Capitalism vs Socialism

[DAF86]

Why is this still an issue in the year two thousand and ing twenty?

By now everybody should already know that neither system can work on its own. When was the last time a 100% Capitalist system or a 100% Socialist system was implemented with success? Have they ever?

Extremists on both sides need to stop living on the stone age and get with the times to help society progress, tbh. I can't believe the Libertarian party is something that people still find cool

The only viable economic system in the World is a mixed one and, sorry anarchist lovers but, the only way to have an efficient mixed economy is with an intellegent and alert government that knows when, where and how to intervene. These "when", "how" and "where" depend on the particular cir stances of each country or region at a specific period in time, but as a way of example, I leave you with a vídeo of one of my current favourites:



Please, do watch it if you are one of those persons that thinks that everything the government touches becomes inefficient and unsustainable. And please do it with an open mind, you might learn something and improve as an individual. Cheers, and Tim Duncan bless.

[spurraider21]

Capitalism was a massive improvement but ultimately failed to cure the underlying issues of Feudalism, massive inequality of wealth and power which is hyper concentrated at the very top.

Social democracy seeks to salvage capitalism by alleviating that issue through broader safety nets to the working class. This is effectively the Nordic model. Still capitalist, but with robust general welfare programs. And no, socialism isn’t “when the government does stuff, and the more the government does, the more socialist it is.” Socialism is where workers own the means of production, capitalism is where owners (capital) owns the means of production. You can have more or less state involvement in either system

states that have tried going full socialist thus far have generally done so via authoritarian regimes, which is typically a recipe for a failed or unstable state. They have also typically had state planned economies, which are also problematic. Socialism could still exist within free markets, basically by switching our current corporate model for worker co ops (look up Mondragon corporation in Spain)

imo social democracy is the best version we’ve seen successfully implemented. Optimized capitalism

[midnightpulp]

Yep. Democratic Socialism is the best balance we have. And fun fact, the US was actually a lot more democratically socialist when "America Was Great," that period between 1950-1970. CEO and rank file pay was closer in gap. Marginal tax rates of 70 percent on the wealthy. Social security created. Eisenhower trying to implement universal healthcare. Nixon was probably the beginning of the end. Opening up trade with China, which eventually gave corporations a cheaper manufacturing base and then Reagan finally sticking the knife into the middle class with the tax cuts and legalizing stock buy backs.

We've been an Oligarchy ever since.

[DAF86]

Capitalism was a massive improvement but ultimately failed to cure the underlying issues of Feudalism, massive inequality of wealth and power which is hyper concentrated at the very top.

Social democracy seeks to salvage capitalism by alleviating that issue through broader safety nets to the working class. This is effectively the Nordic model. Still capitalist, but with robust general welfare programs. And no, socialism isn’t “when the government does stuff, and the more the government does, the more socialist it is.” Socialism is where workers own the means of production, capitalism is where owners (capital) owns the means of production. You can have more or less state involvement in either system

states that have tried going full socialist thus far have generally done so via authoritarian regimes, which is typically a recipe for a failed or unstable state. They have also typically had state planned economies, which are also problematic. Socialism could still exist within free markets, basically by switching our current corporate model for worker co ops (look up Mondragon corporation in Spain)

imo social democracy is the best version we’ve seen successfully implemented. Optimized capitalism

Would you consider government owned means, worker/people owned means?

[spurraider21]

Would you consider government owned means, worker/people owned means?

in theory, sure. would depend on the implementation, if the government is actually aligned with the interest of the workers. that hasn't been the case historically when tried, though it's never really been democratic. i think adding that additional layer would only complicate things and give room for corruption/abuse. but this has basically been every version of attempted socialism we've seen. soviet union, venezuela, cuba, and maoist china, as examples.

even though modern china is functionally capitalist (communist in name, in the same way north korea is a "democratic republic"), they do technically have some elements of this, like having a national labor union. the problem is there is only one labor union, which is run by the government (people are not allowed to organize into separate, private unions) and the chinese government doesnt have workers interests in mind at all. they have no problem exploiting the labor of their own people to get big trade deals and concentrate power at the top, while people in poorer surrounding countries actually have better workers rights

[spurraider21]

Yep. Democratic Socialism is the best balance we have. And fun fact, the US was actually a lot more democratically socialist when "America Was Great," that period between 1950-1970. CEO and rank file pay was closer in gap. Marginal tax rates of 70 percent on the wealthy. Social security created. Eisenhower trying to implement universal healthcare. Nixon was probably the beginning of the end. Opening up trade with China, which eventually gave corporations a cheaper manufacturing base and then Reagan finally sticking the knife into the middle class with the tax cuts and legalizing stock buy backs.

