the majority of the population just isn't all that bright!
"Oligarchical Socialism" is a contradiction in terms.
Oligarchy means rule by a few. The entire philosophical point of socialism is to NOT have rule by a few, especially in the economy. If you want to see an economic oligarchy, all you have to do is look out the window right now. A minority of the population controls the means of production that everyone else depends upon for life. The majority working class is subjected to the economic rule of the minority capitalist class, who, incidentally, also have their tendrils wrapped around a very sizable portion of the political class.
Capitalism is an economic oligarchy, and an indirectly political one as well (considering the power and influence the wealthiest capitalists have in Washington, a.k.a. 'the donor class').
Socialism, on the other hand, is supposed to be the opposite of an economic oligarchy. It is supposed to mean pluralistic control of an economy, not minority control like in capitalism. That's what distinguishes it from capitalism, for crying out loud. That's what makes it a conceptually different thing.
Of course you must be aware of the fact that regardless of what the stated philosophy of a system is-- there will always be some individuals who crave power, and crave being able to rule. And amongst those there will always be a few who are clever enough (& in some cases lucky enough) to have de facto control. (Those that remain in power for a long time are often clever enough to know how to manipulate the population and to convinec them that its all very democratic...)
if your retirement plan is socialism? better think again.
if your retirement plan is socialism? better think again.
Social Security is a Socialist concept. No-- its not totalitarian Communism. But it is Socialistic. (Socialism can be moderate-- or extreme. Social Security is typcal of the more moderate forms of Socialism.).
Apparently some people here feel that under Trump, Republican control of Congress, and an increasingly Conservative Supreme Court ...that means we will become a more Socialist country. (If its becoming More Socialist" then obviously that means that previously i t was less Socialist. So therefore tits becoming more Socialist than it was ...under the previous administration (8 years under Obama).
Remember:
First, we have a profound imbalance in social security due to the bulk of baby boomers turning from contributors to receivers. Second, baby boomers are living longer than their parents putting even more strain on the system. Since SS is not a pass-thru system wherein one contributes to one's retirement, but - for the most part - a system where one generation pays for the social security of the prior generation, the current working generation is basically screwed. They will be paying more and almost certainly receiving less when they hit retirement age.
You seem to think that the endpoint caps reflect an equilibrium at the moment. Where do you get the idea that SS is currently 'fair' and that no fundamental changes are required?
Here is a quote from an article arguing that Social Security and Medicare are NOT insolvent :
In short, the counter-argument basically is that yeah our systems need serious action but not as badly as you all portray them.
So when we act on social security and medicare, according to you this is 'socialism'.
Oxymoron.