Word Saladism: Capitalism - Socialism - Democratic Socialism

As the primaries approach, more and more people are asking questions about the economic models that are being tossed into our daily word salad. What is socialism? How does it differ from democratic socialism? How do these differ from capitalism? And how is communism different from socialism. There are enough economic models (or ideologies) out there to confuse anyone. So Tundra, my fully woke Siberian Husky scholar has created a new installment of Tundra’s Tutorials… She is clearing the air with a summary of the similarities and differences between these models.

So....take it away Tundra...

I think that when humans add an "ism" to something, they are just trying to make things complicated. But just forget about the "ism" and concentrate on the meaning and this will be as easy as chasing squirrels (one of my favorite hobbies).

The Means of production...

But we have to take a quick detour. You see, in order to understand what all these "isms" mean, you need to understand a little thing called "the means of production". All of these economic/political models revolve around who owns/controls the means of production.

The four factors measured in the means of production...

There are four major factors that together form the means of production. They are responsible for the production of all goods/services in any given economy - or their gross domestic product

The four factors are...

• Land
• Labor
• Capital
• Entrepreneurship

By land, we mean more than just a piece of dirt. In this context, land includes any kind of natural resource that comes from the land. For example, precious metals that can be mined from land, or renewable resources such as crops or timber. 

Labor is obviously the work that is done by people. People measure the output from workers as productivity (worker output per hour). 

In this context, capital refers to capital goods such as the equipment or machinery needed for production. Things like computer chips or delivery trucks are examples of capital goods. 

Entrepreneurship is the process that a business owner goes through to develop an idea into a tangible business. 

The 3 big "isms" - Capitalism vs Socialism vs Communism...

This chart is a summary of the fundamental characteristics of the three "isms: -  capitalism vs socialism vs communism. As definitions, the chart and descriptions represent models in their purest form. Just realize that in practice, no economy exists as a pure model.  Even the most ardently capitalistic system has some form of government regulation and countries that many would call "socialist" have much of their economies based on private enterprise. 

Characteristics of Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism
Attribution	Capitalism	Socialism	Communism
Means of production owned by	Individuals	Public	Public
Value Determined by	Profit	Usefulness	Usefulness
Private ownership	Allowed	Allowed	Not Allowed
Motto: "From each according to..."	Market Forces	Ability	Ability
Motto: "To each according to..."	Net-Worth	Contribution	Need

Below are the bare-bones definitions with some examples. There is also a video for those who can't bear to read the dry test. (Definitions are dry things - that's the nature of the beast I'm afraid)

Capitalism...

Capitalism is a market-based economy in which interference by the government in markets is kept to a minimum. There are many variations of capitalism,  but in its purest form, the government lets the markets self-regulate. In other incarnations capitalism co-exists with such things as safety nets for individuals, universal healthcare coverage and regulations that discourage such things as corruption, environmental abuse and the growth of monopolies.

It is probably better to think of capitalism in terms of a sliding scale of free-market economies with varying amounts of regulation. What many in the United States would regard as "socialism" is actually a free market system mixed with some public elements and regulatory controls.  

There are a couple of features that truly set capitalism apart from socialism and communism. 

First, The means of production are held in private hands, not public. In its purest form, virtually all the means of production would be held privately. In more extreme cases, this could include much of the infrastructure of the commons including roads, schools, public safety etc. 

Second - The value ascribed to production is based on profit and not the "utility" of the product. In socialism or communism value is determined by its "usefulness" - a term that is probably open to considerable interpretation depending on the POV of the user...For example, a torque wrench might be of tremendous use to a mechanic. But to a Siberian Husky, a dog sled is a far more useful item...More on this further down the road. 

Socialism...

Motto for socialism: From each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution. 

Socialism is an economic system based on common ownership of the means of production. Most commonly, such ownership and administration is placed in the hands of a democratically elected government. Public corporations and cooperatives are also viable models. This is the most important distinction between capitalism and socialism. 

It should be noted that ownership, in general, is not banned under socialism. Private ownership is allowed. For example, people often own their own homes. It is private ownership of business and industry is that is a no-go.  

And if you think that this isn't confusing enough, just wait. You see, pure socialism with no privately held means of production doesn't really happen in practice. Most countries that would be considered very socialist by American standards have a healthy mix of public and private means of production. Many of the northern European nations would be best described as capitalist countries with strong safety nets that include socialist elements such as universal health insurance.

Once again, we need to get out our sliding scales and realize that national economic policies don't fit neatly into simply defined categories. It will never be that black and white. Elements of capitalism are usually found in socialist countries and vice-versa. 

It is very important to point out that socialism functions well under democratic principles. Socialism is an economic system and not political. So concerns that socialism will automatically lead down a slippery slope to communism or/and totalitarianism are just not valid.

Communism...

 Motto for communism: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

To many Americans, communism and socialism are almost one and the same thing. But there are several important distinctions between communism and socialism.

1. Under communism, there is no private or business ownership.
2. Distribution is not tied in any way to contribution but rather than to need. 
3. Communism is not just an economic system but represents both a political and economic system.

