Will The Oligarchy that owns the US eeeevvvvveerrrrrr be slightly reined in?

[lpetrich]

Surprising that it has gone on for so long.

Yes, longer than the original Gilded Age.

I can only speculate as to why that might be the case. Peter Turchin's cycles may hold a key. Both his integrative phases have two lib-con cycles, while his disintegrative phases have two and one lib-con cycle each, the second or only con phase being a Gilded Age. So let us look at the first disintegrative phase more closely. Its second liberal phase was brief but intense, and it was provoked by overreach by the Southern plantation oligarchs. Brief? It was the shortest one, at about 8 years. Intense? It had the Civil War in it. So if the plantation oligarchs had been more politically careful, they would have avoided provoking it. But that would have led to the free-slave division producing continuing low-level strife that gets worse and worse over time.

So the oligarchs who have dominated Gilded Age II have been a little more careful.

Slaveowner domination, Civil-War-Reconstruction, and Gilded Age I together lasted for an impressive 60 years, while Gilded Age II has so far lasted 42 years.

Return to progressive sanity? You must be kidding.

(Russia and China and the like...)

I'm talking about the previous liberal periods and the enduring changes that they made: Constitution, Jefferson, Jackson, Civil-War-Reconstruction, Progressive, New-Deal, Sixties. Not about orthodox Marxism-Leninism - it's a failure.

 

[PyramidHead]

Not about orthodox Marxism-Leninism - it's a failure.

Cuba and China would like to have a word with you, and the abandonment of ML principles in favor of revisionist capital-friendly liberalism is what sank the USSR.

 

[lpetrich]

Not about orthodox Marxism-Leninism - it's a failure.

Cuba and China would like to have a word with you, and the abandonment of ML principles in favor of revisionist capital-friendly liberalism is what sank the USSR.

China has become a capitalist roader, and Cuba looks like it's going on that path. The Marxist-Leninist economic model is just plain unsustainable.

 

[PyramidHead]

Not about orthodox Marxism-Leninism - it's a failure.

Cuba and China would like to have a word with you, and the abandonment of ML principles in favor of revisionist capital-friendly liberalism is what sank the USSR.

China has become a capitalist roader, and Cuba looks like it's going on that path. The Marxist-Leninist economic model is just plain unsustainable.

Not so. China is harnessing capitalist elements to enhance its productive forces through foreign investment, but exerting heavy suppression on the capitalist class to keep it from gaining the upper hand in society. Lenin did the same thing, albeit for a shorter period of time, with the so-called New Economic Program in the USSR. Building socialism by applying the right model for long-term development in a world dominated by capitalism is the essence of Marxism-Leninism. President Xi has written extensively on ML and made Marxism a mandatory part of everyone's education in China. Billionaires make up an infinitesimal fraction of the nation and are prosecuted (sometimes executed) for misconduct that harms workers. Marxist socialism is not an endpoint, it's a roadmap that takes material conditions and the developmental phase of a society deeply into account and applies learnings from history to carry forward a revolution and safeguard its progress, and China has been doing exactly this.

Cuba is sliding towards capitalist reforms in their latest constitution, but was founded on Marxist-Leninist principles and has not yet abandoned them as far as I can tell. However, I am less familiar with the development of Cuba compared to China, the DPRK, and the USSR.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

China has become a capitalist roader, and Cuba looks like it's going on that path. The Marxist-Leninist economic model is just plain unsustainable.

Not so. China is harnessing capitalist elements to enhance its productive forces through foreign investment, but exerting heavy suppression on the capitalist class to keep it from gaining the upper hand in society. Lenin did the same thing, albeit for a shorter period of time, with the so-called New Economic Program in the USSR. Building socialism by applying the right model for long-term development in a world dominated by capitalism is the essence of Marxism-Leninism. President Xi has written extensively on ML and made Marxism a mandatory part of everyone's education in China. Billionaires make up an infinitesimal fraction of the nation and are prosecuted (sometimes executed) for misconduct that harms workers. Marxist socialism is not an endpoint, it's a roadmap that takes material conditions and the developmental phase of a society deeply into account and applies learnings from history to carry forward a revolution and safeguard its progress, and China has been doing exactly this.

Cuba is sliding towards capitalist reforms in their latest constitution, but was founded on Marxist-Leninist principles and has not yet abandoned them as far as I can tell. However, I am less familiar with the development of Cuba compared to China, the DPRK, and the USSR.

Once again, you're utterly out of touch with what's really happening.

The biggest capitalists in China are the government officials growing fat on ill-gotten gains.

 

[lpetrich]

So far, these seem like big issues that will figure prominently in a new progressive period.

• Green New Deal: environmentalism + renewable energy
• Medicare for All: single-payer insurance
• Housing for All: expanded public housing
• Forgiveness of student-loan debt
• Criminal-justice reform: reduction of imprisonment, decriminalization and legalization of recreational drugs
• Raising the minimum wage

House Democrats have introduced several resolutions and bills that address some of these issues, and some state and city governments have pursued some of these efforts.

