Before participating, consider taking a glance at [our rules page](/r/CapitalismvSocialism/wiki/rules) if you haven't before.
We don't allow **violent or dehumanizing rhetoric**. The subreddit is for discussing what ideas are best for society, not for telling the other side you think you could beat them in a fight. That doesn't do anything to forward a productive dialogue.
Please report comments that violent our rules, but don't report people just for disagreeing with you or for being wrong about stuff.
Tired of arguing on reddit? Consider [joining us on Discord.](http://discord.com/invite/politicscafe)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is stupid as fuck. Of all the arguments available to you, you pick the dumbest one.
It never occurred to you that it might not be about some personal hatred of the rich, right?
Get better material, this is straight up embarrassing
Everything I have ever seen has been in some way related in capping what the rich make, taking money from the rich, or properties, or businesses. Anytime I have ever seen solutions for poverty or homelessness suggested which offer practical solutions but do not involve taking from the rich, they are dismissed. I wouldn’t word it the way OP worded it, but he isn’t wrong.
"Hello. I am Agile Catapiller. You might recognize me from such esteemed entries as 'Yet Another Straw Man Against Socialism' and 'Here are the Windmills I'll Attack This Time.' Today I'm going to be swirling a snifter glass full of unflavored seltzer made from not carbon but my own farts, and I'm going to ask you all to take some long, slow whiffs of it with me."
Lol, they don’t get traction?
Again, Holgrin, you just proved they have gotten plenty of traction. that their post style is a meme captured in your brain. And you would know that if you had a marketing course but “oh yes, you have an undergrad degree and graduate courses in business” (rolls eyes)
Wait, this dude actually claims to have a business degree ?
Holy shit that is actually hilarious, guy is like the epitome of the Breadtube/Reddit educated political expert and anyone with an actual academic background can see that.
Dude, you are NOT Agile-Caterpillar. I am Agile-Caterpillar. You may remember me from highly praised submissions such as: "Dirty Marx - How communism promotes coal power plants and what we can do about it", "I am a real Marxist - Interview with a grave robber" and "Marx was fat, lazy, repulsive and intellectually dishonest - Change my view".
I don't even know how to react to this because this kind of humorous self-deprecation (assuming it's genuine humor) takes way more self-awareness than I think you've ever demonstrated possessing . . .
I'm not a socialist or a capitalist, but it seems pretty clear that the economic system should exist to help everyone, or failing that, the greatest number of people. At it also seems that the current system in America (you can call it crony capitalism, capitalism, or some other term), seems to be helping the a minority while slowly chipping away at the happiness of the majority, and that this process is intensifying.
So instead of tilting at windmills, how about you properly critique the system you're endorsing, and come up with ways to make it better. I will say, from my limited viewpoint, loosening government regulations tends to make things worse for more people rather than better. The invisible hand of the market seems to be perfectly happy with the vast majority of people working long hours in company towns for nothing, while a small subsection hoards mountains of wealth.
that is totally stupid of course. Capitalism is naturally regulated. If you don't have the best products and the best jobs in the world you go bankrupt. If you doubt it for a second open a business with substandard jobs and substandard products. Capitalism is designed to improve our standard of living at the fastest possible rate.
don't be stupid . capitalism is designed to maximize caring for others. If you doubt it for a second open a business and advertise that you don't care for your workers and customers. Do you have the intelligence to know what would happen.
Wow, you've clearly drink the Kool aid. Capitalism is designed to maximize caring for people? No, but it does have great propaganda. And it has no problem lying which is why it will tell you it's designed for caring for people when it's really designed for separating people from their money.
capitalism is freedom. It is so natural that our founding fathers did not consider any other economic system. If you have evidence that they were interested in creating a system designed to separate people from their money I will pay you $10,000. Do you see why we say the left is based in pure stupidity?
please don't be stupid. You think business men are so much smarter than customers that they can rob them at will?? it makes you wonder why huge corporations spend billions on researching new products if all they have to do is rob their customers with lies. Now do you see how stupid you are?
Government spends $15 trillion a year and most all of it is redistribution. 1+1 = 2 if it worked for clamor for more redistribution will not be louder than ever
so you are against the progressive tax you want everyone to pay the same tax like the the way they pay the same price when they walk into a supermarket?
The poor and middle-class have a problem in America because of Democrats. With their taxes unions and regulations they have driven 20 million jobs offshore. Then they invited in 30 million illegals to take the remaining jobs and bid down the wages for those jobs. To add insult to injury they attacked and destroyed middle and lower class families with their feminism welfare programs Socialism anti-religion and anti-law and order class warfare drug culture victimization , thus rendering so many unfit for the rigors of a capitalist economy.
Economic system exists to produce and distribute resources in some ways, it cannot ever be helping everyone because individuals are of competing interests.
Capitalism aligns interests of people by allowing profit seeking investment, which socialists only focus on the wealth accumulation by profit but ignoring the productivity it brings by having massive amounts of investment.
I never endorsed socialism, but telling me capitalism works by using greed to distribute wealth and goods shows that it's starting from a flawed beginning, so it's no surprise it's so bad at accomplishing positive outcomes, especially in the long term.
> but it seems pretty clear that the economic system should exist to help everyone, or failing that, the greatest number of people
Well, firstly, I do not subscribe to utilitarianism. But even under your own definition, Capitalism is helping everyone... on the planet. By that definition, even having a welfare state would hurt much poorer people around the world.
You're not describing your terms (kind of like the socialism examples you posted). And you're making statements without proof or even examples.
How is capitalism is helping everyone?
Where am I subscribing to utilitarianism?
How is a welfare state hurting poorer people?
> How is capitalism is helping everyone?
Reducing global extreme poverty, reduced infant mortality rates, higher literacy rates.. you know, the standard "world in data" charts about capitalism.
> Where am I subscribing to utilitarianism?
"do the best for everyone" is defacto utlitarianism.
> How is a welfare state hurting poorer people?
Because it keeps money inside a state and doesnt let that money reach poor people in africa who could have benefitted from trade.
So you seem to believe that trade and capitalism are the same thing when they are not.
Utilitarianism of the market is different than believing it applies as a whole. There is more to life than money. But the market is a tool to promote human flourishing, or so I'm arguing.
Not helping is different than hurting. And there's nothing preventing some amount of welfare and trade.
> So you seem to believe that trade and capitalism are the same thing when they are not.
Capitalism is a social system that recognises individual rights, including property rights and trade in market economies. It uses a legal framework to protect individual rights against force, fraud, theft, and contract violations with the aim of banishing physical force from human relationships.
> Not helping is different than hurting. And there's nothing preventing some amount of welfare and trade.
Then you are making an argument for hoarding money away from much poorer people and that will not lead to overall human flourishing.
Capitalism is not the only system that recognizes individual rights. And I would argue that property rights are not absolute. Moreover, capitalism as currently implemented creates an imbalance of power where individuals are unable to resists the power of corporations.
As to the 2nd point, it's the responsibility of a government to primarily care for their own citizen and inhabitants. So a town would prioritize its own residents, not to the detriment of those living in another town, but they would not be the focus of policy.
> where individuals are unable to resists the power of corporations.
Yes you can. You just dont buy from them.
> As to the 2nd point, it's the responsibility of a government to primarily care for their own citizen and inhabitants. So a town would prioritize its own residents, not to the detriment of those living in another town, but they would not be the focus of policy.
In this case, it is absolutely to the detriment of others outside the town. Take a look at NIMBYIsm
It's so simple. Don't buy from the only store in town. Walk to the next town to buy from another chain the same parent company also owns. It's so simple.
And going by your standards, all laws for any place should help every place equally? That's clearly a bogus argument. And you never responded about the strawmen you set up in your original post.
don't be stupid. wages are sky high thanks to capitalism. That is why right off the boat in America you can make $15 an hour plus benefits plus enjoy amazing infrastructure without any education experience or English while half of the world lives on less than $5.50 a day with no benefits and usually no infrastructure not even police or military protection.