The latter creates a real point of departure from capitalism and socialism where prevailing political/governmental structures and institutions can work with these differing economic philosophies. In communism the requirement of a social revolution between the two classes major classes (the working class and capitalist class) is implicit. Although communism includes several variations, the requirement for a revolution is a constant.

The video below discusses some of the same basic premises...

Socialism vs Democratic Socialism and Bernie Sanders...

If you have been watching and listening to the pre-primary debate madness, you know that Bernie Sanders has described himself as a"democratic socialist". This has created a storm of controversy. The cries of how Sanders was out to destroy prosperity for millions was just about everywhere. It was like he was against puppies, kittens, motherhood and apple pie. This is far from surprising. 

For the last 40 years just hinting at the "S-word" was a sure-fire way to terminate a political career. "Socialism" had replaced communism as the political bogey man that was out to destroy all that Americans held near and dear.  The common wisdom of our time is that any form of "socialism" is but a short and slippery slope to communism and totalitarianism. 

Forget what Sanders actually meant by calling himself that. It didn't matter. That a candidate described themselves as a "socialist" anything was supposed to send them into a black hole from which they would never return.

So what is democratic socialism? How does that compare to socialism? Once again - it's complicated. One reason for this complication is that democratic socialism doesn't mean the same thing in the US as it does in Europe. Traditionally, democratic socialists believe in a systematic shift in economic models from capitalism to socialism. But that's a more European definition. In fact, it appears that the American version of democratic socialism is closer to European social democrats. And yes, democratic socialists and social democrats are two distinctly different things. (You can't make this stuff up!)

What Sanders and democratic socialists in America are describing is far closer to what we had during the New Deal and post-war era in the 20th century. In other words, the Sanders brand of "socialism" is really capitalism. Most of the policies being discussed are nothing new, even in the US. What is being proposed is similar to the economic policies we lived under from the time of the New Deal to the Reagan era. As Michael Kazin, a professor of History at Georgetown University said in an interview with Time: “What democratic socialists want is closer to what exists in Scandinavia or Iceland, expanding what Europeans talk about — a large welfare state in a capitalist society”. 

Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) have a website that pretty much describes what they advocate. Note that Sanders is not a member of the DSA. Nevertheless, it is a good starting point for understanding what that actually means in the US. If you go to the site, you will see that they are supporting Bernie Sanders. They support the Green New Deal, strong unions, fair wages, and MedicareForAll. 

This may be a departure from economic policies we've lived under for the past 40 years, but it is not the stuff of a revolutionary overthrow of capitalism. It is only "revolutionary" in a bad sense to those who have done extremely well under our current neoliberal supply-side economy. 

This video has an excellent explanation of democratic socialism...

The top Four Democratic Candidates - Where do they stand...

As of this writing, we are about one month away from the Iowa caucuses. There are 4 candidates that are clearing leading a pack of Democratic hopefuls that started out over 20 strong. They are Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders. 

The primary campaign has bifurcated along the line of economic centrists and progressives. The candidates that are seeking out large corporate donors seem to be back peddling to the center. This has been particularly true of MedicareForAll. It has been fascinating to watch all the shape-shifting that has been going on. Even Elizabeth Warren has been backing off that commitment. 

Kamala Harris, another heavily backed corporate candidate embraced MedicareForAll - until she didn't. Famously backing down on her commitment to MedicareForAll by proposing a phase-in that would happen over 10 YEARS  - to something resembling what Biden was proposing.  Buttigieg started out passionately supporting MedicareForAll, but as his largesse from insurers and pharma he seemed to make a 180 turn on the subject. (Funny how that seems to happen) He even went to the extent of calling those who supported MedicareForAll fiscally reckless. Of the two centrists, Biden was never anything but a centrist. But Buttigieg has been backing his way into the center for the last several months. Maybe he can become the first "centrist progressive" ever to exist. 

The chart below shows the relative position of each of the four leading candidates with respect to economic ideology. Granted, this is more than a bit subjective. But the take-home message is that none of these candidates are fire-breathing radicals ready to take the country down the road to Chairman Mao Tse Tung's world view or an American Bolshevik revolution. It's time to stop radicalizing change that isn't radical and end stop the pearl-clutching and fear-mongering. 

Related blogs:

What is neoliberalism? 

Tundra's Take - Buttigieg's Wine Cave...

My fully woke Siberian Husky avidly watched Thursday night's debate. She has a passion for politics and is disclosing her preference for Bernie Sanders. So here is her commentary in full:

This debate was particularly substantive - or not - depending on which candidate was speaking. The honor of least substantive and most sleazy goes beyond a shadow of a doubt to Pete Buttigieg and his wine cave. 

Pete Buttigieg Raking in the big bucks from big donors...

But the comeuppance on Buttigieg's large donor fundraisers combined with his feckless flip-flops on issues vital to average voters was long overdue. According to Norman Solomon in his article on Pete Buttigieg , over 50% of Mayor Pete's individual contributions were over $200. By contrast, only 25% of Sanders contributors are in that category as are 30% of Warren's. He is gunning for the big bucks, big time. 

And what that means for millions of underinsured...