PRO Act: Democrats have a plan to save American labor unions - Vox - H.R.2474 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Protecting the Right to Organize Act of 2019 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress - it has 218 cosponsors, 99 of them original. Lots of pro-labor-union stuff in it.

AOC Instagrammed on the vote on it this night, noting that the vote on a major bill may include lots of amendments and procedural motions before the final vote. She noted a Republican last-minute amendment forbidding "communication" with undocumented immigrants. This was clearly a poison pill, so that Republicans could say "This Congressmember voted for illegal immigration!" in the upcoming elections. But it was voted down. The bill passed the House, and it will continue to "the foul smelling graveyard that is McConnell's Senate", as AOC put it.

Also a lot happening at lower levels, like rejection of a right-to-work law in Missouri.

 

[DBT]

China has become a capitalist roader, and Cuba looks like it's going on that path. The Marxist-Leninist economic model is just plain unsustainable.

Not so. China is harnessing capitalist elements to enhance its productive forces through foreign investment, but exerting heavy suppression on the capitalist class to keep it from gaining the upper hand in society. Lenin did the same thing, albeit for a shorter period of time, with the so-called New Economic Program in the USSR. Building socialism by applying the right model for long-term development in a world dominated by capitalism is the essence of Marxism-Leninism. President Xi has written extensively on ML and made Marxism a mandatory part of everyone's education in China. Billionaires make up an infinitesimal fraction of the nation and are prosecuted (sometimes executed) for misconduct that harms workers. Marxist socialism is not an endpoint, it's a roadmap that takes material conditions and the developmental phase of a society deeply into account and applies learnings from history to carry forward a revolution and safeguard its progress, and China has been doing exactly this.

Cuba is sliding towards capitalist reforms in their latest constitution, but was founded on Marxist-Leninist principles and has not yet abandoned them as far as I can tell. However, I am less familiar with the development of Cuba compared to China, the DPRK, and the USSR.

Once again, you're utterly out of touch with what's really happening.

The biggest capitalists in China are the government officials growing fat on ill-gotten gains.

True, the practice of capitalism may be found within many systems... even within those that have been defined as communist. People tend to capitalize wherever possible. Which is probably why a fair and equatable society appears so hard to achieve.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Once again, you're utterly out of touch with what's really happening.

The biggest capitalists in China are the government officials growing fat on ill-gotten gains.

True, the practice of capitalism may be found within many systems... even within those that have been defined as communist. People tend to capitalize wherever possible. Which is probably why a fair and equatable society appears so hard to achieve.

The problem is that a "fair and equitable society" is a contradiction.

In a fair society people benefit from their efforts. In an equitable society people all have basically the same--they do not benefit from their efforts.

 

[4321lynx]

Once again, you're utterly out of touch with what's really happening.

The biggest capitalists in China are the government officials growing fat on ill-gotten gains.

True, the practice of capitalism may be found within many systems... even within those that have been defined as communist. People tend to capitalize wherever possible. Which is probably why a fair and equatable society appears so hard to achieve.

The problem is that a "fair and equitable society" is a contradiction.

In a fair society people benefit from their efforts. In an equitable society people all have basically the same--they do not benefit from their efforts.

Taxation can make a society that is too damn fair for the rich who are super-rich and seek to be even richer, a little more equitable. But it seems that power goes with the money and the rich 1% or so get tax relief one way or another, and the poor get the taxes, till "the revolution" happens and communist-brainwashed morons take over and start getting "rich" in their own fashion. The Nordics seem to have largely escaped that trap, but cracks in the system are beginning to show.
In the US the outcome is unlikely to be communist, more likely a populist version with a leader slightly less stupid than Trump, but with the Party faithful morons sharing the gains just like the Communists elsewhere.

And of course, the "fair society" rich do not make any effort to get richer, not beyond seeing that their accumulated capital is performing "satisfactorily" or better...

 

[DBT]

Once again, you're utterly out of touch with what's really happening.

The biggest capitalists in China are the government officials growing fat on ill-gotten gains.

True, the practice of capitalism may be found within many systems... even within those that have been defined as communist. People tend to capitalize wherever possible. Which is probably why a fair and equatable society appears so hard to achieve.

The problem is that a "fair and equitable society" is a contradiction.

In a fair society people benefit from their efforts. In an equitable society people all have basically the same--they do not benefit from their efforts.

The super rich benefit from the labour of others who are nowhere near as well compensated for their own time, skill and effort.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem is that a "fair and equitable society" is a contradiction.

In a fair society people benefit from their efforts. In an equitable society people all have basically the same--they do not benefit from their efforts.

Taxation can make a society that is too damn fair for the rich who are super-rich and seek to be even richer, a little more equitable. But it seems that power goes with the money and the rich 1% or so get tax relief one way or another, and the poor get the taxes, till "the revolution" happens and communist-brainwashed morons take over and start getting "rich" in their own fashion. The Nordics seem to have largely escaped that trap, but cracks in the system are beginning to show.
In the US the outcome is unlikely to be communist, more likely a populist version with a leader slightly less stupid than Trump, but with the Party faithful morons sharing the gains just like the Communists elsewhere.

