Europe uses the word socialism differently. It’s a difference in how the words are used and the time they are used.
If we consider socialism shared responsibility, we have it America in many ways but we are hesitant to expand it. That’s because of our fear of large government power.
If we me socialism as the workers owning the means of production. Well no country does that. Normally it’s the government owning everything and the workers being abused such as the Soviet Union or Cuba. That’s the large governments Americans dislike.
Yeah, socialism isn't taxing the rich, it is or at least have always led to brutal dictatorships because the real one is just communism with extra steps.
Social-democracy on the other hand is wonder for the people (see Sweden etc) in real life.
I’m a conservative and read a wonderful article on why conservatives should be leading the charge to a social democracy like Sweden.
It really changed my views on why we should be skippering certain endeavors. Just neither party here has really embraced the basic concept.
An example was national health care allowed people to be more entrepreneurial since that is a large risk to not have insurance here.
Yeah y'all really don't want to end up like us. We're not the land of the free. The streets are most definitely not paved with gold. We're just a giant ponzi scheme.
It's actually insane how many of our institutions are actually based on pyramid schemes. No wonder we all use it as the symbol for conspiracy because it is a huge portion of how anything runs in the US. Cover the costs by convincing more people to join in at a less beneficial or profitable step down the pyramid and hope someone else will be coming behind you for you to take from as well.
No kidding. Their "fix" every year is to either fill all the potholes with asphalt, which the spring rains promptly loosen and get kicked out, or a thin "repaving" layer, which gets destroyed by the summer monsoons. I'm convinced Caltrans is a jobs program for people that can't get a job otherwise, because those guys can't seem to get anything done correctly.
Start a social media account for pics of the pothole. Keep tagging city officials in it. Call or email someone every time you're reminded that the pothole exists so they will be too. Make the city rue the day they gave Cave Johnson lem... Potholes.
Yep. We should have told the colonies of Georgia and Carolina to fuck off, and we'll get around to conquering them, after we kicked The King out of the other 11 colonies.
If one person had voted differently during The Continental Congress, we would have started abolishing slavery
There are elements of capitalism there, but I wouldn't call it a capitalist economy. Capitalism requires that private individuals own the means of production. But, in Russia does anybody outside Putin's inner circle really own anything?
Yes, absolutely. The Russian Federation is the direct result of a collapsing Socialist system in the hands of Capitalists, just because fewer and fewer people own things doesn't mean it isn't a direct result of Capitalization of the economy.
The USSR wasn't really socialist at its core, and the new Russia really isn't capitalist at its core.
In the former system, the theory was that the people / workers owned the means of production. The reality was that it was the leader and those close to him who really "owned" them in the sense that they had power over them. It was all about who you knew in that system. In a true socialist system, it should have been up to the people to make decisions, but in the USSR it was up to the party's elites, and the people just had to live with it.
In the current system, it's Putin and his close circle who own everything. While they allow capitalist type activities to happen, the capitalists don't really own anything. If they displease Putin anything they have can be taken away on a whim. If you stay on Putin's good side, or at least stay beneath his notice, you can operate as a capitalist. But, become too successful and you'll be reminded who's in charge.
Both true socialism and true capitalism require that the rule of law apply to everyone, even the leaders. If the leader can just ignore the laws and seize the "means of production" without facing consequences, it's authoritarianism, not capitalism or communism / socialism.
The USSR was a flawed form of Socialism, but was fundamentally Socialist. The majority of the economy was run by Worker Soviets, in a process called Soviet Democracy. The Politburo, ie the highest Soviet, had a massive amount of influence and power, but day to day decisions were made locally. I would agree, I don't think it was a particularly good form of Socialism, but I would still consider it Socialist.
Modern Russia is absolutely Capitalist at its core, that's the entire foundation of the Russian Federation. The Capitalists are the Oligarchs! The Inner Circle are Capitalists! just because it's a higher stage of Capitalism doesn't mean it ceases to be Capitalism.
The USSR was a flawed form of Socialism, but was fundamentally Socialist
Was the rule of law strong enough that decisions were being made by the people, or were they being made by authoritarians? Because if key decisions weren't being made by the people, it wasn't socialist.
Capitalists can do that as well, without being feudalists. You're tying an ancient peasant-aristocrat structure to modern Capitalism just to avoid acknowledging that Capitalism has failed Russia.
It has everything to do with Capitalism. When the USSR collapsed and the Russian Federation came into place, Capitalists got much of the Capital, and are now the "oligarchs."
Well, French president and several of its ministers are saying that socialist left, or radical left, is extremist. So no, it's not an America problem. It's very much a Europe problem too.
There was this whole thing called the Soviet Union then there was like a missile crisis
And there was like a group that called themselves National Socialists and they did a genocide and tried to take over a bunch of land by force
We also had to fight a bunch of talking trees that dug tunnels because military industrial complex and heroin
It's definitely many layers of propaganda but as an American I definitely understand WHERE it comes from, I understand why most people here flinch at the word.
You also gotta understand we had multiple generations in a row huffing lead gasoline so while younger millennials aren't impacted as bad, MOST Americans are legitimately lead brained.
It wasn't just leaded gasoline. I was busy getting hot boxed with cigarettes in my grandparent's leaded gasoline car before burning some asbestos, plastic cutlery, and batteries in the living room fireplace.
Forget no seatbelts or bicycle helmets. Our chemical exposure would probably send a younger person without a built up tolerance into instant seizure.
I also remember crimping down lead shot sinkers on my fishing line with my teeth. Good times. Good times indeed.
The Nazis were literally IN Europe. The USSR literally built a WALL here splitting the continent. And you're saying that explains why America is the one with socialism PTSD???
Ain't nothing more American than making everything about you I guess.
I guess you can't fucking read lol, the comment I'm replying to was TALKING ABOUT AMERICANS. I didn't make it about Americans the fucking European did.
But European don't panic at the mention of socialism (what the comment you're replying to was talking about) yet the Europeans have suffered FAR MORE from your examples of "socialism" than Americans. You can't explain away how American politics differ from European politics by appropriating European tragedies.
You are so shoved up your own ass it's insane. Firstly, really bad reading skills. I never justified the response, just that I understand the origins. For fucks sake use your brain a little before attacking someone and sounding like a dunce for it.
But it DOES NOT explain the origins. The USSR and the Nazis are not CAUSES. They CAN'T BE because otherwise Europe would never integrated elements of socialism!
I think we actually agree on that, it's just semantics at this point. Whatever.
Also watch your aggressiveness. I didn't call you names and I expect the same in return.
It's not even semantics if you're actively misunderstanding the definitions of words, but okay illiterate.
Don't tell someone to watch their aggressiveness AFTER you started being a cunt. I expect you not to be a cunt to begin with, so why am I beholden to YOUR levels of response? Ridiculous to assume you set the bar when you already fucked right on past it to begin with.
The fucking ego on this guy, ffs
Also, "it can't be the right answer because a different place with different culture did a different thing!". Seriously? Did I not explain the lead brain and the propaganda? Or did you not read that? Oh wait, borderline illiterate yeah. Like I'm not justifying the response IM EXPLAINING THE ORIGIN OF IT.
If you can't follow along then stop replying altogether here
Maybe I just suck at the research, but from what I can tell getting a permanent residence visa is not easy for Americans. If I'm wrong I would absolutely love to know.
France seems to be relatively easy to gain permanent residence and even citizenship, but they do expect you to learn fluent French. Most of the EU requires birthright citizenship. A few will grant it to the decedents of immigrants, like Ireland, though they only do it for two generations out.
Passports are $400+ USD, then there are the plane tickets, which are hundreds of dollars. Then to top it off you need to have room and board while looking for a job and someplace to live.
Another thing I’ve heard is fear of leaving the known and family.
Pretty much the only time we need passports is if we travel outside the U.S. and territories. Those that take cruises or cross borders to other countries would, but generally speaking a majority of Americans don’t have passports.
