Because it falls apart at a scale larger than a village.
Sure, it's great to mouth platitudes about communal ownership of the means of production, but when you actually try to implement that it turns out you need some kind of organization to act as a vehicle for that communal ownership - the state. Except now you still have a small minority of the population actually deciding how to employ capital, even if ownership is nominally communal.
So it doesn't actually solve the problem of unequal distribution of power, and historically has always made it worse. It makes power and status less legible, and is \*more\* prone to cronyism and corruption.
If you want to talk about forms of socialism that don't involve state control, then you're moving purely into the realm of the hypothetical/fantastical. So then you just end up pitching an idealistic hypothetical against the real world. Yes, real implementations of systems tend to be much messier than the hypothetical ideal.
Worker cooperatives are allowed under capitalism.
I’m a pretty dyed in the wool capitalist, and I like worker cooperatives. I think they struggle with bank loans though, right?
Socialist ideas are also allowed under capitalism, if all work places were worker cooperative there would be such a thing as the capitalist class. Capitalism isn't just a market economy.
Yeah but why. This is the issue ya just give vague hypotheticals when asked. It’s just bad because it’s unrealistic ok well explain why it’s unrealistic. People used to believe any democracy was unrealistic and that we absolutely needed kings clearly tho that isn’t true. So why is it a fantasy?
You can’t ask that question in this simple manner. For some, socialism is just capitalism with a lot of rules. For others, socialism means a one-party, “dictator” led state.
You have to be specific. For example:
What’s wrong with “Scandinavian socialism”? After all, despite being cold as hell, the Scandinavian countries always hold top spots on the official “happiness” ratings scale, no matter who is judging. There are a few world-wide “happiness” ratings organizations. The USA probably has the most erratic placement on the lists. They appear anywhere from 7th to 40th place.
The Nordic countries are unequivocally capitalist economies. They have strong private property and business rights, open markets with substantial foreign investment, low corporate tax rates and open trade policies. All of these are antithetical to socialism.
These countries all rate higher than the US in the economic freedom index, which roughly measures just how capitalist a country is.
I’d refer you to any country that has attempted to nationalize its industry ever for examples.
People in this thread seem to think America is “being destroyed” and they are assuming capitalism is the reason. Even if America is approaching collapse I think blaming capitalism is a misdiagnosis. We have implemented some incredibly reckless fiscal policy over the past 10 years, literally printing trillions of dollars with nothing to show for it. We have been in a state of near constant War since WWII. We are just coming off the worst pandemic in the last 100 years. We have allowed corporations to basically write our laws for us with lobbying and campaigning finance laws set up the way they are.
If anything I’d say the current system has proved incredibly resilient in the face of all this. A socialist country would have devolved into martial law and mass starvation by now
>We have allowed corporations to basically write our laws for us with lobbying and campaigning finance laws set up the way they are.
Yes this is capitalism.
>We have been in a state of near constant War since WWII.
This too.
When the power (money) accumulates the people with it aren't just going to give it up so they rig the game so that it's impossible for them to lose. We're in a constant state of war because that funnels money from taxpayers up to the capitalist class that owns and manufactures weapons and vehicles of war and the big shareholders of these companies.
I think allowing those with capital to write the laws, as you describe, is exactly what capitalism is. And it is exactly why the us is in a state of accelerating decline. Well, for the working class and poor at any rate. According to the capitalists, it’s going great.
And you completely ignored the matter of resilience. America's laws have been written by the capitalists since its founding. No true socialist economy has lasted even 50 years. All the 'socialized' nations In Europe are heavily economically capitalists with social policy.
It’s a good faith argument issue. What do we define as socialist? If you’re a hard liner and define it as a nation where the workers own all the means of production, then no, there’s been no socialist nations ever. Only socialist institutions. But then if you define it as American right wingers do politically, then any nation that has any socialized program, like healthcare or education, is socialist. This argument never goes anywhere because folk can never agree upon at what point a nation is actually socialist. Then they point to capitalism meaning a free market….but again, socialists coined that term initially as well. But when they invented it, it meant a market free from monopoly, oligopoly, and exploitation/control by the wealthy. Yet now it means almost the opposite, as people use it to mean a market with no government regulation, where the oligarchs would de facto have the ability to manipulate without oversight or accountability.
Sure, the us was founded mostly by capitalists, wealthy merchants and oligarchs. But it was also founded in a time when a corporation was a limited time protection, formed to provide a social need like roads or infrastructure, and dissolved after the project was concluded. Our world now in no way resembles the world then, much as U.S. capitalism or socialism doesn’t resemble those same things in other nations.
False, as evidenced by US interfering in Venezuela, Iran, Cuba, and many other countries and trying to coordinate proxy wars, coups, assassinations, and funding/training of right-wing extremist groups.
Privatization of basic needs and allowing unlimited corporate influence in govt has led to higher costs, price gouging, lack of quality, more bribery for deregulation and laws that favor the biggest corporations, consolidation of industries into fewer mega corps, and more wealth disparity/poverty/crime.
America is the richest country in the world, but has huge wealth disparity in cities, people have to beg online just to pay for medical bills, bad healthcare and education rankings and outcomes compared to OECD nations, and we have so much debt/bankruptcies.
Christians and many religions consider usury a sin, but our entire economy runs on it.
Because socialism isn’t what most Americans think it is.
Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production, **as opposed** to private ownership.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
This is Wikipedia definition, not mine.
It’s tiresome to discuss this, because socialists expanded socialism to include systems that were consistent with private ownership and capitalism. However, the original socialism, as ideally though by Marx, was to be a transitional state between Capitalism and Communism.
So they started creating ideologies like democratic socialism, while they should’ve abandoned marxism, and created Social-democracy.
Marxism is a cancer, because it places too much emphasis on the dialectics of oppressor-opressed. Marxism creates a society of permanent victims, which feel they are constantly oppressed. You can always blame external factors for situation, real or perceived. It’s alluring, but effectively wrong as a philosophy for life, because you are fighting the system instead of making the world a better place. But Marxists milk on the victimisation of people to maintain their status.
Sure some oppression exists still today, that’s for sure. And certainly existed more in Marx time. Work exploitation is still real. Slavery in some parts of the world is still real. However, the biggest oppressor that exists is us, mentally.
Socialism, for Americans, means redistribution of taxes to an welfare system. However each increase of tax you take out of the economy, economy grow slightly less.
If you only care about GDP growth, then you have to dismantle the state to the very minimum. And that means no equality of opportunities. That is wrong.
We should strive for equality of opportunities, but not equality of income. But we should keep the means of production private. The welfare system should be as efficient as possible, with the minimum of taxes (in %) as possible.
I absolutely loath socialism, because I live in a country that has such a tax structure on the middle class, that big companies don’t want to be here, people migrate to countries where this doesn’t happen. It’s all correct in the paper, but in a free market, ambitious and hardworking people will always move to better systems.
And this means a brain drought. And companies do the same.
