Canadian here: socialism has been a part of culture since the outset. Even Americans have social systems in place to support the population. Many don’t recognize it as such, but it’s there.
One of the many outstanding examples of this is fire fighting. Everyone just assumes that the fire department is there and normal, but it’s socialist. In the early days, fire departments were more privatized and several may show up at a blaze to basically quote the property owner to put out the blaze. This was widely inefficient at a time when spending more time to discuss the business of firefighting would take away precious minutes from the job of firefighting and it would put lives and property at risk for every minute the start of firefighting activities were delayed.
It was pretty much unanimously acknowledged that putting out a fire is more important than figuring out who is going to pay for it, or do the job; so social infrastructure was made common for fire fighting. Given that it would risk not only the structure and lives of those involved in the blaze but also that of the surrounding structures and the lives of those who lived/worked in those structures, is obvious why government/social fire departments exist. They are there to save the life and limb of those involved in a blaze and do their best to prevent as much property damage as possible from such an event.
Its very nature is socialist, by the people, for the good of the people, paid for by the people. This is, however, still more or less unanimously agreed upon as a necessary thing.
Canada has extended this to healthcare, since during an emergency, like a life threatening wound or condition (cardiac issues are a common one to cite), time is essential. Going to an “in network” hospital, like the Americans may need to do, could add minutes or even hours of travel time between getting to the patient and getting them to the care that they desperately need. That time could mean the difference between living through it, and dying on route. So we have socialized healthcare too, no matter where I am in Canada, or what the closest hospital is or who administrates it, I can get the help I need immediately, at no cost to me. This saves lives, but it mainly saves the lives of people who would otherwise not be able to afford healthcare, or to have a healthcare package that allows for any hospital to provide care. This has been extended, in Canada, to cover more than just emergency situations. So pretty much all my basic care is covered.
This is socialist and one of the things that America seems to be very strongly opposed to. This leads me to believe that the fire department situation is less about saving lives and more about saving property. To put it crudely: “I don’t want my (thing) to be damaged by the fire happening with your (thing).” (Kind of mentality)… At least on the part of regulators. They’re okay with fire departments since fire can spread and create a bigger problem, including a problem for those who control the government. Meanwhile with healthcare, the problem is your problem and they don’t want any part of paying for your ability to resolve it. In this assertion: property > lives.
Most liberal/left/communal focused people (myself included) are more focused on the greater good for all, not just for you, or your loved ones. We want what’s best for the majority of everyone. The people on the right are usually very capitalist and focused on what benefit do I get? above all else. They get no immediate benefit if you’re in good health or survive a major medical issue. There are long term benefits from having a healthy, educated public, but it’s all long term thinking that seems to escape most capitalists. “Why pay for something now hoping for a benefit later?”
Additionally, the benefits are a paradox, that you’ll certainly get the benefit, but usually in the lack of long term costs, so the benefit is forged in the form of not losing money in the future, which, quantifying a lack of losses that didn’t happen is nearly impossible. This was recently demonstrated in the analogy of rat poison, which some of you may be familiar with: “why do we have all this rat poison around? I haven’t seen a rat in years! Stop putting out rat poison, it costs us money and serves no benefit” then later: “where did all these rats come from?”
You continue to pay for and cover people for their safety and security, and you don’t have to deal with replacing them. You don’t suffer those negative effects of not having their help, and that’s a hard thing to prove when it didn’t happen.
Capitalists, from my experience, lack this kind of theoretical thinking, only benefiting from the experience of making a bad decision to remove the rat poison, only to have their entire company overrun by rats causing a more significant loss than if they had simply continued to pay for the placement of the poison. That experience and thinking is dangerous when it comes to policy, as many people need to die before the losses are realized.
The recent loss of a large portion of the population due to this same short term thinking during COVID, is going to have ripple effects on the job market for decades. People who would otherwise be alive, well, and ready to work, are either suffering with life long illness, or a serious case of death, and it creates a worker shortage.
Workers who were happy to keep their jobs at a minimal pay increase are now being replaced by people who are demanding better conditions and pay. Which only serves to emphasize the struggle between companies and their employees. That struggle has been ongoing for decades or more.
I’ve seen rather poor job postings for my line of work, go unanswered for weeks because the company is offering too little for too much work, and have a reputation for overworking their employees. An extreme example of this is from Amazon. They’re facing a shortage of people who are willing to cope with their insane working conditions. They’re burning through the workforce at an unprecedented rate by demanding too much and providing too little. Their own internal analytics have identified this as a problem, and they’re not doing enough, quickly enough, to curtail it so they don’t end up with nobody who is willing to put up with their shit for what they’re paying (specifically referring to warehouse and delivery workers here).
It’s an ongoing problem and it’s borne from the extreme capitalist way of doing things: burning through willing workers until none remain, all in the pursuit of profits in the short term.
The only way that Amazon has curbed the issue is in contracting out their delivery system, bringing on dedicated delivery contractors, and professional delivery companies like FedEx and UPS (or similar) who can “pick up the slack” for not being able to hire enough drivers to fulfill their orders.
Amazon is a good case study on capitalist business practices and the values of capitalists. But I digress.
Social services, and social/socialist philosophies will always be better at/for long term planning, while capitalist systems will be better in the short term. The two will always butt heads on what’s important because they focus on wildly different things. Many capitalist Americans bring this business philosophy home with them; they don’t, and will never support something that doesn’t have a clear and direct benefit to them, and will continue to advocate for personal responsibility of anything that doesn’t and cannot affect them directly, believing that doing otherwise will unreasonably increase the costs of the systems they use for those benefits and unreasonably benefit those they see as competition on their imaginary “ladder of success”, which will, to them, unreasonably and unjustly elevate those who have not earned it, to a better position on the success ladder, which may, as a side effect, cause their position to become weaker as a result. They’re better than those who can’t afford what they have, and they’ll fight with every tool they have to ensure that those whom are less than them, know that they are less. That may be in the form of denying them healthcare that they need but cannot afford, or wages that they cannot otherwise earn because of either job scarcity (or simply the scarcity of jobs offering more), or that they don’t have the education to earn such a position.
They’re “better” than others. Those that want stuff that doesn’t benefit them are idiots and their “lessers”, and should be “put on their place” to them.