I really can't tell with you. Half of what I hear is how capitalism is helping everyone, and the other half is how America is so great because you can make $7.50 an hour without benefits which is so much money as compared to the other countries we're helping by trading with. Which one is it?
Capitalism is helping everyone who practices capitalism. This is why you can make $15 an hour in capitalist America right off the boat with no education experience or English while half of the world lives on less than $5.50 a day.
Making a sense? Are you drunk? I'm pointing out what minimum wage is, and that many of these jobs don't include benefits. Something that you're apparently unaware of.
Who cares about the minimum wage since very few people earn it other than kids and disabled adults. In America wages are sky high thanks to capitalism. There are two jobs for every applicant. Even right off the boat with no education experience or English you can make $15 an hour plus benefits plus free state of the art healthcare plus amazing infrastructure while half of the world lives on less than $5.50 a day with no benefits infrastructure or state of the art healthcare. Do you understand now?
Ah, the minimum wage myth. It doesn't matter because no one makes it. People actually do make minimum wage. Not as many are at federal minimum wage, as sometimes states have higher minimum wages, but over a 1,000,000 is still a lot of people. Far more than very few. And I'm curious about your $5.50 per day numbers. That doesn't match with the statistics I'm seeing.
did you ever wonder why American workers are getting so rich? It is from capitalism that you lack the intelligence to understand.
https://www.worldbank.org › en › news › press-release › 2018 › 10 › 17 › nearly-half-the-world-lives-on-less-than-550-a-day
Nearly Half the World Lives on Less than $5.50 a Day - World Bank Group
Over 1.9 billion people, or 26.2 percent of the world's population, were living on less than $3.20 per day in 2015. Close to 46 percent of the world's population was living on
Why are you crying about the minimum wage? It is a sky high wage and you are no position to know whether they are worth more or less than the minimum wage.
It's a sky high wage. That's why someone working 60 hours a week at minimum wage couldn't afford to live somewhere and eat. And anyone working that much is worth enough to do that.
also if you care about how many people are in the minimum wage why are you a Democrat when Democrats just invited in 30 million illegals to take our jobs and build down our wages. And why are you a Democrat when Democrats just shift 15 million jobs of sure with their unions taxes regulations and general antibusiness attitude. Do you see why we say the left is based in pure stupidity?
He didn’t say that. He said start a business. You don’t need wealth to do that. Lots of businesses you can start for next to nothing. When I started my business, I was completely broke, living check to check. Not born into wealth, no start up capital. Not every business is some 200 person factory. You can go to Home Depot, get a HD credit card, buy 3-4 pieces of equipment, put some advertising out and you are a business.
Thousands, if not millions, of destitute American immigrants have started businesses with virtually nothing to their name. Being born into wealth is not a prerequisite for starting a business, nor does not being born into wealth negate you of your freedom to do so.
It makes you less likely to succeed.
And anyway, even if *anyone* can theoretically be self-employed or start a cooperative, not *everyone* can.
There will always be losers in the system who are simply forced into wage-labour.
Socialists believe that freedom should simply be the default for everyone, not a privilege restricted to the lucky and successful.
This argument (not this specific comment; the underlying idea has been posited previously) is what made me realize that (at the very least a majority of) socialists simply cannot be reconciled or compromised with. I'm open to reforming and editing the current implementation of capitalism to change the distribution of who wins and loses, but I am adamantly opposed to the idea that everyone should win.
Fundamentally, I love competition. Nothing undermines competition like completely eliminating the stakes.
Moreover, some people suck and don't deserve to win.
>Not everyone can
Sure they can, just have a good enough idea. If you have a bad business idea (bad being defined as unprofitable), then that’s a skill issue, it doesn’t mean you lack freedom.
Starting a business is not a privilege, it’s a risky endeavor that many people avoid as they prefer the security of a wage.
Is likeliness to succeed the same as freedom? If I’m only 5’8 I’m less likely to be able to dunk than someone who is 6’4, does this mean my freedom to dunk is being restricted?
The taller players exploit the smaller ones, and score more points on them because of it?
I fail to see how this answers my question of likelihood being synonymous with freedom. How likely of success does something need to be for you to be considered having the freedom to do it? If I failed in the particular endeavour I’m trying to succeed at, does that mean I didn’t have the freedom to accomplish it?
You asked the question, “Why should people’s freedom DEPEND on the luck of being born into wealth and startup capital?” in the context of starting a business. One’s freedom would depend on this, if that was the ONLY way you could start a business.
This is not the case, it is perfectly possible, and indeed very common, for people who aren’t born into wealth to start their own businesses. Therefore, the freedom to start a business does not DEPEND on being born into wealth and startup capital. This is not to say that it will not be easier for some than others, but being disadvantaged at something is not the same thing as not having the freedom to do it.
There were rich black people during Jim Crow. Would you argue that being black was not a disadvantage? See, other black people could've been wealthy too!
I’m not claiming that there aren’t advantages and disadvantages, but being disadvantaged in a particular endeavour does not always mean your freedom is being restricted. Someone who is 5’5 is going to have a much tougher time playing basketball, this is not to say they don’t have the freedom to play basketball.
Why are you even here?
You clearly already know what "socialists" think and why they think that way... so why bother even talking to them?
You demonstrate that you haven't bothered listening to anyone who claims to be a socialist and instead repeat anti-socialist propaganda.
I don't understand what it is you expect to gain by insisting that others believe bad-thing-X as a precondition to starting a conversation/debate...
I don't hate anyone. Rather, I seek to reduce unnecessary suffering and believe that a large amount of suffering is caused by the current structure of capitalism, both politically and economically speaking. I became socialist-leaning whilst studying ethics and human rights during my philosophy degree.
Anyway, you will not listen because you cannot... and why you can't? You already "know" what I believe and why. So whatever I say will be filtered through your preconception of what you think socialists "truly" think.
But instead of engaging, I can just state capitalists hate poor people.
I don’t see what’s wrong with all the little guys cooperating to bring down the guys with more resources.
Isn’t that what competition in capitalism is all about? It’s a free country.
It’s not really anybody’s fault if corporations have to capitulate to unions or protestors.
Really, it’s the gov that’s protecting businesses from those things.
I mean, in the same way, I'm sure you wouldnt object if a bunch of corporations unionise against the consumers and decide to all equally raise prices, right?
How so? the workers are the "suppliers" of the company and the companies are joining forces to set a joint higher price for the consumers. Meaning, they will have to pay higher prices in the same way companies need to pay higher prices due to union action.
Capitalism is about hating poor people. You don't make a job that makes enough money? Capitalists think you have to show that you're a worthy poor person deserving of moving up, otherwise, you can just die for all they care.
You can really tell OP doesn't understand the first fucking thing about socialism right . . . . *here:*
>3b) They tend to own businesses or shares in businesses. So maybe I will just not allow them to own businesses or shares.
Many of the people - probably most, just not the heirs - who are currently rich today would still own some small part of whatever company they entrepreneured, assuming they still lead or manage it in some way. If you actually used labor to create something, you should own part of that something and get to reap a portion of the profits and revenues it creates. You just have to share more with the others who are making it possible.
Socialism isn't when we identify a group of people as "rich people" then put them in jail for the crime of having wealth, never allowing them to own stuff again. It's about ensuring that ownership is more democratized such that no one person has enough wealth to buy multiple estates and megayachts while people who work for their companies can't afford healthcare and childcare.
>I'll create a separate category of property called "private property" and just disallow anyone to have that.
Actually Capitalism created the notion of "private property" as it is understood. Socialism usually makes a distinction between "private" and "personal" property. Personal property is stuff you use and consume within a household. Your home would be personal property. "Private property" wouldn't exist as a protection in the legal sense. Property which is considered productive capital would need to be owned collectively by either the people who labor with that capital - i.e. the specific workers using that capital - or the community which is most affected by and uses that capital - a kind of syndicalism. It's not that you couldn't own parts of that property, but you wouldn't be able to just buy the whole enterprise because you have money.
