It is incredibly limiting to think only in binary terms of capitalism versus non-capitalism, as if these are the only two options available for structuring society. Such a rigid framework reduces the complexity of human existence to a mere economic model, ignoring the deeper psychological and social factors that drive human well-being. Rather than fixating on economic systems as the foundation of human flourishing, I prefer to think in terms of a theory of psychological health rooted in the fulfilment of innate human needs, as developed by Abraham Maslow.
At the most fundamental level, human beings require basic physiological necessities such as food, water, shelter, and rest. Denying these essentials is not just economically inefficient or politically unsound—it is inhumane. Closely following these are safety needs, encompassing security, stability, and freedom from fear. A society that fails to provide these fundamentals leaves people in a constant state of uncertainty, forcing them to prioritize sheer survival over any higher aspirations. This survival-driven existence fosters individualistic, often selfish behaviour—not out of malice, but as a natural response to precarity. In such conditions, people are less likely to think in terms of collective well-being or long-term social cooperation, because their immediate needs override those concerns.
If a political or economic system consistently deprives people of these basic needs, it conditions them to operate primarily within a mindset of scarcity and self-preservation. Western democracies, for example, often justify their economic structures by appealing to the idea that competition and personal struggle motivate people to succeed. However, if the driving force behind decision-making is the survival instinct, then people’s choices will be shaped by that context, limiting their capacity to think beyond their own immediate well-being. Contrast this with a society that actively cultivates the understanding that the goal is not individual survival at the expense of others but rather ensuring that as many people as possible can access these basic needs. In such a system, rather than fostering competition for limited resources, the emphasis shifts to cooperation, mutual support, and shared prosperity.
Once people are freed from the anxieties of basic survival, they can focus on the next level of needs—belonging, love, and social connection. This includes friendship, intimacy, trust, and inclusion, all of which are critical for a healthy and thriving society. Many religious traditions have long recognized this, portraying their prophets and messianic figures as champions of human dignity, social justice, and mutual care. A Christianity that fails to embody this ethos—one that disregards the plight of the poor, the vulnerable, or the oppressed—is not living up to its own professed values, as figures like Jimmy Carter have pointed out.
Historically, before Marxism emerged as a response to industrial capitalism, the early stages of the Industrial Revolution in Europe had already given rise to numerous social movements aimed at alleviating the suffering of displaced rural workers who had been drawn into city sweatshops. Many of these movements were driven by a moral and ethical imperative to improve living conditions, reflecting a recognition that economic growth alone was not a sufficient measure of human well-being. The impulse to create better working conditions, provide education, and promote social welfare was not rooted in anti-capitalism per se, but rather in a fundamental understanding that economic and political systems must serve the psychological and material needs of the people within them.
Thus, rather than engaging in ideological debates that pit capitalism against its alternatives in a binary struggle, I believe it is more productive to ask a deeper question: does a given system ensure that people’s fundamental human needs are met? If not, it is failing at the most basic moral level. A society that aspires to genuine moral progress must begin by guaranteeing that no one is left scrambling for survival, because only then can people move beyond individual self-interest and contribute to a collective vision of cooperation, justice, and human dignity.
Any democracy that systematically excludes or marginalizes 51% of its population—namely, women—or even greater numbers through practices such as slavery, disenfranchisement, or the deliberate ruling out of entire groups of people as unworthy of a vote, is not a true democracy in the moral sense. While such systems may maintain the outward appearance of democratic governance, they fundamentally betray the principles upon which modern democratic ideals are supposed to rest.
The Charter of Human Rights was a defining moment in Western history, emerging as a moral compass in the aftermath of two devastating world wars. It was meant to enshrine the inherent dignity and equal worth of all human beings, setting a new standard for justice, inclusion, and human rights. The principles articulated in the Charter were not abstract ideals but rather the hard-won lessons of a century marred by war, genocide, and the failure of nationalistic, exclusionary ideologies that had led to immense human suffering.
Before the 20th century, democracy in the West was largely an exclusive enterprise. The prevailing attitudes of national pride and imperial supremacy ensured that vast segments of the population—women, the working class, colonized peoples, and racial minorities—were denied participation in political life. The dominant powers maintained their control by rationalizing these exclusions as necessary, natural, or even beneficial to society. However, the destruction wrought by two world wars shattered these illusions and laid bare the catastrophic consequences of systems built on inequality and authoritarianism. The post-war period was an opportunity for self-correction, a chance for the West to redefine itself in accordance with the principles of universal human rights, equality, and justice.
Yet, despite this moral reckoning, many so-called democracies continued to resist full inclusion. Women’s suffrage had been a hard-fought battle, with many Western nations only granting women the right to vote in the early to mid-20th century. Racial minorities, particularly in countries with histories of slavery and colonial rule, continued to face structural barriers to political participation long after formal legal restrictions had been lifted. The persistence of voter suppression, segregation, and systemic discrimination revealed the extent to which democracy remained, in practice, an incomplete and often hypocritical promise.
If democracy is to have any real meaning beyond a procedural system of elections, it must be defined by its ability to represent and serve all people equally. A democracy that arbitrarily excludes, suppresses, or ignores entire groups is merely a facade of democracy, clinging to outdated hierarchies while claiming to uphold the will of the people. The true test of a democratic society is not how well it serves its privileged citizens but how effectively it guarantees the rights and representation of those historically denied them.
The Charter of Human Rights should have been the defining moment that ensured democracy would never again be an exclusive system designed for the benefit of a select few. It was meant to be a blueprint for a world in which governance was built on the recognition of universal human dignity. That it has not yet fully lived up to this promise is a testament to the ongoing struggle between those who seek to uphold true democratic ideals and those who wish to maintain old structures of power and exclusion.
A democracy that does not evolve toward greater inclusion is one that is failing its own principles. If the lessons of the past are to mean anything, then the moral imperative is clear: democracy must be a system in which no person is denied their full humanity, their right to representation, or their voice in shaping the society in which they live.
It is incredibly limiting to think only in binary terms of capitalism versus non-capitalism, as if these are the only two options available for structuring society. ← Hey, no qualms here, I just want to know where you stand. → Such a rigid framework reduces the complexity of human existence to a mere economic model, ignoring the deeper psychological and social factors that drive human well-being. ← Sure, if you interpret it that way. → Rather than fixating on economic systems as the foundation of human flourishing, I prefer to think in terms of a theory of psychological health rooted in the fulfilment of innate human needs, as developed by Abraham Maslow.
Bob, I am 100%, absolutely, and totally in agreement with you here. But don’t you think that the economic wellbeing of a nation and her people is essential to satisfying Maslow’s lowest needs in the hierarchy? ← That comes first.
Bob wrote:
At the most fundamental level, human beings require basic physiological necessities such as food, water, shelter, and rest. Denying these essentials is not just economically inefficient or politically unsound—it is inhumane. ← Of course it is. → Closely following these are safety needs, encompassing security, stability, and freedom from fear. A society that fails to provide these fundamentals leaves people in a constant state of uncertainty, forcing them to prioritize sheer survival over any higher aspirations. ← Yes, what’s your point? → This survival-driven existence fosters individualistic, often selfish behaviour—not out of malice, but as a natural response to precarity. ← Oh, this is about my distinction between greed and basic survival instincts. → In such conditions, people are less likely to think in terms of collective well-being or long-term social cooperation, because their immediate needs override those concerns.
Absolutely. And ideally, in a perfect world, a perfect government should and would do whatever it needs to do to keep every citizen up at the top level of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs–self-actualized at every moment of every day–but we don’t live in a perfect world, and sometimes the government’s failure to provide for its citizens’ basic needs is not a matter of inhumanity but impotency–as powerful as politicians are, they aren’t gods. Many people have the grave misconception that the state of the economy is all in the hands of its country’s leaders. Sure, Trump can do things that will effect the American economy, but there are so many other variables than POTUS that determine the state of the economy–wars abroad, the economies of other nations, inventions and ingenuity of great thinkers and business people within the economy, diseases like COVID, natural disasters, alien invasions, you name it. There are 100+ variables that effect the economy and, in turn, people’s lives and the level of Maslow’s hierarchy on which they find themselves. Sometimes we have to just deal with reality as it presents itself to us. Currently, the American people are experiencing economic hardship, and they have to deal with that reality. In order to rise above and achieve Maslow’s higher levels, they have to first deal with the economic realities they find themselves in. The government can help, but it’s not a miracle cure.
Bob wrote:
If a political or economic system consistently deprives people of these basic needs, it conditions them to operate primarily within a mindset of scarcity and self-preservation. Western democracies, for example, often justify their economic structures by appealing to the idea that competition and personal struggle motivate people to succeed. ← And you’re seriously questioning that? → However, if the driving force behind decision-making is the survival instinct, then people’s choices will be shaped by that context, limiting their capacity to think beyond their own immediate well-being. ← You know what else drives people to rely on their survival instincts? Systems that lead to starvation… you know, like Communism? You wanna see real competition and struggle, look at North Korea, look at the Soviet Union. → Contrast this with a society that actively cultivates the understanding that the goal is not individual survival at the expense of others but rather ensuring that as many people as possible can access these basic needs. ← Geez, what should we call this society, Bob? It’s like a big Commune, full of Comrades, sharing everything in common… hmmm, let’s think… → In such a system, rather than fostering competition for limited resources, the emphasis shifts to cooperation, mutual support, and shared prosperity.
All with the wave of a magic wand, right Bob? The truth is, the West is where you find the least amount of competition and struggle. Why? Because it’s the best at making life comfortable for the people, at lifting people up the Maslowian hierarchy. Sure, capitalism runs on competition, but competition between businesses, not individuals. They compete in order to bring more value to consumers at cheaper prices, making the climb on Maslow’s hierarchy easier. This allows the people (not the businesses) to raise their standards of living, thereby living more comfortably, thereby having more time, capacity, and willingness to befriend and help one another, to pursue more creative endeavors rather than live on survival instincts alone. But if you don’t believe that, try communism. Oh wait, it’s already been tried. Over and over and over again, with the same dismal results. You get the worst kind of struggle and competition–between citizens at the grocery store, clawing over each other for the few remaining loaves of bread, or ratting out your room mate to the KGB so you can have his room instead of sleeping on the floor, or turning to cannibalism in order to eat 'cause the government cut off the food supply to your community in order to make an example of an uprising that occurred there–all struggles and competition, not between businesses (the government takes care of them), but between neighbors. All in the name of making everybody equal–equally poor, equally oppressed, equally destitute, equally famished, equally running on heightened survival instincts all the time.