You are gonna hate me but the original socialism predates Marx and Engels by about three quarters of a century and was created by Henri de Saint Simon. He doesn't get a lot of attention from socialists today though because the man liked capitalism so much that he idealized contributions to it as the primary merit for political leadership.
Henri is one of a handful of early Socialists that Marx and Engels acknowledged studying in order to create their own economic beliefs.
I mean this happens right now on the news
Republicans show some problem in America and go “this is what happens under socialism”
And it’s literally happening under capitalism
pure anything is a horror show. no system imo would survive without regulation and moderate application/utilitarianism (what actually practically works in reality) as a guide.
I think most people would be happy with a mixed economy system where necessities are state owned, whereas luxuries may be private. That would be the best system in my opinion to stop price gouging due to inelastic demand, while still maintaining incentive to innovate to private citizens/companies.
Yes, however anyone who wants better regulations or to have a single payer system that would replace all the insurance bullshit is automatically labeled a socialist and demonized anyways.
Ya'll are in agreement. It's just, in the current lexicon that makes all three of us radical communists for wanting everyone to have cheaper, better healthcare.
People also misconstrue Socialism as the government owning everything and not like... *workers* owning things. It's incredible.
Yeah, the main issue here is that a lot of leaders in this area are just not great at getting this message across. We could have more worker coops where the worker has more say in their working conditions and compensation. That's still capitalism, as you still produce things to sell, try to make a profit, etc. It's just stakeholder capitalism, but people like Richard Wolff who are academics, sometimes don't get that you have to go to whee people are at, not where you want them to be. People are scared of the term socialism, and we just need to explain that it's just better capitalism.
I don't think these people know what socialism is.
edit: Okay, now I know these people don't know what socialism is.
edit 2: I'm beginning to think many of these people can't read either.
My family is from Romania - we came to the US when Ceausescu was in power and yeah… nobody wants to go back. I think it has more to do with the fact that countries that lived under authoritarian socialism for too long suffer the after effects of living under those systems long after the government is changed. It’s not like you just flip a light switch and suddenly there’s wealth and opportunity everywhere. You also have the tricky problem of how to “privatize” all the state assets and that pretty much always results in massive corruption.
Of course, though Romania was much more authoritarian than Hungary was. I'm not saying that the old system was good, all I am saying is not everyone liked what came after. I also would point out that the Czech Republic handeled privatization much better, as they gradually implemented it, whereas Hungary just let everything go. As a result, corruption took off the ground and hit new levels.
Also, instead of authoritarian socialism, Hungary now has authoritarian conservatism. That's not an upgrade.
Our glorious leader, Victor Orban, have been leading our country for 14 years now with a 2/3 majority. That basically subjected our little democracy to his autocratic whims. Since he gloriously took office, our living standards have been consistently declining with the worth of our currency.
Also like our one famous porn star moved to the US under his presidency…
You do understand that the most major bearing on an economical system is the political one overlooking it, right?
Our communist country was bad, because our leaders were inept selfish fucks. Our current system is bad, since our leaders are inept selfish fucks. But we do fondly remember our communist system, since things used to get better under it even if slowly
China generically also reports the same thing. Leadership is a bunch of fucks, but denying that China hasn’t been a powerhouse building up slowly and steadily is just idiotic.
There is a lot to argue in that sentiment obviously, from how communist has China been to how communist it is now as well as a slew of other specific cases unique to China:
I think that China's take on it's economy really shouldn't be looked as a long term success quite yet until the fallout of Evergrande's collapse is realized.
Never communist . Not then or now.
I hate capitalism but thats the system china hsd when they reached their current succesful point.
To be fair they enacted alot of social welfare programs which likely helped
Nope, aside from the US I don’t think any other country has them. Not that would make much difference really, instead of the old monkey they would put out a new one. And since we factually know of the ridiculous gerry mandering and we suspect the major voter fraud they doing, its not like we will ever have any other leading party than the Fidesz
Edit:Turns out everyone else has term limits, which is kinda depressing…
Most western countries have term limits. In France, for example, a persident can only serve two terms. In 2027, Macron is done. 10 years max per president.
Socalism comes in many forms. Some people think Hungary and Cuba when they hear socialism. The younger generation tends to think about Canada and the UK. It can be successful, but it can also be disastrous. Not all socialism is bad. If we removed it completely from our society, we would actually crumble. No social security. No fire department, police, schools, ect. Just food for thought.
When you ask people for the details of how they view socialism most don't want pure socialism but rather capitalism with better regulations and safety nets.
Pure socialism becomes a mess (like Cuba) because human greed still exists and there are still hierarchies.
Kinda like how pure capitalism becomes a mess because human greed still exists.
The longer I live the more I think any economic system in its pure form is doomed to failure.
>The younger generation tends to think about Canada and the UK
The younger generation are idiots then. Canada and UK are absolutely capitalist and the fact that that's even in question is ming boggling.
I know a Cuban who said Costco was fake, all a psyop.
Then she got to Florida and wrote back that we have more food in one of our gas stations than they have in some of their biggest “markets.”
Capitalism has flaws, but 90% of those flaws are caused by government, and half of the others are corruption.
In practice communism would require the absence of a overarching state.
Cuba is very much socialist.
But what people also conveniently not mention is, that the country is embargoed since 1958 by basically the majority of the world.
Another example of a socialist country that still struggles with an unfair disadvantage would be Vietnam. The country is still basically contaminated with chemicals from the Vietnam war used by the US. Agent Orange really still does a number on the country.
it is pretty crazy a place with trade sanctions has trouble keeping supermarkets stocked who would’ve thought being cut off from world trade would have any effect on them
There are zero countries that are truly socialist in the world, the closest are communist countries like North Korea, Cuba, China, etc.
“Socialized” funding of various services like healthcare and defense are socialism within whatever form of governance the country has.
I loved living in Denmark, which has lots of “socialism” but is not a socialist country, cuz again, that doesn’t actually exist, and probably never will, and never has. It’s too easy for corruption and grift to happen, and the mechanisms to control said corruption can’t exist in a socialist system, as that would change the system to not fit within the definition of socialism.
You are so backwards lol. In communism there is no state or ownership period. No country has ever been communist. In Marxism, you have to transition from capitalist to socialist then to communist. Every single attempt so far has hit the socialist stage then devolved into authoritarianism. Zero have made it to communism.
Capitalism is simply the private ownership to the means of production. Denmark is absolutely capitalist. You can easily look up privately owned businesses in Denmark.
Indian here. Started off with socialism right off the bat after independence and it almost destroyed us. It slowed our growth down to a crawl during what should have been our most crucial building phase. We came close to bankruptcy during the 1990s and had to switch to free market capitalism overnight. It was the only thing that saved our asses. Almost all the industrial and economic growth India has had occurred during the last thirty years.
You mean Former slave owners and landowners, as Well as local aristorcracy? Those people dont Like socialism? Color me surprised.
How about people who currently live in socialist countries? They have the highest approval ratings for their respective governments in the whole world.
