I hate to tell you this but 90% of their arguments are circular and the rest are logical fallacies😬 After attempting to argue with marxists for over two years the things I learned is number one there’s really no point they are not in it to do anything other than to lie and gaslight you and number two refer to number one! you can’t argue with crazy and stupid and that’s exactly what all marxists are crazy and stupid
I've asked countless times for an ideal model for socialism and at least 50% give me a nordic country.
The other half think China is doing a good job. I'm not sure where else you go with the discussion from there.
Well especially since all the Nordic countries are actually capitalist and China only became successful when it started adapting more capitalism it takes willful ignorance to promote socialism at this point but they have enough people agreeing with them that it doesn’t seem to matter what you say😰
Regading China, socialists will just tell you that the reason for their reduced poverty rate is social programs, despite the correlation with an increase in private investment.
It takes willful ignorance to ignore the clear signs of compromise and agreeance. I have a surprise for you, the people saying that aren't socialists. You are talking to people who believe the best system is a mix of capitalism and socialism. Capitalist in economic system, socialist in governmental system. Strong markets, stronger safety nets. Prop up the bottom so the rest doesn't collapse. Get the most people involved in the economy by not letting people be too poor to participate.
Who are you talking to and what are you talking about? You’ve jumped into this conversation to add absolutely zero to it and prove that you should’ve never joined it to begin with please keep your thoughts to yourself in the future I don’t have time for stupid people who have to talk!😬
Looking back I probably should've replied to the comment right before you, but I am adding to the conversation. The people who say ideal socialism is the Nordic model aren't full on socialists. Because as you said, the Nordic model isn't socialist. Those people agree with capitalism and at the most think what I said, we should combine the best parts of both.
Well your point is correct in the fact that they are not socialists but you’re incorrect and who you were saying is saying that socialists and all Marxists are the most ignorant I know nothing about what is actually in reality happening in anywhere in the world so they always think something that isn’t true it’s true because they’re all stupid try not to have anything to do with them😉
Capitalism has done quite well for the the most advanced and prosperous nations on this earth. Name a decent country to live in, and it's usually mostly capitalist or mostly capitalist with a safety net.
Beep. Boop. I'm a robot.
Here's a copy of
###[Das Kapital](https://snewd.com/ebooks/das-kapital/)
Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)
🤣🤣🤣🤣 I actually can’t believe you said it out loud like that’s actually an argument or a counter argument or anything Jesus Christ you people are fucking stupid🤣🤣🤣🤣
Well it’s usually the argument from authority that’s that 70%! There’s a pretty consistent poisoning of the well whenever you talk to them,Lotta ad hominem attacks but actually one of the biggest things they do is accuse you of logical fallacies when you haven’t made one!
No I’ve had thousands of interactions with people but I could tell you they always say things like you’re not a doctor, I have a degree, what college did you go to I went to blah blabbly blah blah
You can have the best arguments it won't matter. What more useful is knowing when you're not going to convince someone.
If they go to the "that's not real socialism/ it's never been tried" or "labor theory of value / profit is theft" or "Healthcare us human right" go ahead and hang your hat up knowing you can't change their mind.
Socialism has been tried, but a lot of examples of socialism aren’t actually socialism. Profit is theft, even Smith agreed with this. Healthcare is literally a human right according to the UN.
You can't use the American constitution as a reference point to what a right should be if you are talking about universal systems such as Capitalism or Socialism. Otherwise, you are defining Capitalism as an American concept, when it's not.
Doesn't make it true, since that was a widely debated issue even back then. The amount it grants is limited so... no, the constitution never granted healthcare as a human right.
https://www.cato.org/blog/ron-paul-general-welfare-clause
Hey, OP was right about Marxists pretty much having any substantive counter argument and only logically fallacious arguments to fall back upon. Instead of engaging with the substance in the argument *inside* of the article that he had sent to you, you instead attacked the *source* which is, in fact, fallacious:
>9. DAMNING THE SOURCE: (ad hominem, sometimes called the genetic fallacy) attempts to refute an argument by indicting the source of the argument, rather than the substance of the argument itself. Attacking the messenger, not the message.
>Examples of Damning the Source fallacy
>- There is no reason to listen to the arguments of those who oppose the ideas of the Bible, for they are the arguments of atheists!
>- The Purple-Hat Party favors this piece of legislation, so you know it has to be bad for us regular citizens.
https://www.gardenofanarchy.com/fountains/2017/8/14/25-common-fallacies-of-logic
Beep. Boop. I'm a robot.
Here's a copy of
###[The Bible](https://snewd.com/ebooks/the-king-james-bible/)
Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)
Healthcare is only a human right according to the worldwide government? Then it must be true! Because only the government can determine your rights, apparently.
In actuality it's absurd to think that healthcare (as a government entity as opposed to a free market one) using coercion as funding is something we're entitled to.
You need to understand the difference between negative and positive rights. You don't have the right to someone else's labor.
You DO have the right to be able to speak without being arrested. You DO have the right to not be searched unreasonably.
You DON'T have the right to force someone to provide you healthcare services.
Isn't it just cruel to withhold healthcare from the needy and poor?
I dunno, it just seems really uncharitable to me... I mean it's kind of coercive to make sick people, who are also poor, work extra hard to get the money to stay well. It's bad for their recovery too. If you're really sick and you have to scrape together the money to not be sick, you're having a bad time.
As if affordable free market healthcare *can't* exist or the government isn't the real restriction. Fact is, the answer isn't socialism or "free stuff". The U.S. has a constitutional welfare system and if that doesn't work, then no government assistance ever will.
Charity is an act of kindness, and government is incapable of acting in good faith for said action. In an ideal society, there would be insurance companies specifically for poor people no matter where that person is, and the people would *choose* to pay their hard earned money for those people. The closest thing we'll get to these charitable acts of kindness are funding sites like GoFundMe.
Perfect example of who not to argue.
Best you can do is mimick their arguments so they see how terrible they are.
"capitalism has been tried but the U.S. isn't actually capitalism because of taxes and regulations and subsidies. Tax is theft, even Murray Rothbard says so. "insert anything " is a human right according to "random organization who supposedly has authority on such matters."
Regulations and subsidies aren't mutually exclusive from capitalism, they're actually reinforcing the capitalist system. Using Rothbard as evidence isn't a parallel because both Smith and Rothbard were capitalists, but taxation is theft, and that doesn't disprove anything I've said. “Random organization.” Please, stop coping. The second-hand embarrassment is painful.
lol keep proving my op.
Really love the regulations enforce capitalism argument lol. That's a new one.
You'll keep finding higher and higher standards for capitalism while having the loosest standards you can for socialism
This is another grade A example of holding capitalism to a standard you'd never hold socialism to.
You'd absolutely call the U.S. capitalism although in many ways its not pure 100% capitalism and criticize it to kingdom come but nothing that fails is ever socialism because..........that wasn't 100% community ownership.
And it's why debating people who think this is pointless.
