American Politics the 2016 edition

A Person wrote: Theory is cheap of course, but to ignore it is to ignore the fact that class interests exist, and will continue to erode all fights for progress unless they are addressed.

I do not ignore class interests; I only do not advocate making class issues the sole driver of macro-economic policy.  

A Person wrote: I do think Russia and China and many other places who had authoritarian socialist regimes were very far from perfect, and should be critiqued for that.

On the other hand, they compare much better to USA in terms of having a large land area and population.  Do you not see how authoritarian govt of some sort becomes a necessary evil in such a situation?  A large country must maintain a strong army to defend its borders.  Now if you break up USA back into 51 nation-states, then yes some of them could adopt socialism in the puritanical sense but how long they survive being conquered is anybody's guess.  Even India maintains an army and has to spend a considerable portion of its budget on the army.  A good portion of that allocation may well be inflated by purchase lobbies but it's nobody's case that India doesn't need an army.  

A Person wrote: I disagree, there is nothing dogmatic about realizing that they cannot coexist.

Excuse me but what exactly do I need to realise when I know first hand that in India govt owned organisations, private enterprises and co-operative associations all co-exist?  So, no, it's entirely possible.  Amul is a shining example of a very successful co-operative.  

A Person wrote: I do not think it is far fetched at all though. Classical liberalism is right wing, and social democracy is a continuation of it.

You have once again failed to explain how redistribution of any sort could come under right wing ideology.

A Person wrote: Reforms are nice in that they help regular working class people and protect them from the dangers of pure capitalism, but unfortunately they do not address the real problem, and are very vulnerable to attack. The US offers a great example of this with The New Deal. It was a great set of reforms at first, but from the very beginning capitalists and those in political power who favored them have worked to subvert and destroy those reforms. We are now in desperate need of a restoration of such reform, and Sanders is helping to bring that to light.

The short answer to the above is any political system can be corrupted over a period of time and history shows this to be the case time and again.  A flaw in human nature cannot be corrected by ideological alignments.  So I do agree that reforms are needed and substantially reintroducing New Deal policies, starting with the tax rate that prevailed at the time, would make a world of difference.  Also bringing back the welfare that Clinton killed in the 90s.  There is much that can be done to address inequality without depriving somebody's freedom to start a business venture and forcing collectivism down his throat. That would only be a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

A Person wrote: Moreover, welfare states and social democracy are not real solutions because they are completely dependent on the fact that we can now ship jobs to impoverished places all over the globe, in effect exporting the most gross exploitative practices needed to sustain such a society.

They weren't for a long time though.  And a country like Germany still has a strong domestic manufacturing economy.  What is the difference between Germany and USA?  Well, the difference between Made in Germany and Made in USA.  Volkswagen notwithstanding, Made in Germany still stands for quality and the best technology money can buy.  Made in USA has lost its sheen over the years.  Outside USA, not many American companies not named Apple command respect for their products.  There seems to have been a management failure in USA over the years.  And while ALL workers and employees are not to be blamed for management failure, the people that make up management are also Americans.  This is a pretty fundamental issue that nobody seems to talk about.  

A Person wrote:  But you can't pretend other less fortunate places have been ravaged by those practices.

Which are some of these places? China aside, it is totalitarian states, military states, dictatorships that have fared badly in the third world. Including the extreme left states in Latin America, who were over dependent on commodity produce.   It is not that the rest may exactly be shining beacons of hope but many of them have at least improved their lot over the last several years.