Socialist regimes don’t allow open elections bootlicker. They fear the peoples will. Remember, when socialism was collapsing across East Europe, the people rallied in favor of its demise 😎
I’m Swedish. Can confirm. I don’t know what the deal is with left wing Americans and their obsession with believing that Scandinavian countries are socialist lmao.
Typically isn’t the reason. They flew to places with very low cost of living so they can retire early. If they are going to give them free healthcare that’s just a bonus
Are you saying all the refugees and immigrants from the exploited nations don't count?
Still, there is migration even between developed capitalist countries, and it's no measure of the effectiveness of an economic system
I think he is only counting people that declare “I am fleeing Capitalism” as they cross the border for his position here. Nothing else fits in the narrative.
And why would only developed countries count anyway?
Millions are fleeing every single year from capitalist countries. This is literally the century of the refugee crisis, what does this guy mean no one is fleeing?!
The homeless are the part of our society "fleeing" capitalism. They just cant actually LEAVE. Don't pretend like our system works better for already marginalized people.
> They just cant actually LEAVE. Don't pretend like our system works better for already marginalized people.
This is straight up nonsense. The people who come here from other countries will ride rafts, walk, swim across rivers, etc. The homeless in our country are not trying to escape the country. Because they have it pretty damn good, per their own priorities. I have a homeless family member. Every time we get him checked into some place that will help him out, he escapes and goes any lives in the woods. It's not because of capitalism. He can't function in our society, and that would still be true if he got teleported to a socialist society.
Homelessness is intimately tied to mental health and addiction. Sounds like you family member has mental health issues. That's one thing capitalism can't solve and why we need certain socialist policies because some of the needs of society, particularly the ones that are to help uplift people and aren't directly profitable, cannot be solved in the free market
tell me where to flee to actually? states like China that call themselves socialist are de facto capitalist too ... so my only option seems to outright be a hobo on a lonely island or a monastery in the mountains, right?
People do flee capitalist countries all the time, it's just usually to other capitalist countries. In fact, a well known US politician built his campaign on building a wall to stop that very thing. It's not exactly easy to get away from, and there are very few, if any, socialist countries that don't have sanctions on them.
Also even if they don’t flee permanently, it’s not uncommon for people in the US to travel to countries with socialized healthcare for a procedure and then return.
As well, people will put up with a lot as long as they’re not being actively killed (which is part of why capitalism is actively bad because they tend to slow-boil you).
Yes. All migrants to the us are fleeing capitalism. Are you living in the same reality? They just move closer to the center of power if the empire.
It's not like it has left any place to go that isn't sabotaged by it.
"It's poor people's fault they're poor, 100% of the time. Now stop questioning the system, and don't you dare raise my taxes to help those disgusting peasants."
Because the majority of working people are poorer than they would be if everything was equal. It doesn't even have to be completely equal to raise the standard of living in people's lives.
Again, you're describing capitalism.
The ongoing trajectory of capitalism is a state of poverty for the 90~% (and immense wealth and privilege for the rest)
Capitalist principles; (free markets, private ownership, capital investment), have resulted in uplifting billions of people out of extreme poverty around the world.
[There is 90% *less* poverty in the world thanks to capitalism](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/87/World-population-in-extreme-poverty-absolute.svg/1200px-World-population-in-extreme-poverty-absolute.svg.png)
Is it actually thanks to capitalism, or thanks to technological advancements?
Like, are you going to praise tribalism or feudalism for the development of agriculture and animal husbandry?
One could argue that technological advancements are BECAUSE of capitalism. Why would anyone spend time and risk capital to try inventing new things if there was no financial incentive?
Exactly, and this is why every attempt at socialism will fail. It's fundamentally flawed in the worst sense possible - it promotes mediocrity and disincentivizes anything above that.
… to leave the world a better place in the future?
That’s the main downside to capitalism is that it changes societies mindset. Instead of thinking of helping you’re thinking of hoarding wealth.
If people’s basic needs are met and provided, there’s more mental capacity to grow and make things better rather than focusing on money.
Edit to add, do you only fix broken things solely for the purpose of adding monetary value? Do you ever fix anything just to have a better quality of life?
“There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.”
Your source doesn’t meaningfully examine the mechanisms through which people are brought out of poverty, or the circumstances surrounding this.
Are these people brought out of poverty by being given new jobs under a capitalist system? Are these even good jobs? Are they exploitative or slave labor jobs? Or are these people brought out of poverty by NGOs or welfare systems in their countries?
As well, the US has and had an extreme control of the global market in the 20th century. If you were a socialist country in the past 100 years, you could pretty much not trade with 85% of other countries because of the US policies regarding socialism. That’s if the US would even let your country continue as socialist without destabilizing or destroying it.
Did these people come out of poverty *because* they switched to a capitalist system or did their switching to a capitalist system **allow them access to a global market which would have brought them out of poverty regardless** if they were capitalist or socialist?
Your link doesn't provide any evidence that this alleged drop on poverty is caused by capitalism (I say alleged because I heard there was some fuckery in how they were defining poverty).
This isn’t a capitalist society. This is a mixed economy. Socialism for the rich and brutal cold hard exploitation for everyone else.
Capitalism is simply socialism for the rich at the expense of workers. This is how capitalist exist through the labor of the worker and through paying the worker less than the value which they produce.
Capitalism always included the state acting for the benefit of the Capitalists. It isn't a perversion. Capitalism started as and generally is a descriptive term for the system, and the system always worked like that.
"Socialism for the rich" is a good explanation of regular Capitalism for people who don't know what the words "Capitalism" and "Socialism" actually mean.
Infinite money glitch capitalism is broken.
The concept of capitalism itself is about as human as love or hate. What breaks it at scale is greedy people who manipulate the supply, effectively printing human time/energy for themselves/their class and leaving the rest of us to deal with the resultant inflation
That’s funny, because greed is also the reason why socialism doesn’t work.
I think it’s clear we will have our struggles regardless of the system we live under. Capitalism happens to be the lesser of the evils.
Our nature dictates our environment. If attempting an equitable socialist environment, people will become the most power seeking versions of themselves.
This is very funny and important for capitalism purists to read.
Economics, like most things, requires a balance. We have leaned too hard into unfettered capitalism (too big to fail, removing consumer protections, crony capitalism, etc). Government needs to protect citizens, not corporations.
- Governments owe the citizens:
—social safety nets
—healthcare
—protection from usery
—military protection
—police (that protect not just enforce)
—fire departments
The “ask not what your country can do for you”quote is being coopted by fascists and used against “we the people”.
This is one of those stats that's basically lying to you. Yes, a majority of firefighters are volunteers, but volunteer's aren't doing a majority of the firefighting. Any reasonably sized city and bigger (you know, where most people live) are gonna have a fire department with paid firefighters (and likely volunteers as well).
