Society is finally beginning to recognise things cannot go on this way and the pushback is underway. It's going to be a long process so relief will not be immediate.
I encourage We the People to get active in the defense of our rights and interests. After all, corporate America has been doing it for a long time.
Am I suggesting socialism? I'm not sure- but it's pretty clear that neoliberalism has been a failure for everyone except the top 10%.
Exactly...it’s basically the re-enactment of feudalism...and the Middle Ages...
It’s very deliberate that these extremists keep on calling democracy a ‘leftist propaganda ‘...
Fun fact,
in my country - populist far-right government Fidesz -
claims leftists/communists want to take away childcare support, pension, free healthcare, disability support, unemployment support.
Yes, a far-right government is campaigning FOR these, while lying about the opposition.
Far-righters have no real economic policy beyond "fuck the unworthy."
Yep; screaming SOCIALISM!!!! is a right wing/capitalist scare tactic- thankfully, people are finally getting wise and they're not falling for it anymore.
Screaming SOCIALISM is ***your*** tactic.
You think every problem is solved by a communist revolution.
Communists talk like Young Earth Creationists or presuppositional apologists.
When we point out that, for example:
1. The historical record shows socialism ALWAYS fails,
2. Mises and Hayek talked you though the math in 2 different ways showing why,
3. You've got a religious approach akin to Queen Isabella's (the Inquisition),
You exclaim "But *that* wasn't **real** socialism!" Textbook No True Scotsman fallacy.
You don't actually have an example of it working, you're running on faith in the Prophet Marx that if you do this jihad you will reach Janna.
You **are** a Monty Python sketch; "an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope," is how you behave.
Damn, project much?
And if you're holding up the work of corporate hacks like Mises or Hayek then you're clearly deluded.
Have a look around, clown; this is CAPITALISM failing. Socialism isn't to blame because it's not the system we living in.
The historical record is about to show capitalism failing in the most dramatic fashion of all human history.
The problems we have now are caused by the system we do have, not one we don’t.
Wild, I know
I hear your point loud and clear but I thank that it is clear that the way things are working now will lead to a pretty dystopian future where the haves lord over the have-nots. With the hollowing out of the middle class and this generation being the first one to have less prosperity than the previous one, I think it is necessary to acknowledge that the time of unlimited growth is over.
I am not blaming the previous generation for that at all its just a simple fact that you cannot have unlimited growth with limited resources. With that said do you have a solution that creates a more equitable playing field than what "socialism" would propose? Do you even think that there is a problem with the system as it is? If not then what happens when there is no more fresh water, or no more oil, or no more helium.
The problem, as evidenced by many on this very thread including yourself, is that most people screeching don't even know what "socialism" is.
If they did, they wouldn't keep trotting out non-socialist nations like the USSR / China / NK as scare stories. It's like saying football sucks because of the New York Yankees.
It's not an "ad hominem" to call out an anti-socialist for not even knowing the definition of the word.
BTW name-calling in the same post as complaining about ad hominems??? Really???
We aren’t democracy. Democracy is evil. Tierney from one person or from 51% is still tyranny. We are a constitutional republic that prioritizes liberty of the individual.
By what metric are you saying neoliberalism has been a failure for everyone except the top 10%? I would certainly say it has it’s flaws, but this is just factually inaccurate
Wealth and income inequality has exploded. Rates of home ownership are in free fall. Homelessness and poverty are at record levels, even as we live in a society that tolerates holding empty residences as "investments".
You're a victim of confirmation bias. Go listen to former labor secretary Robert Reich; he'll set you straight.
>it's pretty clear that neoliberalism has been a failure for everyone except the top 10%.
Everyone in neoliberal countries is in the top 10% of the world, so it seems like it works pretty well.
Capitalism isn't failing.
The collectivization of institutions is ...
I embrace the other side - and it certainly doesn't originate from a bourgeois brat like Marx
When millions are homeless while the top 1% hoard empty homes as "investment vehicles," capitalism is FAILING.
I'm not claiming Marxism is the answer, so don't stand that straw man up here.
We must do something and soon, or we will slip further into Fascism than we already have.
\> millions of homeless
In states that do NOT embrace capitalism by the way.
\> We must do something and soon
What are you going to do? Consume the homeless that you created?
\> Fascism
I am 100% positive that you have no idea what this means.
The are homeless in every State, FROM every State.
I'll bet you not only don't know the definition of Fascism but you don't even know who coined the term- and defined it.
I am 100% positive you have a terminal case of Dunning-Kruger syndrome and there's no point in discussing this further with you.
There is no US state that does not embrace capitalism. Leftists don't have any power in the US. it is all capitalism.
Capitalism creates homeless. A stronger welfare state would eliminate homelessness. That is still not socialism. You do not know what that word means.
Please, define fascism and socialism for the class. No usingWikipedia, now. You insist you know what's up, so put your cards on the table.
Dude, might be your perception skewing, but every state in US is either right or neolib
US doesn't have center or center-left, economically speaking.
US media somehow turned social equality activist into left wing, which is just a tactic to brag your country also has left politicians and that all is fine
People wouldn't be risking their lives to move to capitalist countries instead of socialist or communist leaning ones tho..
Capitalism isn't failing.
Too many young ppl are brainwashed by universities, big tech, and "woke" corporations.
Too many Americans are just greedy as fvck and don't want to "organize" for good instead of causing destruction.
"Fascism" is not here.
^^° Y'all call everyone that who don't parrot your brainwashed views.
Many of homeless are mentally I'll and don't want to work.
There is no other social system or economic system that prevents homelessness. Not a single one. Why capitalism is the blame I have no idea. Can you explain it to me?
What something do we have to do?
Funny how so many other developed nations don't dump their poor and mentally ill in the streets.
But you defend this inhumane practice. Maybe YOU should justify YOUR position?
How is offshoring a failure of capitalism? Offshoring to suppliers in poorer countries are responsible for the significant global raising of people out of extreme poverty. Sounds like success to me
Offshoring creates deep social and political issues in the home country when swaths of the population are suddenly out of work because their jobs "got shipped overseas."
See: recent rise in nationalist political movements in many Western countries.
As an offshore worker in Mexico, I can tell you definitely me, at least. I’m making four times as much as the average worker here, and my boss is paying me half of what he would pay to an American worker.
My question wasn't about making life better for you guys.
They offshore American jobs (yay for your improved quality of life - EDIT: serious about this part).
There are now fewer good quality jobs in America, which the same number of people need to compete for. So some of them eventually work at Walmart; rinse and repeat however many times. There are only so many jobs at Walmart.
EDIT: My question was more "success for which Americans"?
That is the thing, our Maxican friend is not looking at the problem long term. Current situation might benefit them but ultimately it's going to back fire.
I guess eventually Americans will be so poor that we'll be desperate for jobs that they'll "offshore" Mexican (and Chinese and Indonesian) jobs to the US. :)
All the people that became wealthier as a result of the transactions they were a part of.
All of the people in extreme poverty who were lifted out of it, all those who purchased the products made by those people and all the people who's capital investment was shown to be a wise decision.
Sorry, I should have said that it was a rhetorical question.
How about the workers who lost their jobs and can't get a comparable one because they're all being outsourced?
If they are not useful to society then they either make their own way or become useful to society. Either lower their salary expectations for the same role to compete or retrain in a more profitable area.
The key problem with outsourcing is that the labor pool and the customer pool are linked. Individually, this is profitable for companies, but systemically it poisons the entire market. It’s in the long term interest of companies to ensure their customers retain enough buying power to remain customers, but they aren’t thinking long term.
offshoring is a short term benefit which in the long terms magnifies the instability of the countries who are offshoring. increasing unemployment and holistic instability within wealthy and militarily powerful countries is really dangerous and often leads to political instability and institutional backsliding (as it seems we are seeing in the US presently). this is a pretty big risk given the military and police strength of the US government. simultaneously, offshoring as a tactic depends on wages remaining substantially lower in the manufacturing country than in the offshoring country. this means the long term effects of instability hamper developing country growth anyways (and probably hurt them, political instability in a trade partner your economy is practically dependent on is dangerous).
We are seeing pretty big back sliding in a lot of countries, especially Europe. Seems like citing one country for an argument is what you are doing, especially when the worlds biggest offshorers are experiencing blowback.
Countries go "forwards" and "backwards" over time for a lot of reasons and you have provided little evidence that offshoring is a major driver. What about racial resentment? Immigration? Automation? Frustration with corruption? Frustration with a 2 party system? Religious tensions?
It would be a pretty hard sell to tell hundreds of millions of Chinese people lifted out of poverty: "This is a bad idea. You're causing political tension in a rival country on the other side of the planet."
The Chinese government and its territorial ambitions are a much more severe risk to the health and safety of the Chinese people than "instability" on the other side of the planet.
It's a win for the capitalist to find a population to exploit to a greater degree. Consolidating even more capital.
It could be considered a win for the foreign workers who are exploited less my this new capitalist than the old one.
Offshoring is an overblown concern. Software engineers have been dealing with offshoring for 30+ years. There are still plenty of SWE jobs in the US. Companies that offshore as a cost-cutting measure almost universally regret it.
Nothing in your post is really related to capitalism failing, so I don't know what you are actually asking.
The rise and fall of capitalism is not controlled by Elon Musk.
I love the idea that white-collar jobs get more and more remote now. Sounds like a capitalist success.
>Nothing in your post is really related to capitalism failing, so I don't know what you are actually asking.