It has not passed unnoticed that Buttigieg jettisoned his support for MedicareForAll, just as his large donor list started to include an impressive portfolio of contributors from big pharma and insurers. In the October debate, he made a 180 degree pivot on MedicareForAll by introducing his NEW plan "MedicareForAllWhoWantIt" which is code for "MedicareForAllWhoCanAffordIt". He used his new-found epiphany on this subject to attack Warren and Sanders on the cost of their plans. 

To me, it seemed that it was a slick attempt to flip his position to a plan that his donors would accept while maintaining his reputation as a "progressive". As an added measure, he kept the reassuring words "MedicareForAll" in the plan. It's a neat trick if you can pull it off. 

Sure enough, the Washington Post analysis of the plan (made public in September 2019) was that it does no more than Biden's plan to increase coverage for the uninsured and the underinsured. 

Big donors are fair game for other candidates...

Eventually, Buttigieg was going to be called to account for his policy flip-flops neatly reflecting his growing large donor list. The wine cave event was frankly, way too irresistible a target for the other candidates to pass up.  It had been in the news and was all over Twitter as well:

https://twitter.com/teddyschleifer/status/1206670862356819968

The venue included a glass chandelier with over 1500 Swarovski crystals and an onyx banquet which is much classier than simple hardwood I guess. And not to be too fancy about it, the $900/bottle wine flowed freely. (I guess they save the $1000+/bottle wine for the upper, upper crust.) With a guest list that included the CEO of Netflix (Reed Hastings) and Google co-founder Eric Schmidt, the whole guest list read like a Who's Who of Silicon Valley. 

But who are these hosts - Craig and Kathryn Hall?

The Hall's are hardly strangers to politics and donor galas...According to Scott Bixby in the Daily Beast, the wine cave owned by Craig and Kathryn Hall has played host to many a Democratic candidate seeking to pitch their candidacy to well-heeled donors. The likes of which include Governor Gavin Newsom along with nearly 100 other Democratic candidates.  Attendees also have at various times included House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, as well as former representative Leon Panetta. As to which donors get to sit under that chandelier, it's a good bet that it is not the likes of anyone reading this post. 

According to the Daily Beast article, beyond merely hosting galas, the Hall's have given a great deal of money to campaigns themselves. Most recently, they donated $100,000 to Hillary Clinton's PAC in 2016 and $50,000 to the DCCC in 2018. 

But it doesn't really end there. According to the NY Post, the host were Craig Hall, was implicated in the savings and loan scandals of the late 1980s. The Daily Beast goes into more detail. Here is a brief summary. 

At that time, House Speaker Jim Wright held up a bill that was supposed to recapitalize the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation which was failing under the weight of the S&L scandal. The reason for this hold up was an apparent attempt to force the hands of regulators to permit Craig Hall's insolvent company to restructure its debt. Wright later resigned from Congress due to his role in the S&L scandal. Hall wound up paying $102.5 million to an asset management company that had paid out $364 million to bail out Hall's savings-and-loan.

Suffice it to say that you really can't make this stuff up. 

Defending the status quo on campaign finance...

Buttigieg's response was to attack Warren for doing pretty much the same. I'm not ignorant of some of her own shape-shifting, but the kind of blatant pandering that Buttigieg has engaged in and his 180 degree turns on issues such as healthcare needed to be called out. It is also very important for the average voter to know when a single candidate is getting a disproportionate amount of the donor class largesse. These donors aren't giving away their money for their health. What favors have been asked and what polices have been tweaked as a result of such galas and donations, we can only guess at. 

Further, let's give credit where credit is due. By shining a light on Buttigieg's fundraising practices with large donors, Warren had to know that she was inviting that same light to shine on her. It was something that desperately needed to be done. However, she could have left it for someone else to do, but she didn't. 

Buttigieg's response was also very troubling. According to Mayor Pete, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. He was doing it because "they" (the Republicans) were doing. He wasn't going to fight the Republicans "with one arm tied behind his back". 

Note to Pete: You don't score brownie points with your base by doubling down on a corrupt system that has been disenfranchising your core constituency for the last 40 years. Using that line of reasoning, I guess it would also be OK to claim you can shoot anyone in the street and get away with because Trump did.  

Covering himself with even more glory...

Buttigieg's mocking remarks about the 100 years of worth of experienced legislators on stage, didn't shower him in glory either. Dissing the knowledge and experience of older opponents may fly with the "OK Boomer" crowd, but not with the older GenX and Boomer generations who are more inclined to actually vote in a primary. 

Don't believe ANYTHING a candidate says - look at what they DO...

This is a cautionary tale. Buttigieg hit the ground running earlier this year. He was young, fresh, and supposedly a progressive looking to help the little guy. He still talks a good game, but I wouldn't trust his sincerity as far as I can throw a piano. 

If you want to predict policies a candidate is likely to get behind once in office, you need to look at their donor list, the company they keep and what they SAY.  In fact, don't ever pay attention to what they SAY. Instead, watch what they DO.

On a personal note: I'm just a Siberian Husky. I love and respect my human who types this blog for me. But sometimes I wonder how humans - who are so much smarter than dogs, manage to mess things up so badly. It's just a final thought from one species to another. 

Post Script - Sometimes it really is about the company that you keep...

Sometimes you have a gift that keeps on giving. This P.S. comes in under that heading and is also in the broad political category of "You just can't make this stuff up".