Eh for me it's a lot of things. For one just roots, family and friends. Then next is work, I'd have to find a new job over there (doubtful my current one would let me work abroad), and I'd need to see if visas would let me work over there, and for how long. I would probably make less over there, but cost of living is lower too, so I'd have to do finances. Most countries don't let you own property unless you're a citizen, and I wouldn't be, so I'd have to rent for a while. Path to citizenship would then be difficult, and I would have to pay taxes for both countries. Then just pure logistics of what do I do with everything here, would have to basically start all over. It'd be much easier if I was in my early 20s, but I'm nearing 40 which makes it much more difficult.
There is usually something like needing $250K in the bank to be considered for permanent residency. Then the paperwork costs money, so most Americans will have to wait until they get refugee status.
Several things keep Americans from moving to Europe.
First, immigration laws of the country one is moving to. If one is not able to get a passport from an EU or EEA county based on ancestry, you basically need to be sponsored for a work visa by a company in the country you want to move to, which can be quite difficult. And even then, you have to be employed in that country for long enough to qualify for permanent residency, then citizenship, which can take up to 7 or 8 years in some countries.
If one is lucky enough to have parents or grandparents who emigrated to the US from a European country and can claim citizenship based on that, it's a lot of work to get all of the paperwork together and verified and accepted by that government's consulate (at least it is for Germany, but German bureaucracy is ... special).
Second, the US is one of the only countries in the world that double taxes its citizens. If someone was born in the United States, they will have to file taxes reporting income to the US government every single year until they die, and PAY taxes to the US government on any income over a certain amount every year until they die, regardless of the source of that income, and regardless of the fact that taxes on the same income need to be paid to the host country.
While I have zero respect for the snivelling shitgibbon name Boris Johnson, he was born in New York and had to renounce his US citizenship to escape the IRS. You also have to PAY the US government $2350 (in cash) for the privilege of giving up your citizenship, which is also...unique.
Sometimes there are tax treaties that can take most of the sting out of the double taxation issue (Norway's is decent for US citizens), but it depends on the country.
Finally, it just never occurs to many Americans that leaving is even a possibility.
In all fairness, we panic and reach for our guns at the mention of just about anything. Right this very moment, I'm pooping on company time, scared out of my wits, a nine millimeter at the ready atop my presently ankle adorning boxers.
In your own words, they are economic systems. What do you call a system built on Capitalism, but with a slightly larger welfare net? Socialism? No, you call it Capitalism.
You're calling me brainwashed for correctly pointing out that Capitalism is Capitalism, even if you dress it up nicely?
#Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism[
"wää wää wää no it's not socialism, it's capitalism, but I refuse to believe it and I don't have to explain myself"
you
Please define socialism for me.
Because this an official definition
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or REGULATED BY the community as a whole.
"we want a real democratic and pluralist left party—one which unites all those who believe in socialism"
Even the US has socialist policies, because "pure" capitalism is completely unworkable, because it kills the economy stone dead
Believe me, I'm not conflating Capitalism with markets. Capitalism is a specific form of market economy by which individual Capitalists buy and sell Means of Production, or Capital, by which they can pay Workers to use and create commodities via wage labor.
Examples of Socialist market economies include Market Socialism, a form of Socialism built on competing worker-owned co-operatives.
Examples of Socialist Market Economies do not include Capitalist Social Democracies, because the primary defining feature of Social Democracies is Capitalism with generous social safety nets, a kind of "human-centric" Capitalism.
You on the other hand are making the misconception that Socialism is simply when the government does stuff. You're wrong, of course, as countless people here have pointed put.
Capitalism with regulation is still Capitalism. Socialism is when Workers share ownership of the Means of Production, simple as.
Examples of Socialist market economies include Market Socialism, a form of Socialism built on competing worker-owned co-operatives.
Honestly. Like seriously honestly adult adult honestly. Why the fuck do you not bother to spend 30 seconds checking concepts you have no idea about, and instead pull shit out of your arse?
Market socialism isn't defined by worker cooperatives, it's defined by socialism which utilises market economy. Like the socialist democracies of the Nordic countries.
You can't even define capitalism, yet demand everyone is utilising it.
If a country doesn't have a planned economy, you won't admit it's not capitalist. Which is so dumb I can't even find the words to describe it.
Capitalism with regulation is still Capitalism. Socialism is when Workers share ownership of the Means of Production, simple as.
No, it simply isn't. That's like saying "you're not gay as long as you don't penetrate another mans anus, sexual attraction to men has nothing to do with being homosexual".
The simple definition of socialism is when the means of production are owned OR REGULATED BY the government.
Which part of "OR REGULATED" do you not understand?
This is exactly what I meant with my first comments. Delusional fuckers like you, pretending all market economy is capitalism. Even the US doesn't have "pure" capitalism, as the antitrust laws are by definition socialist policies.
I did define Capitalism, it’s a market based system by which Capitalists buy and sell Capital and Pay Workers wages to produce commodities.
I honestly almost suffocated. I laughed so hard I could barely breath, exactly like Risitas.
You seriously think you've "defined capitalism"? And to think you're doing it in the exact way that shows I'm correct in that you've conflated capitalism with market economies? :DDD I can't fucking believe this.
I'd like to keep pointing out how ridiculous this is, but I think you're like a 14-year old yank or something and I don't want to be that mean to kids.
Capitalism is defined by private ownership of industries and especially FOR PROFIT. (In case you were unaware, that's what the "capital" in "capitalism" means.) FOR PROFIT*. That's the main thing. Putting profit above everything, and being owned privately. The definition has nothing to do with "trading commodities and paying workers". I... honestly I'm just slightly in loss of words at your stupidity.
Here in Finland our railroads aren't private. Hell, there's not even one single privately owned liquor store in the country. We still use market economies. Which means you are allowed to sell your time to an employer who has a private business, in exchange for money. Unlike the US though, we don't even have a minimum wage set in the law. Why? Because our trade unions are so strong that there is a de facto minimum wage in all industries, so a de jure one isn't even needed.
Capital does not mean "for profit," Capital refers to the Means of Production. Market based economies driven by profit predate Capitalism, which is only a few hundred years old. If you'd read Capital, you would have known that.
Railroads being government owned and operated is an example of Socialism! Hooray, you did it! But that's just one part.
Market economies are not when you sell your time to an employer. That's wage labor. Market economies involve competing entities, and can take the form of mercantilism, Market Socialism, Capitalism, and many other forms of Market. What you describe is just Capitalism though, haha.
So if you lack a minimum wage, then I guess you're admitting that you think the fact that the US has one makes it Socialist? Is whether or not something is Socialist just vibes to you?
You're one of the most incoherent right-wingers I've encountered, I'll tell you that much.
I love how you keep pretending you've read Das Kapital. "But markets existed before Marx!"
Yes. They did. And what exactly happened that made Marx assert that that era had been different from the era he was living in? The industrial revolution, which made it possible for people looking to profit to actually build such huge profits that they could grow their capitalist enterprises and keep growing them by exploiting the proletariat. Anyone who's even read the Wikipedia article on Marx would know that ROFL. (I'm enjoying myself immensely, thank you.)
Before the industrial revolution, there was a different balance in the world. Lowly people just wanting to be rich simply had no opportunity to do that. After the industrial revolution, those people could become so rich, they rivaled the nobility, which is why we consider it the end of feudalism and the beginning of capitalism, AS MARX WRITES. Weird how much you've missed of the book you've definitely read, huh?
Greed existed before the industrial revolution, markets existed before the industrial revolution, and even government economies existed before it. But there wasn't a way for those greedy fuckers to exploit people on a massive scale. With the industrial revolution, that way was shown to them. That's what Marx's whole book is about.
I'd say "nice try", but it really, really wasn't a nice try. Downright pathetic, in fact. :(
So if you lack a minimum wage, then I guess you’re admitting that you think the fact that the US has one makes it Socialist? Is whether or not something is Socialist just vibes to you?
We don't lack a minimum wage, just like I said. We don't have one in law. You don't understand what "de jure" and "de facto" mean? :D This keeps getting better. Here, let papa explain. The trade unions prevent anyone from hiring someone without utilising the rules the trade union has set. This means that despite Finland's government not having a law which regulates minimum law, no Finn can work anywhere without having a set minimum wage. That minimum wage just doesn't come from the law. This really shouldn't be that hard to understand.