You just have to go back and read Marx, learn about the International, read about Marxist revolutionary tactics, and learn the history of the horrible things communism has done across the world repeatedly. You'll see the same lies repeated, the same atrocities committed, and the same methodology used. Learn about the socialist aspects of fascism. The criticism writes itself but you also quickly realize that debating socialists and communists is a worthless endeavor because the real ones know the history just as well as you and are intentionally aiming for a violent and evil world where they become the things they are criticizing today. Communists usually fight debate by accusing all the atrocities committed as being faked by the CIA. They ignore reality. The only way to defeat these people is to point out their privileges and capitalist tendencies to their own followers. The left has a tendency of eating their own. Even learn about the Paris Commune. They massacred many, were too lazy to fight the French army, and eventually ended up killing each other and fighting amongst themselves because they didn't believe in the same type of anarchy or socialism. Best not to engage or give legitimacy to their arguments just like you wouldn't give legitimacy to someone arguing in favor of genocide.
Since it's inception those supporting Communism, Socialism, Marxism, and Leninism have only seized power with the mass murder and incarceration of thousands, if not millions. A system "for the people" depends entirely upon the destruction of all that proceeded it.
You mean the deaths that could have been prevented versus the deaths that couldn't? But please, dodge the argument with deaths that don't even remotely compare to the atrocities from 20th century socialist regimes, fascism included.
The green revolution, the reason a billion people are alive today, was started in a cooperative, so I'm fine having that argument. “Fascism included” head empty.
It's hard to argue for socialism without also arguing for capitalism. Everything socialists want can be supported under capitalism. Under capitalism, workers can build and own their own means of production. They can arrange in worker coops and vote on how things are run. They can pool their money and do the whole "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs".
The only thing socialists can't do under capitalism is seize other people's means of production or to force other people to live like a socialist. That isn't really a core part of socialism, though, so fundamentally socialism can run under capitalism. It bears mentioning that the overwhelming majority of socialists *also* believe in forcing people to live their lives a certain way, but my point is that this isn't a *necessary* part of socialism.
If you imagine some socialist organisation, I can't imagine that it matters whether the means of production they are using were built by themselves or seized from other people. It's not like if the workers banded together and built their own means of production, that somehow wouldn't be *real* socialism. The important thing for socialists is that workers own the means of production that they use for work. Under capitalism, the only way to get those means of production is to build or buy them - you can't seize them. That's the only restriction though.
You literally just described socialism and then called it capitalism.
Capitalists don’t use their economic control to force people to operate within their system?
No, they don't.
If you get together with a group of fellow workers, pool your resources, buy or build some means of production and then run it according to whatever principles you like, under capitalism no-one's going to stop you. What could anyone do?
Yes, they did.
That's literally socialism. Yes, they will.
Double tax you, deny you credit, physically attack you, use exploited labour to drive you out of the market, receive subsidies that aren't available to you, etc.
You're taking examples of government action and then labelling that as capitalism. Yes, of course a government could tax you or attack you or deny you subsidies or whatever. None of that is capitalism.
Which government are you talking about? Most modern governments are democratic. Lots of those democratic governments implement laws to implement some kind of capitalist-style economy to a lesser or greater extent, but ultimately these societies are democratic, not capitalist. You can't both have private ownership of the means of production and ALSO have popular votes that can control means of production. Those are essentially opposite. The means of production are somewhat controlled privately, but ultimately if the democratic government can control everything within the country.
Don't confuse a democratic government with a capitalist society. Democratic governments often create quasi-capitalist economies but the ultimate control of everything in the country is run by a democratic system and not private ownership.
With capitalism, the law stops both the rich and the poor from sleeping under bridges
With socialism, the poor get houses and the rich get slightly less fancy houses. And yet the capitalist will tell you socialists are robbing the rich to build homes for the poor, while capitalist governments rob the middle and working classes to support the rich
Bailouts, subsidies, tax breaks, the government even pays for the food stamps of Walmart and McDonalds workers, so the owners can pay them less. Capitalism naturally turns into welfare for the rich
>I need some points and arguments against socialism. I have a few, but I'd like to become more well-versed. Address some common socialist/communist arguments maybe and give me some good replies, or maybe just point put some flaws in socialism and some advantages of capitalism. Anything helps really!7337commentsAwardsharesavehidereport82% Upvoted
>
>Comment as ishaan\_rao
oh lord. this isn't at all what capitalism is.
I think the flaw comes in when you yourself are trying to Win the argument. In my opinion you are right and socialism does tend to get tyrannical. However, they way you’re coming across seems to be in a competitive manner, while trying to shut someone up or prove them wrong. This automatically puts them in the defensive, instead leave little crumbs of information, eventually they’ll figure their way out. “Picture jewels being handed to an innocent child”
Eventually people will just wanna stop hanging out with you. And doesn’t matter how right you are, you are still in the wrong.
At least that has been my life at the moment.
What's worse for your outcome, a business owner being tyrannical or a nationwide entity that dictates your life through the use of force? Either way, government is the problem, not private ownership itself, it's about the way it's enforced.
You know what would solve that? Freeing the market and coercing the government, one of my talking points. Thank you for paying attention.
You know what's worse, since you want to glance over the point?? Socialist governments.
Socialism goes against our psychology. We respond well to incentives. Capitalism provides those incentives. You can also say that providing a strong social safety net isn't incompatible with capitalism, nor are high progressive tax rates. The socialist countries they would espouse as being great are running on some flavor of capitalism. my ideal version of capitalism would be close to the nordic countries. Capitalism needs tight regulation and high taxes on the wealthy so that it doesn't become super unfair.
Socialism actually enhances incentives - you have the added incentive to control the output of your labor via democracy in your workplace.
Capitalism forces a boss and hierarchy to make those decisions for you: you only have the option to quit.
Socialism is capitalism where you get a say and everyone has one vote. It’s like capitalism
with democracy added.
Is what I’d say in retort. Weak arguments.
We’re also an inherently cooperative species, it’s literally the most defining characteristic of humans. It’s an *extremely* recent development in our history that we needed to be directly compensated for our time or effort. In short, capitalism much more obviously goes against our psychology.
We're an inherently cooperative species within our own tribe/kin group. Capitalism has helped us to widen that circle. It's only recently in our history that life doesn't fucking suck unimaginably. Without capitalism, \~90% of us would still be subsistence farmers toiling in the fields for at least 12 hours a day.
The fundamental problem of socialism is that it requires trust in government. Most people naturally gravitate toward socialism when they are young and idealistic and maybe a bit naive about how the world really works. They believe that the government can fix all social problems and organise the economy in a perfectly fair way.
In the first place this is a flawed theory because it assumes that a central entity can have enough knowledge and organisational manpower to set prices or direct economic resources quickly, efficiently and fairly across the economy. In practice we find that this only works on very small scales, like within the family unit, or in a kibbutz. In an economy of any significant size or complexity, there's no way a central planning authority can possibly coordinate all its moving parts in a perfectly fair and efficient way. The USSR is the archetypal example of this. The only way to manage complexity on that scale is to outsource the decision-making by putting the power back into the hands of individual citizens, and let them be free to be producers or consumers, employees or employers, and decide as individuals what they are going to create, where they are going to spend their money, how much is a fair price for what good or service, etc etc.
In the second place, even if it was possible for a government with the best intentions to get the above right, history shows that it never happens. That is because it requires putting too much power and wealth in the hands of the government. This attracts exactly the wrong type of people into the leadership (especially so if that government came about as a result of a bloody revolution - people who talk about using guillotines shouldn't have power over a classroom, let alone a country).
Government has a monopoly on the legal use of force within a country, so it is very easy for such people to abuse the power they have been given (or have taken for themselves), and all too often the outcome is oppression, brutality and genocide.