It reminds me of the old Soviet joke about English, French, and Russian hell:
“An American dies and goes to hell. Satan himself shows him around. They pass a large cauldron. The American peers in. It’s full of suffering souls, burning in hot pitch. As they struggle to leave the pot, low-ranking devils, sitting on the rim, pitchfork them back in. The American is properly shocked. Satan says, “That’s where we put sinful Englishmen.” The tour continues. Soon the duo approaches a second cauldron. It’s slightly larger, and slightly hotter. The American peers in. It is also full of suffering souls, all wearing berets. Devils are pitchforking would-be escapees back into this cauldron, as well. “That’s where we put sinful Frenchmen,” Satan says. In the distance is a third cauldron. It’s much bigger, and is glowing, white hot. The American can barely get near it. Nonetheless, at Satan’s insistence, he approaches it and peers in. It is absolutely packed with souls, barely visible, under the surface of the boiling liquid. Now and then, however, one clambers out of the pitch and desperately reaches for the rim. Oddly, there are no devils sitting on the edge of this giant pot, but the clamberer disappears back under the surface anyway. The American asks, “Why are there no demons here to keep everyone from escaping?” Satan replies, “This is where we put the Russians. If one tries to escape, the others pull him back in.”
Bob wrote:
Once people are freed from the anxieties of basic survival, they can focus on the next level of needs—belonging, love, and social connection. This includes friendship, intimacy, trust, and inclusion, all of which are critical for a healthy and thriving society. Many religious traditions have long recognized this, portraying their prophets and messianic figures as champions of human dignity, social justice, and mutual care. A Christianity that fails to embody this ethos—one that disregards the plight of the poor, the vulnerable, or the oppressed—is not living up to its own professed values, as figures like Jimmy Carter have pointed out.
What Christianity did you have in mind, exactly? And where’s your resoundingly decisive evidence that it is indeed failing to embody the ethos of human dignity, social justice, and mutual care?
Bob wrote:
Historically, before Marxism emerged as a response to industrial capitalism, the early stages of the Industrial Revolution in Europe had already given rise to numerous social movements aimed at alleviating the suffering of displaced rural workers who had been drawn into city sweatshops. Many of these movements were driven by a moral and ethical imperative to improve living conditions, reflecting a recognition that economic growth alone was not a sufficient measure of human well-being. The impulse to create better working conditions, provide education, and promote social welfare was not rooted in anti-capitalism per se, but rather in a fundamental understanding that economic and political systems must serve the psychological and material needs of the people within them.
Well, at least you prefaced that with “…not rooted in anti-capitalism per se”
Bob wrote:
Thus, rather than engaging in ideological debates that pit capitalism against its alternatives in a binary struggle, I believe it is more productive to ask a deeper question: does a given system ensure that people’s fundamental human needs are met? ← And I think you’ll find the answer differs wildly depending on the system: capitalism or communism. → If not, it is failing at the most basic moral level. ← Then all systems fail at the most basic moral level. → A society that aspires to genuine moral progress must begin by guaranteeing that no one is left scrambling for survival ← Must begin??? → , because only then can people move beyond individual self-interest and contribute to a collective vision of cooperation, justice, and human dignity.
Out of the million things wrong with this, I’ll start with this: you really believe that, given the chance, every human being on the planet will choose cooperation over competition?–like, hands down, all across the board?–like, no one’s gonna think “Hmm, with all this cooperating and trust and furry puppy dogs going on, I have a rare opportunity to exploit the situation and reap certain ‘benefits’ for myself”?
Second, there has not been a single society on this planet that has met your requirement for moral success. If it “fails at the most basic moral level” so long as there is just one citizen whose fundamental needs are not met (by the state?), then we all fail. If anything, the West is leading the charge in this game, at least within its borders (a point we discussed earlier), as the West can boast (as far as I can tell) the most success at meeting people’s fundamental needs–(it’s sort of why I’m inclined to defend the West in this thread)–even if it’s not perfect. But who’s doing better? Somalia?
And lastly, this has got to be the most round-about way ever of answering my question, if it’s not an out right dodge. Again, my question was: “do you believe in restoring the West to its fundamental values, or do you believe in an entirely different system (like Marxism)?” I mean, I don’t know why that has to be taken as “binary”. Sure, I mentioned “Marxism” (as an example), which is often juxtaposed with Capitalism, but I phrased it as: restoring the West vs. entirely different system? You’re free to say, a little bit of both. Or, neither. I’m not holding you to a “binary” choice. I just want to know where you stand. Do you believe in the core Western values, so much so that you’re driven to preserve/restore them, or do you think the West ought to be overthrown entirely and replaced by something different. And if the latter, what?
Bob wrote:
Any democracy that systematically excludes or marginalizes 51% of its population—namely, women—or even greater numbers through practices such as slavery, disenfranchisement, or the deliberate ruling out of entire groups of people as unworthy of a vote, is not a true democracy in the moral sense. While such systems may maintain the outward appearance of democratic governance, they fundamentally betray the principles upon which modern democratic ideals are supposed to rest.
You are living in the 21st century, aren’t you Bob? Did you get the memo that women got the vote in 1920 (1918 in Canada, 1928 in the UK)? The only group of people we don’t allow to vote are children. You want 4 year olds deciding the fate of nation, Bob?
And BTW, democracy has no ideals. It’s not based on principles. It’s a tool for making decisions or electing leaders. You can use it towards any purpose you want. In ancient Greece, only adult males could vote. In a corporation, only the board of directors get to vote. We call these democratic not because of universal suffrage but because they employed the method of voting in order to make decisions and elect their leaders. The relation between democracy and the principles you speak of works the other way around. We believe in the principles of universal suffrage, and based on that, we decide we’re going to employ universal democratic voting. Back 200 years ago, we didn’t believe in that. We had different principles. So we employed democracy in the way that met our principles back then. But in both cases, it’s democracy because that’s the method that’s employed to elect leaders.
So again, kind of a round-about way of answering my question, but I see no other way of interpreting you than saying no, there are no true democracies anywhere in the world, never have been, maybe never will be. Even if some of them today allow the vote to all groups of people–men, women, all races, all sexual orientations, or religious faiths, etc.–so long as it blocked any one of these from having the vote in the past, it’s too late. They can never be a true democracy (kind of shines some light on my previous question–we need an overhaul). Either that, or it’s about children voting. Is that it, Bob?
Again, I think you’re prone to hyperbole and distortion, and you’re fighting a boogieman. The way you describe the West is in the most extreme terms and is noticeably cut off from reality. Sure, the West has a reputation for being an example of capitalism, but the reality is so much more watered down than that. We have laws against monopolies, for example, against child labor, against cut throat advertising, against paying below minimum wage, against discrimination, against unreasonable severance, and more. The truth is the West is defined far more by democracy and the voice of the people than by capitalism. The people decide what they want. They decide what they want from pure capitalism and what they want from socialism, and the result is the economy develops a character that meets the preferences of the people. This idea that the West is defined as pure capitalism through-and-through is a fiction believed only by those who want to hold up a fantasy for the purposes of smearing the West’s reputation. This is what I call a broken consciousness, or a fragmented consciousness–a consciousness that will only allow itself to be aware of certain aspects of the truth and not others. A whole consciousness, or an integrated consciousness, would embrace the truth in its entirety. (Unless, of course, one is fully aware of the truth and spreads lies and distortions on purpose for some ulterior agenda.) The impression I get from you so far, Bob, is that you have a fragmented consciousness, that you’re only interested in the truths that support your predisposed prejudices, and the truths that don’t, you either distort or deny. You even have to go back 100 years in your mind to convince yourself that women don’t have the vote. I hope for the sake of your character and spiritual development that you one day learn to embrace truth more fully. For what it’s worth, I believe your concern for those around the world that the West has wronged is genuine and aligned with the truth, but I believe it has corrupted your ideals by planting the seeds of hatred towards the West, which can sometimes eclipse your compassion for those who have been harmed by the West. In your character and spiritual development, if you are on such a path, I believe this will (or should) be preserved, but I would recommend exploring all truths about the West and not just the one’s that are convenient for attacking the West. Towards this end, I wish you luck and hope you find peace.
The way I see history, a long time ago we learned to trade and work together to satisfy a community’s needs, but it became necessary to protect communities against those who still thought that they existed quite well by raiding. That is when town and cities were built with strong walls, and a “freeman” was someone who lived within that protective barrier. Inside the walls, the collective worked for the common good and traded with other towns, building groups based on trading. The people who wandered were those craftsmen organised in Guilds who offered their services to other towns, but didn’t take their wealth with them.
The rise of monarchy and aristocracy can be seen as a shift from collective governance (such as early councils or assemblies) to hierarchical rule, often justified through divine right or military strength. Wealth began to accumulate in fewer hands, leading to increased inequality. Guilds, which originally preserved craftsmanship and local economies, also became restricted over time, sometimes reinforcing these hierarchies. This regression and inequality led to groups of people who were restricted and denied the provision of basic needs.
Mathurin Le Petit’s account of a ‘Canadian’ Indigenous visitor in Paris, often attributed to a Mi’kmaq or Innu (Montagnais) individual in the early 18th century. This visitor, upon witnessing the extreme poverty in Paris, was appalled and reportedly declared that the real “savages” were the French, not his own people. This story aligns with broader Indigenous critiques of European society at the time. Many Indigenous visitors from North America—Huron-Wendat, Mi’kmaq, and others—found European hierarchies, poverty, and disregard for communal welfare shocking. They came from cultures that emphasized mutual aid and communal living, so seeing beggars in a wealthy city seemed incomprehensible.
At that time, France was under the rule of the Sun King, Louis XIV, and later his successors, who upheld rigid social hierarchies. Wealth was concentrated in the hands of the aristocracy and monarchy, while the common people—especially in cities like Paris—often lived in extreme poverty. The disparity between rich and poor was already stark, foreshadowing the conditions that would lead to both the French Revolution (1789) and the later struggles of the Industrial Revolution. Therefore, they were witnessing the deep inequalities created by early capitalism and absolutist monarchy, which would later be exacerbated by industrialisation.
The fact that there were not just these conditions, but also people foreign to them who voiced reproach, whose critique deeply unsettled European audiences, turned the colonial narrative on its head: instead of Indigenous people being “uncivilized,” it was European society that appeared morally bankrupt. Despite its failures, the French Revolution showed the lower classes that they didn’t have to just sit and bear it, and this excited the early ‘socialist’ idea.
Of course, you are aware that you have just delivered me the proof of my thesis, that the model of government that we should strive for is that which does whatever is necessary to help citizens up the ladder of the expanded hierarchy of needs. Physiological and safety needs are self-explanatory, love and belonging needs are such that should be protected, esteem needs empower people, and cognitive needs (knowledge and understanding) helps development, and aesthetic needs (symmetry, appreciation of beauty) make our world better. Striving for transcendence is a deeply personal need that I believe is present in most people, albeit suppressed in many.