In order to calm the waters of Pete's wine cave problem, one of the attendees generously wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post. The writer is  Bill Wehrle who is coyly referred to by the Washington Post as a vice president of a health care company.  But this isn't some Mom & Pop healthcare company. It is none other than Kaiser Permanente, one of the biggest insurers in the nation with 12.2 million members on health plans in 2018 and an income of $3.2 billion for Q1 of 2019. 

So THIS is the writer they picked to calm people's doubts? One of the biggest issues Buttigieg has with the progressive base is that he has completely flip-flopped on MedicareForAll after getting hefty donations from insurers. Picking a VP from one of the biggest insurers in the nation to debunk these concerns is downright hilarious. I mean, this man just "happened" to be there because he likes Buttigieg? Or maybe he went to a major fundraiser on a whim?  Surely they jest.

You just can't make this stuff up. You really can't. 

OK Boomer - OK Millennial: Memes of meaning or "gotcha" game...

Is anyone as sick of the "OK Boomer" meme as I am? In a totally predictable turn of events, "OK Boomer" seems to have spawned the "OK Millennial" response. Wow! Aren't we imaginative...??? The meme has only been around for a few months but it seems like someone should really put a fork in it because it's already overdone. 

One of my biggest problems with OK Boomer and OK Millennial is that it sets us up for divisive bickering among the 99%. It's bad enough that we are divided along racial, ethnic and economic lines, do we really need to add ageism to the list? 

Full disclosure - I was born right on the line of GenX.  So I have one foot in the boomer and another in the GenX generation. 

Generalizing about boomers and millennials has become a petty game of gotcha...

Here are a couple of simple truths that we would all do well to recognize. 

First,  painting entire generations that span a period of 15-20 years is painting people with a ridiculously broad brush. Does anyone seriously think that the last boomer born in 1964 had that much in common with the first boomer born in 1944? The life experiences alone of people born 20 years apart are bound to be very different. The youngest boomers were 5 years old when the quintessential boomer event at Woodstock took place. They were 9 years old when the Vietnam war, which disrupted lives and killed or maimed many a boomer, ended. The millennial generation spanned a somewhat shorter period of 15 years (from 1981-1996). But still, there are many significant differences between millennials born in 1981 vs. those born in 1996. 

Second, every generation makes mistakes. Every.Single.One. No exceptions. Most make at least a few calamitous ones. No generation fully escapes the judgment of history. Since the jury is still out on the millennial generation it's unbelievably presumptuous to assume that they are as pure as driven snow and will somehow be immune to major lapses of judgment or kicking a can or two down the road. 

Third, there are also vast differences between individuals. Just because the boomer generation is rightly condemned for causing catastrophic harm to the environment, doesn't mean there weren't many who actually pushed back against the trend for more carbon use. Blowing someone off with a meme like "OK boomer" ASSumes just that. It presumes everyone born at a certain time is the same. It's insulting ageist and otherwise arrogant as hell. 

Playing the "gotcha game" - the 2016 election cycle

We can all play the "GOTCHA!" game.  Just look at the 2016 election cycle. There are enough mistakes on the Democratic side alone to fill a tome as large the entire Harry Potter collection. There is plenty of blame to go around. No single generation cornered the market on stupidity or greed here. Had these mistakes not been made, we might not be where we are now.  

So, the Silents, Boomers, and GenX, all have something to answer for. And Millennials are not exempt either. Even today, none of us fully understand the consequences of what happened in 2016. The full story has yet to play itself out. There is a distinct possibility that this will lead down a path to authoritarianism and dictatorship. If so, boomers will be held accountable for yet another disastrous decision. However, millennials may find themselves with a lot to account for as well when their children come of age. If we are living in an authoritarian plutocracy, they will probably be too angry for the dismissive eye-roll meted out to boomers. They too made some very bad decisions in 2016.

So let's play the gotcha! game and paint with the broadest possible brush and look at how Democrats from each of these generations managed to lose the most winnable election imaginable in 2016. Maybe we will even learn something from the exercise.

How Boomers messed up the Democratic party in 2016...

OK Boomer - maybe it would be easier to discuss what you didn't do wrong because this was a mess of monumental proportions. 

First, let's just put it right out there. The Clinton nomination and campaign was the brainchild of the boomer generation with some major support from voters in the silent generation. But this game of "gotcha" refers mostly to the Democratic leadership that ran the show for the Hillary Clinton campaign. There was a token GenXer and one significant member of the silent generation. Aside from that, the leadership that was in the driver's seat for 2016 was pretty much an all- boomer affair. If you don't believe me, I have the list of the top players below.

As for what they did wrong? Where do I even begin????

The Primaries:

First, there was the obvious rigging of the Democratic primaries. I was working with the Sanders campaign and it was clear during the New York primary that something was off. From massive numbers of registered Democrats being purged from the rolls (particularly in Brooklyn) to vast areas of upstate NY where the polls were inexplicably not opened until the afternoon of the primary, there was obviously a problem. These kinds of issues were not isolated to the New York, they were found in tight primaries everywhere. For more on the NY primary of 2016 click here. 