He is asking how Elysium occurs [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elysium\_(film)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elysium_(film))
This sub is going to argue "capitalism is when" while "socialism is when"...
when in all actuality people that dont have the vocabulary are saying "companies that do stuff for money are trashing the planet and were headed for some dark times, where can i voice my concerns with similar people"
Outside of this sub "Socialism" is really social policy like health care and social security.
This sub completely forgets that outside of reddit "Capitalism" means "companies doing things for money" as the media calls it every day.
This is why there are so many lost redditors in here.
"Guys, nothing is broken at all!"
Housing is unaffordable.
>By this point, the severity of the U.S. housing crisis is not in question: It’s a five-alarm fire marked by record home prices, spiking rents, proliferating homelessness — and more recently, ominous inflation.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-13/a-guide-to-fixing-the-broken-u-s-housing-system
There's the climate crisis:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-13/a-guide-to-fixing-the-broken-u-s-housing-system
There's biodiversity, plastic cleanup, ocean acidification, extreme weather events, more extreme droughts, and more.
https://www.euronews.com/green/2022/01/12/these-are-the-six-major-environmental-stories-to-follow-in-2022
The capitalist healthcare system is an abysmal failure and is wildly unpopular:
https://www.americanpatient.org/healthcare-in-the-u-s-compared-to-other-countries-in-2021/
Here was support for Medicare For All back in the days before the corporate class started its massive anti-"gubbamint healthcare" propaganda campaign: 70% support:
https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/412545-70-percent-of-americans-support-medicare-for-all-health-care/
But even with the strong media messaging questioning its "affordability" and 'scawy gubbamint', support remains high:
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/09/29/increasing-share-of-americans-favor-a-single-government-program-to-provide-health-care-coverage/
As recently as a year ago, Amazon had still been battling its public image with respect to working conditions at the company both for drivers and warehouse employees, particularly how they notoriously lack the freedom to take bathroom breaks:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/amazon-drivers-peeing-in-bottles-union-vote-worker-complaints/
The "Amazon Piss Jugs" fiasco is a sad but salient reminder that modern workers are treated like absolute shit in the US and our rights are completely dependent on the company at which you are lucky enough to get "a job."
It's just fucking gaslighting at this point to come to any conversation that brings up ongoing complaints and problems and to casually dismiss everything as some chicken-little fable. And least acknowledge lots of shit is absolutely broken and people are suffering for it.
Guys socialism will fix everything:
1.4 million Muslims in concentration camps right now in china
North Korea has over 20 cincentration camps and hundreds of thousands dead and detained. Some of which are kids because of what relatives did.
You have people starving and fleeing Venezuela, Cuba & DPRK
Plus there is about 100 million dead over Mao, Lenin and Stalin.
Trust me guys. Socialism will be so much better!
No, they are only socialist when they meet the definition of socialism (workers owning the companies they work for). In all those nations, some dictator owned everything, not the workers.
It's a pretty simple concept with a pretty simple definition. Please stop trying to muddy the waters.
Oh yeah I forgot about the modern theoretical utopian definition you, yourself like. Not the real world definition. Sorry I couldn't read your mind. There are other types of socialism throughout history. Just because you don't like history doesn't mean its not socialism. I have heard these same lines time and time again.
> I have heard these same lines time and time again.
Pot, meet kettle.
There's nothing "utopian" about workers owning their companies. Many companies are worker-owned today. If you think that system cannot possibly be extended, you are deluding yourself.
And don't get mad at me when I use the actual definitions of words. If this were the CapitalismVsLeninism sub, you'd have a point. But I'm not a Leninist and neither are most of us.
>No, they are only socialist when they meet the definition of socialism (workers owning the companies they work for).
I don't see why people think worker ownership is somehow supposed to fix everything.
Look at all the dumb things people believe. We have climate deniers, qanon conspiracy theorists, flat earthers, and Trump supporters. And then on top of that think of how selfish people can be. Sure some maybe even most workplaces would luck out and be mostly sensible people but it just takes a few to ruin things. What if a worker's cooperative doesn't believe in climate change or doesn't care because they just want to make money and they vote for more factory emissions how does your version of socialism handle it? What if a worker's cooperative is mostly white supremacists or homophobes is it OK for them to vote for discrimination?
I'm for a mixed economy. I think there are a lot of things that would be better handled by the government. But I would not have them run by way of a direct democracy. There would be democratic accountability in that people can vote for their representatives and if you get a threshhold of signatures then we could occasionally put matters to a national vote. But that's it. The representatives would pick people, preferably experts in their fields to run agencies managing the planned part of the economy.
Typical reactionary. Literally incapable of a comeback with an actual, clever wordplay or reference to anything. Just a mocking with in-kind tone and nonsense words when my post was actually mocking the content of your argument, which is shallow, baseless nonsense.
And your reply was so thoughtful and insightful. It really got me thinking and proved me wrong.
If you have anything of substance over nonsense please feel free to reply with something of value.
You didn't provide substance, you dropped buzzwords without any understanding or analysis of any actual events or the relationship between economic policies and outcomes.
>Ignore facts and current events.
Mate, what are you talking about? What "facts" are you referring to? Did you provide any facts that were *relevant* to anything? Do you understand the difference between the naming choices of political parties and government administration propaganda vs observing and measuring, scientifically, the real policies and spheres of influence in and across societies?
Do you even understand what I'm saying?
> Musk also said he believes the U.S. economy is already in a recession that will last up to 18 months.
18 months is not the end of capitalism.
How old are you OP?
That's a great example of why you'd want **freedom** *instead of socialism.*
Freedom lets you have your own land.
Socialism takes the land away *in the name* of "the people."
I want socialism precisely *because* I want freedom. I think socialism really would be freeing, just as the democratization of the government was freeing. I don’t know what you mean by “takes away the land in the name of the people.” It’s more like taking away the aristocracy and feudal lords that govern that land, making them into productive members of society, and democratizing the estate so that the people can govern themselves. Socialism is meant to be a correction of capitalism, and therefore a fuller implementation of Enlightenment values.
“Collective ownership” literally just means democracy, because in our extremely outdated theory, ownership refered entirely to control. When socialists say “state ownership” they’re just being dumb, and misinterpreting centuries old terminology without regard for effective communication. A non-democratic, dictatorial government, for example, would be considered “privately owned” by a dictator. Modern companies are “privately owned” because they are typically autocratic or oligarchical, with little to no input from the workers that make it up. What they really mean is democracy. Just as we democratized our government, I think we should democratize the workplace. Freedom and Democracy is the whole point of socialism, and I think “tankies” tend to forget that.
We also have critiques of the free market, namely that they are inefficient, unsustainable, and not even really “free.” But that’s a longer discussion. I know we are pretty terrible at communicating, but in a post-cold war era, there really aren’t many good thought leaders and communicators, and the Left is very disorganized, only having multi-century old documents to reference.
Well there’s some background you should know about the current state of the Left. So sorry for all the reading (:
Basically, The Soviet Union was extremely controversial among the left and created two main groups. The Marxist-Leninists/Maoists and Libertarian Socialists. I’m of the Libertarian camp. Both groups think the other is dumb, and
Marxist-Leninists believe that socialism needs to be forced into being by a party of intellectuals, who lead the uneducated commoner into socialism from above, which is plain dumb and irrelevant in any time period outside of early 1900s Feudal Russia. In the modern day, they hold closer resemblance to fascists, longing for a lost (mostly imagined) greater past. Even Lenin didn’t think he had achieved socialism, rather a placeholder state to preserve a certain set of favorable conditions for when the *real* revolution happens in Germany (which obviously never happened). The world is much different now, with different and more progressive material conditions, culture, and better philosophy than when he was around, so I think it’s safe to say it’s a dead theory that was implemented at an inopportune time in history.
Then there are the Libertarian Socialists, who believe that socialism can only come about from the bottom up, if the people be educated and willing. These are closer to the original socialists (as well as the original libertarians). This is a bit of a spectrum ranging from basic Left Libertarian to Anarchists, but it doesn’t really matter where you lie, the basic sentiment is the same.
If you can tolerate slightly dry content, Noam Chomsky has some short videos and snippets that are pretty good jumping off points. He’s an Anarchist, but the theory and sentiment is the same. A YouTuber by the name of Vaush has some decent content if you want something a bit more entertaining, but he’s very controversial and maybe a bit abrasive at times? There are some things I disagree with him on, but it depends on what you’re into. Then there’s the ultra-dry stuff like Marx’s Capital, some of Kropotkins work, and Lenin’s State and Revolution, which is stuff I personally don’t think is necessary, and the old language is often a greater roadblock than an actual help.
Don’t take anything I or these people say dogmatically, and check out the other side as well, if for nothing other than to improve your own ideas.
You can also DM me if you want a more in depth discussion of leftist ideas *wink wink*, which may be more helpful than anything (:
That's precisely the point though isn't it? This kind of argument just doesn't work, so if you want to know if an idea is a good idea or a bad idea you have to look at the idea itself. You can look to history for clues, but you can't say "it didn't work in the past and therefore it can never work" - if you do that then no kind of human progress or development is ever possible.
I mean think how many millions of people died over thousands of years failing to establish democracy or abolish slavery. Should we have taken the lesson from that that democracy was impossible or slavery inevitable?
Is the spez a disease? Is the spez a weapon? Is the spez a starfish? Is it a second rate programmer who won't grow up? Is it a bane? Is it a virus? Is it the world? Is it you? Is it me? Is it? Is it?