Instead of this, power models see themselves endangered when these needs are achieved. The more educated people are, the more an authoritarian regime faces criticism. The achievement of the authoritarian parties has been to ‘dumb-down’ the electorate, suggest that other forces (including the thinking elite) other than themselves are seeking to exploit the society. It’s a classic tactic—redirecting anger away from those hoarding wealth and toward those struggling to survive. Instead of questioning why a handful of billionaires and multinational corporations extract vast amounts of wealth from economies worldwide, people are convinced that the problem lies with the poor, immigrants, or foreign aid.
The irony is that the real “takers” are the ultra-wealthy and corporations, who offshore their profits, dodge taxes, and manipulate financial systems to extract wealth from both developed and developing nations. Meanwhile, working-class and middle-class people are left fighting over scraps, believing that their economic struggles are caused by welfare programs or aid to poorer nations.
It’s a manufactured scarcity—a world with more than enough resources, but where access is deliberately restricted to benefit those at the top. The global economy is structured to ensure that wealth flows upward, while austerity measures and debt obligations ensure that poorer countries remain subservient.
I have no misconception that the economy is in the hands of its country’s leaders, but given the mandate of the electorate, they could have the power to guide the rich towards enabling the common good rather than striving after unlimited growth in a limited world. In theory, elected leaders could regulate wealth, rein in corporate overreach, and create systems that serve the common good. But in practice, they often serve the interests of the rich because those are the people funding their campaigns, controlling media narratives, and influencing policy behind closed doors. The system isn’t broken—it was designed this way.
The idea that we must prioritize economic growth at all costs is one of the most pervasive and damaging myths of modern capitalism. It ignores the reality of a finite planet and leads to the absurd notion that any attempt to redistribute wealth or regulate industries would somehow “collapse” the economy. In truth, economies function best when wealth is broadly shared, and people have economic security. But the propaganda machine, controlled by those benefiting from the status quo, convinces people otherwise.
And yes, the left’s infighting has only made things worse. Rather than forming a united front against corporate power, different factions become preoccupied with ideological purity tests or internal conflicts, making it easy for the right and their wealthy backers to consolidate power. The result? A system where even mild reforms are treated as radical threats, while corporate interests continue unchecked.
That argument is a textbook example of capitalist triumphalism—cherry-picking the best aspects of Western economies while ignoring the systemic problems that contradict the narrative. It relies on a few key assumptions that don’t hold up under scrutiny.
“The West is the best at making life comfortable for people”
This depends on which people you’re talking about. If you’re wealthy or middle-class, then sure, capitalism has provided comfort. But for the working class and the poor, life in Western economies is increasingly precarious. Wages have stagnated, the cost of living has skyrocketed, and wealth inequality has reached levels that rival feudalism. The idea that capitalism “lifts people up” ignores the reality that millions of people in wealthy nations struggle with food insecurity, housing instability, and medical debt—problems virtually unknown in some of the social-democratic countries that the speaker conveniently ignores.
“Competition is between businesses, not individuals”
This is a gross misrepresentation. The entire labour market is structured around individuals competing for jobs, healthcare, education, and basic survival. Businesses compete to maximize profits, often by cutting wages, outsourcing jobs, automating labour, or lobbying for deregulation. This “competition” often leaves workers more vulnerable, not more secure.
“Capitalism allows people to be more creative and generous”
There’s some truth to the idea that material security allows for creativity, but capitalism doesn’t inherently provide that security. In fact, unregulated capitalism often leads to exploitation and burnout, where people work multiple jobs just to survive, leaving little time for creative or intellectual pursuits. Countries with strong social safety nets (like the Nordic nations) have far more freedom for artistic and intellectual endeavours—not because of capitalism alone, but because of policies that mitigate its worst excesses.
“If you don’t like capitalism, try communism”
This is the classic false dilemma—either accept unchecked capitalism or face Soviet-style communism. It ignores the existence of mixed economies, where markets exist alongside strong public institutions that ensure healthcare, education, and social stability. Many of the most prosperous, happiest nations in the world—like Norway, Denmark, and Finland—operate on this model.
“Communism always leads to breadlines and cannibalism”
This is Cold War fearmongering, using the most extreme examples of authoritarian socialism (like Stalin’s USSR or Mao’s China) to discredit any alternative to laissez-faire capitalism. But capitalist societies have had their own horrors—child labour, colonial exploitation, mass poverty, and economic collapses that wiped out millions of livelihoods. Just look at the Great Depression or the 2008 financial crisis.
The reality is, no system is perfect. But the idea that capitalism alone “lifts people up” while any alternative inevitably leads to oppression is a historically ignorant oversimplification. The real discussion should be about how to build economic systems that prioritize human well-being over limitless corporate profit.
See above …
One of the most glaring examples of how fundamentalist Christianity and Christian nationalism fail to uphold human dignity, social justice, and mutual care is their stance on healthcare—particularly their opposition to universal healthcare in the U.S.
Many Christian nationalists and fundamentalists claim to follow the teachings of Jesus, yet they oppose policies that ensure healthcare for all. The Gospels emphasize healing the sick without charge (Matthew 10:8), yet the very people who claim to be defenders of “Christian values” argue against healthcare access for the poor, calling it “socialism.” In reality, their policies lead to suffering, medical bankruptcy, and preventable deaths—direct contradictions of Christ’s teachings on compassion.
Jesus explicitly calls for kindness to the stranger (Matthew 25:35-40), yet Christian nationalists push for cruel immigration policies, mass deportations, and the dehumanization of migrants. The separation of families at the border, the caging of children under policies supported by many Christian nationalists, and the justification of these actions using scripture (Romans 13 taken out of context) show a stark departure from the ethos of mutual care.
Many fundamentalist Christians support policies that favour the ultra-rich while opposing social safety nets for the poor, despite Luke 6:24 condemning the rich who hoard wealth and Acts 2:44-45 describing the early church as one that shared everything in common. The prosperity gospel, embraced by many within this movement, directly contradicts biblical teachings on humility, justice, and the dangers of wealth.
Christian nationalism actively works to restrict the rights of non-conformist individuals and women, often justifying discrimination under the guise of “religious freedom.” From forcing childbirth on rape victims to opposing protections against discrimination, these policies inflict suffering while contradicting Christ’s emphasis on love and justice (John 13:34).
Many Christian nationalists in the U.S. are staunch supporters of war, gun culture, and authoritarian policing. Instead of the turn the other cheek ethic of Jesus (Matthew 5:39), they embrace an aggressive, punitive worldview that disproportionately harms marginalized communities. The alignment of Christian nationalism with aggressive foreign policy and domestic militarization reflects a betrayal of peace and reconciliation.
So, you can see that at every level—economic justice, human rights, compassion for the marginalized—Christian nationalism fails to embody the ethical core of Jesus’ teachings. Instead, it serves as a political weapon to justify exclusion, oppression, and a hierarchy of power that benefits the privileged few.
Once more, your critique is based on several flawed assumptions, particularly about human nature, the West’s moral standing, and the notion that any critique of capitalism must necessarily advocate for Marxism.
Your criticism assumes that cooperation and competition are mutually exclusive, but human societies have always exhibited both. Cooperation is not about eliminating competition; it’s about ensuring that competition does not become destructive or exploitative. Even in capitalist economies, businesses rely on cooperation—within firms, between supply chains, and through regulations that prevent monopolies. The idea that humans are inherently selfish to the point that cooperation is impossible ignores historical examples of communal and cooperative societies that have flourished, from Indigenous societies to modern cooperatives and social democracies.
Likewise, the assumption that people will always seek to exploit cooperation is an argument for governance, not against cooperation itself. The goal is to create systems that prevent unchecked exploitation, not to abandon cooperation altogether.
Saying that no society has met the ideal of universal human dignity does not mean that striving for it is pointless. By that logic, no moral progress is worth pursuing because perfection is unattainable. If the West is doing better in some respects, that’s not a reason to dismiss critiques—it’s a reason to push it to do even better. The West has undoubtedly improved living standards within its borders, but often at the expense of the Global South through economic exploitation, resource extraction, and political interference. The real question isn’t whether the West is better than Somalia—it’s whether the West is upholding its own professed values of justice, equality, and democracy.
“Restoring the West” vs. a different system is a loaded question. It assumes that “the West” had an ideal past that must be restored. But which period of the West’s history should we return to? The 1950s, with its racial segregation and McCarthyism? The 19th century, with rampant colonialism and worker exploitation? The feudal era? Every period in Western history had both virtues and deep injustices. Rather than “restoring” an imagined golden age, the focus should be on evolving toward a system that actually embodies justice, democracy, and human dignity.
This does not mean endorsing Marxism wholesale, nor does it mean rejecting every aspect of capitalism. The issue is not whether capitalism or socialism as abstract theories are good or bad, but how economic and political systems can be structured to better serve the common good. Many countries, like those in Scandinavia, have blended markets with strong social protections, proving that the choice isn’t between unregulated capitalism and Soviet-style communism.
Your criticism boils down to a defence of the status quo by setting up strawman arguments—suggesting that cooperation means naïve utopianism, that no society is perfect so we shouldn’t aim higher, and that any critique of capitalism is necessarily Marxist. In reality, the challenge is not about picking a binary option but about designing systems that balance economic dynamism with social responsibility.
At this point, I think I have made my point, and the post is long enough.
This brings up a 3rd option besides capitalism and communism: tribalism. This is what Marxism attempts to get at in the final stage of the revolution. People often get “communism”, as Marx originally conceived it, confused with the intermediate stage of the “dictatorship of the proletariat” (an absurd concept in my view), but it always gets stuck in the latter stage as those in power do not relinquish their control that readily. The ultimate aim is to gradually dissolve the state/government while a self-sufficient community emerging. Thus, if you want to discuss an alternate route to a state of communal tribalism, I’m all ears, but the Marxist path doesn’t work.
Bob wrote:
Of course, you are aware that you have just delivered me the proof of my thesis, that the model of government that we should strive for is that which does whatever is necessary to help citizens up the ladder of the expanded hierarchy of needs. ← Help them up the ladder? Sure. But to magically skip the climb so that everyone is always self-actualized? That’s fantasy. → Physiological and safety needs are self-explanatory, love and belonging needs are such that should be protected, esteem needs empower people, and cognitive needs (knowledge and understanding) helps development, and aesthetic needs (symmetry, appreciation of beauty) make our world better. Striving for transcendence is a deeply personal need that I believe is present in most people, albeit suppressed in many.
