European here.
This seems to mainly only be an issue in the US. Socialism = Communism = Enemy
If at all anything, the opposite seems to be the case here. We’re looking at the US as a “this is how bad it will get if we let go” example
In addition: government programs that help everyone = helping black people = no.
I think this is the fundamental reason why the US never went to public/universal anything, be it healthcare, education, whatever.
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
Fascinating history.
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.
Paved with gold? Lucky they’re paved at all this time of year.
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.
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.
I have a pothole literally 2 feet wide and at least 10 inches deep on my street that our city just can’t find the funds to fix…
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.
If they won’t do it some helpful citizen might end up reading something like https://www.wikihow.com/Fix-a-Pothole
the opposite seems to be the case here
Cries in Lindner
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.
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.
That’s not being conservative my man.
That’s not being conservative my man.
Then you don’t understand conservatism.
🍿
Socialism = Communism = Enemy*
*Unless Russia 🤑
Russia isn’t socialist anymore. It’s a fascist capitalist hellscape, which is why Republicans like it
The USSR collapsed several decades ago. Russia now is fascist, over a Capitalist economy.
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.
just because fewer and fewer people own things doesn’t mean it isn’t a direct result of Capitalization of the economy
In fact that’s the natural progression of a Capitalist 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.
The Capitalists are the Oligarchs!
The Oligarchs are feudalists, not capitalists.
I think you missed the point
As a european it’s always been fucking WERID how americans panic and reach for their guns at the mention of socialism.
I mean
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.
deleted by creator
Bruh
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.
Removed by mod
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.
Removed by mod
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.
Removed by mod
As an American I wish it was easier to pack up and move to Europe :(
This is a genuine question from a European, what does make it difficult to move here?
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.
Money for the most part for a lot of people.
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.
Do Americans not usually have passports? I just assumed most people had one (I’m not American though).
No. Most don’t leave the US, so there isn’t a need. Plus, until recently, Canada and Mexico only needed an ID card like a drivers license.
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.
deleted by creator
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.
We’re all poor af
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.
Money mostly.
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.
It’s the boomers who do this primarily. I guess they were spoon fed this shit as babies.
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.
WAS THAT THE DOORBELL!!!
By “socialism”, are we talking:
A. Worker-controlled economic system, or
B. What American liberals think is socialism, which is just a capitalist system with welfare.
A.
Removed by mod
Either.
Aka socdem vs demsoc
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy
Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism[1]
[1] Eatwell & Wright 1999, pp. 80–103; Newman 2005, p. 5; Heywood 2007, pp. 101, 134–136, 139; Ypi 2018; Watson 2019.
1 ↩︎
Today I learned that Socialism is when you do Capitalism in a nice way.
Oh wait, no I didn’t, because Capitalism and Socialism are completely different modes of Production.
No, they’re not.
They’re economic systems, not modes of production.
Today, you’re still refusing to accept reality.
It’s right there before your eyes. You’re too brainwashed to see it.
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?
Removed by mod
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.
In practice, social democracy takes a form of socially managed welfare capitalism
OP is definitely in camp B…
Why? OP clearly states “worker controlled systems,” it’s not difficult to see what they’re talking about.
Neolibs are very easy to spot, comrade.
I agree, but nothing in this post is calling for deregulation and privatization, rather the opposite.
Removed by mod
Nope.
Socialism is Worker Ownership of the Means of Production.
The Nordic Countries are in fact Social Democracies, not Socialist Democracies. Social Democracy is Capitalist in nature.
Removed by mod
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
Removed by mod
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?
“yOuR dAtA iS wIkIPeDiA”
No, it isn’t.
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.
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?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism
Fucking perpetuating shitty 70’s red scare propaganda mf sides are hurting.
I said nothing about a planned economy, now you’re putting words in my mouth.
Ever hear of libertarian socialism?
Edit: I get the feeling we are talking about the same thing using different terms…
Removed by mod
If you’re going to continue to insult me and gaslight me, we are done here. Have a good day.
How am I “gaslighting” you?
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…?
How is fascism in your country btw? Seems that capitalism has it fine to me.
“Most powerful empire the world has ever known”
Lol Americans
The Romans conquered the known world with pointy sticks and diplomacy.
The US hasn’t been on the winning side since ww2 despite having nukes and spyplanes.
Even the British Empire spanned the globe, and all they had was cannons, rum, and syphilis.
Lol at the person who said Lemmy doesn’t have many comments.
Ruh roh, you just rattled the hive mind
Oh time for my link
Frame Canada
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.
I want to kick the dude in the face
No. My impressions are based on having lived it before the iron curtain fell.