And of course, the "fair society" rich do not make any effort to get richer, not beyond seeing that their accumulated capital is performing "satisfactorily" or better...

You aren't addressing my point at all.

 

[DBT]

The odd thing is that there seems to be no shortage of money at the top of the heap, mansions, yachts, planes, lavish lifestyles....yet heaven forbid that a cleaner gets an extra dollar an hour because that would bring the national economy to its knees.....

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The odd thing is that there seems to be no shortage of money at the top of the heap, mansions, yachts, planes, lavish lifestyles....yet heaven forbid that a cleaner gets an extra dollar an hour because that would bring the national economy to its knees.....

That's still not addressing my point.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The odd thing is that there seems to be no shortage of money at the top of the heap, mansions, yachts, planes, lavish lifestyles....yet heaven forbid that a cleaner gets an extra dollar an hour because that would bring the national economy to its knees.....

That's still not addressing my point.

 

[DBT]

The odd thing is that there seems to be no shortage of money at the top of the heap, mansions, yachts, planes, lavish lifestyles....yet heaven forbid that a cleaner gets an extra dollar an hour because that would bring the national economy to its knees.....

That's still not addressing my point.

I'm pointing out that the running of a society isn't just about catering for the rich. Everyone needs a decent standard of life, and if someone is employed full time, doing productive work, benefiting society, contributing to the economy, this contribution in time, skill and effort should provide a decent standard of life.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The odd thing is that there seems to be no shortage of money at the top of the heap, mansions, yachts, planes, lavish lifestyles....yet heaven forbid that a cleaner gets an extra dollar an hour because that would bring the national economy to its knees.....

That's still not addressing my point.

I'm pointing out that the running of a society isn't just about catering for the rich. Everyone needs a decent standard of life, and if someone is employed full time, doing productive work, benefiting society, contributing to the economy, this contribution in time, skill and effort should provide a decent standard of life.

You're acting like a religious fanatic here.

 

[DBT]

I'm pointing out that the running of a society isn't just about catering for the rich. Everyone needs a decent standard of life, and if someone is employed full time, doing productive work, benefiting society, contributing to the economy, this contribution in time, skill and effort should provide a decent standard of life.

You're acting like a religious fanatic here.

I don't think so. Everyone who does productive work is contributing to the running of a society, supplying the needs and wants of the population with their time, effort and skill, therefore need to be paid at least a livable income for menial jobs, with an ascending scale according to skill and risk.

Just a fairer system, that's all. As we stand, there is too much 'reward' for the top percentage and far too little for the lowest paid.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm pointing out that the running of a society isn't just about catering for the rich. Everyone needs a decent standard of life, and if someone is employed full time, doing productive work, benefiting society, contributing to the economy, this contribution in time, skill and effort should provide a decent standard of life.

You're acting like a religious fanatic here.

I don't think so. Everyone who does productive work is contributing to the running of a society, supplying the needs and wants of the population with their time, effort and skill, therefore need to be paid at least a livable income for menial jobs, with an ascending scale according to skill and risk.

Just a fairer system, that's all. As we stand, there is too much 'reward' for the top percentage and far too little for the lowest paid.

If everyone gets paid regardless then there's no incentive for the people at the bottom to do a decent job.

 

[DBT]

I don't think so. Everyone who does productive work is contributing to the running of a society, supplying the needs and wants of the population with their time, effort and skill, therefore need to be paid at least a livable income for menial jobs, with an ascending scale according to skill and risk.

Just a fairer system, that's all. As we stand, there is too much 'reward' for the top percentage and far too little for the lowest paid.

If everyone gets paid regardless then there's no incentive for the people at the bottom to do a decent job.

I mentioned an ascending pay scale according to skill and other factors, danger, risk, effects on health, etc, which would attract people because of the higher pay. Plus, do not discount the need for meaningful work, some want to be doctors or lawyers or engineers, astronauts, etc, for reasons other than money. Which is not to say that these occupations should not be well rewarded. I didn't say that.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't think so. Everyone who does productive work is contributing to the running of a society, supplying the needs and wants of the population with their time, effort and skill, therefore need to be paid at least a livable income for menial jobs, with an ascending scale according to skill and risk.

Just a fairer system, that's all. As we stand, there is too much 'reward' for the top percentage and far too little for the lowest paid.

If everyone gets paid regardless then there's no incentive for the people at the bottom to do a decent job.

I mentioned an ascending pay scale according to skill and other factors, danger, risk, effects on health, etc, which would attract people because of the higher pay. Plus, do not discount the need for meaningful work, some want to be doctors or lawyers or engineers, astronauts, etc, for reasons other than money. Which is not to say that these occupations should not be well rewarded. I didn't say that.

The problem is you can't have it both ways. The money you want to distribute at the bottom is far more than what exists at the top that you could take even if you didn't mind the harm you would do in the process.