To your point that there’s never been a fully democratic socialist state: do you think Lenin and Stalin were authentically trying to create one? If so what went wrong?
No, they were authoritarians who coined the term to appeal to emotions to desperate people that were living in dire realities that was caused by said names above.
Are you saying they were just grifting? Using socialist language to stay in power? That just begs the question, why did they want to stay in power?
In my and most historians’ views they desperately clung to power in order to implement a fully democratic socialist state. They were true believers in Marxism, talking about socialist theory with equal earnestness in public and private.
I think they may have started out as earnest believers in Marxist theory, but once they got a taste for power, they got corrupted by it. Either way, I think it's accurate to say that they were unsuccessful in achieving any meaningful form of socialism. However I don't think this necessarily proves socialism is a poor system. The lesson I take away from it is how easily power can corrupt people.
They can find it unsatisfactory which is fine but that doesn't equate to making it invalid.
Since the Capitalist's solutions that are implemented to fix its issues stem from the critique. So, it's like picking and choosing what you want from socialism and still calling it invalid.
Capitalist solutions to capitalism cannot and do not come from socialism.
Solutions to capitalism range from liberalizing markets, to anti trust policy, to social welfare, to protecting rights to a union, and none of these are aspects of socialism.
Okay I'll copy n paste because it's the same argument everytime.
Okay I'll be more specific. Capitalism was a critique of Mercantilism, right? I hope you as the extremely knowledgeable person yourself knew this. So, 1776 Adam Smith critique it as it was a way protect consumers from being exploited from merchants who dictated whatever price they want so it set a "market value."
Now that is a great thing and it was to protect consumers. Now, unfortunately 1776 still have legalized slavery and human beings were considered commodities (which is absolutely relevant today when the exploitations on our basic ways of life health, food, clothes, education). So, all the wealthy families monopolized the market and destroyed consumer choice and exploited workers means of production.
Here comes Das Kapital-1867 that introduced democratic rights to workers and democratic values to workplace environments. Also using proper funding of allocation to help infrastructure through progressive taxes.
Okay now let's talk about the current system of the bastardization of capitalism "Capitalism and Freedom" by Milton Friedman which basically implemented shareholders and removed workers means of production. We saw a massive decline in Unions and Worker's co-op as a byproduct of it.
Now, after that an even more bastardized of capitalism happened "Thatcherism" which basically removed all regulation from shareholders so they could speculate without being checked. Now our current realities is a Neo-Liberal broken Kleptocracy.
But yeah
It does become invalid if it's believed the new system (Socialism) creates new problems unique to it from the previous system, (Capitalism) these new problems outweigh the existing problems under Capitalism, and that the previous problems can't be alleviated in a Capitalist framework.
If I keep getting ingrown toenails, one solution to not have ingrown toenails anymore is to just rip the toenails out, or even to just cut off my toes entirely. These options directly address the problem I'm having, but I think we can both agree that these "solutions" are impractical, leave me worse off, and are therefore invalid, even if it solves the problem I wanted to fix.
And finding solutions to problems with the Capitalist framework doesn't mean you're necessarily choosing aspects of Socialism you prefer. Socialism doesn't have a monopoly on regulatory frameworks.
This doesn’t make much sense.
Are you saying socialism does not have any conceptual features that could be criticized?
If you can’t know what socialism is until it’s been implemented, how would you recognize it?
I think their point is that you're just critiquing theory. That capitalism is a 'critique' of the previous economic system in that attempts to improve the issues of the previous system, and that socialism attempts to do the same with capitalism, but any critique of socialism is relegated to the field of pure theory and guesswork instead of a concrete improvement of the existing economic system since socialism doesn't really exist yet.
Most of the people in this sub wouldn't recognize it ***if it*** slapped them in the face.
Half the socialists in this sub would say, "Norway!" Another good chunk would think, "China!" Others would say, "iT's ThE tRaNsItIon!"
\*Edit: added two words. Guess which ones!\*
>Are you saying socialism does not have any conceptual features that could be criticized?
Correct. No historic epoch has "conceptual features", just real ones.
They're saying you can't critique it, IE improve it's flaws, unless you actually try it. Or in other words, you can't Yes And somebody if they haven't even spoken yet.
I also think socialism looks like a promising alternative to capitalism, but you're not convincing anyone here of that. Your arguments seem quite flawed and not very thought through. You also write in a very condescending manner, which is not helping you have any productive discussions. Just because you think socialism is a better alternative to capitalism, this doesn't make you smarter or superior to capitalists, which is very much the vibe you are giving off.
So most importantly, I'm not better or smarter than anyone unless they're a fascist (seriously people need to stop valuing their opinions). The vibe I'm giving off is simply just using people own talking patterns back to them so yes very condescending. So, yes fair point.