The suspicion that the Democrats were rigging the primaries was confirmed through leaked DNC emails by WikiLeaks. Whatever you may think of Julain Assange, these leaks revealed the large thumb on the scale that helped secure the nomination for Clinton. To this date, we have more solid proof of the Democrats rigging the primary process than Russians rigging the general election. 

No one in charge was the least bit interested in letting the primary process play out. They wanted Sanders out of the way and to hell with how the voters actually voted - if they were even allowed to cast a vote. 

Bottom line here: The United States is supposed to be a democracy. It is not for the candidate to manipulate the outcome. The idea here is to let the people vote and decide. If you need to trash the very system you are campaigning to lead in order to win, you should consider only two choices: be willing to lose gracefully or quit and get out of the way. 

The "We won so F#$! YOU!" mentality:

The convention was a mess designed to humiliate the Sanders supporters and make sure they knew their place in the scheme of things. A great deal of damage control could have been accomplished through compromise and inviting a lively democratic discussion. But noooooo. The Clinton campaign had to rub everyone's noses in their victory with a warped sense of entitlement. Choosing Tim Kaine as the VP nominee only made matters worse. 

Here is a video from The Young Turks  that epitomizes the dismissive attitude.


The blame game: 

As if it wasn't enough to call the voters of the opposition "a basket of deplorables" the Clinton campaign waged war on anyone who didn't consider her the ideal candidate or would consider voting for anyone else. 

Progressives from working families who haven't seen a pay increase in 40 years, but face skyrocketing fixed costs in things like housing, heating, electricity, healthcare, and food, were chastised for wanting "free stuff" and "ponies". The boomers in charge either didn't realize or care that the world had changed. People weren't asking for "ponies" they were begging for necessities.

It was also implied, in not so subtle terms, that if millennials (or anyone else)  didn't have the "lifestyle" they wanted that it was all their own fault. Incidentally, anyone making that claim was usually born on third base and has no idea what it is like to live their lives hanging off a cliff by their fingernails. Never mind that it was your bad neoliberal economic policies that created this situation. Never mind that the monied boomers had been busily pulling up all the ladders they were able to climb for almost 40 years. When your back is against a wall, blaming the victims deflects blame from its true source. 

And if all else failed, the Democrats played their "Trump" card...Yes, you know what I mean. The "We aren't Trump"argument. If you are trying to win an election based on being "less bad" than your opponent, you have a bad candidate. Please note: telling people they have the opportunity of choosing between arsenic or cyanide is not really offering them a choice. 

The progressive base was systematically chastised, bullied and gas-lighted in an attempt to win votes for the Hillary Clinton and the Democrats. Trouble is deflection, triangulation, and finger-pointing can create as much rancor as capitulation. 

Blame Game Redux: Post -Election Finger-pointing...

The above barely scratches the surface of the big mistakes, lies, misdeeds, and entitlement that lost the election for Hillary Clinton and the Democrats. Books have been written on the subject. With more to come, I am sure. But the Democratic leadership wasn't done yet. Instead of doing an honest postmortem of their defeat or taking a moment for self-reflection, they blamed everyone and everything imaginable for their stunning defeat - except themselves. The list of bad guys is as long as the eye can see...but here are just a few:

• James Comey
• The Russians
• Vladamir Putin
• Bernie Sanders
• Bernie Brothers
• Barack Obama
• The Green Party
• Jill Stein (more recently it suggested she was a Russian operative) 
• Julian Assange
• Wikileaks
• Fake News
• Social media bots 
• Millennials
• FaceBook
• Mark Zuckerberg
• Twitter
• Sexism and misogyny 

I'm surprised she didn't include the phases of the moon, sunspots, and the cast and dragons on Game of Thrones.

Bottom Line: If you run for office, and you are in a good position to win, the only person you can blame for losing is yourself. 

The problem today is that the Democratic party didn't LEARN from 2016 and seem incapable of ever doing so. We still have the same faces in high places. The primary change in the leadership has been with the chair of the DNC. Tom Perez replaced Donna Brazile. We also had a change in the chairs of the DSCC and DCCC. But these people were cut of the same mold as the predecessors. There are still quite a few from the silent generation that are hanging onto their power base for dear life. That wouldn't matter so much if they had learned something from their loss. But self-reflection is not their thing. Or - it might be said that it is not a boomer thing...

The Democratic leadership for the 2016 presidential election: Yes - this debacle was a boomer affair...

• Hillary Clinton - Presidential Nominee - born 1947 - early boomer
• Tim Kaine - Vice Presidential Nominee - born 1958 - late boomer
• Barack Obama - POTUS - born 1961 - late boomer
• John Podesta - Chairman of the Hillary Clinton Campaign - born 1949 - early boomer
• Debbie Wasserman Schultz - Chair of the DNC - born 1966 - early GenX
• Donna Brazile - Chair of the DNC - born 1959 - late boomer
• Nancy Pelosi - House Minority Leader - born 1940 - silent generation 
• Chuck Schumer - Senate Minority Leader - born 1950 - early boomer

OK Boomer - you blew this - big time. 

How millennials messed up the election fo 2016...

Millennials didn't go into the massive system failure that the boomer leadership of the Democratic party indulged in. But they still made one very major and serious mistake in 2016. 

