Ideology confusion

Post Reply New Topic

During the Cold War, the Soviet Bloc told the world they meant to rid the world of Capitalism (and Imperialism although that would seem closely associated with Capitalism in their world view). Most mainstream Western thought, then and now, perceived the USSR as a totalitarian dystopia in which individual freedom was greatly curtailed and quality of life was dreadfully low, due to lack of reliable access to consumer goods, the tiny political élite being the exception who had access to merchandise denied to almost everyone else.

Westerners supported the Cold War largely because the saw the USSR as a threat. Millions emigrated from the Soviet Bloc to begin new lives in the West, the vast majority of those settled in the USA. Almost nobody left the West to live in the Soviet Bloc. Those who did typically faced arrest in their home countries.

The West did have some Soviet sympathizers. There were quite a few in Chile. When Erich Honecker, former head of the DDR government, left Germany, he was welcomed in Chile as a friend despite having hardly any friends in his own country.

Fast forward to today. The Soviet Union is long gone. Despite the authoritarian nature of today's Russian government (in practice if not on paper) we don't see Russia taking sides against Capitalism per se. But in the West, or especially the USA, a grassroots movement opposed to Capitalism has arisen. The most enthusiastically celebrated figure in today's US Politics, Zohran Mamdani, holds the following views regarding Capitalism (this is the synopsis of a much lengthier response from Google's AI):

I used the AI because I despair of finding a clearly unbiased site or video addressing this topic.

Mamdani advocates a democratically socialist approach to organizing society. But what exactly is Socialism? In my previous research, the most widely accepted definition has been state ownership of the means of production. A democratic state? Not easily determined! Despite that many Western countries have a Socialist Party that plays a major role in their parliaments, one could argue that actual Socialism hasn't very much been practiced in any of those countries. Many practice Social Democracy which basically means that citizens are given a great many entitlements such as basic health care and old age pensions. One possible example of Socialism in modern history would be the government of François Mitterand in France of the early 1980s. That government nationalized a couple of major banks, but at the end of the day, they were still banks and still conducted business as always so far as I know.

Conclusion: No real conclusion, but why did the West post-WWII seem to be defending Capitalism against what it perceived as a totalitarian system, but today's Westerners now want to fight against Capitalism, and exactly how do they propose to replace it? I find the whole matter to be perplexing.

Things go in cycles. Here in The USA, I think people like AOC, Jasmine Crockett, Bernie Sanders, and now Zohran Mamadi as well as some Youtubers are showing younger people and even some middle-aged people like me, that maybe we need to try something else than what we have been getting in the last nearly 50 years. Meaning, Neo-liberalism/Reaganism, Trickledown economics, or whatever you want to call it.

Over 4 decades of unregulated capitalism(seemingly). Basically, we are in a 2nd gilded age in the USA. People like Trump, Bezos, The Walton Family, Koch brothers, and the like, it's " Let them eat cake".

I'm tired of the nation's wealth going into a bloated military, tax cuts for the rich, austerity measures, and other nonsense the far right and MAGA support.

Some of the cold war, the west grossly exaggerated. The Soviets were indeed a threat to Europe but to The USA, not nearly as much as the government told people. McCarthyism is still alive and well however, especially among white working class people.

"today's Westerners now want to fight against Capitalism, and exactly how do they propose to replace it? I find the whole matter to be perplexing." I think you find it perplexing because you try to lump together a lot of people with different opinions and world views into a "they". I am sure there are a few communists out there, alongside socialists, social democrats and people that would prefer if the US would be more like the European capitalist Western European countries or even a step further to the left like Nordic countries like Denmark, Sweden or Norway.

I spent an hour learning about Mamdani's politics.But I don't think he has a surprising new idea.
Mamdani Belike:Tax the rich and use it to guarantee the quality of life of the poor, such as housing and medical care.
"Efficiency is the first, with due consideration to fairness" is the proposition of CCP in 1993. Mamdani is no further to the left of the political spectrum than this claim, let alone the Soviet Union during the Cold War

You'll never get a satisfactory answer because capitalism, the freedom to have and to hold and exchange wealth, is a fundamental right in a free society. To be anti capitalist is to be anti freedom; I don't think any of those who purport such ideals ever think it through, it's just a kind of dewy eyed "something something utopia" ideal. Useful idiots ripe for the picking by the calculating schemers who promise their ideals, and all they ask is the absolute power over basic freedom necessary to enact it.. Ironic how they constantly try to find ways to out compete each other in "championing the minorities" while chanting "death to the capitalists", but come the revolution there'll still be those who think on their feet and take advantage and rise through the corruption while minorities, the sick and the needy, will be the first to be trodden and crushed as freedoms are stripped. they always are. There are countless examples to study, and it'll frighten you how interchangeable the language being spoken in pre-revolution russia or china was.