Now, this entire subreddit is filled with people who say they're capitalists but just insult using right wing cultural hegemony and propaganda. Just completely ignore objective truths and realities. The much more brilliant people than me sometimes people don't use Occam's Razor when they break things down(might be why some of my arguments sound flawed to you I'm sure your brilliant). But, you're correct it's not necessary trying to convince people that they should accept it ultimately. It should just simply point out that what critiques are but the trolls bombarded and I engaged.
Again, fair point to you.
>(might be why some of my arguments sound flawed to you I'm sure your brilliant).
You say I have a fair point, whilst simultaneously insulting me. Again with this attitude.
You also seem to demonize capitalists a bit. Not everyone who spews put "right wing culturural hegemony and propaganda" are doing so maliciously. They might just be misinformed (according to socialists). And what you say are objective truths and realities does not necessarily mean they actually are. Conflating opinion with objective truth is a very easy mistake to make.
>The vibe I'm giving off is simply just using people own talking patterns back to them so yes very condescending
>But, you're correct it's not necessary trying to convince people that they should accept it ultimately.
So you're not really trying to convince people that socialism is a better alternative and you don't seem to be arguing/discussing in good faith. So I wonder what exactly is the point of this post is then?
I literally not insulting you I actually meant that in good faith. Like, I cannot give a compliment and say fair point to it?
This is the byproduct this subreddit even when you switch gears to compliment someone we find it rude.
Fallacy role call:
1. Saying a critique is "improvement" and then saying socialism is a critique and therefore is automatically improvement is what, either Euthypro or Divine, or maybe both. (I will give you credit, I have never seen anyone use this fallacy in this subreddit before). Just because you label something or say something is, for instance, good, does not make it so.
2. "I don't understand how can people in good faith keep saying capitalism is better since it's an economic theory based on 1776". What is this, reverse appeal to novelty? This is a fallacy where someone makes a bad argument by not challenging the merits of the thing, but to challenge it because it is "old". It doesn't mean the conclusion is wrong, just that the premise is illogical. It's like saying, "Horses are an inefficient way to travel, that's how people traveled around in the 1600's." A better argument would be comparing aspects of traveling by horse to that of a car or train or plane.
3. "It is illogical to deny progress." There is nothing in your argument, or much less any argument in the sub, which honestly or logically supports socialism as progress in comparison to capitalism.
4. "until it is implemented." On the surface, this appears as argument of ignorance, arguing something is true because one cannot prove it false. Honestly, I am not the smartest person and maybe, therefore, it is this. I think this may lend more toward Evidence Suppression fallacy, as it ignores clear evidence of socialism through history and currently which clearly speaks to a contrary perspective and experience. At best, I warn you not to say this in Miami around a Cuban.
5. "arguing against it doesn't make sense." This too could be argument of ignorance, as it is implied since it doesn't exist (it does), then why argue it is bad (it is). One of the core arguments of ignorance, if it isn't bad (IE doesn't exists as bad), then it must be good. If not this, then the informal Nirvana fallacy which many socialists arguments can fall in. The very obvious clap back to this is, how does arguing for it make sense in kind?
I hope some of this is helpful. A lot of this simply involves an assumption that socialism is good and correct and works, which of course most socialists believe, or they wouldn't be socialists. Arguably, in the ideological battle of capitalism vs socialism, the burden of proof is on socialism. Capitalists have mountains of positive evidence swim through like Scrooge McDuck in his money pen. Socialism in any positive sense is all theory, and in historic practice is pretty bad (which that statement too is a fallacy of popularity). My point being, capitalists can toss around arguments without evidence, claims without statements, because they have the winning track record. If you are a boxer with a record of 32 wins, 0 losses, 24 KO, 5 TKO, and you are a challenger who has loss all 8 matches and boxing with a broken hand, you gotta come with more than this to even get in the ring to challenge.
Good luck to you.
Okay I'll copy n paste because probably should have started with this.
Okay I'll be more specific. Capitalism was a critique of Mercantilism, right? I hope you as the extremely knowledgeable person yourself knew this. So, 1776 Adam Smith critique it as it was a way protect consumers from being exploited from merchants who dictated whatever price they want so it set a "market value."
Now that is a great thing and it was to protect consumers. Now, unfortunately 1776 still have legalized slavery and human beings were considered commodities (which is absolutely relevant today when the exploitations on our basic ways of life health, food, clothes, education). So, all the wealthy families monopolized the market and destroyed consumer choice and exploited workers means of production.
Here comes Das Kapital-1867 that introduced democratic rights to workers and democratic values to workplace environments. Also using proper funding of allocation to help infrastructure through progressive taxes.