It’s up to us to raise ourselves up the Maslowian hierarchy. The government shouldn’t do it for us. The government should play the meager role of simply maintaining a social/economic environment in which we have a reasonable chance of doing it ourselves. Even the tribal way of life alluded to above doesn’t depend on the providence of an all powerful government for everything–there is barely government at all except for maybe a chieftain or a council of elders. Rely on government for too much, and it will take advantage of your dependence on it, taking your money and keeping you down–the ultimate disparity between the rich and the poor. It certainly won’t help at the stage of self-esteem and self-competence as that requires pulling yourself up from your bootstrap and exercising the skills needed to be competent. I don’t mind specific social programs or basic safety nets for things like health or housing or unemployment, but babying the people like a teenage child still being spoon fed by his/her mother does not nurture the happiness or welfare of anyone.
Bob wrote:
Instead of this, power models see themselves endangered when these needs are achieved. The more educated people are, the more an authoritarian regime faces criticism. The achievement of the authoritarian parties has been to ‘dumb-down’ the electorate, suggest that other forces (including the thinking elite) other than themselves are seeking to exploit the society. It’s a classic tactic—redirecting anger away from those hoarding wealth and toward those struggling to survive. Instead of questioning why a handful of billionaires and multinational corporations extract vast amounts of wealth from economies worldwide, people are convinced that the problem lies with the poor, immigrants, or foreign aid.
I agree that defunding education is an old tactic the politically powerful have used for ages to “dumb down” the population as a fear-based response to the people becoming too “smart for their britches”, but I see this coming from corrupt politicians, particularly the Dems and liberal elites. I have not seen this being coupled with blaming the poor, immigrants, or foreign aid. That seems to be a totally separate matter. It is a classic conservative talking point, sure, but even then it’s leveled against government, not the poor themselves (or immigrants or foreign aid). It’s leveled against government robbing people of their tax dollars to keep the poor in a never-ending welfare state when direct aid and support from the community itself is a much better approach. Note what this means: it means no one wants the poor to be poor. Rather, it means the left and right have different opinions on how to help the poor. But I’ve never seen anyone blame the poor for any of society’s problems.
Bob wrote:
The irony is that the real “takers” are the ultra-wealthy and corporations, who offshore their profits, dodge taxes, and manipulate financial systems to extract wealth from both developed and developing nations. Meanwhile, working-class and middle-class people are left fighting over scraps, believing that their economic struggles are caused by welfare programs or aid to poorer nations.
As you know, I’m less informed on what big corporations do abroad, and you also know I suspect you’re right to be critical of them, but in whatever way they make life economically difficult for the working and middle class (price increases, manufactured demand, whatever), anything that takes tax dollars away from the people and invests it in things they don’t see a return on contributes ipso facto to their struggles. It’s money that could have been left in their pockets. But that’s not even the point. The point is that tax dollar spending ought to be transparent and the people ought to have a say in how it’s spent. If so many hard earned dollars goes towards, oh let’s just say, Sesame Street programs in Iraq (about $20 million worth!), the people ought to have a say in that. And who knows. If those overseeing the program can make a reasonable case for it, the people might actually choose to allow it. Otherwise, too bad, the people have spoken.
And I still don’t see how this is a problem of Western society per se. It still seems to me that if the world has any hope at all, it’s going to come from Western society. What other society is doing it better?
Bob wrote:
I have no misconception that the economy is in the hands of its country’s leaders, but given the mandate of the electorate, they could have the power to guide the rich towards enabling the common good rather than striving after unlimited growth in a limited world. In theory, elected leaders could regulate wealth, rein in corporate overreach, and create systems that serve the common good. But in practice, they often serve the interests of the rich because those are the people funding their campaigns, controlling media narratives, and influencing policy behind closed doors. The system isn’t broken—it was designed this way.
It’s neither broken nor designed for this. If anything, it’s a hole in the system. The founders of the system never expected the system to be perfect–they knew there would be holes (I don’t know if they foresaw this particular hole)–but they did anticipate the need for constitutional amendments which, if necessary, can be utilized to modify the rules of the system or introduce new rules in order to deal with the problems of the day. And as I pointed out above, it’s up to the people (the mandate of the electorate as you say). If they want to introduce new regulations (or an all out amendment) to put a cap on corporate wealth, it’s their prerogative to do so. Otherwise, to bad, you don’t get your way.
Just keep in the mind the following:
There’s a difference between corporate greed and necessity. Corporations may cut wages, lobby for tax breaks, pass on the price of tariffs or regulations to the consumer, not out of greed or inhumanity but out of necessity to keep themselves, and those who work for them, afloat.
Corporations help people in numerous ways–by innovating new ways to solve problems and inventing things society needs, and not to mention creating jobs that allow people to live decent lives. Damage to corporations can mean damage to their consumers and to the careers of those who work for them. (You might even say there’s a hint of compassion in corporations trying to protect their bottom line–like a mother trying to take care of her children, corporations usually have an obligations to take care of their employees and contractors, even their board of directors).
Raising taxes on corporations or putting caps on their productivity disincentives productivity and attention to quality–this applies to new entrepreneurs who want to start a business just as much as those already operating corporate enterprises. And I’m sure I don’t have to tell you, this was one of the biggest criticisms leveled against the Soviet Union by the West–low quality products and service and constant shortages of supply.
One never asks: how much are corporations already being taxed and regulated? The assumption is always, they aren’t being taxed and regulated enough (or at all).
Reallocating money from corporations to government isn’t necessarily a whole lot better. Government is the worst kind of corporation (it faces no immediate consequences, can print money limitlessly, can force the consumer to pay without delivering, can prevent consumers from going to another country as they would another company). Government is just as guilty, if not more, of lavish spending and greed, and disregarding the wishes and expectations of their customers, even the poor and needy to whom all that money is supposed to serve.
I live by the motto: power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. This applied equally, as far as I’m concerned, to corporations as well as governments (though I’m a bit more distrusting of governments than corporations). But unfortunately, at this point in human history, we need both. Now, if you really want to accuse a CEO of greed and hording all the money for himself, look at his personal lifestyle. Does he live in a multi-million dollar mansion? Does he take his yacht to popular vacation hot spots several times a year? Does he own an island? Does he have a series of garages spanning 40 yards where he keeps all his antique sports cars? In that case, he could probably stand to give a little to the poor, or at least donate to a good cause, or at the very least, reinvest a large portion of his wealth back into his business so it can continue to do some good in the world.
Bob wrote:
The idea that we must prioritize economic growth at all costs is one of the most pervasive and damaging myths of modern capitalism. It ignores the reality of a finite planet and leads to the absurd notion that any attempt to redistribute wealth or regulate industries would somehow “collapse” the economy. ← It depends on the circumstances. → In truth, economies function best when wealth is broadly shared, and people have economic security. But the propaganda machine, controlled by those benefiting from the status quo, convinces people otherwise.
I’m sorry, Bob, but the evidence is overwhelmingly against you. Countries where the redistribution of wealth is pushed to the extreme are some of the poorest on the planet and have barely functioning economies. Have you not read your cold war history? But sure, keep talking out of your ass and make absolutely sure, by all means necessary, not to offer any proof that that history is a sham.
Bob wrote:
And yes, the left’s infighting has only made things worse. Rather than forming a united front against corporate power, different factions become preoccupied with ideological purity tests or internal conflicts, making it easy for the right and their wealthy backers to consolidate power. The result? A system where even mild reforms are treated as radical threats, while corporate interests continue unchecked.
Ah, the joys of being a lefty. Always pitted against your own kind because the slightest differences in ideologies are intolerable. Whereas on the right, differences of ideologies are seen as not only tolerable, but things to be celebrated, and certainly needn’t stop us from getting along.
Bob wrote:
That argument is a textbook example of capitalist triumphalism— ← For a reason → —cherry-picking ← Cherry-picking??? → the best aspects of Western economies while ignoring the systemic problems that contradict the narrative. It relies on a few key assumptions that don’t hold up under scrutiny.
Even at her worst, Western economies are better than Communist ones at their best. This isn’t cherry picking, it’s pinning each system down at their core. But let’s hear what you have to say about these “key assumptions”.
Bob wrote:
“The West is the best at making life comfortable for people”
← It sure is! →
This depends on which people you’re talking about. If you’re wealthy or middle-class, then sure, capitalism has provided comfort. But for the working class and the poor, life in Western economies is increasingly precarious. ← Show me a society in which it isn’t. → Wages have stagnated, the cost of living has skyrocketed ← Because of libs/Dems and their anti-capitalist policies. → , and wealth inequality has reached levels that rival feudalism. ← Remind me to some day explain to you how the wealth gap thing works. → The idea that capitalism “lifts people up” ignores the reality that millions of people in wealthy nations struggle with food insecurity, housing instability, and medical debt—problems virtually unknown in some of the social-democratic countries that the speaker conveniently ignores.
The problem here, Bob, is that you have this wildly unrealistic expectation that society should be perfect–no one should ever suffer, no one should ever hunger, no one should ever be homeless–and sure, who would deny this in principle, but in practice, it’s a pipedream, a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. No society is as perfect as you expect the West to be, but I still maintain the West is doing it better than anywhere else even with all its warts.
Bob wrote:
“Competition is between businesses, not individuals”
← Yup! →
This is a gross misrepresentation. The entire labour market is structured around individuals competing for jobs, healthcare, education, ← Who competes for healthcare and education? → and basic survival. Businesses compete to maximize profits, often by cutting wages ← Better than letting them go → , outsourcing jobs ← Which helps the workers in the outsources company. → , automating labour, or lobbying for deregulation ← Which again can help those working for them → . This “competition” often leaves workers more vulnerable, not more secure.
Well, you’re right about this (how’s it feel?), but at least the people have the security of knowing that the money they make is worth something, that it can buy them food, shelter, and life’s basic necessities. What’s the point of being guaranteed an income from the government if you can’t even buy food or pay for electricity because nobody in your society is motivated to supply it or the government is (as usual) as inept as possible at supply it. In capitalist societies, on the other hand, people compete for jobs not as a way of life but a temporary struggle until they get a job. They spend maybe (what?) 5% of their lives looking for work and the other 95% actually doing work. And for those who can’t get a job… we actually do have the social welfare programs and safety nets you claim we don’t have.
Bob wrote:
“Capitalism allows people to be more creative and generous”
← Such wise words. →
There’s some truth to the idea that material security allows for creativity ← Right? → , but capitalism doesn’t inherently provide that security. In fact, unregulated capitalism ← You see how you have to sneak that word in there? → often leads to exploitation and burnout, where people work multiple jobs just to survive, leaving little time for creative or intellectual pursuits. ← Where did your time machine take you this time? The 1800s? → Countries with strong social safety nets (like the Nordic nations) have far more freedom for artistic and intellectual endeavours—not because of capitalism alone, but because of policies that mitigate its worst excesses.