We've been an Oligarchy ever since.

though unintuitive, there's actually a difference between social democracy and democratic socialism. even though bernie calls himself a democratic socialist, his policy positions almost all point to social democracy.

[DAF86]

in theory, sure. would depend on the implementation, if the government is actually aligned with the interest of the workers. that hasn't been the case historically when tried, though it's never really been democratic. i think adding that additional layer would only complicate things and give room for corruption/abuse. but this has basically been every version of attempted socialism we've seen. soviet union, venezuela, cuba, and maoist china, as examples.

even though modern china is functionally capitalist (communist in name, in the same way north korea is a "democratic republic"), they do technically have some elements of this, like having a national labor union. the problem is there is only one labor union, which is run by the government (people are not allowed to organize into separate, private unions) and the chinese government doesnt have workers interests in mind at all. they have no problem exploiting the labor of their own people to get big trade deals and concentrate power at the top, while people in poorer surrounding countries actually have better workers rights

Then why would you call "Capitalist" a system that has means of production owned by, both, the workers/people and private individuals? Is there some type of one-drop rule?

[spurraider21]

Then why would you call "Capitalist" a system that has means of production owned by both, the workers/people and private individuals? Is there some type of one-drop rule?

huh?

capitalism is when an owner owns the business and profits off labor of his workers (ergo owns the means of production).

socialism is where the workers own the means of production. that could be the general public collectively owning the means of production (most likely state-run) or cooperatively owned among the people in the business (again, look up the mondragon corporation as a model).

either way, you dont have owners/shareholders in companies who profit off labor. the profits of the labor are filtered back to the workers

[IronMexican]

Yep. Democratic Socialism is the best balance we have

Did not know we'd agree on this issue.

Way too many people like to call themselves socialist/communist for the aesthetic and it's ing stupid. Same with a lot of hate groups. Marginalized people trying to find a niche

[DAF86]

huh?

capitalism is when an owner owns the business and profits off labor of his workers (ergo owns the means of production).

socialism is where the workers own the means of production. that could be the general public collectively owning the means of production (most likely state-run) or cooperatively owned among the people in the business (again, look up the mondragon corporation as a model).

either way, you dont have owners/shareholders in companies who profit off labor. the profits of the labor are filtered back to the workers

Yes, I know of all that. I'm asking why would you call an economy that has both of those type of businesses (private owned and public owned) a "Capitalist" economy?

[TheGreatYacht]

Capitalism vs Socialism is another tactic used by the controllers (Zionists & Jewish supremacists) to divide and conquer us Goyim.

Just like they use race, LGBT, religion, gender iden y, left vs right, Democrat vs Republican, etc... that's how we get divided and conquered.

[midnightpulp]

Did not know we'd agree on this issue.

Way too many people like to call themselves socialist/communist for the aesthetic and it's ing stupid. Same with a lot of hate groups. Marginalized people trying to find a niche

Or we can call it the Nordic model. Basically tax the rich and upper classes more and use that revenue to pay for social services like universal healthcare, free education, mental health, social safety nets, and so on. The albatross here of course is the in' military budget. Cut it in half. Conventional military is obsolete. Disinformation campaigns by Russian and probably Chinese actors through in facebook and twitter have done more to harm the stability of the US than any kind of pot shot from a terrorist.

[spurraider21]

Yes, I know of all that. I'm asking why would you call an economy that has both of those type of businesses (private owned and public owned) a "Capitalist" economy?

because its on some spectrum. we have some publicly owned enterprises like the usps, etc. but a vast majority of our economic productivity is privately owned and operated. even in something like the USPS, its still not really "socialism" because the workers are still agreeing to alienate their labor for wages, not for ownership of the means of production (to speak in pure marxist terms if we are talking about academic socialism)

i think socdem is the way to go because we've actually seen it implemented as a successful model. keeps capitalism in place but artificially bridges the gap between haves and have-nots. those who want to engage in "socialism" through a worker co-op can just do so voluntarily by starting a business that way. if people start liking that, or if the modle proves successful, it can become more commonplace on its own without government force. it can still be incentivized with more favorable loan policy for startups of that nature, etc, but any kind of "forced" socialism would basically be uncons utional because it would violate 4th amendment property rights of any company owner or shareholder

[spurraider21]

Did not know we'd agree on this issue.