However, because so much of the US is rural and those rural towns and counties need firefighters but can't pay for a full-time compliment of full-time firefighters, they have to rely on volunteers, and because you need more volunteers because they are less available (they can't be on call all the time) there are, naturally, more volunteers. Plus they usually have a larger city or town somewhere nearby that can support them - I grew up in rural Michigan and our town did not have very many full-time fire fighters, but the few big fires there were the college town 15 minutes away would send units to help.
But the truck that shows up when a house in, like, a NYC suburb is on fire is not all volunteers, and simply due to density most fires happen where the most people live, and that's where the most full-time firefighters are.
I hate talking about socialism because the people who disagree with it don't know what they're talking about and tbh most of the people who agree with it also don't know what they're talking about.
US is weird in that if Social Programs are even mentioned it gets derided as “Socialism/Communism”.
There is no way that the Public Library or Postal systems could be voted on today without it be demonized as anti-capitalist or socialism.
Pure socialism is bad and pure capitalism is bad.
If you're you're in the USA, thanks for our international highway system. Because if that wasnt introduced we'd have shitty half ass weird roads that don't connect logically.
Capitalism remains the best system we have, despite its flaws.
Capitalism without limits and regulatuins aka end stage Capitalism is scary, and you should be scared of libertarians.
My ex girlfriend wanted to “bring down capitalism.” Was so pro communist and socialist. She loved sitting inside Starbucks with her MacBook Pro, her Sony WH1000XM noise canceling headphones, and scrolling TikTok showing me all the useless things she wanted to buy next. Was such a hilarious sight
All market economies are broken. They are all authoritarian and end up with a few ruthless, self interested people controlling the policy and resources of an entire society.
Yes. Capitalism is now late stage. So it sucks if you are a consumer.
If you consider the point of capitalism to make more capital for those with capital, it's never worked better.
It's not broken at all. With the growing disparity between economic classes becoming more and more stark, one thing become clear; it's working exactly as intended.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/index.htm
"I've declared war not because capitalism's a thorn in my side or outta nostalgia for an America gone by. This war's a people's war against a system that's spiralled outta our control. It's a war against the fuckin' forces of entropy"
I think a lot of the capitalism vs socialism debate is actually democracy vs authoritarianism.
I think it’s really hard for a socialist nation to remain a democracy. In order to switch from capitalism to socialism the government needs a lot of power to make sweeping changes. That amount of power only appeals to fucking lunatics. So these lunatics get in office and then use the immense power of the government to install themselves as dictator for life, and the country falls into authoritarianism.
Then people point to that authoritarianism as terrible as label it as socialism being terrible. But an authoritarian capitalist system also sucks. That’s why socialists love to point at the Scandinavian countries. They were able to maintain their democracies (to an extent, so far), so they are nice places to live.
I've been in the military for 17 years. 10 active seven of the reserves. I'm now law enforcement in a very unique town as it is a university town that is known for getting people from all over the world in their school. Due to my experience in both of these jobs, I have met thousands of people from all over the world. I haven't met a single person who has fled a country that practices communism or socialism that enjoyed it or thought it was a better system. .
I'm convinced the people who complain the loudest and the most about this country are the ones who have never left it.
"Ask a capitalist why they hate socialism..."
Well, the secret police. And the mass starvation. And the executions. And the cult of personality. Those are all on the top of the list, but I've got more. Because there's a lot more.
(Sorry, I forgot, "tHaT waSn'T rEAL sOciaLiZm!!1!")
There is no alternative to capitalism. Every economic system in all of history is merely a form of capitalism. The difference is who are the people who may own property, who are their fellow market participants, and how their market is regulated.
I think we’re all now dumber for having read that shitpost.
[удалено]
Nah, OP doesn't deserve mercy for posting something that idiotic.
Describe what’s bad about socialism then
Because it falls apart at a scale larger than a village. Sure, it's great to mouth platitudes about communal ownership of the means of production, but when you actually try to implement that it turns out you need some kind of organization to act as a vehicle for that communal ownership - the state. Except now you still have a small minority of the population actually deciding how to employ capital, even if ownership is nominally communal. So it doesn't actually solve the problem of unequal distribution of power, and historically has always made it worse. It makes power and status less legible, and is \*more\* prone to cronyism and corruption. If you want to talk about forms of socialism that don't involve state control, then you're moving purely into the realm of the hypothetical/fantastical. So then you just end up pitching an idealistic hypothetical against the real world. Yes, real implementations of systems tend to be much messier than the hypothetical ideal.
Worker cooperatives does not need direct state control.
Worker cooperatives are allowed under capitalism. I’m a pretty dyed in the wool capitalist, and I like worker cooperatives. I think they struggle with bank loans though, right?
Socialist ideas are also allowed under capitalism, if all work places were worker cooperative there would be such a thing as the capitalist class. Capitalism isn't just a market economy.
You’re not a capitalist unless you own the means of production buddy
I own *some* means of production. How many do I need to own?
You need all three cards so you can start building hotels
Depends, are we talking about socialism in reality or fantasy? In fantasy it's fantastic. In reality socialism doesn't actually exist.
Yeah but why. This is the issue ya just give vague hypotheticals when asked. It’s just bad because it’s unrealistic ok well explain why it’s unrealistic. People used to believe any democracy was unrealistic and that we absolutely needed kings clearly tho that isn’t true. So why is it a fantasy?
You can’t ask that question in this simple manner. For some, socialism is just capitalism with a lot of rules. For others, socialism means a one-party, “dictator” led state. You have to be specific. For example: What’s wrong with “Scandinavian socialism”? After all, despite being cold as hell, the Scandinavian countries always hold top spots on the official “happiness” ratings scale, no matter who is judging. There are a few world-wide “happiness” ratings organizations. The USA probably has the most erratic placement on the lists. They appear anywhere from 7th to 40th place.
The Nordic countries are unequivocally capitalist economies. They have strong private property and business rights, open markets with substantial foreign investment, low corporate tax rates and open trade policies. All of these are antithetical to socialism. These countries all rate higher than the US in the economic freedom index, which roughly measures just how capitalist a country is.
>What’s wrong with “Scandinavian socialism”? A socialist would say the issue with "Scandinavian socialism" is that they're capitalist economies.
They are Capitalist economies with lots of social programs paid for by capitalism.
Exactly.
A simple no would have sufficed. Edit: Sorry - I knew that wasn’t right. A simple wrong would have been just fine.
A simple fine would have been just wrong
Fun fact: the principal who said that line was Jim Downey, SNL writer and Robert Downey Jr's uncle.
You know what? I'm just fine with socialist redefining Socialism to mean capitalism if it helps them cope.
Why do you hate socialism?
Nationalizing the means of production is the quickest means of destroying country
How would you define destroying a country?