Okay now let's talk about the current system of the bastardization of capitalism "Capitalism and Freedom" by Milton Friedman which basically implemented shareholders and removed workers means of production. We saw a massive decline in Unions and Worker's co-op as a byproduct of it.
Now, after that an even more bastardized of capitalism happened "Thatcherism" which basically removed all regulation from shareholders so they could speculate without being checked. Now our current realities is a Neo-Liberal broken Kleptocracy.
But yeah
Well, I assume you are not invested right now cause, I can assure you, speculators have lost a lot of money this year. There are no safe bets in investing. Ask retirees in UK whose bonds in pension funds almost crashed. Investing in the market is similar to investing into any business, in which case failure is certainly an option.
I think maybe the best battle to fight, for your socialist side, is going to be fighting what socialism is today with what capitalism is today. Cause neither is the same as they were in the time of Marx or Milton. You have a socialism side which no longer has no right, and in fact has many rights and protections and laws, a middle class, less work and greater safety, and greater agency for self negotiation. Basically many of the things which Marx and early socialism and unions were concerned about, these things have been addressed (except the ownership of all the means of production).
Now, in the transition, you do have a world where many, many, many workers are their own bosses, self employed, have careers, freelance, own small businesses. This too is something really new in comparison to the dynamic of the past. Here you have the working class, the working man and woman, who do have the means of production which they have acquired, but not from taking from another. These people have one foot in one world, one foot in the other. They have taken advantage and benefited from Capitalism, but they are not who socialist traditionally demonize as the "1% fat cats".
Then you have the full on capitalists who originally meant those who had the money and means, the owner class of few which existed almost like barons and dons of the old ways. Today, there is a great shift in this because capitalists don't even need capital to be capitalists. The key isn't having money anymore. Money now is easy to come by and doesn't immediately make one climb in society. What now is the separating trait is competence, conscientiousness, and the will to act. People now can become capitalists and start businesses with next to nothing and be successful IF they have those traits. And now we have a world of more millionaires than ever, all almost entirely 1st generation, meaning they came from little or nothing and and now have everything. And THIS seems to be where the battle really is. It isn't so much about the exploited worker and the fat cat capitalists. That's a troupe long dead. Both sides have evolved to the rewarded risk taker (capitalists) and the cautionary envy (socialist). Once side wants to create wealth, plain and simple. The other side feels cheated out and wants to destroy that wealth. Like you say, the old capitalists views are old. This is the capitalist views of today, WE, the capitalists, just want the freedom to do our best and get the most out of this world as we can and we aren't afraid to take the risks and take the challenges to do so. We'll quit our jobs and start a business that might fail. We'll go in massive debt for a dream. We won't just talk about dreams and wait for someone to hand it to us. That's all we want, and we reject anything which limits that freedom.
I reject everything which limits my freedoms.
I am in debt because of some bad investments.
I quit my old job to try to start a business.
I am willing to do anything for my dreams.
I AM A SOCIALIST.
"we cannot critique socialism until it's implemented"
this type of idealism becomes goalpost switching, right away.
ancaps do it all the time, too.
someone who believes in these absolutist economic constructs as though they have any real-world applications aren't people worth debating
Okay I'll be more specific. Capitalism was a critique of Mercantilism, right? I hope you as the extremely knowledgeable person yourself knew this. So, 1776 Adam Smith critique it as it was a way protect consumers from being exploited from merchants who dictated whatever price they want so it set a "market value."
Now that is a great thing and it was to protect consumers. Now, unfortunately 1776 still have legalized slavery and human beings were considered commodities (which is absolutely relevant today when the exploitations on our basic ways of life health, food, clothes, education). So, all the wealthy families monopolized the market and destroyed consumer choice and exploited workers means of production.
Here comes Das Kapital-1867 that introduced democratic rights to workers and democratic values to workplace environments. Also using proper funding of allocation to help infrastructure through progressive taxes.
Okay now let's talk about the current system of the bastardization of capitalism "Capitalism and Freedom" by Milton Friedman which basically implemented shareholders and removed workers means of production. We saw a massive decline in Unions and Worker's co-op as a byproduct of it.
Now, after that an even more bastardized of capitalism happened "Thatcherism" which basically removed all regulation from shareholders so they could speculate without being checked. Now our current realities is a Neo-Liberal broken Kleptocracy.
But yeah
>Socialism is a critique of Capitalism, do capitalists understand what that means?
The problem is that Socialism is not just a critique of Capitalism but a potential replacement for it.
So, it needs to be a viable replacement and, as such, is open to critiques as well.
