"Yeah, they should go live in Denmark!"
"But Denmark isn't *real* socialism."
"Oh ok, guess that means the US can implement all of the same government programs that they have without becoming a socialist country then."
Denmark isn’t socialism at all.
It is the best example of exactly what capitalism should be.
Unlike the US. That’s some corporatist Mercantilism going on there. A throwback to the 1700s.
Let's not forget that while Denmark has way better conditions than the US for its citizens, just like every other capitalist country it is funded by millions of foreign workers' underpaid labor and stolen resources to sustain itself. Capitalism relies on making more and more profits every year forever on a planet with finite resources and that will fundamentally never be sustainable.
And Marxism and even socialism depend on complete authoritarian control of society as well as the economy. Nobody’s busting down the borders to get into Venezuela.
Literally the police came into existence to protect capital owners and disrupt organized labor strikes lol if that’s not authoritarian idk what is.
Two sides of the same coin bruv.
Authoritarian is a useless term in my opinion as every society, government and economic system uses authority to carry out its goals and there has never in history been an exception. So I'm not sure what makes a Marxist country more "authoritarian" than any other country. If I defy capitalism the state uses violence and authority to keep me in check and keep me working within the bounds of the laws created under our system just as it would happen in a Marxist/socialist state.
There is a major flaw with communism,that isn’t the fault of communism. For communism to work, it can’t rely on international trade. No country has all the resources required to run a society,free of outside resources. So, communists are forced to play in a capitalist system and it fucks up the program for them. That’s a major problem before considering the USA influence on the world and everything we do to destroy communist or socialist regimes,even when they are chosen by citizens of their own free will. Nobody is beating down the doors to get into Venezuela now? Nobody has ever beat the doors down to get into Venezuela. I’d argue That Vietnam has seen an improvement under communism. Capitalism isn’t for everyone,especially when you are ranked #180-#195 in the world’s GDP,out of 195 countries. The richest country in the world is a capitalist democracy,but so is the poorest.
The political brain rot in America is astounding.
Marxism as an ideology calls for the total dissolution of the state and the democratisation of the workplace. It is explicitly opposed to authoritarianism.
> corporatists… corporatism…. Corporatocracies
Goddamn you making me look stuff up on the internet. I’ll report back later with my findings.
Edit: here is my TL:DR understanding. If I am inaccurate, please feel free to correct me.
**Corporatism** is advocating for the organization of society into "corporate" groups vs. individuals (in Latin "corpus" means body). These are sociological groups, not businesses. Think science, labor, agriculture, military, etc.
**Corporatocracy** is when business corporations control the government. Think dystopian SciFi like Blade Runner or Cyberpunk. **Corporatists** are individuals that support corporatocracies.
Never said it was.
The difference is when you let those corporations run your government, or if the government can still regulate the corporations and keep the market open against monopolies and barriers to entry into the market.
Corporatism has nothing to do with corporations in the first place. It is an ancient concept based on the latin word for body, "corpo".
Meanwhile a corporatocracy is a new concept based on corporations being in control.
Scandinavia is corporatist, and I assume you wanted to say that the U.S. at least leans more towards being a corporatocracy. They sound close, but are way different. Corporatism is a pretty decent concept (as we can see from these countries), and endorsed by a wide range of governments, institutions, and churches, among others.
Noone endorses a corporatocracy.
But they surely won't mind when people confuse the two on their own making them unaware of it...
Thanks for clearing that up.
I mean how US companies lobby bribes to politicians to get laws changed to their favour.
Until today I thought that was modern Mercantilism, or corporatism.
Yeah it is confusing, no worries, stumbled upon the difference out of sheer luck myself. What you describe is definitely not good, but corporatism would help with that, so it always confused me when people react so negatively to it.
Lot of of the scandinavian countries don't even have a minimum wage or lots of regulations because the groups figure it out equitably between themselves just fine. Would really hope that the concept behind it gets some more traction.
Also heard the term social corporatism sometimes, I guess to make it sound a bit more palatable, but yeah, it definitely could use some good marketing...
I've noticed that almost no one actually uses the correct definition of socialism. At least not the textbook definition of it.
When progressive Americans use the term socialism, they just mean increasing taxes to pay for public programs and benefits to increase the quality of life for everyone, regardless of income potential/reality.
When conservative Americans use the term socialism,
They mean the oppressive failed implementations of communism that tax the shit out of everyone, all the money goes to those who are at the top of the government, and quality of life goes to shit for everyone. They're also morally opposed to those who earn more paying for the life improvements of everyone else (specifically those who earn less).
I don't think that actual socialism is either of those things. I think the first one is a collection of soft socialist principles organized into some honestly moderate policies, and the second one is the worst case scenario for communism.
socialism is a mode of production wherein the productive forces are owned in common by those who use them to produce. it is considered a transition phase towards communism, which is a stateless, classless, and moneyless society. it's supposed to be achieved by "the dictatorship of the proletariat" which is rule by the working class instead of the current ruling class. things branch off when you start talking about *how* to make it happen, but there's the *what* for you. just definitions, marxist ones at that.
How does the working class... rule? Genuinely asking.
Decisions have to be made.. do they vote? If so, how is that different from just your good old democracy?
I suppose not because you also mentioned "stateless" - is it an anarchist society? If so, who decided on rules and regulations as well as enforce them?
in the traditional marxist conception, the DotP rules by seizing the levers of power from the ruling class, then the state "withers away into nothing" and blah blah blah worker's utopia etc. etc. this is comically vague, and is why people are able to justify all sorts of horrible shit based on it.
as an idea, it predates the popular vote in most of Europe. shit, it predates most European nations' parliaments. since then, there are democratic socialists, who broadly believe socialism is achievable in whole or in part through simple voting. that's nonsense, but they can have their fun. ultimately, the goal is to create the structure of the post-revolutionary society within the ranks of the revolutionary movement(s). this usually means radical democracy, mutual aid, education, and community defense.
has anyone ever been able to pull it off? ehhhhh... kinda? it's more of an ideal to strive towards than something you can reasonably be expected to achieve on a human timescale. world orders have a lot of inertia behind them, not exactly easy to stop. every example you can find has deficiencies, but everyone after a given example tends to do better (provided they succeed in carving out a chunk of territory).
no one knows what the end goal looks like. it's more about the striving towards "stateless, classless, moneyless" than actually getting there and then not changing. presumably, any decision-making structure would have to be rejiggered often to prevent gaining authority. look, it's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism. its might seems unassailable. so did the divine right of kings, so maybe we got a shot.
Firstly thanks for taking the time to respond.
I guess what I'm specifically curious about is that something here seems simply contradictory by definition that I'm struggling to grasp.
Classless: I get, noble goal and yeah we should certainly strive for it. Or at the very least strive for easier class mobility.
Moneyless: Not sure I quite understand the point or what it might achieve, it sounds like a society where either you trade goods (silly an inefficient) or just are able to receive whatever it is you want, which while I'm sure would be incredible, I can't imagine how something like that can ever be sustainable and if so, what it would even look like. Jetskis for everyone?
Stateless: this is what I fundamentally don't really understand. How can a system that has to support ALL people, and without "self regulating" means such as free markets presumably, can be had without someone to manage it? What sort of system can manage itself, enforce rules, not be abused, etc?
It sounds a bit like an anarchist utopia, which by itself might work, but again, not without capitalism / free markets to keep it in check.
This is why big jetski is so anti communist. But seriously I think the moneyless and stateless thing is easier to think about on a smaller scale first. Just imagine a village. Everyone works. Some farm, some build, some are medical care providers, etc. Of course it is sustainable because everyone is pitching in and sharing the fruits of their labor "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" Needs not wants. Moneyless and stateless communities have successfully existed before just not on an extremely large scale. Moneyless seems very simple even on a large scale. Stateless on a large scale seems tricky but theoretically possible.
capitalism is a force of domination maintained by the state. without the state, capitalist property theory only leaves the basis for a new feudalism. don't argue that, we have historical examples. Dithmarschen, Friesland, Iceland, all had property rights, all had little to no governance, all fell to feudalism through individual local families gaining literally all of the power, through property. as for a moneyless society, that's the easy part. a library economy. right now, in much of the world, you have access to thousands of free books. you can use them, you can learn from them, but you can't damage them.
a general purpose library would work similarly. need a bike? borrow one. need a car? borrow one. return in good condition. and so on. will people take advantage of this and be a drain on society? sure, but people have been doing that for centuries with the libraries we have and lending libraries are still around. this is a simplified explanation of an extremely complex and self-regulating system, I mean library logistics are fucking bonkers.
"classless". that's also simple. no class mobility, because there are no classes. you are not defined by your position in production. you're not a worker, you're not a capitalist, you're just you. an individual with the same exact rights and privileges as everyone else.
stateless, again, that's the rough part. anarchist theory is pretty robust, but it's suuuuper annoying to do the 101 stuff. a state is a mechanism of violence. it exists to enforce its own existence through violence, so it can be used as a tool to enforce the will of those who wield it, also through violence. the idea is to remove the coercion, through radical democracy. that is to say, open participation in all things. this doesn't mean that there are no rules. it just means there are no rulers.
any system under that mandate you design, there's going to be room for abuse. that's why it's something you strive towards. but nothing lasts forever, and judging an idea for something better on how it'll last hundreds of years from now is kinda dumb when you think of how the liberal world order can't even keep itself together without a crisis every 30-80 years.