This is, at its heart, thinly veiled classism, driven into the masses by propaganda, and reinforced by the ruling class, aka celebrities, the affluent, and government officials. The “Elite” class has convinced their lessers to fight the fight for them.
IMO, the only way to break someone of this thinking is to attack the root cause of the thoughts, that you’re not better than your neighbors and the people you would consider to be less than you are. That we’re actually all part of the “masses” and we, as the “masses” are in a sustained and ongoing fight with those that consider all of us to be their lessers, aka, the “elites”. Only when they recognize that we’re not fighting eachother or vying for some imaginary “rank” in an objectively unfair system, will they ever understand that social services are not only good for everyone, but a requirement for everyone. We all will have slightly more or slightly less than everyone else, and those slight differences are nothing compared to how much more the affluent “elite” class has by comparison. Having 0.01% vs 0.009% of the wealth of any one of these “elites” isn’t significant enough to divide us in terms of purpose. We are the people. The government is supposed to serve the people. It isn’t. Stand up and take action.
The USSR was a developing country, and generally lacked luxury commodities, and depending on era, had a mostly unaccountable Politburo and a lack of food in the early stages.
By metrics, the Russian Federation has relatively recently surpassed life expectancy of the USSR, and now has more open travel and access to western commodities like smartphones, but you’ll find many older people in Russia who wish the USSR never collapsed (the majority, in fact), though again that’s also partially due to nostalgia for being an important global power.
I’m not OP, but I can certainly give you my story from Hungary. Not USSR in name, but USSR enough for the distinction to be moot.
Story starts with parents and grandparents. They were around when the soviets put Rákosi into power. He installed communism - everything belongs to the people! Including our fucking house. My grandparents often retold how police came one night, told them their house now belongs to another family, and they were told to get lost by morning. They could bring whatever they could carry with them, but they had to leave all the farming equipment, all the animals, pretty much all their belongings behind. The few hectars of land and our animals all belonged to the Producer’s Union anyway, we lost all rights to them virtually overnight.
Not that it mattered. The things you produced? Since everything belongs to the people, police would come and take away whatever quota the party set that year. Even if we produced it, it’s not ours after all. We may or may not got some of it back, depending on what the allocations were set. Usually not - famines got common, becuase noone cared too much about their work if it got taken away anyway. It got so bad that the good communist people people revolted against Rákosi.
Then came Kádár. I actually lived in that system. Shortages were commonplace. At the start things were strictly planned (later on they opened up to allowing people to work for their own benefit… strictly after they put in their required hours at their workplace, though). There were five year plans, though for what I know, those were mostly for propaganda. But since there wasn’t a free market, the planning bureau would decide how many tractors, shoes, bread etc would be produced. Well, this never worked out well. If you wanted to buy fruits, toilet paper, anything, you would need someone to tell you when the shipment would come. Then you got in line early and hoped the stock wouldn’t run out by the time you got your turn. And you bought whatever you could, because if you had excess toilet paper and your neighbour had none, you could barter for something you needed.
We wanted a car. So we applied at the state car dealership (Merkúr). We paid upfront, waited a year… and got a totally different brand of car in a different colour. We were furious, so we demanded our money back and purchased a second hand Lada Samara from someone in town. It still wasn’t what we wanted, but I’d have rather burnt my money than give it to Merkúr at that point. Turns out the Lada Samara 1300S was a great car though, I shouldn’t have sold it like twenty years later :(
We wanted to build a house. Only everything was in short order. We had to drive three-four towns away, buying bricks and ceramic tiles left and right until we had enough that we could start construction. We didn’t build what we wanted; we could’ve paid for it, but we had to build whatever we managed to find in stock around.
Now I know people called us the “happiest barracks” because say Caucescu in Romania was way worse… but people who are so fond of actual socialism should remember that our people were risking getting shot to escape this system.
That’s the sort of thing I might expect to hear from a teen with broccoli head syndrome.
For me the main problem with the USSR was that they abused beautiful dogs to create cyborg creatures out of them, in a horrifying attempt to create cyborg soldiers.
Lol, european here from country that got buttsexed by ussr back in the day. Fuck off with communism. Period.
However. Socialism is something hella important and should baselined across the world. People need safety net in their lives.
Funny thing is, if you say “socialism” where I live a lot of people will bare they fangs at a commie. But shorten it to social and all people think of is said safety net. Suddenly no problem. Heh.
You do realise your aversion to communism is just the same as Americans, right? Like the USSR has more in common with the Nazis than any actual implementation of a classless, hierarchical less, stateless system.
Shit, like the name is literally the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
To quote Stalin himself from a 1936 interview with Roy Howard
Our Soviet society is socialist society, because the private ownership of the factories, works, the land, the banks and the transport system has been abolished and public ownership put in its place.
[…]
Yes , you are right, we have not yet built communist society. It is not so easy to build such a society.
Re-think your fear of the word communism and wonder why you’re fine with socialism despite it literally being what the country you rightfully dislike called and viewed itself as.
It’s similiar, not the same. From what I recall, Americans didn’t have their country violently buttfucked behind a curtain, something that is still visible where I live - thankfully less so in the country itself, but it’s still embedded into people. And I don’t fear communism. I despise it. I do admit, maybe unjustly. Hard to feel otherwise though, seeing effects of one of the greatest, or at least highest scale shots at it’s implementation.
However, yeah, my definition of socialism must be fucked, will educate myself further before making fool out of myself again. :|
Why is it bad for people to want more in Communism? Do you think once a Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society would be reached, people would want to regress?
This is an aspect I’m genuinely curious about (as someone who is relatively uneducated on this subject) because my answer would be that yes, there will definitely be people who want to regress. There have always been individuals who are willing to sacrifice absolutely anything to obtain more material wealth or power. They’re a minority, but their existence has to be assumed and accounted for. For all of capitalism’s failings, one of its strengths is that it does give these people a path to follow that produces (some) benefit to society. How does a fully-implemented communist society deal with these individuals without them subverting and corrupting the system?
I think a big misconception on your own part is that Communism would put a ceiling on people. It would, perhaps, in the sense that it wouldn’t let people lord over others, but it would absolutely not prevent people from working to improve their own material conditions. In fact, that’s one of the base assumptions made by Marx when proposing a Communist system!
The goal is a Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society, where you can get what you need from what you can give. It isn’t a society where everyone lives in a 700 Sq ft 2 bedroom apartment made of concrete, it’s a complex system meant to be built up towards, that would allow people to work on whatever they want and get whatever they want by working for it, as long as what they want isn’t a business to lord over people.