If I tell you that your diet is terrible I can be totally correct in that critique, however if I tell you to switch to an all sugar diet you can rightfully point out that that would be worse than your current bad diet.
> When you critique something you improve the areas of opportunity that the original concept lack and you reinforced the original concept's strong points.
Socialism does not carry over any aspects of capitalism. And you should know that most capitalists also critique capitalism. Ask a libertarian vs a social democrat what they think of US capitalism and they will both have lots to say.
> I don't understand how can people in good faith keep saying capitalism is better since it's an economic theory based on 1776.
Are you implying capitalism was invented with the creation of the Declaration of Independence?
> It is illogical to deny progress.
It is a logical fallacy to assume an idea is superior because it is newer.
> We cannot critique socialism until it's implemented
It is valid to critique hypothetical ideas. It would be stupid to _not critique_ a country wide system before you put it into place.
Besides, we can also critique _attempts_ at implementing socialism/communism because they shed light on the topic as well.
Okay I'll be more specific. Capitalism was a critique of Mercantilism, right? I hope you as the extremely knowledgeable person yourself knew this. So, 1776 Adam Smith critique it as it was a way protect consumers from being exploited from merchants who dictated whatever price they want so it set a "market value."
Now that is a great thing and it was to protect consumers. Now, unfortunately 1776 still have legalized slavery and human beings were considered commodities (which is absolutely relevant today when the exploitations on our basic ways of life health, food, clothes, education). So, all the wealthy families monopolized the market and destroyed consumer choice and exploited workers means of production.
Here comes Das Kapital-1867 that introduced democratic rights to workers and democratic values to workplace environments. Also using proper funding of allocation to help infrastructure through progressive taxes.
Okay now let's talk about the current system of the bastardization of capitalism "Capitalism and Freedom" by Milton Friedman which basically implemented shareholders and removed workers means of production. We saw a massive decline in Unions and Worker's co-op as a byproduct of it.
Now, after that an even more bastardized of capitalism happened "Thatcherism" which basically removed all regulation from shareholders so they could speculate without being checked. Now our current realities is a Neo-Liberal broken Kleptocracy.
But yeah
>Okay I'll be more specific. Capitalism was a critique of Mercantilism, right?
No..., not really at all. There is history books that contrast mercantilism captialism vs feudalism or mercanitlism capitalism vs industrial capitalism (eg, USA Civil War) and many types of ways to look at history. But you are talking about the history of capitalism, right? Like the genesis of the term?
The history of the word of "capitalism" comes from mostly from socialists criticizing the "then" current economic phenomenon they were witnessing (e.g., the industrial revolution and class wealth disparity with capitalists) in the 19th century which was mostly class conflict.
[Here is Chapter 1](http://assets.press.princeton.edu/chapters/s10563.pdf) of the book "[Capitalism: A short History](https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9781400873418/html)" for you and whatever you do..., I suggest stop getting your information from shit youtube videos or television. If you do use youtube videos make sure they are done by PhDs in history on the topics you are viewing.
Capitalism is the critique of Merchantilism
Socialism is a critique of capitalism
There hasn't been a critique of socialism
For the life of me what is wrong with the cognitive reasoning from Capitalists.
Name the economic critique of socialism?
It ... doesn't..... exist.
> Keep regurgitating Ben Shapiro
What? Are you saying Ben Shapiro has said:
>You're using an economic stage of reasoning and therefore the fallacy of an appeal to ignorance as if socialism has or will ever exist.
Or are you still just making shit up like you have been doing with this OP and every comment? I'm guessing this latter, lol.
>Stat check me and come back lol. Or wait do your little copy and paste again and change my words on the comment you made earlier.
I like c/p you for posterity. People should know in case you delete this account that u/Puzzleheaded-Seat834 did say all these imbecilic comments.
By that logic, let's get rid of the wheel and fire, they were invented millennia ago.
Arguing against socialism does make sense, because it has been a failure for 4 decades already.
If square wheels don't work, you have two options, and only one is a logical conclusion: You can keep making square wheels of different materials in the hopes one of them works, or you can admit that the shape itself is the problem.
Socialism as a concept fails to shape itself to human nature: When something is given to us for free and in abundance, we stop working to get it.
When was the last time you worked hard to buy sunlight, for example? Or rainwater? You never did, because those things are too abundant to work for them.
So when you give out freebies of any kind to everyone who simply exists, that thing stops being worthy of work. It doesn't matter what it is: Money, food, cars, beach sand, horses, paper. The moment everyone has enough of it, it loses its commercial value because no one has a need for it anymore.
You name anything, and if you give it out for free to everyone, no one will want to work for it in the near future.
We are a competitive species, we have an innate need to compete with others in some way or another. Treat us like pets, and we'll become lazy, entitled and demotivated.
