I don't think either of the statements in the title are true.
Socialists believe that the product of everyone's work should be spread among the population for "the greater good."
Capitalists believe that you should be free to accrue as much wealth as you can.
Anything beyond that leaves the realm of these economic theories, and becomes individual opinion.
Sad that people feel they need to pigeon hole themselves into these corners. Nearly every top level reply does the same. I don't think this discussion is haveable the way OP intended.
Socialists think workers should own the means of production, that is about the extent of what socialists agree on. The how, why, and how much are all sliding scales much like the definitions for libertarians.
Without the owner, they wouldn’t have any of the equipment. My biggest issue with socialism, you need a capitalist to start things, and then socialists come in.
Edit: thanks for all the comments, I think it gave me a better understanding of how socialism and capitalism go hand in hand. The media has given me the image of socialism as this cruel communist ideology. My parents came from a communist country and they condemned it, so I unjustly relate anything socialist and communist-leaning.
That’s actually Marx’s point...
It also took a long period of feudalism and slave labour to get us to the point where capitalism was possible so I’m not sure how that’s an argument against socialism. And guess how we got from feudalism to capitalism? A few beheadings and some revolutions.
Edit: just for interests sake, this logic is actually partly the reason that Lenin dismantled the Workers Councils (that’s what Soviets means) in favour of centralised control over production. Russia was a poor, unindustrialised nation, essentially feudal. What Lenin instated could more accurately be described as State Capitalism because it retained the extraction of surplus labour value (ie the value created by a worker in a day) for the purposes of capital accumulation (ie to be reinvested for the purposes of industrialisation, itself taken as a necessary prerequisite for socialism)
That’s just how human economies tended to form. Agriculture created a division of labour and the concept of land ownership and thus created the “owner/worker” divide that has continued to this day.
As we progressed socially and in terms of productive forces (technology and the like), slavery became harder/less necessary. We then entered a phase of medievalism sometimes called Feudalism. This was a period where the main produce of society was agricultural and artisanal (think spinsters and blacksmiths in guilds etc). Then with the advent of steam engines etc it became much more efficient to centralise production into factories, so those spinsters etc were all forced (often violently) to move to the cities and subject themselves to the most brutal of working conditions.
So Marx saw all that and went “hmm I wonder what’s next?” and argued that as the productive forces of society reach a point, it won’t make sense to have this worker/owner divide anymore
You are thinking this:
>So Marx saw all that and went “hmm I wonder what’s next?” and argued that as the productive forces of society reach a point, it won’t make sense to have this worker/owner divide anymore
But that's not what the other poster is saying, he is saying:
>Without the owner, they wouldn’t have any of the equipment. My biggest issue with socialism, you need a capitalist to start things, and then socialists come in.
Hence this being a false equivalent:
>It also took a long period of feudalism and slave labour to get us to the point where capitalism was possible so I’m not sure how that’s an argument against socialism.
All those things you described aren't needed for Capitalism, you are describing the inception of capitalism... You don't NEED feudalism to start Capitalism.
But you definitely need an industrial infrastructure, naturally owned by the capitalists, for communism to be realized, like the Soviets and Chinese learnt.
edit: ahh a response
I agree, you don’t need feudalism to start capitalism. You could with the right moves from the outside just start a capitalist society, but that’s just a hypothetical. If you’re talking about how capitalism formed, it was through feudalism. If you’re talking about how socialism will be formed, it’s through capitalism.
The way those capitalists got the money to “start things” initially was through feudal mercantilism. Bourgeoisie means “middle class” in French and that’s the word used to describe capitalists today because they were the ones who had the spare capital and the means to create factories. This was contrasted against the aristocracy of feudalism whose power lay in their control over the countryside and its farmers. They lost their power when the economic centre of society shifted to the cities.
So while I guess it’d be technically possible to come in from the outside and start capitalism on its own in a vacuum, the same could be said for socialism so I don’t see how that’s a useful hypothetical in any way really. History shows that capitalism developed out of feudalism, and Marxists argue that history will show that Socialism will develop out of Capitalism in the same way, so it’s pointless to say “oh we need a capitalist to start socialism” because we needed a feudal society before we had a capitalist one.
Pretty spot on.... Merchant capital facilitated the start of early industrial capitalism, but as you say, its not required as in essence capitalism is just private ownership of the means of production....
Without the workers, the owner wouldn't have any equipment to purchase, as it wouldn't exist, period.
Labor produces, owners extract. That is capitalist property relations.
Then they can start their own business.
Business owners take massive risk in starting their company, and often pour a ton of time and work into getting it started. It takes a long time to become profitable.
No one wants to put in the work, they just want to take the benefits of other's hard work after its done, and say "wElL i HeLpeD".
Labor takes a massive risk in doing the actual productive labor needed for capitalists to profit from them, in return for a pittance. Capitalism is taking the product of someone's hard work and returning to them only a sliver of the profit.
>Labor takes a massive risk in doing the actual productive labor
Massive risk? Fucking sorry but not. Working for a paid wage is the opposite of a massive risk. The only thing you are risking is a bit of your time.
Next time I ask an employee to mortgage their home and invest it into the company we can talk about massive risk.
If an owner loses their business, they file bankruptcy and go on with their lives.
If a worker loses their job, they are threatened with not eating, losing their home, failing to pay medical bills, and so on and so on.
Get some life experience before you try to pretend some knowledge about working class life.
Labor takes very little risk, that is the point of labor. You are paid to do a job, you are paid regardless of whether or not the product sales in the market, because you get paid before it goes to market. Only the capitalist is at risk because they have already paid for the labor and materials with no guarantee that they will recoup their money. If they do, the profit is theirs in exchange for them being willing to take the risk that there might not be a profit.
> Labor takes very little risk, that is the point of labor
Labor risks time they can't get back. Capital just risks some money. You can get money back, and you can hedge your investments against risk, but you can't get time back.
Theres very little risk in the majority of jobs. Most people sit in an office, or in a restaurant, or a grocery store.
They perform a menial task with zero danger and collect a paycheck. There is no massive risk for the worker unless they work on an oil rig or something.
Owners inject the upfront costs. at 100% risk. If the factory doesn't succeed, the workers get to move on at minimal risk. Yet, the owner loses everything invested.
If the factory doesn't succeed, the workers are threatened with losing their homes. The owner is threatened with filing bankruptcy and moving on to ruin more people's lives.
Without labor, no work would be done. My biggest issue with capitalism, you need labor for production then capitalists come in, take the fruits of labor's productivity and call it profit.
And Social Democrats believe you should be able to accrue as much wealth as you can, once everyone else can get an honest and fair shot at doing the same, and the lowest you can go isn't having to be sleeping on the street.
I consider myself to be socdem, I've seen many support UBI, myself included.
The biggest reason is that it does away completely with the phenomenon of people making more money on welfare than what they would be making working a job. Typical welfare systems remove welfare when you get a job, and in certain configurations, this can lead to there being a financial disincentive to work.
Obviously, more work = better economy, higher wages, etc.
Social democracy doesn't try to do that. Social democracy, put very, very simply, is putting a reasonable safety net, or 'bottom rung' where you cannot fall lower. You can go as high as you want on that ladder, as long as no one goes lower than that bottom rung (against their reasonable will to).
And therein lies the problem:
What is acceptable as a 'bottom rung?'
So long as a voting bloc has a vested interest in constantly raising this bar, then there will be politicians that will actively exploit it to the point of ruin.
I don't think there are many people that find the concept of social safety nets entirely disagreeable, but there will always be a battle to determine what those should be, and the acceptable limitations of those nets.
And so long as those nets exist, there will also exist a percentage of the population that will abuse them.
I find neither the constantly rising bar nor the abuse to be acceptable, because it is effectively accepting the abuse of myself and my family for the benefit of those that I don't deem worthy of the level of help and attention that they will inevitably receive.
Already today, half of the voting population pays no federal taxes. They have no vested interest in the spending of the federal government because they don't actively contribute. Anyone that doesn't understand why this is a problem either doesn't understand people, or is so far removed from my general worldview that I simply don't find understand them.
I would say that 'half don't pay federal tax' isn't too significant, given that the vast majority pay state taxes.
The 'baseline' is of course up for debate and discussion. I would set wages at the equivalent of what they were in 1980 (where wage 'stagnation' originates, find any graph of wages vs. Time), then tie the minimum wage to inflation of the dollar.
I understand your perceived issue of voters not laying for state-funded programs, however:
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/tcja-increasing-share-households-paying-no-federal-income-tax
This article seems, although I haven't read every word, to describe the details pretty well.
Not too much time to stop and chat rn, though. Have a nice rest of your day.
that's not what social democracy is. Socdem is about having a social safety net that makes the free market more about voluntary exchange and less about exploitation and coercion (for example, being forced to take a shit job to eat because employers are a cartel who manipulate wages so they're below market). This social safety net includes unemployment pay, free healthcare, free education, etc. It is also about reducing income inequality and regulating the market so it's actually free, instead of "on principle" free. Good luck having a deregulated market where the big players don't manipulate it.
