4 ms·

I think the USA is overdue an ideological renewal. Free market, neoliberal capitalism isn't cutting it. The profit incentive isn't cutting it. Supply chains whe

by aylmao 2y ago

I think the USA is overdue an ideological renewal. Free market, neoliberal capitalism isn't cutting it. The profit incentive isn't cutting it. Supply chains where it takes hundreds of contractors and subcontractors to build anything aren't cutting it. We see this in Boeing, where management with an ideology of profit maximization and a structure dependent on a bunch of suppliers has led to a crisis. On the other side of the Pacific, BYD has vertically integrated critical parts of car manufacturing and now is moving extremely quickly and affordably. Another example; the Federal Government invested billions on banks in 2008, billions into the auto industry in 2009, is now investing billions into Intel, but refuses to take any shares for some reason. It has this ideology of investing billions in the private sector to save industries key to national interest, but "state owning shares is spooky so we want nothing in return". It seems so backwards to me. If the industry is that important to the country, maybe at least have a seat at the board of directors? You don't have no nationalize anything, but at least be in the same room. Other countries, from China to France, have demonstrated there's a lot of value in this state-private sector joint ownership. I don't know what the right answer is, but the current status quo seemingly ain't it— not just in execution, but in ideology. Something fundamental is non-ideal.

FredPret 2y ago
You don't like free markets and you cite semi-governmental-department Boeing and too-big-to-fail-gets-bailed-out-every-time banks and auto companies as an example? You'll find free marketeers everywhere complain about these exact companies, for the same reasons.
- aylmao 2y ago
  I like free markets. I just don't like that China is eating the West's lunch. They just seem better at playing the "free markets" game than anyone on this side of the globe and I think the USA is doubling down on the ideas that defined it in the 1970's, rather than saying— "it's a new world, let's see what we can learn from it to up our game". China has definitely learned plenty from the world, and fundamentally changed the way it does things from 1970 to today. Deng Xiaoping in the 80s marks a stark ideological change that transformed China to the core. Who is the last US president one can say that of?
  - shiroiushi 2y ago
    >Deng Xiaoping in the 80s marks a stark ideological change that transformed China to the core. Who is the last US president one can say that of? Possibly George W. Bush. His disastrous illegal invasion of Iraq marks the point, I think, where America really started going down the tubes.
  - FredPret 2y ago
    China in 1990 was a poverty-stricken, hungry backwater, following a philosophy that just bankrupted their richer big brother. Ideological change was needed. By contrast, the US system of capitalism + democracy is not only blowing the rest of the world out of the water, it has shown itself to be remarkably resilient and responsive to change. China has thus far prospered by being great at manufacturing. Can they innovate and change as needed? We’ll see. The US has thus far prospered by being great at whatever is currently most profitable. Will they change as needed? Yes. Change is how their system works.
    - aylmao 2y ago
      I'm not saying the USA should stop being a democracy, or even being capitalist, like China didn't change its system of government in 1990. What I'm saying is its fundamental beliefs, goals derived from those beliefs, and systems designed around those goals —even within the same political and economic system that currently exists— could use an update. Let me put it this way. Everyone has heard of Maoism [1] of course. There's also Dengism, which does claims to not reject Marxism–Leninism or Maoism, but instead adapt them to the times China was going through [2]. Turns out what Mao believed might or might not be true, but it certainly wasn't working. A change in system of government wasn't needed, but a change in philosophy was. Now Xi'ism [3] has been taking shape, and rightly so. The world, and China's place in it, are very different from where they were two decades ago. It doesn't seem to far-fetched to re-think what the purpose of that government is, what it believes to be true, and to figure out how to shape policy around it. To give another example closer to the USA, in 2022 Mexican President Obrador held a rally, where outlined the philosophy of his political movement. Inheriting largely from what people had been calling Obradorism, he defined Mexican Humanism, which takes from the general current of mumanism but adapts it to the moral and ethic values, the needs, and other philosophical currents of Mexican politics [4]. It just seems to be there haven't been fundamental "-isms" in the USA in a while. The philosophy is the same. The USA considers its position in the world the same. The game the country is playing, it's purpose in the world, it's goals all seem the same as they did last century. All we get is "Bidenomics" or "Trumponomics", which are not so much philosophies, but just different ways of spending money within the confines of the same set of beliefs— corporatism, neoliberalism, hegemonism in the exterior, political nationalism in the interior. IMO presidents and candidates here just seem to have so little substance in ideology. Bernie is the most recent one I can think that really talked ideology, and spoke widely about democratic socialism. He wasn't talking about tearing the constitution, just about thinking of different goals within the same framework of government. I'm not surprised that "identity politics" takes over instead, and people come to worry about where the grandparents of a candidate were born. If candidates give you little philosophy to relate to, I guess you have to assume their philosophy based on their skin color. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maoism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maoism [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deng_Xiaoping_Theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deng_Xiaoping_Theory [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xi_Jinping_Thought https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xi_Jinping_Thought [4]: https://puedjs.unam.mx/revista_tlatelolco/el-concepto-de-humanismo-mexicano-y-su-valor-como-categoria-historica/ https://puedjs.unam.mx/revista_tlatelolco/el-concepto-de-hum...