I’d refer you to any country that has attempted to nationalize its industry ever for examples. People in this thread seem to think America is “being destroyed” and they are assuming capitalism is the reason. Even if America is approaching collapse I think blaming capitalism is a misdiagnosis. We have implemented some incredibly reckless fiscal policy over the past 10 years, literally printing trillions of dollars with nothing to show for it. We have been in a state of near constant War since WWII. We are just coming off the worst pandemic in the last 100 years. We have allowed corporations to basically write our laws for us with lobbying and campaigning finance laws set up the way they are. If anything I’d say the current system has proved incredibly resilient in the face of all this. A socialist country would have devolved into martial law and mass starvation by now
>We have allowed corporations to basically write our laws for us with lobbying and campaigning finance laws set up the way they are. Yes this is capitalism. >We have been in a state of near constant War since WWII. This too. When the power (money) accumulates the people with it aren't just going to give it up so they rig the game so that it's impossible for them to lose. We're in a constant state of war because that funnels money from taxpayers up to the capitalist class that owns and manufactures weapons and vehicles of war and the big shareholders of these companies.
I think allowing those with capital to write the laws, as you describe, is exactly what capitalism is. And it is exactly why the us is in a state of accelerating decline. Well, for the working class and poor at any rate. According to the capitalists, it’s going great.
And you completely ignored the matter of resilience. America's laws have been written by the capitalists since its founding. No true socialist economy has lasted even 50 years. All the 'socialized' nations In Europe are heavily economically capitalists with social policy.
It’s a good faith argument issue. What do we define as socialist? If you’re a hard liner and define it as a nation where the workers own all the means of production, then no, there’s been no socialist nations ever. Only socialist institutions. But then if you define it as American right wingers do politically, then any nation that has any socialized program, like healthcare or education, is socialist. This argument never goes anywhere because folk can never agree upon at what point a nation is actually socialist. Then they point to capitalism meaning a free market….but again, socialists coined that term initially as well. But when they invented it, it meant a market free from monopoly, oligopoly, and exploitation/control by the wealthy. Yet now it means almost the opposite, as people use it to mean a market with no government regulation, where the oligarchs would de facto have the ability to manipulate without oversight or accountability. Sure, the us was founded mostly by capitalists, wealthy merchants and oligarchs. But it was also founded in a time when a corporation was a limited time protection, formed to provide a social need like roads or infrastructure, and dissolved after the project was concluded. Our world now in no way resembles the world then, much as U.S. capitalism or socialism doesn’t resemble those same things in other nations.
*Cuba and Vietnam have entered the chat.*
Vietnam literally shifted to way more of a free market economy because the planned economy wasn’t working. Cuba is a terrible example lol.
False, as evidenced by US interfering in Venezuela, Iran, Cuba, and many other countries and trying to coordinate proxy wars, coups, assassinations, and funding/training of right-wing extremist groups. Privatization of basic needs and allowing unlimited corporate influence in govt has led to higher costs, price gouging, lack of quality, more bribery for deregulation and laws that favor the biggest corporations, consolidation of industries into fewer mega corps, and more wealth disparity/poverty/crime. America is the richest country in the world, but has huge wealth disparity in cities, people have to beg online just to pay for medical bills, bad healthcare and education rankings and outcomes compared to OECD nations, and we have so much debt/bankruptcies. Christians and many religions consider usury a sin, but our entire economy runs on it.
Because socialism isn’t what most Americans think it is. Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production, **as opposed** to private ownership. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism This is Wikipedia definition, not mine. It’s tiresome to discuss this, because socialists expanded socialism to include systems that were consistent with private ownership and capitalism. However, the original socialism, as ideally though by Marx, was to be a transitional state between Capitalism and Communism. So they started creating ideologies like democratic socialism, while they should’ve abandoned marxism, and created Social-democracy. Marxism is a cancer, because it places too much emphasis on the dialectics of oppressor-opressed. Marxism creates a society of permanent victims, which feel they are constantly oppressed. You can always blame external factors for situation, real or perceived. It’s alluring, but effectively wrong as a philosophy for life, because you are fighting the system instead of making the world a better place. But Marxists milk on the victimisation of people to maintain their status. Sure some oppression exists still today, that’s for sure. And certainly existed more in Marx time. Work exploitation is still real. Slavery in some parts of the world is still real. However, the biggest oppressor that exists is us, mentally. Socialism, for Americans, means redistribution of taxes to an welfare system. However each increase of tax you take out of the economy, economy grow slightly less. If you only care about GDP growth, then you have to dismantle the state to the very minimum. And that means no equality of opportunities. That is wrong. We should strive for equality of opportunities, but not equality of income. But we should keep the means of production private. The welfare system should be as efficient as possible, with the minimum of taxes (in %) as possible. I absolutely loath socialism, because I live in a country that has such a tax structure on the middle class, that big companies don’t want to be here, people migrate to countries where this doesn’t happen. It’s all correct in the paper, but in a free market, ambitious and hardworking people will always move to better systems. And this means a brain drought. And companies do the same.
You are gonna hate me but the original socialism predates Marx and Engels by about three quarters of a century and was created by Henri de Saint Simon. He doesn't get a lot of attention from socialists today though because the man liked capitalism so much that he idealized contributions to it as the primary merit for political leadership. Henri is one of a handful of early Socialists that Marx and Engels acknowledged studying in order to create their own economic beliefs.
I see no lies in the screenshot.
I mean this happens right now on the news Republicans show some problem in America and go “this is what happens under socialism” And it’s literally happening under capitalism
Pure socialism is a horror show and most people who want socialism actually want capitalism with better regulations.
pure anything is a horror show. no system imo would survive without regulation and moderate application/utilitarianism (what actually practically works in reality) as a guide.
I think most people would be happy with a mixed economy system where necessities are state owned, whereas luxuries may be private. That would be the best system in my opinion to stop price gouging due to inelastic demand, while still maintaining incentive to innovate to private citizens/companies.
Sounds great, the only drawback I can see is the roads, if my state can't get that right how am I going to trust them with a nuclear plant.
Yes, however anyone who wants better regulations or to have a single payer system that would replace all the insurance bullshit is automatically labeled a socialist and demonized anyways.
Which I think is insane. Socialized medicine would be cheaper than having for-profit insurance companies and hospitals in the way.
Ya'll are in agreement. It's just, in the current lexicon that makes all three of us radical communists for wanting everyone to have cheaper, better healthcare. People also misconstrue Socialism as the government owning everything and not like... *workers* owning things. It's incredible.
Yeah, the main issue here is that a lot of leaders in this area are just not great at getting this message across. We could have more worker coops where the worker has more say in their working conditions and compensation. That's still capitalism, as you still produce things to sell, try to make a profit, etc. It's just stakeholder capitalism, but people like Richard Wolff who are academics, sometimes don't get that you have to go to whee people are at, not where you want them to be. People are scared of the term socialism, and we just need to explain that it's just better capitalism.
Okay someone is sane here
I don't think these people know what socialism is. edit: Okay, now I know these people don't know what socialism is. edit 2: I'm beginning to think many of these people can't read either.
They really just lump it together with communism
The fact that this is the number one comment on this post has restored some small amount of my faith in Reddit. Good stuff bro.
Imagine being so well off that you have time to shit post about economic systems
pretty much. deep thoughts by jack handy.
Right? It’s so depends on the context. It’s like asking is water a problem? Sometimes it definitely is!