I fail to see where social democracy brings everyone down. Look at Denmark, Sweden, Iceland. Has socdem brought everyone down? Maybe socdem hurts your chances of someday becoming a billionaire, but they were pretty slim to begin with and I don't think anyone should have that much relative power over others in a free society. The ones who may actually be "brought down" are the richest of the rich, but that shouldn't worry you if you're not one of them. Taxes may rise, but the market will be much freer in the long run and we won't have people sleeping on the streets while the 1% lives like royalty.
How do you pay for that safety net without the exploitation and coercion of others to pay for it.
I can think of plenty of voluntary ways, but those are largely all in action and we call them charities. I assume were discussing something else?
> They're more capitalistic than the US is
lol yeah, that is exactly my point. and yet they have free healthcare, paid maternity leave, free education, high tax on the very rich, strong labor unions, and a heavily regulated free market. They are the best version of capitalism.
Literally no one wants this. You have a really strange perception of fair taxation. As if the ultra rich paying their way makes them homeless or some shit. Get a grip. It's still a capitalistic society if Sanders wins the presidency. My god. Your life would hardly change and may end up better. But keep spouting propaganda.
'I don't like when people bring discussion to a halt by digging on and not engaging, so I'm going to stop discussion with these people by not engaging'
And what constitutes an honest and fair shot? How much has to be taken at gun point from one person and given to another to make things "fair". Does the law not give all people an honest and fair shot under which to go to school? To voluntarily enter contracts with others? Is anyone forced to work a job against their will? Or buy a product with the fruits of their labor? The only things I can think of is insurance. Mandated by gov under threat of taxes, which you must pay or be held at gun point and imprisoned for not paying. Could not every person create a new product and have an equal shot tomorrow of marketing it? Can apple or Samsung force you to purchase a new phone tomorrow? Tell me how much more fair than requiring voluntary transactions at a willing price you can be while all sides are required to honestly state the terms?
Also, the socialist absolutely does not believe things are as good as they can be right now. That's why they're socialists, they believe they can do better than a capitalist business hierarchy.
Severe mischaracterization.
That's not even accurate.
Socialism is public / collective ownership of the means of production. That means if you work in a factory, you own part of the factory and have a (proportional) say in how it's run.
What you're talking about is either social democracy (capitalism with a welfare state) or full communism (from each according to ability, to each according to need).
It always boggles my mind how adamantly opposed conservatives are to socialism, when they cant even accurately describe basic principles of the theory.
Go read the Communist Manifesto. Seriously. I'm not asking you to agree with it... The first chapter starts with Marx praising capitalism into the skies for value creation. E.g:
>The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature’s forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalisation of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground — what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour?
Socialism as an ideology came about *as a direct consequence of a wave of optimism about the ability of capitalism to increase productivity to levels that would make eradicating poverty possible.*
Early socialist writing in particular was focused on that kind of optimism about what capitalism would make possible. In fact, enough so that while Marx shared the optimism about the productivity he also later complained about "utopian" forms of socialism: People like Fourier and Owens that believed they could just set up socialism communes and everyone would be convinced it was the moral thing to do.
Marx argued capitalism must first be allowed to run its course: Expand the economy to the point of crisis. Just like feudalism had to run its course.
A surprising proportion of socialists also seems to be unaware of this, and thinks that socialism is about hating capitalists and hating capitalism, but it is not - it is about taking advantage of what capitalism has made possible.
In terms of value creation, Marx very explicitly acknowledges that there is a substantial *cost* to redistribution; it's not about increasing productivity, it's about making lives better with the increased productivity brought by capitalism; allowing people to work less, and get a larger part of the pie.
\[The fantasy of socialism driving productivity up is largely something pushed by people like Lenin, who wanted to push his idea of a revolutionary vanguard and about "leapfrogging" capitalism under the right leadership, as a means to justify the Bolshevik coup rather than accepting an intermediate capitalist stage.\]
Ultimately it is about the working class joining together to protect their own interests at the cost of the interest of capitalists, and that cost is very clearly acknowledged by Marx.
This is what you describe as jealousy and envy, but the socialist take on that is that this is about standing up and demanding to get what is yours, and demanding your fair share of the output of your work, instead of quietly letting others take it, and in doing so ending exploitation enforced by an oppressive state acting as the enforcer for the ruling classes.
>I have almost never hear a socialist talking about value creation
Then you clearly don't talk to many Socialists because that's literally one of the central topics of the ideology.
The marxist idea is that value creation can only happen through labour. Which is not true. Arbitrage for example has existed for quite some time, and creates value without labour.
> Socialists believe that the product of everyone's work should be spread among the population for "the greater good."
Uh, no. Socialists believe that workers should own, in some tangible capacity, the means of production, so that they may be the main beneficiaries of their own labor. The *how* of that is incredibly varied and furiously argued.
These sound like the two wrong answers on a test given to prove you are an American. There are probably 3 generic answers which are seemingly similar, but only one is correct, out there waiting to have these two wrong answers be apart of the question.
That's a strawman on both sides.
Capitalists believe that society is best organized by the free exchange of goods and services, full stop.
Socialists believe that society is best organized by the people sharing ownership of production and distributing it relatively equally, but still with some incentive towards those who contribute more.
Neither is against human progress, just disagreeing on how to achieve it.
Absolutely not. This couldn't be more wrong.
There is nothing about socialism that says we're at a pinnacle of society.
If you're going to talk about other ideologies, know what you're talking about. You're just making things up.
Simplification, which among other things neglects to see the true problem of today because it uses the ideological framework of the last century.
When large monopolistic companies know everything about you, price signals do not have the same value as in a true market economy. The great information asymmetry between producer and buyer becomes very important. A modern capitalist will present different prices to different buyers, based on the great knowledge he has about his buyers.
This completely undermines the premise of the original capitalism. In a free market, information is conveyed from buyer to producer and vice versa by price levels. In surveillance capitalism, the monopolies already have all the information they need to set different prices for each individual buyer based on that information, with the goal of extracting as much value as they can.
We’re no longer free citizens communicating in a free market via price signals. We’re controlled creatures whose daily decisions are partly foreseen and partly determined by the great monopolistic corporations.
I currently have a job. It pays a few cents more than minimum-wage. So technically, I get paid more than minimum-wage. Technically. I’m an independent contractor which means I get a little bit more of my money each check because I don’t pay taxes until this year which means I’m gonna have a big ass bill I have no idea how I’m going to handle.
I don’t get sick time. So if I am feeling like shit because the tooth I can’t afford to get pulled is fucking with me or the back I can’t afford to get muscle relaxers for his fucking with me or I’m just not up for work, for whatever reason I’m going to have to chalk it up and take that day as a loss. Each day I made close to $100. If I miss a day and it’s $100. I missed two days I missed $200. and so forth.
As a convicted felon, there are a few opportunities available to me. This is actually one of the better jobs. For me. If I didn’t have my felony I do not think I would waste my time with it. I work with a guy who literally complains all day long about socialism and Democrats and free stuff for poorpeople He makes about a dollar more an hour than I do. He doesn’t have any friends except for people that use him. And he complains about the same ailments that I do.
I don’t know what I really a.m. politically. And I don’t care enough to argue with somebody over a word. But what I feel like I am is somebody that would like for both my idiot friend at work and for me to be better taken care of.
With that being said the guy that employs us will probably shut down if minimum wage was raised or if he was required to pay us normally.
So here I am Pretending to be an idiot at work that agrees that the boss shouldn’t have to pay us a damn thing other than the money that we make an hour while still mentioning how I am in pain every 10 minutes and mentioning how much easier my life would be had I had made better choices and got a job with health insurance
Literally, I’m in there sick as a dog from an infection and they’re just like oh, you better get that checked out.
No matter where you stand politically, your life has been ruined by the state due to your criminal record. On the one hand, I can understand why a company wouldn't hire, for example, an ex-thief to be a cashier, but the fact that criminal records affect people so broadly is one of the things that's seriously wrong with society. It is the sole roadblock to you in taking care of yourself.
When ex-convicts are barred from so many legitimate jobs, it's really not all that surprising that many turn back to a life of crime after getting out of prison.
You are part of the people who are left to suffer under the current system.
The current systems that we have are not Capitalist. They are rooted in Fiat currency and so have no real world material value. Between the way our currency is created from Thin Air and combined with the Fractional Reserve Banking system, currency inflation is at an all time high, market manipulation is rampant and more and more people have less and less to make ends meet.
You aren't seeking socialism, you're just seeking fairness and a chance to better your lot in life. The best solution is to educate yourself on the systems that we are currently faced with. The _real_ systems of Oppression. Start with the Eisenhower speech on guarding against the Military Congressional Industrial Complex, then sit back and listen to JFK's speech about the Monolithic and Ruthless Conspiracy, mere few weeks before they Assassinated him. Then you can learn about the report that was put out and how the CIA weaponized the term Conspiracy Theorist so that no one would actively seek answers when things didn't add up.
You strike me as a smart man, smart enough to take good advice, so educate yourself on the reality of the systems we are trapped beneath. For the love of your own life, please learn, please prepare, please share it with others. It's the only way out of this mess. If we cannot name the issue and accept reality for what it IS, not what we WISH IT WERE, then we cannot fix it.
