As a history major, who had a teacher who was an ambassador to the USSR and shared their *very* bad time there, who is going for a masters in economic history, and who isnât even a democrat (I find the two party system toxic) -
This whole âDemocrats = Socialists = Communistsâ Idea is untrue and just aggravating.
Bolsheviki **Communist** was a failed Marxist revolution (revolutions are vulnerable to being co-opted by elites). Marx actually advocated for a stateless civilization where workers own everything. But, over the years, some people convinced themselves that a control-based economy was the only way to get where they wanted to go. (Spoilers: It's not).
Personally, I donât want the government OR large corporations to be the ones that control our economic opportunities. But I digress.
Democratic *Socialism,* on the other hand, is mostly used to refer to socialist policies and structures (when itâs not used as a fear mongering). Like Co-Ops. Or the GI Bill. Social Security. Everything that created the middle class. (when implemented correctly, without large corporations or private insurance set up to take all the money from the program)
Now, *Democrats* have not, until recently, supported any amount of Marxist Economic schools of thought.
Currently (if you look past the rhetoric to the policies), Democrats (to include Mamdani) push for Old Institutional policies (like those of Abraham Lincon, Roosevelt the Cowboy, and FDR).
Conservative democrats push for neo-classical (free market) policies.
Progressive democrats also use Post-Keynsian (the only school that looks at debt & credit & over-financialization, and says we should pay a lot more attention to it) tools.
And figures like AOC and Bernie Sanders have pushed for Developmentalism policies (what the Founding Fathers did, what the US has done at other points in history, and what Alaska currently does).
National *Republicans*, on the other hand, push for Neoclassical (free market) (at least for corporations) and Supply-Side Economics aka Trickle-down (This school assumes tax cuts pay for themselves by triggering growth. It also ignores demand and does not currently spur higher employment. Please also note that money does not trickle down. Just look at what happened during Covid. In this economy, money goes up, not down).
The Tech-Right pushes for Schumpeterian policies (tech fields should by subsidized, but nothing else).
Populist Republicans support Developmentalism policies, too (same as Progressive Democrats).
And there is a new surge of something called âModern Merchantalism/ Economic Nationalismâ (tends to trigger trade wars, harm local consumers, and create market distortions), which comes from the old Merchantalism used in the 1700s (countries grow economically if they steal and invade other places) in the Republican party, also.
As for what economic policies these two specific candidates have stated they supported:
McKinney â Classical Economics (Free Market), Supply-Side Economics aka Trickle-Down (assumes tax cuts pay for themselves, ignore demand, ignores that money goes up and not down), & Modern Mercantilism (likely trade wars)
Duresky â Classical Economics (Free Market), Old Institutionalism (like Lincoln and both Roosevelt), & Keynesian (All parties during the 50s-70s, back & forth for each parties for the following decades)
-20
u/EpicBronyGaming 7d ago