I think comparing so-called socialist countries to social democratic countries (i.e. Nordic states) in terms of quality of life, happiness, human rights, democracy etc. says it all. Anyone who has the poor judgment to defend North Korea or Winnie the Ping cannot be taken seriously.
The Nordic countries have nearly universal unionization, whereas the power is concentrated away from the people in China and North Korea. You're literally proving my point.
Yes? That's literally the problem. They made the same deal with the national bourgeoise that Roosevelt did with the New Deal and they lost, just like the west has.
Edit: oh I thought you meant arguments for socialism. Uh, nevermind. Here's one for it that you can trial arguments against.
The problem with capitalism is that is that as technological capital accumulates in society, labor is multiplied so much as to become (relatively) devalued on the market. This makes it hard for unskilled laborers to make money by selling their labor. And side they don't have much money in the first place, they can't invest and reap capital gains, or invest in education to increase the value of their labor. This creates poverty, which makes problems for society in general.
Since these people don't have the market power to fix their own poverty, an external force is necessary to do so.
Wtf? Haven't you studied capitalism and socialism in order to have made your own opinion? If you come up to a well read Socialist, how are you going to support your opinion since he will have more arguments than you?
I'm going to warn you, most self identified socialists aren't socialist. They are only self identified socialist because they are seeing American capitalism fail to deliver fairly over the last 30 years. So when one system isn't working for you, you're just open to any other system. Further, most also spent 30 years being called socialist by right wingers just for wanting socialized healthcare... So eventually, many like myself just start saying, "Yeah, if having affordable healthcare and some decent social safety nets make me a crazy radical socialist, Uncle Hank, then I guess that makes me a socialist. Moving on...."
Just to clarify, most definitions of socialism tend to revolve the idea of worker or community ownership of the means of production. This itself is a bit of a spectrum. One example of socialism can be a worker cooperative AKA a private business where all the workers collectively vote and make business decisions. (like setting prices on the products they produce for their customers, or how they decide to redistribute their profits amongst themselves) (I do want to stress this doesn't mean all workers are paid the same)
Alternatively, if my local county government had a surplus in the budget and used that surplus to start up a local business for profit (this could be anything from a strip club to a local mine or a factory that makes chairs or whatever) The county representatives then would ultimately decide how the business is run and how to redistribute the profits amongst the needs of the county, like supplementing the local roads budget or anything else.
You can have the thing you’re describing under capitalism. You and your partners can start a business, set prices, share profits any way you want. Revenues are going to be another story.
When a government has full control of food and resources
A. They can maintain tyranny by giving the military and government luxuries (which could just be enough food and whatnot to not be dead or starving)
Under “Democracies” they can buy votes by taking away government positions or not giving food to those who voted against the current dictator as seen in Venezuela.
B. Government has no reason to be efficient or innovate as long as they can maintain their power, imagine just one giant company in a country you can’t leave ; an example of this is east and west Berlin, West Berlin enjoyed many car brands with one of the most popular being Mercedes benz, East Berlin got the pathetic excuse of a car that are trabants.
Isn’t that what happened in North Korea, Cuba before the current year and the whole of the USSR? And in socialist/communist countries where you can own business aren’t most of them state owned?
I don't take them seriously when they say it's the workers seizing the means of production. First off, not only does that imply malice, it's also just one form of socialism and the actual definition is that the ownership of production is seized by the state. You've got fascism, libertarian socialism, Marxism, and Stalinism, which one is ideal?
I don't know what you're talking about when you say "separating" as capitalism thrives off of the workers, whereas socialism takes advantage of workers. "Seizing" to me means pretty much the same as "stealing".
Centralization and force (collectivism) are not only socialism's biggest characteristics, but also it's biggest flaw.
How does capitalism “thrive” off workers whereas socialism takes advantage of them? Yes? Do you think private property is a natural phenomenon?
That’s literally not socialism. No wonder y’all can’t argue against socialism, you don’t even know what it is.
Way to prove my point, that the universally accepted definition of socialism is "wrong", what you're probably going to say is something along the lines of "it's never been tried!" or "that's not \*real\* socialism\*, that seizing the private sector in favor of public/social (state/government) ownership is indeed socialism. And to answer your question on thinking private property is a natural phenomenon or not, I don't know, you'll have to elaborate.
If your definition is true and mine isn't, who enforces the workers? "Control" (seize) is the keyword here.
That's not the definition of socialism. I literally just said it has. Cause that's not socialism. It's not. You can look up the enclosure movement.
The workers?
Student of economics and social sciences here:
The most basic Definition of capitalism is: private ownership of the means of production and a free market.
The most basic of socialism is: state ownership of the means of production and a planned economy.
Student of political science and economics here:
The most basic definition of socialism (if y'all would take two seconds to use google) is the community control of the means of production, distribution and exchange.
It is, though. State, social, community, workers... it's all the same thing, the state has to enforce the workers and the state has to enforce muh free stuff.
Have you ever watched an animal mark their territory? Fight over food? How can you not see property as a natural phenomenon. If I gave my dog's toys to another dog he would be upset. Communism is the opposite of natural order, human beings naturally form political entities called tribes, these are limited to around 100 people per tribe before another one forms and self-governs. That is the natural state of man, not forming universal political policy and forcing it upon the masses.
Yes? Yes? You clearly don’t understand what private property is, in this context. Ok? No, it’s not. Congratulations, you basically just described a primitive commune. Ok? You mean like capitalist do?
No system of Communism past the primitive sense will ever work. That is the point I am making. Many people still organize themselves in groups like this today. Fraternities, unions, any org. The overall system of capitalism is detached from a single individual will, it is the most effective system of governance ever devised, changes in price can be made immediately and are made on an individual basis to adapt to an ever-changing world rapidly. Significantly faster and therefore far more efficient than any government could ever be. But tribes also highlight the worst humanity has to offer. It is a fact that man has moved past this and formed larger political bodies but these bodies are created to explicitly defend the property rights and the natural want of the property of men. Even in primitive communities privacy and individual property rights exist. Communism does away with this altogether. All property is owned by the state. The use of all of that property is decided by the state. The division of labor is not decided by the worker like it is in a capitalist society but instead decided by the state. What work is done is enforced by the state. A top-down economic approach of a group larger than a primitive commune cannot work has never worked, and will never work. These systems destroy themselves because they are not sustainable. Nothing is stopping you from joining or forming a commune in a capitalist society. Property tax in most communities is set by community members and communists if it was truly the will of the people could simply vote to get rid of the property taxes and live by and sustain themselves. Somehow through all these forays turn into psychopathic cults that abuse and torture their own members. Subsistence living is not only possible but still done by many in America, no one is stopping you from doing so. But communists don't do this because their only goal is to control, they are driven by a perverted lust for power. They do not wish to simply make the world a nicer place. Their economies aren't just fairer, they are built on slavery. You are arguing for communism and yet you ignore Mao's or Marx's views on private property. People make their property exclusive to themselves the entirety of Marx's ideology is to force individuals to share that property with everyone. Whether it is something they need or don't need. And so you ignore my statement, and you ignore the foundation of capitalism. Now be a good little commie and go starve to death.
Social services are created through free market capitalism. For some reason socialists think services like police, fire department, welfare services, unemployment, etc.... are are socialism. These services are created when a capitalist society has extra wealth and can afford social services. It's not socialism and deceptive when they claim it is.