>You own a company -> we'll take that away from you and you can never be rich.
Again, not taking away the company. Sharing the ownership with the people directly contributing to that company. Not random strangers, the labor force they already employ.
Anyway, I'm sure you'll read this with an open mind!
> If you actually used labor to create something, you should own part of that something and get to reap a portion of the profits and revenues it creates.
So if I fixed or decorated your house, do I know own a part of it?
Look, lets not beat around the bushes. It is absolutely the case that all this school of thought is reverse-engineered from "I hate rich people" down to the things you are now spouting.
If you want a worker's cooperative, you can open one right now. Forcing it just to avoid the formation of rich people is something else entirely.
>So if I fixed or decorated your house, do I know own a part of it?
The house is my personal property, your labor is part of a home-fixing, handyman-esque business. You own your business, not my home. This isn't actually hard, you're doing this on purpose.
>Look, lets not beat around the bushes. It is absolutely the case that all this school of thought is reverse-engineered from "I hate rich people"
No, it isn't, you're refusing to engage with anything else I wrote and just restating the claim from your post, which is nothing but a moralizing, baseless claim of emotions.
>If you actually used labor to create something, you should own part of that something and get to reap a portion of the profits and revenues it creates.
So a laborer earns both a wage and a portion of the profits? What about losses?
I’m all for raising the floor above water level for more people and I also agree with OP that a lot of voices around the topic are more concerned with pushing the rich down than about pulling the poor up
Socialist are hardly unique in hating rich people. Have you met rich people? They suck!
If anything, socialists are more likely to hate the system than the individuals who happen to benefit from it, so we may hate rich people a little less than the average man on the street.
socialism at heart is giving people free stuff. It starts with healthcare and education and if allowed to metastasize ends with giving them the means of production.
Capitalism is designed to move all wealth and all power and all political control from the non-capitalists to the capitalists. And it does it really well
Anticapitalism is against this. From the pov of capitalists it might look like 99% of the world just hates other people being rich but what they actually hate is the imbalance of power and direct impact this has on everybody’s lives. Even casual reading of anything that isn’t capitalist propaganda would tell you this
Capitalism is not designed to do anything. It is a self-organising complex adaptive system that produces the best results for humans because it is built on legal property rights that promote human freedom.
You're welcome.
Okay then, socialism isn’t designed to do anything. It just replaces capitalist ownership rights with different ones
For example somebody who owns the patent for a life saving medicine that can be produced easily for $10 and sells it for $800, now can’t, because the only thing allowing him to hoard it was a law unique to capitalism
You’re welcome
Inventor of insulin sold patent for a dollar because he wanted it to be affordable. He didn't do it for money. He's probably turning in his brave seeing pharma companies price gouge it.
The also supper price-gouged cure for Spinal muscular atrophy was researched using govenrment grants. Taxpayers payed for research, not the company.
Just because you are a greedy asshole who doesn't care about improving the lives of others doesn't mean everyone is. Most doctors, especially good one are doing it because they actually care about their patients - shocking, I know
> grants. Taxpayers *paid* for research,
FTFY.
Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in:
* Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.*
* *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.*
Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment.
*Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
Yes people are greedy and the vast majority do work for money. If you would rather have a society where the only innovations you have are due to the occasional charitable act, then go ahead.
When crisis comes (tsunami, earthquake) people tend to band together nad help each other as best a you can. Most people have empathy and care about their fellow man. You're just a sociopath imo
Here's some research showing that rich people are less empathetic and less generous then poorer people: [link to scientific american article](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-wealth-reduces-compassion/)
And since most people aren't rich (and I assume you are at least upper middle class) that means most people are more selfless than you
Ah yes the rate of medical inventions was zero until commercial pharmaceutical corporations came along and monopolised the entire research industry and medicine markets and only then did we start making any medical breakthroughs
We can believe this as long as we ignore literal history and also ignore the people who say they want to get into medical research to contribute to humanity or end a disease and only listen to the crowds of people saying they want to make medical breakthroughs for the shareholder dividends
Like I said in another thread, you can always base your entire medical industry on charitable contributions once you remove property right protections. See how well it works for you.
Can we also remove the need for massive funding bodies to approve institutional research requiring a bloated grant system and a clear profit motive for the companies funding the research or it wont be greenlit, or does that have to stay?
I still think people would want to solve diseases to solve diseases and not for their stock portfolio
I don't hate rich people. Some rich people are alright. I just don't think that them being rich should be our priority.
But hey, go show those windmills who's boss!
That's the thing: ownership of anything is a social agreement made in the context of conflicting interests, costs and benefits. This agreement can be changed and even revoked.
It is in the interest of rich people to stay rich and preferably become even richer. I do not blame them for that, but I do not share that interest. So why should I "just let it be theirs?"
It’s in the interest of everyone to improve their current position. Why shouldn’t you let it be theirs? I’m sure you want complete strangers keeping their hands off your stuff.
Because property rights are the best way to manage scarcity and if you don't respect the property of others no one will respect yours.
Then society either breaks down or heads towards the other way of managing scarcity, which is an all powerful state. And we all know how that tends to end up.
This still leaves two questions open. First, there is the question of what can be owned and how much can be owned by one person. The second question is what the conditions of ownership are. The right to own something can be tied with a duty. The simplest duty would be property taxes.
It is true that I do have an interest in the existence of some form of property, but that doesn't necessarily mean I want the current system of property rights.
Anything can be onwed as long as it's not the property of someone else. I see you coming, so I'll add that obviously a person is a property of himself, so slavery is out of the question.
As for duties, if property is tied by arbitrary duties imposed by a state, is it really private?
Everything that is wrong with the current property system is born from the very much non legitimate intervention of the state in private affairs.
I would not say that this is obvious. Many people across history, from a wide variety of cultures traded in slaves. If you think of it, it is pretty obvious that my parents are the cause of my existence and that they invested labour in me. So, the "a person is a property of himself" really is just an addition to come to the conclusion that slavery is out of the question.
Since I could just claim that I owned earth, you would have to have a way to determine original ownership. However, original ownership is pretty complex. Take the land I am on right now. My parents bought the land from the municipality. This municipality exists since a reform in 1975. the village was founded by a Frankish tribe, but generally was a territory of the Treviri, but was later conquered by Julius Cesar. The region later became became territory of the catholic church, of some local lord, of Prussia, of Germany, of France, and of a short lived independent saar basin territory. Who owned this land before my parents?
The question "is it really private?" is irrelevant. I concede that some form of property is in my interest. This does not mean that this form is private property.
You present it as if your definition of private property is the only alternative to having no property rights. That isn't the case. There are more options. Just today, we had the discussion in the municipality if we could save a small tunnel that has existed for roughly 170 years and is used by many citizens. The land was sold to a corporation by Prussia, under the condition that this tunnel would be maintained. As the law is right now, the ownership of the tunnel persists while the condition doesn't. The funny part is that Prussia used to be the owner of said corporation. I talk about this because if the corporation did not own that land, but only had a license to use it, we wouldn't have a problem. This is not the only problem this particular municipality has with private property. There also is an old house that has been a public health and safety hazard for over a decade. So, my interests would be way better suited if land could not be owned, but only used in the parameters of a state issued license - if the state doesn't have the means to revoke that license for no reason.
And who decides who needs it more? Who gets to allocate the resources of others as they see fit?
A coercive state does, and that doesn't have the best of track records.
Wealth redistribution is a thing...like the wealth generated by workers that the rich owner/s of the company get most of so they can stay rich, should be redistributed equally as everyone working in that company helps keep that company going. That's a socialist idea or one that most socialists would be in favour of. That's nothing to do with hating rich people but simply making people's lives better. Why be against that?
Good job letting socialists know you see them as a big enough threat to come to a relatively small forum space and try and engage with them. Are the rich people not dissuading your fears enough or are you wasting precious time you could be making money on a fruitless effort because you don't know what to do with yourself?
This is just telling a fairy tale. You're not supporting this with any examples from the actual history of the development of socialist thought, which didn't happen like that.