Edit oh and "rightwinger"? What fucking logic are you using? :DDDDDD Please, send me what you're smoking, I'm begging you :DDDD
I did give a simple definition of Capitalism, it's a Mode of Production by which Capitalists buy and sell Capital that they pay workers Wages to use to create commodities. Commodities, by definition, are goods and services produced for sale, ie for profit.
I genuinely thought you at least knew what a commodity was, but given that you think I was ignoring profit when speaking about commodities, a concept tied fundamentally to the concept of profit, I can take that to mean that you truly haven't read Marx, as one of the earliest chapters in Capital Volume I goes over the definition of Commodities.
I know about the Industrial revolution, and I similarly know that just as Feudalism gave way to Capitalism, so too should Capitalism give way to Socialism, and Socialism to Communism. I am not sure why you are pretending I do not know that, the Proletariat and the Bourgeoisie teamed up to overthrow the aristocracy in most monarchies, which is why it's stated that feudalism gave way to Capitalism in the first place. Class conflict and the analysis of such is the foundation of Marxism.
That entire set of paragraphs was you just vomiting on your keyboard about stuff I already know and made no indication of not knowing, which is honestly goofy.
Believe me, I know what de jure and de facto are. Not having a minimum wage coded in law by the government would, in your own definition, mean that it is more Capitalistic than it is Socialist, because Socialism is regulation to you. This does not help your point. Like I said, it would be nice if the Nordic Countries actually became Socialist and the Unions took ownership and control of the Means of Production, instead of leaving them in the hands of Capitalists.
You are a right winger, because you support Capitalist ownership of the Means of Production. Until you shed that and support worker ownership, at best you will always be a center-right Social Democrat.
No, you didn't. You wrote a sentence of vague gibberish, without any sources to back it up, despite just a few comments ago criticising Wikipedia as a bad source. Childish and utterly ridiculous.
for sale, ie for profit.
Selling something doesn't mean you profit. If you buy 10 eggs for 10 dollars and sell those eggs for 10 dollars, how much profit did you make? Was there a trading of commodities? Yes, there was. Was there profit? No, there wasn't.
It's things like that which show you've not read Marx (or hardly anything, at all, actually), which is why I'm gonna quit this conversation after this comment; you're a lying, pretentious pseudointellectual who refuses to argue this in good faith and can't link a single source to back himself up.
You talk of communism as it's not within socialism. Again. And you don't understand how ridiculous that is. "For food, we have sandwiches, chips, spaghetti, and pasta." is equally ridiculous a sentence as "Feudalism gave way to Capitalism, so too should Capitalism give way to Socialism, and Socialism to Communism"
Again, repeating the "believe me". If you look at how often you utilise it in your comments and pay attention to it, you might become a better liar.
Not having a minimum wage coded in law by the government would, in your own definition, mean that it is more Capitalistic than it is Socialist, because Socialism is regulation to you.
Again showing your ignorance. The dictionary definition of socialism: a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Do you think the trade unions are NOT a part of the "community as a whole"? (That's a rhetoric question, as I said I'm quitting this, as you are quite funny, but after I've had a laugh or two, I start pitying the fact that people like you exist. You clearly aren't ready to learn anything, keep lying and avoiding addressing your gibberish.)
You are a right winger, because you support Capitalist ownership of the Means of Production.
Oh I do? Wow, your logic is quite as impeccable as it has been the entire conversation. Please, do provide your reasoning for this. I' would love to be able to show it to people
What exactly is vague gibberish? Which part didn't make sense to you?
Yes, you can sell something and not make a profit, but the goal of commodity production is profit, not equal output from input. The Capitalist has no reason to pay people just to break even, the goal is profit, and as economies are measured as aggregates, that is the purpose of commodity production.
Communism is a post-Socialist form of economy. Socialism is defined as Worker Ownership of the Means of Production, while Communism is a Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society.
Trade unions are a good thing, but not Socialism. Socialism requires ownership. Unions help offset some of the issues of Capitalism, yes, but until you get rid of the Capitalists, it's still Capitalism.
Yes, you're a right winger, because you are supporting Social Democracy as a framework. Social Democracy is Capitalism with expanded social safety nets, there are still Capitalists, still Capitalism, and very little worker ownership, but it certainly sounds nicer than what the US has!
Your greatest source is misinterpreting a line in Wikipedia? You think that means your Capitalism is actually Socialism despite relying on Capitalism, because the welfare net is larger? Lmao
"I refuse to look or acknowledge any data on the subject, so I'm correct"
Is the little kiddo having to backpedal and ignore the facts because he made a bit of a boo-boo in his rhetoric?
Please do elaborate on how I misunderstood something such as: "Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism" to mean what it says.
Im sure you've a really good reasoning on how it ACTUALLY means that "social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within capitalism"
Your data is Wikipedia. That's it. Read perhaps any Socialist literature and you're immediately debunked.
If Social Democracy was truly under Socialism, then the Workers of your country would own the Means of Production.
A more accurate reading of what you are claiming is that Social Democracy takes influence from Marxism while rejecting the conclusions and thus the necessity for Socialism, instead relying on Capitalism.
Tell me, plainly, how you can have Socialism with Capitalists and Capitalism. Or, does Nestlé not exist in the Nordic Countries?
Here's my source: Eatwell & Wright 1999, pp. 80–103; Newman 2005, p. 5; Heywood 2007, pp. 101, 134–136, 139; Ypi 2018; Watson 2019.
Want to go and read those books? No? I'm schocked.
The information from those books is listed on Wikipedia, yes. Are you so childish that you'll now pretend "you can't find real information on wikipedia"?
Weirdly enough, you don't have ANY sources for the things you pull out of your arse. Almost as if you didn't know what you were talking about and didn't HAVE any sources for your faulty claims, because like I said, you've conflated market economies and capitalism and think socialism equals communism, because you don't understand communism is just one form of socialism.
"How can you have socialism with capitalism"
Since I've already explained you keep conflating "capitalism" with "market economies", the question is then translated into "tell me, plainly, how can you have socialism and market economies", for which the answer is really quite simple for anyone literate. However, since you also conflate "socialism" with "communism", then the question becomes "how can you have communism with market economies", to which the answer is "you can't, since communism relies on planned economies instead of market economies".
That's where your confusion comes from.
Due to our good regulations because of our social demoractic, well governed economies, capitalist companies can participate, but they can't do the shenanigans they can do in less regulated markets.
The degree of regulation is the question. Even the US doesn't have "pure" capitalism. Things like the antitrust laws are by definition socialist policies, but this doesn't mean the US is socialist in any way. It just means even they understand the necessity of regulation over "pure" capitalism, because "pure" capitalism is unsustainable as it leads to monopolies which then kill the economy.
This is why for example I can actually drink my tapwater and eat raw eggs that don't even have to be refrigerated. This is why the quality of all products here is higher, and why it's more expensive for companies like Nestle to try their bullshit here, which is why they mostly aim for developing countries. To avoid the regulation that comes with properly functioning social democracy.
If Socialism is Capitalism with more regulations, is the United States Socialist too? It has plenty of regulations, more than Social Democracies do in many areas, in fact. Are you going to tell me that every country is actually Socialist if it doesn't have a laissez Faire Capitalist economy, even if it uses Capitalism as the primary mode of production?
You want a source? Marx's Capital. Read it, you might learn something, even if accidentally.
Social Democracy absolutely takes influence from Marxism, that's perhaps what the source you list may be referring to, however the place where Social Democrats fight with Socialists on is Social Democrats believe Capitalism can be harnessed and benefited from, instead of needing to transition to a worker owned economy.
I am not confusing Capitalism with markets, again, Wikipedia defines Market Socialism as a market based economy of competing worker-owned entities. Your own source, against you! Ha.
Similarly, I am not confusing Socialism with Communism. Communism is a Post-Socialist society, one that is Stateless, Classless, and Moneyless. Communism is indeed one form of Socialism, as is Syndicalism, as is Anarchism, as is Council Communism, as is Market Socialism.
If Socialism is Capitalism with more regulations, is the United States Socialist too?