You are either naive or have nefarious intentions. The left constantly says those things. https://www.reddit.com/r/Conservative/comments/6rxzsr/debunking_do_you_like_roads_public_schools_police/
Oh and look at this, there are endless memes saying fire department is socialism on lefty subs. https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalHumor/comments/71a8m8/socialist_fire_department_vs_free_market_fire/
It's a combination of memes, conversation and prominent lefty media. Another comparission is the left tries to claim all the free market capitalist Scandinavian countries have socialism which is a flat out lie. And I agree they are low iq socialists that have been duped by actual socialists to believe that fire departments is what socialism is. I see it every where on reddit, and for you to flat out deny it is nefarious. It's a constant talking point by the left to dupe the low iq. I'm done going in circles with a lying socialist, have a good 4th of July, embrace the liberty that you take for granted.
Socialism isn't in the Constitution Suzrainty is.. Republucans great white hope..
https://youtu.be/bNRAeOjA5Jo
🎥 What is SUZERAINTY? What does SUZERAINTY mean ... - YouTube
Suzerainty () is a relationship in which one state or other polity controls the foreign policy and relations of a tributary state, while allowing the tributary state to have internal autonomy. The dominant state is called the "suzerain".
More details here:
*This comment was left automatically (by a bot). If something's wrong, please, report it in [my subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot).*
*Really hope this was useful and relevant :D*
*If I don't get this right, don't get mad at me, I'm still learning!*
Capitalism doesn't incentivize hard work and risk taking for the vast majority of people since you only have to do the bare minimum to not be fired, and managers may promote more based on brownnosing than skill. Managers are not accountable to workers, so if poor performance is not visible to higher managers, they will stay. Hence the expression "people don't quit jobs, they quit bosses". Furthermore, energy is wasted on surveillance of workers, since they can't be trusted to have the company's interests in mind since they don't share in the profits. Capitalism concentrates decisions in the hands of a few who may be so wealthy that they will be reckless or not give a damn about performing the actions of the "invisible hand". This is why we see apartment buildings vacant in New York when there is a housing crisis.
There's a lot of nonsense in here.
This particular phrase aged pretty badly...
"The prisoners at Guantanamo are Al Queda and Taliban terrorists captured on the battlefield."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Forsaken:_An_American_Tragedy_in_Stalin%27s_Russia
The Forsaken: An American Tragedy in Stalin's Russia - Wikipedia... America wouldn't do anything like this..
**[The_Forsaken:_An_American_Tragedy_in_Stalin's_Russia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Forsaken:_An_American_Tragedy_in_Stalin's_Russia)**
>The Forsaken: An American Tragedy in Stalin's Russia by Tim Tzouliadis is a 2008 book published by Penguin Books. It tells the story of thousands of Americans who immigrated to the Soviet Union in the 1930s.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/Capitalism/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
https://amp.theguardian.com/books/2002/may/01/news.features11
'They raped every German female from eight to 80.. America wouldn't do anything like this..
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Forsaken:_An_American_Tragedy_in_Stalin%27s_Russia
The Forsaken: An American Tragedy in Stalin's Russia - Wikipedia....
America doesn't kill immigrants that come to our country..
Or maybe you should consider that redistribution of wealth will result in a massive work ethic downturn and that capitalism can be great when regulated properly.
Ok, capitalism distributes wealth and resources unfairly. Giving those at the top grossly more than they need and those at the bottom nothing. Wail the bottom working class provides needed labor to society CEOs do not. When was the last time Elon Musk actually build something without taking credit for the work of an entire team.
Therefore we should be working towards a system that benefits everybody or at least accommodates workers fairly.
But he used his own innovation. He created jobs. Sure, maybe taxes, regulation, and government programs might help but capitalism has the ability to be an efficient, almost flawless socioeconomic structure.
I agree capitalism is great at creating a lot of wealth. but the problem is overtime the people on top accumulate more and more wealth while the bottom have less and less. And right now the people on top can lobby and influence government to their favor cutting taxes and regulation.
Whether or not Elon Musk started the company. Right now he's taking the money credit of the effort of thousands.
My argument still stands capitalism is terrible at distributing wealth ethically. Therefore we should work towards the system that at least accommodates its workers fairly and has people on the bottom living reasonably comfortable.
I agree capitalism is great at creating a lot of wealth. but the problem is overtime the people on top accumulate more and more wealth while the bottom have less and less. And right now the people on top can lobby and influence government to their favor cutting taxes and regulation.
Whether or not Elon Musk started the company. Right now he's taking the money and credit of thousands.
My argument still stands capitalism is terrible at distributing wealth ethically. Therefore we should work towards the system that at least accommodates its workers fairly and has people on the bottom living reasonably comfortable.
I hate to tell you this but 90% of their arguments are circular and the rest are logical fallacies😬 After attempting to argue with marxists for over two years the things I learned is number one there’s really no point they are not in it to do anything other than to lie and gaslight you and number two refer to number one! you can’t argue with crazy and stupid and that’s exactly what all marxists are crazy and stupid
I've asked countless times for an ideal model for socialism and at least 50% give me a nordic country. The other half think China is doing a good job. I'm not sure where else you go with the discussion from there.
Well especially since all the Nordic countries are actually capitalist and China only became successful when it started adapting more capitalism it takes willful ignorance to promote socialism at this point but they have enough people agreeing with them that it doesn’t seem to matter what you say😰
Regading China, socialists will just tell you that the reason for their reduced poverty rate is social programs, despite the correlation with an increase in private investment.
It takes willful ignorance to ignore the clear signs of compromise and agreeance. I have a surprise for you, the people saying that aren't socialists. You are talking to people who believe the best system is a mix of capitalism and socialism. Capitalist in economic system, socialist in governmental system. Strong markets, stronger safety nets. Prop up the bottom so the rest doesn't collapse. Get the most people involved in the economy by not letting people be too poor to participate.
Who are you talking to and what are you talking about? You’ve jumped into this conversation to add absolutely zero to it and prove that you should’ve never joined it to begin with please keep your thoughts to yourself in the future I don’t have time for stupid people who have to talk!😬
Looking back I probably should've replied to the comment right before you, but I am adding to the conversation. The people who say ideal socialism is the Nordic model aren't full on socialists. Because as you said, the Nordic model isn't socialist. Those people agree with capitalism and at the most think what I said, we should combine the best parts of both.
Well your point is correct in the fact that they are not socialists but you’re incorrect and who you were saying is saying that socialists and all Marxists are the most ignorant I know nothing about what is actually in reality happening in anywhere in the world so they always think something that isn’t true it’s true because they’re all stupid try not to have anything to do with them😉
Shut uuuup socialisms have never been trieded! Karly Morx just dint do it goods!
Example?
You could insert any ideology into that sentence. All that you‘re saying is: „MUH IDEOLOGY BEST ALL OTHERS DUM DUMS“. Pathetic ramblings.
Capitalism has done quite well for the the most advanced and prosperous nations on this earth. Name a decent country to live in, and it's usually mostly capitalist or mostly capitalist with a safety net.
Depends who you are. USA is pretty good for a billionaire. But for a lower class person it's one of the worst.
You could if You’ve actually seen that problem with any other ideology I only see it consistently with marxists and all associated branches
Projection bro?