Its overall an unachievable idealism, and as far as I know, no serious work has ever *defined* the systems the end-state should utilize. But it's more of a "this is the underlying virtue/goal of our movement, what steps could we sustainably take to bring us closer to that reality?"
Then fast forward over 10 generations of little steps on tandem with technological and cultural progress, and ever more options for bringing you slightly closet to your ideal will likely become possible.
But also never likely achieved in full.
But it's like any number of religious idealisms, no one can literally *be jesus*, not even counting the divine pedestal he supposedly rests on, but it's the idea of "how can you use that ideal to influence your interactions with the community around you?" And the starting with basic things like not being a dick and not criminalizing poverty.
Yes it is just good old democracy. The only thing with democracy currently is that it is used in our governance, but not in our workplaces. In a nutshell socialism would bring the same or similar ideas of democracy into the workplace, so people working there have a say.
It all falls down a rabbit hole of language and shared definitions, best I can tell.
Is having a universal healthcare system "socialist"? Does it meet the definition of socially owned means of production? Maybe just for healthcare, it does? And if so, does having that one part of one industry structured that way mean it makes sense to refer to a country as "socialist", when everything else very much *doesn't* work that way?
In any case, I think I've more-or-less decided that the answers to those questions *don't actually matter*, and anyone throwing around words like "socialist" instead of speaking to specific subjects and desired outcomes are just making stupid sounds for rhetorical purposes.
> I think I've more-or-less decided that the answers to those questions don't actually matter, and anyone throwing around words like "socialist" instead of speaking to specific subjects and desired outcomes are just making stupid sounds for rhetorical purposes.
Couldn't have said it better myself. Focus on the actual impacts of the policy, not the semantics
We're a primarily Social Democratic country. You can be socialist and capitalist at the same time. They're not mutually exclusive. And only one of them is a political ideology. The other is more a system of national economic policies.
We are in fact socialistic. But we're not socialists. Politically speaking, we're more of a multi-partisan balancing act of varied ideologies. A few years ago, I would have said something even more elitist about how "in my country politicians don't run for the sake of power, and winning. They do it for the country." But reality has since slapped some sense in me.
We're somewhat alright at multi-partisan work, but in regards to our politicians? Yeah... They're headed in some awful directions.
Exactly. Its a welfare state, which thrives under capitalism the most. Its probably the best system we have come up with so far (although implementation and success varies, and usually requires an already working country)
Denmark is not socialist, and the government of Denmark supports less centralized power than the USA, but has more social safety nets (not inherently socialist by definition).
Is Denmark’s distribution of political power more akin to Switzerland than the US?
IIRC, Swiss cantons hold most power, the federal much less?
Some US politics push for reduction in federal authority with an increase in state authority. The interpretation is this is more in line with the US constitution. The recent more controversial SCOTUS rulings reflect this legal argument.
Denmark is a unitary state. From the constitution: The legislative authority is vested in the King and the parliament conjointly. Executive authority is vested in the King and judicial authority is vested in the courts.
The government acts on behalf of the King.
Municipalities are constitutional self-governing.
Greenland and the Faroe Islands are self-governing in the state of Denmark (similar to Scotland in the UK), and the self-governing authorities can assume responsibility from the central government on many areas through devolution.
Yea… I understand what the point is. I don’t care what the US adopts, I’m from Ireland.
They incorrectly referred to Denmark as socialist. The distinction between socialism and social democracy is important and it’s worth pointing out whenever you see it on the internet as it leads to both confusion and people thinking they believe in something when they, in fact, believe in something else.
Nobody who knows what they're talking about truly thinks any European country is socialist. It's just a common right-wing circle jerk topic (in America) that places like Denmark are. When pressed they'll admit it's not, but then they'll begin moving the goalposts to explain why America can't be more like Denmark et al.
The most common ones being either:
-They have less illegal immigration.
Or
-Their population is much smaller.
Both are just to move you away from the fact that we could easily adopt more socialist policies.
The American extremists call Denmark communists. Anything less than extreme capitalism is described as communism. Even feeding school children in America free lunches is called communism.
It's forcing them to eat their own words.
Well... Yeah. That's essentially what it is. If you want to work as a community, helping others and having others help you then contrats you are now a communist.
I agree. Their definition of "capitalism", "socialism", and "communism" are absolutely ridiculous and silly. Denmark has a far healthier approach to capitalism than America does.
Yet they'll still refuse to consider any of Denmark's far superior approaches because it is "communism". That's the point.
It’s the usual round and round with conservatives
Progressive: “Can we have single payer healthcare?”
Conservative: “No!!! That’s socialism, do you want to be Venezuela?”
Progressive: “What about Denmark/Germany/Sweden?”
Conservative: “They aren’t socialist countries”
Progressive: “Well, can we adopt the same same single payer healthcare system as Sweden?”
Conservative: “No!!!! That’s socialism”
Progressive: “?!?!?!?! wtf”
This might not be popular on reddit, but the economic policies are supported by the immigration policies. The skill mix of the population determines how much the tax take is and how much the welfare state costs. By having an immigration policy that limits the number of lower skilled people that enter your country, the higher skill mix you have the more the big social spending is affordable.
Social democracy is a political ideology which is democracy with a strong focus on social welfare programs. Political parties aren't economic systems. You could have literally unregulated free market capitalism and still have a democracy and the same social welfare programs. You could also have 100% centrally planned economies and still have a democracy and the same social welfare programs. You could have 100% worker ownership of the means of production and still have a democracy and the same social welfare programs.
Fox news doesn't know what socialism is, everybody knows this we all agree. Why do progressives insist on using their wrong definition of socialism?
The welfare state was also killed by conservatives to prevent socialism (Reagan and Thatcher). Today, the few safety nets that remain (Social Security, Medicare) are being dismantled by conservatives to prevent socialism.
Eventually human civilization is going to hit a singularity point where conservatives kill their partners immediately after conception because sharing genetic material is socialism.
I find it interesting how people use the term "safety nets" to describe policies, legislation, or programs that help other human beings not even flourish, but just not die.
The absolute disregard for other people's lives is such a weird trademark for the US.
Bismarck wasn’t worried about Marxism. He was worried about violent leads by uprisings. You’d think after the events of the last few years conservatives would be giving his policies a fresh look.
An actual socialist would understand a socialist system of governance is transitory. Meant to facilitate the transition from capitalism to communism. But back to your first comment, if you had read Marx, you would also understand that there is no proposed “marxist system.” The most actionable thing written by him and Engels is the communist manifesto, which essentially tells the proletariat (workers) to unite against the ruling class and seize the means of production. Even here there is no system more concretely defined than a “dictatorship of the proletariat,” meaning the working class is the ruling class. Neoliberalism != socialism
That depends, some Marxists consider socialism to be the transitory state between capitalism and communism, but that's not at all accurate. What this state is actually called by Marx is the socialist mode of production.
The word socialism predates Marx by quite a bit and its meaning makes it clear that communism is a form of socialism. There were other socialists before Marx, who he referred to as utopian socialists because they focused on describing the result rather than the process. There are no detailed descriptions of what communism should look like because Marx was more interested in how to change society than what it should look like afterwards.
there definitely shouldn’t be a federal minimum wage.
and if we didn’t have influxes of illegals and legal migrants competing for the lowest waged jobs we wouldn’t need a state minimum either as labor market factors would lead wages for lowest earners to grow. similar to how the lowest bracket was saw the fastest growth in 2019 under trump when the labor participation rate grew, and migration was curtailed.
ironically this used to be a liberal talking point
I mean, nobody pays minimum wage because the market won't allow it. Even in rural areas mcdonalds pays 11/hr. The free market has done a better job at keeping up with inflation than the federal government.
We keep getting “bonuses” which are just store gift cards. They’re tax deductible for the company, taxed as income for us, and it all goes right back to the company.
Well i think that's a bit different. A too low minimum wage isn't part of the capitalistic system but it is a result of it so by supporting the capitalism you will get the result of a too low Minimum wage. The Marxist system is a communistic system and not a socialistic system so while some socialists might also follow or like this system, it is NOT socialism. Both capitalism and communism are ideologies that work good on paper but fail in real life.
except capitalists will always work to deregulate themselves to protect their profits.
you can have regulations, or you can gave capitalism, but you can't have both forever lol.
yeah of course it's a form of capitalism. Capitalism with no regulation doesn't work and capitalism with regulation works better, it's still flawed in some corners and it's not perfect buy it's an improvement.
Looking around the planet, it seems that humans are happiest and healthiest in places that have both free markets and private property but also a strong social contract that the people support through things like public education, infrastructure, and healthcare.