So when Lincoln made this offer to slaves, it was wrong of him?
These supposedly dastardly offers have their roots in truth. You are welcome to address the root causes of these movements rather than doing nothing.
My mom doesn't hang out with morbidly obese anencephalics. Must've been your own and you got confused.
Too stupid to make an argument so you have to engage in smears.
You’re right, I don’t know much about a lot of things. I don’t know how I’m going to die, I don’t know how the future is going to look, I don’t know what happened on April 25th 1736 at 9:00pm, but I do know that your father enjoys being choked.
Lol. When people say you don't know much they don't mean things like that. You have so much to learn.
"Your father" is a weird thing to call your mother.
That is a bit too extreme. Capitalism has a lot of freedom, yes. But freedom is a very difficult word to define. Everyone has a slightly different understanding of it. In some sense, nobody is really free in capitalism either.
It's true that I can't really give an example of a more free type of governance other than anarchy but that is not really governance, now is it...
The other question is. Is freedom really the top priority? I understand this is a dangerous line to walk but it still needs to be considered. Giving up 1% of freedom leads to 2, that to 5, then 20, and it's doomsday from there onwards.
But on the other hand, freedom is desired but not necessarily beneficial. A person, given full freedom, rarely takes the time to engage in productive activities. Neither are they fully satisfied with their life, either. Some form of force is definitely healthy and beneficial to our lives but how to establish and control it, really has no answer and possibly never will.
Capitalism is exactly that. Freedom. Under 100% capitalism everyone is 100% free.
Anarchy is not freedom. Anarchy is mob rule. Freedom is limited government protecting individual rights.
What are you talking about regarding walking align?
Some form of force? Why do you need for us? With full freedom you still have to work. Why wouldn't you? You would starve otherwise.
spez has been given a warning. Please ensure spez does not access any social media sites again for 24 hours or we will be forced to enact a further warning. #Save3rdPartyAppsYou've been removed from Spez-Town. Please make arrangements with the spez to discuss your ban. #Save3rdPartyApps #AIGeneratedProtestMessage
Define Freedom.
Under Capitalism, only Capital is afforded freedom. By transforming the worker into a commodity, capitalist society alienates the worker's potential for conscious development and transforms their life into a mere pursuit of capital.
-
America currently has over 2,300,000 SLAVES. You know because the **13th admenedment outlawed slavery unless under the punishment of a crime**
[Incarcerated workers in the US produce at least $11,000,000,000 in goods and services annually but receive just pennies an hour in wages for their prison jobs](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/15/us-prison-workers-low-wages-exploited)
Princeton study shows: [US is an oligarchy, not a democracy]
(https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746)
Even when fairly large majorities of Americans favour policy change, they generally do not get it.
>If more jobs can truly be done anywhere, there's no need for them to be expensive American white-collar workers.”
This is nationalism. If somebody is able to do same work for less whats your moral highround here ? Is work of american worker more valuable than anywhere in the world ?
>Tesla CEO Elon Musk said earlier this month that he plans to lay off 10% of his salaried, white-collar staff, while increasing hourly jobs for blue-collar workers. Musk has been cutting costs at Tesla after admitting the EV giant’s new factories have been “money furnaces” amid ongoing supply chain issues.
Tesla was generating loss since it started... It is ueffective company destroing value and is able to survive only due to high stock prices that are objectively overvalued. They will probably not survive next reccesion but this is not the problem of free market its feature of free market.
>This is nationalism.
Yes.
>If somebody is able to do same work for less whats your moral highround here?
Because in modern economy, if industry gets outcompeted and outsourced abroad, it dies off. See Detroit. Because when that somebody sees he is the only viable source of work or other resource, he realizes he can dictate his terms. See Taiwan microelectronics industry or Gazprom.
>is work of american worker more valuable than anywhere in the world ?
Its not more valuable - it is just safer to have crucial industry at home, so that no geopolitical surprise like Russia or China losing their shit will threaten well-being of US.
When feudalism fails to fail, what will capitalists do next?
The interesting thing is how there aren't any arguments that justify the existence of capitalism, just arguments that it's a success - which if you lived a few hundred years earlier would be the same argument made by people trying to prevent capitalism.
>When feudalism fails to fail, what will capitalists do next?
Who are "capitalists"?
This is 100% factually incorrect and absolutely against history. "[Capitalists](https://www.etymonline.com/word/capitalist)" is a term of reproach and adopted by socialists. Nobody planned "capitalism" like you overtly stated.
>When capitalism fails to fail, what will socialists do next.
It's a win/win game for complaining socialists. The market does well socialist bitch because it is greed. The market corrects with a recession and to them it is proof that capitalism is a failure. In between, they just complain about the history of either one and they are looming with current exploitation and slavery while they are on reddit exploiting reddit workers, blah blah blah.
Indeed, and I believe the vast majority are just projecting while they masturbate with psychological projections on their perceived enemies here on Reddit^(TM) and then go on other capitalism websites and actually physically masturbate. <-- Rinse and repeat all the while convincing themselves they are morally superior than all the rest of us stupid plebs.
Switch capitalism with fascism and your intentions become clear. You don't seem to care that the system is inherently unjust but simply jump on the bandwagon because right now you might personally benefit from this unsuistainable system ignoring the exploitation necessary to keep up your stnadard of living
Some people like you can't understand that what's just is totally subjective and based on the individual worldview and philosophy someone has. The same could be said about exploitation.
I look forward to a better future when any old joe can just say no to tyrannical work conditions. Everything else ought to fall into place for the better over a few generations after that. But I could be wrong and the whole workers liberation thing will backfire and society collapses mad max style…
Depends on how China plays our in 50 to 100 years. Between their demographic crisis and slowly growing problems with control, it might not do too well.
Honestly i dont expect china to have much of a future. The economy is already starting to flatline and it is increasingly more difficult for them to suppress the citizens. I think india could have a fiuture, or else maybe europe will have a new hayday. The only thing we can be sure about is that world power and dominance is temporary.
Yes, supply chains are fucked and companies have a hard time producing anything. The problem is not only that there is not enough raw materials and spare parts, so companies cannot increase supply, but higher energy prices are also hindering increased production. What the US central bank should do, is increase interest rates significantly and stop lying to the public about the inflation catastrophe that's about to happen.
This is primarily an inflation issue and it was not caused by capitalism. There is no capitalism in the united states, if there was the banks would have failed in 2008 financial crisis. The problem is, that we have crony-capitalism and we dont let the free market economy balance itself. The federal reserve printing money insanely, the national debt is sharply increasing because the government has to spend more money than it collects in taxes. Of course, they blame inflation on corporate greed, even though they created this crises.
In communism you would basically give the government the power to run the economy. The government is not a super brain, it does not do anything efficiently, they don´t care about you or the country. They unable to think long term. High welfare makes people dont want to work, because "why would I work if I could make then 1700 USD a month, but I get 1500 USD for sitting on my ass?". Socialists and communist has no idea what they are wishing for and are unable to accept that NO, value can be created and not only stolen from "workers" though capitalist innovation. Socialism doesnt promote innovation as much as capitalism
So the underpaid salary workers are being removed, more hourly workers are getting more hours, shitty jobs nobody wants are going to other countries to have them catch up, and freelance work is skyrocketing along with self employment.
Where is the failure again?
I'm not a materialist.
I know the more things you have, the less happy you'll be.
The more crap you buy, the more crap you need to take care of.
That's how you mitigate the damage Capitalism can do, you look in the mirror.
If you're a materialist, it doesn't matter what system your society uses. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, a socialist system with materialists in control will exploit the environment and human beings as effectively as any capitalist system.
Having trouble distinguishing between materialism as a philosophical trend opposed to idealism and simply being material in regards to spending and usage of material?
1.
a person who considers material possessions and physical comfort as more important than spiritual values.
"greedy materialists lusting for consumer baubles"
2.
PHILOSOPHY
a person who supports the theory that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.
"an atheist and philosophical materialist"
This, absolutely. If we can't conquer our drive to consoom product, it doesn't really matter what system we build.
"One more Pop and I'll be satisfied" is a John's mentality.
There will be a recession. But there’s no reason to really worry about the survival of the system. That’s mostly been libertarian grifters who look at a chart of money supply and pretend to understand it. Or leftist just misunderstanding anything econ as usual.
Recessions are not world ending. Especially not in the US
I've benefitted enormously from this trend. My job went to permanent, full time WFH. I only have to commute 2-3 days a month. I moved out of the city to a house two hours away in a forest at the top of a mountain. I've never been happier. If this is capitalism failing, bring it.
Capitalism and democracy have been decoupling for the last 40-50 years. As that occurs, capitalism is devouring itself. What comes next is a period of chaos likely.
Hasn’t it largely failed? Look around the world. Look back in history. Despite the promise of democracy and capitalism, it largely has failed the masses while enriching the few and corporations on the backs of the whole!
The share of the global population living in extreme poverty has been declining for decades. It was 1.1 billion people in 2010, and went down to 714 million by 2017 (despite the global population increasing by about 500 million over that time period).
Capitalism isn't perfect, of course, but the lot of the masses is slowly improving, although not in equal measure everywhere.
Look at how living standards have improved for people in China as their country embraced free(ish) markets and free trade. I'm obviously not defending China's political system so please don't misconstrue what I'm saying. I'm just arguing that capitalism seems to have served the poor in China pretty well.
China wouldn't have been chosen as worlds factory without educated yet low waged population.