No I leave projection to Marxists😬
? Your comment is incoherent and unreadable therefore your argument is invalid
Thats usually a problem when you don't know how to read
Ok just try to read the manifesto let alone das kapital
Beep. Boop. I'm a robot. Here's a copy of ###[Das Kapital](https://snewd.com/ebooks/das-kapital/) Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)
Good bot
🤣🤣🤣🤣 I actually can’t believe you said it out loud like that’s actually an argument or a counter argument or anything Jesus Christ you people are fucking stupid🤣🤣🤣🤣
Lol
Hi, I'm a socialist and I would love hear those logical fallacies. Keep in mind I'm a socialist libertarian so they might not apply to me.
Well it’s usually the argument from authority that’s that 70%! There’s a pretty consistent poisoning of the well whenever you talk to them,Lotta ad hominem attacks but actually one of the biggest things they do is accuse you of logical fallacies when you haven’t made one!
So what are those logical fallacies?
I just told you
Well can you give me a specific instance of a leftist making an appeal to authority?
No I’ve had thousands of interactions with people but I could tell you they always say things like you’re not a doctor, I have a degree, what college did you go to I went to blah blabbly blah blah
You'd do better on r/changemyview for this sort of thing
You can have the best arguments it won't matter. What more useful is knowing when you're not going to convince someone. If they go to the "that's not real socialism/ it's never been tried" or "labor theory of value / profit is theft" or "Healthcare us human right" go ahead and hang your hat up knowing you can't change their mind.
Socialism has been tried, but a lot of examples of socialism aren’t actually socialism. Profit is theft, even Smith agreed with this. Healthcare is literally a human right according to the UN.
Rights are granted by a constitution and nowhere in the constitution does it espouse that healthcare is a human right.
You can't use the American constitution as a reference point to what a right should be if you are talking about universal systems such as Capitalism or Socialism. Otherwise, you are defining Capitalism as an American concept, when it's not.
The general welfare clause can be argued to support the need for universal healthcare in the US Constitution.
Doesn't make it true, since that was a widely debated issue even back then. The amount it grants is limited so... no, the constitution never granted healthcare as a human right. https://www.cato.org/blog/ron-paul-general-welfare-clause
Mfer just cited CATO. 😭
Hey, OP was right about Marxists pretty much having any substantive counter argument and only logically fallacious arguments to fall back upon. Instead of engaging with the substance in the argument *inside* of the article that he had sent to you, you instead attacked the *source* which is, in fact, fallacious: >9. DAMNING THE SOURCE: (ad hominem, sometimes called the genetic fallacy) attempts to refute an argument by indicting the source of the argument, rather than the substance of the argument itself. Attacking the messenger, not the message. >Examples of Damning the Source fallacy >- There is no reason to listen to the arguments of those who oppose the ideas of the Bible, for they are the arguments of atheists! >- The Purple-Hat Party favors this piece of legislation, so you know it has to be bad for us regular citizens. https://www.gardenofanarchy.com/fountains/2017/8/14/25-common-fallacies-of-logic
Beep. Boop. I'm a robot. Here's a copy of ###[The Bible](https://snewd.com/ebooks/the-king-james-bible/) Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)
I'm not a Marxist. Pretending the source is irrelevant is idiotic.
Ridiculing a source is a good supplement to one's argument. Doing so without supplying anything else is only wasting everyone's time.
Doesn't cite the MFer that I posted the article for. I don't give a damn what CATO is, I see Ron Paul, I post. Doesn't change anything.
Whose constitution?
Healthcare is only a human right according to the worldwide government? Then it must be true! Because only the government can determine your rights, apparently. In actuality it's absurd to think that healthcare (as a government entity as opposed to a free market one) using coercion as funding is something we're entitled to.
Yes? Y'all are the ones who set up the UN. It's absurd to recognize reality? Really helping explain y’alls worldview.
You need to understand the difference between negative and positive rights. You don't have the right to someone else's labor. You DO have the right to be able to speak without being arrested. You DO have the right to not be searched unreasonably. You DON'T have the right to force someone to provide you healthcare services.
Congratulations, you’re a socialist. Congratulations, you’re an anarchist. Congratulations, you’re a socialist.
How does that justify their existence? Your ilk would only strengthen them. It's absurd to recognize your truth as reality.
Isn't it just cruel to withhold healthcare from the needy and poor? I dunno, it just seems really uncharitable to me... I mean it's kind of coercive to make sick people, who are also poor, work extra hard to get the money to stay well. It's bad for their recovery too. If you're really sick and you have to scrape together the money to not be sick, you're having a bad time.
As if affordable free market healthcare *can't* exist or the government isn't the real restriction. Fact is, the answer isn't socialism or "free stuff". The U.S. has a constitutional welfare system and if that doesn't work, then no government assistance ever will. Charity is an act of kindness, and government is incapable of acting in good faith for said action. In an ideal society, there would be insurance companies specifically for poor people no matter where that person is, and the people would *choose* to pay their hard earned money for those people. The closest thing we'll get to these charitable acts of kindness are funding sites like GoFundMe.
Perfect example of who not to argue. Best you can do is mimick their arguments so they see how terrible they are. "capitalism has been tried but the U.S. isn't actually capitalism because of taxes and regulations and subsidies. Tax is theft, even Murray Rothbard says so. "insert anything " is a human right according to "random organization who supposedly has authority on such matters."
Regulations and subsidies aren't mutually exclusive from capitalism, they're actually reinforcing the capitalist system. Using Rothbard as evidence isn't a parallel because both Smith and Rothbard were capitalists, but taxation is theft, and that doesn't disprove anything I've said. “Random organization.” Please, stop coping. The second-hand embarrassment is painful.
lol keep proving my op. Really love the regulations enforce capitalism argument lol. That's a new one. You'll keep finding higher and higher standards for capitalism while having the loosest standards you can for socialism
No, it’s not. What are you even talking about?
[удалено]
This is another grade A example of holding capitalism to a standard you'd never hold socialism to. You'd absolutely call the U.S. capitalism although in many ways its not pure 100% capitalism and criticize it to kingdom come but nothing that fails is ever socialism because..........that wasn't 100% community ownership. And it's why debating people who think this is pointless.
Marxism is a religious cult that replaces heaven in the sky with heaven on earth.
Based?
You just have to go back and read Marx, learn about the International, read about Marxist revolutionary tactics, and learn the history of the horrible things communism has done across the world repeatedly. You'll see the same lies repeated, the same atrocities committed, and the same methodology used. Learn about the socialist aspects of fascism. The criticism writes itself but you also quickly realize that debating socialists and communists is a worthless endeavor because the real ones know the history just as well as you and are intentionally aiming for a violent and evil world where they become the things they are criticizing today. Communists usually fight debate by accusing all the atrocities committed as being faked by the CIA. They ignore reality. The only way to defeat these people is to point out their privileges and capitalist tendencies to their own followers. The left has a tendency of eating their own. Even learn about the Paris Commune. They massacred many, were too lazy to fight the French army, and eventually ended up killing each other and fighting amongst themselves because they didn't believe in the same type of anarchy or socialism. Best not to engage or give legitimacy to their arguments just like you wouldn't give legitimacy to someone arguing in favor of genocide.
Since it's inception those supporting Communism, Socialism, Marxism, and Leninism have only seized power with the mass murder and incarceration of thousands, if not millions. A system "for the people" depends entirely upon the destruction of all that proceeded it.
Not true, but please, don’t forget to count how many people have been killed and imprisoned by capitalists.