Way too many people like to call themselves socialist/communist for the aesthetic and it's ing stupid. Same with a lot of hate groups. Marginalized people trying to find a niche

some people call themselves socialists/communists/anarchists because thats what they believe is the optimal system, but not necessarily once which is feasibly attainable... so their "short term" aspiration might resemble social democracy more than anything, and thats how their voting would be reflected. its not like there are any actual socialist members of congress right now. democratic party right now is almost entirely neoliberal with a fringe minority being socdem. if somebody called themselves a socialist/anarchist... they're probably going to vote socdem in our current climate

[IronMexican]

The DNC is a socialist org, or that's what Fox News tells me

[IronMexican]

Or we can call it the Nordic model. Basically tax the rich and upper classes more and use that revenue to pay for social services like universal healthcare, free education, mental health, social safety nets, and so on. The albatross here of course is the in' military budget. Cut it in half. Conventional military is obsolete. Disinformation campaigns by Russian and probably Chinese actors through in facebook and twitter have done more to harm the stability of the US than any kind of pot shot from a terrorist.

[spurraider21]

The DNC is a socialist org, or that's what Fox News tells me

tbh

Fox News thinks raising tax rates makes you socialist

[midnightpulp]

tbh

Fox News thinks raising tax rates makes you socialist

Forgot about them, too in an "enemy" that causes social instability. Now their new tactic is tell their idiot viewers that if Joe Biden is elected, he'll abolish the police and ever city in America will turn into the CHAZ. Um...

“I do not support defunding police,” Biden wrote in an op-ed for USA Today. “The better answer is to give police departments the resources they need to implement meaningful reforms, and to condition other federal dollars on completing those reforms. … Every single police department should have the money they need to ins ute real reforms.”

https://theintercept.com/2020/06/11/...oe-biden-cops/

[DAF86]

because its on some spectrum. we have some publicly owned enterprises like the usps, etc. but a vast majority of our economic productivity is privately owned and operated. even in something like the USPS, its still not really "socialism" because the workers are still agreeing to alienate their labor for wages, not for ownership of the means of production (to speak in pure marxist terms if we are talking about academic socialism)

But you were talking about the Nordic model, which has a much more balanced ratio.

This is effectively the Nordic model. Still capitalist

I have a hard time calling "Capitlism" to a system where the government provides all the basic human needs and taxes you about half of your salary. I'm sure hardcore capitalists would agree with me (except the ones that one to take credit for the standard of living of these countries). Heck, some hardcore capitalists would even argue that the US doesn't have a capitalist system either, like this guy:



And I might tend to agree. If socialist theory is going to be quoted verbatim to determine whether a system is indeed socialist or not, then the same should be done with Capitalism. If a country isn't thought to have a socialist system because it has private businesses despite having many other socialist policies, fine (I agree actually), but it shouldn't be called a "capitalist" country either, imho.

[spurraider21]

But you were talking about the Nordic model, which has a much more balanced ratio.



I have a hard time calling "Capitlism" to a system where the government provides all the basic human needs and taxes you about half of your salary. I'm sure hardcore capitalists would agree with me (except the ones that one to take credit for the standard of living of these countries). Heck, some hardcore capitalists would even argue that the US doesn't have a capitalist system either, like this guy:



And I might tend to agree. If socialist theory is going to be quoted verbatim to determine whether a system is indeed socialist or not, then the same should be done with Capitalism. If a country isn't thought to have a socialist system because it has private businesses despite having many other socialist policies, fine (I agree actually), but it shouldn't be called a "capitalist" country either, imho.

if you think socialism is when the state does stuff and when the state does more stuff that makes it more socialist, then i get your perspective, but that's not necessarily how they're defined. fascist states have huge government involvement and interference in the economy but there is still corporatism and private ownership of businesses and means of production

but capitalism just means that the means of production are privately owned and owners of businesses profit off the labor of the workers. im not saying that as a good or bad thing, but thats what capitalism is. even in the nordic model with a robust social safety net, you still have private operation and ownership of businesses and people agreeing to work for wages instead of ownership of their labor.