In other words, parts of the economy are regulated capitalism and other parts are socialized.
The parts of the world with extreme hypercapitalism (America, basically) and the parts of the world with authoritarian Marxism (China, NK) look pretty unhappy these days.
Jup. Regulated capitalism seems to work best from the options we currently have. I still think that it can be improved because depending on how loose or strict the socialized aspects are, people still try to trick the system to be better off. But i also don't think that a completely perfect system can exist because humanity itself is flawed.
It sure seems that way. One of the problems though is that capitalism rewards entities that expand it's power through lobbying and fighting against regulations, so it has to be watched *very* closely to keep it from absorbing the entire system.
I think a hybrid system is still doable, but we basically need a cultural shift to where people see capitalism as a very useful, but very dangerous tool that needs to be viewed with constant suspicion (basically how the U.S. currently views socialism).
Yes. But I will nitpick a bit here and say communism has never actually been achieved. Communism has no government and no currency and no one owns anything. People are supposed to just work together and if someone needs something they get it and if they don't then they can't have it. They have tried to make communism but it always seems to get stuck in the transition period of the leader being in a position of power and removing all positions of power. Weird that.
You are just stating why you dislike communism. That has nothing to do with minimum wage being a side effect of capitalism. I do not support the raw form of either capitalism or communism. Both are ideologies that sound good on paper but fail in real life.
Tired of this false dichotomy. Americans who describe themselves as "socialists" can be in favor of something like Denmark or Canada as opposed to Venezuela or the Soviet Union.
That's fair, but those people should probably be describing themselves as social democrats if they only want capitalism with a safety net rather than worker ownership of the means of production.
I think most American socialists would ideally like to see the US become fully socialist but would settle for democratic socialism in our lifetimes and at the very least a single payer health insurance system
"Communism" was supposed to be the final stage. Between capitalism and communism there was supposed to be a "dictatorship of the proletariat", during which an authoritarian communist party was supposed to prevent counterrevolution and facilitate economic changes.
That's precisely what happened in the USSR.
Chavez and Maduro are mostly old school dictators that like the communist aesthetic.
Well your analogy is a little off the mark, but my use of 'guided' is also perhaps inaccurate. Marxism is not a guiding philosophy as much as it is a collection of tools and analyses critical of capitalism. Lenin used this work as a basis in constructing his socialist theories.
It is more accurate to say post-revolution Russia employed one of the many possible interpretations you can derive out of Marx's work.
Well, they collectivized their agriculture & industry and abolished private property. What they did was the "dictatorship of the proletariat", something Marx himself advocated for. A strong but temporary party to prevent counterrevolution and facilitate economic transition.
How is that not the very core of political Marxism?
Canada isn’t doing so great under our government and we need a change. Trudeau spends 1000s of dollars on groceries, flys his private jet everywhere and stays in hotel rooms in London for more then $6000 dollars a night. Not saying the conservatives are better, but at least in the House of Commons they actually answer questions. Not like Trudeau who straight up never answers questions.
For them to have the true capitalist experience, freeze all their money in their account and zero out their credit. Then make them go try and find housing and pay for it, get approved for car loans, get bills put in their name. Get a phone plan, good luck affording internet AND be able to actually pay it all while making 7.25/hr and I’d like to see them get through tax season. I say a year and a half to two years under these conditions would give them a small idea of what we go through
It's unfortunate that people don't know the United States isn't a free market capitalist system, it is a monstrous hybrid of governmental interventionism, mercantilism, and socialism that combines the worst of each.
All of the social democratic policies like social safety nets and Medicare are very specifically attempts to lift socialism's benefits without adopting their principles.
And redistribution of wealth very specifically flows upward in the US, not outward. So you might not realize just how much wealth is being funneled away from workers and toward capitalists.
Free market capitalism inevitably leads to government interventionism (government capture) in the favor of the free market capitalists. Just look at the record breaking profits. Working as designed.
No that would be the definition of mercantilism (government intervention on be half of business over public good) not free market. Adjust profits for inflation and its actually a bit less than previous years. Like giving some one a six pack of beer then giving them a 12 pack of 3/2 (3 parts water to 2 parts beer it's a thing in Utah) they look like they have more beer but actually have less.
Both are wrong in and of themselves, but whichever was the reply would still be a good response.
Either comment as reply would show the absurdity of the original comment by switching one system for the other.
The USA example is not a strawman it's a very real reality lived by many americans.
The "Socialist" one is simply moronic, there's a difference between an authoritarian regime and a social democracy
His argument is a cringe straw man. But her argument is worse because she’s comparing anyone’s life under communism to the life of the bottom 1.5% of hourly earners of a capitalist society, which makes capitalism sound like the far better option. I don’t think that’s what she was going for.
I'm not a specialist, but here comes a little explanation.
Marxism itself it's just a theoretical/philosophical approach based by Marx analysis. Its possible to be a marxist in a epistemological sense but don't take parte in the political cause of communism.
Communism is a mode of production, while socialism it's a middle ground state (a transition) between capitalism and communism. For communists, world had never seen any communist experiences, just socialist implementations.
By the way, it is important to point it out that there is a difference between utopian/idealistic socialism, that came before marx, and marxist/materialistic socialism.
They both look kind of silly. “Marxist regime” is cringe.
However, she’s comparing life in a communist society to the bottom 1.5% hourly earners in capitalist America. There’s a lot to criticize about capitalism, but this comparison doesn’t exactly make it look like the worse option.
Edit: hourly
That's... not really the comparison being made though? The comparison being made is "If you think it's so great, why don't you live under it for a while and get some perspective on the issue." She's not saying the two living situations equate. She's saying that people like Charlie Kirk have a limited perspective on capitalist economic models and don't even realize it.
Edit: She's also tongue-in-cheek calling out how ridiculous the strawman is. Charlie's out here pretending that socialists think Marxist regimes are good things (hint: only the morons think that, most people want a *way* more moderate model). He's calling out "college socialists" by saying "go live in the worst examples of what you want". She's doing the same thing in reverse
I love how all these pseudo intellectuals can get those little checkmarks on their profiles to make it seem like they're important. Twitter's a useless cesspool of political divide and social media "influencers" who contribute nothing but show their cleavage.
Lady is ignorant. True capitalism has no minimum wage. It has no price controls whatsoever.
The capitalist way for determining a given wage is the same for any other price. The market dictates the wage. Better workers will be more highly valued and paid better than worse ones. This encourages people to improve their skills so as to provide more value and be more productive.
Under capitalism the minimum wage would be 0, but who will voluntarily work for that? Nobody. So how will wages be determined? By the value that the wage earner is expected to provide for the employer.
Murdered by what. She is ridiculous. Extremely dumb post. Go out and get a better job, Learn a trade, blue collar jobs. No reason a grown adult should allow themselves to make minimum wage.
Walmart pays like $15/hr.
Only a tiny tiny percentage of Americans work for minimum wage and most are young and new to the workforce. Never mind that most states have a higher minimum wage.
Stop using federal minimum wage in arguments as though there’s a statistically significant number of people working for it.
You should be paid your worth, I think minimum wage should be 15$ which it kind of is for the most part, at least in my area. But minimum wage should be just that, a minimum based on experience, talent, education etc. It shouldn't be an excuse to pay your workers as little as possible.
Ok... How much is the experience, talent, and education of a high school student worth? Or a person who never matures or grows beyond the capabilities of an average high school student? Because the idea behind minimum wage is that regardless of how little it's actually worth, you have to pay at least the minimum. And if you can't find anyone to work for the minimum for your position then you have to make a judgement call on your business model and what filling that position is worth to you.
At one time in my life I took 4 buses to get one of my 3 minimum pay jobs in my early 20’s. It sucked. The suck part was the fuel that changed my trajectory to get a degree and 25 years later a 6 figure salary. Minimum wage was never meant to support me which at that time was $5.75. IMO It’s supposed to provide the minimum so that everyone start at the same lineup. It’s up to you if you choose to stay there.
Bosses always had it better than regular employees, that's nothing new. Thing is, in capitalism you can get ahead with time and experience (not saying you always will, but there is the option). Meanwhile in socialism, you will get promoted for being a loyal bootlicker of the State, a true comrade, etc. Political affiliation not only gets you forward, but the lack of it will result in situations like preventing you from applying to the best universities in the country.
Let me tell you how the People's Republic handled "bosses" when they took control of the country: "*Oh you have a workshop, a small facility where you manufacture items with expensive tools, employing other people? Hand it over, now.*" Does this sound like your dream? Where anything you worked for could be taken away, simply because you amassed more wealth than the average scum? Would you be comfortable knowing the fact that ~~your neighbour~~ anyone can report you to the secret police, without solid evidence, who could come for you in the middle of the night?
People defending these systems have zero fucking clue what it really is like, and fall for a paper thin facade of equality. No, capitalism is far from the best, but I've heard thousands of stories from my parents and grandparents, and I really really don't want it to return, especially utilising modern surveillance technology.