Aren’t the Nordic nations Western? Look, Bob, I’m defending Western civilization in this thread, not capitalism. Yes, it’s true that capitalism often goes hand-in-hand with the West, but what’s more central to Western society is democracy and the will of the people. The reason the Nordic nations have such a strong safety net is because the people voted for it. ← That’s possible thanks to the Western way of life. The same is true of almost all Western nations–Canada, the UK, even the USA–they’ve all got some level of social programs and safety nets for those who can’t cut it. So once again, this pure “unregulated” capitalism you’re attacking is a boogie man.
Bob wrote:
“If you don’t like capitalism, try communism”
← Ha! Ha! Ha!.. yeah →
This is the classic false dilemma—either accept unchecked capitalism or face Soviet-style communism. It ignores the existence of mixed economies, where markets exist alongside strong public institutions that ensure healthcare, education, and social stability. Many of the most prosperous, happiest nations in the world—like Norway, Denmark, and Finland—operate on this model.
Hey, as long as the people vote for it, I’m cool with this.
Bob wrote:
“Communism always leads to breadlines and cannibalism”
← Now, Bob, I don’t remember saying that exactly. →
This is Cold War fearmongering, using the most extreme examples of authoritarian socialism (like Stalin’s USSR or Mao’s China) to discredit any alternative to laissez-faire capitalism. But capitalist societies have had their own horrors—child labour, colonial exploitation, mass poverty, and economic collapses that wiped out millions of livelihoods. ← So has communism. → Just look at the Great Depression or the 2008 financial crisis.
There’s a reason you always have to go to the past to dig up these examples–it’s because the West is rooted in learning from past mistakes. Sure, we haven’t found a way to avoid all market crashes, but the 2008 financial crisis was a cake walk compared to the Great Depression. And it will probably be a long time before we have another 1929 because we’ve learned how to avoid our past mistakes (look what happened in Canada when Trudeau froze citizen’s back account). We learn these things because the people get to decide how things are done in the West, not some bureaucrat or autocrat who will repeat the same humanitarian atrocities because it’s in his personal interest to preserve his power.
The reality is, no system is perfect. ← Ya don’t say. → But the idea that capitalism alone “lifts people up” while any alternative inevitably leads to oppression is a historically ignorant oversimplification. The real discussion should be about how to build economic systems that prioritize human well-being over limitless corporate profit.
Bob, have you ever met the Boogie Man’s cousin? His name is Strawman. That’s exactly what ^this^ is. At no point did I ever say that capitalism “alone” or “limitless corporate profit” was the way to go. I honestly don’t care where your society falls on the spectrum of ultra-capitalistic and ultra-communistic as long as it’s there because of the will of the people. Protecting the people’s freedom is, to me, far more central to Western civilization than capitalism. Allow the people to choose, and over time they will select the elements of capitalism that suit them best and the elements of socialism that suit them best, and that’s as close as you’re ever gonna get to your perfect utopia where no one suffers. To perfectly level the economic playing field–perfectly–requires the strong hand of a dictatorial ruler to force or coerce the people into paying their “fair share” to the poor and needy. Even Marx understood this when he coined the term “temporary dictatorship of the proletariat”. The thing I never understood about this is how the hell would a dictatorship ever be temporary–like power hungry mad men are ever going to give up their control when they’ve served their purpose–a real ball drop on Marx’s part. This is why I feel compelled to attack communism as both an economic and a political system. Unlike capitalism, it is intricately intertwined with power–it depends on it–on a government, on a dictator–and so I cannot separate it from politics. Capitalism, on the other hand, can be treated as merely an economic model, and can be conceivably distinguished from whatever political system oversees it (look at China). Not so with communism. So while the opposite of communism may be capitalism, I can’t help but think it’s also the opposite of democracy and republicanism. So I attack communism in opposition to democracy, to the will of the people, and not so much in opposition to capitalism.
Bob wrote:
One of the most glaring examples of how fundamentalist Christianity and Christian nationalism fail to uphold human dignity, social justice, and mutual care is their stance on healthcare—particularly their opposition to universal healthcare in the U.S.
← I’ve never hear that as a quintessentially Christian talking point. A conservative one, sure, but it’s not rooted in Christianity. Sure conservatism tends to go hand in hand with Christianity, but that particular stance comes more from conservatives wanting government to stay out of their lives. →
Many Christian nationalists and fundamentalists claim to follow the teachings of Jesus, yet they oppose policies that ensure healthcare for all. The Gospels emphasize healing the sick without charge (Matthew 10:8), yet the very people who claim to be defenders of “Christian values” argue against healthcare access for the poor ← Maybe they opposed government’s role in healthcare, wanting to leave it to the people and the Church → , calling it “socialism.” In reality, their policies lead to suffering, medical bankruptcy, and preventable deaths—direct contradictions of Christ’s teachings on compassion.
← I was once shown some stats by Eric_the_Pipe (remember him?) that the Church in the US donates more to the sick, hungry, homeless and needy than liberal or secular charitable organizations. How accurate it was, I don’t know, but it challenges the widespread misconception that if the government does it do it, no one will. (Damn if I can remember the source but it was in my thread Reforming Democracy)–>
Jesus explicitly calls for kindness to the stranger (Matthew 25:35-40), yet Christian nationalists push for cruel immigration policies ← Now that is a blatant lie and you knew it. → , mass deportations ← Of criminals, rapist, murderers, spies, terrorists, and gang member. Not gonna shed any tears any time soon. → , and the dehumanization of migrants ← How is it dehumanizing to prevent immigrants to enter the country illegally? → . The separation of families at the border ← Which the Trump administration doesn’t do. → , the caging of children under policies supported by many Christian nationalists ← You should see Obama’s detention camps! → , and the justification of these actions using scripture (Romans 13 taken out of context) show a stark departure from the ethos of mutual care.
← Like I said, I don’t think any of these have to do with Christian policies but practical and political ones. And the cruelty of the children in cages should be judge on their treatment and their level of happiness and health, not their living conditions which are just a matter of practicality and budget. What’d you expect? A 5 star resort? →
Many fundamentalist Christians support policies that favour the ultra-rich while opposing social safety nets for the poor, despite Luke 6:24 condemning the rich who hoard wealth and Acts 2:44-45 describing the early church as one that shared everything in common. The prosperity gospel, embraced by many within this movement, directly contradicts biblical teachings on humility, justice, and the dangers of wealth.
← Before one judges one on their support of this or that policy, one must understand why and what they expect the outcome to be. Bill Gates, for example, donated millions (billions?) to education, attacking climate change, animal rights and alternate food sources to meats. Donating to Microsoft therefore could be a sign of support for these causes, all of which come back to the poor and needy. Then there’s Elon Musk, using his wealth and the success of his businesses to create electric vehicles, provide StarLink service to the victims of hurricane Helene, help people recover brain disabilities with Neuralink, and not to mention buy Twitter in order to protect free speech (which, believe it or not, benefits to poor and needy). Steve Jobs donated $50 million to Stanford Hospital for a children’s medical center, 10’s of millions to combat HIV and AIDS, helped create the Seva organization to help blindness, and generally enforced his policies at Apple of always creating environmentally friendly products. →
Christian nationalism actively works to restrict the rights of non-conformist individuals and women, often justifying discrimination under the guise of “religious freedom.” From forcing childbirth on rape victims to opposing protections against discrimination, these policies inflict suffering while contradicting Christ’s emphasis on love and justice (John 13:34).
← That one’s funny, as these are perfectly inline with Christian beliefs and value. Every life is sacred, according to them, even that of an unborn child in the womb of a rape victim. And anti-discrimination was never a part of the Christian ethos. Putting the sexes in their place–both women and men–was (is) seen as the sexes having their proper role to play in society, no one being worse than the other, no one being “inferior” and the other “superior”. Men go out to work, women take care of the home and the children. It may have been a bit too generalized, failing to recognize the nuances from one women to another, or one man to another, nuances that could mean the man/woman in question would be best placed in a non-traditional role in society, but it certainly wasn’t anti-Christian. ← Not that I agree with this view by any stretch of the imagination but if your attack is on Christianity, this one is misplaced. →
Many Christian nationalists in the U.S. are staunch supporters of war, gun culture, and authoritarian policing ← Police by definition are authoritarian. → . Instead of the turn the other cheek ethic of Jesus (Matthew 5:39), they embrace an aggressive, punitive worldview that disproportionately harms marginalized communities. The alignment of Christian nationalism with aggressive foreign policy and domestic militarization reflects a betrayal of peace and reconciliation.
← This depends. If you read some of Christ’s parables, he makes the point that turning the other cheek is supposed to serve the purpose of changing your enemy’s heart, of ending the tit-for-tat back-and-forth retaliation strategy that usually just escalates tensions and the brutality of war. (See the parable of the Two Debtors.) If the act of turning the other cheek, however, simply makes you vulnerable to an enemy who would exploit your passivity and destroy you, the “turn the other cheek” strategy is not a good one and would probably lead to your own demise. →
So, you can see that at every level—economic justice, human rights, compassion for the marginalized—Christian nationalism fails to embody the ethical core of Jesus’ teachings. Instead, it serves as a political weapon to justify exclusion, oppression, and a hierarchy of power that benefits the privileged few.
All my arguments above notwithstanding, my question to which this was a response was geared towards your sudden switch from talking about religion in general to Christianity in specific. Too reiterate, you said: “Many religious traditions have long recognized [the need to raise people up Maslow’s hierarchy], portraying their prophets and messianic figures as champions of human dignity, social justice, and mutual care. A Christianity that fails to embody this ethos…is not living up to its own professed values.” Why a Christianity that fails to embody this ethos? Why not religion in general? Why the sudden switch to the official religion of the West? I’ll tell you why. You want to villainize the West at the expense of ignoring similar shortcoming of the religions of other parts of the world (God know there’s much to criticize about Islam, but stoning rape victims just for being rape victims pales in comparison to wanting to own a gun, right?). Religious hypocrisy is nothing new our the world, not just in the West.
Bob wrote:
Once more, your critique is based on several flawed assumptions, particularly about human nature, the West’s moral standing, and the notion that any critique of capitalism must necessarily advocate for Marxism.
← Critiques of capitalism don’t have to advocate Marxism, but they almost always do (and in your case, it most certainly does Mr. Closet Case Marxist). →
Your criticism assumes that cooperation and competition are mutually exclusive ← I suppose they don’t have to be, but do explain. → , but human societies have always exhibited both. Cooperation is not about eliminating competition; it’s about ensuring that competition does not become destructive or exploitative. Even in capitalist economies, businesses rely on cooperation—within firms, between supply chains, and through regulations that prevent monopolies. The idea that humans are inherently selfish to the point that cooperation is impossible ignores historical examples of communal and cooperative societies that have flourished ← I never said humans were inherently selfish (though I would say they are largely selfish). → , from Indigenous societies to modern cooperatives and social democracies.