Thanks, I guess it’s the “get whatever they want” part that doesn’t make much sense to me. What if what I want is astronomical, and I want to get it by doing as little work as possible? Who says whether I can or can’t have it?
What’s an example? A gigantic mansion? You’d probably have to build that yourself, society likely can’t prop up everyone who wants a mansion, but if you build it yourself it would probably be seen as fine.
Again, Communism is an extremely democratic form of economic organization, so if the community deems it necessary to give you a mansion and has the Means to do so, then it can happen.
Communism is a far-future society, however, which is why Socialism is more known about and defined. Socialism however still has issues like having a state at all, so it’s not the end of history either.
Interesting, thanks. I guess a major element in how feasible that would be is in the administrative structure a community would use in deciding who gets what materials. Obviously if it’s a representative democracy, there’s huge incentive for corruption of the representatives if they have absolute control of who gets what. Wouldn’t this be considered a state, though? I guess statelessness is another aspect that doesn’t make much sense to me.
It can’t just poof into existence. The job of a Socialist state would be to build up the productive forces and create the frameworks for such a society to use after the state whithers away, so to speak.
Among Socialists, yes. Among Anarchists, no, as they seek to directly implement their goal from ground zero. Marxists tend to disagree with this as impractical, but there is a ton of developed Anarchist theory, specifically Anarcho-Communist theory, that goes over how society would be laid out. Usually via networks of Mutual Aid and Direct Democracy.
I see, thanks. That’s something I’ll have to look into further, because it seems to me that it’s really a prerequisite for a functioning society. I appreciate you going over all of that!
No problem! Both Marxism and Anarchism have developed online resources you can use for free reading, Marxists.org and theanarchistlibrary.org are both fantastic sources.
That’s not how human nature works. You really think you can sit there and tell me that someone who did 10 years of school and has the knowledge to operate and save people should be getting the same as someone who’s job is to cook you fast food? You live in a fantasy land where the Star Trek replicators exists. No one is going to do more work for the same amount as someone who does less. Society doesn’t work this way.
That’s not what Communism is, though. Even Marx says that Skilled labor is represented in value by that which labor power is required to recreate it, ie training adds value to labor.
Cool, so what is that value then? Bigger home? More land? Larger car? You see where I’m going with this right? Cause if you’re not going to reward someone for doing more, then they’ll just do the least…and if you do reward them, then isn’t that just capitalism with more steps?
In earlier stages of Communism, they can receive more labor Vouchers as representative to the value they create, ie in comparison to Socially Necessary Labor Time. In higher stages, the effect of training is more diminished as production must be even higher to reach such a status in the first place.
Either way, you hint at thinking Capitalism is when people are paid wages, which is incredibly wrong.
Capitalism is a Mode of Production by which individual Capitalists buy and sell Capital, and pay Workers wages to use said Capital to create commodities. It is not the only form of economy where people can be paid, it’s a specific model that arose alongside the Industrial Revolution.
People get paid in Worker Co-operatives, yet those are Socialist entities. You don’t need a Capitalist to be paid to work.
Not trying to be rude, it’s just a huge misconception here.
You’re first paragraph just described basically capitalism though, just instead of money it’s work vouchers. The other issue is you’ve now just told that doctor he has to work even harder to get slightly more than the guy who flips burgers.
It doesn’t. Capitalism is a specific mode of productuon with individual Capital Owners, if Workers share ownership it’s Socialist. Secondly, who says it would be slightly more? You? Why?
Again, you assume a doctor will want to be paid the same for his hard work as someone who flips burgers. Or what about a heavy equipment operator or a brick layer? The reason communism never can work is because people do not want to do something without the appropriate returns for it. This isn’t some magical formula it’s human nature.
I don’t assume that, you are, lmao. You can get higher returns for different labor, as labor has different value given by that which is required to replicate it (in other words, training increases value).
I really think you should just read Marx at this point, it’s clear that you don’t understand what we are even talking about so this conversation is useless.
You’re entire argument (and communism)hinges on people willing to work harder than others and receive the same benefits as someone who does not work as hard. It’s literally what you have stated just in this talks. Communism works on paper, and in a world where star trek replicators exists, but not in reality.
That’s the whole point of communism is for everyone to be equal, and for everyone to own everything and not own anything at the same time. That’s the entire foundation.
Our mutual value is for us the value of our mutual objects. Hence for us man himself is mutually of no value.
Communism assumes all men are equal, and all labor is equal. All things belong to everyone and no one.
This doesn’t work in reality, people want to get more than others if they work harder.
No, the point of Communism is not for everyone to be equal and own nothing at the same time, holy shit that’s the literal opposite of what it’s about. This is a long section of Critique of the Gotha Programme, and its critical that you read it.
“But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only – for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.
But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.
In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life’s prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!”
Marx is not saying that everyone is equal, he’s advocating for improving the productive forces so that Communism can eventually be achieved. You’re trying to critique higher stage Communism on the problems faced by lower stage Socialism, which is extremely frustrating to see when you’ve been repeating the same wrong statements over and over.
To be quite honest, it seems to me - and I can be wrong - that it simply substituted power of wealth for power of position. Where I live I know that during occupation people were deemed as important based on where they worked - because where they worked dictated what they could steal obtain, be it items, access or favors.
There always will be someone on top, one way or the other. In capitalist society, it’s the guy who has the most money. In co- … socialist…? society it’s the guy with most connections.
The problem is that people point to the problems of the USSR and say it’s because of communism, but when the USA does similar things, it’s just them fucking up, not because they’re capitalist. It’s a double standard hinted at by OP.
The problem with the USSR was not that they were communist. I think that communism worked well for them, which magnified both their successes (beating nazis, reducing poverty, increasing literacy, getting to space, etc), but also magnified their mistakes (suppressing religion, art, etc).
It fit USSR interests to say that they were the standard bearer of communism back in the day. It fit US interests to say exactly the same. Neither had any reason to think about how the word was used prior to the USSR and if it actually applies at all.
It’s no wonder that people who lived behind the Iron Curtain have just as bad an understanding of communism as people in the US. The USSR certainly didn’t want you reading theory outside of Marxist-Leninist material.