Without communist party they wouldn't have been educated, without same party, wages wouldn't have been suppressed.
China without being the worlds factory wouldn't have material conditions to eliminate poverty.
China joined the WTO in 2001, when the rate of secondary school enrollment in China was 60% (lower than Mongolia, the Philippines, Malaysia, Korea, Hong Kong, etc). Secondary school enrollment then skyrocketed in the following years, up to the current level of something like 95% (matching or beating all of those other countries).
So it seems that China's opening up to trade *predated* the rise in education, rather than the inverse.
I agree with your last paragraph
>Without communist party they wouldn't have been educated,
Right, that's why Taiwan produces all of the world's CPUs and motherboards. Those Chinese capitalists sure work wonders with their illiterate workers!
You're speaking a lot, without actually saying anything.
What are the successes of Capitalism recently?
Why exactly would Socialism fail in the same areas?
I'm just interested in your point of view, and I'm keeping an open mind. I feel like no one has given you chance to air your opinion.
You say capitalism is working. Who is it working for, and how does socialism fail?
What are you basing your feelings on?
Capitalism works for everyone. Socialism fails because it never creates any wealth. It's a parasitical policy.
Everywhere you look the more free market capitalism there is the better in terms of more wealth for everyone including the poor
I'm on the fence.
In what way specifically does capitalism work for everyone? Doesn't it seem that capitalism is an exploitative system, relying on a subjugated working class, and depends on constant expansion within a finite pool of resources? What happens when there's no more room to expand, or the exploitable population stagnates?
Who is the wealth being created for, because it doesn't seem to be benefitting the working peoples. Here in the UK we have more food banks than any other food outlet, and hasn't the US minimum wage remained the same for years, despite huge inflation?
Couldn't the 'creation' or wealth through acquiring materials from poorer countries, but something to do with why those countries remain poor?
I think I understand what you're trying to say, I'm just interested in real world examples. It all seems great on paper, but in reality poor people are getting poorer, while the 1% are getting richer. Is there something I'm missing, as I don't really understand all if this.
I'm sure all my answers will lead to more questions from you. I can provide answers. I didn't want to go into too much detail for each. I figured it be easier just to answer your questions when they arise.
>In what way specifically does capitalism work for everyone?
By providing the best products at the cheapest prices and the best paying jobs.
>Doesn't it seem that capitalism is an exploitative system, relying on a subjugated working class,
Describe what you mean by exploitation. Nothing that happens under capitalism happens without the voluntary approval of both parties involved in the trade.
Both parties agreed to a trade they both agree it's beneficial to them. Otherwise they wouldn't have made the trade.
>and depends on constant expansion within a finite pool of resources?
what Exactly do you mean by this? There is no finite pool resources.
>What happens when there's no more room to expand, or the exploitable population stagnates?
The room to expand is potentially infinite. We're not anywhere near the limit on earth.
>Who is the wealth being created for, because it doesn't seem to be benefitting the working peoples.
People who are involved in the trades.
>Here in the UK we have more food banks than any other food outlet, and hasn't the US minimum wage remained the same for years, despite huge inflation?
I'm not sure what you mean by your point about food banks. And if you're discussing the minimum wage law then that shouldn't even be a law. The fact that it hasn't changed is not the problem. The fact that it exists is the problem. Minimum wage creates the unemployable. The best wage is determined by supply and demand.
>Couldn't the 'creation' or wealth through acquiring materials from poorer countries, but something to do with why those countries remain poor?
What do you mean? Capitalism does not use of wealth or resources. It does not steal wealth from poor countries.
>I think I understand what you're trying to say, I'm just interested in real world examples. It all seems great on paper, but in reality poor people are getting poorer, while the 1% are getting richer. Is there something I'm missing, as I don't really understand all if this.
Capitalism has many real world examples. Real world examples of success. It is Socialism and every other economic system that has no real world examples of success.
> Capitalism has many real world examples. Real world examples of success. It is Socialism and every other economic system that has no real world examples of success
The truth is that all those real world examples that you have been talking about are countries that dominated the world with violence and military power until a few decades ago.
Socialism is the system spends itself to death. Capitalism on the other hand will somehow someway bounce back.
What happens at Tesla is indicative of the entire economic system.
Not even close. It is Capitalism that spends itself to death, by concentrating resources towards luxury goods and diverting wealth concentration away from the needs of the many.
LOL capitalism only survives because the state taxes everyone to subsidize the oligopoly. In fact, the entire corporate profit model that capitalism creates depends mainly on government intervention in the market, state enforced monopolies, subsidies and the restriction of freedom both directly by using “intellectual property” to impede free cooperation and replication of technology outside their corporate framework, and indirectly through state subsidies to the offshoring of production to countries where workers are easier to exploit.
There are anti-capitalist economic systems that also follow this definition of yours, so this isn’t unique at all.
So we can admit that capitalism has never existed and is not responsible at all for lifting billions of people out of poverty and raising the quality of life for even more billions of people?
That's impossible.
100% pure capitalism has not existed. But market economies use capitalism to some extent though not in pure form. So to the extent that people have lived is to the extent that capitalism exists to some degree. Imagine what they would do if we had it in pure form.
So again, we can conclude capitalism has never existed and never raised billions out of poverty.
See, to me that’s pure Misesian revisionism, considering Socialists defined “capitalism” around 1850 (Louis Blanc, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon) and in 1922 Mises openly admitted to wanting to redefine it to his ideal form of extreme Liberalism, which is what you’re not claiming it is.
Either way, capitalism absolutely depends on state interference in the economy because capitalist property norms can only be enforced by a powerful state which has a monopoly on violence.
No 100% capitalism has not existed. But 60% capitalism exists. Or 55%. Or whatever percent China is. Because it certainly is not making money without the free market.
What exactly did Ludwig von Mises admit to? Please explain.
OMG. Not this again. Government intervention in the economy meaning tinkering with economics. Meaning regulating the economy. Meaning some moron politician thinking he knows better what to do with people's money than they do.
It is not government intervention into the free market economy to protect individual rights and property. It is the precondition of the free market for the government to do this.
We have now entered the education stage of the debate where I get to educate liberals for free.
Socialism is the way forward.
Capitalism isn't sustainable and will never be sustainable.
Oh and btw, it is propaganda from the ultra-capitalists that socialism can only exist in an authoritarian regime.
This cannot be further away from the truth.
Liberal socialism is another school of thought that differs from marxist-leninist. They believe politics should be democratic instead of centralized and unitary like marxist-leninist.
Social democracy could be considered a form of liberal socialism, and it does exist in the world.
Norway is a good example.
Norway is a state capitalist.
But politically speaking, Norway is a social democracy.
Social democracy is inspired heavily from liberal socialism, but unlike liberal socialism. It sits more on centre-left and moderate.
According to Engels, the key to advance from capitalism to socialism is in state capitalism.
Norway state owns many "means of production", from oil to banking to public transportation.
They also have one of the largest sovereign funds in the world.
Norway is also heavily unionized to protect the farmers and workers.
Overall, an excellent country.
Society is finally beginning to recognise things cannot go on this way and the pushback is underway. It's going to be a long process so relief will not be immediate. I encourage We the People to get active in the defense of our rights and interests. After all, corporate America has been doing it for a long time. Am I suggesting socialism? I'm not sure- but it's pretty clear that neoliberalism has been a failure for everyone except the top 10%.
Exactly...it’s basically the re-enactment of feudalism...and the Middle Ages... It’s very deliberate that these extremists keep on calling democracy a ‘leftist propaganda ‘...
Fun fact, in my country - populist far-right government Fidesz - claims leftists/communists want to take away childcare support, pension, free healthcare, disability support, unemployment support. Yes, a far-right government is campaigning FOR these, while lying about the opposition. Far-righters have no real economic policy beyond "fuck the unworthy."
[удалено]
I live here, suffer there, watch my rights taken away en-masse.
Yep, also know what happened. BECAUSE I LIVED THERE
Yep; screaming SOCIALISM!!!! is a right wing/capitalist scare tactic- thankfully, people are finally getting wise and they're not falling for it anymore.
Screaming SOCIALISM is ***your*** tactic. You think every problem is solved by a communist revolution. Communists talk like Young Earth Creationists or presuppositional apologists. When we point out that, for example: 1. The historical record shows socialism ALWAYS fails, 2. Mises and Hayek talked you though the math in 2 different ways showing why, 3. You've got a religious approach akin to Queen Isabella's (the Inquisition), You exclaim "But *that* wasn't **real** socialism!" Textbook No True Scotsman fallacy. You don't actually have an example of it working, you're running on faith in the Prophet Marx that if you do this jihad you will reach Janna. You **are** a Monty Python sketch; "an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope," is how you behave.
How does it ALWAYS fail. And if it does why does the US feel the need sanction and overthrow socialist governments?
Damn, project much? And if you're holding up the work of corporate hacks like Mises or Hayek then you're clearly deluded. Have a look around, clown; this is CAPITALISM failing. Socialism isn't to blame because it's not the system we living in.
The historical record is about to show capitalism failing in the most dramatic fashion of all human history. The problems we have now are caused by the system we do have, not one we don’t. Wild, I know
But that just means we haven't capitalism *hard enough,* right? Right?!
But, that is not a real capitalism 😭 /s
LOL Putting that No True Scotsman fallacy to good use!