Unless you’re over a 100 years old you lived in a totalitarian system masquerading as Communism.
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.
Funny how that’s always the result.
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.
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.
But prepare for a 25 year old who lives in his mom’s garage in rural Indiana to try to debate you on the subject anyway.
He lives in his mother’s garage because he can’t afford to move out on the pittance he makes at work. It sure wasn’t communism that put him there
Removed by mod
Says the balding neckbeard living in Brexit-land.
Bald, not balding.
Yours would be a minority position then. Most citizens of former eastern bloc nations want socialism back:
See how most of those polls are from 2009-2011, in the middle of the worst economic crisis in Europe in a century?
And they weren’t thrown in jail for saying it?
deleted by creator
You mean living under capitalism?
deleted by creator
Russia and Hungary are capitalist, China is a transitional stage economy run by a communist party.
deleted by creator
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.
As of 2024, things are quite different.
You mean the impressions of having lived in a dictatorship which discarded the idea of progressing towards communism? How is that relevant?
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.
I’d like to point out that the majority of people on Lemmy 100% think about this. Hence how many up votes it has :p
Any criticism of capitalism is the same as historical communism and therefore always wrong. Accept your fate, citizen.
That’s just historical capitalism. I can fix him!
Real capitalism has never been tried!
Real capitalism would require:
- 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.
Basically the fascist Chile of the Chicago Boys’ and Pinochet’s wet dreams.
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.
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.
Are you implying you’re a corporate shill?
I’m a mole
Removed by mod
Nazi Germany was modelled on America.
Yeah, of course I have.
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.
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)
Ummm excuse me, no, the CIA is an extremely based communist organization because taxes.
I can’t tell if your agreeing or disagreeing with op comment.
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)
Thinking of The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists/The Great Money Trick, now.
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.
Are you illiterate? I specifically pointed to why that’s not the case…
Are you dumb? I specifically pointed out how you’re wrong.
You couldn’t specify your breakfast if you were in the middle of eating it. Grow up.
What “Human Nature” goes against the idea of sharing tools, rather than letting wealthy people hold dictatorial control over them?
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’re apes, even if we’re not chimps.
You’re a mammal, a rat is a mammal - should we just consider you the same as a rat?
We can learn a lot about humans by studying rats. It doesn’t mean that humans are the same as rats, but clearly we’re not completely different either.
Yes?
But we aren’t chimps, and you shouldn’t judge the effectiveness of economic structures on what chimps do.
Nor should you pretend that we’re not apes, and that ape behaviour has no relevance to humans.
It has about as much relevance as the behavior of any other mammal, circling back to my comment about rats.
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.
Let me know when you start eating bananas naked in the woods and let me bring my camera.
As humans, we are greedy by nature. Not always, but when push comes to shove, we are.
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”
I don’t think the poster who was down voted meant anything of the sort. They were just elaborating on their view of human nature.
The view shoved into their brain by the oligarchy, which is why it’s the most unoriginal cope out there.
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.
Capitalists aren’t leaders, but owners.
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?
This is nonsense. Communal sharing and common property was absolutely vital for survival for most of human history.
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 not when the government does stuff
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
Oh there are people who dream about going back. Mostly people who would profit and/or gain power.
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.
I didn’t say they weren’t still around, just that they’re not the police.
Maga and libertarians seem to want to go back.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
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. :|
deleted by creator
I’d quite happily argue that the USSR never tried to implement it in the slightest.
Can you imagine the politburo actually fighting to give up their privileged position? I can’t.
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
stealobtain, 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.
Because there is not a way for communism to work… sounds great on paper but always ends the same.
There’s no way for people to work together without someone at top benefiting?
X.
You can doubt it all you want, but communism’s fatal flaw is humans. They will always want more.
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?
Communism has never existed. What about it sounds good on paper but is separate from reality?
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.
Like the USSR has more in common with the Nazis than any actual implementation of a classless, hierarchical less, stateless system.
What’s your point exactly? I’m not reading some poorly written 10,000 word essay to try to figure out what you’re wanting to say.
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.
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.
Okay, now I’m just confused as to the relevance of it being commented in response to my comment.
Hey man I’m just a third party don’t look at me
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.
Ah, so it’s being used as chud fud.
My comparison of the two stems from their harsh authoritarian/totalitarian nature as seen from an anarchist lens, nothing to do with genocide.
Yeah so the thing is you’re still doing it, the whole “authoritarian” thing is another way of doing a false equivalence between the two.
If you want to do an anarchist critique compare the USSR to bourgeoise democracies, it is a closer comparison.
To do so would be to ignore the worst elements of the USSR, so I don’t know why I would do that.
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.
Comrade pinko barbie!