So it’s actually a pretty interesting read but I think this paragraph gets the idea across pretty well:
(Obv out of context)
Most current antisemitism in Eastern Europe is closely related to these debates, as nationalists strive to “fix” their nations’ collaboration (or in the case of the Baltics and Ukraine, participation) in the Holocaust with revised paradigms that equal everything out. One of the poisons of ultranationalism is the perceived need to construct a perfect history (no country on the planet has one of those). Another is hatred of local Jewish communities who have memory, or family, or collective memory, of nationalist neighbors turning viciously on their neighbors in 1941, and of the Soviets being responsible for their own grandparents or parents being saved from the Holocaust. In America, this would be akin to someone hating African Americans for having a different opinion of Washington or Jefferson because they were slaveholders.
Believing that the Nazis, who systematically gassed millions as a part of their ideology, is at all akin to any of the atrocities committed under the Soviet Union is historical revisionism in order to downplay the crimes of the fascists and, what you can clearly see in this thread already, foster anti communist sentiment with barely a reason why.
A Jewish linguist/historian/activist talking about how equating the Soviets and the Nazis is rhetoric used to justify current and past antisemitism including holocaust collaboration.
You don’t know a lot of the history of bourgeois democracies if you think you can’t compare the worst the USSR has done with what bourgeois democracies have done.
Maybe you’d want to do it to stop taking part in holocaust trivialization, but you also insulted the Dovid Katz essay so IDK.
Maybe you want to drop the fud and trying to inject the holocaust into a comparison as means to discredit a point when it was never made in the first place. There’s no defending the USSR or ML, so I’m not going to bite and engage in an argument designed to downplay the evils of it.
And that essay was utter wank filled with needlessly gratuitous language that languished on for countless paragraphs. It easily could have been condensed into a paragraph or two with some historical examples thrown in to justify the argument.
There’s no defending the USSR or ML, so I’m not going to bite and engage in an argument designed to downplay the evils of it.
Lol, yes there is, and it is a very simple argument:
A transitional state moving towards communism is less violent than a capitalist state.
All large anarchist attempts at governing were basically the same as the USSR under war socialism(Catalonia, which started much more industrialized, and lost, because of, among other things, anarchist organizational failure) or worse (free state of Ukraine, which led to a wave of pogroms because they refused to suppress reactionary elements))
Socialism is not “Social Safety Nets,” and if you were knowledgeable about what you were talking about, you would say Socialism and attempts at Communism. Socialism is Worker Ownership of the Means of Production, and the USSR was a Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The Communist party had stated goals of reaching Communism, a Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society, by using Socialism. They never made it to Communism.
The USSR of course isn’t the only form of Socialism, and isn’t the only method to achieve Communism, but what you just said makes absolutely no sense.
Do you think that maybe people begin to understand what you’re talking about if you refer to Social Safety Nets as Social, not Socialism, because Social Safety Nets are not in fact Socialism?
As a side note: terrible choice to use rape as a casual term for doing something bad. Be more empathetic.
In your own words, they are economic systems. What do you call a system built on Capitalism, but with a slightly larger welfare net? Socialism? No, you call it Capitalism.
You’re calling me brainwashed for correctly pointing out that Capitalism is Capitalism, even if you dress it up nicely?
#Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism[
"wää wää wää no it’s not socialism, it’s capitalism, but I refuse to believe it and I don’t have to explain myself"
you
Please define socialism for me.
Because this an official definition
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or REGULATED BY the community as a whole. “we want a real democratic and pluralist left party—one which unites all those who believe in socialism”
Even the US has socialist policies, because “pure” capitalism is completely unworkable, because it kills the economy stone dead
Believe me, I’m not conflating Capitalism with markets. Capitalism is a specific form of market economy by which individual Capitalists buy and sell Means of Production, or Capital, by which they can pay Workers to use and create commodities via wage labor.
Examples of Socialist market economies include Market Socialism, a form of Socialism built on competing worker-owned co-operatives.
Examples of Socialist Market Economies do not include Capitalist Social Democracies, because the primary defining feature of Social Democracies is Capitalism with generous social safety nets, a kind of “human-centric” Capitalism.
You on the other hand are making the misconception that Socialism is simply when the government does stuff. You’re wrong, of course, as countless people here have pointed put.
Capitalism with regulation is still Capitalism. Socialism is when Workers share ownership of the Means of Production, simple as.
Examples of Socialist market economies include Market Socialism, a form of Socialism built on competing worker-owned co-operatives.
Honestly. Like seriously honestly adult adult honestly. Why the fuck do you not bother to spend 30 seconds checking concepts you have no idea about, and instead pull shit out of your arse?
Market socialism isn’t defined by worker cooperatives, it’s defined by socialism which utilises market economy. Like the socialist democracies of the Nordic countries.
You can’t even define capitalism, yet demand everyone is utilising it.
If a country doesn’t have a planned economy, you won’t admit it’s not capitalist. Which is so dumb I can’t even find the words to describe it.
Capitalism with regulation is still Capitalism. Socialism is when Workers share ownership of the Means of Production, simple as.
No, it simply isn’t. That’s like saying “you’re not gay as long as you don’t penetrate another mans anus, sexual attraction to men has nothing to do with being homosexual”.
The simple definition of socialism is when the means of production are owned OR REGULATED BY the government.
Which part of “OR REGULATED” do you not understand?
This is exactly what I meant with my first comments. Delusional fuckers like you, pretending all market economy is capitalism. Even the US doesn’t have “pure” capitalism, as the antitrust laws are by definition socialist policies.
I did define Capitalism, it’s a market based system by which Capitalists buy and sell Capital and Pay Workers wages to produce commodities.
I honestly almost suffocated. I laughed so hard I could barely breath, exactly like Risitas.
You seriously think you’ve “defined capitalism”? And to think you’re doing it in the exact way that shows I’m correct in that you’ve conflated capitalism with market economies? :DDD I can’t fucking believe this.
I’d like to keep pointing out how ridiculous this is, but I think you’re like a 14-year old yank or something and I don’t want to be that mean to kids.
Capitalism is defined by private ownership of industries and especially FOR PROFIT. (In case you were unaware, that’s what the “capital” in “capitalism” means.) FOR PROFIT*. That’s the main thing. Putting profit above everything, and being owned privately. The definition has nothing to do with “trading commodities and paying workers”. I… honestly I’m just slightly in loss of words at your stupidity.