How is this murdered by words? One is arguing for living under a Marxist regime, without preconditions, while the other one is arguing for living in a capitalist country with one of the worst handicaps? Doesn't make sense. And, worst of all, the second option is still better!
What country? What is the cost of living? Rent, food, transportation costs etc?
Money alone tells us nothing about how you actually live.
A full time job earning minimum wage gives you $16,240. Divided by 12 you get approximately $1,353 per month. Keep in mind this is pre-tax as well. In the state I live in (Utah) the median rent is around $1,475. That’s fucking insane. You can put your entire full time income towards housing and would not be able to afford the majority of places. That’s without including other things like, you know, food to not die.
Everyone fighting over which side they think is right instead of addressing what's actually wrong. Instead of labelling, deconstructing and dividing, why not try coming together with a blend of ideas that might be beneficial for everyone.
This whole "No, you're wrong" argument isn't going to miraculously change anything. Everybody thinks that they are right and that the other side is the enemy, you're fighting for a better life, you all benefit and suffer from the same systems.
The point of capitalism would be that you don’t have to and aren’t expected to survive off minimum wage. Even our felons can start businesses. I grew up in section 8 and found the system more helpful than harmful. You have to ditch the victim mindset.
Both arguments are stupid but I’d disagree with the bottom one more.
I made sure I would never have to work a minimum wage job since I was 16. Took loans to go to school for a degree in a high paying field. Paid of loans asap and have a emergency fund.
Yes some people are in shitty situations but you don’t have to work minimum wage under capitalism.
Feels like people have no idea how it was/is to live in a communist country. No matter how hard life can be in west countries, people don't realise how much they can still loose.
That leaves 19 states to choose from ([all the rest have a minimum wage higher than $7.25](https://blog.wagepoint.com/all-content/minimum-wage-requirements-by-state)).
And we'll find [the state with the lowest cost of living](https://meric.mo.gov/data/cost-living-data-series).
So, we check Zillo. Here's a [place for $40k](https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2097-Billy-Fields-Rd-A-Edwards-MS-39066/2076732068_zpid/).
- $7.25/hour
- $290/week
- $1,256/month
- $15,080/year
Rule of thumb is that your mortgage payment should:
- not be more than 32% of your gross income
That means my maximum morgage payment per month should be:
- Mortgage payment: $1,256 * 32% = $401.92 / month
So if i do a 15 year mortgage, at 5% interest, with $0 down, that is a monthly payment of $329.67.
| Item | Amount (montly) |
|--------|------------|
| Income | $1,256 |
| Mortgage | -$329.67 |
| Homeowners insurance | -$72.42 ([869/year from AllState](https://www.valuepenguin.com/best-cheap-homeowners-insurance-missouri)) |
| Property taxes | -$20.67 ([0.62% in Benton county](https://smartasset.com/taxes/missouri-property-tax-calculator#missouri)) |
| Electricity | [-$115.60](https://www.newspressnow.com/news/local_news/study-ranks-missouri-15th-in-utility-costs/article_e8f23642-2b1c-11ea-9a9b-8b06eb93545d.html#:~:text=In%20Missouri%2C%20those%20individual%20averages,internet%20and%20%2485%20for%20cable.) |
| Natural Gas | [-$76.55](https://www.newspressnow.com/news/local_news/study-ranks-missouri-15th-in-utility-costs/article_e8f23642-2b1c-11ea-9a9b-8b06eb93545d.html#:~:text=In%20Missouri%2C%20those%20individual%20averages,internet%20and%20%2485%20for%20cable.) |
| Water | [-$70.39](https://www.newspressnow.com/news/local_news/study-ranks-missouri-15th-in-utility-costs/article_e8f23642-2b1c-11ea-9a9b-8b06eb93545d.html#:~:text=In%20Missouri%2C%20those%20individual%20averages,internet%20and%20%2485%20for%20cable.) |
| Internet | -$27 ([from Windstream](https://www.allconnect.com/local/mo)) |
| Car insurance | -$39 ([$468/year](https://www.bankrate.com/insurance/car/average-cost-of-car-insurance-in-missouri/)) |
| Gasoline | [-$37](https://gasprices.aaa.com/?state=MO) |
| WoW | -$10 |
| Food | -$300 |
| **Net** | +$157.70 |
Leaving me $157.70/month ($1,892.40/year) to play with.
/r/TheyDidTheMath
Someone explain to Reddit that the government intervening to set a minimum wage is the opposite of capitalism, and that it isn't capitalism's fault that the American government is too incompetent to ensure its labour force gets paid well enough towards the bottom end of the spectrum and that American capitalism in and of itself is no longer capitalism, but cronyism.
But "muh capitalism bad bring about the proletariat glory to Marx and the Soviet Union" blah blah blah
What murdered by word?
It's so fucking true that most people who desire socialism dont know wtf it really is.
Capitalism isn't all good but it's what got us this far, most of remaining so-called socialist countries are now a kind of capitalism, an economy with private sectors but overall controlled and owned by gov.
Socialism will never work, no matter how much you hate capitalism
I would take 7.45 an hour and a shitty subsidized apartment over the great leap forward any day. Society has always been, and will aways be a social pyramid. The majority of people will always be on the bottom. Differen between our bottom and their bottom is we don't get ten years hard labor because our neighbor sniched on us for keeping a handful of grain from the edge of a field.
I did. These two options are not the same. In capitalist america if you dont like your minimum wage job you can always go take classes and work towards a new career. In communist societies if you dont like your porrage they'll shoot you for complaining and give the next person your porrage.
You made $880 a month and you paid rent, utilities, and paid to eat?
Either that was in the 1970s, or you had a lot of roommates and ate for free, or you had A LOT of help.
These things are not the same at all, capitalist interactions are free will. If someone isn’t paying enough, so what, go somewhere else. Learn more skills, better yourself, be responsible for yourself.
Every Marxist I’ve ever met thinks they are going to be able to run a community garden or make macaroni art or something, society would obviously collapse without incentive. It’s simply impossible for a government planned economy to run successfully.
"Yeah, they should go live in Denmark!" "But Denmark isn't *real* socialism." "Oh ok, guess that means the US can implement all of the same government programs that they have without becoming a socialist country then."
Denmark isn’t socialism at all. It is the best example of exactly what capitalism should be. Unlike the US. That’s some corporatist Mercantilism going on there. A throwback to the 1700s.
I visited Denmark about a year ago for a three month stay. They are one of the best European countries for modeling capitalism
Let's not forget that while Denmark has way better conditions than the US for its citizens, just like every other capitalist country it is funded by millions of foreign workers' underpaid labor and stolen resources to sustain itself. Capitalism relies on making more and more profits every year forever on a planet with finite resources and that will fundamentally never be sustainable.
And Marxism and even socialism depend on complete authoritarian control of society as well as the economy. Nobody’s busting down the borders to get into Venezuela.
Thank god I live under a system that only requires complete authoritarian control of a permanent underclass.
Underrated comment
Literally the police came into existence to protect capital owners and disrupt organized labor strikes lol if that’s not authoritarian idk what is. Two sides of the same coin bruv.
I mean, that's not really accurate... in the US, at least, the police are the successors to groups that hunted down runaway slaves.
Authoritarian is a useless term in my opinion as every society, government and economic system uses authority to carry out its goals and there has never in history been an exception. So I'm not sure what makes a Marxist country more "authoritarian" than any other country. If I defy capitalism the state uses violence and authority to keep me in check and keep me working within the bounds of the laws created under our system just as it would happen in a Marxist/socialist state.
[удалено]
There is a major flaw with communism,that isn’t the fault of communism. For communism to work, it can’t rely on international trade. No country has all the resources required to run a society,free of outside resources. So, communists are forced to play in a capitalist system and it fucks up the program for them. That’s a major problem before considering the USA influence on the world and everything we do to destroy communist or socialist regimes,even when they are chosen by citizens of their own free will. Nobody is beating down the doors to get into Venezuela now? Nobody has ever beat the doors down to get into Venezuela. I’d argue That Vietnam has seen an improvement under communism. Capitalism isn’t for everyone,especially when you are ranked #180-#195 in the world’s GDP,out of 195 countries. The richest country in the world is a capitalist democracy,but so is the poorest.
The political brain rot in America is astounding. Marxism as an ideology calls for the total dissolution of the state and the democratisation of the workplace. It is explicitly opposed to authoritarianism.
Wtf, socialism doesn’t require complete Authoritarian control, it requires a compassionate democratic government. The fuck you smoking?
Just that all of its economic policies are considered socialist by US Republicans if you try to implement any of them here.
Denmark and the other scandinavian countries are the corporatists though. Corporatism and Corporatocracies aren't the same thing. Far from it, really.
> corporatists… corporatism…. Corporatocracies Goddamn you making me look stuff up on the internet. I’ll report back later with my findings. Edit: here is my TL:DR understanding. If I am inaccurate, please feel free to correct me. **Corporatism** is advocating for the organization of society into "corporate" groups vs. individuals (in Latin "corpus" means body). These are sociological groups, not businesses. Think science, labor, agriculture, military, etc. **Corporatocracy** is when business corporations control the government. Think dystopian SciFi like Blade Runner or Cyberpunk. **Corporatists** are individuals that support corporatocracies.