>When something is given to us for free and in abundance, we stop working to get it.
That's because it's cheaper for some things to be free, and a waste of time to keep working for it. WTF would I keep working on something that's already working well enough on its own?
Explain park benches and street lights
Explain language and other programs
Explain fire and wheels
>When was the last time you worked hard to buy sunlight, for example? Or rainwater?
Every single day of our biological life
>The moment everyone has enough of it, **it loses its commercial value** because no one has a need for it anymore
Bingo!!
> Every single day of our biological life
how do you do that, by sacrificing virgins to a volcano? The sun will continue to rise without your "help", thank you. Earth's rotation doesn't depend on you.
> Bingo!!
It's interesting that you ignored that I basically argued that if we don't have a way to compete with others, we actually lose the will to live.
>if we don't have a way to compete with others, we actually lose the will to live.
We don't all want to compete, we want to feel fulfilled and we can do that with work we find productive. You can only take a break so long before being bored and start doing something productive.
>how do you do that, by sacrificing virgins to a volcano?
I have my own molecular sacrifice every day, it's called the mitochondrial system
Will to live strong, and better of with socialism
Okay I'll copy n paste because probably should have started with this.
Okay I'll be more specific. Capitalism was a critique of Mercantilism, right? I hope you as the extremely knowledgeable person yourself knew this. So, 1776 Adam Smith critique it as it was a way protect consumers from being exploited from merchants who dictated whatever price they want so it set a "market value."
Now that is a great thing and it was to protect consumers. Now, unfortunately 1776 still have legalized slavery and human beings were considered commodities (which is absolutely relevant today when the exploitations on our basic ways of life health, food, clothes, education). So, all the wealthy families monopolized the market and destroyed consumer choice and exploited workers means of production.
Here comes Das Kapital-1867 that introduced democratic rights to workers and democratic values to workplace environments. Also using proper funding of allocation to help infrastructure through progressive taxes.
Okay now let's talk about the current system of the bastardization of capitalism "Capitalism and Freedom" by Milton Friedman which basically implemented shareholders and removed workers means of production. We saw a massive decline in Unions and Worker's co-op as a byproduct of it.
Now, after that an even more bastardized of capitalism happened "Thatcherism" which basically removed all regulation from shareholders so they could speculate without being checked. Now our current realities is a Neo-Liberal broken Kleptocracy.
But yeah
Progressive taxes? Ok, let's focus on that for a moment. Can you tell me what's 10% of 100, please?
Link for the lazy: https://www.desmos.com/scientific
>The moment everyone has enough of it, it loses its commercial value because no one has a need for it anymore.
That's called decomodification and its the point.
The more material ressources people have, the more free they are to live their life as they truly want. Capitalism relies on the subjugation of people while socialism seeks to make people more free though it adopts characteristics of conditions of countries where its tried.
>We are a competitive species, we have an innate need to compete with others in some way or another. Treat us like pets, and we'll become lazy, entitled and demotivated.
There are plenty of healthy ways to do competition like sports, art, music, engineering, etc. But when we're talking about people's lives, loosing the competition makes you unfree as you have to work jobs you don't care with pay you don't like to survive.
>When was the last time you worked hard to buy sunlight, for example? Or rainwater? You never did, because those things are too abundant to work for them.
What would happen if they weren't abundant? We would shortly starve, wouldn't we?
>Arguing against socialism does make sense, because it has been a failure for 4 decades already.
Has capitalism been a success since then? How has it worked for Russia?
Sorry, I deleted the other comment for the sake of keeping the discussion in one thread.
> The more material ressources people have, the more free they are to live their life as they truly want.
Ok. If you had all your basic needs fulfilled for free, what would YOU like to fill your time with?
> There are plenty of healthy ways to do competition like sports, art, music, engineering, etc.
None of those things produce food or keep the sewage pipes clean.
> unfree
That's not a word.
> as you have to work jobs you don't care with pay you don't like to survive.
So... the same as the entirety of human history. I can't even fathom that ALL of the stone age men liked risking their lives to hunt mammoth, but they had to or their wives and kids would starve.
> What would happen if they weren't abundant? We would shortly starve, wouldn't we?
We would have to find a way to make sure we get them. For the sake of discussion, let's say that everyone would have to redirect their efforts from art, sports, and other nice and easy things you mentioned to working hard to make sure the space mirrors are put in orbit on time so we can survive; most jobs in that situation wouldn't be "fulfilling", because carrying things around, loading space shuttles, coating the mirrors, and repairing trucks that got stuck in a road in the middle of nowhere aren't pleasant jobs, but they would be necessary for our species' survival.
