by LLP
November 10, 2024
Happy elections! It's that time of every four years when about one in five of us votes for a Republican, and another one in five votes for a Democrat. By right winger maths that will equal everyone as obviously two fifths equals 100% in the Lafferverse. As the country, or at least the 2/5, decides our fate and votes for the R or D I think it might be important to clear up some common misconceptions about leftism and economics. What they are, how they're supposed to work and where we fit into the system.
What are they?
In the world today political and economic systems are frequently discussed without clear definitions or an understanding of the topic. Terms like left wing and right wing, capitalism, socialism, and communism are often thrown around as catch all phrases for whole political systems regardless of how they function. These terms have become highly distorted and are rarely used to accurately describe the principles and economics they originally represented.
As previously discussed, at its core, leftism is a philosophy rooted in justice and the general welfare. The founding principles of the United States were written by the original left, and in order to achieve fairness and adapt to changing times, the Constitution had to be amendable. This flexibility is key to ensuring that the interests of the wealthy don’t dominate policy to the exclusion of everyone else, it allows us to reform society and provide required mechanisms that maintain the systems we depend on.
Right wingers on the other hand adhere to ideologies usually based on rigid beliefs and an obtuse defense of systems that primarily benefit the few. Most right wing adherents defend bibles long after their core beliefs have been disproven. Right wing economics are pretty simple, take any given economy and turn it into a game of monopoly, strip citizenship from lessers or the undeserving and turn them into slaves. Right wing ideologies are generally fantasies about being kings and having slaves and telling people what to do while living in luxury, authoritarian fantasies the people historically have to deal with violently in most cases.
These concepts are easy to grasp in their basic forms, they set initial conditions for our overall state of being. Things get murkier when terms like capitalism, socialism or communism are used in place of those otherwise universal terms. They're generally weaponized by political movements to push an agenda. For instance Marx wouldn't shut up about Capitalism being the main enemy of his stories, but in reality he was attacking rival feudalists and not capitalism the economic system. These movements often create new terms to manipulate followers, such as "late stage capitalism", "crony capitalism", "anarcho-capitalism", "eco-socialism", "democratic socialism", "third way", the list goes on and on. The common thread is their opposition to capitalism the economic system because it encourages competition for resources they feel entitled to control, and they do everything possible to ensure you lack the means to make a capitalistic economic system work properly.
Let’s start with the basics to clear up the confusion and get you slaying with more accurate information in your online battles. The truth is that most people, regardless of their political wing, don’t really understand economics and more often than not repeat what they pick up from their favorite personalities who are mostly repeating propaganda they got from other movement leaders. At its most basic level, the purpose of an economic system is to get resources to people. An economy exists so that everyone can have access to the goods and services they may want or need to live. A lot of people though apparently see it as a way to teach morality lessons and/or create schemes that equate to slavery or involuntary servitude. These additions have nothing to do with the concept of getting citizens with assumed basic equal rights resources and are pretty obviously ways to manipulate markets and control people or behavior for various reasons.
The fundamental difference between a capitalistic and a socialistic or communistic economic system is who drives production. In capitalism, it's the consumer. Businesses must continually prove their value by meeting the needs and desires of consumers, as their success depends on providing goods and services people actually want. In this system, profit is the reward for benefiting consumers. No one under capitalism is entitled to production resources indefinitely as the system of consumption is ongoing and never ending. On the other hand, in socialism and communism, all resources are owned and production is driven by the state or a central authority that determines what is produced based on what it thinks society needs rather than market demands.
How do they work?
Now that we've looked at the basic principles behind these key terms and the main difference between the economic systems, it's important to understand how they're supposed to work in practice to avoid mislabeling, either intentionally or not, by movement propagandists and their cheerleaders. The goal of an economy is to ensure that everyone can access what they need to live, thrive, and contribute.
There's a passage in Adam Smith's the Wealth of Nations that captures the essence of capitalism,
"Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production; and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer. The maxim is so perfectly self-evident that it would be absurd to attempt to prove it. But in the mercantile system, the interest of the consumer is almost constantly sacrificed to that of the producer; and it seems to consider production, and not consumption, as the ultimate end and object of all industry and commerce." — book IV, chapter VIII, conclusion of the mercantile system
I've never heard a right winger explain how their ideologies adhere to this foundational idea that places the consumer at the center of the economic system, with production, or the "supply side", existing solely to fulfill the consumer's wants and needs. It's clearly telling us capitalism is a demand side economic system. The producer’s role and wealth building is secondary, with their interests addressed only to the extent that they can meet the demands of consumers. Capitalism is a system driven by consumption, where ownership of production resources are determined by the consumption of goods and services. Businesses must prove their worth through their ability to meet those demands. They're permitted to manage, or own if you prefer, the production resources they hold to serve the consumer not the other way around.
In a properly functioning capitalistic economy, equilibrium is achieved by ensuring everyone's consumption is accounted for, at least at a base level. Base consumption is essential for economic balance and safeguards against involuntary servitude. This mechanism would prevent destitution, which leads to debt accumulation simply for existing. This undermines personal freedom and puts citizens at risk of economic slavery. It's the government's job and obligation to provide this security as part of their duty to promote and provide for the general welfare and protect citizens from exploitation, as outlined in the Constitution.