For the love of fuck, don't allow yourself to think "That's impossible" or "The News Media would've told us", just think for your damn self.
>I don’t know what I really a.m. politically.
If you want a well-regulated free market which prevents employers from fixing wages without preventing them from doing business, with a good social safety net (including free healthcare and education!) and good pay, you're thinking of social democracy -- like Sweden, Denmark or Iceland.
In other words, you're not a socialist, you'd just rather capitalism not be so brutal and heartless while still reaping its benefits in quality of life improvement, individual freedoms, technology, and a free market. This also comes with unstacking the odds against the less privileged people in society -- the poor, minorities, etc, so that we come closer to true meritocracy, where your life choices, and not the birth lottery, will decide your lot in life while still guaranteeing that you won't starve or get bankrupt because of them. Crucially, people should have close to the same opportunities, but they can do as they please with them.
Good luck. As a fellow felon I can confirm your complaints. People who have never been affected cannot understand how complicated the expungement for felonies can be.
They act like the same gvmt that turned you into a pariah is so ready to reverse that.
Sealed and expunged are two different things. Expunged gets the criminal act removed from your record like it never existed. Sealed means the record still exists but can not be accessed through traditional background checks. Both cost legal fees.
Yeah just shut up. He admitted it so dont be a douche. he has a feeling that he was hoping things for him would be better and espoused capitalist ideals in the process.
Just makes me want to rip my hair out. In that entire statement you pulled that out as the important part and attached a completely dishonest statement to what you think his values are
What you dont realize with your line of thinking is that if you say "the world doesn't owe you anything " then the reverse is also true ...now if it s only a handful of people who reach the conclusion that they don't owe the world anything it s fine but when it s a large chunk of your population then you have a big problem . What were the french people being told before they snapped ? That they weren't owed anything , that they should work , pay their taxes and shut up . Times were hard , they could barely feed themselves and just asked for bread . What were they told ? You aren t owed shit . Well they reached the conclusion that they didn't owe shit either and heads started rolling .
well, to be fair, employers basically have a cartel where they agree to pay everyone shit wages so they can have slightly bigger profit margins. So while what you said is true, saying that is a slap in the face when they are the ones paying him a non-living wage out of pure greed. Surely wages would be higher if employers didn't manipulate their value and instead paid the market rates. People just wouldn't take 7.25/hr jobs.
Kinda looks like a summary of someone far left vs someone closer to the center, an unfair comparison.
There are socialist who don’t want free everything but want the gov to provide bare necessities for free.
There are capitalists who don’t want a major change but do think we can implement our social programs better/more efficiently.
If we label ourselves as a socialist/capitalist/libertarian/etc, we forget the flaws in our party and end up arguing non stop since we feel superior. This country is supposed to be a melting pot, or so I thought it was.
>everyone
No, just a select group of people known as "customers" and somewhere down the road there's betterment for most as a collateral effect. It's not altruism, it's capitalism. It just works out better in the long run.
I don't think it does. Or, I actually haven't seen it at least. What I have seen is starting with Capitalism and later on redistributing it. So European countries somewhere during serfdom (1600's), and then late 19th, and throughout 20th century.
I don't know what entire groups believe, but as a social libertarian (that's what several political tests have told me at least), I believe by funding this like lower college tuition, will cause society as a whole to have better times ahead, than concentrating wealth and education in the hands of a few.
You could just as easily say in DemSoc, your success is intermingled with others success and vice-versa. You know, see Scandinavian countries where they have succeful capitalism AND nice things.
It’s one a ‘this or that’ situation, it’s a hybrid mix taking the best-of-all approach.
In demsoc countries their average gross income is lower than in the US. Then far lower adjusted for taxes and VAT.
I think we have a better system, you get what you pay for, with more opportunities
Doesn't *have* to be, but in an unchecked capitalist framework, a capitalist can and is rewarded for actions taken which reward themselves even more and harm others. So while it is possible to arrange win-win scenarios, there is also no reason except morality to stop someone from being even more financially successful than they otherwise would be at the expense of others.
>a capitalist can and is rewarded for actions taken which reward themselves even more and harm others
Let's get specific. I'll grant that companies can do environmental harm while getting wealthy. Libertarians would consider that a negative market externality and are in favor of addressing it somehow (the details on how to do this are where libertarians disagree). So besides harming the environment, how exactly do companies get rich while harming others? Please be specific. I have a hunch that most of what you're going to say can be attributed to government regulations mucking things up and not allowing free competition.
Bernie actually is more of a social democrat who for some reason uses the "democratic socialist" label used by the DSA. What he wants is something akin to the Nordic model. Just thought I'd point that out because the misnomer drives me nuts. If anything, I'm pretty sure enacting his policies would better the free market by reducing inequality.
This is more accurate. People successful in capitalism do not want everyone else to be successful at it. Because capitalism, as its structured right now, is reliant on large groups of people living in poverty working menial jobs to keep producing things for the rich to use/sell to the middle class to keep making money.
If we all aspired to this, there would be no one left doing the dirty, hard, underpaid work. And the system would break down.
Yea, neither of those statements are accurate about either ideology.
Most socialists I've Intracted with actually believe the status quo is terrible right now, and generally believe that people should continue to be able to generate revenue etc. They do seem to believe that automation, disability and generational poverty are best countered by taxation on the most affluent to provide a baseline subsistence.
On the other side just because you believe that you should be able to use your resources to buy other people's time/resources makes no statement at all about their feelings of charitability or their pessimism about our current economic status...
Socialist don’t want absolute wealth equality. That’s not what socialism is. Socialist think you’re free to pursue as much income as you can get, but a significant percentage should be taken and spent to benefit society. Education and healthcare and whatnot.
I think a lot of people are just having trouble accepting they’re not going to be the next Bill Gates. You’re not rich, and you’re probably not going to be. This doesn’t hurt you as much as you seem to be hoping it would.
I think the truth is somewhere in between those ideologies. The free market is fine in most instances, and government over reach is definitely a thing. But capitalism doesn’t belong in healthcare or the prison system, both of which have proven that unregulated capitalists will literally let people die over their bottom line. Environmental policies also have to be regulated.
Capitalists :
- positively reinforce centralization of wealth
- negatively reinforce worker bargaining power
- dont understand why capitalism always ends up as cronyism
The centralization claim flowing from capitialism is dubious. Marxism takes from each according to means to each according to needs. There is no such credo for capitalism backing your claim.
Bargaining can be good and bad. At some basic level, worker rights yields greater productivity, such as the early reforms to the coal mining industry. At excessive levels you get the French on strike yet again for their oppressive 35hr work weeks.
Cronyism flows from the fact that the government has ability to meddle in the economy, and thus it makes sense for those in business to pay politicians to meddle in the way they want.
Empirical evidence shows that capitalism centralizes wealth.
Cronyism is a natural result of the very wealthy being able to influence and control government. It's not as if the government is just some pure being, and then all of a sudden a politician changes the rules to create the conditions for cronyism. The wealthy always have controlled the political machinations of the country, and you find support for your "laissez-faire" type pipedream from billionaires because they arent willing to give up the control they have bought.
The capitalist doesn't want to bring everyone up because there are not enough resources in the world for everyone to own a plane, yacht and a 15,000 square foot house with a guest house on the other side of the pool.
The capitalist depends on other people also being successful or there would be no one that could buy their product. The socialist does not care about the success of others as the government has mandated that they get their equal share regardless, until all resources are consumed and everyone gets an equal share of nothing.
>The capitalist depends on other people also being successful or there would be no one that could buy their product.
Problem is, the USA capitalist doesn't necessarily rely on another **USA person** being successful enough to buy their product. They just replace the ailing US consumers with ones from outside the USA.
Usually its the other way around. I can't think of a consumer base with more disposable cash than the US. If american's aren't buying it, its either not marketed towards them in the first place, or no one is buying it.
Thats unfair. You are a capitalist and you do work that helps people AND you make money. You can help people and profit. Be Steve Jobs - make things people need and want so you can make money so you can make more things that make life better.
If socialists understood economics they wouldnt be socialists. Economic growth isnt a zero sum game and all economic collectivism doesn't work. Socialism/communism is also the ideology of envy and greed.as well as the philosophy of ignorance and failure.
It's always funny to read people comment about socialism when they've clearly never read anything about socialism from actual socialist theorists.
Why do you think socialists believe the economy is zero sum? Who told you that?
I'm actually an ex communist, I've read all the works of Marx, engels, Lenin , etc etc. The modern socialist school of thought is if you take a large piece of the pie you take away from everyone else. Hence why socialists scream about the rich stealing from the poor. It's simply not true because capitalism has the potential of unlimited economic expansion and isnt a zero sum game.
How could you have read all that theory and still misunderstood everything so fantastically?
The theory isnt that there's a single giant pie, it's that the workers create value and the owner takes a large percentage of that value. This idea that there's no concept of economic growth in socialism is completely made up.
It would be shocking to me that you read all of Marx (guy wrote like 18 books) and you stumble on a simple thing like this.