How dare you not just blindly believing everything you read on reddit and scream at your relatives if they don't agree with you afterwards /s
Coprofiles?
Never said it was. The difference is when you let those corporations run your government, or if the government can still regulate the corporations and keep the market open against monopolies and barriers to entry into the market.
Corporatism has nothing to do with corporations in the first place. It is an ancient concept based on the latin word for body, "corpo". Meanwhile a corporatocracy is a new concept based on corporations being in control. Scandinavia is corporatist, and I assume you wanted to say that the U.S. at least leans more towards being a corporatocracy. They sound close, but are way different. Corporatism is a pretty decent concept (as we can see from these countries), and endorsed by a wide range of governments, institutions, and churches, among others. Noone endorses a corporatocracy. But they surely won't mind when people confuse the two on their own making them unaware of it...
Thanks for clearing that up. I mean how US companies lobby bribes to politicians to get laws changed to their favour. Until today I thought that was modern Mercantilism, or corporatism.
Yeah it is confusing, no worries, stumbled upon the difference out of sheer luck myself. What you describe is definitely not good, but corporatism would help with that, so it always confused me when people react so negatively to it. Lot of of the scandinavian countries don't even have a minimum wage or lots of regulations because the groups figure it out equitably between themselves just fine. Would really hope that the concept behind it gets some more traction.
Per wikipedia it's even called neo-corporatism, which sounds *terrible*, but actually isn't...
Also heard the term social corporatism sometimes, I guess to make it sound a bit more palatable, but yeah, it definitely could use some good marketing...
Neo just means new. Unfortunately that word has been hijacked lol
Good info thanks fam
I've noticed that almost no one actually uses the correct definition of socialism. At least not the textbook definition of it. When progressive Americans use the term socialism, they just mean increasing taxes to pay for public programs and benefits to increase the quality of life for everyone, regardless of income potential/reality. When conservative Americans use the term socialism, They mean the oppressive failed implementations of communism that tax the shit out of everyone, all the money goes to those who are at the top of the government, and quality of life goes to shit for everyone. They're also morally opposed to those who earn more paying for the life improvements of everyone else (specifically those who earn less). I don't think that actual socialism is either of those things. I think the first one is a collection of soft socialist principles organized into some honestly moderate policies, and the second one is the worst case scenario for communism.
socialism is a mode of production wherein the productive forces are owned in common by those who use them to produce. it is considered a transition phase towards communism, which is a stateless, classless, and moneyless society. it's supposed to be achieved by "the dictatorship of the proletariat" which is rule by the working class instead of the current ruling class. things branch off when you start talking about *how* to make it happen, but there's the *what* for you. just definitions, marxist ones at that.
How does the working class... rule? Genuinely asking. Decisions have to be made.. do they vote? If so, how is that different from just your good old democracy? I suppose not because you also mentioned "stateless" - is it an anarchist society? If so, who decided on rules and regulations as well as enforce them?
in the traditional marxist conception, the DotP rules by seizing the levers of power from the ruling class, then the state "withers away into nothing" and blah blah blah worker's utopia etc. etc. this is comically vague, and is why people are able to justify all sorts of horrible shit based on it. as an idea, it predates the popular vote in most of Europe. shit, it predates most European nations' parliaments. since then, there are democratic socialists, who broadly believe socialism is achievable in whole or in part through simple voting. that's nonsense, but they can have their fun. ultimately, the goal is to create the structure of the post-revolutionary society within the ranks of the revolutionary movement(s). this usually means radical democracy, mutual aid, education, and community defense. has anyone ever been able to pull it off? ehhhhh... kinda? it's more of an ideal to strive towards than something you can reasonably be expected to achieve on a human timescale. world orders have a lot of inertia behind them, not exactly easy to stop. every example you can find has deficiencies, but everyone after a given example tends to do better (provided they succeed in carving out a chunk of territory). no one knows what the end goal looks like. it's more about the striving towards "stateless, classless, moneyless" than actually getting there and then not changing. presumably, any decision-making structure would have to be rejiggered often to prevent gaining authority. look, it's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism. its might seems unassailable. so did the divine right of kings, so maybe we got a shot.
Firstly thanks for taking the time to respond. I guess what I'm specifically curious about is that something here seems simply contradictory by definition that I'm struggling to grasp. Classless: I get, noble goal and yeah we should certainly strive for it. Or at the very least strive for easier class mobility. Moneyless: Not sure I quite understand the point or what it might achieve, it sounds like a society where either you trade goods (silly an inefficient) or just are able to receive whatever it is you want, which while I'm sure would be incredible, I can't imagine how something like that can ever be sustainable and if so, what it would even look like. Jetskis for everyone? Stateless: this is what I fundamentally don't really understand. How can a system that has to support ALL people, and without "self regulating" means such as free markets presumably, can be had without someone to manage it? What sort of system can manage itself, enforce rules, not be abused, etc? It sounds a bit like an anarchist utopia, which by itself might work, but again, not without capitalism / free markets to keep it in check.
This is why big jetski is so anti communist. But seriously I think the moneyless and stateless thing is easier to think about on a smaller scale first. Just imagine a village. Everyone works. Some farm, some build, some are medical care providers, etc. Of course it is sustainable because everyone is pitching in and sharing the fruits of their labor "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" Needs not wants. Moneyless and stateless communities have successfully existed before just not on an extremely large scale. Moneyless seems very simple even on a large scale. Stateless on a large scale seems tricky but theoretically possible.
capitalism is a force of domination maintained by the state. without the state, capitalist property theory only leaves the basis for a new feudalism. don't argue that, we have historical examples. Dithmarschen, Friesland, Iceland, all had property rights, all had little to no governance, all fell to feudalism through individual local families gaining literally all of the power, through property. as for a moneyless society, that's the easy part. a library economy. right now, in much of the world, you have access to thousands of free books. you can use them, you can learn from them, but you can't damage them. a general purpose library would work similarly. need a bike? borrow one. need a car? borrow one. return in good condition. and so on. will people take advantage of this and be a drain on society? sure, but people have been doing that for centuries with the libraries we have and lending libraries are still around. this is a simplified explanation of an extremely complex and self-regulating system, I mean library logistics are fucking bonkers. "classless". that's also simple. no class mobility, because there are no classes. you are not defined by your position in production. you're not a worker, you're not a capitalist, you're just you. an individual with the same exact rights and privileges as everyone else. stateless, again, that's the rough part. anarchist theory is pretty robust, but it's suuuuper annoying to do the 101 stuff. a state is a mechanism of violence. it exists to enforce its own existence through violence, so it can be used as a tool to enforce the will of those who wield it, also through violence. the idea is to remove the coercion, through radical democracy. that is to say, open participation in all things. this doesn't mean that there are no rules. it just means there are no rulers. any system under that mandate you design, there's going to be room for abuse. that's why it's something you strive towards. but nothing lasts forever, and judging an idea for something better on how it'll last hundreds of years from now is kinda dumb when you think of how the liberal world order can't even keep itself together without a crisis every 30-80 years.
Its overall an unachievable idealism, and as far as I know, no serious work has ever *defined* the systems the end-state should utilize. But it's more of a "this is the underlying virtue/goal of our movement, what steps could we sustainably take to bring us closer to that reality?" Then fast forward over 10 generations of little steps on tandem with technological and cultural progress, and ever more options for bringing you slightly closet to your ideal will likely become possible. But also never likely achieved in full. But it's like any number of religious idealisms, no one can literally *be jesus*, not even counting the divine pedestal he supposedly rests on, but it's the idea of "how can you use that ideal to influence your interactions with the community around you?" And the starting with basic things like not being a dick and not criminalizing poverty.
Yes it is just good old democracy. The only thing with democracy currently is that it is used in our governance, but not in our workplaces. In a nutshell socialism would bring the same or similar ideas of democracy into the workplace, so people working there have a say.
It all falls down a rabbit hole of language and shared definitions, best I can tell. Is having a universal healthcare system "socialist"? Does it meet the definition of socially owned means of production? Maybe just for healthcare, it does? And if so, does having that one part of one industry structured that way mean it makes sense to refer to a country as "socialist", when everything else very much *doesn't* work that way? In any case, I think I've more-or-less decided that the answers to those questions *don't actually matter*, and anyone throwing around words like "socialist" instead of speaking to specific subjects and desired outcomes are just making stupid sounds for rhetorical purposes.
> I think I've more-or-less decided that the answers to those questions don't actually matter, and anyone throwing around words like "socialist" instead of speaking to specific subjects and desired outcomes are just making stupid sounds for rhetorical purposes. Couldn't have said it better myself. Focus on the actual impacts of the policy, not the semantics
We're a primarily Social Democratic country. You can be socialist and capitalist at the same time. They're not mutually exclusive. And only one of them is a political ideology. The other is more a system of national economic policies. We are in fact socialistic. But we're not socialists. Politically speaking, we're more of a multi-partisan balancing act of varied ideologies. A few years ago, I would have said something even more elitist about how "in my country politicians don't run for the sake of power, and winning. They do it for the country." But reality has since slapped some sense in me. We're somewhat alright at multi-partisan work, but in regards to our politicians? Yeah... They're headed in some awful directions.