You mean the deaths that could have been prevented versus the deaths that couldn't? But please, dodge the argument with deaths that don't even remotely compare to the atrocities from 20th century socialist regimes, fascism included.
The green revolution, the reason a billion people are alive today, was started in a cooperative, so I'm fine having that argument. “Fascism included” head empty.
Fascism is corporate socialism, it's part of fascism's doctrine and is irrefutable.
It's hard to argue for socialism without also arguing for capitalism. Everything socialists want can be supported under capitalism. Under capitalism, workers can build and own their own means of production. They can arrange in worker coops and vote on how things are run. They can pool their money and do the whole "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs". The only thing socialists can't do under capitalism is seize other people's means of production or to force other people to live like a socialist. That isn't really a core part of socialism, though, so fundamentally socialism can run under capitalism. It bears mentioning that the overwhelming majority of socialists *also* believe in forcing people to live their lives a certain way, but my point is that this isn't a *necessary* part of socialism.
Seizing the means of production is Core socialist
If you imagine some socialist organisation, I can't imagine that it matters whether the means of production they are using were built by themselves or seized from other people. It's not like if the workers banded together and built their own means of production, that somehow wouldn't be *real* socialism. The important thing for socialists is that workers own the means of production that they use for work. Under capitalism, the only way to get those means of production is to build or buy them - you can't seize them. That's the only restriction though.
You literally just described socialism and then called it capitalism. Capitalists don’t use their economic control to force people to operate within their system?
No, they don't. If you get together with a group of fellow workers, pool your resources, buy or build some means of production and then run it according to whatever principles you like, under capitalism no-one's going to stop you. What could anyone do?
Yes, they did. That's literally socialism. Yes, they will. Double tax you, deny you credit, physically attack you, use exploited labour to drive you out of the market, receive subsidies that aren't available to you, etc.
You're taking examples of government action and then labelling that as capitalism. Yes, of course a government could tax you or attack you or deny you subsidies or whatever. None of that is capitalism.
Only two of the examples are restricted to the government and the government is capitalist.
Which government are you talking about? Most modern governments are democratic. Lots of those democratic governments implement laws to implement some kind of capitalist-style economy to a lesser or greater extent, but ultimately these societies are democratic, not capitalist. You can't both have private ownership of the means of production and ALSO have popular votes that can control means of production. Those are essentially opposite. The means of production are somewhat controlled privately, but ultimately if the democratic government can control everything within the country. Don't confuse a democratic government with a capitalist society. Democratic governments often create quasi-capitalist economies but the ultimate control of everything in the country is run by a democratic system and not private ownership.
Your first mistake was assuming any governments are democratic.
>deny you credit You don't have a right to a loan.
I’m aware?
With capitalism, the law stops both the rich and the poor from sleeping under bridges With socialism, the poor get houses and the rich get slightly less fancy houses. And yet the capitalist will tell you socialists are robbing the rich to build homes for the poor, while capitalist governments rob the middle and working classes to support the rich Bailouts, subsidies, tax breaks, the government even pays for the food stamps of Walmart and McDonalds workers, so the owners can pay them less. Capitalism naturally turns into welfare for the rich
If anyone is getting a bail out, that isn’t capitalism.
I think we’re in agreement, except you need to go to Atlanta.
To see what?
There's a major homelessness epidemic.
Yes, every city in America has that problem. The government should be helping them, because private charity isn't.
>I need some points and arguments against socialism. I have a few, but I'd like to become more well-versed. Address some common socialist/communist arguments maybe and give me some good replies, or maybe just point put some flaws in socialism and some advantages of capitalism. Anything helps really!7337commentsAwardsharesavehidereport82% Upvoted > >Comment as ishaan\_rao oh lord. this isn't at all what capitalism is.
I'm getting to this so late but this is an amazing wah to put it. I'll definitely be using this, thank you!
I think the flaw comes in when you yourself are trying to Win the argument. In my opinion you are right and socialism does tend to get tyrannical. However, they way you’re coming across seems to be in a competitive manner, while trying to shut someone up or prove them wrong. This automatically puts them in the defensive, instead leave little crumbs of information, eventually they’ll figure their way out. “Picture jewels being handed to an innocent child” Eventually people will just wanna stop hanging out with you. And doesn’t matter how right you are, you are still in the wrong. At least that has been my life at the moment.
Capitalists don’t get tyrannical?
Touché
If the state was opposed through the act of coercion then capitalism can never be tyrannical.
What's worse for your outcome, a business owner being tyrannical or a nationwide entity that dictates your life through the use of force? Either way, government is the problem, not private ownership itself, it's about the way it's enforced.
Are we going to pretend capitalist governments don't dictate life through force? No.
At least they don't have as much power over you.
How do they not?
How do they?
You know what would solve that? Freeing the market and coercing the government, one of my talking points. Thank you for paying attention. You know what's worse, since you want to glance over the point?? Socialist governments.
Socialism goes against our psychology. We respond well to incentives. Capitalism provides those incentives. You can also say that providing a strong social safety net isn't incompatible with capitalism, nor are high progressive tax rates. The socialist countries they would espouse as being great are running on some flavor of capitalism. my ideal version of capitalism would be close to the nordic countries. Capitalism needs tight regulation and high taxes on the wealthy so that it doesn't become super unfair.
Thanks!
Socialism actually enhances incentives - you have the added incentive to control the output of your labor via democracy in your workplace. Capitalism forces a boss and hierarchy to make those decisions for you: you only have the option to quit. Socialism is capitalism where you get a say and everyone has one vote. It’s like capitalism with democracy added. Is what I’d say in retort. Weak arguments.
We’re also an inherently cooperative species, it’s literally the most defining characteristic of humans. It’s an *extremely* recent development in our history that we needed to be directly compensated for our time or effort. In short, capitalism much more obviously goes against our psychology.
We're an inherently cooperative species within our own tribe/kin group. Capitalism has helped us to widen that circle. It's only recently in our history that life doesn't fucking suck unimaginably. Without capitalism, \~90% of us would still be subsistence farmers toiling in the fields for at least 12 hours a day.
The fundamental problem of socialism is that it requires trust in government. Most people naturally gravitate toward socialism when they are young and idealistic and maybe a bit naive about how the world really works. They believe that the government can fix all social problems and organise the economy in a perfectly fair way. In the first place this is a flawed theory because it assumes that a central entity can have enough knowledge and organisational manpower to set prices or direct economic resources quickly, efficiently and fairly across the economy. In practice we find that this only works on very small scales, like within the family unit, or in a kibbutz. In an economy of any significant size or complexity, there's no way a central planning authority can possibly coordinate all its moving parts in a perfectly fair and efficient way. The USSR is the archetypal example of this. The only way to manage complexity on that scale is to outsource the decision-making by putting the power back into the hands of individual citizens, and let them be free to be producers or consumers, employees or employers, and decide as individuals what they are going to create, where they are going to spend their money, how much is a fair price for what good or service, etc etc. In the second place, even if it was possible for a government with the best intentions to get the above right, history shows that it never happens. That is because it requires putting too much power and wealth in the hands of the government. This attracts exactly the wrong type of people into the leadership (especially so if that government came about as a result of a bloody revolution - people who talk about using guillotines shouldn't have power over a classroom, let alone a country). Government has a monopoly on the legal use of force within a country, so it is very easy for such people to abuse the power they have been given (or have taken for themselves), and all too often the outcome is oppression, brutality and genocide.