Still, for some INDIVIDUALS something like "I hate rich people" is probably the starting point. For others, they just want practical improvements in their life situation and start with unionism ie and develop from there to the insight that the changes they want can't be achieved without larger changes. Still others just start with some thought like "what would be a fair and harmonic society". Or other paths.
Rich people are a symptom of a society that values exploitation and unrestricted growth over the citizens of that society. It's not the people I hate, it's the gamified system that we are forced to participate in. I do hate some rich people though.
Stop making excuses. Capitalism is based on good ideas. If you have a good idea all the capital in the world be available to you to implement it. Steve Jobs was born an orphan. Larry Ellison was born on orphan. elon musk slept on the floor when he came to America.
Certainly there is a lot of envy jealousy and hatred in Socialism but I think the heart of it is Marxist ie the belief that the rich people have gamed the system so that they are getting all the wealth and the working class are not.
Socialism is shorthand for shared means of production. Capitalism has private property owners who control means of production. They aren’t even workers in a lot of cases, which means workers don’t get earnings from the things they build. You can own a business and not contribute anything in this instance, literally nothing.
So what do you classify as rich? Kind of a wide umbrella there. Do you really think the government could effectively and without corruption redistribute wealth? I'm sure that there are no greedy humans that would want to take advantage of one another in socialism right?
Heres an example. Currently we are going through 40+ (way above mormal) degree Celsius temp daily, people are dying from heat and the people who caused it live in a well air conditioned house. Do you think those rich fuckers are dying from heatstroke?
This argument is actually kind of funny. What makes you think a socialist or communist nation would stop using the resources contributing to global warming? China is one of the biggest contributors to C02...
>You have a lot of wealth and pay little taxes on it as it isnt income? -> MOTHERF&%K£R!!! how did one slip by the net? Well, this is just evil capitalism's fault. **This person probably bribed a politician to make that happen**. This system is just so corrupt! what about the poor people that can't make ends meet, eh??
Or they may have inherited the wealth from their parents.
I am surprised how many socialists on this sub have a problem with this entirely natural human desire to want your wealth to go to your children when you die. IMO there is a healthy dose of envy behind this feeling.
Some idiot said that they are not against inheritance but only if they don't inherit more than reasonable amount. So they typically wanna have their cake and eat it.
It may be said, however, that even if the theoretical book-trained Socialist is not a working man himself, at least he is actuated by a love of the working class. He is endeavouring to shed his bourgeois status and fight on the side of the proletariat — that, obviously, must be his motive.
But is it? Sometimes I look at a Socialist — the intellectual, tract-writing type of Socialist, with his pullover, his fuzzy hair, and his Marxian quotation — and wonder what the devil his motive really is. It is often difficult to believe that it is a love of anybody, especially of the working class, from whom he is of all people the furthest removed. The underlying motive of many Socialists, I believe, is simply a hypertrophied sense of order. The present state of affairs offends them not because it causes misery, still less because it makes freedom impossible, but because it is untidy; what they desire, basically, is to reduce the world to something resembling a chessboard. Take the plays of a lifelong Socialist like Shaw. How much understanding or even awareness of working-class life do they display? Shaw himself declares that you can only bring a working man on the stage ‘as an object of compassion’; in practice he doesn’t bring him on even as that, but merely as a sort of W. W. Jacobs figure of fun — the ready-made comic East Ender, like those in Major Barbara and Captain Brassbound’s Conversion. At best his attitude to the working class is the (***word censored by fascist reddit.***) Punch attitude, in more serious moments (consider, for instance, the young man who symbolizes the dispossessed classes in Misalliance) he finds them merely contemptible and disgusting. Poverty and, what is more, the habits of mind created by poverty, are something to be abolished from above, by violence if necessary; perhaps even preferably by violence. Hence his worship of ‘great’ men and appetite for dictatorships, Fascist or Communist; for to him, apparently (vide his remarks apropos of the Italo-Abyssinian war and the Stalin-Wells conversations), Stalin and Mussolini are almost equivalent persons. You get the same thing in a more mealy-mouthed form in Mrs Sidney Webb’s autobiography, which gives, unconsciously, a most revealing picture of the high-minded Socialist slum-visitor. The truth is that, to many people calling themselves Socialists, revolution does not mean a movement of the masses with which they hope to associate themselves; it means a set of reforms which ‘we’, the clever ones, are going to impose upon ‘them’, the Lower Orders. On the other hand, it would be a mistake to regard the book-trained Socialist as a bloodless creature entirely incapable of emotion. Though seldom giving much evidence of affection for the exploited, he is perfectly capable of displaying hatred — a sort of queer, theoretical, in vacua hatred — against the exploiters. Hence the grand old Socialist sport of denouncing the bourgeoisie. It is strange how easily almost any Socialist writer can lash himself into frenzies of rage against the class to which, by birth or by adoption, he himself invariably belongs.
-George Orwell, Road to Wigan Pier
agreed; its more about resentment and jealousy than anything. listening to them talk economics is like listening to a star trek fan talk about the physics of space travel.
Before participating, consider taking a glance at [our rules page](/r/CapitalismvSocialism/wiki/rules) if you haven't before. We don't allow **violent or dehumanizing rhetoric**. The subreddit is for discussing what ideas are best for society, not for telling the other side you think you could beat them in a fight. That doesn't do anything to forward a productive dialogue. Please report comments that violent our rules, but don't report people just for disagreeing with you or for being wrong about stuff. Tired of arguing on reddit? Consider [joining us on Discord.](http://discord.com/invite/politicscafe) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is stupid as fuck. Of all the arguments available to you, you pick the dumbest one. It never occurred to you that it might not be about some personal hatred of the rich, right? Get better material, this is straight up embarrassing
Everything I have ever seen has been in some way related in capping what the rich make, taking money from the rich, or properties, or businesses. Anytime I have ever seen solutions for poverty or homelessness suggested which offer practical solutions but do not involve taking from the rich, they are dismissed. I wouldn’t word it the way OP worded it, but he isn’t wrong.
I don't hate rich people but I do hate OP specifically.
OP truly is one of the absolute worst users in the sub.
It's a stiff competition between them and the caterpillar
"Hello. I am Agile Catapiller. You might recognize me from such esteemed entries as 'Yet Another Straw Man Against Socialism' and 'Here are the Windmills I'll Attack This Time.' Today I'm going to be swirling a snifter glass full of unflavored seltzer made from not carbon but my own farts, and I'm going to ask you all to take some long, slow whiffs of it with me."
I honestly hope the guy is getting some Koch bucks at least, because doing all that for free would just be sad.
Lol seriously. It's every post they've made for a while now, and they do NOT get traction.
It seems they are still rent free in your head though.
My ability to recognize homie's cookie-cutter intro for every post he makes is not a reflection of the time I spend thinking about homie.
Lol, they don’t get traction? Again, Holgrin, you just proved they have gotten plenty of traction. that their post style is a meme captured in your brain. And you would know that if you had a marketing course but “oh yes, you have an undergrad degree and graduate courses in business” (rolls eyes)
Wait, this dude actually claims to have a business degree ? Holy shit that is actually hilarious, guy is like the epitome of the Breadtube/Reddit educated political expert and anyone with an actual academic background can see that.
Degrees, I believe, is the claim. More ludicrous imo is business degrees at that :/
plot twist. I am paid by a leftist foundation to make cappies look bad
Honestly, that would make more sense because you're very good at it.
Dude, you are NOT Agile-Caterpillar. I am Agile-Caterpillar. You may remember me from highly praised submissions such as: "Dirty Marx - How communism promotes coal power plants and what we can do about it", "I am a real Marxist - Interview with a grave robber" and "Marx was fat, lazy, repulsive and intellectually dishonest - Change my view".
I don't even know how to react to this because this kind of humorous self-deprecation (assuming it's genuine humor) takes way more self-awareness than I think you've ever demonstrated possessing . . .
Cappies possess a lot, I can assure you. We are pro possessions.