obviously the nordic model has more has more government intervention and wealth distribution than a more laissez faire/pure libertarian model, but they both fall pretty squarely under capitalism. the "mixed economy" comes into play when more ins utions are publicly run. obviously we have things like the military, public transportation, postal service that are publicly owned (though i would argue its still not really a system where the workers own the means of production, its a more abstract collectivist ownership than a cooperative one)... a more "mixed" model would just add more public ins utions such as replacing private health insurance with a public one (ie medicare for all). but a vast majority of our economic productivity will always be privately owned, which is why you'd call it capitalist

capitalism and socialism really comes down to the adoption of either the exchange theory of value or the labor theory of value. in truth, both have merit and have use, but capitalists lean toward the former and socialists lean toward the latter. but it's not necessarily an all-or-nothing approach

[DAF86]

if you think socialism is when the state does stuff and when the state does more stuff that makes it more socialist, then i get your perspective, but that's not necessarily how they're defined. fascist states have huge government involvement and interference in the economy but there is still corporatism and private ownership of businesses and means of production

I don't.

but capitalism just means that the means of production are privately owned and owners of businesses profit off the labor of the workers. im not saying that as a good or bad thing, but thats what capitalism is

Sure, but what about the countries in which the means of production are divided between private and public ownership?

even in the nordic model with a robust social safety net, you still have private operation and ownership of businesses and people agreeing to work for wages instead of ownership of their labor. obviously the nordic model has more has more government intervention and wealth distribution than a more laissez faire/pure libertarian model, but they both fall pretty squarely under capitalism.

No, they don't. How can you say that a country, where the most important sectors/businesses of the economy are publicly owned and government managed, is still "capitalist" just because they have private owned businesses? Nordic countries aren't capitalists, they aren't socialists either. They are mixed. Just like pretty much every other economy in the World. Some more balanced than others, but they all have aspects of socialism and capitalism. And, under my way of seeing things, when an economy adopts policies of both systems, it stops being either to become a mixture of both. No matter if one system is predominant over the other.

[spurraider21]

I don't.

Sure, but what about the countries in which the means of production are divided between private and public ownership?

i think you'd look at the split. just about every country is mixed market to some extent, including the US, though the US would weigh more on the libertarian/laissez faire wing of capitalism while nordic model is on the more social democratic wing. i dont think you can naturally scale it up much further than the nordic model, because not every enterprise/business is better off being run by the government. some are, like utilities/healthcare/postage/emergency services. i dont think having the government taking over department stores, etc, is even remotely viable. i think if you want to take it much further left, you'd just want to incentivize worker co-ops.

No, they don't. How can you say that a country, where the most important sectors/businesses of the economy are publicly owned and government managed, is still "capitalist" just because they have private owned businesses? Nordic countries aren't capitalists, they aren't socialists either. They are mixed. Just like pretty much every other economy in the World. Some more balanced than others, but they all have aspects of socialism and capitalism. And, under my way of seeing things, when an economy adopts policies of both systems, it stops being either to become a mixture of both. No matter if one system is predominant over the other.

nordic model has about 30% of the work force working for the public sector. i dont know what the gdp breakdown is, admittedly.

[ElNono]

Then why would you call "Capitalist" a system that has means of production owned by, both, the workers/people and private individuals? Is there some type of one-drop rule?

Because the system for a given country traditionally derives from what the vast majority of the economy is using.

Here in the US you have a lot of socialist systems (owned by a cooperative of people or the state), like the military, Medicare, credit unions, farming to an extent, etc, but the system is largely capitalist, and there's heavy protections towards property.

Venezuela, on the other hand, uses largely a socialist system. There's poor protection towards property (ie: property can be seized by the state in the name of the revolution), most every service in the economy is state-run, etc.

[spurraider21]

how the universe ends according to...

[DAF86]

i think you'd look at the split. just about every country is mixed market to some extent, including the US, though the US would weigh more on the libertarian/laissez faire wing of capitalism while nordic model is on the more social democratic wing. i dont think you can naturally scale it up much further than the nordic model, because not every enterprise/business is better off being run by the government. some are, like utilities/healthcare/postage/emergency services. i dont think having the government taking over department stores, etc, is even remotely viable. i think if you want to take it much further left, you'd just want to incentivize worker co-ops.


nordic model has about 30% of the work force working for the public sector. i dont know what the gdp breakdown is, admittedly.

Did you see the video I posted? The most important business, the one that changed the life of the entire country, is a public Oil business that re-invested its earnings to pretty much fund everything else in the country.