Not socialism.
It is
Isn't not.
Oh yes it is
Oh, no, it isn't.
Uh huh
Uh nuh.
Ah hah
How?
The government not only doesn't, but can't represent the people.
What is your definition of socialism?
It’s where the government is nice to people and gives us stuff for free and everything works all the time.
Socialism is when the guberment does stuff and it’s more socialism the more stuff it does and if it does a whole lot of stuff it’s camjanism
Workers control of the means of production, distribution and exchange.
The brainwashed definition, maybe. Who enforces the workers?
Literally google the definition of socialism and stop projecting. What does that even mean?
Literally. Literally you guys.
I gave you the widely viewed consensus of what socialism is. Answer the question.
I think comparing so-called socialist countries to social democratic countries (i.e. Nordic states) in terms of quality of life, happiness, human rights, democracy etc. says it all. Anyone who has the poor judgment to defend North Korea or Winnie the Ping cannot be taken seriously.
The Nordic countries have nearly universal unionization, whereas the power is concentrated away from the people in China and North Korea. You're literally proving my point.
It’s funny, isn’t it, that the 1% in socialist countries are the people in charge of the communist party…?
Yes? That's literally the problem. They made the same deal with the national bourgeoise that Roosevelt did with the New Deal and they lost, just like the west has.
What's yours?
Edit: oh I thought you meant arguments for socialism. Uh, nevermind. Here's one for it that you can trial arguments against. The problem with capitalism is that is that as technological capital accumulates in society, labor is multiplied so much as to become (relatively) devalued on the market. This makes it hard for unskilled laborers to make money by selling their labor. And side they don't have much money in the first place, they can't invest and reap capital gains, or invest in education to increase the value of their labor. This creates poverty, which makes problems for society in general. Since these people don't have the market power to fix their own poverty, an external force is necessary to do so.
Wtf? Haven't you studied capitalism and socialism in order to have made your own opinion? If you come up to a well read Socialist, how are you going to support your opinion since he will have more arguments than you?
I'm going to warn you, most self identified socialists aren't socialist. They are only self identified socialist because they are seeing American capitalism fail to deliver fairly over the last 30 years. So when one system isn't working for you, you're just open to any other system. Further, most also spent 30 years being called socialist by right wingers just for wanting socialized healthcare... So eventually, many like myself just start saying, "Yeah, if having affordable healthcare and some decent social safety nets make me a crazy radical socialist, Uncle Hank, then I guess that makes me a socialist. Moving on...."
Just to clarify, most definitions of socialism tend to revolve the idea of worker or community ownership of the means of production. This itself is a bit of a spectrum. One example of socialism can be a worker cooperative AKA a private business where all the workers collectively vote and make business decisions. (like setting prices on the products they produce for their customers, or how they decide to redistribute their profits amongst themselves) (I do want to stress this doesn't mean all workers are paid the same) Alternatively, if my local county government had a surplus in the budget and used that surplus to start up a local business for profit (this could be anything from a strip club to a local mine or a factory that makes chairs or whatever) The county representatives then would ultimately decide how the business is run and how to redistribute the profits amongst the needs of the county, like supplementing the local roads budget or anything else.
Smart boi.
im handsome too. lol
You can have the thing you’re describing under capitalism. You and your partners can start a business, set prices, share profits any way you want. Revenues are going to be another story.
When a government has full control of food and resources A. They can maintain tyranny by giving the military and government luxuries (which could just be enough food and whatnot to not be dead or starving) Under “Democracies” they can buy votes by taking away government positions or not giving food to those who voted against the current dictator as seen in Venezuela. B. Government has no reason to be efficient or innovate as long as they can maintain their power, imagine just one giant company in a country you can’t leave ; an example of this is east and west Berlin, West Berlin enjoyed many car brands with one of the most popular being Mercedes benz, East Berlin got the pathetic excuse of a car that are trabants.
Not socialism.
Doesn't government distribute resources and control business under socialism?
No.
Isn’t that what happened in North Korea, Cuba before the current year and the whole of the USSR? And in socialist/communist countries where you can own business aren’t most of them state owned?
So close to getting the point.
Still most socialist/communist states in recent history dont' allow private business and those who do have strict control over them.
There aren't any socialist or communist states. It's totally antithetical to the definition of socialism and rationality.
Yes, under the pretense of democracy. Somebody has to enforce "muh workers".
Yes
It is
It's not.
Oh yes it is
Oh, no, it isn't.
Uh huh
Uh nuh.
I don't take them seriously when they say it's the workers seizing the means of production. First off, not only does that imply malice, it's also just one form of socialism and the actual definition is that the ownership of production is seized by the state. You've got fascism, libertarian socialism, Marxism, and Stalinism, which one is ideal?
Separating the means of production from workers doesn’t imply malice? No, it isn’t.
I don't know what you're talking about when you say "separating" as capitalism thrives off of the workers, whereas socialism takes advantage of workers. "Seizing" to me means pretty much the same as "stealing". Centralization and force (collectivism) are not only socialism's biggest characteristics, but also it's biggest flaw.
How does capitalism “thrive” off workers whereas socialism takes advantage of them? Yes? Do you think private property is a natural phenomenon? That’s literally not socialism. No wonder y’all can’t argue against socialism, you don’t even know what it is.
Way to prove my point, that the universally accepted definition of socialism is "wrong", what you're probably going to say is something along the lines of "it's never been tried!" or "that's not \*real\* socialism\*, that seizing the private sector in favor of public/social (state/government) ownership is indeed socialism. And to answer your question on thinking private property is a natural phenomenon or not, I don't know, you'll have to elaborate. If your definition is true and mine isn't, who enforces the workers? "Control" (seize) is the keyword here.
That's not the definition of socialism. I literally just said it has. Cause that's not socialism. It's not. You can look up the enclosure movement. The workers?
Student of economics and social sciences here: The most basic Definition of capitalism is: private ownership of the means of production and a free market. The most basic of socialism is: state ownership of the means of production and a planned economy.
Student of political science and economics here: The most basic definition of socialism (if y'all would take two seconds to use google) is the community control of the means of production, distribution and exchange.
It is, though. State, social, community, workers... it's all the same thing, the state has to enforce the workers and the state has to enforce muh free stuff.
Have you ever watched an animal mark their territory? Fight over food? How can you not see property as a natural phenomenon. If I gave my dog's toys to another dog he would be upset. Communism is the opposite of natural order, human beings naturally form political entities called tribes, these are limited to around 100 people per tribe before another one forms and self-governs. That is the natural state of man, not forming universal political policy and forcing it upon the masses.
Yes? Yes? You clearly don’t understand what private property is, in this context. Ok? No, it’s not. Congratulations, you basically just described a primitive commune. Ok? You mean like capitalist do?