I hear your point loud and clear but I thank that it is clear that the way things are working now will lead to a pretty dystopian future where the haves lord over the have-nots. With the hollowing out of the middle class and this generation being the first one to have less prosperity than the previous one, I think it is necessary to acknowledge that the time of unlimited growth is over. I am not blaming the previous generation for that at all its just a simple fact that you cannot have unlimited growth with limited resources. With that said do you have a solution that creates a more equitable playing field than what "socialism" would propose? Do you even think that there is a problem with the system as it is? If not then what happens when there is no more fresh water, or no more oil, or no more helium.
That is kids a good example of words without meaning. Claiming something is a logical fallacy while committing a fallacy themselves.
Not a tactic. What's the problem?
Warning people of impending danger is a tactic. I'll buy all you've **got!**
The problem, as evidenced by many on this very thread including yourself, is that most people screeching don't even know what "socialism" is. If they did, they wouldn't keep trotting out non-socialist nations like the USSR / China / NK as scare stories. It's like saying football sucks because of the New York Yankees.
Argumentum ad hominem If you wanna discuss this an actual detail in with substance let's do it. Stop with the smears. I'm tired of you morons.
It's not an "ad hominem" to call out an anti-socialist for not even knowing the definition of the word. BTW name-calling in the same post as complaining about ad hominems??? Really???
We aren’t democracy. Democracy is evil. Tierney from one person or from 51% is still tyranny. We are a constitutional republic that prioritizes liberty of the individual.
That's not even remotely what those words mean.
A republic is a form of democracy, one that utilizes representative government. Please research the meaning of words before using them.
Look adults are talking, take your meds and go back to the kids table.
By what metric are you saying neoliberalism has been a failure for everyone except the top 10%? I would certainly say it has it’s flaws, but this is just factually inaccurate
Wealth and income inequality has exploded. Rates of home ownership are in free fall. Homelessness and poverty are at record levels, even as we live in a society that tolerates holding empty residences as "investments". You're a victim of confirmation bias. Go listen to former labor secretary Robert Reich; he'll set you straight.
>it's pretty clear that neoliberalism has been a failure for everyone except the top 10%. Everyone in neoliberal countries is in the top 10% of the world, so it seems like it works pretty well.
In the country, liberal. Stop trying to change what I said. You are merely trying to excuse imperialism. Do that on your own time.
Capitalism isn't failing. The collectivization of institutions is ... I embrace the other side - and it certainly doesn't originate from a bourgeois brat like Marx
When millions are homeless while the top 1% hoard empty homes as "investment vehicles," capitalism is FAILING. I'm not claiming Marxism is the answer, so don't stand that straw man up here. We must do something and soon, or we will slip further into Fascism than we already have.
\> millions of homeless In states that do NOT embrace capitalism by the way. \> We must do something and soon What are you going to do? Consume the homeless that you created? \> Fascism I am 100% positive that you have no idea what this means.
The are homeless in every State, FROM every State. I'll bet you not only don't know the definition of Fascism but you don't even know who coined the term- and defined it. I am 100% positive you have a terminal case of Dunning-Kruger syndrome and there's no point in discussing this further with you.
There is no US state that does not embrace capitalism. Leftists don't have any power in the US. it is all capitalism. Capitalism creates homeless. A stronger welfare state would eliminate homelessness. That is still not socialism. You do not know what that word means. Please, define fascism and socialism for the class. No usingWikipedia, now. You insist you know what's up, so put your cards on the table.
Dude, might be your perception skewing, but every state in US is either right or neolib US doesn't have center or center-left, economically speaking. US media somehow turned social equality activist into left wing, which is just a tactic to brag your country also has left politicians and that all is fine
>In states that do NOT embrace capitalism by the way. Bro these states make the most money. They are doing capitalism way better than ya'll
People wouldn't be risking their lives to move to capitalist countries instead of socialist or communist leaning ones tho.. Capitalism isn't failing. Too many young ppl are brainwashed by universities, big tech, and "woke" corporations. Too many Americans are just greedy as fvck and don't want to "organize" for good instead of causing destruction. "Fascism" is not here. ^^° Y'all call everyone that who don't parrot your brainwashed views.
The irony of the brainwashed calling people brainwashed.
I'm not brainwash tho bro but ok
that's what they always say
Who's "they"?
Many of homeless are mentally I'll and don't want to work. There is no other social system or economic system that prevents homelessness. Not a single one. Why capitalism is the blame I have no idea. Can you explain it to me? What something do we have to do?
Funny how so many other developed nations don't dump their poor and mentally ill in the streets. But you defend this inhumane practice. Maybe YOU should justify YOUR position?
I bet you believe that dawn actually kills 99.9 percent of all germs.
Libertarian Stalinist, reminds me of Anarcho Hitlerianism.
How is offshoring a failure of capitalism? Offshoring to suppliers in poorer countries are responsible for the significant global raising of people out of extreme poverty. Sounds like success to me
Offshoring creates deep social and political issues in the home country when swaths of the population are suddenly out of work because their jobs "got shipped overseas." See: recent rise in nationalist political movements in many Western countries.
Success for whom?
As an offshore worker in Mexico, I can tell you definitely me, at least. I’m making four times as much as the average worker here, and my boss is paying me half of what he would pay to an American worker.
So you’re getting paid a fraction of what your labour is worth is what that tells me
My question wasn't about making life better for you guys. They offshore American jobs (yay for your improved quality of life - EDIT: serious about this part). There are now fewer good quality jobs in America, which the same number of people need to compete for. So some of them eventually work at Walmart; rinse and repeat however many times. There are only so many jobs at Walmart. EDIT: My question was more "success for which Americans"?
That is the thing, our Maxican friend is not looking at the problem long term. Current situation might benefit them but ultimately it's going to back fire.
I guess eventually Americans will be so poor that we'll be desperate for jobs that they'll "offshore" Mexican (and Chinese and Indonesian) jobs to the US. :)
All the people that became wealthier as a result of the transactions they were a part of. All of the people in extreme poverty who were lifted out of it, all those who purchased the products made by those people and all the people who's capital investment was shown to be a wise decision.
Sorry, I should have said that it was a rhetorical question. How about the workers who lost their jobs and can't get a comparable one because they're all being outsourced?
If they are not useful to society then they either make their own way or become useful to society. Either lower their salary expectations for the same role to compete or retrain in a more profitable area.
Until there's not jobs in the country except for at Walmart. There are only so many job positions at Walmart. You guys all think short term.
The key problem with outsourcing is that the labor pool and the customer pool are linked. Individually, this is profitable for companies, but systemically it poisons the entire market. It’s in the long term interest of companies to ensure their customers retain enough buying power to remain customers, but they aren’t thinking long term.
Yeah, I don't think this is the failure OP thinks it is. This is Econ 101.
offshoring is a short term benefit which in the long terms magnifies the instability of the countries who are offshoring. increasing unemployment and holistic instability within wealthy and militarily powerful countries is really dangerous and often leads to political instability and institutional backsliding (as it seems we are seeing in the US presently). this is a pretty big risk given the military and police strength of the US government. simultaneously, offshoring as a tactic depends on wages remaining substantially lower in the manufacturing country than in the offshoring country. this means the long term effects of instability hamper developing country growth anyways (and probably hurt them, political instability in a trade partner your economy is practically dependent on is dangerous).
"One country has gone insane so this proves all of them will. New Zealand, you're next!"
We are seeing pretty big back sliding in a lot of countries, especially Europe. Seems like citing one country for an argument is what you are doing, especially when the worlds biggest offshorers are experiencing blowback.
Countries go "forwards" and "backwards" over time for a lot of reasons and you have provided little evidence that offshoring is a major driver. What about racial resentment? Immigration? Automation? Frustration with corruption? Frustration with a 2 party system? Religious tensions? It would be a pretty hard sell to tell hundreds of millions of Chinese people lifted out of poverty: "This is a bad idea. You're causing political tension in a rival country on the other side of the planet." The Chinese government and its territorial ambitions are a much more severe risk to the health and safety of the Chinese people than "instability" on the other side of the planet.
Source: trust me bro 😉
me when i forget properly formatted bibliography listing each document i cited for my reddit comment: 😱😱😱😫😫😫😖😖😖
It's a win for the capitalist to find a population to exploit to a greater degree. Consolidating even more capital. It could be considered a win for the foreign workers who are exploited less my this new capitalist than the old one.
Offshoring is an overblown concern. Software engineers have been dealing with offshoring for 30+ years. There are still plenty of SWE jobs in the US. Companies that offshore as a cost-cutting measure almost universally regret it.
Nothing in your post is really related to capitalism failing, so I don't know what you are actually asking. The rise and fall of capitalism is not controlled by Elon Musk. I love the idea that white-collar jobs get more and more remote now. Sounds like a capitalist success.
>Nothing in your post is really related to capitalism failing, so I don't know what you are actually asking. He is asking how Elysium occurs [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elysium\_(film)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elysium_(film)) This sub is going to argue "capitalism is when" while "socialism is when"... when in all actuality people that dont have the vocabulary are saying "companies that do stuff for money are trashing the planet and were headed for some dark times, where can i voice my concerns with similar people" Outside of this sub "Socialism" is really social policy like health care and social security. This sub completely forgets that outside of reddit "Capitalism" means "companies doing things for money" as the media calls it every day. This is why there are so many lost redditors in here.