Here in Finland our railroads aren’t private. Hell, there’s not even one single privately owned liquor store in the country. We still use market economies. Which means you are allowed to sell your time to an employer who has a private business, in exchange for money. Unlike the US though, we don’t even have a minimum wage set in the law. Why? Because our trade unions are so strong that there is a de facto minimum wage in all industries, so a de jure one isn’t even needed.
Capital does not mean “for profit,” Capital refers to the Means of Production. Market based economies driven by profit predate Capitalism, which is only a few hundred years old. If you’d read Capital, you would have known that.
Railroads being government owned and operated is an example of Socialism! Hooray, you did it! But that’s just one part.
Market economies are not when you sell your time to an employer. That’s wage labor. Market economies involve competing entities, and can take the form of mercantilism, Market Socialism, Capitalism, and many other forms of Market. What you describe is just Capitalism though, haha.
So if you lack a minimum wage, then I guess you’re admitting that you think the fact that the US has one makes it Socialist? Is whether or not something is Socialist just vibes to you?
You’re one of the most incoherent right-wingers I’ve encountered, I’ll tell you that much.
I love how you keep pretending you’ve read Das Kapital. “But markets existed before Marx!”
Yes. They did. And what exactly happened that made Marx assert that that era had been different from the era he was living in? The industrial revolution, which made it possible for people looking to profit to actually build such huge profits that they could grow their capitalist enterprises and keep growing them by exploiting the proletariat. Anyone who’s even read the Wikipedia article on Marx would know that ROFL. (I’m enjoying myself immensely, thank you.)
Before the industrial revolution, there was a different balance in the world. Lowly people just wanting to be rich simply had no opportunity to do that. After the industrial revolution, those people could become so rich, they rivaled the nobility, which is why we consider it the end of feudalism and the beginning of capitalism, AS MARX WRITES. Weird how much you’ve missed of the book you’ve definitely read, huh?
Greed existed before the industrial revolution, markets existed before the industrial revolution, and even government economies existed before it. But there wasn’t a way for those greedy fuckers to exploit people on a massive scale. With the industrial revolution, that way was shown to them. That’s what Marx’s whole book is about.
I’d say “nice try”, but it really, really wasn’t a nice try. Downright pathetic, in fact. :(
So if you lack a minimum wage, then I guess you’re admitting that you think the fact that the US has one makes it Socialist? Is whether or not something is Socialist just vibes to you?
We don’t lack a minimum wage, just like I said. We don’t have one in law. You don’t understand what “de jure” and “de facto” mean? :D This keeps getting better. Here, let papa explain. The trade unions prevent anyone from hiring someone without utilising the rules the trade union has set. This means that despite Finland’s government not having a law which regulates minimum law, no Finn can work anywhere without having a set minimum wage. That minimum wage just doesn’t come from the law. This really shouldn’t be that hard to understand.
Edit oh and “rightwinger”? What fucking logic are you using? :DDDDDD Please, send me what you’re smoking, I’m begging you :DDDD
I did give a simple definition of Capitalism, it’s a Mode of Production by which Capitalists buy and sell Capital that they pay workers Wages to use to create commodities. Commodities, by definition, are goods and services produced for sale, ie for profit.
I genuinely thought you at least knew what a commodity was, but given that you think I was ignoring profit when speaking about commodities, a concept tied fundamentally to the concept of profit, I can take that to mean that you truly haven’t read Marx, as one of the earliest chapters in Capital Volume I goes over the definition of Commodities.
I know about the Industrial revolution, and I similarly know that just as Feudalism gave way to Capitalism, so too should Capitalism give way to Socialism, and Socialism to Communism. I am not sure why you are pretending I do not know that, the Proletariat and the Bourgeoisie teamed up to overthrow the aristocracy in most monarchies, which is why it’s stated that feudalism gave way to Capitalism in the first place. Class conflict and the analysis of such is the foundation of Marxism.
That entire set of paragraphs was you just vomiting on your keyboard about stuff I already know and made no indication of not knowing, which is honestly goofy.
Believe me, I know what de jure and de facto are. Not having a minimum wage coded in law by the government would, in your own definition, mean that it is more Capitalistic than it is Socialist, because Socialism is regulation to you. This does not help your point. Like I said, it would be nice if the Nordic Countries actually became Socialist and the Unions took ownership and control of the Means of Production, instead of leaving them in the hands of Capitalists.
You are a right winger, because you support Capitalist ownership of the Means of Production. Until you shed that and support worker ownership, at best you will always be a center-right Social Democrat.
No, you didn’t. You wrote a sentence of vague gibberish, without any sources to back it up, despite just a few comments ago criticising Wikipedia as a bad source. Childish and utterly ridiculous.
for sale, ie for profit.
Selling something doesn’t mean you profit. If you buy 10 eggs for 10 dollars and sell those eggs for 10 dollars, how much profit did you make? Was there a trading of commodities? Yes, there was. Was there profit? No, there wasn’t.
It’s things like that which show you’ve not read Marx (or hardly anything, at all, actually), which is why I’m gonna quit this conversation after this comment; you’re a lying, pretentious pseudointellectual who refuses to argue this in good faith and can’t link a single source to back himself up.
You talk of communism as it’s not within socialism. Again. And you don’t understand how ridiculous that is. “For food, we have sandwiches, chips, spaghetti, and pasta.” is equally ridiculous a sentence as “Feudalism gave way to Capitalism, so too should Capitalism give way to Socialism, and Socialism to Communism”
Again, repeating the “believe me”. If you look at how often you utilise it in your comments and pay attention to it, you might become a better liar.
Not having a minimum wage coded in law by the government would, in your own definition, mean that it is more Capitalistic than it is Socialist, because Socialism is regulation to you.
Again showing your ignorance. The dictionary definition of socialism: a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Do you think the trade unions are NOT a part of the “community as a whole”? (That’s a rhetoric question, as I said I’m quitting this, as you are quite funny, but after I’ve had a laugh or two, I start pitying the fact that people like you exist. You clearly aren’t ready to learn anything, keep lying and avoiding addressing your gibberish.)
You are a right winger, because you support Capitalist ownership of the Means of Production.
Oh I do? Wow, your logic is quite as impeccable as it has been the entire conversation. Please, do provide your reasoning for this. I’ would love to be able to show it to people
What exactly is vague gibberish? Which part didn’t make sense to you?
