>

I'm going to stay out of this one, because I don't believe the reddit audience actually understands the depth of the questions being asked. I'm waiting to hear people discussing the future of our species (other than endless war) and the discussion seems limited to present governmental forms.
Thank you for posting my position with a delicacy I don't possess.
Liberal capitalism.
I define this as a republican reform of the corporate system, with more, and meaningful, internal and external checks on corporate governance, and an emergence of more union-owned businesses and shareholder democracy.
This ideology will be the basis for public policies that will expand access to capital broadly, and create a broad-based middle class with a larger share of the wealth than the extreme oligarch minority.
The ideology also includes socialization of some economic sectors, like education, medicine, energy, and media. By "socialization" I really mean local, democratic control, and networked national cooperatives for standardization, best practices, and economy of scale. >

we already have this >

Maybe you think so, but no, we do not have this.
We had something closer to it 1940s-1970s, but even then we did not have what I am predicting.
What we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.
What we have now is a trampling of Article 4 by institutions that are substate actors established under Article 4. 
What we have now is a casino for rich people instead of a capitalist stock market.
What we have now is an unconstitutional system of anti-republican and anti-democratic corporate governance that violates Article 4.
What we have now is a tyrannical corporate system that is hoarding money and resources which they cannot effectively invest, spend or save.
That is not a free market. That is not capitalist competition. That is not an equitable distribution of money or wealth or resources. That is not a good faith bargaining framework. That is a distortion of market forces.
We have a kleptocracy. Organized crime.
I could go on. >


What we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.

That is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. 
Corporations compete and compete and compete, get held back by regulatory systems, lobby to weaken regulations, compete and compete, buy out competitors, and generate oligarchies across industries. There has never been a free market—not one where an individual can adequately compete with a corporation.
Liberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation. >


That is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. 

😁 That sounds similar to Marxist thought.

Liberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.

I would argue we live in a corruption of capitalism and yes I like a little idealism along with my realism.
You may not be aware of it but you may have some Marxism that has crept into your thinking:
trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.
One more thing. Whose individual liberty is getting gains over the last 40 years? Economically speaking? >

I am a marxist, yes. >

Alright then.
You accept the fundamental principles of dialectical materialism?
You believe that a historical narrative describing the social forces in play in society must lead to class warfare, and a decline of capitalism, a rise of socialism, and culminating in a communist state?
I am just as skeptical of that as I am of the historical narrative that the signs and wonders are all around us that Jesus Christ our savior is coming to judge the wicked and rule on earth.
At least Marxism has some credible critiques of social and economic class systems, though. And dialectical materialism need not build a Marxist historical narrative. >

Yep—dialectical materialism and marxist analysis of class and power are the only theoretical principles that have continued to make sense to me as I've aged.
To your second point: “It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.” - Mark Fisher
You and my mom share that same view. I'm less cynical and think it's a material interaction of old age with the world's near-constant experience of tragedy—so much exposure to tragedy after decades of life on this earth it must be the case that this level of tragedy is an anomaly and not the norm, right? Wrong! The world has always been horrible, cruel, and devastating.
It's easy to believe in the second coming of Christ from that frame. As nice as that'd be (for me, as a Christian) I don't think that's the case. >

I understand why you see things the way that you do.
I am not focussed on the theater of tragedy. I see great improvements in the human condition, and I am humbled and grateful for my life here in the United States. I have traveled the world. I have seen some of its less fortunate societies.
I don't see the problems with capitalism as an anomaly. But I do see a path to correct some of those problems. I am not Jesus. I just think I have a reasonable basis for a better system, and if I have imagined it, then I am sure that people who are smarter or more capable than I am have seen it too. >

I believe that the next great ideology that will sweep America will be a violent one, blaming cultural and economic ennui on the usual list of scapegoats and calling for heads.  
We see this ideology's start through the significant rise of political terrorism in the US.  We also see it through the absolute lack of concern for the outcome of elections being affected by violent protest.  
The US is slipping into the mentality that anything is acceptable in terms of gaining or maintaining power.  And that comes with a societal acceptance of using violence as a tool, and not just viewing it as a stochastic accident. >

I disagree.
This is not the "next big ideology" but rather, the whimpering, whining, temper tantrum END of an ideology that has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.
We will have to put some people in timeout. It may be thousands or it may be as many as 100k, but eventually, these violent crybabies will be either removed from society or they will stop being troublemakers.
They have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. They are violent irrational people with spoiled rotten brat unreasonable demands.
What's more, the majority of them are over 60 years old and they are a shrinking minority. >


that has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.

It has not been discarded.  The reaction to January 6 was not opposed, but overwhelmingly, massively, and undeniably in favor. 
Set aside the fact that Marjorie Taylor-Greene, a leader in the insurrection effort, literally presided over the House on Monday.  We need only turn to the law and outcomes.
According to the voting rights lab:

Over the past two legislative sessions, 28 state legislatures have passed legislation that interferes with the fair, nonpartisan administration of elections. Among these attacks are bills that shift the power to oversee elections to partisan actors; threaten election officials with felony charges; provide for partisan-motivated, standardless reviews of certified election results; escalate the investigation and prosecution of purported election crimes; and more.