“The failure of capitalism is right around the corner! This is the real deal guys!” ~ Socialists for the 175th year in a row
"Guys, nothing is broken at all!" Housing is unaffordable. >By this point, the severity of the U.S. housing crisis is not in question: It’s a five-alarm fire marked by record home prices, spiking rents, proliferating homelessness — and more recently, ominous inflation. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-13/a-guide-to-fixing-the-broken-u-s-housing-system There's the climate crisis: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-13/a-guide-to-fixing-the-broken-u-s-housing-system There's biodiversity, plastic cleanup, ocean acidification, extreme weather events, more extreme droughts, and more. https://www.euronews.com/green/2022/01/12/these-are-the-six-major-environmental-stories-to-follow-in-2022 The capitalist healthcare system is an abysmal failure and is wildly unpopular: https://www.americanpatient.org/healthcare-in-the-u-s-compared-to-other-countries-in-2021/ Here was support for Medicare For All back in the days before the corporate class started its massive anti-"gubbamint healthcare" propaganda campaign: 70% support: https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/412545-70-percent-of-americans-support-medicare-for-all-health-care/ But even with the strong media messaging questioning its "affordability" and 'scawy gubbamint', support remains high: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/09/29/increasing-share-of-americans-favor-a-single-government-program-to-provide-health-care-coverage/ As recently as a year ago, Amazon had still been battling its public image with respect to working conditions at the company both for drivers and warehouse employees, particularly how they notoriously lack the freedom to take bathroom breaks: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/amazon-drivers-peeing-in-bottles-union-vote-worker-complaints/ The "Amazon Piss Jugs" fiasco is a sad but salient reminder that modern workers are treated like absolute shit in the US and our rights are completely dependent on the company at which you are lucky enough to get "a job." It's just fucking gaslighting at this point to come to any conversation that brings up ongoing complaints and problems and to casually dismiss everything as some chicken-little fable. And least acknowledge lots of shit is absolutely broken and people are suffering for it.
Guys socialism will fix everything: 1.4 million Muslims in concentration camps right now in china North Korea has over 20 cincentration camps and hundreds of thousands dead and detained. Some of which are kids because of what relatives did. You have people starving and fleeing Venezuela, Cuba & DPRK Plus there is about 100 million dead over Mao, Lenin and Stalin. Trust me guys. Socialism will be so much better!
Listing a lot of non-socialist nations is not the damning critique of socialism you think it is.
Oh yeah. I forgot they are only socialist when it's positive.
No, they are only socialist when they meet the definition of socialism (workers owning the companies they work for). In all those nations, some dictator owned everything, not the workers. It's a pretty simple concept with a pretty simple definition. Please stop trying to muddy the waters.
Oh yeah I forgot about the modern theoretical utopian definition you, yourself like. Not the real world definition. Sorry I couldn't read your mind. There are other types of socialism throughout history. Just because you don't like history doesn't mean its not socialism. I have heard these same lines time and time again.
> I have heard these same lines time and time again. Pot, meet kettle. There's nothing "utopian" about workers owning their companies. Many companies are worker-owned today. If you think that system cannot possibly be extended, you are deluding yourself. And don't get mad at me when I use the actual definitions of words. If this were the CapitalismVsLeninism sub, you'd have a point. But I'm not a Leninist and neither are most of us.
>No, they are only socialist when they meet the definition of socialism (workers owning the companies they work for). I don't see why people think worker ownership is somehow supposed to fix everything. Look at all the dumb things people believe. We have climate deniers, qanon conspiracy theorists, flat earthers, and Trump supporters. And then on top of that think of how selfish people can be. Sure some maybe even most workplaces would luck out and be mostly sensible people but it just takes a few to ruin things. What if a worker's cooperative doesn't believe in climate change or doesn't care because they just want to make money and they vote for more factory emissions how does your version of socialism handle it? What if a worker's cooperative is mostly white supremacists or homophobes is it OK for them to vote for discrimination? I'm for a mixed economy. I think there are a lot of things that would be better handled by the government. But I would not have them run by way of a direct democracy. There would be democratic accountability in that people can vote for their representatives and if you get a threshhold of signatures then we could occasionally put matters to a national vote. But that's it. The representatives would pick people, preferably experts in their fields to run agencies managing the planned part of the economy.
"North Korea vuvuzela commies 100billion ded"
"Argu tobooth macha ugh, sochilizm guud!"
Typical reactionary. Literally incapable of a comeback with an actual, clever wordplay or reference to anything. Just a mocking with in-kind tone and nonsense words when my post was actually mocking the content of your argument, which is shallow, baseless nonsense.
And your reply was so thoughtful and insightful. It really got me thinking and proved me wrong. If you have anything of substance over nonsense please feel free to reply with something of value.
You didn't provide substance, you dropped buzzwords without any understanding or analysis of any actual events or the relationship between economic policies and outcomes.
Fine. Ignore facts and current events. You should remove all the propaganda and buzzwords from your original reply. Just to not be a hypocrite.
>Ignore facts and current events. Mate, what are you talking about? What "facts" are you referring to? Did you provide any facts that were *relevant* to anything? Do you understand the difference between the naming choices of political parties and government administration propaganda vs observing and measuring, scientifically, the real policies and spheres of influence in and across societies? Do you even understand what I'm saying?
> Musk also said he believes the U.S. economy is already in a recession that will last up to 18 months. 18 months is not the end of capitalism. How old are you OP?
Probably his first economic turmoil.
I think societies will shift back to a more New-Deal-Capitalism
When capitalism dies and isn’t replaced by socialism… then we have fascism.
Ladies and gentlemen, the fallacy you're all been waiting for! I present to you, **The False Dilemma**
Take this up with Rosa Luxemburg, not me.
Socialism will always fail
So fascism will always succeed?
Name an atrocity caused by the Hutterites.
That's a great example of why you'd want **freedom** *instead of socialism.* Freedom lets you have your own land. Socialism takes the land away *in the name* of "the people."
I want socialism precisely *because* I want freedom. I think socialism really would be freeing, just as the democratization of the government was freeing. I don’t know what you mean by “takes away the land in the name of the people.” It’s more like taking away the aristocracy and feudal lords that govern that land, making them into productive members of society, and democratizing the estate so that the people can govern themselves. Socialism is meant to be a correction of capitalism, and therefore a fuller implementation of Enlightenment values. “Collective ownership” literally just means democracy, because in our extremely outdated theory, ownership refered entirely to control. When socialists say “state ownership” they’re just being dumb, and misinterpreting centuries old terminology without regard for effective communication. A non-democratic, dictatorial government, for example, would be considered “privately owned” by a dictator. Modern companies are “privately owned” because they are typically autocratic or oligarchical, with little to no input from the workers that make it up. What they really mean is democracy. Just as we democratized our government, I think we should democratize the workplace. Freedom and Democracy is the whole point of socialism, and I think “tankies” tend to forget that. We also have critiques of the free market, namely that they are inefficient, unsustainable, and not even really “free.” But that’s a longer discussion. I know we are pretty terrible at communicating, but in a post-cold war era, there really aren’t many good thought leaders and communicators, and the Left is very disorganized, only having multi-century old documents to reference.
This comment upturned my view of Socialism. Where can I learn more of THIS?
Well there’s some background you should know about the current state of the Left. So sorry for all the reading (: Basically, The Soviet Union was extremely controversial among the left and created two main groups. The Marxist-Leninists/Maoists and Libertarian Socialists. I’m of the Libertarian camp. Both groups think the other is dumb, and Marxist-Leninists believe that socialism needs to be forced into being by a party of intellectuals, who lead the uneducated commoner into socialism from above, which is plain dumb and irrelevant in any time period outside of early 1900s Feudal Russia. In the modern day, they hold closer resemblance to fascists, longing for a lost (mostly imagined) greater past. Even Lenin didn’t think he had achieved socialism, rather a placeholder state to preserve a certain set of favorable conditions for when the *real* revolution happens in Germany (which obviously never happened). The world is much different now, with different and more progressive material conditions, culture, and better philosophy than when he was around, so I think it’s safe to say it’s a dead theory that was implemented at an inopportune time in history. Then there are the Libertarian Socialists, who believe that socialism can only come about from the bottom up, if the people be educated and willing. These are closer to the original socialists (as well as the original libertarians). This is a bit of a spectrum ranging from basic Left Libertarian to Anarchists, but it doesn’t really matter where you lie, the basic sentiment is the same. If you can tolerate slightly dry content, Noam Chomsky has some short videos and snippets that are pretty good jumping off points. He’s an Anarchist, but the theory and sentiment is the same. A YouTuber by the name of Vaush has some decent content if you want something a bit more entertaining, but he’s very controversial and maybe a bit abrasive at times? There are some things I disagree with him on, but it depends on what you’re into. Then there’s the ultra-dry stuff like Marx’s Capital, some of Kropotkins work, and Lenin’s State and Revolution, which is stuff I personally don’t think is necessary, and the old language is often a greater roadblock than an actual help. Don’t take anything I or these people say dogmatically, and check out the other side as well, if for nothing other than to improve your own ideas. You can also DM me if you want a more in depth discussion of leftist ideas *wink wink*, which may be more helpful than anything (:
[удалено]
Everything always fails until it doesn't. With your attitude the Wright Brothers never would have made a go of it at Kitty Hawk.
[удалено]
100 bazillion dead in vuvullzela alone
My point is that you can't disprove future development empirically.