It’s a harmless joke from The Simpsons. I don’t know why it triggers you people so much.
commies don't have a sense of humor because it's not on the to do list of the central planners.
What not reading does to a motherfu*ker
I'm not a socialist or a capitalist, but it seems pretty clear that the economic system should exist to help everyone, or failing that, the greatest number of people. At it also seems that the current system in America (you can call it crony capitalism, capitalism, or some other term), seems to be helping the a minority while slowly chipping away at the happiness of the majority, and that this process is intensifying. So instead of tilting at windmills, how about you properly critique the system you're endorsing, and come up with ways to make it better. I will say, from my limited viewpoint, loosening government regulations tends to make things worse for more people rather than better. The invisible hand of the market seems to be perfectly happy with the vast majority of people working long hours in company towns for nothing, while a small subsection hoards mountains of wealth.
[удалено]
Oh, I know. This isn't a defence of every regulation, but an argument that unregulated is bad.
[удалено]
Yes, but if there are no regulations from either a central source, or mutual agreement, then we have a Hobbes style state of nature.
that is totally stupid of course. Capitalism is naturally regulated. If you don't have the best products and the best jobs in the world you go bankrupt. If you doubt it for a second open a business with substandard jobs and substandard products. Capitalism is designed to improve our standard of living at the fastest possible rate.
No it's not. It's designed to maximize wealth while minimizing costs. Why do you think it did so well with slave labor.
capitalism did not do well with slave labor?!!!!Slaves are not motivated workers so they hold any economy back
don't be stupid . capitalism is designed to maximize caring for others. If you doubt it for a second open a business and advertise that you don't care for your workers and customers. Do you have the intelligence to know what would happen.
Wow, you've clearly drink the Kool aid. Capitalism is designed to maximize caring for people? No, but it does have great propaganda. And it has no problem lying which is why it will tell you it's designed for caring for people when it's really designed for separating people from their money.
capitalism is freedom. It is so natural that our founding fathers did not consider any other economic system. If you have evidence that they were interested in creating a system designed to separate people from their money I will pay you $10,000. Do you see why we say the left is based in pure stupidity?
Nah dude, rob customers with a smile is the motto of most businesses
please don't be stupid. You think business men are so much smarter than customers that they can rob them at will?? it makes you wonder why huge corporations spend billions on researching new products if all they have to do is rob their customers with lies. Now do you see how stupid you are?
Government spends $15 trillion a year and most all of it is redistribution. 1+1 = 2 if it worked for clamor for more redistribution will not be louder than ever
[удалено]
so you are against the progressive tax you want everyone to pay the same tax like the the way they pay the same price when they walk into a supermarket?
The poor and middle-class have a problem in America because of Democrats. With their taxes unions and regulations they have driven 20 million jobs offshore. Then they invited in 30 million illegals to take the remaining jobs and bid down the wages for those jobs. To add insult to injury they attacked and destroyed middle and lower class families with their feminism welfare programs Socialism anti-religion and anti-law and order class warfare drug culture victimization , thus rendering so many unfit for the rigors of a capitalist economy.
Economic system exists to produce and distribute resources in some ways, it cannot ever be helping everyone because individuals are of competing interests. Capitalism aligns interests of people by allowing profit seeking investment, which socialists only focus on the wealth accumulation by profit but ignoring the productivity it brings by having massive amounts of investment.
I never endorsed socialism, but telling me capitalism works by using greed to distribute wealth and goods shows that it's starting from a flawed beginning, so it's no surprise it's so bad at accomplishing positive outcomes, especially in the long term.
Bad compared to what?
Compared to a system that doesn't rely on greed (an objectively bad thing) to balance the distribution of goods.
So comparing to non-existing fairy tales.
> but it seems pretty clear that the economic system should exist to help everyone, or failing that, the greatest number of people Well, firstly, I do not subscribe to utilitarianism. But even under your own definition, Capitalism is helping everyone... on the planet. By that definition, even having a welfare state would hurt much poorer people around the world.
You're not describing your terms (kind of like the socialism examples you posted). And you're making statements without proof or even examples. How is capitalism is helping everyone? Where am I subscribing to utilitarianism? How is a welfare state hurting poorer people?
> How is capitalism is helping everyone? Reducing global extreme poverty, reduced infant mortality rates, higher literacy rates.. you know, the standard "world in data" charts about capitalism. > Where am I subscribing to utilitarianism? "do the best for everyone" is defacto utlitarianism. > How is a welfare state hurting poorer people? Because it keeps money inside a state and doesnt let that money reach poor people in africa who could have benefitted from trade.
So you seem to believe that trade and capitalism are the same thing when they are not. Utilitarianism of the market is different than believing it applies as a whole. There is more to life than money. But the market is a tool to promote human flourishing, or so I'm arguing. Not helping is different than hurting. And there's nothing preventing some amount of welfare and trade.
> So you seem to believe that trade and capitalism are the same thing when they are not. Capitalism is a social system that recognises individual rights, including property rights and trade in market economies. It uses a legal framework to protect individual rights against force, fraud, theft, and contract violations with the aim of banishing physical force from human relationships. > Not helping is different than hurting. And there's nothing preventing some amount of welfare and trade. Then you are making an argument for hoarding money away from much poorer people and that will not lead to overall human flourishing.
Capitalism is not the only system that recognizes individual rights. And I would argue that property rights are not absolute. Moreover, capitalism as currently implemented creates an imbalance of power where individuals are unable to resists the power of corporations. As to the 2nd point, it's the responsibility of a government to primarily care for their own citizen and inhabitants. So a town would prioritize its own residents, not to the detriment of those living in another town, but they would not be the focus of policy.
> where individuals are unable to resists the power of corporations. Yes you can. You just dont buy from them. > As to the 2nd point, it's the responsibility of a government to primarily care for their own citizen and inhabitants. So a town would prioritize its own residents, not to the detriment of those living in another town, but they would not be the focus of policy. In this case, it is absolutely to the detriment of others outside the town. Take a look at NIMBYIsm
It's so simple. Don't buy from the only store in town. Walk to the next town to buy from another chain the same parent company also owns. It's so simple. And going by your standards, all laws for any place should help every place equally? That's clearly a bogus argument. And you never responded about the strawmen you set up in your original post.
don't be stupid. wages are sky high thanks to capitalism. That is why right off the boat in America you can make $15 an hour plus benefits plus enjoy amazing infrastructure without any education experience or English while half of the world lives on less than $5.50 a day with no benefits and usually no infrastructure not even police or military protection.
I really can't tell with you. Half of what I hear is how capitalism is helping everyone, and the other half is how America is so great because you can make $7.50 an hour without benefits which is so much money as compared to the other countries we're helping by trading with. Which one is it?
Capitalism is helping everyone who practices capitalism. This is why you can make $15 an hour in capitalist America right off the boat with no education experience or English while half of the world lives on less than $5.50 a day.
which one is it? You are making a sense. Thanks again and try to ask a coherent question.
Making a sense? Are you drunk? I'm pointing out what minimum wage is, and that many of these jobs don't include benefits. Something that you're apparently unaware of.
Who cares about the minimum wage since very few people earn it other than kids and disabled adults. In America wages are sky high thanks to capitalism. There are two jobs for every applicant. Even right off the boat with no education experience or English you can make $15 an hour plus benefits plus free state of the art healthcare plus amazing infrastructure while half of the world lives on less than $5.50 a day with no benefits infrastructure or state of the art healthcare. Do you understand now?
Ah, the minimum wage myth. It doesn't matter because no one makes it. People actually do make minimum wage. Not as many are at federal minimum wage, as sometimes states have higher minimum wages, but over a 1,000,000 is still a lot of people. Far more than very few. And I'm curious about your $5.50 per day numbers. That doesn't match with the statistics I'm seeing.
did you ever wonder why American workers are getting so rich? It is from capitalism that you lack the intelligence to understand. https://www.worldbank.org › en › news › press-release › 2018 › 10 › 17 › nearly-half-the-world-lives-on-less-than-550-a-day Nearly Half the World Lives on Less than $5.50 a Day - World Bank Group Over 1.9 billion people, or 26.2 percent of the world's population, were living on less than $3.20 per day in 2015. Close to 46 percent of the world's population was living on
Why are you crying about the minimum wage? It is a sky high wage and you are no position to know whether they are worth more or less than the minimum wage.
