Part 2: @Darth Humanist
Obamacare has increased health insurance coverage, partially through the (
contested) expansion of Medicaid. But the individual mandate only serves to
deepenmarketization, adding millions of Americans to the private, for-profit insurance system. The 2009 stimulus plan likely saved the country from another Great Depression, but it was inadequate to the scale of the crisis and weighted in favor of tax cuts for businesses who simply pocketed the cash instead of hiring new workers. The list goes on.
Again. Regulation is the problem. Not "capitalism"
Why does this happen? For one thing, the rich and powerful invest heavily in political activity to promote their interests and block progressive reforms. By the end of last year, the contributions of just
158 families and the companies they own (a staggering $176 million) made up about half the total funding in the 2016 presidential race. Through their political spending and the influence it buys, they have been able to shape tax and other policies for their own benefit, an advantage reinforced by favorable judicial decisions (e.g.
Citizens United) and lobbying activities.
This is a problem with citizens united. Socialism is not a fix to this. Legislation enforcement and reform is.
According to a widely noted
2014 study by two political scientists, the political dominance of the wealthy is now so pronounced that average citizens exercise “near zero” influence over government policymaking.
Repeal citizens united, and stop trying to squeeze in socialism.
and not to mention this article hasn't nearly approached the title it suggests from the outset. This is a very poor representation of an attempt at persuasion on any level, regardless of the origin of the article.
The middle and upper classes also hold the most important posts in government, elected and appointed alike. They share a common set of ideas and values predicated on protecting the status quo and repressing any major challenge to that system, particularly those that come from the working class and the Left.
so now the middle class is the enemy too?
Are we pushing for economic equality too here? I thought the goal was equality of opportunity, not outcome.
These direct forms of influence are not the only way that powerful interests shape government action. After all, governments are dependent on some minimally robust level of economic activity to fund themselves. The tax revenues or debt financing governments rely on are directly related to the state of the capitalist economy and its rates of growth and profitability. If the level of economic activity declines — perhaps , because capitalists are unhappy about new legislation that benefits workers — the state will find it increasingly difficult to fund its activities. This in turn leads to a decline in its legitimacy and its level of popular support.
And socialism would propose what to this? Penalizing the success of ideas that worked? Trying to minimize the amplitude of any beneficial endeavor and its ramifications in society? Yes. People with money want to keep it, but this is again always been the case. A more responsible "worker class" that knows its values can push back in a FAIR society and petition the government for equality and justice. Socialism wouldn't fix this issue, the courts would. Hopefully.
Because economic activity is significantly determined by the investment decisions of private capitalists, these forces can essentially veto government policies that they think are against their interests. Often, if capitalists aren’t induced to make investments through business subsidies and other incentives, they simply will refuse to invest.
And socialism would do what here? Poor people already can't invest in themselves, so
where does the title of the article come into play? Does this not require more government?
Consequently, there is a strong tendency for politicians and bureaucrats to align their policy decisions with the interests of capitalists in the private sector. Preserving “business confidence” is a major constraint on the formation of policy, and is one of the main reasons why government action is so often favorable to capitalist interests. It’s also how they’re able to conflate their own interests with a larger “public” or “national” interest — under a capitalist system, there’s some truth to their claim.
In a global society, it benefits the entire nation-state if we have a successful business core. To say otherwise is myopic and immature...if not naive to the realities of a modern society and the integration of opportunity employment is presented by private industry.
In the absence of popular organization and militancy, government action will do little to shift the balance of power away from capital and toward labor, or to undermine market discipline instead of deepening it. So long as the fundamental structures of the economy remain unchanged, state action will disproportionately benefit capitalist interests at the expense of everything else.
more repetition of the same thing in the above two paragraphs.
This is not to say that progressive reforms can never be won under capitalism, or that the government is completely immune to public pressure. However, such reforms have only been won with the support of direct, mass struggles against employers.
A la, the courts. Not socialism.
Simply electing politicians to office or watching the government expand by its own momentum has never been, and never will be, enough. Economic power is political power, and under capitalism the owners of capital will always have the capacity to undermine popular democracy — no matter who’s in Congress or the White House.
Sounds like a legislative issue, not an economic one.
Winning government power and using it to break the dominance of the capitalist class is a necessary condition for beginning the transition to socialism. A government run by a socialist party (or a coalition of left and working-class parties) would move to bring the economy’s key industries and enterprises under some form of social control.But that alone wouldn’t be sufficient. The bitter experiences of the twentieth century have taught us that socialism won’t further the cause of human freedom if the political and administrative structures of government aren’t thoroughly democratized.
No other nation could transition between private industries or even sustain them as well as the USA could and has. In fact this country has created damn near most of the industries seen around the world in the last century and the innovation hasn't stopped there at all. On top of that, centralizing it does not help to determine how best to allocate resources or to determine the needs of an ever changing society.
Here is where continued popular mobilization outside (and, if necessary, against) formal political structures becomes absolutely crucial. In order to withstand the inevitable backlash from capitalist and conservative forces, a socialist transition would need to draw on mass popular support and direct participation in the affairs of government.
This article isn't aided by sweeping generalizations without attention to which industries or enterprises that need to be "centralized"...talking as if the tech sector and agriculture and fracking are all worthy of government nationalization is laughable and worthy of dismissal.
This would entail not only creating directly democratic bodies that supplant or complement representative institutions like Congress, but dramatically overhauling state agencies and administrative structures. Such an expansion of popular power would be needed to both push out personnel committed to the old regime and to transform the often alienating and repressive bureaucracies that currently administer public services.
This is the most ambiguous, pie in the sky paragraph in the entire article...and thats saying something.
Public schools, welfare departments, planning agencies, courts, and all other government agencies would invite workers and recipients to participate in the design and implementation of those services. Public-sector unions could play a key role in this endeavor, organizing both the providers and users of public services to radically transform the administrative structures of government.
More vague statements.
Only under these conditions would government activity be synonymous with democratic socialism.
Instead of posing an abstract concept of “government” against the forces of capital, we should begin the hard work of conceiving and building new institutions that can make government of the people, by the people, and for the people a reality.
@JahFocus CS @Swavy Karl Marx
How Ironic
...you spent the ENTIRE article repeating yourself and adding fluff so as to get us to ignore the minimum word requirement you had when you wrote this article and then when it comes time to list specifics instead of high school junior level platitudes about how "things will need to work" you take the time to conveniently ignore any real take aways besides the same lack of detail that got us here in the first place.
Oh, and what does this article have to do with the minimization of government??? 
There wasn't a single word about it. 