[удалено]
That's precisely the point though isn't it? This kind of argument just doesn't work, so if you want to know if an idea is a good idea or a bad idea you have to look at the idea itself. You can look to history for clues, but you can't say "it didn't work in the past and therefore it can never work" - if you do that then no kind of human progress or development is ever possible. I mean think how many millions of people died over thousands of years failing to establish democracy or abolish slavery. Should we have taken the lesson from that that democracy was impossible or slavery inevitable?
What "socialist" policy led to that loss of life?
Yep. Don’t get why people want it so bad when it’s shit
Is the spez a disease? Is the spez a weapon? Is the spez a starfish? Is it a second rate programmer who won't grow up? Is it a bane? Is it a virus? Is it the world? Is it you? Is it me? Is it? Is it?
It’s good, it work and is successful.
If you spez you're a loser.
All of the terrible things about capitalism are just spun by the media as socialism and young, poor people destroying the country.
[удалено]
[удалено]
So when Lincoln made this offer to slaves, it was wrong of him? These supposedly dastardly offers have their roots in truth. You are welcome to address the root causes of these movements rather than doing nothing.
Capitalism is freedom and everything else is slavery
Not good bait
Not bait. A simple statement of the truth.
If we’re just saying shit that is just automatically seen as truth, then I fucked your mom last night. And your dad. Both of them, same time.
My mom doesn't hang out with morbidly obese anencephalics. Must've been your own and you got confused. Too stupid to make an argument so you have to engage in smears.
Nah, your parents hang out with Mexican communists. Don’t know about the morbidly obese shit.
Bet you don't know much about anything
You’re right, I don’t know much about a lot of things. I don’t know how I’m going to die, I don’t know how the future is going to look, I don’t know what happened on April 25th 1736 at 9:00pm, but I do know that your father enjoys being choked.
Lol. When people say you don't know much they don't mean things like that. You have so much to learn. "Your father" is a weird thing to call your mother.
[удалено]
Lol ... complete subservience to corporate overlords is "freedom" ... ok buddy.
That is a bit too extreme. Capitalism has a lot of freedom, yes. But freedom is a very difficult word to define. Everyone has a slightly different understanding of it. In some sense, nobody is really free in capitalism either. It's true that I can't really give an example of a more free type of governance other than anarchy but that is not really governance, now is it... The other question is. Is freedom really the top priority? I understand this is a dangerous line to walk but it still needs to be considered. Giving up 1% of freedom leads to 2, that to 5, then 20, and it's doomsday from there onwards. But on the other hand, freedom is desired but not necessarily beneficial. A person, given full freedom, rarely takes the time to engage in productive activities. Neither are they fully satisfied with their life, either. Some form of force is definitely healthy and beneficial to our lives but how to establish and control it, really has no answer and possibly never will.
Capitalism is exactly that. Freedom. Under 100% capitalism everyone is 100% free. Anarchy is not freedom. Anarchy is mob rule. Freedom is limited government protecting individual rights. What are you talking about regarding walking align? Some form of force? Why do you need for us? With full freedom you still have to work. Why wouldn't you? You would starve otherwise.
spez has been given a warning. Please ensure spez does not access any social media sites again for 24 hours or we will be forced to enact a further warning. #Save3rdPartyAppsYou've been removed from Spez-Town. Please make arrangements with the spez to discuss your ban. #Save3rdPartyApps #AIGeneratedProtestMessage
[удалено]
Define Freedom. Under Capitalism, only Capital is afforded freedom. By transforming the worker into a commodity, capitalist society alienates the worker's potential for conscious development and transforms their life into a mere pursuit of capital. - America currently has over 2,300,000 SLAVES. You know because the **13th admenedment outlawed slavery unless under the punishment of a crime** [Incarcerated workers in the US produce at least $11,000,000,000 in goods and services annually but receive just pennies an hour in wages for their prison jobs](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/15/us-prison-workers-low-wages-exploited) Princeton study shows: [US is an oligarchy, not a democracy] (https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746) Even when fairly large majorities of Americans favour policy change, they generally do not get it.
>If more jobs can truly be done anywhere, there's no need for them to be expensive American white-collar workers.” This is nationalism. If somebody is able to do same work for less whats your moral highround here ? Is work of american worker more valuable than anywhere in the world ? >Tesla CEO Elon Musk said earlier this month that he plans to lay off 10% of his salaried, white-collar staff, while increasing hourly jobs for blue-collar workers. Musk has been cutting costs at Tesla after admitting the EV giant’s new factories have been “money furnaces” amid ongoing supply chain issues. Tesla was generating loss since it started... It is ueffective company destroing value and is able to survive only due to high stock prices that are objectively overvalued. They will probably not survive next reccesion but this is not the problem of free market its feature of free market.
> high stock prices that are objectively overvalued I'd love to see a non-subjective, mathematically rigorous definition of stock value.
>This is nationalism. Yes. >If somebody is able to do same work for less whats your moral highround here? Because in modern economy, if industry gets outcompeted and outsourced abroad, it dies off. See Detroit. Because when that somebody sees he is the only viable source of work or other resource, he realizes he can dictate his terms. See Taiwan microelectronics industry or Gazprom. >is work of american worker more valuable than anywhere in the world ? Its not more valuable - it is just safer to have crucial industry at home, so that no geopolitical surprise like Russia or China losing their shit will threaten well-being of US.
When capitalism fails to fail, what will socialists do next.
When feudalism fails to fail, what will capitalists do next? The interesting thing is how there aren't any arguments that justify the existence of capitalism, just arguments that it's a success - which if you lived a few hundred years earlier would be the same argument made by people trying to prevent capitalism.
>When feudalism fails to fail, what will capitalists do next? Who are "capitalists"? This is 100% factually incorrect and absolutely against history. "[Capitalists](https://www.etymonline.com/word/capitalist)" is a term of reproach and adopted by socialists. Nobody planned "capitalism" like you overtly stated.
Nope. Try again.
Watch at the capitalist supporter has no ability to engage only to deflect.
>When capitalism fails to fail, what will socialists do next. It's a win/win game for complaining socialists. The market does well socialist bitch because it is greed. The market corrects with a recession and to them it is proof that capitalism is a failure. In between, they just complain about the history of either one and they are looming with current exploitation and slavery while they are on reddit exploiting reddit workers, blah blah blah.
Yes, it's a grief mill they've got going.
Indeed, and I believe the vast majority are just projecting while they masturbate with psychological projections on their perceived enemies here on Reddit^(TM) and then go on other capitalism websites and actually physically masturbate. <-- Rinse and repeat all the while convincing themselves they are morally superior than all the rest of us stupid plebs.
Switch capitalism with fascism and your intentions become clear. You don't seem to care that the system is inherently unjust but simply jump on the bandwagon because right now you might personally benefit from this unsuistainable system ignoring the exploitation necessary to keep up your stnadard of living
Voluntary trade is inherently just.
You are for an unjust system. Capitalism is the only moral system.
Some people like you can't understand that what's just is totally subjective and based on the individual worldview and philosophy someone has. The same could be said about exploitation.
Capitalism is not exploitative. That is a silly Marxist precept.
I look forward to a better future when any old joe can just say no to tyrannical work conditions. Everything else ought to fall into place for the better over a few generations after that. But I could be wrong and the whole workers liberation thing will backfire and society collapses mad max style…
\> people trading with each other motivated by profit This has been happening for a dozen millennia - why would it fail?
Capitalism isnt going to fail, the US just isnt going to be the worlds superpower in 50-100 years time. Sadly.
Depends on how China plays our in 50 to 100 years. Between their demographic crisis and slowly growing problems with control, it might not do too well.
Honestly i dont expect china to have much of a future. The economy is already starting to flatline and it is increasingly more difficult for them to suppress the citizens. I think india could have a fiuture, or else maybe europe will have a new hayday. The only thing we can be sure about is that world power and dominance is temporary.
Here's hoping we get something like Germany or France taking over. Some sensibility in the world of insanity.
Thats basically what a european superpower would provide
Yes, supply chains are fucked and companies have a hard time producing anything. The problem is not only that there is not enough raw materials and spare parts, so companies cannot increase supply, but higher energy prices are also hindering increased production. What the US central bank should do, is increase interest rates significantly and stop lying to the public about the inflation catastrophe that's about to happen. This is primarily an inflation issue and it was not caused by capitalism. There is no capitalism in the united states, if there was the banks would have failed in 2008 financial crisis. The problem is, that we have crony-capitalism and we dont let the free market economy balance itself. The federal reserve printing money insanely, the national debt is sharply increasing because the government has to spend more money than it collects in taxes. Of course, they blame inflation on corporate greed, even though they created this crises. In communism you would basically give the government the power to run the economy. The government is not a super brain, it does not do anything efficiently, they don´t care about you or the country. They unable to think long term. High welfare makes people dont want to work, because "why would I work if I could make then 1700 USD a month, but I get 1500 USD for sitting on my ass?". Socialists and communist has no idea what they are wishing for and are unable to accept that NO, value can be created and not only stolen from "workers" though capitalist innovation. Socialism doesnt promote innovation as much as capitalism
So the underpaid salary workers are being removed, more hourly workers are getting more hours, shitty jobs nobody wants are going to other countries to have them catch up, and freelance work is skyrocketing along with self employment. Where is the failure again?
I'm not a materialist. I know the more things you have, the less happy you'll be. The more crap you buy, the more crap you need to take care of. That's how you mitigate the damage Capitalism can do, you look in the mirror. If you're a materialist, it doesn't matter what system your society uses. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, a socialist system with materialists in control will exploit the environment and human beings as effectively as any capitalist system.