They failed to vote. According to the Census Bureau, the age group that comprised the most of the millennial vote had very low voter turnout in 2016. It's a bit confusing because these age groups don't correspond to the generational ranges, but this shows the trend well enough. 

Voter turnout in 2016:

• Bulk of millennial voters (ages 18-29) Turnout was 46%
• Bulk of GenX voters (ages 30-44) Turnout was 59%
• Bulk of boomer voters (ages 45- 64) Turnout was 67%
• Bulk of the silent generation (ages 65+) Turnout was 71%

Look, snowflakes, You can fill stadium after stadium for rallies, you can march on the streets until your feet explode with blisters, and you can shut down your college campus to your hearts content. It will accomplish NOTHING if you don't vote!

What happens when you don't vote? You don't COUNT. You never weighed in or registered and opinion. Therefore either don't exist or are irrelevant. In one action (or inaction) you confirmed the boomers in charge that you don't matter. The fact is that the only real power any of us have is with that vote, and many millennials simply threw their power away because they didn't like their choices.

Traditionally, younger people don't vote as much as older people. It has always been this way. However, in a time when young people were mobilized and filling stadiums for Sanders rallies while Clinton could barely fill a room, it creates a real problem of representation.

If the young don't vote, guess who controls who determines the direction of the country?

4 Ways things could have been different if enough millennials had shown up at the polls...

1.  The Democratic primary results might have been different if more millennials had voted during the primary season...

Had most of these young people who attended rallies and marched in the streets taken the time to register to vote and for their party of choice, before the primary cycle had started, more would have been eligible to vote in the Democratic primaries. 

Sanders was nipping at Clinton's heels. The results of the Iowa caucuses were based on 6 coin tosses that apparently Clinton won. (Yes she magically won all 6 separate coin tosses) Since the bulk of the Sanders support was in the under-30 age group, this could have made a difference in several key primaries. Given the winner-take-all mechanism involved, tipping a couple of significant states could have made a big difference. In other words, a Sanders nomination was very possible if the people that filled stadiums turned up at the polls. 

2.  Sanders might have been able to defeat Trump even though Clinton failed to...

Had Sanders been the Democratic nominee, it is possible that Trump would have lost the general election. Sanders had a strong and loyal following at his base. Clinton had the elite donor base in her pocket, but that's a far cry from winning actual voter support. 

One reason Clinton lost was that the Democrats were blind to that deep need for change. Clinton was status-quo. Sanders and Trump, for good or ill, represented change. 

Certainly, Sanders is a far better politician and one who actually knows how to use the bully pulpit. Had he been the nominee, he had a distinct opportunity to win several of those "blue wall" states, that Clinton lost. After all, Sanders won the Michigan and Wisconsin primaries. These were 2 of the 3 states Clinton needed to win in the electoral college.  In fact, Clinton lost the election in 3 blue wall states - Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. The margin of victory in the electoral college was less than 80,000 votes in all 3 states combined. 

A Sanders presidency starting in 2017 was not the delusional hallucination of desperate progressives. It was a distinct possibility. Could millennials have tipped the balance had they shown up a the polls? With those types of margins, absolutely.  

3. Clinton might have prevailed if more millennials voted in the general election...

Even if Sanders hadn't won the nomination, more millennial participation could have made all the difference in the world in several swing states. I don't think there are that many progressives who would say a Clinton presidency wouldn't have been far better than a Trump presidency. The 18-29 that had the bulk of millennials favored  Clinton over Trump by a whopping 18%. This was far greater than any other age group. More participation from younger voters could have spared the nation a Trump presidency. 

4.  More recorded millennial votes for 3rd parties in the general election might have brought badly needed reform at the DNC...

This is the most important point with respect to the 2020 election. Millennials who didn't vote made themselves irrelevant in the planning for 2020. By not voting, your preferences weren't counted. So what? This made millennials nonexistent to the leaders of the major parties, or at the very least, irrelevant. Why worry about the views and needs of a group of people who don't bother to vote?  

Had more millennials came out to vote, if even for a third-party candidate, their discontent would have been seen and registered. It would have created a visual record of electoral anger against the Democratic party. This would have given the progressive base of the party the ammunition it desperately needed to force reforms and transfer of power from the neoliberal corporatists to the progressive base. 

So, millennials have a lot to answer for here. We are all paying the price for that lost battle now. It may not have been a battle of youThe corporatists are in control and trying to shove one moderate neoliberal after another down the electorate's throats. 

OK Millennial - do you see now how you blew it?

Take-home lesson for the OK Boomer or the OK Millennial crowd...

We all make mistakes. Each generation will always have much to account for to future generations. That includes the silent generation, boomers, GenX, millennials, and GenZ. Democrats or progressives from each of these generations had something to account for during the 2016 debacle.

Let's learn to not fight each other. We need to focus our energy on a corrupt government that is happy to watch different factions or age groups squabble among themselves. It conveniently deflects from pin-pointing where the real problems are. 

Besides, people who live in glass houses shouldn't cast stones...

©  2019 - RGHicks  - All rights reserved. 

What is neoliberalism? Is it a phantom or an actual thing?

Tundra's Tutorial on What is neoliberalism... 