← I know, and I agree. This is all a consequence of allowing Western civilization to learn from past mistakes. In the past, families had to work 16 hour days, subject themselves to inhumane conditions that were deleterious to their health, and even bring their children into the workforce. But as a society of free citizen who could voice there concerns and demand change, laws were put into place–child labor laws, 8 hour work days, rights to work in a hazard and health friendly work environment–and we overcame these deficiencies. Only in the West is this possible. →
Likewise, the assumption that people will always seek to exploit cooperation is an argument for governance, not against cooperation itself. The goal is to create systems that prevent unchecked exploitation, not to abandon cooperation altogether.
← Again, I agree. My point was only that, with a large enough population (like billions), there are bound to be at least some who see peace and cooperation as an opportunity for exploitation, but certainly if a society has some form of government and police force to keep these individuals in check and exact repercussions when they get out of line, you aren’t quite at the point where everyone can hold hands and sing kumbaya, and society will be split into factions–those who support (or want to be) those who exploit and those who don’t, and the government will have to engage in some form of “crack down” on those who threaten the intended order. And given that this is human nature, it will be awfully difficult, if not impossible, to arrive at Marx’s final stage of a stateless, cashless society where everyone, forever, only ever cooperates. →
Saying that no society has met the ideal of universal human dignity does not mean that striving for it is pointless. ← Yes! I total agree. I just think it’s about time we abandoned Marxism as the path there. → By that logic, no moral progress is worth pursuing because perfection is unattainable. ← Not if we have examples of societies actually making their way there, like the West in my opinion, but we shouldn’t make blind leaps just because we’re overtaken by the delusion inducing spells of zealotry and dogmatic ideology. That’s just scary. → If the West is doing better in some respects, that’s not a reason to dismiss critiques ← Of course! → —it’s a reason to push it to do even better. The West has undoubtedly improved living standards within its borders ← THANK YOU BOB!!! → , but often at the expense of the Global South through economic exploitation, resource extraction, and political interference. ← And I could get behind putting a stop to this. There was a time, after all, when the West (or at least America) didn’t do this and thrived just as fine. → The real question isn’t whether the West is better than Somalia—it’s whether the West is upholding its own professed values of justice, equality, and democracy.
← Well, sure, if you judge it on moral ground, but I’m talking about the living standards of it’s people. Would you want to live in Somalia? →
“Restoring the West” vs. a different system is a loaded question. It assumes that “the West” had an ideal past that must be restored. ← Or ideal principles is was supposed to live by. → But which period of the West’s history should we return to? The 1950s, with its racial segregation and McCarthyism? The 19th century, with rampant colonialism and worker exploitation? The feudal era? Every period in Western history had both virtues and deep injustices. Rather than “restoring” an imagined golden age, the focus should be on evolving toward a system that actually embodies justice, democracy, and human dignity.
← Again, I agree (seems to be happening a lot lately ). A couple things: 1) The West, over the long haul, seems to be on a perpetual path of improvement. The injustices it committed in the past no longer happen to any degree even remotely to its past. And it will continue to improve. We just require patience. 2) The philosophy of MAGA isn’t that we should return to a past state (at least not in my interpretation), it’s that if you look at the state of America lately, it seems to be in a state of decline–the good things it can boast about are getting worse and the bad things it should improve on are also getting worse. There was a point in American history when she was at her best–that’s not today–and the MAGA movement is about restoring the good things about that time without restoring the bad things. Trump, for example, seems to think the 1950s were that time–great economy, a world superpower on the global stage, maximized freedom for it’s citizens, respect and admirations from others around the world, making leaps and bounds in technology, etc.–but it was also a time when women were confined to the home (not legally but through social pressure) expected to be good house wives and mothers, civil rights for blacks and other minorities weren’t yet recognize or written into law, homosexuals were marginalized and shunned by “good Christians”–but MAGA means bringing back the good things without the bad. At least in my interpretation–not necessarily Trump’s or any other conservative–for the “greatness” of the past need not depend on the coexisting “badness” of the past. America is proud of its leaps and bounds over social injustices–its overcoming slavery, universal suffrage for women, the Civil Rights Act–the problems these fixed aren’t things it wants to bring back nor things it sees as what made it great at one time. If this is the way America brings itself back to the “good ol’ times” it will accomplish what you espouse–in your words “evolving toward a system that actually embodies justice, democracy, and human dignity.” →
This does not mean endorsing Marxism wholesale, nor does it mean rejecting every aspect of capitalism. The issue is not whether capitalism or socialism as abstract theories are good or bad, but how economic and political systems can be structured to better serve the common good. Many countries, like those in Scandinavia, have blended markets with strong social protections, proving that the choice isn’t between unregulated capitalism and Soviet-style communism.
← Right, and as I said above, this is fine as long as the people vote on it. And it helps if we’ve had examples of it across the world and through history–which, according to you, we have in Scandinavia and the Nordic countries. →
Your criticism boils down to a defence of the status quo by setting up strawman arguments—suggesting that cooperation means naïve utopianism, that no society is perfect so we shouldn’t aim higher, and that any critique of capitalism is necessarily Marxist. In reality, the challenge is not about picking a binary option but about designing systems that balance economic dynamism with social responsibility.
That’s not true (though I’ll admit I’m guilty of levelling arguments along those lines). In truth, I’ve rarely come across a leftist who doesn’t hold a fierce disdain for the West and doesn’t embrace Marxism, and you sure took your time to make it clear that that’s not necessarily the stance you’re taking. Just don’t tell me you think the world ought to try a “different kind” of Marxism–like it just wasn’t done right the first time, like we just need to tweak this or that aspect of the Marxist model and we’d be sure to get it right–ignoring the countless times that’s been tried in the past resulting in utter failure. But if you’re talking about a whole different system that leads to the same goal (a cashless, stateless, mutually cooperative and supportive community that, through their labors (or by some mechanism), makes life comfortable and happy for as many people as possible), I’m all ears. You just need to demonstrate (almost to the rigor of Iambiguous’s ultimate demonstration that all rational men and women are obliged to agree with) a path from here to there with all the nitty-gritty painstaking details such when when people look at it, they get the impression that it just might work. And like I said before, Marxism isn’t it.
Bob wrote:
At this point, I think I have made my point ← And then some → , and the post is long enough.
I was genuinely going to comment point for point, but then I realised that you are unable to entertain the idea of meta-political perspective, from which the cycle is observable, returning us back to a feudal-order in which the oligarchs (or Landlords in Feudal times) gain absolute control and limit the ability of the ‘common people’ to become in any way self-sufficient and property owners themselves.
Of course, the present situation might suggest that this is not so, but increasingly, the ability of people who may have been born in poverty to get out of that and become property owners is decreasing. Here in Europe, companies like Blackrock are buying up houses and renting them out, preventing people from buying them themselves. Increasingly, tax cuts for the rich mean austerity for the middle and lower financial class.
The Industrial Revolution, which began in Britain around the mid-18th century, brought the hope of transforming economies from agrarian to industrial, leading to shifts in wealth, power, and class structures. The Industrial Revolution and the French Revolution (1789–1799) were two transformative events distinct in nature, but they were deeply interconnected in several ways.
France lagged behind Britain in industrialization. Its economy was still largely agrarian, and feudal structures remained, contributing to social unrest. Its economic instability, including debt from previous wars and reliance on an outdated feudal system, created tensions that fuelled revolutionary sentiments. The revolution was, in many ways, a revolt against the rigid class hierarchy of the Ancien Régime, and the Industrial Revolution in Britain was also restructuring class dynamics, creating a new industrial bourgeoisie while displacing many workers.
In France, the bourgeoisie—merchants, professionals, and early industrialists—played a significant role in the Revolution, as they sought political power to match their growing economic influence. But Enlightenment ideas (which also influenced industrial progress) encouraged rationality, efficiency, and meritocracy—values that were opposed to the monarchy’s hereditary privileges. The growing emphasis on production, commerce, and trade, seen in the early phases of industrialization, encouraged calls for economic liberalization, which was a major demand of revolutionary thinkers.
The Industrial Revolution in Britain benefited from the political stability that the revolutionaries in France sought—limited monarchy and parliamentary control over taxation and governance. Napoleon’s rise post-revolution also led to reforms (like the Napoleonic Code) that further modernized property rights and economic policies, indirectly paving the way for industrial expansion in 19th-century France.
Karl Marx argued that a society needed to go through a full capitalist development before it could transition to socialism and eventually communism. He believed that industrial capitalism created the conditions necessary for a proletarian revolution by concentrating wealth, centralizing production, and expanding the working class. Post-war Europe, especially Germany, flourished under a model that closely aligns with Marx’s observation—that capitalism needs to develop strongly before any transition to a more socialist-leaning system can happen.
The irony is that West Germany’s post-war recovery, often hailed as a capitalist success, incorporated many elements of state intervention, worker protections, and social welfare, contradicting the pure laissez-faire capitalism often promoted in the U.S. Under Chancellor Konrad Adenauer and Economics Minister Ludwig Erhard, West Germany implemented a social market economy—a blend of capitalism with strong social safety nets.
The U.S. criticized many European welfare policies, yet ironically, the Marshall Plan (1948–1952) provided financial aid that enabled European nations to build strong capitalist economies with social programs. Countries like France, Italy, and Germany used these funds not just for industrial growth but also for housing, education, and healthcare—investments that the U.S. government often avoided domestically due to ideological fears of “socialism.”
Unlike the U.S.'s “free market” approach, Germany’s economy emphasized:
State regulation to prevent monopolies and corporate overreach.
Workers’ rights through co-determination (Mitbestimmung), giving workers representation in company decisions.
Public infrastructure investment while allowing private enterprise to thrive.
Europe opted for regulated capitalism, where unions were strong, healthcare was largely public, and education was accessible. Meanwhile, in the U.S., capitalism was far more deregulated, with weaker labour protections and minimal public services, relying instead on private industry. This led to higher economic security in Europe but greater wealth inequality in the U.S., fuelling American criticism that Europe was “too socialist.” Which is why it is in danger of being dismantled at present.
Ironically, West Germany, to some degree the U.K., and Scandinavia became examples of economies where capitalism and social welfare coexisted—showing that Marx’s idea of a strong capitalist foundation enabling future social policies had merit. The problem is that these countries remained heavily dependent upon the US instead of working on independence, on the one hand because Britain, as a member of the EU, vetoed such a move and Germany was hesitant.
We now see how Europe might pay for its procrastination, with America aligning with Russia in creating a oligarchal state and undermining all that has been built. German companies are export champions, but it means that their biggest market is outside the country. In a world where the ‘common good’ is no longer a valid motivator, a return to pre-industrial dependencies among the middle and lower financial classes seems likely.