Not a bad question, if you're honestly looking for conversation, but I get a feeling you're trying a "gotcha" more than asking in good faith.
It's more or less like sexuality; a spectrum more than anything black-and-white, even when people usually speak of it as either or (or "a mix of" = bi).
"Pure" capitalism doesn't exist anywhere. It's never even been tried as much as communism. Well, not in a developed, civilized world.
What I mean by that is by the time that any sort of currency has become a thing, there's also been regulation, even if not written. "Pure" capitalism would mean large, completely unregulated markets. There's just no such thing, nor ever has been. Because capitalism is by it's nature self-defeating. The competition which puts profit over anything means that the one who profits most, by any means necessary, will win and get to establish a monopoly that will then dry the market completely out.
Which is why the US, despite being so obviously politically and economically (having such few regulations and worker protections for a supposedly developed nation) capitalist, has things like a minimum wage (more or less) and antritrust laws. Because they help keep the capitalism from eating itself to death.
You want a source? Marx’s Capital. Read it, you might learn something, even if accidentally.
Nice try, but you haven't, that's quite obvious.
Also, laissez-faire is essentially "without intervention", when we all know that companies wield just a megaton of political power in the US and interfere in politics constantly, in order to keep free of regulation.
"Takes influence from Marxism"
And which economic school of thought hasn't been influenced by Marx in some way or another? Since you say you've read "Das Kapital", you obviously didn't forget who came up with the term "capitalism"? Wouldn't — arguably — taking a name for your school of thought be counted as "being influenced by"? (No, I'm not being serious, I'm doing the same sort of gotcha-shit you did in to showcase you how silly it is.)
I'm still waiting on you to elaborate on how I "misunderstood" this sentence:
Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism"
(sourced from Eatwell & Wright 1999, pp. 80–103; Newman 2005, p. 5; Heywood 2007, pp. 101, 134–136, 139; Ypi 2018; Watson 2019.)
Or you know, for you to source any of your hilarious bullshit
Oh, believe me, it's a good-faith gotcha. Anyone who thinks one of the most Capitalist countries on the planet is Socialist has no idea what they are talking about.
I am well-aware of the concept of mixed economies. As an example, a truly centrist economy would have 50% of industry owned and controlled by workers, and the other 50% would be owned and controlled by Capitalists. Social Democracies lean heavily in the side of Capitalists and as such are Capitalist.
Capitalism is indeed self-defeating, that's why the Nordic Countries are seeing steady rises in disparity and sliding of Worker protections, held largely at bay by strong unions. My hope is that one day the Nordic unions will take control and ownership of industry a la Syndicalism and finally become a group of actual Socialist countries.
Yes, the US has regulations. These do not make it more Socialist, rather, these regulations are often bought and paid for by large Corporations to cement their power as Capitalists.
What part of my analysis makes it so "obvious" to you that I haven't read Capital, despite everything I have stated thus far being in line with it, and everything you've stated being firmly against it?
Fair enough, many fields have been influenced by Marxism, but what I'm specifically stating is that Social Democrats agree with initial marxian analysis and see that there is benefit for working class power, but disagree with his conclusions, and thus prefer to direct Capitalism to benefit workers.
I have already explained how you've misinterpreted that same sentence multiple times: Social Democracy seeks to directly existing liberal Capitalist frameworks for the benefit of all, while maintaining existing power structures and hierarchies.
Explain to me exactly why you think Socialism is polite Capitalism. You keep thinking Socialism is mere government regulation, when it is in fact worker ownership. You cannot have Socialism with Capitalists, if you still have a business owner but the business is regulated, it's still Capitalist!
You're extremely incoherent for a right-winger, even by right-winger standards.
You keep repeating "oh believe me". You know why people like you say that? Do you know how liers also stress "I'm telling the truth"? Yeah, so... :)
No-one was talking about "mixed economies". Learn to read.
that’s why the Nordic Countries are seeing steady rises in disparity and sliding of Worker protections,
None of that is remotely true. The laws keep improving all the time. I honestly don't understand the need of people like you to literally make up things to pretend like you understand a thing? Just don't reply. If you write less, people won't be able to see what a moron you are.
these regulations are often bought and paid for by large Corporations to cement their power as Capitalists.
What the fuck are you smoking? "Yeah capitalist companies actually enjoy good regulations"
Social Democracy seeks to directly existing liberal Capitalist frameworks for the benefit of all, while maintaining existing power structures and hierarchies.
Call an ambulance, you're having a stroke. That is meaningless drivel that in no way argues against the fact that social democracy is SOCIALIST as established by Eatwell & Wright 1999, pp. 80–103; Newman 2005, p. 5; Heywood 2007, pp. 101, 134–136, 139; Ypi 2018; Watson 2019.
no matter how much you cry and stomp your foot, you're just a teenager equivocating, without any understanding of this. This shctick is getting old. It was entertaining for a while.
You've not provided a single source. Because there aren't any, becuse you're a teenager who keeps pretending he undestands something
you still have a business owner but the business is regulated, it’s still Capitalist!
TLDR "if private property exists it's not communism"
Stomp your foot all you want kid. The truth doesn't care.
Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism
Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism
Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism
Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism
Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism
Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism
Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism
Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism
Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism
Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism
I have been saying "oh believe me" because nothing you have stated is new to me, other than your lack of understanding of the difference between Socialism, Capitalism, and markets in general.
Yes, Capitalist companies tend to love regulations, because they protect monopoly power. An example is Disney with IP protections, they seek to maintain absolute control over their aging IP and have lobbied the government to keep their power entrenched. Another example is tax filing companies like H&R block making the tax process incredibly inefficient and difficult for the average American, just so they can sell more of their services.
Please, elaborate on your Eatwell & Wright source. Why do they call Social Democracy Socialist if it is built on Capitalist frameworks, with individual business owners rather than the economy being owned and controlled by the workers?
You cannot have individual owners of the Means of Production in a Socialist economy. Simple as.
It's also really funny that you say I'm having a stroke as you reenact the REDRUM scene from the shining, lmao. Get help.
So you criticise Wikipedia as a source, and then when I keep asking you for sources for your arguments, you link three different articles about how income inequality is slightly higher in the recent years, and think it proves...? What? That your gibberish about political philosophy makes sense?
I'm having a hard time breathing, my eyes are watering. I really suggest you learn to check a thing or two on Google before opening your mouth :DDDDD
Yes, Capitalist companies tend to love regulations, because they protect monopoly power.
"Companies like regulations"
No, companies like laws which favour them. They don't like "regulations", they like PROFIT. ANYTHING that increases their profit is something they like. That's the base of CAPITALISM, dipshit.
Pease, elaborate on your Eatwell & Wright source
It's right there in the pages, you're welcome to check it out yourself. Or, if you don't feel like it, make an argument against it?
You cannot have individual owners of the Means of Production in a Socialist economy. Simple as.
Because you say so. When no-one agrees with your inane 70's red scare logic.
"wyaa wyaa if it's not full blown communism it's not socialism but if even one thing is traded between two people it's capitalism"
It proves that disparity is rising in Capitalist Social Democracies, like I said. Simple.
Companies like regulations that help them make profits, yes. No need to sling insults.
I'm not paying to read a source that you refuse to actually reference in any meaningful capacity outside of an appeal to authority, when I already know what Marx, Engels, Lenin, Kropotkin, Bakunin, Luxembourg, and so forth are talking about when they speak of and define Socialism, not the revisionist Capitalism that is Social Democracy.
Why is it "red-scare" logic when it's written by Marx and all Marxists to come after him? That's just Marxist logic!
2 people can trade things and it need not be Capitalism, you can have 2 worker co-operatives trade commodities and it's Market Socialism. Simple.
No need to throw slurs at me, but it's fitting for a right-winger to turn to those when they fail to use logic.
Edit: Credit where credit is due, you did in fact change from using a slur to using a more tame insult once I called you out, so at least you've got that going for you.
You are amazing. I wouln't have had the patience to have that conversation.
Thank you for explaining people... well..
Reality.
Just a bit of an off topic point:
I belive the use of "socialism" that the other comenter has is am apropiation or integration of socialisim into the kyriarchy. Defusing and making solcialism anti-revolutionary, taking away what it makes it dangerous and leaving a shell of it self.