That's an outright majority of the states that have gone beyond statements, to actually passing legislation through Houses and past the governor's veto, all to enable the next January 6.
And what of the Republicans that led the efforts?  The Republican members of Congress named by January 6 organizations remain in office.  They were just rewarded with the House majority, and greater committee positions.
On the other hand, Republicans that resisted this effort have mostly been removed from office.  8 out of 10 that voted for Trump's impeachment are permanently out of power, some only holding office for a single House term.  No Republican holding federal office has faced even the slightest legal penalty for January 6.  
Our institutions of law and civil discourse have not prevented the next January 6 attack, they've guaranteed it. 
And our 'majority' has only shown that demographic majorities are meaningless, worthless, and pointless compared to electoral majorities.  And Republicans hold a near supermajority of electoral power in the United States practically by default.  They hold something like 70% of all political seats in this country, the supermajority of the Supreme Court, and a near supermajority of state legislatures and governors.  
It doesn't matter that they have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda.  It only matters that they have power, and violence is one of the mechanisms of their power. >

I think you have summed up the fight pretty well.
I'm telling you that it is inevitable that the Republican Party will lose the power that you just described.
They are NOT the ideology of the future. They are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power. Granted, it's slow, but they are not increasing in power, they are decreasing in power. >


They are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power.

Again, demographics don't matter whatsoever.  It is far easier to prevent people from voting than to raise a generation of voters.  Republicans can hold power indefinitely by changing electoral law and stacking the cards in their favor.  
It is far more likely that we will see a Republican one-party governance in the next decade than that we will see the Republican party moderate or dissolve in the next half-century.  We have been teetering around that tipping point for decade, and we have never crept away from the edge. >

I respectfully disagree. >

I believe that a developed nations government can only go for so long without people feeling patriotic about it. They can go pretty long doing things that cause the public to be disenfranchised with them and their management of us, a generation or two. 
I think the US is at both a critically divided point, and an absolute low for patriotism. Baby boomers at least remember their earlier lives, where they felt pride and patriotism for their nation, so they have held onto that for the last few decades. And Gen X grew up hearing their stories and were assured that eventually the government will get sorted out and they would be proud again. 
But millennials, and the coming generations never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic. We were born into the Information Age, which really lifted the red white and blue veil that was over previous generations eyes. 
Once millennials are the majority and in control, they will make sweeping changes to our country I believe. They will have to. If by that point no one feels patriotic anymore, the country either dies or changes. There will be no one to blame then but ourselves if we don’t. 
I’m hoping it’s because a new spirituality emerges, that champions science, and the beauty of nature and reality instead of simple fables we grew up being told to believe in. 
Imagine living in America and actually feeling patriotic about our country, and proud to be an American. A country can only survive for so long without its populace feeling that. >

“Never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic” isn’t true for all millennials. I think that’s largely true for the left. But even as a liberal, I remember the immediate post 9/11 where we had all sorts of patriotism, shit I remember hearing “the taliban song” by Toby Keith with my friends before the war went south.
Even after things got worse, there was still a lot of hope and patriotism in the early Obama years. It’s just there hasn’t been much patriotism since like, his second term.
Gen Z are really the ones growing up like you said there. >

I'm as liberal as you get and I love my country warts and all. And as a boomer I can tell you life wasn't so great back then. Beating your child and wife were acceptable. Schools could paddle kids. Sexual harassment was normal. What is called date rape now was just referred to as a bad date because cops barely responded to stranger rape. They'd laugh at you if you tried to report a man raped you aftee you let him into your home.
Now is better. Well except the never going outside to play. That was better then. >

? I’m sorry, which time period are you referring to? I don’t think millennials were getting paddled in general. 
I do agree now is better in the vast majority of ways. >

I said I was a boomer but paddling is back. In Texas I think. Or maybe Louisiana. I know I saw it somewhere.
You could put your wife in a mental hospital for having an affair back when I was a kid. Boomers who look back fondly on those days are idiots and I have friends who do it. And I remind them of the reality. >

Yikes. I didn't know about the 19 states. >

Socialism is gaining a massive foothold in Gen Z and Millennials. And it only seems to strengthen with age and political engagement, contrary to past assumptions. As our participation grows and the oldest generations die off, that is potentially going to be a massive political shift. >

Bruh just because Disney and Lockheed put a tweet about lgbt support doesn't mean you'll get free Healthcare.
The left has already been monetized by the corporate overlords. >

Lol, some bought and sold corporate Democrats who are willing to pretend universal healthcare would be nice a handful of times a decade aren’t “the left.”
Eventually, a large enough movement will make demands they can’t head off in that way. >

Yeah by and large the current crop of politicians aren't going to be too supportive of moving in a socialist direction, but unless there's a major realignment in the next 20 years, Gen Z is going to vote people in who will be openly socialist. 
This is a generation that has basically nothing going for them and is being shown outright contempt by every major American institution. As soon as they get their hands on the wheel, they are going to swerve hard >

And they'll have the backing of a considerable amount of millennials.
A good majority of the Millennial generation was fucked hard too.  Massive amounts of debt going to school, no home, barely making a living, etc. >

For sure, we're already seeing millennials maintaining liberal views longer than previous generations. The thing about millennials is that most of them came of age before the time of smartphones, social media and Trumpian politics. So many still think along conventional, status-quo lines (for good and for bad).
Gen Z has known nothing but chaos, division and dysfunction, and everyone in power is telling them that they're essentially corrupted because of it and don't know what's best for themselves. The resentment brewing there is very real, and so is the desire for change.