Yes, you can sell something and not make a profit, but the goal of commodity production is profit, not equal output from input. The Capitalist has no reason to pay people just to break even, the goal is profit, and as economies are measured as aggregates, that is the purpose of commodity production.
Communism is a post-Socialist form of economy. Socialism is defined as Worker Ownership of the Means of Production, while Communism is a Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society.
Trade unions are a good thing, but not Socialism. Socialism requires ownership. Unions help offset some of the issues of Capitalism, yes, but until you get rid of the Capitalists, it’s still Capitalism.
Yes, you’re a right winger, because you are supporting Social Democracy as a framework. Social Democracy is Capitalism with expanded social safety nets, there are still Capitalists, still Capitalism, and very little worker ownership, but it certainly sounds nicer than what the US has!
Your greatest source is misinterpreting a line in Wikipedia? You think that means your Capitalism is actually Socialism despite relying on Capitalism, because the welfare net is larger? Lmao
“I refuse to look or acknowledge any data on the subject, so I’m correct”
Is the little kiddo having to backpedal and ignore the facts because he made a bit of a boo-boo in his rhetoric?
Please do elaborate on how I misunderstood something such as: “Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism” to mean what it says. Im sure you’ve a really good reasoning on how it ACTUALLY means that “social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within capitalism”
Your data is Wikipedia. That’s it. Read perhaps any Socialist literature and you’re immediately debunked.
If Social Democracy was truly under Socialism, then the Workers of your country would own the Means of Production.
A more accurate reading of what you are claiming is that Social Democracy takes influence from Marxism while rejecting the conclusions and thus the necessity for Socialism, instead relying on Capitalism.
Tell me, plainly, how you can have Socialism with Capitalists and Capitalism. Or, does Nestlé not exist in the Nordic Countries?
Here’s my source: Eatwell & Wright 1999, pp. 80–103; Newman 2005, p. 5; Heywood 2007, pp. 101, 134–136, 139; Ypi 2018; Watson 2019.
Want to go and read those books? No? I’m schocked.
The information from those books is listed on Wikipedia, yes. Are you so childish that you’ll now pretend “you can’t find real information on wikipedia”?
Weirdly enough, you don’t have ANY sources for the things you pull out of your arse. Almost as if you didn’t know what you were talking about and didn’t HAVE any sources for your faulty claims, because like I said, you’ve conflated market economies and capitalism and think socialism equals communism, because you don’t understand communism is just one form of socialism.
“How can you have socialism with capitalism”
Since I’ve already explained you keep conflating “capitalism” with “market economies”, the question is then translated into “tell me, plainly, how can you have socialism and market economies”, for which the answer is really quite simple for anyone literate. However, since you also conflate “socialism” with “communism”, then the question becomes “how can you have communism with market economies”, to which the answer is “you can’t, since communism relies on planned economies instead of market economies”.
That’s where your confusion comes from.
Due to our good regulations because of our social demoractic, well governed economies, capitalist companies can participate, but they can’t do the shenanigans they can do in less regulated markets. The degree of regulation is the question. Even the US doesn’t have “pure” capitalism. Things like the antitrust laws are by definition socialist policies, but this doesn’t mean the US is socialist in any way. It just means even they understand the necessity of regulation over “pure” capitalism, because “pure” capitalism is unsustainable as it leads to monopolies which then kill the economy.
This is why for example I can actually drink my tapwater and eat raw eggs that don’t even have to be refrigerated. This is why the quality of all products here is higher, and why it’s more expensive for companies like Nestle to try their bullshit here, which is why they mostly aim for developing countries. To avoid the regulation that comes with properly functioning social democracy.
If Socialism is Capitalism with more regulations, is the United States Socialist too? It has plenty of regulations, more than Social Democracies do in many areas, in fact. Are you going to tell me that every country is actually Socialist if it doesn’t have a laissez Faire Capitalist economy, even if it uses Capitalism as the primary mode of production?
You want a source? Marx’s Capital. Read it, you might learn something, even if accidentally.
Social Democracy absolutely takes influence from Marxism, that’s perhaps what the source you list may be referring to, however the place where Social Democrats fight with Socialists on is Social Democrats believe Capitalism can be harnessed and benefited from, instead of needing to transition to a worker owned economy.
I am not confusing Capitalism with markets, again, Wikipedia defines Market Socialism as a market based economy of competing worker-owned entities. Your own source, against you! Ha.
Similarly, I am not confusing Socialism with Communism. Communism is a Post-Socialist society, one that is Stateless, Classless, and Moneyless. Communism is indeed one form of Socialism, as is Syndicalism, as is Anarchism, as is Council Communism, as is Market Socialism.
If Socialism is Capitalism with more regulations, is the United States Socialist too?
Not a bad question, if you’re honestly looking for conversation, but I get a feeling you’re trying a “gotcha” more than asking in good faith.
It’s more or less like sexuality; a spectrum more than anything black-and-white, even when people usually speak of it as either or (or “a mix of” = bi).
“Pure” capitalism doesn’t exist anywhere. It’s never even been tried as much as communism. Well, not in a developed, civilized world. What I mean by that is by the time that any sort of currency has become a thing, there’s also been regulation, even if not written. “Pure” capitalism would mean large, completely unregulated markets. There’s just no such thing, nor ever has been. Because capitalism is by it’s nature self-defeating. The competition which puts profit over anything means that the one who profits most, by any means necessary, will win and get to establish a monopoly that will then dry the market completely out.
Which is why the US, despite being so obviously politically and economically (having such few regulations and worker protections for a supposedly developed nation) capitalist, has things like a minimum wage (more or less) and antritrust laws. Because they help keep the capitalism from eating itself to death.
You want a source? Marx’s Capital. Read it, you might learn something, even if accidentally.
Nice try, but you haven’t, that’s quite obvious.
Also, laissez-faire is essentially “without intervention”, when we all know that companies wield just a megaton of political power in the US and interfere in politics constantly, in order to keep free of regulation.
“Takes influence from Marxism”
And which economic school of thought hasn’t been influenced by Marx in some way or another? Since you say you’ve read “Das Kapital”, you obviously didn’t forget who came up with the term “capitalism”? Wouldn’t — arguably — taking a name for your school of thought be counted as “being influenced by”? (No, I’m not being serious, I’m doing the same sort of gotcha-shit you did in to showcase you how silly it is.)
