MultipleTentacles
16th November 2009, 12:55 PM
What a great film. Anyway, I've moderately changed my stance on socialism vs. regulated capitalism. If we see a systemic overhaul of the American system to a democratic socialist system that has been proven to work, and if this transition isn't a bloody and destructive transition, I would be willing to ditch capitalism entirely and support this new system. This is fair. But I think such a transition, while preferable, is unlikely. That's not to say I dislike the idea at all: a democratic socialist system with none of the cultural corruption of the old system is a great idea. Wholeheartedly I support this. But if it doesn't happen, I still support regulated capitalism.
I believe in the idea that any system or power structure which was formerly oppressive can become non-oppressive with nothing but a change in spirit. The more unjust the system is, the more unlikely a change in spirit will happen. But it is still possible to have one. And some very seemingly little (although perhaps culturally very big) changes to our current system will make it a non-oppressive form of regulated capitalism. For example; anyone right now has the ability to go to Wall St. and buy stocks. People have a direct stake in the actions of corporations on Wall St. The only problem is, right now, they have no say in the decisions made at Wall St. If the public were to somehow be granted a direct say in Wall St. decisions, we would have an ethical form of regulated capitalism. This is almost exactly the same as democratic socialism, but it remains capitalism so long as a small group of people get to make big decisions. I don't have a problem with a small group of people making big decisions as long as they are held accountable for those decisions, and as long as there are institutional safeguards in place to make sure these big decisions aren't unethical.
In America we created an executive office and gave decision making powers to a group of senators and representatives, but we didn't call it a democratic monarchy, we called it a democracy. What difference would there have been if we called it a democratic monarchy instead of a democracy? Probably some, but I don't think much. Perhaps it would have improved ties with Europe. On the other hand, perhaps it would have negatively influenced the efficacy of similar revolutions in Europe. I don't know. But there's nothing to say that the idea to call America a democratic monarchy wouldn't have been better. I would like to point out that my idea of regulated capitalism would look exactly the same as my idea of democratic socialism—no change whatsoever. I still like to call it regulated capitalism.
I think there are two of several possible outcomes if America becomes a socialist country. One is that you have a change of name with no substantive change of the system. Someone decides to label America a socialist country, but really, the same people are running the show, and the same types of decisions are being made. Another is when you have a complete overhaul of the system, name and all, but a similar or perhaps worse system takes its place. This is what happened in the Soviet Union and communist China. If we begin talking about systemic changes, we should be wary of overzealous decisions that are badly made. I am not too eager to change anything necessarily, unless the outcome is demonstratively better than the prior situation, in a great number of ways.
When Brittan became a representative democracy, they kept the royal family. What is so bad about that? If America becomes a democratic socialist system, is there really any harm in keeping the top 1% or whatever group of people wealthy? I argue not. As long as they have no way to do real damage with that money, I see no problem whatsoever. We can change the system we have in ways that don't involve complete overhauls, or overzealous decisions. We can keep capitalism, if we make it ethical.
I believe in the idea that any system or power structure which was formerly oppressive can become non-oppressive with nothing but a change in spirit. The more unjust the system is, the more unlikely a change in spirit will happen. But it is still possible to have one. And some very seemingly little (although perhaps culturally very big) changes to our current system will make it a non-oppressive form of regulated capitalism. For example; anyone right now has the ability to go to Wall St. and buy stocks. People have a direct stake in the actions of corporations on Wall St. The only problem is, right now, they have no say in the decisions made at Wall St. If the public were to somehow be granted a direct say in Wall St. decisions, we would have an ethical form of regulated capitalism. This is almost exactly the same as democratic socialism, but it remains capitalism so long as a small group of people get to make big decisions. I don't have a problem with a small group of people making big decisions as long as they are held accountable for those decisions, and as long as there are institutional safeguards in place to make sure these big decisions aren't unethical.
In America we created an executive office and gave decision making powers to a group of senators and representatives, but we didn't call it a democratic monarchy, we called it a democracy. What difference would there have been if we called it a democratic monarchy instead of a democracy? Probably some, but I don't think much. Perhaps it would have improved ties with Europe. On the other hand, perhaps it would have negatively influenced the efficacy of similar revolutions in Europe. I don't know. But there's nothing to say that the idea to call America a democratic monarchy wouldn't have been better. I would like to point out that my idea of regulated capitalism would look exactly the same as my idea of democratic socialism—no change whatsoever. I still like to call it regulated capitalism.
I think there are two of several possible outcomes if America becomes a socialist country. One is that you have a change of name with no substantive change of the system. Someone decides to label America a socialist country, but really, the same people are running the show, and the same types of decisions are being made. Another is when you have a complete overhaul of the system, name and all, but a similar or perhaps worse system takes its place. This is what happened in the Soviet Union and communist China. If we begin talking about systemic changes, we should be wary of overzealous decisions that are badly made. I am not too eager to change anything necessarily, unless the outcome is demonstratively better than the prior situation, in a great number of ways.
When Brittan became a representative democracy, they kept the royal family. What is so bad about that? If America becomes a democratic socialist system, is there really any harm in keeping the top 1% or whatever group of people wealthy? I argue not. As long as they have no way to do real damage with that money, I see no problem whatsoever. We can change the system we have in ways that don't involve complete overhauls, or overzealous decisions. We can keep capitalism, if we make it ethical.