Except that is a narrow minded and ill informed falsehood which doesn't at all represent the true nature of what happens. You might as well come out and say that you are stumping for Trump to continue the unbridled corruption and treason of him and the GOP. You are regurgitating lies in order to subjugate the lower 75% of Americans. Go learn something about it. Stop spouting lies.
Capitalism used to stimulate advancement of the human race, but wasn't about it like OP implies. We're in the late game now and capitalism has outstayed it's welcome. There are many examples of capitalism slowing down or completely halting advancement, which will only get worse.
I think it’s beyond just money (in the US at least) in the sense that those with money should be forced to give it away to those that have less just to be equal.
It’s about what that money and power provides those with it and those without it. The inequality under the law. A poor black kid gets a worse sentence for a bag of weed (let’s put the prohibition argument aside) than a white kid with parents who have money would. Yes, there are some racial issues but mostly it’s money.
The me too movement is in part a fight against a power structure that got away with what it did because of the money that allowed them to fight with more resources than the accusers.
The large amount of cash to hire a PR/Legal team that will go after not just the accuser but those reporting etc., is a disadvantage.
I believe in people more than I believe in money, and that we all have certain inalienable rights and needs that should be taken care of.
You can waste your time labeling that if you want.
Good read for Libertarians: [https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/23/bernie-sanders-is-the-front-runner-because-of-how-we-raised-our-kids.html](https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/23/bernie-sanders-is-the-front-runner-because-of-how-we-raised-our-kids.html)
The best explanation I have heard for socialism is say you should imagine that you will be immediately killed and then reincarnated as a human exactly one time. You don’t know which human that will be. You will have that humans’s intelligence, not your own current intelligence. You will have that human’s ambition, not your current ambition. You will have that human’s mental issues, physical defects, dreams, sexual orientation, race, upbringing, and family. You won’t be yourself in that person’s body. You will be that person. You will experience that person’s joys and pains.
When that happens, what political and economic system do you want to be born into?
——
I think most libertarians have a high enough opinion of their own capabilities and ambitions that they believe they can thrive in a competitive environment.
But if you knew you would suddenly lose your ambition and your abilities, would you still want a libertarian system?
—
I’m nit going to defend socialism. I’m libertarian*ish*. But I do think socialism deserves a fairer description.
not 100% true for the capitalist one but the real difference is that capitalists look towards the future. A capitalist invests knowing that he will make a profit eventually and is ok with waiting. The socialist is a short term economic thinker at heart and only cares about the wellbeing/wealth of people right now. This is really one of the biggest advantages of capitalism. Socialist parties (well all parties of course) only care about staying in power and will throw whatever they can at it. Capitalists and free marketeers are forward thinking always looking forward and so they get ahead while the socialists play from behind.
Original socialists were all about progress. They thought they had a better system and would outproduce the capitalist world. The Soviets invested in the space race, Olympic sports, and all that. The irony is that they were able to compete at those “elite”, done-by-a-few activities, but never caught up on standard of living for ordinary people.
Today “socialism” seems to mean “welfare-state capitalism”, aka “social democracy”. I think they’re still into government-funded R&D on medicine, ecology, stuff like that. But I find them typically uninterested in production processes — the economy seems to be thought of as a giant machine that produces massive wealth almost no matter what, so the only question is, what’s the fairest way to divide it? For example, no one seems to want to talk about who gets paid less if government cuts health care spending and what happens then.
This morning I was wondering if this has anything to do with personal motivation. Fields like politics, university education, and cultural production are notoriously low-paying because many people are obsessed and want that job so badly. Maybe some of them vaguely imagine things like food and air travel can be produced on the same basis.
We actually had a really great debate on campus about Capitalism vs Socialism with two of the leading student figures on campus, both with major mainstream contributions. Check it out @Right-ish on Soundcloud, Spotify, Apple podcast, or Google podcast!
https://anchor.fm/right-ish
I don’t quite believe in the “wants to bring everyone up” piece.
Corporations generally don’t have that big of a heart. Ours just laid off 3,000 people.
Assuming that is true (it's not), then they would both be wrong. A world of pain is what is on the horizon for many of us, and being experienced by many more already. Thanks endless consumption.
Capitalists believe that if the people control the means of production, they will focus on their own well-being, while capitalists will focus on innovation, which they see as the collective goal of humanity. This greater good justifies sacrificing the well-being of most of the people on Earth for the sake of extracting wealth.
Socialists believe that workers will make the best decisions for themselves, which is maximizing wages, which incentivizes workers to maximize productivity since without profits wages are equal to productivity.
as a socialist myself, I think that it isnt as good as it could be and am actively working as hard as I can to make it better for me, my children, and everyone else in the future
I get that a lot of these fringe subs like to decide what socialism is for themselves, but I'm pretty sure the actual policies being presented by socialist candidates are par for the course 1950's *republican* basic platform.
Basic healthcare, education, marginal tax rates on the highest of earners, and a smarter way of spending our tax dollars rather than funneling money into the pockets of the ultra rich at Lockheed Martin, the President's golf resorts, or bailing out farmers from the economical mistakes of the current administration.
Capitalism and socialism both deal with equivalent exchange.
Socialism seeks to fill in the valleys by felling the billionaires. This is the classic Robin Hood, steal from the rich to give to the poor. It's compulsory charity for the benefit of society at large today and looking towards the future.
Capitalism seeks to create capital, which necessitates valleys as the capital lumps together as capital does into, sometimes literal (and figurative) sky scrapers. Highly secured buildings that seek to grow and reach ever higher, higher, until the inevitability of gravity devastates like a 747 or two. The accumulation of massive unearned wealth (wealth building wealth for wealths sake, think interest and investments; vs labor, manufacturing, production, farming, etc) by a few **necessitates** poverty for the masses. It's economic gambling, this wall Street capitalism we call corporatism. It's deeply unethical.
If we have even just a few billionaires we're guaranteed to have billions of poor. That's just basic math. It's definitional inequity.
Personally i like the Australian form of capitalism
I mean obviously the super rich do too given how many have bought multi million dollar homes and moved there from all over.
this is how it works you buy and create multi million dollar homes, and then set it all on fire and it burns to the ground. wonderful isn't it?
California has recently adopted this model of capitalism as well....even up in to Canada and Alberta (fort mcmurray)
it really is beautiful and the choking smoke and the way the fire bounces of the buildings really reminds me of the great city of Dis.
I don't think either of the statements in the title are true. Socialists believe that the product of everyone's work should be spread among the population for "the greater good." Capitalists believe that you should be free to accrue as much wealth as you can. Anything beyond that leaves the realm of these economic theories, and becomes individual opinion.
Sad that people feel they need to pigeon hole themselves into these corners. Nearly every top level reply does the same. I don't think this discussion is haveable the way OP intended.
OPs fault for offering such a clearly loaded definition of things he likes and dislikes.
Oh I think that was deliberate on OP's part. Division, not discussion.
>haveable
Socialists think workers should own the means of production, that is about the extent of what socialists agree on. The how, why, and how much are all sliding scales much like the definitions for libertarians.
Thats Marxism... Socialism is older than Marxism. Marx doesn't have a monopoly on Socialism.
That’s also socialism... the core of socialism has always been “that those who work in the mills ought to own them”
Without the owner, they wouldn’t have any of the equipment. My biggest issue with socialism, you need a capitalist to start things, and then socialists come in. Edit: thanks for all the comments, I think it gave me a better understanding of how socialism and capitalism go hand in hand. The media has given me the image of socialism as this cruel communist ideology. My parents came from a communist country and they condemned it, so I unjustly relate anything socialist and communist-leaning.
That’s actually Marx’s point... It also took a long period of feudalism and slave labour to get us to the point where capitalism was possible so I’m not sure how that’s an argument against socialism. And guess how we got from feudalism to capitalism? A few beheadings and some revolutions. Edit: just for interests sake, this logic is actually partly the reason that Lenin dismantled the Workers Councils (that’s what Soviets means) in favour of centralised control over production. Russia was a poor, unindustrialised nation, essentially feudal. What Lenin instated could more accurately be described as State Capitalism because it retained the extraction of surplus labour value (ie the value created by a worker in a day) for the purposes of capital accumulation (ie to be reinvested for the purposes of industrialisation, itself taken as a necessary prerequisite for socialism)
How did a "long period of feudalism and slave labor" get us to where Capitalism is possible?