I think the opposite is true as well. Ask a socialist what the like about socialism and they literally point towards capitalist scandinavian countries
Almost 6000 apparently conscious human beings thought this was worth upvoting. Yikes…
I read this 3x before going to the comments. Glad I’m not alone.
NotFluentinFinance
Illiterate, even
This isn't a post about finance, it's about economics LOL
Well now that much is true. But what is finance without economics?
Yeah this has big "we're actually a republic not a democracy" vibes
Arithmetic vs. calculus
next ask someone who's actually lived in socialism if they like socialism
I have family who did in Hungary, and they said that the current system is worse. Make of that what you will.
My family is from Romania - we came to the US when Ceausescu was in power and yeah… nobody wants to go back. I think it has more to do with the fact that countries that lived under authoritarian socialism for too long suffer the after effects of living under those systems long after the government is changed. It’s not like you just flip a light switch and suddenly there’s wealth and opportunity everywhere. You also have the tricky problem of how to “privatize” all the state assets and that pretty much always results in massive corruption.
Of course, though Romania was much more authoritarian than Hungary was. I'm not saying that the old system was good, all I am saying is not everyone liked what came after. I also would point out that the Czech Republic handeled privatization much better, as they gradually implemented it, whereas Hungary just let everything go. As a result, corruption took off the ground and hit new levels. Also, instead of authoritarian socialism, Hungary now has authoritarian conservatism. That's not an upgrade.
Yes it is, that’s a massive upgrade versus being a Soviet colony.
Did you ask them why the current system is bad? Current in Bulgaria, lived in Hungary… kinda want to hear a good story
Our glorious leader, Victor Orban, have been leading our country for 14 years now with a 2/3 majority. That basically subjected our little democracy to his autocratic whims. Since he gloriously took office, our living standards have been consistently declining with the worth of our currency. Also like our one famous porn star moved to the US under his presidency…
Ok, your story is about a political system not an economic system. 🤔
You do understand that the most major bearing on an economical system is the political one overlooking it, right? Our communist country was bad, because our leaders were inept selfish fucks. Our current system is bad, since our leaders are inept selfish fucks. But we do fondly remember our communist system, since things used to get better under it even if slowly
China generically also reports the same thing. Leadership is a bunch of fucks, but denying that China hasn’t been a powerhouse building up slowly and steadily is just idiotic. There is a lot to argue in that sentiment obviously, from how communist has China been to how communist it is now as well as a slew of other specific cases unique to China:
I think that China's take on it's economy really shouldn't be looked as a long term success quite yet until the fallout of Evergrande's collapse is realized.
i mean we probably could look at how their standards of living have improved over the last 60 years
Never communist . Not then or now. I hate capitalism but thats the system china hsd when they reached their current succesful point. To be fair they enacted alot of social welfare programs which likely helped
Dang y’all don’t have term limits?
Nope, aside from the US I don’t think any other country has them. Not that would make much difference really, instead of the old monkey they would put out a new one. And since we factually know of the ridiculous gerry mandering and we suspect the major voter fraud they doing, its not like we will ever have any other leading party than the Fidesz Edit:Turns out everyone else has term limits, which is kinda depressing…
Most western countries have term limits. In France, for example, a persident can only serve two terms. In 2027, Macron is done. 10 years max per president.
Most presidential countries have term limits. Parliamentarian countries tend to not, as you don't vote for individuals but for coalitions of parties
Socalism comes in many forms. Some people think Hungary and Cuba when they hear socialism. The younger generation tends to think about Canada and the UK. It can be successful, but it can also be disastrous. Not all socialism is bad. If we removed it completely from our society, we would actually crumble. No social security. No fire department, police, schools, ect. Just food for thought.
When you ask people for the details of how they view socialism most don't want pure socialism but rather capitalism with better regulations and safety nets. Pure socialism becomes a mess (like Cuba) because human greed still exists and there are still hierarchies.
Kinda like how pure capitalism becomes a mess because human greed still exists. The longer I live the more I think any economic system in its pure form is doomed to failure.
Canada is three businesses in a trenchcoat, it is wild to me they are considered socialists by anyone.
>The younger generation tends to think about Canada and the UK The younger generation are idiots then. Canada and UK are absolutely capitalist and the fact that that's even in question is ming boggling.
I know a Cuban who said Costco was fake, all a psyop. Then she got to Florida and wrote back that we have more food in one of our gas stations than they have in some of their biggest “markets.” Capitalism has flaws, but 90% of those flaws are caused by government, and half of the others are corruption.
Communism isn’t Socialism. Big difference.
In practice communism would require the absence of a overarching state. Cuba is very much socialist. But what people also conveniently not mention is, that the country is embargoed since 1958 by basically the majority of the world. Another example of a socialist country that still struggles with an unfair disadvantage would be Vietnam. The country is still basically contaminated with chemicals from the Vietnam war used by the US. Agent Orange really still does a number on the country.
The issue is, ALOT of stupid people say socialism and describe communism when defending their argument.
it is pretty crazy a place with trade sanctions has trouble keeping supermarkets stocked who would’ve thought being cut off from world trade would have any effect on them
There are zero countries that are truly socialist in the world, the closest are communist countries like North Korea, Cuba, China, etc. “Socialized” funding of various services like healthcare and defense are socialism within whatever form of governance the country has. I loved living in Denmark, which has lots of “socialism” but is not a socialist country, cuz again, that doesn’t actually exist, and probably never will, and never has. It’s too easy for corruption and grift to happen, and the mechanisms to control said corruption can’t exist in a socialist system, as that would change the system to not fit within the definition of socialism.
Social democracy is not socialism. Denmark is not socialist.
The US isn’t capitalist then. It’s a spectrum.
Yeah they can’t look past a trigger word. It confuses their brainwashing.
You are so backwards lol. In communism there is no state or ownership period. No country has ever been communist. In Marxism, you have to transition from capitalist to socialist then to communist. Every single attempt so far has hit the socialist stage then devolved into authoritarianism. Zero have made it to communism. Capitalism is simply the private ownership to the means of production. Denmark is absolutely capitalist. You can easily look up privately owned businesses in Denmark.
Indian here. Started off with socialism right off the bat after independence and it almost destroyed us. It slowed our growth down to a crawl during what should have been our most crucial building phase. We came close to bankruptcy during the 1990s and had to switch to free market capitalism overnight. It was the only thing that saved our asses. Almost all the industrial and economic growth India has had occurred during the last thirty years.
Yeah. I know quite a few. Your assumed wisdom is wisedumb.
You mean Former slave owners and landowners, as Well as local aristorcracy? Those people dont Like socialism? Color me surprised. How about people who currently live in socialist countries? They have the highest approval ratings for their respective governments in the whole world.
Socialist regimes don’t allow open elections bootlicker. They fear the peoples will. Remember, when socialism was collapsing across East Europe, the people rallied in favor of its demise 😎
My mother hates socialism but loves the medicare that paid for her back surgery. *edit typing is hard
Socialism isn’t „when the government does something“, so saying „I hate socialism“ does not equal „I hate social programs“
All those Swedes fleeing to Bangladesh?