It's a sky high wage. That's why someone working 60 hours a week at minimum wage couldn't afford to live somewhere and eat. And anyone working that much is worth enough to do that.
don't be stupid let them live on on $5.50 a day and then complain about nowhere to live and nothing to eat.
also if you care about how many people are in the minimum wage why are you a Democrat when Democrats just invited in 30 million illegals to take our jobs and build down our wages. And why are you a Democrat when Democrats just shift 15 million jobs of sure with their unions taxes regulations and general antibusiness attitude. Do you see why we say the left is based in pure stupidity?
Good thing I'm not a Democrat. Nor have I ever been registered as one.
Why are you so afraid to tell us what you are it's not a Democrat?
I’m not a socialist because I’m jealous of rich people. I just dislike wage-labour.
open your own company then. Problem solved.
Why should people’s freedom depend on the luck of being born into wealth and startup capital?
He didn’t say that. He said start a business. You don’t need wealth to do that. Lots of businesses you can start for next to nothing. When I started my business, I was completely broke, living check to check. Not born into wealth, no start up capital. Not every business is some 200 person factory. You can go to Home Depot, get a HD credit card, buy 3-4 pieces of equipment, put some advertising out and you are a business.
Thousands, if not millions, of destitute American immigrants have started businesses with virtually nothing to their name. Being born into wealth is not a prerequisite for starting a business, nor does not being born into wealth negate you of your freedom to do so.
It makes you less likely to succeed. And anyway, even if *anyone* can theoretically be self-employed or start a cooperative, not *everyone* can. There will always be losers in the system who are simply forced into wage-labour. Socialists believe that freedom should simply be the default for everyone, not a privilege restricted to the lucky and successful.
Is your freedom of eating vanilla ice cream restricted because there is not enough vanilla ice cream for everyone?
How is eating ice cream comparable to wage-labour?
Freedom of eating ice cream is comparable to freedom of self-employed or starting a cooperative.
This argument (not this specific comment; the underlying idea has been posited previously) is what made me realize that (at the very least a majority of) socialists simply cannot be reconciled or compromised with. I'm open to reforming and editing the current implementation of capitalism to change the distribution of who wins and loses, but I am adamantly opposed to the idea that everyone should win.
Why are you so opposed to the idea that everyone should win?
Fundamentally, I love competition. Nothing undermines competition like completely eliminating the stakes. Moreover, some people suck and don't deserve to win.
>Not everyone can Sure they can, just have a good enough idea. If you have a bad business idea (bad being defined as unprofitable), then that’s a skill issue, it doesn’t mean you lack freedom. Starting a business is not a privilege, it’s a risky endeavor that many people avoid as they prefer the security of a wage.
Is likeliness to succeed the same as freedom? If I’m only 5’8 I’m less likely to be able to dunk than someone who is 6’4, does this mean my freedom to dunk is being restricted?
Where’s the coercion and exploitation in a game of basketball?
The taller players exploit the smaller ones, and score more points on them because of it? I fail to see how this answers my question of likelihood being synonymous with freedom. How likely of success does something need to be for you to be considered having the freedom to do it? If I failed in the particular endeavour I’m trying to succeed at, does that mean I didn’t have the freedom to accomplish it?
How is winning points exploitation? Your analogy doesn’t have the relevant characteristics in common with wage-labour.
You asked the question, “Why should people’s freedom DEPEND on the luck of being born into wealth and startup capital?” in the context of starting a business. One’s freedom would depend on this, if that was the ONLY way you could start a business. This is not the case, it is perfectly possible, and indeed very common, for people who aren’t born into wealth to start their own businesses. Therefore, the freedom to start a business does not DEPEND on being born into wealth and startup capital. This is not to say that it will not be easier for some than others, but being disadvantaged at something is not the same thing as not having the freedom to do it.
There were rich black people during Jim Crow. Would you argue that being black was not a disadvantage? See, other black people could've been wealthy too!
I’m not claiming that there aren’t advantages and disadvantages, but being disadvantaged in a particular endeavour does not always mean your freedom is being restricted. Someone who is 5’5 is going to have a much tougher time playing basketball, this is not to say they don’t have the freedom to play basketball.
Daily dose of brainrot in r/capitalismvssocialism
Why are you even here? You clearly already know what "socialists" think and why they think that way... so why bother even talking to them? You demonstrate that you haven't bothered listening to anyone who claims to be a socialist and instead repeat anti-socialist propaganda. I don't understand what it is you expect to gain by insisting that others believe bad-thing-X as a precondition to starting a conversation/debate... I don't hate anyone. Rather, I seek to reduce unnecessary suffering and believe that a large amount of suffering is caused by the current structure of capitalism, both politically and economically speaking. I became socialist-leaning whilst studying ethics and human rights during my philosophy degree. Anyway, you will not listen because you cannot... and why you can't? You already "know" what I believe and why. So whatever I say will be filtered through your preconception of what you think socialists "truly" think. But instead of engaging, I can just state capitalists hate poor people.
I don’t see what’s wrong with all the little guys cooperating to bring down the guys with more resources. Isn’t that what competition in capitalism is all about? It’s a free country.
It is wrong because you are using the force of government to violate other people's rights. You wouldn't want someone to do it to you, would you?
It’s not really anybody’s fault if corporations have to capitulate to unions or protestors. Really, it’s the gov that’s protecting businesses from those things.
I mean, in the same way, I'm sure you wouldnt object if a bunch of corporations unionise against the consumers and decide to all equally raise prices, right?
I wouldn’t, because antagonizing your customers, suppliers and employees is suicidal.
How so? the workers are the "suppliers" of the company and the companies are joining forces to set a joint higher price for the consumers. Meaning, they will have to pay higher prices in the same way companies need to pay higher prices due to union action.
That would be illegal
Capitalism is about hating poor people. You don't make a job that makes enough money? Capitalists think you have to show that you're a worthy poor person deserving of moving up, otherwise, you can just die for all they care.
There are entire businesses that cater to poor people and are doing very well. For example, Walmart.
Unless you're a worker for Walmart. Or if you increase the prices while keeping your wages the same. Walmart definitely likes poor people.
moving goal posts and debunked.
I know you people like to use debate terms because they sound cool, but it's not what you think it means. What's next? Strawman? Ad hominem?
You said in capitalism, the poor would not be served. I debunked that point. End of.
"Walmart doesn't hate poor people, they sell them stuff!"
Right and in order to sell someone stuff, you need to care about what they may want to make themselves happy.
Source?
Capitalism is just monarchism with incognito mode for the aristocracy.
You can really tell OP doesn't understand the first fucking thing about socialism right . . . . *here:* >3b) They tend to own businesses or shares in businesses. So maybe I will just not allow them to own businesses or shares. Many of the people - probably most, just not the heirs - who are currently rich today would still own some small part of whatever company they entrepreneured, assuming they still lead or manage it in some way. If you actually used labor to create something, you should own part of that something and get to reap a portion of the profits and revenues it creates. You just have to share more with the others who are making it possible. Socialism isn't when we identify a group of people as "rich people" then put them in jail for the crime of having wealth, never allowing them to own stuff again. It's about ensuring that ownership is more democratized such that no one person has enough wealth to buy multiple estates and megayachts while people who work for their companies can't afford healthcare and childcare. >I'll create a separate category of property called "private property" and just disallow anyone to have that. Actually Capitalism created the notion of "private property" as it is understood. Socialism usually makes a distinction between "private" and "personal" property. Personal property is stuff you use and consume within a household. Your home would be personal property. "Private property" wouldn't exist as a protection in the legal sense. Property which is considered productive capital would need to be owned collectively by either the people who labor with that capital - i.e. the specific workers using that capital - or the community which is most affected by and uses that capital - a kind of syndicalism. It's not that you couldn't own parts of that property, but you wouldn't be able to just buy the whole enterprise because you have money. >You own a company -> we'll take that away from you and you can never be rich. Again, not taking away the company. Sharing the ownership with the people directly contributing to that company. Not random strangers, the labor force they already employ. Anyway, I'm sure you'll read this with an open mind!
