No, calling things/people/ideas communist is still 100% in play by the Republican party. McCarthy-ism is in full swing, and they've even added "antisemite" as another hot label they can throw on people to tarnish them. They have called the people protesting "raging commies" and other, similar phrases. Trump has called judges that act against him communist as well [1]
They've claimed this is the result of or at the behest of 'ultra capitalism'. I don't even mind hyperbole--call it fascism if you want--but at least use the dimensionally-correct terms. This is like when people call everything 'neoliberal'.
Sort of and to varying degrees. Neoliberal is a funny one because it's used as a thoughtless pejorative by both the left and right.
I've heard people say housing policy has failed because it's too neoliberal meaning too free market, and then other people say it's failed because it's too neoliberal i.e. too much government intervention.
Neoliberalism is basically just markets-by-default and evidence-based alternatives when they fail.
> Neoliberalism is basically just markets-by-default and evidence-based alternatives when they fail.
That's not though. I think the name is from the 'New classical school', oppose Keynesian economics. I think the meaning drifted to mean supply-side economics (direct inheritor from the Chicago school and the new classical school).
Neoliberalism can't be 'evidence-based' when it rejects basic observation (like those from MMT. You can reject MMT 'solutions', that's fine, I do too. Don't reject evidence though).
Let's be honest, even being an MM theorist is a form of self selection that enables another kind of discussion. Neoliberal disagreement with MMT is categorically different from e.g. its disagreements with neocons or socdems in general. The latter are often just moral beliefs or running with first principles in a way that niche economic frameworks are not.
I think your criticism of it as not being 'evidence based' because it 'rejects basic observation' is emotive but fundamentally it's still a technical criticism, not a moral one. Neocon criticisms of neoliberalism (even if they misidentify what that means) revolve around the decay of traditional values, for example. Socdems around inequality (which to them is ipso facto bad).
I think i disagree? Socdems are mostly weird keynesians, and think of the economy from the demand side. For them, inequality is fundamentally bad because it reduce aggregate demand. You know the legend about Ford paying its employee more so they could afford cars (it was not, competent auto/metallurgy workers were rare and took time to train, he paid them more because he had to to keep them working for him)? That's basically a socdem wet dream (that's why some socdems accepted trickle-down economics like neolibs (i.e without any shred of evidence), because it conform with the theory).
But that's true that a lot of socdems don't really understand economic theory and so some criticism seems empty, because they repeat a criticism they did not understood. And that's ok, because macroeconomics is the less scientific of all social science field (for good reason), and who would want to bother with it (unless you're an idiot who took that in college because it seemed to pair well with math :/)
I recently saw an interesting explanation. The point was, that capitalism is not (just) an economical system. It's a system of power in which capital can (and almost always does) overrule everything else. If you take this stance, capitalism is to blame for all the good and bad things that happen in the capitalist country. Democracy is just the way how capital rules.
“It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."
"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"
"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did," said Ford. "It is."
"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"
It's a contradiction only if you understand democracy as a theoretical ideal. Practical democracies, as implemented in western countries, in recent decades proven themselves to be completely controllable by capital, both the democratic elites and democratic masses.
I think we should rather go with practical outcome not the stated theoretical ideas. It's also a good way of evaluating communism and probably other systems.
Aren't all country-scale (economic, governance, etc.) systems also 'systems of power'? It's not like the most powerful people of the USSR didn't leverage that system.
Whatever the rules are, people end up adapting to and gaming them to entrench and grow their own position, typically at the expense of everyone else.
I’m reading “ultra-capitalists” here as “those that control an extreme proportion of capital” rather than “those who believe really strongly in capitalism as a system”, though tbf that venn diagram may well be a donut…
Technically, Venn Diagrams don't show _degree_ of overlap :)
Although re your actual point: the current admin only gifts things like this to a chosen few; a small subset of those with extreme capital. So it seems much more appropriate to call it cronyism, or some such thing, rather than capitalism in the sense of merely controlling capital.