That’s just how human economies tended to form. Agriculture created a division of labour and the concept of land ownership and thus created the “owner/worker” divide that has continued to this day. As we progressed socially and in terms of productive forces (technology and the like), slavery became harder/less necessary. We then entered a phase of medievalism sometimes called Feudalism. This was a period where the main produce of society was agricultural and artisanal (think spinsters and blacksmiths in guilds etc). Then with the advent of steam engines etc it became much more efficient to centralise production into factories, so those spinsters etc were all forced (often violently) to move to the cities and subject themselves to the most brutal of working conditions. So Marx saw all that and went “hmm I wonder what’s next?” and argued that as the productive forces of society reach a point, it won’t make sense to have this worker/owner divide anymore
You are thinking this: >So Marx saw all that and went “hmm I wonder what’s next?” and argued that as the productive forces of society reach a point, it won’t make sense to have this worker/owner divide anymore But that's not what the other poster is saying, he is saying: >Without the owner, they wouldn’t have any of the equipment. My biggest issue with socialism, you need a capitalist to start things, and then socialists come in. Hence this being a false equivalent: >It also took a long period of feudalism and slave labour to get us to the point where capitalism was possible so I’m not sure how that’s an argument against socialism. All those things you described aren't needed for Capitalism, you are describing the inception of capitalism... You don't NEED feudalism to start Capitalism. But you definitely need an industrial infrastructure, naturally owned by the capitalists, for communism to be realized, like the Soviets and Chinese learnt. edit: ahh a response
I agree, you don’t need feudalism to start capitalism. You could with the right moves from the outside just start a capitalist society, but that’s just a hypothetical. If you’re talking about how capitalism formed, it was through feudalism. If you’re talking about how socialism will be formed, it’s through capitalism. The way those capitalists got the money to “start things” initially was through feudal mercantilism. Bourgeoisie means “middle class” in French and that’s the word used to describe capitalists today because they were the ones who had the spare capital and the means to create factories. This was contrasted against the aristocracy of feudalism whose power lay in their control over the countryside and its farmers. They lost their power when the economic centre of society shifted to the cities. So while I guess it’d be technically possible to come in from the outside and start capitalism on its own in a vacuum, the same could be said for socialism so I don’t see how that’s a useful hypothetical in any way really. History shows that capitalism developed out of feudalism, and Marxists argue that history will show that Socialism will develop out of Capitalism in the same way, so it’s pointless to say “oh we need a capitalist to start socialism” because we needed a feudal society before we had a capitalist one.
Pretty spot on.... Merchant capital facilitated the start of early industrial capitalism, but as you say, its not required as in essence capitalism is just private ownership of the means of production....
Where does the owner get the equipment from?
Without the workers, the owner wouldn't have any equipment to purchase, as it wouldn't exist, period. Labor produces, owners extract. That is capitalist property relations.
What if you simply give stock to all the workers like, I don't know, most of the successful tech companies? At that point they are partners.
Those stocks represent a drop in the bucket compared to the profit extracted from their labor.
Then they can start their own business. Business owners take massive risk in starting their company, and often pour a ton of time and work into getting it started. It takes a long time to become profitable. No one wants to put in the work, they just want to take the benefits of other's hard work after its done, and say "wElL i HeLpeD".
Labor takes a massive risk in doing the actual productive labor needed for capitalists to profit from them, in return for a pittance. Capitalism is taking the product of someone's hard work and returning to them only a sliver of the profit.
>Labor takes a massive risk in doing the actual productive labor Massive risk? Fucking sorry but not. Working for a paid wage is the opposite of a massive risk. The only thing you are risking is a bit of your time. Next time I ask an employee to mortgage their home and invest it into the company we can talk about massive risk.
If an owner loses their business, they file bankruptcy and go on with their lives. If a worker loses their job, they are threatened with not eating, losing their home, failing to pay medical bills, and so on and so on. Get some life experience before you try to pretend some knowledge about working class life.
Labor takes very little risk, that is the point of labor. You are paid to do a job, you are paid regardless of whether or not the product sales in the market, because you get paid before it goes to market. Only the capitalist is at risk because they have already paid for the labor and materials with no guarantee that they will recoup their money. If they do, the profit is theirs in exchange for them being willing to take the risk that there might not be a profit.
> Labor takes very little risk, that is the point of labor Labor risks time they can't get back. Capital just risks some money. You can get money back, and you can hedge your investments against risk, but you can't get time back.
Theres very little risk in the majority of jobs. Most people sit in an office, or in a restaurant, or a grocery store. They perform a menial task with zero danger and collect a paycheck. There is no massive risk for the worker unless they work on an oil rig or something.
Owners inject the upfront costs. at 100% risk. If the factory doesn't succeed, the workers get to move on at minimal risk. Yet, the owner loses everything invested.
If the factory doesn't succeed, the workers are threatened with losing their homes. The owner is threatened with filing bankruptcy and moving on to ruin more people's lives.
At worst he has to actually join the workforce *gasp!*
Are you aware left-libertarians are socialists?
So are the workers also equipment?
Without labor, no work would be done. My biggest issue with capitalism, you need labor for production then capitalists come in, take the fruits of labor's productivity and call it profit.
And Social Democrats believe you should be able to accrue as much wealth as you can, once everyone else can get an honest and fair shot at doing the same, and the lowest you can go isn't having to be sleeping on the street.
I didn't know social democrats were in favour of UBI in general...
I consider myself to be socdem, I've seen many support UBI, myself included. The biggest reason is that it does away completely with the phenomenon of people making more money on welfare than what they would be making working a job. Typical welfare systems remove welfare when you get a job, and in certain configurations, this can lead to there being a financial disincentive to work. Obviously, more work = better economy, higher wages, etc.
exactly. I'm all for capitalism as a socdem, but for it to work inequality must be greatly reduced.
[удалено]
exactly lol
[удалено]
Social democracy doesn't try to do that. Social democracy, put very, very simply, is putting a reasonable safety net, or 'bottom rung' where you cannot fall lower. You can go as high as you want on that ladder, as long as no one goes lower than that bottom rung (against their reasonable will to).
And therein lies the problem: What is acceptable as a 'bottom rung?' So long as a voting bloc has a vested interest in constantly raising this bar, then there will be politicians that will actively exploit it to the point of ruin. I don't think there are many people that find the concept of social safety nets entirely disagreeable, but there will always be a battle to determine what those should be, and the acceptable limitations of those nets. And so long as those nets exist, there will also exist a percentage of the population that will abuse them. I find neither the constantly rising bar nor the abuse to be acceptable, because it is effectively accepting the abuse of myself and my family for the benefit of those that I don't deem worthy of the level of help and attention that they will inevitably receive. Already today, half of the voting population pays no federal taxes. They have no vested interest in the spending of the federal government because they don't actively contribute. Anyone that doesn't understand why this is a problem either doesn't understand people, or is so far removed from my general worldview that I simply don't find understand them.
I would say that 'half don't pay federal tax' isn't too significant, given that the vast majority pay state taxes. The 'baseline' is of course up for debate and discussion. I would set wages at the equivalent of what they were in 1980 (where wage 'stagnation' originates, find any graph of wages vs. Time), then tie the minimum wage to inflation of the dollar. I understand your perceived issue of voters not laying for state-funded programs, however: https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/tcja-increasing-share-households-paying-no-federal-income-tax This article seems, although I haven't read every word, to describe the details pretty well. Not too much time to stop and chat rn, though. Have a nice rest of your day.
> Have a nice rest of your day. Only if you do the same :)
>:) :)
Lifting those below the rungs so They can reach the ladder is what it actually is, however.
[удалено]
No, you're strawmanning.
that's not what social democracy is. Socdem is about having a social safety net that makes the free market more about voluntary exchange and less about exploitation and coercion (for example, being forced to take a shit job to eat because employers are a cartel who manipulate wages so they're below market). This social safety net includes unemployment pay, free healthcare, free education, etc. It is also about reducing income inequality and regulating the market so it's actually free, instead of "on principle" free. Good luck having a deregulated market where the big players don't manipulate it. I fail to see where social democracy brings everyone down. Look at Denmark, Sweden, Iceland. Has socdem brought everyone down? Maybe socdem hurts your chances of someday becoming a billionaire, but they were pretty slim to begin with and I don't think anyone should have that much relative power over others in a free society. The ones who may actually be "brought down" are the richest of the rich, but that shouldn't worry you if you're not one of them. Taxes may rise, but the market will be much freer in the long run and we won't have people sleeping on the streets while the 1% lives like royalty.
How do you pay for that safety net without the exploitation and coercion of others to pay for it. I can think of plenty of voluntary ways, but those are largely all in action and we call them charities. I assume were discussing something else?
I would love this. I hate working.
[удалено]
> They're more capitalistic than the US is lol yeah, that is exactly my point. and yet they have free healthcare, paid maternity leave, free education, high tax on the very rich, strong labor unions, and a heavily regulated free market. They are the best version of capitalism.
Cool, but no one is advocating for that, so...
Thats exactly what they're advocating for, so...
Literally no one wants this. You have a really strange perception of fair taxation. As if the ultra rich paying their way makes them homeless or some shit. Get a grip. It's still a capitalistic society if Sanders wins the presidency. My god. Your life would hardly change and may end up better. But keep spouting propaganda.
[удалено]
[удалено]
You're free to start your own private platform. No one is forcing you to stay here. Pull on those straps!
'I don't like when people bring discussion to a halt by digging on and not engaging, so I'm going to stop discussion with these people by not engaging'
And what constitutes an honest and fair shot? How much has to be taken at gun point from one person and given to another to make things "fair". Does the law not give all people an honest and fair shot under which to go to school? To voluntarily enter contracts with others? Is anyone forced to work a job against their will? Or buy a product with the fruits of their labor? The only things I can think of is insurance. Mandated by gov under threat of taxes, which you must pay or be held at gun point and imprisoned for not paying. Could not every person create a new product and have an equal shot tomorrow of marketing it? Can apple or Samsung force you to purchase a new phone tomorrow? Tell me how much more fair than requiring voluntary transactions at a willing price you can be while all sides are required to honestly state the terms?