Socialism is not anymore the controll of the means of production by the workers (simplify definition) but capitalism where they controlling group give you a bit of assurance and you have to thank them for it.
Thanks! I just take combating bourgeois nonsense seriously when I see it.
You're correct, by adopting good, common sense social safety nets as "socialism," Socialism becomes defanged. "We already have Socialism, why do you want any more?" Can become a cry against the Proletariat.
There are specific definitions and I'm sticking to them. If your economy has capitalists controlling companies with workers trading their labor for a wage underneath them, then it is capitalist, full stop.
Unless your economy is full of co-ops or something. I don't know the common typical structure for a nordic company.
You haven't even read a single "basic definition" my man.
Here's one :
Socialism
Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages
socialism
noun
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned OR REGULATED by the community as a whole.
If your economy has capitalists controlling companies with workers trading their labor for a wage underneath them, then it is capitalist, full stop.
Youre refusing (or unable, lol) to understand that "capitalism" does not equal market economies.
Selling things doesn't mean capitalism. Trading goods doesn't mean capitalism. Owning a company doesn't mean capitalism. Having companies with workers doesn't mean capitalism.
Jesus fucking God I'm tired of explaining concepts that my 8 year old niece could google and learn by her self in five minutes
"unless you have a planned economy you're not socialist"
Yeah, exactly the point I'm making. Brainwashed morons think socialism means full planked economy, when it's no such thing.
Fucking spend 2 min on Google, is it so much to ask?
You literally said "Unless your economy is full of co-ops or something [it's not socialist]".
You're referring to the collectives of the Soviet union. A distinct feature of PLANNED ECONOMIES.
"I never anything about a planned economy."
Yes, you did. And now you're pretending you didn't. Like pretending reality isn't what it actually is. Trying to convince me something that happened didn't happen. Is there a word for behaving like that...?
i think the only thing keeping china from taking that top slot is reach and the use of the dollar worldwide. both of those are collapsing. the US might not be the biggest asshole on the planet for much longer
Eh... don't count on it. China has some significant weaknesses. In the short term, economic growth has slowed significantly. Debt in the private and public sector is having consequences, both in the housing market and elsewhere. In the longer term, China is aging at a faster rate than the US, both due to a low birth rate and immigration rates that are virtually nonexistent compared to the US. China's GDP is outpacing the US for now, but it's an open question how long that pace will last.
That America's actually work tip the scales, along with having a military not made of meat grinder slaves and eighty year old Soviet tanks. Plus, you know, a real navy and air force.
And while modern France and peers could indeed no diff the Romans or Victorian Britain, only America and Russia have enough nukes to kill the world (go us!)
Just ignoring the concept of neocolonialism for a second, most American land was stolen through conquest. That the American Empire is not currently aggressively expanding is irrelevant, did Rome not count as an empire when its borders were stable?
That would be interesting, to compare the land mass of the US with the max size of the Roman empire. My guess is that the romans would win by a hair.
But the Brits would definitely win because they have Australia, which is almost as big as the continental US just in itself, let alone all the other countries they conquered.
Rome wasn't the most powerful empire, merely the third longest lasting; the Assyrians and Egyptians had a run that puts Rome to shame, and the Khans wielded far more power than any individual emperor.
The US is just the only world power left in modern time that could deploy anywhere within 24 hrs with more than just a strike force (and they can do so far far harder than any previous "empire"). The US "empire" is based on deployment potential, banking, and diplomacy. Nukes are just the key required to gain entry to the table so you don't get wiped at deployment.
Bricks is literally the alliance trying to match US power and still hasn't. This is mostly a barrier to entry problem rather than personal power, but it does stand that no previous empire could match the modern US in millitary, finance, or diplomacy.
But hey give it 50 years we are doing our best to shit on two of those.
More importantly, did they have the ability to deploy a Taco Bell, McDonald's, and Wendy's anywhere in the world, within 72 hours, just so their troops would have variety of food?
Nope. The Japanese knew they had royally fucked up when they realized that we had ships that were dedicated to ice cream supplies. You have to have everything else needed for war covered, before you start the logistical supply train of ice cream.
You seem to completely misunderstand American diplomacy.
Just because America doesn't have the same style of conquest, doesn't mean they aren't conquerors.
America was the first empire to realize that all empires eventually fall whose agenda is toppling nations and replacing their flags with their own.
The USA invented a unique twist: never replacing the country's flag.
Instead, as evidenced by countless examples such as Iran and Panama, the American agenda has always been installing a new national leader whose interests align with American ideals of democracy and "freedom" (predominantly of the white Christian variety). But they keep their "flag", or in some sense maintain a national identity through the new leader, so it feels a lot less like they were conquered.
Exactly. Wilson fucked up with Wilsonian Doctrine, among a ton of other things. Teddy had it right. Speak softly and carry a big stick. Get in, get out, get done.
Lol That's just a bunch of mental gymnastics to justify why the "mighty" US can't even win a war against an impoverished SE Asian nation with 50 year old Soviet weapons
Living in the first decade of capitalism after communism, where freedom of the media exposed all the reality, people were still broke but the state no longer provided free housing (and the build codes changed to no longer allow cheap crappy concrete blocks), old "communists" sold half of all infrastructure to their buddies (where did someone get billions during communism??) and professionals started charging higher rates because now they were free to migrate west if they didn't earn a decent wage at home. Among others.
Yeah I don't think we've figured out a good way past the charismatic sociopath problem. The best thing we're going to have in the short term is a democracy with a strong emphasis on socialism.
Funny how that's a fallacy, and there have been countless largely communist organizations of human labor over history, which lasted just as long as capitalist society.
See how you didn't even have to ask which country it was? Because a 100% of communist countries became dictatorships ridden with poverty for the working class and gold plated luxury for the ruling class.
I'm happy now somewhere in the middle in this terrible, terrible capitalism. Oh, and I'm free to leave anytime I want, if I don't like it.
So do 100% of Capitalist countries without a strong democracy. In fact capitalism is the one designed to do so by concentrating capital.
When we figure out communism or socialism there's a really good chance it's a strong democracy that prevents it from falling into totalitarianism. Will it be a bunch of anarchic communes in council? Lol no. Will workers share profit equally with executives? Probably.
See how you didn't even have to ask which country it was? Because a 100% of communist countries became dictatorships ridden with poverty for the working class and gold plated luxury for the ruling class.
I'm happy now somewhere in the middle in this terrible, terrible capitalism. Oh, and I'm free to leave anytime I want, if I don't like it.
Grade-school level history: I didn't need to ask which country because all of the possible countries were puppet states of a single other country...
Because a 100% of communist countries became dictatorships [...]
There are a total of 0 communist countries throughout history. Your lack of very basic knowledge is starting to make me cringe.
I’m happy now somewhere in the middle in this terrible, terrible capitalism.
That's irrelevant. If you're happy while I'm driving a nail through your eyes, does that make driving a nail through someone's eyes a good thing? The fact that you are privileged doesn't make a difference.
Oh, and I’m free to leave anytime I want
No, you're not. Your statement is so completely uneducated, I couldn't even guess where to begin dismantling it.
In particular, I've noticed how the pro-capitalist people don't seem to realize that we're not living in a pure capitalist system. Instead we're living in a mixed economy where key elements are socialist: road building, firefighting, postal services, food and drug safety testing, old age pensions, even ambulances (except for one minor exception).
A 100% socialist (a.k.a. communist) system might not be possible (at least not yet) due to human nature. The few times that it has been tried, at least in theory, it has quickly become an authoritarian system instead. But, AFAIK, it's so obvious that 100% capitalist would fail completely that no society has even bothered to try it. Hundreds of years ago there were brief experiments with things like capitalist fire services, and Pinkertons as police, but they failed so spectacularly that nobody even thinks of going back.
So, instead we quibble about "capitalist" vs "socialist" when we're really just arguing about whether the mix should be 80% capitalist, 20% socialist or 60% capitalist, 40% socialist.
What part of that goes against sharing tools, rather than letting wealthy people hold dictatorial control over them? Doesn't your point mean that we shouldn't have Capitalism at all?
