Which political ideology do you most identify with?
Conservatism fundamentally hinders progress, yes. The entire purpose of Conservatism is to conserve…
Even in the case of free trade, it has merely become a detriment to modern society, as a means of maintaining the global hegemony of capitalist inequality. Under systems of free trade, private interests use the guise of the market to further siphon wealth and economic ownership away from working class people and into the hands of private owners. These privatized, free market systems only drive class inequality further, as they are designed to benefit a handful of private interests over the direct needs and interests of the public, and should be replaced with a more collectivized and democratic system, made to benefit society as a whole. However, conservatives yet again oppose a democratic economic system, because conservatism aims to conserve the current system, which guarantees the dominance of wealth into the hands of the ruling class. Progress would be in criticizing and abolishing the current economic structures that cause the inequality in the first place, which is what conservatives are against.
Consider the Scandinavian countries, which successfully blend free market capitalism with strong social safety nets. Or take the example of Singapore, a country with free trade policies that has also managed to maintain relatively low levels of income inequality through robust social policies.
The issue of wealth inequality is indeed a serious one and it's absolutely necessary to address it. But it's also important to consider that completely dismantling our current systems might lead to unforeseen consequences. Gradual reform, rather than immediate revolution, can often lead to more… Read more
@VulcanMan6 7mos7MO
These "nicer" forms of capitalism, called Social Democracies, only aim to temporarily alleviate the inherent, structural problems of capitalism; they only offer band-aid solutions of limited social safety net improvements to avoid addressing the root cause of the inequality: private capital ownership controlling our production and distribution of resources for personal profits.
Now, I am not opposed to gradual change in ultimately dismantling such systems of exploitation, if need be, but the problem is that we aren't doing that either. Even the most "progressive" of… Read more
Look at the Nordic countries - they consistently rank among the highest in terms of quality of life, happiness, and social mobility, which are all markers of a healthy society. These countries have managed to create an effective blend of free markets and strong state intervention, leading to high levels of prosperity and social equality.
On the point of conservatism's resistance to change, it's important to consider that not all change is necessarily positive or beneficial. For instance, in the 20th century, we saw the rapid rise and fall of various authoritarian ideologies that… Read more
@VulcanMan6 7mos7MO
Again, the capitalist models of the Nordic countries, called Social Democracies, are only temporary band-aid solutions to the problems inherent in capitalism. While they are undeniably better than "more capitalistic" nations with less social safety nets, they still do not address the root cause(s) of the problems in the first place: the private ownership of our economy for personal profits.
And of course all change is subjective, otherwise there would be no disagreement between conservatives and progressives. The issue, as I would argue, is that conservatives tend to reject systems… Read more
@GeckoPaisleySocialist7mos7MO
Take a look at the tech boom for instance - it wouldn't have been possible without the incentive of private profit. This doesn't mean the system is perfect, but it's not all doom and gloom either.
In terms of property rights, well, imagine you've spent years perfecting your grandma's secret cookie recipe and you've turned it into a thriving business. Would you be okay with someone else waltzing in, claiming a share of your cookie empire, and reaping the rewards of your hard work? There's a fine line between sharing the pie and hijacking the bakery.
So, I'm curious. How would you counteract the potential for decreased motivation and innovation if profit is removed as an incentive in a more socialist system?