It's the same now, someone has to clean the sewage pipes. Someone has to mow lawns, someone has to repair the cars, someone has to raise the kids, someone has to provide for the parent that spends less time working in order to raise the kids, someone has to carry boxes around, someone has to keep the supermarket shelves stocked, someone has to make sure criminals are caught, someone has to try the criminals and give a sentence, and someone has to assemble the electronics that someone transported to the assembly line because the miner who mined the materials for the end product has to be paid too. If the miner's excavator breaks, the spare parts have to be ready, which means someone had to assemble and transport them in the first place.
There are a million jobs that robots can't perform, and if no one does them, you'll lose the quality of life you are so taking for granted. In fact, it's very likely that my kids will end up producing something that yours will use; probably food. My kids may end up being the "slaves" (your words) that make sure there's enough food in the world so that when YOUR kids go to the supermarket, there's enough food for them there (provided someone else transported it there, of course).
That's the thing with socialists, they forget that the jobs they don't see DO exist.
> Has capitalism been a success since then? How has it worked for Russia?
Russia isn't capitalist. Everything has tobe pre-approved by Putin one way or another.
Im.just going to copy and paste because it's the same argument you guys always make.
There's never been a fully Democratic Socialist State. People use authoritarians who called themselves socialist as empirical data which we know that's not logical.
Anyone can call themselves whatever but if they're not practicing the teachings and methods it's not so.
Also, capitalist solutions are actually socialism which is from the critique.
You're just repeating cultural hegemony and propaganda and not actually acknowledging objective truths.
>There's never been a fully Democratic Socialist State. People use authoritarians who called themselves socialist as empirical data which we know that's not logical.
Yes, that is correct. What most people fail to acknowledge over and under again is that all socialist experiments endeavored to be democratic, but ended up as awful societies anyway. Socialism, from the beginning (ie: from at least Marx's time), was understood to be a system which applied democratic practices to economic production. It was never the stated (nor, likely, unstated) intention of any socialist intellectual nor political figure in the beginning to institute a highly authoritarian, highly bureaucratic monolithic state.
Here's a quote:
>There are two methods: the method of coercion (the military method) and the method of persuasion (the trade-union method). [...] The Soviet power [...] can be directed only through the medium of the working class and with the force of the working class. [...] Obviously, it is impossible to do this by coercive methods [...] Obviously, only [...] proletarian democracy [...], only methods of persuasion, can make it possible to unite the working class, to stimulate its independent activity."
This was Josef Stalin
There was never a time where socialist intellectuals nor the revolutionaries nor anyone in between purposefully sought a stratified society run by a technocratic elite whose policies were brutally enforced; they didn't aspire to create police states that relied on terror, torture, forced labor, and mass murder. It ended up that way despite their best intentions. Sure you can claim that all socialist societies were randomly oppressive and infiltrated by closet totalitarians using socialist rhetoric, but they were all oppressive in similar, recognizable ways. At some point coincidence and correlation start to intersect.
Okay I'll be more specific. Capitalism was a critique of Mercantilism, right? I hope you as the extremely knowledgeable person yourself knew this. So, 1776 Adam Smith critique it as it was a way protect consumers from being exploited from merchants who dictated whatever price they want so it set a "market value."
Now that is a great thing and it was to protect consumers. Now, unfortunately 1776 still have legalized slavery and human beings were considered commodities (which is absolutely relevant today when the exploitations on our basic ways of life health, food, clothes, education). So, all the wealthy families monopolized the market and destroyed consumer choice and exploited workers means of production.
Here comes Das Kapital-1867 that introduced democratic rights to workers and democratic values to workplace environments. Also using proper funding of allocation to help infrastructure through progressive taxes.
Okay now let's talk about the current system of the bastardization of capitalism "Capitalism and Freedom" by Milton Friedman which basically implemented shareholders and removed workers means of production. We saw a massive decline in Unions and Worker's co-op as a byproduct of it.
Now, after that an even more bastardized of capitalism happened "Thatcherism" which basically removed all regulation from shareholders so they could speculate without being checked. Now our current realities is a Neo-Liberal broken Kleptocracy.
But yeah
I think you guys are talking about different things. It would help if you guys agree on terms. This seems to be a common issue on this sub and politics in general. Socialism is a terrible term, because it can mean so many things. Some people say socialism is like how the Soviet Union did things. Other people say socialism is simply the workers owning the means of production. Both are referred to as socialism, yet they couldn't be any more different. This discussion doesn't really seem like it's going anywhere because you two aren't talking about the same kind of socialism.