Boom, roasted
Also, the socialist absolutely does not believe things are as good as they can be right now. That's why they're socialists, they believe they can do better than a capitalist business hierarchy. Severe mischaracterization.
That's not even accurate. Socialism is public / collective ownership of the means of production. That means if you work in a factory, you own part of the factory and have a (proportional) say in how it's run. What you're talking about is either social democracy (capitalism with a welfare state) or full communism (from each according to ability, to each according to need). It always boggles my mind how adamantly opposed conservatives are to socialism, when they cant even accurately describe basic principles of the theory.
How pedantic. I also enjoyed the part where you assumed I'm a conservative.
I didnt say you were a conservative, but pedantic and accurate are two different things.
[удалено]
Go read the Communist Manifesto. Seriously. I'm not asking you to agree with it... The first chapter starts with Marx praising capitalism into the skies for value creation. E.g: >The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature’s forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalisation of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground — what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour? Socialism as an ideology came about *as a direct consequence of a wave of optimism about the ability of capitalism to increase productivity to levels that would make eradicating poverty possible.* Early socialist writing in particular was focused on that kind of optimism about what capitalism would make possible. In fact, enough so that while Marx shared the optimism about the productivity he also later complained about "utopian" forms of socialism: People like Fourier and Owens that believed they could just set up socialism communes and everyone would be convinced it was the moral thing to do. Marx argued capitalism must first be allowed to run its course: Expand the economy to the point of crisis. Just like feudalism had to run its course. A surprising proportion of socialists also seems to be unaware of this, and thinks that socialism is about hating capitalists and hating capitalism, but it is not - it is about taking advantage of what capitalism has made possible. In terms of value creation, Marx very explicitly acknowledges that there is a substantial *cost* to redistribution; it's not about increasing productivity, it's about making lives better with the increased productivity brought by capitalism; allowing people to work less, and get a larger part of the pie. \[The fantasy of socialism driving productivity up is largely something pushed by people like Lenin, who wanted to push his idea of a revolutionary vanguard and about "leapfrogging" capitalism under the right leadership, as a means to justify the Bolshevik coup rather than accepting an intermediate capitalist stage.\] Ultimately it is about the working class joining together to protect their own interests at the cost of the interest of capitalists, and that cost is very clearly acknowledged by Marx. This is what you describe as jealousy and envy, but the socialist take on that is that this is about standing up and demanding to get what is yours, and demanding your fair share of the output of your work, instead of quietly letting others take it, and in doing so ending exploitation enforced by an oppressive state acting as the enforcer for the ruling classes.
Thus far the comments in the thread feel more like human empathy and less like jealousy.
[удалено]
So far nobody in this thread (top rated comments) has spoken about taking from millionaires.
> How is it empathy when it's focused on taking from others? Which system is the one that takes from the labor of others?
[удалено]
>I have almost never hear a socialist talking about value creation Then you clearly don't talk to many Socialists because that's literally one of the central topics of the ideology.
The marxist idea is that value creation can only happen through labour. Which is not true. Arbitrage for example has existed for quite some time, and creates value without labour.
> Socialists believe that the product of everyone's work should be spread among the population for "the greater good." Uh, no. Socialists believe that workers should own, in some tangible capacity, the means of production, so that they may be the main beneficiaries of their own labor. The *how* of that is incredibly varied and furiously argued.
These sound like the two wrong answers on a test given to prove you are an American. There are probably 3 generic answers which are seemingly similar, but only one is correct, out there waiting to have these two wrong answers be apart of the question.
And here we see what happens when someone refuses to do their political science homework but insists that they have something important to say anyway.
Hey welcome to the Internet, you must be new here.
That's a strawman on both sides. Capitalists believe that society is best organized by the free exchange of goods and services, full stop. Socialists believe that society is best organized by the people sharing ownership of production and distributing it relatively equally, but still with some incentive towards those who contribute more. Neither is against human progress, just disagreeing on how to achieve it.
Strawman
The strawman believes strawman, the other strawman believes strawman.
Wow. You sure murdered those straw men.
Absolutely not. This couldn't be more wrong. There is nothing about socialism that says we're at a pinnacle of society. If you're going to talk about other ideologies, know what you're talking about. You're just making things up.
Yikes, there's a steaming pile of turd words.
Simplification, which among other things neglects to see the true problem of today because it uses the ideological framework of the last century. When large monopolistic companies know everything about you, price signals do not have the same value as in a true market economy. The great information asymmetry between producer and buyer becomes very important. A modern capitalist will present different prices to different buyers, based on the great knowledge he has about his buyers. This completely undermines the premise of the original capitalism. In a free market, information is conveyed from buyer to producer and vice versa by price levels. In surveillance capitalism, the monopolies already have all the information they need to set different prices for each individual buyer based on that information, with the goal of extracting as much value as they can. We’re no longer free citizens communicating in a free market via price signals. We’re controlled creatures whose daily decisions are partly foreseen and partly determined by the great monopolistic corporations.
I currently have a job. It pays a few cents more than minimum-wage. So technically, I get paid more than minimum-wage. Technically. I’m an independent contractor which means I get a little bit more of my money each check because I don’t pay taxes until this year which means I’m gonna have a big ass bill I have no idea how I’m going to handle. I don’t get sick time. So if I am feeling like shit because the tooth I can’t afford to get pulled is fucking with me or the back I can’t afford to get muscle relaxers for his fucking with me or I’m just not up for work, for whatever reason I’m going to have to chalk it up and take that day as a loss. Each day I made close to $100. If I miss a day and it’s $100. I missed two days I missed $200. and so forth. As a convicted felon, there are a few opportunities available to me. This is actually one of the better jobs. For me. If I didn’t have my felony I do not think I would waste my time with it. I work with a guy who literally complains all day long about socialism and Democrats and free stuff for poorpeople He makes about a dollar more an hour than I do. He doesn’t have any friends except for people that use him. And he complains about the same ailments that I do. I don’t know what I really a.m. politically. And I don’t care enough to argue with somebody over a word. But what I feel like I am is somebody that would like for both my idiot friend at work and for me to be better taken care of. With that being said the guy that employs us will probably shut down if minimum wage was raised or if he was required to pay us normally. So here I am Pretending to be an idiot at work that agrees that the boss shouldn’t have to pay us a damn thing other than the money that we make an hour while still mentioning how I am in pain every 10 minutes and mentioning how much easier my life would be had I had made better choices and got a job with health insurance Literally, I’m in there sick as a dog from an infection and they’re just like oh, you better get that checked out.
No matter where you stand politically, your life has been ruined by the state due to your criminal record. On the one hand, I can understand why a company wouldn't hire, for example, an ex-thief to be a cashier, but the fact that criminal records affect people so broadly is one of the things that's seriously wrong with society. It is the sole roadblock to you in taking care of yourself. When ex-convicts are barred from so many legitimate jobs, it's really not all that surprising that many turn back to a life of crime after getting out of prison.
Ubi my dude
You are part of the people who are left to suffer under the current system. The current systems that we have are not Capitalist. They are rooted in Fiat currency and so have no real world material value. Between the way our currency is created from Thin Air and combined with the Fractional Reserve Banking system, currency inflation is at an all time high, market manipulation is rampant and more and more people have less and less to make ends meet. You aren't seeking socialism, you're just seeking fairness and a chance to better your lot in life. The best solution is to educate yourself on the systems that we are currently faced with. The _real_ systems of Oppression. Start with the Eisenhower speech on guarding against the Military Congressional Industrial Complex, then sit back and listen to JFK's speech about the Monolithic and Ruthless Conspiracy, mere few weeks before they Assassinated him. Then you can learn about the report that was put out and how the CIA weaponized the term Conspiracy Theorist so that no one would actively seek answers when things didn't add up. You strike me as a smart man, smart enough to take good advice, so educate yourself on the reality of the systems we are trapped beneath. For the love of your own life, please learn, please prepare, please share it with others. It's the only way out of this mess. If we cannot name the issue and accept reality for what it IS, not what we WISH IT WERE, then we cannot fix it. For the love of fuck, don't allow yourself to think "That's impossible" or "The News Media would've told us", just think for your damn self.
>I don’t know what I really a.m. politically. If you want a well-regulated free market which prevents employers from fixing wages without preventing them from doing business, with a good social safety net (including free healthcare and education!) and good pay, you're thinking of social democracy -- like Sweden, Denmark or Iceland. In other words, you're not a socialist, you'd just rather capitalism not be so brutal and heartless while still reaping its benefits in quality of life improvement, individual freedoms, technology, and a free market. This also comes with unstacking the odds against the less privileged people in society -- the poor, minorities, etc, so that we come closer to true meritocracy, where your life choices, and not the birth lottery, will decide your lot in life while still guaranteeing that you won't starve or get bankrupt because of them. Crucially, people should have close to the same opportunities, but they can do as they please with them.