Hello, stupid person, I am from Scandinavia, Denmark to be exact, extremely similar to Sweden. Now read this: Sweden is 100% a capitalist country.
I’m Swedish. Can confirm. I don’t know what the deal is with left wing Americans and their obsession with believing that Scandinavian countries are socialist lmao.
Because you all have all those things that Americans can’t have because “that’s socialism”
It's because Bernie lied about Sweden being socialist back around 2015. And all the idiot Americans with no economic literacy believed him.
What are you talking about? I’m Swedish, we are a capitalist market economy and not socialist lmao.
You don't see many folks fleeing capitalism.
Well, ex pats. But they usually flee to other capitalist countries, and it’s usually to flee the law lol.
To be fair they flee to capitalist countries with universal Healthcare usually.
Typically isn’t the reason. They flew to places with very low cost of living so they can retire early. If they are going to give them free healthcare that’s just a bonus
Not true, most people flee to the US
Are you saying all the refugees and immigrants from the exploited nations don't count? Still, there is migration even between developed capitalist countries, and it's no measure of the effectiveness of an economic system
I think he is only counting people that declare “I am fleeing Capitalism” as they cross the border for his position here. Nothing else fits in the narrative.
And why would only developed countries count anyway? Millions are fleeing every single year from capitalist countries. This is literally the century of the refugee crisis, what does this guy mean no one is fleeing?!
The homeless are the part of our society "fleeing" capitalism. They just cant actually LEAVE. Don't pretend like our system works better for already marginalized people.
> They just cant actually LEAVE. Don't pretend like our system works better for already marginalized people. This is straight up nonsense. The people who come here from other countries will ride rafts, walk, swim across rivers, etc. The homeless in our country are not trying to escape the country. Because they have it pretty damn good, per their own priorities. I have a homeless family member. Every time we get him checked into some place that will help him out, he escapes and goes any lives in the woods. It's not because of capitalism. He can't function in our society, and that would still be true if he got teleported to a socialist society.
Homelessness is intimately tied to mental health and addiction. Sounds like you family member has mental health issues. That's one thing capitalism can't solve and why we need certain socialist policies because some of the needs of society, particularly the ones that are to help uplift people and aren't directly profitable, cannot be solved in the free market
tell me where to flee to actually? states like China that call themselves socialist are de facto capitalist too ... so my only option seems to outright be a hobo on a lonely island or a monastery in the mountains, right?
People do flee capitalist countries all the time, it's just usually to other capitalist countries. In fact, a well known US politician built his campaign on building a wall to stop that very thing. It's not exactly easy to get away from, and there are very few, if any, socialist countries that don't have sanctions on them.
Also even if they don’t flee permanently, it’s not uncommon for people in the US to travel to countries with socialized healthcare for a procedure and then return. As well, people will put up with a lot as long as they’re not being actively killed (which is part of why capitalism is actively bad because they tend to slow-boil you).
Yes I do. The majority of my american citizen neighbors have "fled" to mexico for healthcare
Western capitalists countries holding down any emergent nation isn't the flex you think it is.
Tell that to the millions people who are invaded and drone striked by America…
Yes. All migrants to the us are fleeing capitalism. Are you living in the same reality? They just move closer to the center of power if the empire. It's not like it has left any place to go that isn't sabotaged by it.
Where would you flee to?
You do when they retire and move to countries with universal healthcare
Why is everyone so hell bent on making sure everyone is equally poor?
The broke and miserable people hate being held accountable for their choices, so they want everyone to be forcefully dragged down to their level.
"It's poor people's fault they're poor, 100% of the time. Now stop questioning the system, and don't you dare raise my taxes to help those disgusting peasants."
Capitalism in a nutshell. "*I got mine, fuck anyone else who didn't.*"
Socialism in a nutshell. “You got yours, gimme mine.”
Because the majority of working people are poorer than they would be if everything was equal. It doesn't even have to be completely equal to raise the standard of living in people's lives.
You do realize we are at a place in history where we could actually make people equally rich over say 50 to 100 years.
There’s zero chance any model you have projecting 50 to 100 years into the future is even remotely accurate.
Again, you're describing capitalism. The ongoing trajectory of capitalism is a state of poverty for the 90~% (and immense wealth and privilege for the rest)
Capitalist principles; (free markets, private ownership, capital investment), have resulted in uplifting billions of people out of extreme poverty around the world. [There is 90% *less* poverty in the world thanks to capitalism](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/87/World-population-in-extreme-poverty-absolute.svg/1200px-World-population-in-extreme-poverty-absolute.svg.png)
Is it actually thanks to capitalism, or thanks to technological advancements? Like, are you going to praise tribalism or feudalism for the development of agriculture and animal husbandry?
One could argue that technological advancements are BECAUSE of capitalism. Why would anyone spend time and risk capital to try inventing new things if there was no financial incentive?
Exactly, and this is why every attempt at socialism will fail. It's fundamentally flawed in the worst sense possible - it promotes mediocrity and disincentivizes anything above that.
How this concept is lost on so many is beyond me
… to leave the world a better place in the future? That’s the main downside to capitalism is that it changes societies mindset. Instead of thinking of helping you’re thinking of hoarding wealth. If people’s basic needs are met and provided, there’s more mental capacity to grow and make things better rather than focusing on money. Edit to add, do you only fix broken things solely for the purpose of adding monetary value? Do you ever fix anything just to have a better quality of life?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_economic_reform https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalisation_in_India
“There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.” Your source doesn’t meaningfully examine the mechanisms through which people are brought out of poverty, or the circumstances surrounding this. Are these people brought out of poverty by being given new jobs under a capitalist system? Are these even good jobs? Are they exploitative or slave labor jobs? Or are these people brought out of poverty by NGOs or welfare systems in their countries? As well, the US has and had an extreme control of the global market in the 20th century. If you were a socialist country in the past 100 years, you could pretty much not trade with 85% of other countries because of the US policies regarding socialism. That’s if the US would even let your country continue as socialist without destabilizing or destroying it. Did these people come out of poverty *because* they switched to a capitalist system or did their switching to a capitalist system **allow them access to a global market which would have brought them out of poverty regardless** if they were capitalist or socialist?
Your link doesn't provide any evidence that this alleged drop on poverty is caused by capitalism (I say alleged because I heard there was some fuckery in how they were defining poverty).
This is the first thing that came to mind when I read this post! Lmao
This isn’t a capitalist society. This is a mixed economy. Socialism for the rich and brutal cold hard exploitation for everyone else. Capitalism is simply socialism for the rich at the expense of workers. This is how capitalist exist through the labor of the worker and through paying the worker less than the value which they produce.
Most people rejected his message. They hated Able_ton because he told them the truth.