by aylmao 2y ago

FredPret 2y ago

You don't like free markets and you cite semi-governmental-department Boeing and too-big-to-fail-gets-bailed-out-every-time banks and auto companies as an example? You'll find free marketeers everywhere complain about these exact companies, for the same reasons.

aylmao 2y ago
I like free markets. I just don't like that China is eating the West's lunch. They just seem better at playing the "free markets" game than anyone on this side of the globe and I think the USA is doubling down on the ideas that defined it in the 1970's, rather than saying— "it's a new world, let's see what we can learn from it to up our game". China has definitely learned plenty from the world, and fundamentally changed the way it does things from 1970 to today. Deng Xiaoping in the 80s marks a stark ideological change that transformed China to the core. Who is the last US president one can say that of?
- shiroiushi 2y ago
  >Deng Xiaoping in the 80s marks a stark ideological change that transformed China to the core. Who is the last US president one can say that of? Possibly George W. Bush. His disastrous illegal invasion of Iraq marks the point, I think, where America really started going down the tubes.
- FredPret 2y ago
  China in 1990 was a poverty-stricken, hungry backwater, following a philosophy that just bankrupted their richer big brother. Ideological change was needed. By contrast, the US system of capitalism + democracy is not only blowing the rest of the world out of the water, it has shown itself to be remarkably resilient and responsive to change. China has thus far prospered by being great at manufacturing. Can they innovate and change as needed? We’ll see. The US has thus far prospered by being great at whatever is currently most profitable. Will they change as needed? Yes. Change is how their system works.
  - aylmao 2y ago
    I'm not saying the USA should stop being a democracy, or even being capitalist, like China didn't change its system of government in 1990. What I'm saying is its fundamental beliefs, goals derived from those beliefs, and systems designed around those goals —even within the same political and economic system that currently exists— could use an update. Let me put it this way. Everyone has heard of Maoism [1] of course. There's also Dengism, which does claims to not reject Marxism–Leninism or Maoism, but instead adapt them to the times China was going through [2]. Turns out what Mao believed might or might not be true, but it certainly wasn't working. A change in system of government wasn't needed, but a change in philosophy was. Now Xi'ism [3] has been taking shape, and rightly so. The world, and China's place in it, are very different from where they were two decades ago. It doesn't seem to far-fetched to re-think what the purpose of that government is, what it believes to be true, and to figure out how to shape policy around it. To give another example closer to the USA, in 2022 Mexican President Obrador held a rally, where outlined the philosophy of his political movement. Inheriting largely from what people had been calling Obradorism, he defined Mexican Humanism, which takes from the general current of mumanism but adapts it to the moral and ethic values, the needs, and other philosophical currents of Mexican politics [4]. It just seems to be there haven't been fundamental "-isms" in the USA in a while. The philosophy is the same. The USA considers its position in the world the same. The game the country is playing, it's purpose in the world, it's goals all seem the same as they did last century. All we get is "Bidenomics" or "Trumponomics", which are not so much philosophies, but just different ways of spending money within the confines of the same set of beliefs— corporatism, neoliberalism, hegemonism in the exterior, political nationalism in the interior. IMO presidents and candidates here just seem to have so little substance in ideology. Bernie is the most recent one I can think that really talked ideology, and spoke widely about democratic socialism. He wasn't talking about tearing the constitution, just about thinking of different goals within the same framework of government. I'm not surprised that "identity politics" takes over instead, and people come to worry about where the grandparents of a candidate were born. If candidates give you little philosophy to relate to, I guess you have to assume their philosophy based on their skin color. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maoism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maoism [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deng_Xiaoping_Theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deng_Xiaoping_Theory [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xi_Jinping_Thought https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xi_Jinping_Thought [4]: https://puedjs.unam.mx/revista_tlatelolco/el-concepto-de-humanismo-mexicano-y-su-valor-como-categoria-historica/ https://puedjs.unam.mx/revista_tlatelolco/el-concepto-de-hum...