Exactly, this argument is so weird, even if the assumption was true. "People are naturally greedy so we should have a system that allows them to do as much damage as possible"
In any society, some people will be leaders, some will be followers, this is natural. You cannot have a society without someone organizing the work and setting the course.
Of those who are naturally leaders, some will be much greedier than most. Some will also be ambitious, corrupt, two faced etc.
These people will do their best to gather wealth and power for themselves, be it in a capitalist or communist system. In the capitalist system they'll become entrepreneurs if they also have good business acumen. In the communist system they'll become managers and state officials if they can also navigate politics well.
At the end of the day, the same people will get to power and will hold dictatorial control over the means of production. In communist countries a literal dictatorship seems inevitable, while capitalist ones usually favor democracy (can be better for business) but they can also descend into dictatorship.
If you disagree, show me an example where all this is not the case. I'm honestly curious
Capitalism is the opposite of democracy. In a capitalist firm, the managers are not accountable to the governed (i.e. workers). The employer is not a delegate of the workers. They manage the company in their own name not in the workers' name. Managers do not have to have dictatorial control. It is entirely possible to have management be democratically accountable to the workers they govern as in a worker cooperative.
Capitalism v. Communism is a false dilemma. There are other options.
Secondly, you are just tying Socialism and Communism with dictatorship without proving why you think it's necessary. It's purely vibes for you.
Tell me this: why do you think a system where Workers have no say, only Capitalists do and serve as mini dictators, is more democratic than a system where Workers vote on how to run production?
Why do chimps kill chimps from other groups that come into their territory? Why do some chimps use aggression against other chimps to manipulate them, while other chimps use grooming?
A certain degree of sharing is part of our human / animal nature, but so is a certain degree of claiming ownership over things, and certain individuals have more sway over decisions than others. Flat hierarchies with nobody in command seem to work in theory, but in practice it's different.
That's the Naturalistic fallacy at work, though. We aren't chimps, nor is doing what humans did in the past necessarily better than what we do now. By that chain, you would be an Anarcho-primitivist.
We could study what various apes do, and try to use that to guess at possible human behaviour - or we could literally just look at human behaviour directly. Surely the direct observations of what humans do is going to give us a more accurate and useful model of human behaviour compared to observations of other species.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what socialism and capitalism are. Simplified it's who owns the means of production, that is basically the "capital" in the name "capitalism", in socialism these means of production have a shared ownership. Now you can have a discussion of what that means, if state ownership counts or whatever but as long as individuals own the means of production it's not socialism no matter how much you tax them(it would still be an improvement to tax them more it's just not socialism)
Is the US socialist because nVidia is a public company, therefore the shares are owned by the public? Is it a socialist country because most workers have 401(k) plans containing index funds, so they own a tiny portion of every major company? The ownership of the company is shared, so it must be socialism, right? I'd say no, because it's not shared evenly.
What if a single individual owns a single "mean" of production, but everything else is owned by the state, is that whole system capitalist? To me, it's clearly not. You could argue that it's mixed, but I'd say if it's 99.9% not capitalist, it's not capitalist.
Modern economies are mixes of socialism and capitalism. The people (through the government) own certain things, and individuals own other things.
Is the US socialist because nVidia is a public company, therefore the shares are owned by the public? [...] The ownership of the company is shared, so it must be socialism, right? I’d say no, because it’s not shared evenly.
How did you mess up this badly? A "public company" [sic, the correct term is "publicly traded company"] is a regular private company where the owners are hundreds or even thousands of individuals. A publicly owned company is one where every single citizen owns the company simply by being alive or every single worker owns the company simply by working there.
What if a single individual owns a single “mean” of production, but everything else is owned by the state
I don't even understand what you mean by this...
Modern economies are mixes of socialism and capitalism. The people (through the government) own certain things, and individuals own other things.
No, they're not, and this shows a very serious hole in your knowledge of economic and social systems. While, informally, it's sometimes said to be the case, that's strictly an oversimplification to communicate a different idea. Countries like the US simply use a government-assisted capitalist model. Places like the Nordic countries have a more transitional system, but are ultimately still just capitalist.
Of course they are. How can you be so confused. Countries like the US are a mix of socialist and capitalist systems. Some things are owned and run by the government (socialism), other things are owned and run by private individuals (capitalism). No society has ever worked where it was 100% socialist or 100% capitalist.
Ah, so you can't find a flaw in my argument, instead you tell me to "grow up", as if you're an adult and I'm not. It's pretty clear you have no idea what you're talking about since you can't argue your point.
This understanding of capitalism is a misunderstanding that both Marxists and neoclassical types share. It is not capital ownership that gives the employer the right to appropriate a firm's whole product. The employment contract is what gives them that right. Sure, capital ownership affects bargaining power, but the root cause is that contract. Abolishing the employment contract while still having individual ownership is possible (i.e. a market economy of worker coops)
Socialism is not when the government does stuff, so those institutions are not examples of socialism. Anti-capitalists are arguing for the complete abolition of exploitative capitalist property relations that violate workers' human rights.
This is a false dilemma. There are other alternatives to capitalism besides communism. It is entirely possible to have a non-capitalist non-communist system (e.g. an economy where every firm is democratically-controlled by the people that work in it)
Socialism is when the "means of production" are owned by the people as a whole rather than individuals. Capitalism is when the "means of production" are owned by individuals. Every modern state contains a mix of both.
If the US is 100% capitalist, then explain how the fire department is a capitalist institution.
Capitalism is not just when the means of production are owned by individuals. For example, in an economy where all firms are democratically-controlled by the people that work in them, the means of production can be owned by individuals, but such an economy is not capitalist because exploitative property relations associated with capitalism are abolished
Pinkertons as police, but they failed so spectacularly
uhh you might want to brush up on your history there, the pinkertons are still around, still quite closely tied to the government, and still being used (among other things) to suppress union organizing at places like amazon and starbucks! Kinda ridiculous to hear that our government is somehow 'socialist' when it does stuff like this.
Lol, european here from country that got buttsexed by ussr back in the day. Fuck off with communism. Period.
However. Socialism is something hella important and should baselined across the world. People need safety net in their lives.
Funny thing is, if you say "socialism" where I live a lot of people will bare they fangs at a commie. But shorten it to social and all people think of is said safety net. Suddenly no problem. Heh.
You do realise your aversion to communism is just the same as Americans, right? Like the USSR has more in common with the Nazis than any actual implementation of a classless, hierarchical less, stateless system.
Shit, like the name is literally the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
To quote Stalin himself from a 1936 interview with Roy Howard
Our Soviet society is socialist society, because the private ownership of the factories, works, the land, the banks and the transport system has been abolished and public ownership put in its place.
[…]
Yes , you are right, we have not yet built communist society. It is not so easy to build such a society.
Re-think your fear of the word communism and wonder why you’re fine with socialism despite it literally being what the country you rightfully dislike called and viewed itself as.
It's similiar, not the same. From what I recall, Americans didn't have their country violently buttfucked behind a curtain, something that is still visible where I live - thankfully less so in the country itself, but it's still embedded into people.
And I don't fear communism. I despise it. I do admit, maybe unjustly. Hard to feel otherwise though, seeing effects of one of the greatest, or at least highest scale shots at it's implementation.
However, yeah, my definition of socialism must be fucked, will educate myself further before making fool out of myself again. :|
Why is it bad for people to want more in Communism? Do you think once a Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society would be reached, people would want to regress?
This is an aspect I'm genuinely curious about (as someone who is relatively uneducated on this subject) because my answer would be that yes, there will definitely be people who want to regress.
There have always been individuals who are willing to sacrifice absolutely anything to obtain more material wealth or power. They're a minority, but their existence has to be assumed and accounted for. For all of capitalism's failings, one of its strengths is that it does give these people a path to follow that produces (some) benefit to society.
How does a fully-implemented communist society deal with these individuals without them subverting and corrupting the system?
I think a big misconception on your own part is that Communism would put a ceiling on people. It would, perhaps, in the sense that it wouldn't let people lord over others, but it would absolutely not prevent people from working to improve their own material conditions. In fact, that's one of the base assumptions made by Marx when proposing a Communist system!