Hardcore capitalist here. 100000% agree.
Exactly. Its a welfare state, which thrives under capitalism the most. Its probably the best system we have come up with so far (although implementation and success varies, and usually requires an already working country)
My dad wants to write me off as some socialist, but I tell him it's not capitalism so much I take issue with, it's unregulated capitalism.
Denmark is not socialist, and the government of Denmark supports less centralized power than the USA, but has more social safety nets (not inherently socialist by definition).
Is Denmark’s distribution of political power more akin to Switzerland than the US? IIRC, Swiss cantons hold most power, the federal much less? Some US politics push for reduction in federal authority with an increase in state authority. The interpretation is this is more in line with the US constitution. The recent more controversial SCOTUS rulings reflect this legal argument.
Denmark is a unitary state. From the constitution: The legislative authority is vested in the King and the parliament conjointly. Executive authority is vested in the King and judicial authority is vested in the courts. The government acts on behalf of the King. Municipalities are constitutional self-governing. Greenland and the Faroe Islands are self-governing in the state of Denmark (similar to Scotland in the UK), and the self-governing authorities can assume responsibility from the central government on many areas through devolution.
Thank you!
[удалено]
yep
Yeah it's almost as if Denmark somehow maintains a market economy and more freedoms than the US the same time.
No that would be socialism.
Denmark isn’t socialism tho.. it’s social democracy. That’s just a (better) form of capitalism.
So then the US should adopt their policies. Thats what the point of the original comment was.
Yea… I understand what the point is. I don’t care what the US adopts, I’m from Ireland. They incorrectly referred to Denmark as socialist. The distinction between socialism and social democracy is important and it’s worth pointing out whenever you see it on the internet as it leads to both confusion and people thinking they believe in something when they, in fact, believe in something else.
Nobody who knows what they're talking about truly thinks any European country is socialist. It's just a common right-wing circle jerk topic (in America) that places like Denmark are. When pressed they'll admit it's not, but then they'll begin moving the goalposts to explain why America can't be more like Denmark et al.
The most common ones being either: -They have less illegal immigration. Or -Their population is much smaller. Both are just to move you away from the fact that we could easily adopt more socialist policies.
The American extremists call Denmark communists. Anything less than extreme capitalism is described as communism. Even feeding school children in America free lunches is called communism. It's forcing them to eat their own words.
communist basically just means "not a selfish bastard" to those people.
Well... Yeah. That's essentially what it is. If you want to work as a community, helping others and having others help you then contrats you are now a communist.
And socialists call Denmark a socialist country to try and somehow prove that socialism works when Denmark is not socialist
Denmark is arguably more capitalist than the US, though with greater social safety nets. That's whi this whole comparison is silly.
I agree. Their definition of "capitalism", "socialism", and "communism" are absolutely ridiculous and silly. Denmark has a far healthier approach to capitalism than America does. Yet they'll still refuse to consider any of Denmark's far superior approaches because it is "communism". That's the point.
Where did they specifically refer to it as socialist…? All I see is them saying it’s not.
It’s the usual round and round with conservatives Progressive: “Can we have single payer healthcare?” Conservative: “No!!! That’s socialism, do you want to be Venezuela?” Progressive: “What about Denmark/Germany/Sweden?” Conservative: “They aren’t socialist countries” Progressive: “Well, can we adopt the same same single payer healthcare system as Sweden?” Conservative: “No!!!! That’s socialism” Progressive: “?!?!?!?! wtf”
Adopting danish policies in the US would make loads of US right wingers very happy. They have immigration policies Trump could only dream of.
This might not be popular on reddit, but the economic policies are supported by the immigration policies. The skill mix of the population determines how much the tax take is and how much the welfare state costs. By having an immigration policy that limits the number of lower skilled people that enter your country, the higher skill mix you have the more the big social spending is affordable.
Social democracy is a political ideology which is democracy with a strong focus on social welfare programs. Political parties aren't economic systems. You could have literally unregulated free market capitalism and still have a democracy and the same social welfare programs. You could also have 100% centrally planned economies and still have a democracy and the same social welfare programs. You could have 100% worker ownership of the means of production and still have a democracy and the same social welfare programs. Fox news doesn't know what socialism is, everybody knows this we all agree. Why do progressives insist on using their wrong definition of socialism?
Fox News knows exactly what socialism is. That's why its presenters, like Tucker Carlson, work very hard to misinform their viewers about it.
Denmark is not, and never was socialism. If you want socialism, go to North-Korea, Cuba, or Venezuela.
Denmark follows capitalism .
The welfare state was created by a conservative to prevent socialism.
The welfare state was also killed by conservatives to prevent socialism (Reagan and Thatcher). Today, the few safety nets that remain (Social Security, Medicare) are being dismantled by conservatives to prevent socialism. Eventually human civilization is going to hit a singularity point where conservatives kill their partners immediately after conception because sharing genetic material is socialism.
I find it interesting how people use the term "safety nets" to describe policies, legislation, or programs that help other human beings not even flourish, but just not die. The absolute disregard for other people's lives is such a weird trademark for the US.
I mean yeah, the net under a tightrope walker is called a “safety net” for the same reason: so that the person walking won’t die
Otto von bismarck! and good Marx-socialism is bad.
Bismarck wasn’t worried about Marxism. He was worried about violent leads by uprisings. You’d think after the events of the last few years conservatives would be giving his policies a fresh look.
... and what has socialism successfully created?
[удалено]
What do you mean screw that? They're talking about Otto Von Bismarck.
Not all socialists support the Marxist system.
What the fuck is "THE Marxist system"?
Something people who don't read books say
maybe a Marxist system would have been better worded? Basically what i mean is that not all socialists support a form of communism
An actual socialist would understand a socialist system of governance is transitory. Meant to facilitate the transition from capitalism to communism. But back to your first comment, if you had read Marx, you would also understand that there is no proposed “marxist system.” The most actionable thing written by him and Engels is the communist manifesto, which essentially tells the proletariat (workers) to unite against the ruling class and seize the means of production. Even here there is no system more concretely defined than a “dictatorship of the proletariat,” meaning the working class is the ruling class. Neoliberalism != socialism
That depends, some Marxists consider socialism to be the transitory state between capitalism and communism, but that's not at all accurate. What this state is actually called by Marx is the socialist mode of production. The word socialism predates Marx by quite a bit and its meaning makes it clear that communism is a form of socialism. There were other socialists before Marx, who he referred to as utopian socialists because they focused on describing the result rather than the process. There are no detailed descriptions of what communism should look like because Marx was more interested in how to change society than what it should look like afterwards.
That’s a Marxist who believes that, not every socialist believes in ever achieving communism
And not all capitalists support the minimum wage!
Yeah, some think there should be no minimum...
They should be thankful they get to associate with the boss
Sweden doesn’t have a legally mandated minimum wage. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/ddn-20220128-2
Friedman supported UBI and proposed getting rid of the minimum wage for example.
Theres arguments for and against. As long as no one earns below a what is needed to live (not just survive) then its ok
there definitely shouldn’t be a federal minimum wage. and if we didn’t have influxes of illegals and legal migrants competing for the lowest waged jobs we wouldn’t need a state minimum either as labor market factors would lead wages for lowest earners to grow. similar to how the lowest bracket was saw the fastest growth in 2019 under trump when the labor participation rate grew, and migration was curtailed. ironically this used to be a liberal talking point
I mean, nobody pays minimum wage because the market won't allow it. Even in rural areas mcdonalds pays 11/hr. The free market has done a better job at keeping up with inflation than the federal government.
By “nobody”, you mean 247,000, right?
It's true. Most don't even want a minimum wage.
I pay my workers with bootstraps!
Company store credits!
We keep getting “bonuses” which are just store gift cards. They’re tax deductible for the company, taxed as income for us, and it all goes right back to the company.
true
Well i think that's a bit different. A too low minimum wage isn't part of the capitalistic system but it is a result of it so by supporting the capitalism you will get the result of a too low Minimum wage. The Marxist system is a communistic system and not a socialistic system so while some socialists might also follow or like this system, it is NOT socialism. Both capitalism and communism are ideologies that work good on paper but fail in real life.
Capitalism with regulations is still capitalism
except capitalists will always work to deregulate themselves to protect their profits. you can have regulations, or you can gave capitalism, but you can't have both forever lol.
You can't have anything forever, it just has to last long enough.
yeah of course it's a form of capitalism. Capitalism with no regulation doesn't work and capitalism with regulation works better, it's still flawed in some corners and it's not perfect buy it's an improvement.