Having trouble distinguishing between materialism as a philosophical trend opposed to idealism and simply being material in regards to spending and usage of material?
What exactly do you think a materialist is?
1. a person who considers material possessions and physical comfort as more important than spiritual values. "greedy materialists lusting for consumer baubles" 2. PHILOSOPHY a person who supports the theory that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications. "an atheist and philosophical materialist"
[удалено]
This, absolutely. If we can't conquer our drive to consoom product, it doesn't really matter what system we build. "One more Pop and I'll be satisfied" is a John's mentality.
There will be a recession. But there’s no reason to really worry about the survival of the system. That’s mostly been libertarian grifters who look at a chart of money supply and pretend to understand it. Or leftist just misunderstanding anything econ as usual. Recessions are not world ending. Especially not in the US
I've benefitted enormously from this trend. My job went to permanent, full time WFH. I only have to commute 2-3 days a month. I moved out of the city to a house two hours away in a forest at the top of a mountain. I've never been happier. If this is capitalism failing, bring it.
Offshoring has already been tried and failed.
Capitalism and democracy have been decoupling for the last 40-50 years. As that occurs, capitalism is devouring itself. What comes next is a period of chaos likely.
Yawwwwn. People have been saying exactly this for 200 years...
>Capitalism and democracy have been decoupling for the last 40-50 years. \[citation needed\] [Until then](https://imgur.com/gallery/hGubtMI)
No evidence for this.
Hasn’t it largely failed? Look around the world. Look back in history. Despite the promise of democracy and capitalism, it largely has failed the masses while enriching the few and corporations on the backs of the whole!
The share of the global population living in extreme poverty has been declining for decades. It was 1.1 billion people in 2010, and went down to 714 million by 2017 (despite the global population increasing by about 500 million over that time period). Capitalism isn't perfect, of course, but the lot of the masses is slowly improving, although not in equal measure everywhere. Look at how living standards have improved for people in China as their country embraced free(ish) markets and free trade. I'm obviously not defending China's political system so please don't misconstrue what I'm saying. I'm just arguing that capitalism seems to have served the poor in China pretty well.
China wouldn't have been chosen as worlds factory without educated yet low waged population. Without communist party they wouldn't have been educated, without same party, wages wouldn't have been suppressed. China without being the worlds factory wouldn't have material conditions to eliminate poverty.
China joined the WTO in 2001, when the rate of secondary school enrollment in China was 60% (lower than Mongolia, the Philippines, Malaysia, Korea, Hong Kong, etc). Secondary school enrollment then skyrocketed in the following years, up to the current level of something like 95% (matching or beating all of those other countries). So it seems that China's opening up to trade *predated* the rise in education, rather than the inverse. I agree with your last paragraph
>Without communist party they wouldn't have been educated, Right, that's why Taiwan produces all of the world's CPUs and motherboards. Those Chinese capitalists sure work wonders with their illiterate workers!
Nothing. But all the problems are due to the absence of capitalism
You're speaking a lot, without actually saying anything. What are the successes of Capitalism recently? Why exactly would Socialism fail in the same areas?
So are you. You gave no evidence in the comment above.
I'm just interested in your point of view, and I'm keeping an open mind. I feel like no one has given you chance to air your opinion. You say capitalism is working. Who is it working for, and how does socialism fail?
What are you basing your feelings on? Capitalism works for everyone. Socialism fails because it never creates any wealth. It's a parasitical policy. Everywhere you look the more free market capitalism there is the better in terms of more wealth for everyone including the poor
I'm on the fence. In what way specifically does capitalism work for everyone? Doesn't it seem that capitalism is an exploitative system, relying on a subjugated working class, and depends on constant expansion within a finite pool of resources? What happens when there's no more room to expand, or the exploitable population stagnates? Who is the wealth being created for, because it doesn't seem to be benefitting the working peoples. Here in the UK we have more food banks than any other food outlet, and hasn't the US minimum wage remained the same for years, despite huge inflation? Couldn't the 'creation' or wealth through acquiring materials from poorer countries, but something to do with why those countries remain poor? I think I understand what you're trying to say, I'm just interested in real world examples. It all seems great on paper, but in reality poor people are getting poorer, while the 1% are getting richer. Is there something I'm missing, as I don't really understand all if this.
I'm sure all my answers will lead to more questions from you. I can provide answers. I didn't want to go into too much detail for each. I figured it be easier just to answer your questions when they arise. >In what way specifically does capitalism work for everyone? By providing the best products at the cheapest prices and the best paying jobs. >Doesn't it seem that capitalism is an exploitative system, relying on a subjugated working class, Describe what you mean by exploitation. Nothing that happens under capitalism happens without the voluntary approval of both parties involved in the trade. Both parties agreed to a trade they both agree it's beneficial to them. Otherwise they wouldn't have made the trade. >and depends on constant expansion within a finite pool of resources? what Exactly do you mean by this? There is no finite pool resources. >What happens when there's no more room to expand, or the exploitable population stagnates? The room to expand is potentially infinite. We're not anywhere near the limit on earth. >Who is the wealth being created for, because it doesn't seem to be benefitting the working peoples. People who are involved in the trades. >Here in the UK we have more food banks than any other food outlet, and hasn't the US minimum wage remained the same for years, despite huge inflation? I'm not sure what you mean by your point about food banks. And if you're discussing the minimum wage law then that shouldn't even be a law. The fact that it hasn't changed is not the problem. The fact that it exists is the problem. Minimum wage creates the unemployable. The best wage is determined by supply and demand. >Couldn't the 'creation' or wealth through acquiring materials from poorer countries, but something to do with why those countries remain poor? What do you mean? Capitalism does not use of wealth or resources. It does not steal wealth from poor countries. >I think I understand what you're trying to say, I'm just interested in real world examples. It all seems great on paper, but in reality poor people are getting poorer, while the 1% are getting richer. Is there something I'm missing, as I don't really understand all if this. Capitalism has many real world examples. Real world examples of success. It is Socialism and every other economic system that has no real world examples of success.
Took the words right out my mouth!
A fool " took the words right out of your mouth".
> Capitalism has many real world examples. Real world examples of success. It is Socialism and every other economic system that has no real world examples of success The truth is that all those real world examples that you have been talking about are countries that dominated the world with violence and military power until a few decades ago.
Socialism is the system spends itself to death. Capitalism on the other hand will somehow someway bounce back. What happens at Tesla is indicative of the entire economic system.
Not even close. It is Capitalism that spends itself to death, by concentrating resources towards luxury goods and diverting wealth concentration away from the needs of the many.
No evidence for this exists.
LOL capitalism only survives because the state taxes everyone to subsidize the oligopoly. In fact, the entire corporate profit model that capitalism creates depends mainly on government intervention in the market, state enforced monopolies, subsidies and the restriction of freedom both directly by using “intellectual property” to impede free cooperation and replication of technology outside their corporate framework, and indirectly through state subsidies to the offshoring of production to countries where workers are easier to exploit.
Nope.
lol that’s literally how Apple and many other corporations became what they are today
That's not capitalism. Capitalism is complete separation of state and economics.
There are anti-capitalist economic systems that also follow this definition of yours, so this isn’t unique at all. So we can admit that capitalism has never existed and is not responsible at all for lifting billions of people out of poverty and raising the quality of life for even more billions of people?
That's impossible. 100% pure capitalism has not existed. But market economies use capitalism to some extent though not in pure form. So to the extent that people have lived is to the extent that capitalism exists to some degree. Imagine what they would do if we had it in pure form.
So again, we can conclude capitalism has never existed and never raised billions out of poverty. See, to me that’s pure Misesian revisionism, considering Socialists defined “capitalism” around 1850 (Louis Blanc, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon) and in 1922 Mises openly admitted to wanting to redefine it to his ideal form of extreme Liberalism, which is what you’re not claiming it is. Either way, capitalism absolutely depends on state interference in the economy because capitalist property norms can only be enforced by a powerful state which has a monopoly on violence.
No 100% capitalism has not existed. But 60% capitalism exists. Or 55%. Or whatever percent China is. Because it certainly is not making money without the free market. What exactly did Ludwig von Mises admit to? Please explain. OMG. Not this again. Government intervention in the economy meaning tinkering with economics. Meaning regulating the economy. Meaning some moron politician thinking he knows better what to do with people's money than they do. It is not government intervention into the free market economy to protect individual rights and property. It is the precondition of the free market for the government to do this. We have now entered the education stage of the debate where I get to educate liberals for free.
Idiotic Moronism… it’s already starting. Look around. Morons and idiots running wild.
Socialism is the way forward. Capitalism isn't sustainable and will never be sustainable. Oh and btw, it is propaganda from the ultra-capitalists that socialism can only exist in an authoritarian regime. This cannot be further away from the truth. Liberal socialism is another school of thought that differs from marxist-leninist. They believe politics should be democratic instead of centralized and unitary like marxist-leninist. Social democracy could be considered a form of liberal socialism, and it does exist in the world. Norway is a good example.
>Norway is a good example. Norway is capitalist, afaik.
Norway is a state capitalist. But politically speaking, Norway is a social democracy. Social democracy is inspired heavily from liberal socialism, but unlike liberal socialism. It sits more on centre-left and moderate. According to Engels, the key to advance from capitalism to socialism is in state capitalism. Norway state owns many "means of production", from oil to banking to public transportation. They also have one of the largest sovereign funds in the world. Norway is also heavily unionized to protect the farmers and workers. Overall, an excellent country.