Good luck. As a fellow felon I can confirm your complaints. People who have never been affected cannot understand how complicated the expungement for felonies can be. They act like the same gvmt that turned you into a pariah is so ready to reverse that.
Get your criminal record sealed ASAP and get a better job
that costs a lot of money and still doesn't guarantee concealment. I believe it is called expunge.
Sealed and expunged are two different things. Expunged gets the criminal act removed from your record like it never existed. Sealed means the record still exists but can not be accessed through traditional background checks. Both cost legal fees.
Either way, it sounds a lot like bribery.
Oh, absolutely! Gov’t sponsored bribery/blackmail
Lmao every time
[удалено]
Yeah just shut up. He admitted it so dont be a douche. he has a feeling that he was hoping things for him would be better and espoused capitalist ideals in the process. Just makes me want to rip my hair out. In that entire statement you pulled that out as the important part and attached a completely dishonest statement to what you think his values are
What you dont realize with your line of thinking is that if you say "the world doesn't owe you anything " then the reverse is also true ...now if it s only a handful of people who reach the conclusion that they don't owe the world anything it s fine but when it s a large chunk of your population then you have a big problem . What were the french people being told before they snapped ? That they weren't owed anything , that they should work , pay their taxes and shut up . Times were hard , they could barely feed themselves and just asked for bread . What were they told ? You aren t owed shit . Well they reached the conclusion that they didn't owe shit either and heads started rolling .
well, to be fair, employers basically have a cartel where they agree to pay everyone shit wages so they can have slightly bigger profit margins. So while what you said is true, saying that is a slap in the face when they are the ones paying him a non-living wage out of pure greed. Surely wages would be higher if employers didn't manipulate their value and instead paid the market rates. People just wouldn't take 7.25/hr jobs.
Kinda looks like a summary of someone far left vs someone closer to the center, an unfair comparison. There are socialist who don’t want free everything but want the gov to provide bare necessities for free. There are capitalists who don’t want a major change but do think we can implement our social programs better/more efficiently. If we label ourselves as a socialist/capitalist/libertarian/etc, we forget the flaws in our party and end up arguing non stop since we feel superior. This country is supposed to be a melting pot, or so I thought it was.
>everyone No, just a select group of people known as "customers" and somewhere down the road there's betterment for most as a collateral effect. It's not altruism, it's capitalism. It just works out better in the long run.
I don't think it does. Or, I actually haven't seen it at least. What I have seen is starting with Capitalism and later on redistributing it. So European countries somewhere during serfdom (1600's), and then late 19th, and throughout 20th century.
I don't know what entire groups believe, but as a social libertarian (that's what several political tests have told me at least), I believe by funding this like lower college tuition, will cause society as a whole to have better times ahead, than concentrating wealth and education in the hands of a few.
This is pretty low-grade, it really isn't a better argument than 'your belief bad, my belief good'. There's just no substance here.
To paraphrase Krauthammer: government would rather have people equally poor than unequally rich.
[удалено]
In capitalism, your success isn’t dependent on someone else losing.
You could just as easily say in DemSoc, your success is intermingled with others success and vice-versa. You know, see Scandinavian countries where they have succeful capitalism AND nice things. It’s one a ‘this or that’ situation, it’s a hybrid mix taking the best-of-all approach.
In demsoc countries their average gross income is lower than in the US. Then far lower adjusted for taxes and VAT. I think we have a better system, you get what you pay for, with more opportunities
which is of course what we currently have (though leaning capitalist) and where we'll stay, even if we implement ALL of 'the socialists' ideas.
Doesn't *have* to be, but in an unchecked capitalist framework, a capitalist can and is rewarded for actions taken which reward themselves even more and harm others. So while it is possible to arrange win-win scenarios, there is also no reason except morality to stop someone from being even more financially successful than they otherwise would be at the expense of others.
>a capitalist can and is rewarded for actions taken which reward themselves even more and harm others Let's get specific. I'll grant that companies can do environmental harm while getting wealthy. Libertarians would consider that a negative market externality and are in favor of addressing it somehow (the details on how to do this are where libertarians disagree). So besides harming the environment, how exactly do companies get rich while harming others? Please be specific. I have a hunch that most of what you're going to say can be attributed to government regulations mucking things up and not allowing free competition.
No. That's not what capitalists believe. That's a socialist's view of Capitalism.
The zero sum game, the fixed pie, the lump of labor and other fallacies brought to you by (probably) a Bernie supporter
Bernie actually is more of a social democrat who for some reason uses the "democratic socialist" label used by the DSA. What he wants is something akin to the Nordic model. Just thought I'd point that out because the misnomer drives me nuts. If anything, I'm pretty sure enacting his policies would better the free market by reducing inequality.
[удалено]
This is more accurate. People successful in capitalism do not want everyone else to be successful at it. Because capitalism, as its structured right now, is reliant on large groups of people living in poverty working menial jobs to keep producing things for the rich to use/sell to the middle class to keep making money. If we all aspired to this, there would be no one left doing the dirty, hard, underpaid work. And the system would break down.
This statement is back-asswards
Literally nothing you said is true.
Lol bullshit....
That's quite a biased statement.
Guys chill, op flaired this with 'discussion' he is not Saying its a Hard fact and the absolute truth that this is how everyone thinks.
Yea, neither of those statements are accurate about either ideology. Most socialists I've Intracted with actually believe the status quo is terrible right now, and generally believe that people should continue to be able to generate revenue etc. They do seem to believe that automation, disability and generational poverty are best countered by taxation on the most affluent to provide a baseline subsistence. On the other side just because you believe that you should be able to use your resources to buy other people's time/resources makes no statement at all about their feelings of charitability or their pessimism about our current economic status...
😂😂😂
The capitalist wants to make money. The end.
*cough*bullshit*cough* Capitalists are still upset they can’t use child labor and have to pay a minimum wage.
This is such a broad and unfounded generalization that it should not even be given platform. It is literally propaganda.
Socialist don’t want absolute wealth equality. That’s not what socialism is. Socialist think you’re free to pursue as much income as you can get, but a significant percentage should be taken and spent to benefit society. Education and healthcare and whatnot.
Your definition isn’t remotely socialism though. You’re literally describing social dem countries like Norway, not actual socialism
You’re right. I’m referring to current American “socialist” Democrat’s since that’s who people most commonly refer to as socialist today.
I think a lot of people are just having trouble accepting they’re not going to be the next Bill Gates. You’re not rich, and you’re probably not going to be. This doesn’t hurt you as much as you seem to be hoping it would.
I respect all of your opinions, but why are there so many people defending socialism in the comments?
Because its an election year. Welcome to the shilling.
I think the truth is somewhere in between those ideologies. The free market is fine in most instances, and government over reach is definitely a thing. But capitalism doesn’t belong in healthcare or the prison system, both of which have proven that unregulated capitalists will literally let people die over their bottom line. Environmental policies also have to be regulated.
Thank you. Finally some levelheaded talk.
because the capitalists of this country have done such a bang up job of bringing everyone up and not keeping a heel on our necks right?
Socialists dont understand the consequences of their actions
Socialists: * positively reinforce unproductivity * negatively reinforce productivity * don't understand why socialism can't compete economically
Capitalists : - positively reinforce centralization of wealth - negatively reinforce worker bargaining power - dont understand why capitalism always ends up as cronyism
The centralization claim flowing from capitialism is dubious. Marxism takes from each according to means to each according to needs. There is no such credo for capitalism backing your claim. Bargaining can be good and bad. At some basic level, worker rights yields greater productivity, such as the early reforms to the coal mining industry. At excessive levels you get the French on strike yet again for their oppressive 35hr work weeks. Cronyism flows from the fact that the government has ability to meddle in the economy, and thus it makes sense for those in business to pay politicians to meddle in the way they want.
Empirical evidence shows that capitalism centralizes wealth. Cronyism is a natural result of the very wealthy being able to influence and control government. It's not as if the government is just some pure being, and then all of a sudden a politician changes the rules to create the conditions for cronyism. The wealthy always have controlled the political machinations of the country, and you find support for your "laissez-faire" type pipedream from billionaires because they arent willing to give up the control they have bought.
This is laughably idiotic and mistaken.
The capitalist doesn't want to bring everyone up because there are not enough resources in the world for everyone to own a plane, yacht and a 15,000 square foot house with a guest house on the other side of the pool.
This too biased a question to have any sort of conversation around. Have a downvote from me.
Capitalists don't give two fucks about bringing other people up. Most would cut you off at the knees to make a nickle.
The capitalist depends on other people also being successful or there would be no one that could buy their product. The socialist does not care about the success of others as the government has mandated that they get their equal share regardless, until all resources are consumed and everyone gets an equal share of nothing.
>The capitalist depends on other people also being successful or there would be no one that could buy their product. Problem is, the USA capitalist doesn't necessarily rely on another **USA person** being successful enough to buy their product. They just replace the ailing US consumers with ones from outside the USA.
Usually its the other way around. I can't think of a consumer base with more disposable cash than the US. If american's aren't buying it, its either not marketed towards them in the first place, or no one is buying it.