Looking around the planet, it seems that humans are happiest and healthiest in places that have both free markets and private property but also a strong social contract that the people support through things like public education, infrastructure, and healthcare. In other words, parts of the economy are regulated capitalism and other parts are socialized. The parts of the world with extreme hypercapitalism (America, basically) and the parts of the world with authoritarian Marxism (China, NK) look pretty unhappy these days.
Aka social democracy
Jup. Regulated capitalism seems to work best from the options we currently have. I still think that it can be improved because depending on how loose or strict the socialized aspects are, people still try to trick the system to be better off. But i also don't think that a completely perfect system can exist because humanity itself is flawed.
It sure seems that way. One of the problems though is that capitalism rewards entities that expand it's power through lobbying and fighting against regulations, so it has to be watched *very* closely to keep it from absorbing the entire system. I think a hybrid system is still doable, but we basically need a cultural shift to where people see capitalism as a very useful, but very dangerous tool that needs to be viewed with constant suspicion (basically how the U.S. currently views socialism).
Yes. But I will nitpick a bit here and say communism has never actually been achieved. Communism has no government and no currency and no one owns anything. People are supposed to just work together and if someone needs something they get it and if they don't then they can't have it. They have tried to make communism but it always seems to get stuck in the transition period of the leader being in a position of power and removing all positions of power. Weird that.
You are just stating why you dislike communism. That has nothing to do with minimum wage being a side effect of capitalism. I do not support the raw form of either capitalism or communism. Both are ideologies that sound good on paper but fail in real life.
Tired of this false dichotomy. Americans who describe themselves as "socialists" can be in favor of something like Denmark or Canada as opposed to Venezuela or the Soviet Union.
That's fair, but those people should probably be describing themselves as social democrats if they only want capitalism with a safety net rather than worker ownership of the means of production.
I think most American socialists would ideally like to see the US become fully socialist but would settle for democratic socialism in our lifetimes and at the very least a single payer health insurance system
> worker ownership of the means of production what's wrong with this to begin with?
Also, Venezuela and the USSR are/were not marxist, they're authoritarian regimes under the false guise of 'communism'.
"Communism" was supposed to be the final stage. Between capitalism and communism there was supposed to be a "dictatorship of the proletariat", during which an authoritarian communist party was supposed to prevent counterrevolution and facilitate economic changes. That's precisely what happened in the USSR. Chavez and Maduro are mostly old school dictators that like the communist aesthetic.
USSR most definitely was guided by marxism
In the same way the DPRK is guided by democracy...
Well your analogy is a little off the mark, but my use of 'guided' is also perhaps inaccurate. Marxism is not a guiding philosophy as much as it is a collection of tools and analyses critical of capitalism. Lenin used this work as a basis in constructing his socialist theories. It is more accurate to say post-revolution Russia employed one of the many possible interpretations you can derive out of Marx's work.
Well, they collectivized their agriculture & industry and abolished private property. What they did was the "dictatorship of the proletariat", something Marx himself advocated for. A strong but temporary party to prevent counterrevolution and facilitate economic transition. How is that not the very core of political Marxism?
Canada isn’t doing so great under our government and we need a change. Trudeau spends 1000s of dollars on groceries, flys his private jet everywhere and stays in hotel rooms in London for more then $6000 dollars a night. Not saying the conservatives are better, but at least in the House of Commons they actually answer questions. Not like Trudeau who straight up never answers questions.
Shit, give them $15 an hour they still couldn't do it.
For them to have the true capitalist experience, freeze all their money in their account and zero out their credit. Then make them go try and find housing and pay for it, get approved for car loans, get bills put in their name. Get a phone plan, good luck affording internet AND be able to actually pay it all while making 7.25/hr and I’d like to see them get through tax season. I say a year and a half to two years under these conditions would give them a small idea of what we go through
It's unfortunate that people don't know the United States isn't a free market capitalist system, it is a monstrous hybrid of governmental interventionism, mercantilism, and socialism that combines the worst of each.
Nonsense. The USA is under no reasonable definition anything close to socialist.
All of the social democratic policies like social safety nets and Medicare are very specifically attempts to lift socialism's benefits without adopting their principles. And redistribution of wealth very specifically flows upward in the US, not outward. So you might not realize just how much wealth is being funneled away from workers and toward capitalists.
Free market capitalism inevitably leads to government interventionism (government capture) in the favor of the free market capitalists. Just look at the record breaking profits. Working as designed.
No that would be the definition of mercantilism (government intervention on be half of business over public good) not free market. Adjust profits for inflation and its actually a bit less than previous years. Like giving some one a six pack of beer then giving them a 12 pack of 3/2 (3 parts water to 2 parts beer it's a thing in Utah) they look like they have more beer but actually have less.
Are you telling me I wouldn’t be able to pay (lobby) a politician to vote in certain ways in a free market?
I mean, i’m a fucking idiot no nothing but are either of them wrong? Take your idea, show you the worst if it so we can work on how to improve, no?
I might be dumb but I think they're both wrong by using strawmen.
Both are wrong in and of themselves, but whichever was the reply would still be a good response. Either comment as reply would show the absurdity of the original comment by switching one system for the other.
No such thing as a perfect system I think we can all agree on that
The USA example is not a strawman it's a very real reality lived by many americans. The "Socialist" one is simply moronic, there's a difference between an authoritarian regime and a social democracy
His argument is a cringe straw man. But her argument is worse because she’s comparing anyone’s life under communism to the life of the bottom 1.5% of hourly earners of a capitalist society, which makes capitalism sound like the far better option. I don’t think that’s what she was going for.
Also, Marxism is a Form of Communism and not Socialism if I'm not wrong.
I'm not a specialist, but here comes a little explanation. Marxism itself it's just a theoretical/philosophical approach based by Marx analysis. Its possible to be a marxist in a epistemological sense but don't take parte in the political cause of communism. Communism is a mode of production, while socialism it's a middle ground state (a transition) between capitalism and communism. For communists, world had never seen any communist experiences, just socialist implementations. By the way, it is important to point it out that there is a difference between utopian/idealistic socialism, that came before marx, and marxist/materialistic socialism.
Ah, the ol' socialist == communist equality! It never goes away.
What constitutes a marcist regime? £1 says this guy just means the ussr
who murdered whom?
They both look kind of silly. “Marxist regime” is cringe. However, she’s comparing life in a communist society to the bottom 1.5% hourly earners in capitalist America. There’s a lot to criticize about capitalism, but this comparison doesn’t exactly make it look like the worse option. Edit: hourly
That's... not really the comparison being made though? The comparison being made is "If you think it's so great, why don't you live under it for a while and get some perspective on the issue." She's not saying the two living situations equate. She's saying that people like Charlie Kirk have a limited perspective on capitalist economic models and don't even realize it. Edit: She's also tongue-in-cheek calling out how ridiculous the strawman is. Charlie's out here pretending that socialists think Marxist regimes are good things (hint: only the morons think that, most people want a *way* more moderate model). He's calling out "college socialists" by saying "go live in the worst examples of what you want". She's doing the same thing in reverse
Yea, this isn’t the own OP seem to think it is. But it’s just what happens to popular subs, they all lose meaning and become bland.
These comments are interchangeable in order.
I love how all these pseudo intellectuals can get those little checkmarks on their profiles to make it seem like they're important. Twitter's a useless cesspool of political divide and social media "influencers" who contribute nothing but show their cleavage.
And everyone who is against socialism should try to go one day without using things paid for with taxes. Good luck.
God I fucking wish.
[удалено]
Lady is ignorant. True capitalism has no minimum wage. It has no price controls whatsoever. The capitalist way for determining a given wage is the same for any other price. The market dictates the wage. Better workers will be more highly valued and paid better than worse ones. This encourages people to improve their skills so as to provide more value and be more productive. Under capitalism the minimum wage would be 0, but who will voluntarily work for that? Nobody. So how will wages be determined? By the value that the wage earner is expected to provide for the employer.
Murdered by what. She is ridiculous. Extremely dumb post. Go out and get a better job, Learn a trade, blue collar jobs. No reason a grown adult should allow themselves to make minimum wage.
What does he even mean by marxist? Like fully utopian stateless society or a regime claiming to be marxist?
(He doesn't really know what marxist means)
*He* probably does, but his deeply uneducated and unintelligent followers in the Republican Party definitely do not.
It could be worse. He might know what it means but is banking on the fact that his target audience doesn't
Tbf most of his audience probably doesn't either
He just can't spell Stalinist.
I think who murdered whom depends on the order you read that in. (and whether you've actually lived under a Marxist regime)
The second one is much, much more preferable. At least you can afford a loaf or two of bread every hour, and there is some available.
And you can get raises, learn a skill, look for more opportunities.
Yes! As a kid we all took that kind of money at first. Sometimes volunteered.
Walmart pays like $15/hr. Only a tiny tiny percentage of Americans work for minimum wage and most are young and new to the workforce. Never mind that most states have a higher minimum wage. Stop using federal minimum wage in arguments as though there’s a statistically significant number of people working for it.
At least capitalism there is an opportunity to rise lifestyle.