I was genuinely going to comment point for point, but then I realised that you are unable to entertain the idea of meta-political perspective ← I don’t even know what that means → , from which the cycle is observable, returning us back to a feudal-order in which the oligarchs (or Landlords in Feudal times) gain absolute control and limit the ability of the ‘common people’ to become in any way self-sufficient and property owners themselves.
Is that what a meta-political perspective is? A vantage point from which to “observe the cycle”? What cycle? Are you referring to the fact that we’re entering another dark age (characterized not by a lack of information this time but too much conflicting information)? That history goes through these busts and booms? I’ve known this for quite some time now–since about 2015 or thereabouts. But is this why you say we’re being set back 200 years, back to colonial times? Why eventually feudalism will return? Is this what all your time travelling to the past is about? Do you actually believe history is reversing, that somehow time has done a 180 and is taking us back to the past? Like, literally?
You’re more of a Hegelian than a Marxist, aren’t you Bob?
But anyway, I’m glad you didn’t respond point for point (you did read what I wrote though, right?) as that’s how these things get looong. Given the fact that my last response to you had to be split in two, your move to start over from a fresh perspective is probably a good idea… but now I’m going to start point-for-point again
Bob wrote:
Of course, the present situation might suggest that this is not so, but increasingly, the ability of people who may have been born in poverty to get out of that and become property owners is decreasing. Here in Europe, companies like Blackrock are buying up houses and renting them out, preventing people from buying them themselves. Increasingly, tax cuts for the rich mean austerity for the middle and lower financial class.
Then the European people need to vote for change. They need to be informed about the situation they’re in, know what their options are, and vote for the change they want to see.
And can you give me any examples of tax cuts the government (any government) has granted the rich? I never hear of such things. I only ever hear it as a complaint the left have against right-wing governments.
Bob wrote:
The Industrial Revolution, which began in Britain around the mid-18th century, brought the hope of transforming economies from agrarian to industrial, leading to shifts in wealth, power, and class structures. The Industrial Revolution and the French Revolution (1789–1799) were two transformative events distinct in nature, but they were deeply interconnected in several ways.
Thanks professor History!
Bob wrote:
France lagged behind Britain in industrialization. Its economy was still largely agrarian, and feudal structures remained, contributing to social unrest. Its economic instability, including debt from previous wars and reliance on an outdated feudal system, created tensions that fuelled revolutionary sentiments. The revolution was, in many ways, a revolt against the rigid class hierarchy of the Ancien Régime, and the Industrial Revolution in Britain was also restructuring class dynamics, creating a new industrial bourgeoisie while displacing many workers.
You forgot famine. The French Revolution was triggered by famine (I know, splitting hairs).
Bob wrote:
In France, the bourgeoisie—merchants, professionals, and early industrialists—played a significant role in the Revolution, as they sought political power to match their growing economic influence. But Enlightenment ideas (which also influenced industrial progress) encouraged rationality, efficiency, and meritocracy—values that were opposed to the monarchy’s hereditary privileges. The growing emphasis on production, commerce, and trade, seen in the early phases of industrialization, encouraged calls for economic liberalization, which was a major demand of revolutionary thinkers.
So two forces pitted against the French monarch–the bourgeoisie and the enlightenment thinkers–not a good time to be Louis XVI, was it? And what do you mean by “economic liberalization”? You mean, liberation? As in, greater free markets. Less of the state’s hands in the economy? Or do you mean liberalism, as in more socialism, more of the state’s hands in the economy? The way I understand history to have unfolded during those times, liberation was celebrated more than liberalism–it was pretty much the main theme of the Enlightenment. But I want to hear your take on it, Bob, from a liberal’s perspective.
Bob wrote:
The Industrial Revolution in Britain benefited from the political stability that the revolutionaries in France sought—limited monarchy and parliamentary control over taxation and governance. Napoleon’s rise post-revolution also led to reforms (like the Napoleonic Code) that further modernized property rights and economic policies, indirectly paving the way for industrial expansion in 19th-century France.
Which eventually gave way to colonization, right? But surely similar developments like that in France were happening all over Western Europe. The British, the Spanish, the Portuguese, the Germans, even the Italians to a lesser degree, all colonized the world.
And I don’t think you can narrow it down to two or three main causes–like the British benefiting from their form of government and Napoleon’s rise to power–there’s probably a billion different causes, some big, some small, but in general it’s just a dynamic flow of events–more like a river and less like a machine with moving parts.
Bob wrote:
Karl Marx argued that a society needed to go through a full capitalist development before it could transition to socialism and eventually communism. He believed that industrial capitalism created the conditions necessary for a proletarian revolution by concentrating wealth, centralizing production, and expanding the working class. Post-war Europe, especially Germany, flourished under a model that closely aligns with Marx’s observation—that capitalism needs to develop strongly before any transition to a more socialist-leaning system can happen.
And I believe this is exactly what we are seeing now with respect to the mixed economies we discussed in our last round–you brought up Scandinavia–a mixed economy if ever there was one–one part capitalist, one part socialist, all democratic–how did they get that way if not by going through a phase of strong capitalism first, a phase from which to decide, to vote for, in incremental steps, elements of socialism.
But this is not how Marx foresaw it unfolding, not as a gradual and peaceful merging of capitalism with elements of socialism through the will of the people, but as something that would require a revolution and (what was his phrase?) the “temporary dictatorship of the proletariat”. He didn’t believe it would happen except through a violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat (he’s a follower of Hegel–his thesis, antitheses, and synthesis) and from there into a fully authoritarian and totalitarian dictatorship (hello Stalin!). And slowly, over time, then everything would settle down into a great community full of fairness, love, flowers, rainbows, kittens, and furry little puppy dogs. The only difference between Marx and Lenin is that Marx was only predicting the future, whereas Lenin believed it was up to him and his followers to make the revolution happen. Well, that’s one way of fulfilling a prophesy.
Bob wrote:
The irony is that West Germany’s post-war recovery, often hailed as a capitalist success, incorporated many elements of state intervention, worker protections, and social welfare, contradicting the pure laissez-faire capitalism often promoted in the U.S. Under Chancellor Konrad Adenauer and Economics Minister Ludwig Erhard, West Germany implemented a social market economy—a blend of capitalism with strong social safety nets.
Well, when you’re poised next to East Germany, anything will look like capitalism.
Bob wrote:
The U.S. criticized many European welfare policies, yet ironically, the Marshall Plan (1948–1952) provided financial aid that enabled European nations to build strong capitalist economies with social programs. Countries like France, Italy, and Germany used these funds not just for industrial growth but also for housing, education, and healthcare—investments that the U.S. government often avoided domestically due to ideological fears of “socialism.”
Fears or preferences?
Bob wrote:
Unlike the U.S.'s “free market” approach, Germany’s economy emphasized:
State regulation to prevent monopolies and corporate overreach. ← The US has had antitrust laws since 1890. Look up the Sherman Antitrust Act. →
Workers’ rights through co-determination (Mitbestimmung), giving workers representation in company decisions. ← 1794–the first labor union in America, the Federal Society of Journeymen Cordwainers. →
Public infrastructure investment while allowing private enterprise to thrive. ← Yeah, like that’s a foreign concept in the US. →
Europe opted for regulated capitalism, where unions were strong, healthcare was largely public, and education was accessible. Meanwhile, in the U.S., capitalism was far more deregulated, with weaker labour protections and minimal public services, relying instead on private industry. This led to higher economic security in Europe but greater wealth inequality in the U.S. <— but higher quality goods and services —>, fuelling American criticism that Europe was “too socialist.” Which is why it is in danger of being dismantled at present.
Move too far to the left and you bring about your own dismantling.
Bob wrote:
Ironically, West Germany, to some degree the U.K., and Scandinavia became examples of economies where capitalism and social welfare coexisted—showing that Marx’s idea of a strong capitalist foundation enabling future social policies had merit. <— That was NOT Marx’s idea as explained above —> The problem is that these countries remained heavily dependent upon the US instead of working on independence, on the one hand because Britain, as a member of the EU, vetoed such a move and Germany was hesitant.
What? No Brexit?
Bob wrote:
We now see how Europe might pay for its procrastination, with America aligning with Russia in creating a oligarchal state and undermining all that has been built. <— You need evidence for a claim like this. —> German companies are export champions, but it means that their biggest market is outside the country. In a world where the ‘common good’ is no longer a valid motivator <— Was it ever? —>, a return to pre-industrial dependencies among the middle and lower financial classes seems likely.
Woaw, that last statement came out of nowhere. You give us a lengthy history lesson and then make a giant leap to the conclusion that we’re going back to feudalism? I’m sorry, but I’m aware of how history unfolded and I don’t see how that supports your prediction that we’re on the brink of a kind of neo-feudalism.
You know what I think you’re doing, Bob? I call it the Brownian Motion Fallacy. You know what Brownian Motion is? It’s the manner by which particles or molecules in the air move in every which direction and bump into each other, thereby constantly altering their trajectories. You can see it in the way dust particles seem to move around randomly as they float in the air. The likelihood that one particle, in one corner of the room moving towards the other corner, will actually make it to the other corner on that sole trajectory is infinitesimally minuscule. It is bound to alter its course due to its interactions with other particles. But so many commentators on politics make the mistake that if they see a trend in a certain direction, that trend will continue uninterrupted until it becomes a monstrosity of epic proportions as it makes its way to the extremes. So a move to the left (like food stamps) is met with paranoid Chicken Littles on the right saying “Oh my Lord! Communism is on its way!” And if Elon Musk wants to expose and get rid of fraud and waste in government spending, the fear mongers on the left will cry “he’s gonna get rid of health care! It’s the Third (Fourth?) Reich!” But moves in politics, like social trends and changing popular opinions, move in every which direction, like Brownian Motion, and never stay on a single trajectory for very long. Your prediction that we’re going back to feudalism based on current events seems like the Brownian Motion Fallacy to me. It’s as extreme as it gets, and is, in my opinion, not only baseless but absurd. Your crystal ball is feeding you flights of fancy.
Since we are struggling with semantic issues, I could have written “Meta-political analysis,” which would emphasise a method of examining politics. As it was, my terminology can be understood thus:
Meta-political refers to perspectives that go beyond immediate political discourse, examining deeper structures, historical patterns, ideological frameworks, or philosophical underpinnings of power.
Perspective suggests a particular way of viewing these deeper structures.
Obviously, history repeats itself, but seldom exactly the way it was. In this case, it is the outreach of power that is attempting to achieve conditions comparable to feudal times. The change in the world that occurred finally after WWII, although it had its roots in the past, brought about a relatively peaceful epoch for Europe, with relative wealth among the lower financial classes, but it has been reversing gradually, and since 2016, it has been clear that it has been declared a failure by big business, because Europe has made several attempts to force their financial participation through some kind of levy.
I don’t wear names that I have no affiliation to. Hegelian means nothing to me.