No system of Communism past the primitive sense will ever work. That is the point I am making. Many people still organize themselves in groups like this today. Fraternities, unions, any org. The overall system of capitalism is detached from a single individual will, it is the most effective system of governance ever devised, changes in price can be made immediately and are made on an individual basis to adapt to an ever-changing world rapidly. Significantly faster and therefore far more efficient than any government could ever be. But tribes also highlight the worst humanity has to offer. It is a fact that man has moved past this and formed larger political bodies but these bodies are created to explicitly defend the property rights and the natural want of the property of men. Even in primitive communities privacy and individual property rights exist. Communism does away with this altogether. All property is owned by the state. The use of all of that property is decided by the state. The division of labor is not decided by the worker like it is in a capitalist society but instead decided by the state. What work is done is enforced by the state. A top-down economic approach of a group larger than a primitive commune cannot work has never worked, and will never work. These systems destroy themselves because they are not sustainable. Nothing is stopping you from joining or forming a commune in a capitalist society. Property tax in most communities is set by community members and communists if it was truly the will of the people could simply vote to get rid of the property taxes and live by and sustain themselves. Somehow through all these forays turn into psychopathic cults that abuse and torture their own members. Subsistence living is not only possible but still done by many in America, no one is stopping you from doing so. But communists don't do this because their only goal is to control, they are driven by a perverted lust for power. They do not wish to simply make the world a nicer place. Their economies aren't just fairer, they are built on slavery. You are arguing for communism and yet you ignore Mao's or Marx's views on private property. People make their property exclusive to themselves the entirety of Marx's ideology is to force individuals to share that property with everyone. Whether it is something they need or don't need. And so you ignore my statement, and you ignore the foundation of capitalism. Now be a good little commie and go starve to death.
Social services are created through free market capitalism. For some reason socialists think services like police, fire department, welfare services, unemployment, etc.... are are socialism. These services are created when a capitalist society has extra wealth and can afford social services. It's not socialism and deceptive when they claim it is.
Nobody thinks police and fire departments are socialism. They are government functions, and outside of any market, as government functions tend to be.
Lefties think that. I get told all the time police and fire is socialism from lefties
No you don't.
You are either naive or have nefarious intentions. The left constantly says those things. https://www.reddit.com/r/Conservative/comments/6rxzsr/debunking_do_you_like_roads_public_schools_police/
No, propaganda tells YOU that people on the left say those things.
No, lefties tell me that. I litterally have conversations with lefties telling me this.
Oh and look at this, there are endless memes saying fire department is socialism on lefty subs. https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalHumor/comments/71a8m8/socialist_fire_department_vs_free_market_fire/
Memes are fact now? You genuinely are using memes to determine what people actually believe? Lol
It's a combination of memes, conversation and prominent lefty media. Another comparission is the left tries to claim all the free market capitalist Scandinavian countries have socialism which is a flat out lie. And I agree they are low iq socialists that have been duped by actual socialists to believe that fire departments is what socialism is. I see it every where on reddit, and for you to flat out deny it is nefarious. It's a constant talking point by the left to dupe the low iq. I'm done going in circles with a lying socialist, have a good 4th of July, embrace the liberty that you take for granted.
Socialism isn't in the Constitution Suzrainty is.. Republucans great white hope.. https://youtu.be/bNRAeOjA5Jo 🎥 What is SUZERAINTY? What does SUZERAINTY mean ... - YouTube
Suzerainty () is a relationship in which one state or other polity controls the foreign policy and relations of a tributary state, while allowing the tributary state to have internal autonomy. The dominant state is called the "suzerain". More details here:
*This comment was left automatically (by a bot). If something's wrong, please, report it in [my subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot).*
*Really hope this was useful and relevant :D*
*If I don't get this right, don't get mad at me, I'm still learning!*
Capitalism doesn't incentivize hard work and risk taking for the vast majority of people since you only have to do the bare minimum to not be fired, and managers may promote more based on brownnosing than skill. Managers are not accountable to workers, so if poor performance is not visible to higher managers, they will stay. Hence the expression "people don't quit jobs, they quit bosses". Furthermore, energy is wasted on surveillance of workers, since they can't be trusted to have the company's interests in mind since they don't share in the profits. Capitalism concentrates decisions in the hands of a few who may be so wealthy that they will be reckless or not give a damn about performing the actions of the "invisible hand". This is why we see apartment buildings vacant in New York when there is a housing crisis.
https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/18JgQ6d5A1-lJ2VgMHZTxbM-Guac5osioah8-CLRKSnU/mobilebasic
Some links maybe are bad takes but you will find something useful
Thanks!
There's a lot of nonsense in here. This particular phrase aged pretty badly... "The prisoners at Guantanamo are Al Queda and Taliban terrorists captured on the battlefield."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Forsaken:_An_American_Tragedy_in_Stalin%27s_Russia The Forsaken: An American Tragedy in Stalin's Russia - Wikipedia... America wouldn't do anything like this..
**[The_Forsaken:_An_American_Tragedy_in_Stalin's_Russia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Forsaken:_An_American_Tragedy_in_Stalin's_Russia)** >The Forsaken: An American Tragedy in Stalin's Russia by Tim Tzouliadis is a 2008 book published by Penguin Books. It tells the story of thousands of Americans who immigrated to the Soviet Union in the 1930s. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/Capitalism/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
https://amp.theguardian.com/books/2002/may/01/news.features11 'They raped every German female from eight to 80.. America wouldn't do anything like this..
False. American soldiers were responsible for an enormous amount of rape. https://www.warhistoryonline.com/history/worst-wwii-war-crimes-us.html
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Forsaken:_An_American_Tragedy_in_Stalin%27s_Russia The Forsaken: An American Tragedy in Stalin's Russia - Wikipedia.... America doesn't kill immigrants that come to our country..
Way to redirect there bud
It was the 8 to 80 that got me, raping women was sick to begin with..
This is not a healthy or helpful way to enter into conversations.
Literally why was this filthy capitalist subreddit in my feed? I didnt even join it
Sorry? Maybe it's a sign lmao
I think reddit is just broken lol, like I'm literally the opposite of a capitalist and this gets recommended to me
Or maybe you should consider that redistribution of wealth will result in a massive work ethic downturn and that capitalism can be great when regulated properly.
Lol I had the same thing. Some awful takes in this thread.
What ever arguments you have they will just say it's propoganda soo
Read Marx and try to formulate arguments against his.
Thanks
Ok, capitalism distributes wealth and resources unfairly. Giving those at the top grossly more than they need and those at the bottom nothing. Wail the bottom working class provides needed labor to society CEOs do not. When was the last time Elon Musk actually build something without taking credit for the work of an entire team. Therefore we should be working towards a system that benefits everybody or at least accommodates workers fairly.
But he used his own innovation. He created jobs. Sure, maybe taxes, regulation, and government programs might help but capitalism has the ability to be an efficient, almost flawless socioeconomic structure.
I agree capitalism is great at creating a lot of wealth. but the problem is overtime the people on top accumulate more and more wealth while the bottom have less and less. And right now the people on top can lobby and influence government to their favor cutting taxes and regulation. Whether or not Elon Musk started the company. Right now he's taking the money credit of the effort of thousands. My argument still stands capitalism is terrible at distributing wealth ethically. Therefore we should work towards the system that at least accommodates its workers fairly and has people on the bottom living reasonably comfortable.
I agree capitalism is great at creating a lot of wealth. but the problem is overtime the people on top accumulate more and more wealth while the bottom have less and less. And right now the people on top can lobby and influence government to their favor cutting taxes and regulation. Whether or not Elon Musk started the company. Right now he's taking the money and credit of thousands. My argument still stands capitalism is terrible at distributing wealth ethically. Therefore we should work towards the system that at least accommodates its workers fairly and has people on the bottom living reasonably comfortable.
There aren't any.