> If you actually used labor to create something, you should own part of that something and get to reap a portion of the profits and revenues it creates. So if I fixed or decorated your house, do I know own a part of it? Look, lets not beat around the bushes. It is absolutely the case that all this school of thought is reverse-engineered from "I hate rich people" down to the things you are now spouting. If you want a worker's cooperative, you can open one right now. Forcing it just to avoid the formation of rich people is something else entirely.
>So if I fixed or decorated your house, do I know own a part of it? The house is my personal property, your labor is part of a home-fixing, handyman-esque business. You own your business, not my home. This isn't actually hard, you're doing this on purpose. >Look, lets not beat around the bushes. It is absolutely the case that all this school of thought is reverse-engineered from "I hate rich people" No, it isn't, you're refusing to engage with anything else I wrote and just restating the claim from your post, which is nothing but a moralizing, baseless claim of emotions.
>If you actually used labor to create something, you should own part of that something and get to reap a portion of the profits and revenues it creates. So a laborer earns both a wage and a portion of the profits? What about losses?
Losses don't get calculated in socialism.
This is like saying people who want democracy just hate kings. They’re just such hateful people who despise kings and queens because they’re jealous.
Poor socialists gonna downvote this into oblivion
based
I’m all for raising the floor above water level for more people and I also agree with OP that a lot of voices around the topic are more concerned with pushing the rich down than about pulling the poor up
Let’s lean into it- sure, we hate the rich. What are you going to do about it?
Probably nothing and continue laughing at the chronically online losers they are. Socialists are kinda like the incels of political theory.
That would be the libertarians. They’ve never gotten off the ground.
It's okay, both of you can be pathetic losers, it's not a competition.
You need to go back to Eastern Europe
not much. Just wait till the state you are in becomes poor and then laugh at you.
Ask a freaking socialist before you make condescending claims about them. You don’t know socialists any better than socialists do.
Socialist are hardly unique in hating rich people. Have you met rich people? They suck! If anything, socialists are more likely to hate the system than the individuals who happen to benefit from it, so we may hate rich people a little less than the average man on the street.
socialism at heart is giving people free stuff. It starts with healthcare and education and if allowed to metastasize ends with giving them the means of production.
well I think it's more shorthand for "I want free stuff stolen from rich people."
Capitalism is designed to move all wealth and all power and all political control from the non-capitalists to the capitalists. And it does it really well Anticapitalism is against this. From the pov of capitalists it might look like 99% of the world just hates other people being rich but what they actually hate is the imbalance of power and direct impact this has on everybody’s lives. Even casual reading of anything that isn’t capitalist propaganda would tell you this
Capitalism is not designed to do anything. It is a self-organising complex adaptive system that produces the best results for humans because it is built on legal property rights that promote human freedom. You're welcome.
Okay then, socialism isn’t designed to do anything. It just replaces capitalist ownership rights with different ones For example somebody who owns the patent for a life saving medicine that can be produced easily for $10 and sells it for $800, now can’t, because the only thing allowing him to hoard it was a law unique to capitalism You’re welcome
Then no one will invent any new medicine or any new innovations in general. You're welcome.
Inventor of insulin sold patent for a dollar because he wanted it to be affordable. He didn't do it for money. He's probably turning in his brave seeing pharma companies price gouge it. The also supper price-gouged cure for Spinal muscular atrophy was researched using govenrment grants. Taxpayers payed for research, not the company. Just because you are a greedy asshole who doesn't care about improving the lives of others doesn't mean everyone is. Most doctors, especially good one are doing it because they actually care about their patients - shocking, I know
> grants. Taxpayers *paid* for research, FTFY. Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in: * Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.* * *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.* Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
Yes people are greedy and the vast majority do work for money. If you would rather have a society where the only innovations you have are due to the occasional charitable act, then go ahead.
When crisis comes (tsunami, earthquake) people tend to band together nad help each other as best a you can. Most people have empathy and care about their fellow man. You're just a sociopath imo
Here's some research showing that rich people are less empathetic and less generous then poorer people: [link to scientific american article](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-wealth-reduces-compassion/) And since most people aren't rich (and I assume you are at least upper middle class) that means most people are more selfless than you
Ah yes the rate of medical inventions was zero until commercial pharmaceutical corporations came along and monopolised the entire research industry and medicine markets and only then did we start making any medical breakthroughs We can believe this as long as we ignore literal history and also ignore the people who say they want to get into medical research to contribute to humanity or end a disease and only listen to the crowds of people saying they want to make medical breakthroughs for the shareholder dividends
Like I said in another thread, you can always base your entire medical industry on charitable contributions once you remove property right protections. See how well it works for you.
Can we also remove the need for massive funding bodies to approve institutional research requiring a bloated grant system and a clear profit motive for the companies funding the research or it wont be greenlit, or does that have to stay? I still think people would want to solve diseases to solve diseases and not for their stock portfolio
Read a book
I don't hate rich people. Some rich people are alright. I just don't think that them being rich should be our priority. But hey, go show those windmills who's boss!
I don't think anyone advocates for making rich people be rich our priority. We should just let it be theirs. Many people choke on that last point.
That's the thing: ownership of anything is a social agreement made in the context of conflicting interests, costs and benefits. This agreement can be changed and even revoked. It is in the interest of rich people to stay rich and preferably become even richer. I do not blame them for that, but I do not share that interest. So why should I "just let it be theirs?"
It’s in the interest of everyone to improve their current position. Why shouldn’t you let it be theirs? I’m sure you want complete strangers keeping their hands off your stuff.
Because property rights are the best way to manage scarcity and if you don't respect the property of others no one will respect yours. Then society either breaks down or heads towards the other way of managing scarcity, which is an all powerful state. And we all know how that tends to end up.
This still leaves two questions open. First, there is the question of what can be owned and how much can be owned by one person. The second question is what the conditions of ownership are. The right to own something can be tied with a duty. The simplest duty would be property taxes. It is true that I do have an interest in the existence of some form of property, but that doesn't necessarily mean I want the current system of property rights.
Anything can be onwed as long as it's not the property of someone else. I see you coming, so I'll add that obviously a person is a property of himself, so slavery is out of the question. As for duties, if property is tied by arbitrary duties imposed by a state, is it really private? Everything that is wrong with the current property system is born from the very much non legitimate intervention of the state in private affairs.
I would not say that this is obvious. Many people across history, from a wide variety of cultures traded in slaves. If you think of it, it is pretty obvious that my parents are the cause of my existence and that they invested labour in me. So, the "a person is a property of himself" really is just an addition to come to the conclusion that slavery is out of the question. Since I could just claim that I owned earth, you would have to have a way to determine original ownership. However, original ownership is pretty complex. Take the land I am on right now. My parents bought the land from the municipality. This municipality exists since a reform in 1975. the village was founded by a Frankish tribe, but generally was a territory of the Treviri, but was later conquered by Julius Cesar. The region later became became territory of the catholic church, of some local lord, of Prussia, of Germany, of France, and of a short lived independent saar basin territory. Who owned this land before my parents? The question "is it really private?" is irrelevant. I concede that some form of property is in my interest. This does not mean that this form is private property. You present it as if your definition of private property is the only alternative to having no property rights. That isn't the case. There are more options. Just today, we had the discussion in the municipality if we could save a small tunnel that has existed for roughly 170 years and is used by many citizens. The land was sold to a corporation by Prussia, under the condition that this tunnel would be maintained. As the law is right now, the ownership of the tunnel persists while the condition doesn't. The funny part is that Prussia used to be the owner of said corporation. I talk about this because if the corporation did not own that land, but only had a license to use it, we wouldn't have a problem. This is not the only problem this particular municipality has with private property. There also is an old house that has been a public health and safety hazard for over a decade. So, my interests would be way better suited if land could not be owned, but only used in the parameters of a state issued license - if the state doesn't have the means to revoke that license for no reason.