I’m still waiting on you to elaborate on how I “misunderstood” this sentence:
Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism" (sourced from Eatwell & Wright 1999, pp. 80–103; Newman 2005, p. 5; Heywood 2007, pp. 101, 134–136, 139; Ypi 2018; Watson 2019.)
Or you know, for you to source any of your hilarious bullshit
Oh, believe me, it’s a good-faith gotcha. Anyone who thinks one of the most Capitalist countries on the planet is Socialist has no idea what they are talking about.
I am well-aware of the concept of mixed economies. As an example, a truly centrist economy would have 50% of industry owned and controlled by workers, and the other 50% would be owned and controlled by Capitalists. Social Democracies lean heavily in the side of Capitalists and as such are Capitalist.
Capitalism is indeed self-defeating, that’s why the Nordic Countries are seeing steady rises in disparity and sliding of Worker protections, held largely at bay by strong unions. My hope is that one day the Nordic unions will take control and ownership of industry a la Syndicalism and finally become a group of actual Socialist countries.
Yes, the US has regulations. These do not make it more Socialist, rather, these regulations are often bought and paid for by large Corporations to cement their power as Capitalists.
What part of my analysis makes it so “obvious” to you that I haven’t read Capital, despite everything I have stated thus far being in line with it, and everything you’ve stated being firmly against it?
Fair enough, many fields have been influenced by Marxism, but what I’m specifically stating is that Social Democrats agree with initial marxian analysis and see that there is benefit for working class power, but disagree with his conclusions, and thus prefer to direct Capitalism to benefit workers.
I have already explained how you’ve misinterpreted that same sentence multiple times: Social Democracy seeks to directly existing liberal Capitalist frameworks for the benefit of all, while maintaining existing power structures and hierarchies.
Explain to me exactly why you think Socialism is polite Capitalism. You keep thinking Socialism is mere government regulation, when it is in fact worker ownership. You cannot have Socialism with Capitalists, if you still have a business owner but the business is regulated, it’s still Capitalist!
You’re extremely incoherent for a right-winger, even by right-winger standards.
You keep repeating “oh believe me”. You know why people like you say that? Do you know how liers also stress “I’m telling the truth”? Yeah, so… :)
No-one was talking about “mixed economies”. Learn to read.
that’s why the Nordic Countries are seeing steady rises in disparity and sliding of Worker protections,
None of that is remotely true. The laws keep improving all the time. I honestly don’t understand the need of people like you to literally make up things to pretend like you understand a thing? Just don’t reply. If you write less, people won’t be able to see what a moron you are.
these regulations are often bought and paid for by large Corporations to cement their power as Capitalists.
What the fuck are you smoking? “Yeah capitalist companies actually enjoy good regulations”
Social Democracy seeks to directly existing liberal Capitalist frameworks for the benefit of all, while maintaining existing power structures and hierarchies.
Call an ambulance, you’re having a stroke. That is meaningless drivel that in no way argues against the fact that social democracy is SOCIALIST as established by Eatwell & Wright 1999, pp. 80–103; Newman 2005, p. 5; Heywood 2007, pp. 101, 134–136, 139; Ypi 2018; Watson 2019.
no matter how much you cry and stomp your foot, you’re just a teenager equivocating, without any understanding of this. This shctick is getting old. It was entertaining for a while.
You’ve not provided a single source. Because there aren’t any, becuse you’re a teenager who keeps pretending he undestands something
you still have a business owner but the business is regulated, it’s still Capitalist!
TLDR “if private property exists it’s not communism”
Stomp your foot all you want kid. The truth doesn’t care.
Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism
I have been saying “oh believe me” because nothing you have stated is new to me, other than your lack of understanding of the difference between Socialism, Capitalism, and markets in general.
Yes, Capitalist companies tend to love regulations, because they protect monopoly power. An example is Disney with IP protections, they seek to maintain absolute control over their aging IP and have lobbied the government to keep their power entrenched. Another example is tax filing companies like H&R block making the tax process incredibly inefficient and difficult for the average American, just so they can sell more of their services.
Please, elaborate on your Eatwell & Wright source. Why do they call Social Democracy Socialist if it is built on Capitalist frameworks, with individual business owners rather than the economy being owned and controlled by the workers?
You cannot have individual owners of the Means of Production in a Socialist economy. Simple as.
It’s also really funny that you say I’m having a stroke as you reenact the REDRUM scene from the shining, lmao. Get help.
So you criticise Wikipedia as a source, and then when I keep asking you for sources for your arguments, you link three different articles about how income inequality is slightly higher in the recent years, and think it proves…? What? That your gibberish about political philosophy makes sense?
I’m having a hard time breathing, my eyes are watering. I really suggest you learn to check a thing or two on Google before opening your mouth :DDDDD
Yes, Capitalist companies tend to love regulations, because they protect monopoly power.
“Companies like regulations”
No, companies like laws which favour them. They don’t like “regulations”, they like PROFIT. ANYTHING that increases their profit is something they like. That’s the base of CAPITALISM, dipshit.
Pease, elaborate on your Eatwell & Wright source
It’s right there in the pages, you’re welcome to check it out yourself. Or, if you don’t feel like it, make an argument against it?
You cannot have individual owners of the Means of Production in a Socialist economy. Simple as.
Because you say so. When no-one agrees with your inane 70’s red scare logic.
“wyaa wyaa if it’s not full blown communism it’s not socialism but if even one thing is traded between two people it’s capitalism”
It proves that disparity is rising in Capitalist Social Democracies, like I said. Simple.
Companies like regulations that help them make profits, yes. No need to sling insults.
I’m not paying to read a source that you refuse to actually reference in any meaningful capacity outside of an appeal to authority, when I already know what Marx, Engels, Lenin, Kropotkin, Bakunin, Luxembourg, and so forth are talking about when they speak of and define Socialism, not the revisionist Capitalism that is Social Democracy.
Why is it “red-scare” logic when it’s written by Marx and all Marxists to come after him? That’s just Marxist logic!
2 people can trade things and it need not be Capitalism, you can have 2 worker co-operatives trade commodities and it’s Market Socialism. Simple.
No need to throw slurs at me, but it’s fitting for a right-winger to turn to those when they fail to use logic.
