I think all groups pursue their own interests. Ethnic groups, economic classes, whatever, any identifiable group will produce at least some effort towards advocating for the interests of that group, whatever they are. The problem with capitalism isn’t so much that capitalist are any morally worse than any other group, it’s just that they have so much power as a group that when they start pursuing their interests they end up completely dominating everyone else and throwing the whole system out of whack. This is what makes worker cooperatives so attractive. You remove capitalists as a group and give the social power they used to have to the workers – a much larger group, with interests that are much more similar to the general interest.
Cryptocurrencies (or just alternate currencies generally) are actually a pretty neat idea for getting around resource limitations.
Imagine if the DSA created a new currency: DSA Bucks (DBs). These can be used to pay your group dues, get into group events with cover charges, or buy DSA merchandise at a rate of $1 per DB. You can get them by buying them at that price from the DSA, or by doing stuff for the DSA or selling stuff to the DSA in exchange for payment in DBs. There could then be the standard cryptocurrency online marketplaces allowing people to sell their DBs for dollars, presumably at a steep discount since obviously a $1 DSA coupon is not worth anywhere near a $1. Still, there would be some demand since everyone in DSA is paying dues, and there’s a lot of money to be saved by buying DBs at a discount and paying dues in those rather than donating the dollars directly. If there’s a decent sized marketplace, which there presumably could be if this was rolled out at DSA chapters nationwide, the currency starts to gain real value and the DSA essentially becomes a currency issuer.
Carbon taxes are basically the perfect policy. Set a desired maximum level of carbon output, estimate the tax needed to get to that level, and levy it. Adjust as needed to keep at target level, which should itself be gradually declining. That’s all pretty standard.
A thought occurred to me today that a nice improvement would be to include a “negative carbon tax” in the package. The idea would be to make adding carbon to the atmosphere and taking carbon out of the atmosphere equivalent. Whatever amount you would have to pay for emitting a certain amount of carbon, you’d receive for taking that amount of carbon out of the atmosphere. So if you see an opportunity to remove carbon from the atmosphere, you’d have an incentive to take it and get paid. And indeed, a whole carbon capture industry could come into being, effectively getting paid by the government to remove carbon from the atmosphere on whatever scale they can manage. This could of course be paid for by the carbon tax, which would by definition be plenty of money as long as more carbon is being emitted than is being removed.
Libertarianism is a fundamentally incoherent ideology. It only makes sense if you hold certain assumptions that just aren’t true. The core one of these is the assumption that perfectly free markets will naturally be competitive. The libertarian idea is that monopolies and oligopolies and that sort of thing can only result from government intervention, and that if there was no government every market would be competitive and efficient. This used to be a pretty plausible thing to believe back when it was first thought up in the 1800s. But now we know that’s just not how things work. Government can certainly intervene to create monopolies or hurt competitiveness, but they’re not required. It’s perfectly possible for businesses to use economies of scale and shady deals with other businesses to destroy competition in whatever market they’re in without any help from the government. And meanwhile, the government is the only entity with the power to break up monopolies, and prevent them from forming in the first place.
Competitive markets are an incredibly powerful tool for promoting innovation and efficiency. However, they’re also an incredibly delicate tool that needs careful maintenance. If left to their own devices they break and turn into a series of rent seeking monopolies and oligopolies. There’s a real debate to be had about the merits of markets versus central planning. What’s not really debatable is that if you’re using markets you need to keep them working properly or you have the worst of both worlds: one big organization without the pressure of competition running everything, but controlled by rent-seeking capitalists rather than planners who are at least trying to produce good outcomes.
I define people who are basically on my team politically like this. We agree on a basic humanist, consequentialist worldview of wanting to produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people. And we agree that the basic plan for how to accomplish that is to organize politically, take control of the state, and use state power to transform society in a positive way. We agree that what that basically looks like is increasing the size of the welfare state and democratizing decision making in both the public and private sectors.
And that’s it! We might disagree on the details, but if the above describes you then you are my ally in that project. If it doesn’t then we can still totally be in coalitions together, but eventually there’s something serious that we’re going to have to fight about.
Marx is like Jesus. He had a lot of great qualities and important lessons to teach us, but he’s not god.
People use political labels pretty haphazardly, it is what it is. There’s no real right or wrong definitions, but we can aim for ones that at least cut reality at the joints and illuminate more than they obscure about the people they’re labeling. So here are my definitions:
Right-Left: To be on the right means to be in favor of concentrated wealth and power. To be on the left means to be in favor of dispersing wealth and power widely.
Progressive-Conservative: To be a progressive means to be part of a political movement to make positive change. To be a conservative means to be against whatever it is the current progressive movement wants to do. We can also add “reactionary” to this category, which is actually pretty similar to progressive except the change they want to make involves a reversion to a real or imagined past state of affairs.
Liberal-Authoritarian: To be liberal means to be tolerant and have a “live and let live” attitude. To be an authoritarian means to believe that there are correct and incorrect ways of doing things that need to be enforced.
I would consider myself a left-progressive-liberal. I’d say the modern Democratic Party are mostly centrist conservative liberals, while the modern Republican Party is composed of right-wing reactionary authoritarians. I call the Democrats conservatives because they’re for the most part just trying to defend the gains of past progressive ages rather than make any particular new ones. Even the new policy prescriptions they have are mostly about shoring up systems that are coming apart (healthcare anyone?) rather than embarking on some bold new plan to improve people’s lives.
The American culture wars are pretty much fought based on the liberal-authoritarian axis, on which the country has been steadily moving in the liberal direction for decades. And really that’s for the most part what elections are won and lost on, since those tribal culture war issues are what really seems to get people riled up. Meanwhile we’ve been moving to the right for a few decades despite there not really being much of a popular outcry for doing so because that’s what the right-reactionaries driving the Republican Party really care about.