The goal is a Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society, where you can get what you need from what you can give. It isn't a society where everyone lives in a 700 Sq ft 2 bedroom apartment made of concrete, it's a complex system meant to be built up towards, that would allow people to work on whatever they want and get whatever they want by working for it, as long as what they want isn't a business to lord over people.
Thanks, I guess it's the "get whatever they want" part that doesn't make much sense to me. What if what I want is astronomical, and I want to get it by doing as little work as possible? Who says whether I can or can't have it?
What's an example? A gigantic mansion? You'd probably have to build that yourself, society likely can't prop up everyone who wants a mansion, but if you build it yourself it would probably be seen as fine.
Again, Communism is an extremely democratic form of economic organization, so if the community deems it necessary to give you a mansion and has the Means to do so, then it can happen.
Communism is a far-future society, however, which is why Socialism is more known about and defined. Socialism however still has issues like having a state at all, so it's not the end of history either.
Interesting, thanks. I guess a major element in how feasible that would be is in the administrative structure a community would use in deciding who gets what materials. Obviously if it's a representative democracy, there's huge incentive for corruption of the representatives if they have absolute control of who gets what.
Wouldn't this be considered a state, though? I guess statelessness is another aspect that doesn't make much sense to me.
It can't just poof into existence. The job of a Socialist state would be to build up the productive forces and create the frameworks for such a society to use after the state whithers away, so to speak.
Among Socialists, yes. Among Anarchists, no, as they seek to directly implement their goal from ground zero. Marxists tend to disagree with this as impractical, but there is a ton of developed Anarchist theory, specifically Anarcho-Communist theory, that goes over how society would be laid out. Usually via networks of Mutual Aid and Direct Democracy.
I see, thanks. That's something I'll have to look into further, because it seems to me that it's really a prerequisite for a functioning society.
I appreciate you going over all of that!
No problem! Both Marxism and Anarchism have developed online resources you can use for free reading, Marxists.org and theanarchistlibrary.org are both fantastic sources.
That's not how human nature works. You really think you can sit there and tell me that someone who did 10 years of school and has the knowledge to operate and save people should be getting the same as someone who's job is to cook you fast food? You live in a fantasy land where the Star Trek replicators exists. No one is going to do more work for the same amount as someone who does less. Society doesn't work this way.
That's not what Communism is, though. Even Marx says that Skilled labor is represented in value by that which labor power is required to recreate it, ie training adds value to labor.
Cool, so what is that value then? Bigger home? More land? Larger car? You see where I'm going with this right? Cause if you're not going to reward someone for doing more, then they'll just do the least...and if you do reward them, then isn't that just capitalism with more steps?
In earlier stages of Communism, they can receive more labor Vouchers as representative to the value they create, ie in comparison to Socially Necessary Labor Time. In higher stages, the effect of training is more diminished as production must be even higher to reach such a status in the first place.
Either way, you hint at thinking Capitalism is when people are paid wages, which is incredibly wrong.
Capitalism is a Mode of Production by which individual Capitalists buy and sell Capital, and pay Workers wages to use said Capital to create commodities. It is not the only form of economy where people can be paid, it's a specific model that arose alongside the Industrial Revolution.
People get paid in Worker Co-operatives, yet those are Socialist entities. You don't need a Capitalist to be paid to work.
Not trying to be rude, it's just a huge misconception here.
You're first paragraph just described basically capitalism though, just instead of money it's work vouchers. The other issue is you've now just told that doctor he has to work even harder to get slightly more than the guy who flips burgers.
It doesn't. Capitalism is a specific mode of productuon with individual Capital Owners, if Workers share ownership it's Socialist. Secondly, who says it would be slightly more? You? Why?
Again, you assume a doctor will want to be paid the same for his hard work as someone who flips burgers. Or what about a heavy equipment operator or a brick layer? The reason communism never can work is because people do not want to do something without the appropriate returns for it. This isn't some magical formula it's human nature.
I don't assume that, you are, lmao. You can get higher returns for different labor, as labor has different value given by that which is required to replicate it (in other words, training increases value).
I really think you should just read Marx at this point, it's clear that you don't understand what we are even talking about so this conversation is useless.
You're entire argument (and communism)hinges on people willing to work harder than others and receive the same benefits as someone who does not work as hard. It's literally what you have stated just in this talks. Communism works on paper, and in a world where star trek replicators exists, but not in reality.
That's the whole point of communism is for everyone to be equal, and for everyone to own everything and not own anything at the same time. That's the entire foundation.
Our mutual value is for us the value of our mutual objects. Hence for us man himself is mutually of no value.
Communism assumes all men are equal, and all labor is equal. All things belong to everyone and no one.
This doesn't work in reality, people want to get more than others if they work harder.
No, the point of Communism is not for everyone to be equal and own nothing at the same time, holy shit that's the literal opposite of what it's about. This is a long section of Critique of the Gotha Programme, and its critical that you read it.
"But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only – for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.
But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.
In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"
Marx is not saying that everyone is equal, he's advocating for improving the productive forces so that Communism can eventually be achieved. You're trying to critique higher stage Communism on the problems faced by lower stage Socialism, which is extremely frustrating to see when you've been repeating the same wrong statements over and over.
To be quite honest, it seems to me - and I can be wrong - that it simply substituted power of wealth for power of position. Where I live I know that during occupation people were deemed as important based on where they worked - because where they worked dictated what they could steal obtain, be it items, access or favors.
There always will be someone on top, one way or the other. In capitalist society, it's the guy who has the most money. In co- ... socialist...? society it's the guy with most connections.
The problem is that people point to the problems of the USSR and say it's because of communism, but when the USA does similar things, it's just them fucking up, not because they're capitalist. It's a double standard hinted at by OP.
The problem with the USSR was not that they were communist. I think that communism worked well for them, which magnified both their successes (beating nazis, reducing poverty, increasing literacy, getting to space, etc), but also magnified their mistakes (suppressing religion, art, etc).
It fit USSR interests to say that they were the standard bearer of communism back in the day. It fit US interests to say exactly the same. Neither had any reason to think about how the word was used prior to the USSR and if it actually applies at all.
It's no wonder that people who lived behind the Iron Curtain have just as bad an understanding of communism as people in the US. The USSR certainly didn't want you reading theory outside of Marxist-Leninist material.
So it's actually a pretty interesting read but I think this paragraph gets the idea across pretty well:
(Obv out of context)
Most current antisemitism in Eastern Europe is closely related to these debates, as nationalists strive to “fix” their nations’ collaboration (or in the case of the Baltics and Ukraine, participation) in the Holocaust with revised paradigms that equal everything out. One of the poisons of ultranationalism is the perceived need to construct a perfect history (no country on the planet has one of those). Another is hatred of local Jewish communities who have memory, or family, or collective memory, of nationalist neighbors turning viciously on their neighbors in 1941, and of the Soviets being responsible for their own grandparents or parents being saved from the Holocaust. In America, this would be akin to someone hating African Americans for having a different opinion of Washington or Jefferson because they were slaveholders.
Believing that the Nazis, who systematically gassed millions as a part of their ideology, is at all akin to any of the atrocities committed under the Soviet Union is historical revisionism in order to downplay the crimes of the fascists and, what you can clearly see in this thread already, foster anti communist sentiment with barely a reason why.
A Jewish linguist/historian/activist talking about how equating the Soviets and the Nazis is rhetoric used to justify current and past antisemitism including holocaust collaboration.
You don't know a lot of the history of bourgeois democracies if you think you can't compare the worst the USSR has done with what bourgeois democracies have done.
Maybe you'd want to do it to stop taking part in holocaust trivialization, but you also insulted the Dovid Katz essay so IDK.
Maybe you want to drop the fud and trying to inject the holocaust into a comparison as means to discredit a point when it was never made in the first place. There's no defending the USSR or ML, so I'm not going to bite and engage in an argument designed to downplay the evils of it.
And that essay was utter wank filled with needlessly gratuitous language that languished on for countless paragraphs. It easily could have been condensed into a paragraph or two with some historical examples thrown in to justify the argument.
