Socialism vs Capitalism containment thread

[wjfox]

[wjfox]

[Ozzie guy]

USSR vs USA
Military spending, GDP PPP, GDP PPP Per Capita, Population.

Key dates on ideology
1922 economy is state capitalist rapidly recovering from wars etc
in 1928 the economy has a capitalist recession and government decides now is the time for a planned economy
1956 Marxists say country no longer run by Marxists
1985 Gorbachev government in power which I think most people view as a liberal
1988 private sector is back

[eacao]

The last three years have been the biggest cash grab that I've ever read or heard about.

It has been insane, and it's insane to me that the public has, in net terms, just been indifferent.

[Powers]

The last three years have been the biggest cash grab that I've ever read or heard about.

It has been insane, and it's insane to me that the public has, in net terms, just been indifferent.

Elaborate.

[wjfox]

[caltrek]

I never actually got around to reading any of the works of Antonio Gramsci. Still, I do remember a lot of articles and writings in which he was cited. His theorizing had a profound influence upon socialist thinking. He was important in his advocacy of shifting away from an emphasis on revolutionary transformation in favor of organizing with more evolutionary goals in mind. A recent article in Counterpunch reviews his theoretical contributions to socialism as many understand it today:

https://www.counterpunch.org/2023/08/07 ... ovements/

[wjfox]

[caltrek]

One of the arguments put forward in defense of capitalism is that social and environmental ills can be addressed through voluntaristic approaches in which the wealthy contribute substantial shares of their wealth to the nonprofit sector. The article below points out how problematic this approach can be. Problems discussed include:

1. The relatively small amount of actual donations.

2. In many cases only a small fraction of funds donated actually get spent.

3. Various schemes render this potentially less effective, such as high salaried positions within foundations and non-profit organizations that are filled by donors. Donations can become merely a way of avoiding or at least deferring taxation.

4. Some nonprofits actually have a negative net benefit. For example, when they spread disinformation regarding climate change and other such problems.

5. Related to this fourth point is that such giving can merely be a way of exerting further financial, soclal, and political power.

Here is an introduction to the article and a link:

Those “Giving Pledge” Billionaires Had Better Pick Up the Pace
by Michael Mechanic
November 28, 2023

Introduction:

(Mother Jones) As the author of a book about runaway wealth in America, I’ve thought a fair bit about the Giving Pledge, the exclusive do-gooder club Bill and Melinda French Gates launched in 2010 with their pal Warren Buffett and 37 other billionaires, all vowing to give away the majority of their fortunes.

Now that the pledge has been around more than a decade, one can reasonably ask what progress its members have made toward their goal. As we’ll soon see, most of them have made very little.

In some respects, the whole enterprise feels like a bit of a scam. Not in the legal sense—though at least one former pledger was recently convicted of financial fraud and a current member took a federal plea deal to escape prosecution for the same.

I mean a scam in the sense of a self-selected group of excessively wealthy people—some of whom have made their fortunes in problematic ways and likely most of whom have used extreme strategies to avoid taxation—burnishing their reputations even as they exercise undemocratic influence over matters of public interest.

And maybe they stick to the pledge and maybe they don’t—or maybe they stick to it by bankrolling very, very bad causes. Because the Giving Pledge asks neither where its members’ money came from nor where it’s going.

Read more here: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2 ... -funds/

[caltrek]

We Can Have Either Billionaires or Democracy. Not Both.
by Sonali Kolhatcar
December 5, 2023

Introduction:

(Counterpunch) As we count down toward the 2024 general election, we should expect to hear from media pundits about candidates and their viability, swing states and the electoral college, likely voters and poll results, and much more. Occasionally we may hear about some issues of importance. Most likely, we will hear little about the urgent need for wealth redistribution in the United States. Extreme inequality remains an invisible scourge underlying so much of what ails society and, even when discussed, is touted as an unavoidable and inevitable outcome of our economy.

However, there is abundant evidence that wealth inequality is the product of intentional design and the idea that what is good for billionaires is good for society. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The Switzerland-based global bank UBS just released its 2023 Billionaire Ambitions report and concluded, “For the first time in nine editions of the report, billionaires have accumulated more wealth through inheritance than entrepreneurship.” Benjamin Cavalli, Head of Strategic Clients at UBS Global Wealth Management said, “This is a theme we expect to see more of over the next 20 years, as more than 1,000 billionaires pass an estimated [$5.2 trillion] to their children.”

That’s more than the economy of the entire United Kingdom. It’s more than the economies of Canada and Mexico combined.

The UBS report was not a critical one and hardly blinked an eye about the obscenity of wealth being hoarded in dynasties. About half of all billionaires around the world use UBS’s banking services, so the bank merely analyzed the investment habits of its most important clients. It did so candidly, referring to “the great wealth transfer” from one generation to the next, avoiding mention of the wealth transfer from the majority of the public to an elite minority.

Read more here: https://www.counterpunch.org/2023/12/0 ... ot-both/