In what bubble have you been living?
1. United States
Trump Tax Cuts (2017) – Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA)
Reduced the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%, benefiting large corporations and high-income business owners.
Lowered the top individual income tax rate from 39.6% to 37%.
Doubled the estate tax exemption, allowing the wealthiest families to pass down more wealth tax-free.
The benefits were skewed towards the rich, with high-income earners seeing larger absolute tax savings.
Bush Tax Cuts (2001 & 2003)
Reduced the top marginal income tax rate from 39.6% to 35%.
Cut the capital gains tax from 20% to 15%, benefiting investors, who are disproportionately wealthy.
Phased out the estate tax, reducing tax burdens on inherited wealth.
Planned to eliminate the 45% tax rate on incomes above £150,000, benefiting the highest earners.
Cut corporate tax rates, which primarily benefited large businesses.
The plan was widely criticised and spooked financial markets, leading to its reversal.
Margaret Thatcher’s Tax Cuts (1980s)
Reduced the top income tax rate from 83% to 60% in 1979 and later to 40% in 1988.
Lowered corporate taxes, benefiting businesses and wealthy individuals.
It became increasingly difficult for working class families to buy their houses.
3. France
Macron’s Wealth Tax Cut (2017)
Replaced the Solidarity Tax on Wealth (ISF) with a narrower tax on real estate, significantly reducing taxes on financial assets for the wealthy.
This benefited high-net-worth individuals and was criticized for exacerbating wealth inequality.
“Economic liberalisation” refers to the fact that more people were involved in commerce and trade than just the aristocracy owned businesses, and more people could live from their means, rather than the just upper classes. The middle class started to grow and become influential, and the lower class saw at least the potential of more autonomy. This is a form of liberation, even if it was provisional. This came to a halt after the victory of Prussia in the Franco-German War (1870-71) and the founding (in Paris) of the empire (The Second Reich) a new great power in Europe.
France was seriously wounded, and succumbed a second time in WWI, just forty years later, which was why the punishment for Germany after the war was so costly. This led to WWII, as we all know, and the final suppression of German nationalist and expansionist visions. But the French were not done with nationalist ideas after 1872. While the defeat in the Franco-Prussian War and the subsequent loss of Alsace-Lorraine to Germany deeply affected French politics and society, nationalism remained a powerful force well into the 20th century. In fact, the trauma of the war strengthened nationalist sentiments in many ways.
However, after France’s defeat in the Franco-Prussian War and the fall of Napoleon III, socialist and republicans briefly controlled Paris in the Paris Commune (March–May 1871). It was violently suppressed by the French government, which saw it as a threat to national unity, and the massacre of Communards (with 20,000-30,000 killed) left a lasting trauma in socialist movements in France.
Before WWI, socialist parties in France (and across Europe) were strongly anti-war, seeing it as a struggle between imperialist powers. However, once war broke out, nationalist fervour led to the so-called “Sacred Union” (Union Sacrée), where even many socialists supported national defence. In this confusion, Jean Jaurès, the leading anti-war socialist, was assassinated in 1914, removing one of the strongest voices for peace.
French colonial efforts started much earlier (1600s–1815). The First French Colonial Empire included Canada (New France), Louisiana, the Caribbean (Haiti, Martinique, Guadeloupe), and parts of India and West Africa. However, France lost many of its early colonies after the Seven Years’ War (1756–1763) and the Napoleonic Wars (1803–1815).
The beginnings of expansion were earlier too, between 1830–1870. France invaded and gradually colonized Algeria, leading to decades of brutal resistance. In West Africa the French established trading posts along the Senegal River, and in Indochina by the 1860s, France had begun expanding into Vietnam, Cambodia, and later Laos.
Strangely at first sight, the height of French colonialism coincided with the aftermath of the Franco-Prussian War, but was not a coincidence—rather, it was a direct response to France’s defeat and the loss of its status in Europe. The national humiliation led to the search for prestige. The collapse of the Second French Empire and the establishment of the Third Republic (1870-1940) was a severe psychological and political blow to France, damaging its influence in Europe. In response, French leaders shifted focus to colonial expansion as a way to restore national pride and compensate for territorial loss in Europe.
France needed new markets and resources to strengthen its economy after the war and colonies were seen as a way to provide raw materials (rubber, cotton, coffee, minerals) and trade routes. The loss of Alsace-Lorraine meant France had fewer coal and iron resources, so it looked to its empire for economic security.
Now? Now we are seeing the decline or transformation of socialist governments is a major political trend, especially in Europe. Over the past few decades, we’ve seen mainstream socialist or social-democratic parties shifting toward the centre, often abandoning traditional leftist economic policies in favour of market-friendly approaches. This has led to a fragmentation of the left, with smaller socialist or left-wing parties emerging.
As I have said before, nothing unfolds exactly as proposed, and the Russian economy was the opposite to what Marx envisioned. However, the failure of the Soviet Union had a large influence on how social democracy developed in Europe, with major socialist ideas being maintained until the collapse of the USSR, but then the shifting toward the centre occurred, with Britain’s Labour leading the way, and Germany’s SPD aligning with Labour’s policies until the Iraq war, when there was a break.
By the late 2000s, social-democratic parties had moved so far to the centre that they were often indistinguishable from centre-right parties on economic issues. The 2008 financial crisis exposed the limits of this model, forcing some left-wing parties to rethink their approach, but the damage had already been done. After 1991, the U.S. took advantage of its position as the sole superpower to push a radically pro-market, neoliberal agenda both domestically and internationally. This created friction with Europe, which had been more committed to social democracy and regulated capitalism. During this time, the U.S. actively pushed Europe toward more corporate-friendly policies.
In the U.S., tax policies and deregulation allowed billionaires and corporations to gain massive influence over politics (Citizens United ruling in 2010 accelerated this). Europe initially resisted this trend, but U.S.-driven globalisation made it difficult to keep taxes on the wealthy high.
That may be, but the effectiveness of antitrust laws has fluctuated over time. In the late 20th and early 21st centuries, the U.S. enforcement of antitrust laws weakened due to policies that favoured market deregulation (such as those in the 1980s under Reagan). This reduced the power of antitrust enforcement agencies, allowing the oligarchic tendencies to resurge, which is one of the points I was making in my response. At the rate at which Trump is dismantling, it might not be long before there is no trace of such laws or unions.
That was before Brexit, but Brexit was probably to cherry on the top.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Russia went through a radical transformation from a centralized, state-controlled economy to a market economy. The U.S. and Western advisors supported economic “shock therapy” for Russia—rapid market reforms that involved privatization of state assets and deregulation. This policy was intended to move Russia towards a capitalist economy quickly. However, this process helped create a new oligarchy in Russia, as a few individuals gained control over much of the country’s wealth.
The shift towards neoliberalism promoted by the U.S. and its global influence led to the undermining of social democracy and the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few in both countries. In Russia, the shock therapy and privatization programs facilitated the creation of a new oligarchy, while in the U.S., corporate deregulation and tax cuts for the rich entrenched a system that favours the wealthy elite. In both cases, this has contributed to the undermining of democratic principles and the growth of oligarchies that prioritize the interests of the wealthy few over those of the general population.
Thanks for the analogy with Brownian motion. It’s a useful way to highlight how politics can feel unpredictable, with events altering their course in ways that make any single trajectory hard to predict. You’re right that political movements don’t always go in one unbroken direction.
However, what I’m suggesting isn’t that there’s a direct, linear path back to feudalism, nor am I predicting it will be exactly the same as then. I’m pointing out the structural tendencies I see in current political and economic systems that could lead to the concentration of power in the hands of a few—much like what occurred during the rise of feudalism in earlier periods of history. It’s about the systemic risks, rather than a direct, unalterable course. These forces are subtle, cumulative, and shaped by policy decisions, capitalist incentives, and power dynamics.
It’s also true that these things aren’t inevitable, and there’s plenty of room for positive shifts in how power is distributed. But I think it’s important to pay attention to the patterns in government actions and corporate influence that have historically led to the concentration of power in the hands of a few, even when other forces in society push back. For instance, the increasing wealth inequality, the capture of political systems by elites, and the global shift toward neoliberal economics could be early signs of this dynamic unfolding, even if it doesn’t follow a straight line to the extreme.
Of course, this is just my perspective. I’d love to hear your thoughts on the intersection between neoliberalism, the erosion of social safety nets, and the rise of oligarchies, especially in the context of political and economic trends we’re seeing today. What do you think of the direction that current policies are taking? Do you feel they’re pushing us toward a more equal society, or are they entrenching power in fewer hands? Perhaps you could leave your bubble and look around.
Some people will be complacent until it hits them in the wallet, which means they don’t get it anyway. At this moment the oligarchs have won in the US. Everyone has bought in. They have the money, the technology and the power. It will take a grassroots movement to change the situation at great human cost. People are in shock right now. We’ll have to see what develops. It will be an uphill fight against the odds. People will have to wake up to where we are and what we’ve lost. A lot of young people have no experience or memory of it. They are understandably cynical. They think it’s a joke. I don’t blame them. This consumer society has corrupted everybody.
Very much so, and education seems to have driven out the exploratory urge of children, teaching them to sit still and listen, rather than discover for themselves.
We are so distracted that we don’t even realise it, and because we never leave the matrix, we never realise how caught up we are.
→ 
). A couple things: 1) The West, over the long haul, seems to be on a perpetual path of improvement. The injustices it committed in the past no longer happen to any degree even remotely to its past. And it will continue to improve. We just require patience. 2) The philosophy of MAGA isn’t that we should return to a past state (at least not in my interpretation), it’s that if you look at the state of America lately, it seems to be in a state of decline–the good things it can boast about are getting worse and the bad things it should improve on are also getting worse. There was a point in American history when she was at her best–that’s not today–and the MAGA movement is about restoring the good things about that time without restoring the bad things. Trump, for example, seems to think the 1950s were that time–great economy, a world superpower on the global stage, maximized freedom for it’s citizens, respect and admirations from others around the world, making leaps and bounds in technology, etc.–but it was also a time when women were confined to the home (not legally but through social pressure) expected to be good house wives and mothers, civil rights for blacks and other minorities weren’t yet recognize or written into law, homosexuals were marginalized and shunned by “good Christians”–but MAGA means bringing back the good things without the bad. At least in my interpretation–not necessarily Trump’s or any other conservative–for the “greatness” of the past need not depend on the coexisting “badness” of the past. America is proud of its leaps and bounds over social injustices–its overcoming slavery, universal suffrage for women, the Civil Rights Act–the problems these fixed aren’t things it wants to bring back nor things it sees as what made it great at one time. If this is the way America brings itself back to the “good ol’ times” it will accomplish what you espouse–in your words “evolving toward a system that actually embodies justice, democracy, and human dignity.” → 