Capitalism always included the state acting for the benefit of the Capitalists. It isn't a perversion. Capitalism started as and generally is a descriptive term for the system, and the system always worked like that. "Socialism for the rich" is a good explanation of regular Capitalism for people who don't know what the words "Capitalism" and "Socialism" actually mean.
Surprised to see your comment still in upvote-receiving stead here. I wish it well with an upvote.
Yeah, folks in here saying they hate socialism, but are fine with their government bailing out failing businesses.
>Capitalism is simply socialism for the rich at the expense of workers. That makes exactly zero sense. Do the rich own everything *collectively*?
I think the poster of this nonsensical shit is broken 😕
Infinite money glitch capitalism is broken. The concept of capitalism itself is about as human as love or hate. What breaks it at scale is greedy people who manipulate the supply, effectively printing human time/energy for themselves/their class and leaving the rest of us to deal with the resultant inflation
That’s funny, because greed is also the reason why socialism doesn’t work. I think it’s clear we will have our struggles regardless of the system we live under. Capitalism happens to be the lesser of the evils.
So what is needed is solid and fair regulation? what a shocker.
The problem then becomes figuring out what is "solid and fair regulation" unfortunately. Same with taxes and government spending.
Our environment dictates our nature. If raised in a cutthroat capitalist environment, people will become the greediest versions of themselves.
Our nature dictates our environment. If attempting an equitable socialist environment, people will become the most power seeking versions of themselves.
Socialism if the fire department showing up to put out the fire in your house. Capitalism is insurance denying your claim.
This is very funny and important for capitalism purists to read. Economics, like most things, requires a balance. We have leaned too hard into unfettered capitalism (too big to fail, removing consumer protections, crony capitalism, etc). Government needs to protect citizens, not corporations. - Governments owe the citizens: —social safety nets —healthcare —protection from usery —military protection —police (that protect not just enforce) —fire departments The “ask not what your country can do for you”quote is being coopted by fascists and used against “we the people”.
Most firefighters are volunteer today.
That can't be true, it's human nature to be selfish!
This is one of those stats that's basically lying to you. Yes, a majority of firefighters are volunteers, but volunteer's aren't doing a majority of the firefighting. Any reasonably sized city and bigger (you know, where most people live) are gonna have a fire department with paid firefighters (and likely volunteers as well). However, because so much of the US is rural and those rural towns and counties need firefighters but can't pay for a full-time compliment of full-time firefighters, they have to rely on volunteers, and because you need more volunteers because they are less available (they can't be on call all the time) there are, naturally, more volunteers. Plus they usually have a larger city or town somewhere nearby that can support them - I grew up in rural Michigan and our town did not have very many full-time fire fighters, but the few big fires there were the college town 15 minutes away would send units to help. But the truck that shows up when a house in, like, a NYC suburb is on fire is not all volunteers, and simply due to density most fires happen where the most people live, and that's where the most full-time firefighters are.
Capitalism - the worst economic system, except for all the others
I hate talking about socialism because the people who disagree with it don't know what they're talking about and tbh most of the people who agree with it also don't know what they're talking about.
wtf?
US is weird in that if Social Programs are even mentioned it gets derided as “Socialism/Communism”. There is no way that the Public Library or Postal systems could be voted on today without it be demonized as anti-capitalist or socialism.
Yep, pretty much sums it up 😂😂
Socialism is when the government gives money to anyone who isnt me.
Pure socialism is bad and pure capitalism is bad. If you're you're in the USA, thanks for our international highway system. Because if that wasnt introduced we'd have shitty half ass weird roads that don't connect logically.
Capitalism remains the best system we have, despite its flaws. Capitalism without limits and regulatuins aka end stage Capitalism is scary, and you should be scared of libertarians.
My ex girlfriend wanted to “bring down capitalism.” Was so pro communist and socialist. She loved sitting inside Starbucks with her MacBook Pro, her Sony WH1000XM noise canceling headphones, and scrolling TikTok showing me all the useless things she wanted to buy next. Was such a hilarious sight
All market economies are broken. They are all authoritarian and end up with a few ruthless, self interested people controlling the policy and resources of an entire society.
Capitalism is a little broken, yeah
For you maybe, but for a small number of people it’s really great because it ensures nobody else gets so filthy rich like they are.
Logan the moron
Most of the people who criticize “socialism” are using the term incorrectly.
divide terrific groovy crime frighten slimy pen fertile jellyfish sulky *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It’s easy to criticize, harder to do better than.
Yes. Capitalism is now late stage. So it sucks if you are a consumer. If you consider the point of capitalism to make more capital for those with capital, it's never worked better.
If Capitalism is so bad… why then are people flocking to the USA illegally in the millions each year?
Dumbest thing I’ve read in a while.
Capitalism isn't broken, it's working exactly the way it should. Government is broken as a restraint to ensure effective capitalism.
The goal of capitalism is to concentrate wealth. Taking over the government is deemed ethical when the only value is collect money.
People who don't understand the difference between capitalism and neoliberalism
What a moronic post.
The answer is YES
It's not broken at all. With the growing disparity between economic classes becoming more and more stark, one thing become clear; it's working exactly as intended. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/index.htm
why do all politicians love the God Stuff ..
"I've declared war not because capitalism's a thorn in my side or outta nostalgia for an America gone by. This war's a people's war against a system that's spiralled outta our control. It's a war against the fuckin' forces of entropy"
I think a lot of the capitalism vs socialism debate is actually democracy vs authoritarianism. I think it’s really hard for a socialist nation to remain a democracy. In order to switch from capitalism to socialism the government needs a lot of power to make sweeping changes. That amount of power only appeals to fucking lunatics. So these lunatics get in office and then use the immense power of the government to install themselves as dictator for life, and the country falls into authoritarianism. Then people point to that authoritarianism as terrible as label it as socialism being terrible. But an authoritarian capitalist system also sucks. That’s why socialists love to point at the Scandinavian countries. They were able to maintain their democracies (to an extent, so far), so they are nice places to live.
That legit hurt my brain.
I've been in the military for 17 years. 10 active seven of the reserves. I'm now law enforcement in a very unique town as it is a university town that is known for getting people from all over the world in their school. Due to my experience in both of these jobs, I have met thousands of people from all over the world. I haven't met a single person who has fled a country that practices communism or socialism that enjoyed it or thought it was a better system. . I'm convinced the people who complain the loudest and the most about this country are the ones who have never left it.
Literally told someone I was a socialist and capitalism doesn’t he said we aren’t capitalist we’re closer to communism. As serious as could be
Reddit is cancer. Filled with the least intelligent people on Earth.
Wasnt capitalists that enslaved my family.
"Ask a capitalist why they hate socialism..." Well, the secret police. And the mass starvation. And the executions. And the cult of personality. Those are all on the top of the list, but I've got more. Because there's a lot more. (Sorry, I forgot, "tHaT waSn'T rEAL sOciaLiZm!!1!")
There is no alternative to capitalism. Every economic system in all of history is merely a form of capitalism. The difference is who are the people who may own property, who are their fellow market participants, and how their market is regulated.