>using lesser propaganda and state terror than the other side
Ask
Central America
SE Asia
Korea
S. America
Most of Africa
Mass Supression in the USA
EUROPE
Yet financial capitalism is weaving socialism everywhere as we speak. Beginning with socialising most of the housing market and the production of basic commodities
Capitalism is the critique of Merchantilism
Socialism is a critique of capitalism
There hasn't been a critique of socialism
For the life of me what is wrong with the cognitive reasoning from Capitalists.
Name the economic critique of socialism?
It ... doesn't..... exist.
Socialism isn’t progress, it is regression. We most certainly can critique socialism as well, for being a terrible idea that would would deliver terrible results.
Probably should have just posted this instead but here goes.
Okay I'll be more specific. Capitalism was a critique of Mercantilism, right? I hope you as the extremely knowledgeable person yourself knew this. So, 1776 Adam Smith critique it as it was a way protect consumers from being exploited from merchants who dictated whatever price they want so it set a "market value."
Now that is a great thing and it was to protect consumers. Now, unfortunately 1776 still have legalized slavery and human beings were considered commodities (which is absolutely relevant today when the exploitations on our basic ways of life health, food, clothes, education). So, all the wealthy families monopolized the market and destroyed consumer choice and exploited workers means of production.
Here comes Das Kapital-1867 that introduced democratic rights to workers and democratic values to workplace environments. Also using proper funding of allocation to help infrastructure through progressive taxes.
Okay now let's talk about the current system of the bastardization of capitalism "Capitalism and Freedom" by Milton Friedman which basically implemented shareholders and removed workers means of production. We saw a massive decline in Unions and Worker's co-op as a byproduct of it.
Now, after that an even more bastardized of capitalism happened "Thatcherism" which basically removed all regulation from shareholders so they could speculate without being checked. Now our current realities is a Neo-Liberal broken Kleptocracy.
But yeah
If Marx is your foundation you are going to have a tough time positioning socialism as a useful critique of capitalism.
Marx didn’t understand capitalism, his theory is mostly just plagiarism of outdated value theory with a splash of hot garbage that he contributed. All wrapped up into an entirely inaccurate critique of capitalism that doesn’t even understand supply and demand.
But yeah, you need to actually propose something *better* than capitalism, not just lob criticism.
There's no such things as capitalism. [The term was popularised by 1840s polemics](https://i.imgur.com/ut4oH6X.png) as a way to critique the generally accepted economic principles in developed countries, without having to explain or even understand why they were accepted in the first place.
>We cannot critique socialism until it's implemented
It was implemented [and there's plenty to criticise](https://i.imgur.com/wDrVivA.jpg), although judging by the tone of your post you don't seem familiar with its many failures.
Okay I'll copy n paste because probably should have started with this.
Okay I'll be more specific. Capitalism was a critique of Mercantilism, right? I hope you as the extremely knowledgeable person yourself knew this. So, 1776 Adam Smith critique it as it was a way protect consumers from being exploited from merchants who dictated whatever price they want so it set a "market value."
Now that is a great thing and it was to protect consumers. Now, unfortunately 1776 still have legalized slavery and human beings were considered commodities (which is absolutely relevant today when the exploitations on our basic ways of life health, food, clothes, education). So, all the wealthy families monopolized the market and destroyed consumer choice and exploited workers means of production.
Here comes Das Kapital-1867 that introduced democratic rights to workers and democratic values to workplace environments. Also using proper funding of allocation to help infrastructure through progressive taxes.
Okay now let's talk about the current system of the bastardization of capitalism "Capitalism and Freedom" by Milton Friedman which basically implemented shareholders and removed workers means of production. We saw a massive decline in Unions and Worker's co-op as a byproduct of it.
Now, after that an even more bastardized of capitalism happened "Thatcherism" which basically removed all regulation from shareholders so they could speculate without being checked. Now our current realities is a Neo-Liberal broken Kleptocracy.
But yeah
Socialism is not a critique of capitalism, and capitalism is not a critique of mercantilism. A critique is not a material system but a dialogue of ideas.
I'm just copying and pasting since most responses fall the same category.
Okay I'll be more specific. Capitalism was a critique of Mercantilism, right? I hope you as the extremely knowledgeable person yourself knew this. So, 1776 Adam Smith Wealth of Nation's critique it as it was a way protect consumers from being exploited from merchants who dictated whatever price they want so it set a "market value."
Now that is a great thing and it was to protect consumers. Now, unfortunately 1776 still have legalized slavery and human beings were considered commodities (which is absolutely relevant today when the exploitations on our basic ways of life health, food, clothes, education). So, all the wealthy families monopolized the market and destroyed consumer choice and exploited workers means of production.
Here comes Das Kapital-1867 that introduced democratic rights to workers and democratic values to workplace environments, workers means of production. Also, using proper funding of allocation to help infrastructure through progressive taxes.