Edit: Credit where credit is due, you did in fact change from using a slur to using a more tame insult once I called you out, so at least you’ve got that going for you.
You are amazing. I wouln’t have had the patience to have that conversation.
Thank you for explaining people… well… Reality.
Just a bit of an off topic point:
I belive the use of “socialism” that the other comenter has is am apropiation or integration of socialisim into the kyriarchy. Defusing and making solcialism anti-revolutionary, taking away what it makes it dangerous and leaving a shell of it self.
Socialism is not anymore the controll of the means of production by the workers (simplify definition) but capitalism where they controlling group give you a bit of assurance and you have to thank them for it.
Thanks! I just take combating bourgeois nonsense seriously when I see it.
You’re correct, by adopting good, common sense social safety nets as “socialism,” Socialism becomes defanged. “We already have Socialism, why do you want any more?” Can become a cry against the Proletariat.
There are specific definitions and I'm sticking to them. If your economy has capitalists controlling companies with workers trading their labor for a wage underneath them, then it is capitalist, full stop.
Unless your economy is full of co-ops or something. I don't know the common typical structure for a nordic company.
You haven’t even read a single “basic definition” my man.
Here’s one :
Socialism
Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages
socialism
noun a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned OR REGULATED by the community as a whole.
If your economy has capitalists controlling companies with workers trading their labor for a wage underneath them, then it is capitalist, full stop.
Youre refusing (or unable, lol) to understand that “capitalism” does not equal market economies.
Selling things doesn’t mean capitalism. Trading goods doesn’t mean capitalism. Owning a company doesn’t mean capitalism. Having companies with workers doesn’t mean capitalism.
Jesus fucking God I’m tired of explaining concepts that my 8 year old niece could google and learn by her self in five minutes
“unless you have a planned economy you’re not socialist”
Yeah, exactly the point I’m making. Brainwashed morons think socialism means full planked economy, when it’s no such thing.
Fucking spend 2 min on Google, is it so much to ask?
You literally said “Unless your economy is full of co-ops or something [it’s not socialist]”.
You’re referring to the collectives of the Soviet union. A distinct feature of PLANNED ECONOMIES.
“I never anything about a planned economy.”
Yes, you did. And now you’re pretending you didn’t. Like pretending reality isn’t what it actually is. Trying to convince me something that happened didn’t happen. Is there a word for behaving like that…?
I appreciate the people who daily drive pinephones. They are paving the way for when they’ll be viable alternatives for the masses. (Or verifying that they won’t be, we’ll see.)
Living in the first decade of capitalism after communism, where freedom of the media exposed all the reality, people were still broke but the state no longer provided free housing (and the build codes changed to no longer allow cheap crappy concrete blocks), old “communists” sold half of all infrastructure to their buddies (where did someone get billions during communism??) and professionals started charging higher rates because now they were free to migrate west if they didn’t earn a decent wage at home. Among others.
Yeah I don’t think we’ve figured out a good way past the charismatic sociopath problem. The best thing we’re going to have in the short term is a democracy with a strong emphasis on socialism.
Funny how that’s a fallacy, and there have been countless largely communist organizations of human labor over history, which lasted just as long as capitalist society.
See how you didn’t even have to ask which country it was? Because a 100% of communist countries became dictatorships ridden with poverty for the working class and gold plated luxury for the ruling class.
I’m happy now somewhere in the middle in this terrible, terrible capitalism. Oh, and I’m free to leave anytime I want, if I don’t like it.
So do 100% of Capitalist countries without a strong democracy. In fact capitalism is the one designed to do so by concentrating capital.
When we figure out communism or socialism there’s a really good chance it’s a strong democracy that prevents it from falling into totalitarianism. Will it be a bunch of anarchic communes in council? Lol no. Will workers share profit equally with executives? Probably.
See how you didn’t even have to ask which country it was? Because a 100% of communist countries became dictatorships ridden with poverty for the working class and gold plated luxury for the ruling class.
I’m happy now somewhere in the middle in this terrible, terrible capitalism. Oh, and I’m free to leave anytime I want, if I don’t like it.
Grade-school level history: I didn’t need to ask which country because all of the possible countries were puppet states of a single other country…
Because a 100% of communist countries became dictatorships […]
There are a total of 0 communist countries throughout history. Your lack of very basic knowledge is starting to make me cringe.
I’m happy now somewhere in the middle in this terrible, terrible capitalism.
That’s irrelevant. If you’re happy while I’m driving a nail through your eyes, does that make driving a nail through someone’s eyes a good thing? The fact that you are privileged doesn’t make a difference.
Oh, and I’m free to leave anytime I want
No, you’re not. Your statement is so completely uneducated, I couldn’t even guess where to begin dismantling it.
Everyone talks about what the “best” system is but none have adequately solved the human corruption problem. Every system eventually falls due to human corruption imo. The US founders were on to something by trying to break up power and have each group kept I’m check but that too is failing.
The US founders were on to something by trying to break up power and have each group kept I’m check but that too is failing.
Yeah, separation of powers is a pretty old and workable concept, 8 times older than the whole history of the US, and has worked for most democratic countries since.
In addition to the corruption problem, there’s also the problem of who gets to make the decisions. The people affected by those decisions want them to be made by smart people who have their best interests at heart. But, those aren’t the kinds of people who end up in leadership positions. Whether it’s capitalism, communism, even monarchies, the type of people who tend to be in charge are the ones who want power and know how to get it and use it.
This thread is lit. I’m going to list 4 arrangements of the economy. If you are interested in participating, name what you think each one is:
1: A small group of people own the lands that are worked by another group of people. The leader of these owners is chosen via divine right. The people who work the land keep what they make, however for protection they must work other lands and do not keep what is made from them
A small group of people hold dominion of a large group of people. The large group must work for food, lodging, etc. and are forced to do so by the threat of death and physical punishment. They do not get to keep what they make, the economic situation is determined by the generosity of those who hole dominion over them
A small group of people own the majority of wealth in the form of businesses, factories, goods, etc. They purchase the time of a much larger group of people who sell their labour to make ends meet. The small group decides what to do with the excess goods, services, and money.
A large group of people own the businesses, factories, goods, etc. These people work to make ends meet and decide collectively (democratically or through other means) what to do with the excess goods services, money, etc.
I hope these are both clear and vague enough. Good luck!
lemmy.ml
Oldest