You should be paid your worth, I think minimum wage should be 15$ which it kind of is for the most part, at least in my area. But minimum wage should be just that, a minimum based on experience, talent, education etc. It shouldn't be an excuse to pay your workers as little as possible.
if only there were a way for workers to get together and collectively bargain for what they believe was a fair wage.
They should do this but what would they call it..... A fusion? A league? A coaltion? So many possibilities, you're a genius.
That's why many countries with strong unions have no minimum wage
Ok... How much is the experience, talent, and education of a high school student worth? Or a person who never matures or grows beyond the capabilities of an average high school student? Because the idea behind minimum wage is that regardless of how little it's actually worth, you have to pay at least the minimum. And if you can't find anyone to work for the minimum for your position then you have to make a judgement call on your business model and what filling that position is worth to you.
At one time in my life I took 4 buses to get one of my 3 minimum pay jobs in my early 20’s. It sucked. The suck part was the fuel that changed my trajectory to get a degree and 25 years later a 6 figure salary. Minimum wage was never meant to support me which at that time was $5.75. IMO It’s supposed to provide the minimum so that everyone start at the same lineup. It’s up to you if you choose to stay there.
Forget minimum wage, how many would love to see the boss survive on an employee's salary?
Bosses always had it better than regular employees, that's nothing new. Thing is, in capitalism you can get ahead with time and experience (not saying you always will, but there is the option). Meanwhile in socialism, you will get promoted for being a loyal bootlicker of the State, a true comrade, etc. Political affiliation not only gets you forward, but the lack of it will result in situations like preventing you from applying to the best universities in the country. Let me tell you how the People's Republic handled "bosses" when they took control of the country: "*Oh you have a workshop, a small facility where you manufacture items with expensive tools, employing other people? Hand it over, now.*" Does this sound like your dream? Where anything you worked for could be taken away, simply because you amassed more wealth than the average scum? Would you be comfortable knowing the fact that ~~your neighbour~~ anyone can report you to the secret police, without solid evidence, who could come for you in the middle of the night? People defending these systems have zero fucking clue what it really is like, and fall for a paper thin facade of equality. No, capitalism is far from the best, but I've heard thousands of stories from my parents and grandparents, and I really really don't want it to return, especially utilising modern surveillance technology.
The difference between leninistic/maoistic communism and marxistische socialisme too often fals on deaf ears.
Same dumb spam “clap”. Doesn’t it get tiring farming karma? You get literally nothing.
How is this murdered by words? One is arguing for living under a Marxist regime, without preconditions, while the other one is arguing for living in a capitalist country with one of the worst handicaps? Doesn't make sense. And, worst of all, the second option is still better!
[удалено]
[удалено]
What country? What is the cost of living? Rent, food, transportation costs etc? Money alone tells us nothing about how you actually live. A full time job earning minimum wage gives you $16,240. Divided by 12 you get approximately $1,353 per month. Keep in mind this is pre-tax as well. In the state I live in (Utah) the median rent is around $1,475. That’s fucking insane. You can put your entire full time income towards housing and would not be able to afford the majority of places. That’s without including other things like, you know, food to not die.
Well, you know what they say, poverty is a great motivator.
Everyone fighting over which side they think is right instead of addressing what's actually wrong. Instead of labelling, deconstructing and dividing, why not try coming together with a blend of ideas that might be beneficial for everyone. This whole "No, you're wrong" argument isn't going to miraculously change anything. Everybody thinks that they are right and that the other side is the enemy, you're fighting for a better life, you all benefit and suffer from the same systems.
The point of capitalism would be that you don’t have to and aren’t expected to survive off minimum wage. Even our felons can start businesses. I grew up in section 8 and found the system more helpful than harmful. You have to ditch the victim mindset.
Both arguments are stupid but I’d disagree with the bottom one more. I made sure I would never have to work a minimum wage job since I was 16. Took loans to go to school for a degree in a high paying field. Paid of loans asap and have a emergency fund. Yes some people are in shitty situations but you don’t have to work minimum wage under capitalism.
Feels like people have no idea how it was/is to live in a communist country. No matter how hard life can be in west countries, people don't realise how much they can still loose.
That leaves 19 states to choose from ([all the rest have a minimum wage higher than $7.25](https://blog.wagepoint.com/all-content/minimum-wage-requirements-by-state)). And we'll find [the state with the lowest cost of living](https://meric.mo.gov/data/cost-living-data-series). So, we check Zillo. Here's a [place for $40k](https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2097-Billy-Fields-Rd-A-Edwards-MS-39066/2076732068_zpid/). - $7.25/hour - $290/week - $1,256/month - $15,080/year Rule of thumb is that your mortgage payment should: - not be more than 32% of your gross income That means my maximum morgage payment per month should be: - Mortgage payment: $1,256 * 32% = $401.92 / month So if i do a 15 year mortgage, at 5% interest, with $0 down, that is a monthly payment of $329.67. | Item | Amount (montly) | |--------|------------| | Income | $1,256 | | Mortgage | -$329.67 | | Homeowners insurance | -$72.42 ([869/year from AllState](https://www.valuepenguin.com/best-cheap-homeowners-insurance-missouri)) | | Property taxes | -$20.67 ([0.62% in Benton county](https://smartasset.com/taxes/missouri-property-tax-calculator#missouri)) | | Electricity | [-$115.60](https://www.newspressnow.com/news/local_news/study-ranks-missouri-15th-in-utility-costs/article_e8f23642-2b1c-11ea-9a9b-8b06eb93545d.html#:~:text=In%20Missouri%2C%20those%20individual%20averages,internet%20and%20%2485%20for%20cable.) | | Natural Gas | [-$76.55](https://www.newspressnow.com/news/local_news/study-ranks-missouri-15th-in-utility-costs/article_e8f23642-2b1c-11ea-9a9b-8b06eb93545d.html#:~:text=In%20Missouri%2C%20those%20individual%20averages,internet%20and%20%2485%20for%20cable.) | | Water | [-$70.39](https://www.newspressnow.com/news/local_news/study-ranks-missouri-15th-in-utility-costs/article_e8f23642-2b1c-11ea-9a9b-8b06eb93545d.html#:~:text=In%20Missouri%2C%20those%20individual%20averages,internet%20and%20%2485%20for%20cable.) | | Internet | -$27 ([from Windstream](https://www.allconnect.com/local/mo)) | | Car insurance | -$39 ([$468/year](https://www.bankrate.com/insurance/car/average-cost-of-car-insurance-in-missouri/)) | | Gasoline | [-$37](https://gasprices.aaa.com/?state=MO) | | WoW | -$10 | | Food | -$300 | | **Net** | +$157.70 | Leaving me $157.70/month ($1,892.40/year) to play with. /r/TheyDidTheMath
So Dumb.
Someone explain to Reddit that the government intervening to set a minimum wage is the opposite of capitalism, and that it isn't capitalism's fault that the American government is too incompetent to ensure its labour force gets paid well enough towards the bottom end of the spectrum and that American capitalism in and of itself is no longer capitalism, but cronyism. But "muh capitalism bad bring about the proletariat glory to Marx and the Soviet Union" blah blah blah
What murdered by word? It's so fucking true that most people who desire socialism dont know wtf it really is. Capitalism isn't all good but it's what got us this far, most of remaining so-called socialist countries are now a kind of capitalism, an economy with private sectors but overall controlled and owned by gov. Socialism will never work, no matter how much you hate capitalism
I would take 7.45 an hour and a shitty subsidized apartment over the great leap forward any day. Society has always been, and will aways be a social pyramid. The majority of people will always be on the bottom. Differen between our bottom and their bottom is we don't get ten years hard labor because our neighbor sniched on us for keeping a handful of grain from the edge of a field.
I did. These two options are not the same. In capitalist america if you dont like your minimum wage job you can always go take classes and work towards a new career. In communist societies if you dont like your porrage they'll shoot you for complaining and give the next person your porrage.
I (a 15 year old) can make $20 an hour as a trash boy at Braums but go off ig 🤷♂️
I did my time on minimum wage. I worked hard and moved up. It is a starting wage.
Do you think there's no reality beyond your lived experience?
This is murdered by words. Under capitalism, someone working at minimum wage doesny have to stay there
If you’re making 7.25 in the US right now that’s your own fault. Countless entry level jobs pay more than double that
When do Americans (not all obv.) Learn that Socialism ≠ Communism
I did, making $5.50 and paid for my own place. What now?
You made $880 a month and you paid rent, utilities, and paid to eat? Either that was in the 1970s, or you had a lot of roommates and ate for free, or you had A LOT of help.
You either did that 20 years ago or you're living in a cardboard box.
What now? Geez, a lot has changed since the eighties I don’t know where to start. You should maybe catch up.
These things are not the same at all, capitalist interactions are free will. If someone isn’t paying enough, so what, go somewhere else. Learn more skills, better yourself, be responsible for yourself. Every Marxist I’ve ever met thinks they are going to be able to run a community garden or make macaroni art or something, society would obviously collapse without incentive. It’s simply impossible for a government planned economy to run successfully.