A lot is being said about equity these days, but what's being referred to is economic equity, or numbers of special interest workers in the economy. Financial equity is not the same thing and is going to be key in this process, which might be why they want you to think about the other meaning. Financial equity is assets minus liabilities. Plug into that someone that makes $0 and then subtract all the bills they have, how much equity does that citizen have? Without financial support, people with no money build up negative financial equity over time, which perpetually deepens their ability to get out of that building debt. That daily build up of negative equity is where slavery happens. Accumulating it affects a citizen's ability to compete for resources, politics, education, partners, etc, as well as their children's ability, and as we've previously discussed communists eliminate competition capitalists do not.
Forcing this negative equity onto citizens is itself a manipulation of markets. This type of austerity hurts two entities, the consumer who needed resources and the business that would have otherwise provided those resources. Businesses rely on consistent consumer demand, when citizens can’t meet their basic needs because they don't have the means those businesses are forced to close because of forces outside the normal operation of capitalism.
A system of basic income would introduce the concept of neutral equity. A mechanism that acts as a stabilizer providing the means to participate and be represented in the economy. Capitalism is pure economic democracy when done correctly. The result is an economy where consumers drive production, businesses meet real demand, and wealth is earned through effective service to the market. This is the kind of balance the government is meant to create.
Where are you in it?
With so many popular figures claiming to be sympathetic to various causes, and new movements and parties popping up, some might wonder why it seems like they wake up after every election with their pants around their ankles and their wallet's missing. This perpetual disappointment isn't an accident, it's the result of the third way and centrists who've designed the system so that nothing significant ever changes. They present a set of policies deemed acceptable to the elites, offering just enough of a veneer of progress in some areas to ensure that the core economic structures that benefit the wealthy remain in place.
The third way and centrists often support policies like minimum wages, which only benefit a small group while placing greater burdens on businesses. Some workers may see short term gains, but higher costs can lead to fewer jobs, automation, or closing the business. These ineffective solutions create a false sense of progress, leaving the core systemic economic issues unaddressed. Basic income on the other hand would offer a better mechanism for ensuring the general welfare and a proper capitalistic foundation. It empowers consumers while stimulating the economy and addresses the root causes of poverty.
The destruction of the most popular leftist program in history, Social Security, is on the horizon. The population is aging and low birthrates can't sustain the workforce, and it will soon not be able to meet its obligations. Future generations may be forced to retire later or, in some cases, may not receive benefits at all. Disabilities may not be addressed at all and could become massive financial burdens or even a death sentence. This could be behind some of the push for policies that limit reproductive rights and restrict abortion. Right wingers seek to artificially inflate the birth rate as one way to divert attention for a little bit longer from the real economic restructuring needed to address the issue.
The left and right binary exists as a manifestation of the Lorenz attractor, a concept from chaos theory where dynamic forces within a system converge and influence its trajectory. These forces create a push and pull within the system, leading it toward one of two general outcomes akin to sunny or stormy weather patterns. Just as tiny changes in initial conditions can set the entire system on a different course, our collective decisions in the present moment act as those initial conditions.
Thus, the state controls the government, which controls the mechanisms of the system, ultimately determining where you and yours will end up and your condition while you're here. You are where the state puts you, policies that govern the economy will either empower or disenfranchise you depending on who is setting the initial conditions. Resources are the whole ballgame without them you die or become a slave. This is why supporting the correct redistribution policies are the only way forward, and why they need to be the priority of anyone you put any energy behind from this point forward. We can all be founders as we determine what happens from this point on at every point in time.
Now what?
It was clear after Biden's first year that there would be nothing to look forward to, which set the stage for Trump's victory in 2024. Kamala Harris being an unvoted for DEI candidate made it worse, but the only way the Democrats, or any other party for that matter, were going to win was to offer the right economic policies as primary planks in their platform. They all refused to do that and we got what we got. If even one had offered them we would be in much better shape for 2028 when it really is down to the wire for who gets to determine the future of Social Security.
While politicians argue over third way nonsense and social issues the economic reform we need as urgently as ever will take a backseat for at least 4 more years. If Congress continues to refuse to do its job the next president could executive order the changes we need to the system, as the precedent was set by FDR when he established the committee that created Social Security in the first place, probably shouldn't hold your breath though.
The plan we need is pretty simple as the infrastructure is already in place, we can save Social Security and correct the economy at the same time. Building on what FDR started and Richard Nixon improved upon, the system limits need updated and a new basic income tier added alongside Supplemental Security Income (SSI). The system also needs adjusted with at least a 30% raise to current recipients to truly reflect cost of living adjustments for inflation. This approach solves a huge portion of our economic problems and ensures that only those who follow the rules of the system benefit.
This basic income tier will reorient society towards empowerment and self sufficiency. It addresses poverty directly and helps rebuild the economy from the bottom up. The facts are we all have to consume daily and wealth trickles up, and ownership of resources and control of the economy are related to those two things.
What we need now is leadership that understands the urgency of this reform and has the vision to address these systemic issues. The economic policy positions proposed thus far by third way tools has been insufficient and only serves to reinforce the status quo and preserve the power of the wealthy special interest. A vision for the future starts with a fundamental shift in how we approach the economy, it’s time for our supposed leaders to make the general welfare their priority and start doing their job again.