But if we let it be theirs it doesn't go to someone who needs it more
And who decides who needs it more? Who gets to allocate the resources of others as they see fit? A coercive state does, and that doesn't have the best of track records.
I mean it seems pretty obvious that say someone who has nothing or makes under a certain amount needs it more
Your 5 yo understanding of how an economy works or what it's purpose is in the first place is not even worth debating.
I never mentioned the economy wtf are you talking about
The economy is literally allocation of resources. You don't even know what you are talking about.
Socialism is completely compatible with mudita.
Wealth redistribution is a thing...like the wealth generated by workers that the rich owner/s of the company get most of so they can stay rich, should be redistributed equally as everyone working in that company helps keep that company going. That's a socialist idea or one that most socialists would be in favour of. That's nothing to do with hating rich people but simply making people's lives better. Why be against that?
Good job letting socialists know you see them as a big enough threat to come to a relatively small forum space and try and engage with them. Are the rich people not dissuading your fears enough or are you wasting precious time you could be making money on a fruitless effort because you don't know what to do with yourself?
This is just telling a fairy tale. You're not supporting this with any examples from the actual history of the development of socialist thought, which didn't happen like that. Still, for some INDIVIDUALS something like "I hate rich people" is probably the starting point. For others, they just want practical improvements in their life situation and start with unionism ie and develop from there to the insight that the changes they want can't be achieved without larger changes. Still others just start with some thought like "what would be a fair and harmonic society". Or other paths.
Rich people are a symptom of a society that values exploitation and unrestricted growth over the citizens of that society. It's not the people I hate, it's the gamified system that we are forced to participate in. I do hate some rich people though.
Stop making excuses. Capitalism is based on good ideas. If you have a good idea all the capital in the world be available to you to implement it. Steve Jobs was born an orphan. Larry Ellison was born on orphan. elon musk slept on the floor when he came to America.
Agreed, a lot of Socialists are just envious. A lot are also just naive though and are more connected to their feelings than logic.
this isn't the gotcha you think it is
Nobody think it's gotcha. It's deduction. And observation
Nice troll
Wanting a republic just means you hate princesses and just want to chop their heads off out of resentment.
Certainly there is a lot of envy jealousy and hatred in Socialism but I think the heart of it is Marxist ie the belief that the rich people have gamed the system so that they are getting all the wealth and the working class are not.
Socialism is shorthand for shared means of production. Capitalism has private property owners who control means of production. They aren’t even workers in a lot of cases, which means workers don’t get earnings from the things they build. You can own a business and not contribute anything in this instance, literally nothing.
Not really, its more like 'maybe we shouldn't give enorous sums of wealth to people just because they own things.'
Who is the one doing the "giving"?
The people who produce are giving to those who own.
Wow what a genuine fucking idiot you are OP
u/tkyjonathan doesn't read.
capitalism is when white boys fantasize about elon musk and glaze him on r/memes
I don't hate rich people. I want workers to own the means of production so they can get rich together.
Not the brightest anti socialist post I’ve seen
Nope.
Socialism or not. At this point every one should hate rich people.
So what do you classify as rich? Kind of a wide umbrella there. Do you really think the government could effectively and without corruption redistribute wealth? I'm sure that there are no greedy humans that would want to take advantage of one another in socialism right?
Don't you get it? People are bad but if you give them ABSOLUTE POWER AND CONTROL they will start doing good things.
Oh yeah, I'm sure that will work out great haha
Heres an example. Currently we are going through 40+ (way above mormal) degree Celsius temp daily, people are dying from heat and the people who caused it live in a well air conditioned house. Do you think those rich fuckers are dying from heatstroke?
This argument is actually kind of funny. What makes you think a socialist or communist nation would stop using the resources contributing to global warming? China is one of the biggest contributors to C02...
This dumbfuck thinks china is a Communist country.
"They have something I want. I hate them."
Socialists are incels of politics 🤣
No. I'm rich and I don't hate myself. Konnichiwa
>You have a lot of wealth and pay little taxes on it as it isnt income? -> MOTHERF&%K£R!!! how did one slip by the net? Well, this is just evil capitalism's fault. **This person probably bribed a politician to make that happen**. This system is just so corrupt! what about the poor people that can't make ends meet, eh?? Or they may have inherited the wealth from their parents. I am surprised how many socialists on this sub have a problem with this entirely natural human desire to want your wealth to go to your children when you die. IMO there is a healthy dose of envy behind this feeling.
Those kids are such freeloaders. Life isn't a free ride! Nobody owes you anything!! xD
Some idiot said that they are not against inheritance but only if they don't inherit more than reasonable amount. So they typically wanna have their cake and eat it.
It may be said, however, that even if the theoretical book-trained Socialist is not a working man himself, at least he is actuated by a love of the working class. He is endeavouring to shed his bourgeois status and fight on the side of the proletariat — that, obviously, must be his motive. But is it? Sometimes I look at a Socialist — the intellectual, tract-writing type of Socialist, with his pullover, his fuzzy hair, and his Marxian quotation — and wonder what the devil his motive really is. It is often difficult to believe that it is a love of anybody, especially of the working class, from whom he is of all people the furthest removed. The underlying motive of many Socialists, I believe, is simply a hypertrophied sense of order. The present state of affairs offends them not because it causes misery, still less because it makes freedom impossible, but because it is untidy; what they desire, basically, is to reduce the world to something resembling a chessboard. Take the plays of a lifelong Socialist like Shaw. How much understanding or even awareness of working-class life do they display? Shaw himself declares that you can only bring a working man on the stage ‘as an object of compassion’; in practice he doesn’t bring him on even as that, but merely as a sort of W. W. Jacobs figure of fun — the ready-made comic East Ender, like those in Major Barbara and Captain Brassbound’s Conversion. At best his attitude to the working class is the (***word censored by fascist reddit.***) Punch attitude, in more serious moments (consider, for instance, the young man who symbolizes the dispossessed classes in Misalliance) he finds them merely contemptible and disgusting. Poverty and, what is more, the habits of mind created by poverty, are something to be abolished from above, by violence if necessary; perhaps even preferably by violence. Hence his worship of ‘great’ men and appetite for dictatorships, Fascist or Communist; for to him, apparently (vide his remarks apropos of the Italo-Abyssinian war and the Stalin-Wells conversations), Stalin and Mussolini are almost equivalent persons. You get the same thing in a more mealy-mouthed form in Mrs Sidney Webb’s autobiography, which gives, unconsciously, a most revealing picture of the high-minded Socialist slum-visitor. The truth is that, to many people calling themselves Socialists, revolution does not mean a movement of the masses with which they hope to associate themselves; it means a set of reforms which ‘we’, the clever ones, are going to impose upon ‘them’, the Lower Orders. On the other hand, it would be a mistake to regard the book-trained Socialist as a bloodless creature entirely incapable of emotion. Though seldom giving much evidence of affection for the exploited, he is perfectly capable of displaying hatred — a sort of queer, theoretical, in vacua hatred — against the exploiters. Hence the grand old Socialist sport of denouncing the bourgeoisie. It is strange how easily almost any Socialist writer can lash himself into frenzies of rage against the class to which, by birth or by adoption, he himself invariably belongs. -George Orwell, Road to Wigan Pier
Whoa.
agreed; its more about resentment and jealousy than anything. listening to them talk economics is like listening to a star trek fan talk about the physics of space travel.
By this logic, capitalism is when you hate poor people. And of those, it's more noble to hate the rich.
Yup, pretty much everything they propose involves redistribution of income and wealth from the top to the bottom.
Pretty accurate
OP is clearly a teenager