There’s no defending the USSR or ML, so I’m not going to bite and engage in an argument designed to downplay the evils of it.
Lol, yes there is, and it is a very simple argument:
A transitional state moving towards communism is less violent than a capitalist state.
All large anarchist attempts at governing were basically the same as the USSR under war socialism(Catalonia, which started much more industrialized, and lost, because of, among other things, anarchist organizational failure) or worse (free state of Ukraine, which led to a wave of pogroms because they refused to suppress reactionary elements))
Socialism is not "Social Safety Nets," and if you were knowledgeable about what you were talking about, you would say Socialism and attempts at Communism. Socialism is Worker Ownership of the Means of Production, and the USSR was a Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The Communist party had stated goals of reaching Communism, a Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society, by using Socialism. They never made it to Communism.
The USSR of course isn't the only form of Socialism, and isn't the only method to achieve Communism, but what you just said makes absolutely no sense.
Do you think that maybe people begin to understand what you're talking about if you refer to Social Safety Nets as Social, not Socialism, because Social Safety Nets are not in fact Socialism?
As a side note: terrible choice to use rape as a casual term for doing something bad. Be more empathetic.
Wendell Potter spent decades scaring Americans. About Canada. He worked for the health insurance industry, and he knew that if Americans understood Canadian-style health care, they might.... like it. So he helped deploy an industry playbook for protecting the health insurance agency.
Wouldn't really call what Putin or Xi has going on communism though, would you? They both operate stock exchanges and broadly private enterprise that systematically subjugates their working class while they constantly feel the need to expand their territory and purview of economic sway abroad. To me that sounds a lot like what we do when we talk about our capitalism.
It's what I expect from these kind of people. Everyone in leadership is there for power, and they are all surrounded by others who benefit from them being in power. Almost all of them are not good people with good hearts.
Humble people with good hearts don't seek these positions in life. So the conclusion must be that humanity will always be under these kind of leaders.
Join us. We have knitting circles and cookies. It's great. You get all the existential dread of knowing what the fuck is wrong with the world, with the added full knowledge that the things that could fix it will likely never happen because we missed our chance at a revolution before the people in power had nukes, and now even if you convince everyone that it would be better that way, those in power will straight up nuke their own people before allowing them to govern themselves, destroying whole swathes of the planet, along with unreplaceable history and culture.
Plus, there's a nifty æsthetic, and a range of really good music from folk to metal.
You've very helpfully put your finger on exactly what holds me back. If I found myself believing in a lost cause, I couldn't bear to go on. I am too close to despair as it is, so I will spare myself the small indulgence of certainty.
The trouble is knowing that it isn't likely doesn't stop it from also being true. I'm also of the opinion that just because full communism isn't likely doesn't mean we shouldn't advocate for it, because any move toward liberty, freedom, equality, and the general principles of anarchism and socialism are good things. You don't come to the table with your compromise, you come to the table with what you know you can't get, and negotiate to something possible.
Do I believe communism is possible within my lifetime? No.
Do I believe it possible at all? Absolutely, not only in the sense that if we did it it would work, but that we can and likely will do it, eventually, if we survive long enough.
Do I believe it's worth fighting for, even if I'll never see it? Yes. Because the work itself is enough to improve lives, and the more people who throw their lot in with the far left the more likely we are to see real, substantive change for the better, even if it is incremental.
There's a sign up link. Just wondered what signing up does. I've bookmarked your blog and shared it with someone who also read at least the first entry. You're really good. I'd encourage you to consider self-publishing a book or ebook, at some juncture
Oh! I thought you meant my comment to the other poster, saying join us, as in the anarchists.
Joining up, I think, just emails you if I ever manage to post anything. When you say you read the first entry, do you mean the runes of flight snippet, or some of the philosophy stuff? Runes of flight is a completed short story I wrote for school, based on a random reddit comment I made once. Haha. I've been meaning to get back to it for a while, and posted it on there to sort of grease the wheels a bit for writing more. Regardless, I'm glad you like what you read. :)
I've not gotten to the Philo yet; I'm intrigued! Completely enjoyed the first bit of the Runes of Flight .. But he's so cute, I need to plant a tree! I have to read the rest and get to the philosophy. I'm thrilled!
Ah, okay. Yeah, Runes is my baby. Agnes has been knocking around in my head for years at this point, and I hope to do her justice one day and write an actual, real novel.
Fair warning on the philosophy stuff, I'm batterscained, and it's a bit rambly. If you like nondualism, Hinduism, Vivekananda, etc, it might be interesting. I need to post more. :/
Yes, I'm a bit scattered, myself. I am not familiar with Vivekananda, but look forward to your introduction at your blog. I'm a bit familiar with Kalima, Shiva and a few others. It's been a long time but I was a bit familiar with Zen, Dzogchen, philosophical taoism , Tiibetan Buddhism... It would take a lifetime of immersion to become intimately familiar, I feel, but I think I get the general gist. I look forward to learning with you! Thanks so much for engaging conversation.
And I'm sure there are much better introductions, but Vivekananda is a downright gas to learn about. Either the first or second (I forget) blog post was an introduction to the Swamiji and his address at the world's parliament of religion. I hope you enjoy. :)
Lemmygrad is tankies, which is exactly the point. You can't tell the difference between anarchists and the people who murdered them. The political compass exists to create that confusion, equating "libertarianism" (by which, they mean right wing "libertarianism") with the original definition of libertarian socialism.
Even the choice of "libertarianism" as a name was intentionally chosen to confuse things, to steal a word and destroy it's meaning. IIRC, Murray Newton Rothbar literally said that he was intentionally stealing the word "libertarian" for the right. The whole thing is about propaganda and confusion, and the political compass is part of that.
Russia always was capitalist, that's kind of the point of Animal Farm. If you look at the company towns of the Kentucky Coal Miners historically, it's the same structure as the Soviet Union: the company (or the state) owns everything and enslaves the workers. One used debt, the other pretended to represent the proletariat, but the ruling class extracted labor from the workers and only supplied them the minimum necessary to survive. Lenin was a reactionary pretending to be a revolutionary.
I dunno man, anytime a power-hungry fascist wants power the terms Communist, Socialist and Leftist apply to political opponents, brown people, Jews, intellectuals, gays, athiests, immigrants etc.
They're said to be poisoning the blood of the nation and enemies of god. The fascists call the "right denonination of religion", patriots, and other nationistic jingoistic terms the true and pure blood of the country.
Go back and listen to Hitler's and now Trump's speeches if you want to see for yourself.
The propaganda from the "most powerful empire" didn't start that, it's human trash like Hitler, George Lincoln Rockwell, William Luther Pierce, Father Coughlin, and Joesph McCarthy.
And now we get Chinese and Russian int ops perpetuating shit memes like this when they are more to blame for current shit perceptions than the horseshit blame contained within their memes.
And yea agreed, fuck corporate interests too right along with it.
This post is WAY more insightful than 99% of people realize. I would argue that the only people that fully understand are part of the corporate engine that drives it.
Flameout Professional Fire Services (i.e. no publicly funded fire department)
Johnny's Good Eats Certification (i.e. no FDA testing to keep food safe)
SuperStonk Seal of Approval (i.e. no SEC regulating private companies, just for-profit companies doing that job)
Rodney's Roads and Trails (i.e. all roads are private, you need a payment plan to use them)
Policing by Pinkertons (i.e. all policing is private and for-profit)
Job Insurance, LLC (you pay for private job insurance when you have a job, you hope for benefits if you lose it)
401(k), or starve (you didn't contribute to your 401(k), that's too bad)
Only private health insurance, no medicare, no medicaid, no Obamacare, no CHIPs, etc.
You could still have a military, but injured soldiers would be treated by private MASH units, soldiers would be fed by Taco Bell (paid for out of pocket), on base housing would be contracted out to AirBnB, aircraft maintenance would be contracted out to Boeing, and of course Veteran's Affairs wouldn't exist.
Except, even there, it was only a dream. Fascism may have elements of capitalism, but fundamentally if the leader is above the law, then private individuals don't own the means of production, it's only the leader who truly owns everything, and so it's not really capitalism.