My fully woke Siberian Husky wants to help you understand all the political terms that are thrown around like confetti during election cycles. She is hoping that this will help those who wish to get through this presidential election year with their sanity still intact. We could all use some help in that department.

Like ghosts, phantoms, ouija boards or witchcraft, getting your arms around neoliberalism is like trying to nail jello to the wall. Some say it is so much part of our DNA that we fail to see it hiding in plain sight. Others claim that since it is so hard to pin down that it doesn’t exist. 

So, is neoliberalism but one ingredient in the word salad that pundits and politicians toss around? Is it a catch-all for various versions of trickle-down economics? Or, is it something much more concrete. 

For the record, I am in the camp that feels that neoliberalism is an ideology disguised as an economic theory.  Nevertheless, it is very real and is being practiced worldwide as the dominant economic model. The biggest problem with it is that without strong regulatory constraints, it doesn’t work. At least not for 99% of the population.

What is neoliberalism - the short story...

Depending on you ask, neoliberalism is either economic theory or economic ideology. But all would agree that it has its roots in laissez-faire capitalism. 

Neoliberalism promotes free-trade, globalization, and supply-side economic theory.  Taken to an extreme, neoliberalism promotes draconian market supremacy over social welfare. Efforts to insert elements of social justice to help displaced workers, children, the elderly or disabled are rejected as a slippery slope to a nanny state socialism. Socialism is considered a fast short route to communism and totalitarianism.

So far, this sounds like laissez-faire capitalism. But it is not. Neoliberalism is different. Laissez-faire policy (or non-policy) dominated the robber baron era at the turn of the 20th century. The literal translation of laissez-faire into English is “let do”. The idea is to leave capitalism alone to do its thing without any government intervention - be it positive or negative.  

Neoliberalism departs from laissez-faire capitalism by taking things a step further. According to neoliberals, the government is there to actively promote and support free markets through government-funded changes in infrastructure. These changes are specifically for the benefit of private industry. So the government actively supports, promotes and finances private industry but can not and must not interfere or support the commons. 

Indeed, neoliberalism is pretty much billed as an amoral economic theory. Whatever social injustices are meted out to the less fortunate as a result are simply "just business".   For those who have this misfortune, the onus is on them to pull themselves out of it on their own - or not. In many ways, it is the ultimate in social Darwinism. However, the broad-based prosperity that neoliberalism will produce if the "job creators" are allowed to roam free with their business models and accumulate vast wealth through a favorable tax system is worth that sacrifice. These job creators will rain down well-paying hi-tech jobs on the 99%. It's supposed to be a win-win. 

For a truly scholarly review on neoliberalism, I found this article to be most helpful. For those who prefer a video and really want to take a deep dive, here is the first of an on-going series on neoliberalism. 

If you ask six extremely politically aware people what neoliberalism is, you will probably get six completely different answers.  Why the controversy? This is partly because the term itself invites confusion. 

Terms of confusion - where liberal actually means conservative…

To most Americans, the adjective “liberal” implies left-leaning and progressive ideas. Think Bernie Sanders or (in some respects) Elizabeth Warren. But actually, neoliberalism describes an ideology that most Americans would describe as distinctly “conservative”. Taken to it’s extreme, it can easily under the rubric of right-wing radicalism. 

I can’t think of a single Republican that is not a neoliberal. With respect to the Democrats, the mainstream of the party which includes the leadership think Pelosi and Schumer) and corporate Democrats are all neoliberal. In the current crop of top candidates for POTUS that would include  Biden, Buttigieg, Bloomberg, Hillary (if she decides to run again). In fact, only Bernie Sanders lies completely outside the neoliberal fold. Warren walks right on the line of neoliberalism. 

So, when it comes to neoliberalism left is right, up is down, while the grass is blue and the sky is green.

Misunderstandings - Is a neoconservative the opposite of a neoliberal? 

Neoliberalism is often conflated with neoconservatism. Sensible people will always think that neoconservatism is simply the flip side of neoliberalism. Unfortunately, nothing is that simple.  

Neoliberalism is essentially an economic ideology while neoconservatism is all about international and military policy. Neoconservatism has undergone several incarnations. In today’s context, it’s focussed on maintaining American dominance as the world’s undisputed superpower. The Bush Doctrine of preemptive war following the attack of 9/11 (which has led to nearly 20 years of serial military conflicts abroad) has its origins in neoconservative politics.

Bottom line: Neoconservatism and neoliberalism are two completely different things. One has little to do with the other. 

Tundra's two examples of neoliberalism in action...

A good example is often worth more than 1000 words. Two examples can be even better.

Consumer protection is not supported by neoliberals ... (We don't need no nanny state!)

During the economic meltdown of 2008, it was discovered that many “financial advisors” were promoting financial products that benefitted them, often to the detriment of their paying clients. As part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform, financial advisors would be obligated to act as fiduciaries to their clients seeking advice about their retirement accounts. This was known as the Fiduciary Rule. 

To most people on the consumer side of the equation, this would seem a sane and sensible form of protection for a client paying for a service. In fact, most people assume that there is such a law in place. After all, they are hiring someone to advise them financially. Doesn’t that person automatically have an obligation to protect their interests? After all, that’s what they are being paid to do. 