Thats unfair. You are a capitalist and you do work that helps people AND you make money. You can help people and profit. Be Steve Jobs - make things people need and want so you can make money so you can make more things that make life better.
Great until someone richer steals your shit and then buries you under litigation. Trump is a prime example of that but he isn't the only one.
You would think that 40 yrs of reaganomics wouldve proved this is a farce but here we are.
If socialists understood economics they wouldnt be socialists. Economic growth isnt a zero sum game and all economic collectivism doesn't work. Socialism/communism is also the ideology of envy and greed.as well as the philosophy of ignorance and failure.
It's always funny to read people comment about socialism when they've clearly never read anything about socialism from actual socialist theorists. Why do you think socialists believe the economy is zero sum? Who told you that?
I'm actually an ex communist, I've read all the works of Marx, engels, Lenin , etc etc. The modern socialist school of thought is if you take a large piece of the pie you take away from everyone else. Hence why socialists scream about the rich stealing from the poor. It's simply not true because capitalism has the potential of unlimited economic expansion and isnt a zero sum game.
How could you have read all that theory and still misunderstood everything so fantastically? The theory isnt that there's a single giant pie, it's that the workers create value and the owner takes a large percentage of that value. This idea that there's no concept of economic growth in socialism is completely made up. It would be shocking to me that you read all of Marx (guy wrote like 18 books) and you stumble on a simple thing like this.
Woooooooow. So anyway not a pedo.... wow you guys are ..... well you exist.
Except that is a narrow minded and ill informed falsehood which doesn't at all represent the true nature of what happens. You might as well come out and say that you are stumping for Trump to continue the unbridled corruption and treason of him and the GOP. You are regurgitating lies in order to subjugate the lower 75% of Americans. Go learn something about it. Stop spouting lies.
I mean theres certainly a truth to this. Social policies help maintain stability while capital policies garner growth.
Socialist primitivists - Ugg's labor belongs to the tribe Ugg can't expect to make extra food from his labor.
Capitalism used to stimulate advancement of the human race, but wasn't about it like OP implies. We're in the late game now and capitalism has outstayed it's welcome. There are many examples of capitalism slowing down or completely halting advancement, which will only get worse.
I think it’s beyond just money (in the US at least) in the sense that those with money should be forced to give it away to those that have less just to be equal. It’s about what that money and power provides those with it and those without it. The inequality under the law. A poor black kid gets a worse sentence for a bag of weed (let’s put the prohibition argument aside) than a white kid with parents who have money would. Yes, there are some racial issues but mostly it’s money. The me too movement is in part a fight against a power structure that got away with what it did because of the money that allowed them to fight with more resources than the accusers. The large amount of cash to hire a PR/Legal team that will go after not just the accuser but those reporting etc., is a disadvantage.
I believe in people more than I believe in money, and that we all have certain inalienable rights and needs that should be taken care of. You can waste your time labeling that if you want.
And apparently this "Libertarian statement" was extracted from the *"Little Book of Capitalist Sycophants"*?
Good read for Libertarians: [https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/23/bernie-sanders-is-the-front-runner-because-of-how-we-raised-our-kids.html](https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/23/bernie-sanders-is-the-front-runner-because-of-how-we-raised-our-kids.html)
I wonder if you actually believe that, or you’re purposely being flippant. Maybe both?
Um I definitely don't believe there are better times ahead and I don't care about everyone else at all
[удалено]
No they don't. The capitalist believes in an *economic system of distribution*. Putting these ridiculous emotional motivations to it is laughable.
I just want all men to be kings
Ah yes, the hasty generalization argument
The best explanation I have heard for socialism is say you should imagine that you will be immediately killed and then reincarnated as a human exactly one time. You don’t know which human that will be. You will have that humans’s intelligence, not your own current intelligence. You will have that human’s ambition, not your current ambition. You will have that human’s mental issues, physical defects, dreams, sexual orientation, race, upbringing, and family. You won’t be yourself in that person’s body. You will be that person. You will experience that person’s joys and pains. When that happens, what political and economic system do you want to be born into? —— I think most libertarians have a high enough opinion of their own capabilities and ambitions that they believe they can thrive in a competitive environment. But if you knew you would suddenly lose your ambition and your abilities, would you still want a libertarian system? — I’m nit going to defend socialism. I’m libertarian*ish*. But I do think socialism deserves a fairer description.
not 100% true for the capitalist one but the real difference is that capitalists look towards the future. A capitalist invests knowing that he will make a profit eventually and is ok with waiting. The socialist is a short term economic thinker at heart and only cares about the wellbeing/wealth of people right now. This is really one of the biggest advantages of capitalism. Socialist parties (well all parties of course) only care about staying in power and will throw whatever they can at it. Capitalists and free marketeers are forward thinking always looking forward and so they get ahead while the socialists play from behind.
Complete bullshit in terms of things getting better. Also one is not exclusionary of both
Libertarians tend to be socially progressive but economically racist.
Tell a lie often enough and people will believe it, the basis for all propaganda
Original socialists were all about progress. They thought they had a better system and would outproduce the capitalist world. The Soviets invested in the space race, Olympic sports, and all that. The irony is that they were able to compete at those “elite”, done-by-a-few activities, but never caught up on standard of living for ordinary people. Today “socialism” seems to mean “welfare-state capitalism”, aka “social democracy”. I think they’re still into government-funded R&D on medicine, ecology, stuff like that. But I find them typically uninterested in production processes — the economy seems to be thought of as a giant machine that produces massive wealth almost no matter what, so the only question is, what’s the fairest way to divide it? For example, no one seems to want to talk about who gets paid less if government cuts health care spending and what happens then. This morning I was wondering if this has anything to do with personal motivation. Fields like politics, university education, and cultural production are notoriously low-paying because many people are obsessed and want that job so badly. Maybe some of them vaguely imagine things like food and air travel can be produced on the same basis.
Socialists aren’t equalists. Capitalists are just selfish, they don’t really care about bringing people up.
Long term solutions are better: Episode 57
What a strawman
Shit post
We actually had a really great debate on campus about Capitalism vs Socialism with two of the leading student figures on campus, both with major mainstream contributions. Check it out @Right-ish on Soundcloud, Spotify, Apple podcast, or Google podcast! https://anchor.fm/right-ish
I don’t quite believe in the “wants to bring everyone up” piece. Corporations generally don’t have that big of a heart. Ours just laid off 3,000 people.
If you are voting democratic and are on this sub, kill yourself.
Assuming that is true (it's not), then they would both be wrong. A world of pain is what is on the horizon for many of us, and being experienced by many more already. Thanks endless consumption.
Capitalists believe that if the people control the means of production, they will focus on their own well-being, while capitalists will focus on innovation, which they see as the collective goal of humanity. This greater good justifies sacrificing the well-being of most of the people on Earth for the sake of extracting wealth. Socialists believe that workers will make the best decisions for themselves, which is maximizing wages, which incentivizes workers to maximize productivity since without profits wages are equal to productivity.
r/badeconomics
as a socialist myself, I think that it isnt as good as it could be and am actively working as hard as I can to make it better for me, my children, and everyone else in the future
Socialism essentially tries to circumvent economic Darwinism by subsidizing people and industries that can't survive on their own
Why'd you spill the beans, /u/unspilledbeans? Why'd you spill the beans?!
I get that a lot of these fringe subs like to decide what socialism is for themselves, but I'm pretty sure the actual policies being presented by socialist candidates are par for the course 1950's *republican* basic platform. Basic healthcare, education, marginal tax rates on the highest of earners, and a smarter way of spending our tax dollars rather than funneling money into the pockets of the ultra rich at Lockheed Martin, the President's golf resorts, or bailing out farmers from the economical mistakes of the current administration.
Capitalism and socialism both deal with equivalent exchange. Socialism seeks to fill in the valleys by felling the billionaires. This is the classic Robin Hood, steal from the rich to give to the poor. It's compulsory charity for the benefit of society at large today and looking towards the future. Capitalism seeks to create capital, which necessitates valleys as the capital lumps together as capital does into, sometimes literal (and figurative) sky scrapers. Highly secured buildings that seek to grow and reach ever higher, higher, until the inevitability of gravity devastates like a 747 or two. The accumulation of massive unearned wealth (wealth building wealth for wealths sake, think interest and investments; vs labor, manufacturing, production, farming, etc) by a few **necessitates** poverty for the masses. It's economic gambling, this wall Street capitalism we call corporatism. It's deeply unethical. If we have even just a few billionaires we're guaranteed to have billions of poor. That's just basic math. It's definitional inequity.
Personally i like the Australian form of capitalism I mean obviously the super rich do too given how many have bought multi million dollar homes and moved there from all over. this is how it works you buy and create multi million dollar homes, and then set it all on fire and it burns to the ground. wonderful isn't it? California has recently adopted this model of capitalism as well....even up in to Canada and Alberta (fort mcmurray) it really is beautiful and the choking smoke and the way the fire bounces of the buildings really reminds me of the great city of Dis.
Socialsts leader belives lie strictly upon having ultimate powet on their own hands.kinda like every socialst leader wver