The soviet threat was ideological as much as anything, that western society would be usurped from within rather than rained upon with bombs. The militarily threat was perhaps more the governments of the day way of depicting it as it fitted, but the threat was real; the ideas of marx continue to this day to have an allure millions find irresistible, even as unformed as they are, and with the bloodied history of attempts so prevalent. Everything from the rise of the nazis to the creation of many capitalist-welfare states can be related to the threatening allure of the soviet/collectivist dream.

I have a relative who has some really strange ideas about Russia and the Soviet Union.

For example, he thinks that Russia is just toying with the Ukraine. He thinks that once Russia gets serious about winning, they will take the entire country within a few days, possibly within a few hours. He thinks they are unstoppable.

What is most bizarre to me is his views on the Soviet Union in World War II. It doesn't matter to him that the Soviet Union and Germany pledged not to interfere with each other in the late 1930s.

He thinks that the US should not have been involved in World War II; that the US had no business being in the Hawaiian Islands and that instead of going to war after the attack on Pearl Harbor, we should have vacated Hawaii and let Japan take the Hawaiian islands.

He thinks that the US impact on World War II was very minimal and that it was really the Soviet Union who defeated Germany and that the Soviet Union should have gotten all of Germany and however much of Europe they wanted.

He thinks that Russia should have gotten control of Japan to do with as they pleased. He thinks that the ONLY reason we used the atomic bombs was to force Japan to surrender to the US so that we could keep them from surrendering to the Soviet Union and becoming part of the Soviet Union.

I think Pat Buchanan wrote a book called A Republic, not an empire exposing similar views. The Soviet Union controlling Japan is an awful thought

I feel like I want to summarize my OP. Basically what I meant was, during the Cold War, the Soviets told us they were fighting against Capitalism and we had vowed to stop them. Now we are being told that we should fight against Capitalism. It's confusing don't you think?

This is a fight for the right of people to be left alone, not Capitalism.

In no society is this "freedom" totally unlimited. Every government is necessarily supported by taxes, for example, although there is variation as to what gets taxed and by how much. Also, AFAIK, every government has some regulation of trade -- the only question is which regulations actually make sense.

IMO the total elimination of ALL taxes is neither feasible nor desirable, and the total elimination of ALL regulation of trade is not desirable, although SOME regulations are counterproductive and should be gotten rid of.


The main objection is to too much wealth accumulating in the hands of too few people. One does not need to be a "utopian" to see this as problematic.


Agreed that violent revolutions are generally undesirable and likely to lead to long periods of instability, tyranny, and/or reigns of terror.

Nonviolent piecemeal reform is much better, if possible.

I realise the term can be taken different ways but If by free society I'd meant anarchy I'd have made that clear, and in any event, support of capitalism/personal wealth requires protection thus an enforced legal framework whatever the an-caps like to think.



Power/wealth/success has a tendency to distil in an unrigged game, Is it "wrong" that Usain Bolt was so successful at being really runny, should we have taken measures to stop his accumulation of medals because it was unfair on all the other runners? Is it fair that metallica have sold a gazillion albums while tons of bands have no fans, should be tell people they can't have the metallica album because it's unfair and they're being allocated "billy and the powercats" new CD instead?

My critique @ utopianism is the mentality that it's a simple problem [of greed alone] and an easy fix, the mob just needs to go after those-with. It doesn't work, won't work and hasn't ever worked, over and over.

That said Humans (and you're far from alone among animal species) have an instinctive want for reciprocity and fair play and those-with need to be mindful of, and in fairness many do and always have done, opting to give large chunks of their fortunes away in charities, foundations etc.



Agreed. The daft thing is that both the "anti-capitalist left" and the "anti-immigration right" are being driven by the same pervading sense that there's a contraction of what's available to go around, I think.