Not according to neoliberals - particularly on the Republican right. To a neoliberal,  this encumbers markets and puts investment firms and financial advisors in a straitjacket. The “free market” will winnow out those who don’t do a good job for their clients “naturally”.

How many people are driven into bankruptcy by bad advisors before this happens is, of course,  "just business". 

Sure enough, this safeguard (Fiduciary Rule) was subsequently stripped from Dodd-Frank after Trump took office. Even with the amount of spin attached to so much of our political system, the response from the masses was refreshingly clear.

Property rights and eminent domain vs. neoliberalism - Government action neoliberalism supports…

Our nation has a  history of supporting individual homeownership.  Indeed, it is one of the few mechanisms left that can lift a working or middle-class person to the next rung of the economic ladder.  

Therefore, it should be no surprise that one of the biggest hot-button issues in our country revolves around the use of eminent domain. Eminent domain is the taking of property by the nation, state, or municipality for public works dedicated to the needs of the commons. The owner is forced to sell and gets little say in the compensation they receive. With the exception of urban renewal projects (which are often abject failures if not disasters), eminent domain has traditionally been used sparingly. 

However, at the beginning of the 21st century, a new wrinkle on eminent domain reared its head. New London, CT was attempting to take roughly 100 properties by eminent domain for the construction of a vast complex for Pfizer. Now Pfizer is a private pharmaceutical company. So this hardly falls in line with the traditional criteria for eminent domain. 

The case went all the way to the Supreme Court. The argument being that allowing large entities like Pfizer to sweep in and scarf up land by eminent domain would pose a direct threat to working-class and middle-class neighborhoods. After all, using eminent domain to increase your tax base is a very easy and tempting way to increase tax revenues. Since middle-class neighborhoods don’t generate as much in property taxes as a wealthy area, they would be right in the cross-hairs of developers. 

Unfortunately, Susette Kelo lost her battle in the Supreme Court in a 5 to 4 vote. Her home and the homes of nearly 100 other families were demolished to make room for the Pfizer complex.   

In a final twist to the entire tale, Pfizer never built its complex that was to include a conference center, hotel and high-end housing for employees. Today it still sits as an empty lot. Pfizer left New London with a large tract of vacant land. The municipality got NOTHING in the end. The video below tells the story of the little pink house that started a Supreme Court battle.

This is a fairly extreme case of classic neoliberalism run amok. A municipality displaced families to create a real estate deal for a massive corporate interest. This goes to the core of neoliberal ideology. A government clearing the way for economic progress. Amoral as that may be, all is justifiable under that rubric. They provided the means for growth but never bothered to ask what would happen if the construction never happened. Karma can really be a bitch sometimes. 

Democrats, Republicans and Neoliberalism...

The two examples were not picked at random. There was an ulterior motive in the selection process…Ha, ha! Fooled you! Not a random choice at all… One is an example of neoliberal policies favored by Republicans and the other is an example that tends to be favored by Democrats. Can you guess which is which? 

Go on, take a guess….

I’ll just post the answer down-page…

Wait for it...

Is the suspense killing you yet? 

OK - The eminent domain case was decided by a 5 to 4 vote on the Supreme Court. At the time, SCOTUS was evenly divided with one swing vote. It was the Democrats that approved of this use of eminent domain. Indeed, Democrats tend to be far more comfortable with using eminent domain in general than do Republicans. The right to own private property and have control over said property is embedded deeply in Republican DNA. 

The case regarding Fiduciary Rule was decidedly a Republican decision.  Consumer protection is seen as "nanny state" mentality by most Republicans.  Even if it is a simple matter of properly representing clients who are paying a professional for investment advice. Businesses have the right to their model and consumers should take on the personal responsibility of properly researching the business. 

The point here is that no one political party has a premium on this issue. Neoliberalism is an integral part of the body politic of BOTH major parties in the US. How it comes out in the wash depends largely on who is stuffing the money into campaign coffers. Given what corporations are allowed to do for campaigns, this is creating systemic corruption throughout the entire system.

Tundra's final take...

Even if corruption wasn't an issue, neoliberalism has failed in its fundamental mission. Letting the wealthy amass outrageous wealth has not resulted in the promised broad-based prosperity any more than it did in the robber baron days. It has hoovered almost all gains in productivity to the very top of the ladder where it has been hoarded. The promised flood of jobs has turned into unstable, poorly paid gig work for Americans while the well-paying jobs have been stampeding out the US to third-world nations. In these countries which are a world away from minimum wage protections and the humanitarian constraints, abuse and exploitation are rampant. Meanwhile, this set of circumstances has set the stage for similar poor working conditions in the US. 

At the end of the day, a brutal combination of globalization and neoliberal policy has left a few fabulously wealthy, at the expense of everyone else. This was NOT what the economic gurus promised. Today, working conditions in the United States resemble a third world nation far more than a modern meritocracy. It has also created an unstable boom-bust economy because it encourages massive speculation. Neoliberalism should have died in 2008. After all, the entire crisis was built on the excesses created by neoliberal policy. Unfortunately, the powers that be in both political parties went out of their way to ensure it survived.  

© 2019 - RGHicks - all rights reserved.