Remote View
But "socialism" is a scary word
But "socialism" is a scary word
You're viewing a single thread.
108 comments
-
No....not everyone hates capitalism. Everyone hates uncontrolled capitalism.
Socialism isn't some magical bandaid that will make everything better. It has a shit ton of it's own problems and downfalls...nearly all of which are conveniently glossed over by leftists.
-
Then you have a fundamental problem. Capitalists hate control. They hate regulation. They hate competition. And they spend a lot of money in power trying to get rid of all of it. The system is broken by design. Or rather, it was designed to benefit someone who is not you.
-
capitaliststhe upper class / those in power. This exists in communism and every other system as well.-
Yes, some people will try to twist any type of system to benefit themselves. That's true, and it's also true that capitalism celebrates those evil motherfuckers, whereas some other forms of government don't.
-
Exactly. Greed and self-interest are not eliminated by changing economic systems. They wil justl manifest differently (for example, the nomenklatura in the USSR).
-
Was it not improved by upgrading from Feudalism to Capitalism?
-
At first, yes. To make that shift you have to throw the aristocracy, and perhaps a monarchy here or there, into the trash and divvy up the spoils. Over time, the new system can (and some say will inevitably) revert. Once you have enough wealth concentration in the hands of a few, you essentially re-create an aristocracy and the feudal system that goes with it.
It can also be argued that a feudal system is capitalist to begin with. Land and laborers to work it, used to be the key deciding factor in wealth and therefore, power. Wars are where you steal land from others, assuming control of the people that live on it, thereby securing more wealth and power. The industrial revolution saw a gradual shift towards energy production and consumption as a defining factor. So still somewhat land based, but with very different constraints and far less dependence on who lives on it. Now, in the late information age, access to energy and data are emerging as the main deciding factors. But it's also not hard to imagine players that have the most access to energy and data as feudal lords, provided they can influence politics and people's lives in the same way a feudal system can (just without borders). And all of that is top-to-bottom running within a capitalist framework.
Did we improve things? Well, moving towards a central government that supports an actual justice system that isn't prey to your employer or landlord's whims (feudal lord) is a huge win. For instance in the UK, that happened a long time ago. In practice, I think that is still mostly true, but there are some lingering artifacts and maybe even some creep backwards. Consider de-facto class systems, institutionalized bigotry, and racism. On balance, I'd say yes, but I can't say with certainty that it's an absolute win.
-
-
-
-
So the government who regulates is simultaneously the enemy of and the definition of capitalists?
-
-
I hate that people are shit and will ruin any economic/political system no matter how high-minded it may have otherwise been.
Similarly capitalism wouldn't be a burning pile of diapers and old wigs if those involved didn't have a complete and total disregard-bordering-on-antipathy for humanity and the common good.
-
Socialism invariably fails and ends ups corrupted into some shithole authoritarianism decorated with leftie-sounding slogans. It is however meant to do the greatest good for the greatest number, it's just that in practice in the real world it's crap at it so it doesn't work because of human nature.
Capitalism doesn't even try to do the greatest good for the greatest number - it's quite literally The Sociopath's Credo: "do what's best for yourself and screw what's good for everybody else"
Ultimately they both fail at making most people's lives better, but Capitalism doesn't even try.
The best we've achieved has been Capitalism narrowly applied to just Trade and overseen by some other separate political theory that actually tries in some way to go towards the greatest good for the greatest number, such as Social Democracy, but as we've been seeing right now in realtime, with enough time Capitalism ultimately grounds down such bounds and oversight and corrupts everything.
-
-
You clearly have never read anything about it, so I’d be curious to know specifically which part of socialist theory you disagree with.
Everyone hates uncontrolled capitalism
Yeah, that's capitalism. By definition, capitalism demands to be uncontrolled and without rules to bring the most profit. So when you're done pulling stuff out of thin air, let us know
-
But have you read enough theory? I think you need to read more of the theory.
-
I have definitely read enough to not write something as incoherent as
No....not everyone hates capitalism. Everyone hates uncontrolled capitalism
and just proving the OP's post right.
I think you need to read more of the theory.
I truly could not care less about the opinion of someone like you who is defending capitalism with such passion in these comments
-
You know there is a lot of great points in this comment, some of which I will now argue against:
You should read the theory, clearly you haven't read enough theory.
-
-
-
I don't think it's the theory most people disagree with.
-
Oh so now we're moving the goalpost?
We started with "socialist theory is the problem!" but when pressured, suddenly it's "well the theory is not really the problem".
Go figures
-
-
In that case why do we have so many good examples of regulation in capitalist systems, the most effective being the "Scandinavian model" countries which effectively blended large amounts of socialism into a capitalist system and enjoy the best health and happiness rates in the world?
Indeed there is no such thing as an unregulated capitalist economy anywhere in the world. They all have staggering amounts of regulation.
-
the most effective being the "Scandinavian model" countries which effectively blended large amounts of socialism into a capitalist system
That is absolutely NOT socialism. Like, at all. And if you legitimately think that, I'm genuinely sorry to say that you are quite unclear about what socialism is.
The Nordic countries are absolutely not socialist in any shape or form. They are very much capitalist societies with marginally better welfare systems. Which is not saying a lot considering the average country that leaves every individual to fend off for themselves.
They all have staggering amounts of regulation.
I was being overly simplistic in my original comment I admit. They do have regulations, but know this: "regulations" in a capitalist system are always limited in their scope and are primarily designed to sustain the capitalist system to allow it to perpetrate its profit-first essence. By nature, they are never created with the intent to actually challenge or limit their fundamental exploitative dynamics (think of the 2008 crisis. The banks were bailed out and measures were put in place to stabilize the market. And yet no serious measures were put in place to fundamentally change the market itself or to prevent future exploitations).
I sincerely hope you might use this conversation as an opportunity to read and learn more about Socialist/Marxist theory. I am convinced far more people would agree with it more than they think (especially in these fucked up times) if they'd read more about it
-
This is the problem with the term socialism. It's very often applied to social democracy, so it's not an exact term any more. For what you are discussing (seizing the means of production, central distribution of resources and jobs), I prefer the term communism.
But none of that matters much. What matters is that the Scandinavian model of social democracy has been far more successful where applied than communism ever was. Communism has only ever been fully implemented on the back of brutal authoritarianism, and that's because it's in fundamental conflict with human nature.
And as much as I would love for human nature and social dynamics of large groups to be different, we have to deal with the animal we have rather than the one we want.
-
-
-
-
To me, left means progressive reform, so leftists definitely aren't the anarchists or authoritarians who rant all day and night about the capitalism boogeyman.
-
108 comments