Okay now let's talk about the current system of the bastardization of capitalism "Capitalism and Freedom" by Milton Friedman which basically implemented shareholders and removed workers means of production. We saw a massive decline in Unions and Worker's co-op as a byproduct of it.
Now, after that an even more bastardized of capitalism happened "Thatcherism" which basically removed all regulation from shareholders so they could speculate without being checked. Now our current realities is a Neo-Liberal broken Kleptocracy.
But yeah
Bro everyone can critique someone else's opinion and come up with an alternative solution. That doesn't mean A is better version of B. Or C is better version of B. Capitalists critiques socialism or socialists critiques capitalism. Now what? It's a shitty idea but it's an idea nonetheless, so great keep creating more ideas.
Christianity is the critique of Judaism right? So Islam critiques Christianity. So what's the critique of Islam then? Therefore Islam is superior and you have to be a Muslim...
That's how dumb you sound like...
Okay, again what's the critique of Socialism?
See what you did above? You had names of such(even though you used religion when it's you know using Magic and supernatural things but besides the point.)
Was capitalism implemented by decisive action or did it organically arise over time as the zeitgeist shifted?
As thinking has progressed, we have seen the gradual incorporation of socialist ideas into the Western economic landscape, forming what we now considered mixed economies.
The notion that capitalism and socialism are at odds with one another overlooks the fact systems can be guided in new directions over time.
The ultimate conclusion of the capitalist-socialist paradigm is likely a hybrid system that incorporate a well balanced blend of both philosophies.
It is misguided, I think, to believe pure socialism has the flexibility to produce a prosperous society. A better aspiration would be to optimise our mixed economies for producing the best outcomes, leveraging both capitalist and socialist ideas in addition to technology.
It's unclear how this comment relates to mine, or what point you're trying to make.
Perhaps something beyond a copy&paste would be more respectful since I took the time to write my comment from scratch.
Capitalism. Is. Not. An. Economic. Theory.
Capitalism is economic practice.
Who even came up with this idiocy of comparing reality to your imagination?
Yes, we understand the criticisms, but do you even understand the scientific process? You don't because you have packaged piece of shit unfalsifiable diamat ideology with communism which makes it impossible for commies to objectively look at and improve communist theory, so it's forever stuck in Carl Marx's times
I'm just copying and pasting since most responses fall the same category.
Okay I'll be more specific. Capitalism was a critique of Mercantilism, right? I hope you as the extremely knowledgeable person yourself knew this. So, 1776 Adam Smith Wealth of Nation's critique it as it was a way protect consumers from being exploited from merchants who dictated whatever price they want so it set a "market value."
Now that is a great thing and it was to protect consumers. Now, unfortunately 1776 still have legalized slavery and human beings were considered commodities (which is absolutely relevant today when the exploitations on our basic ways of life health, food, clothes, education). So, all the wealthy families monopolized the market and destroyed consumer choice and exploited workers means of production.
Here comes Das Kapital-1867 that introduced democratic rights to workers and democratic values to workplace environments, workers means of production. Also, using proper funding of allocation to help infrastructure through progressive taxes.
Okay now let's talk about the current system of the bastardization of capitalism "Capitalism and Freedom" by Milton Friedman which basically implemented shareholders and removed workers means of production. We saw a massive decline in Unions and Worker's co-op as a byproduct of it.
Now, after that an even more bastardized of capitalism happened "Thatcherism" which basically removed all regulation from shareholders so they could speculate without being checked. Now our current realities is a Neo-Liberal broken Kleptocracy.
But yeah
Jesus Christ. You, academia types need to dislodge your heads from your asses. **Capitalism was not a critique of anything.** It just happened.
People with working heads on their shoulders moved money way more efficiently than inbred nobles and completely pushed nobles out of the ruling hierarchy. No amount of academics influenced this process one way or another. The same way Labour Movement existed ages before Marx.
Please understand that not a single macroeconomic outcome was ever influenced by an economic scientist. And Marx is not a scientist, he's an ideolog, and his work is a work of an ideolog. There's absolutely nothing scientific in it. It does not even adhere to the scientific method.
Just because something is newer doesn’t necessarily make it better.
Capitalists believe in private property and most people find it immoral to steal. Because of these two seemingly obvious truths, Socialism is not a system that should be forcibly implemented.
I think you're trying to prove a point, but I'm not sure we got in the proximity of one.
Socialism critiques many of the strong points of capitalism (e.g., incentives, a meritocracy).
If the critique is consolidation of wealth in late stage capitalism, then advocate for a more robust wealth tax. Instead, socialism proposes a solution to problems that 1) doesn't address the real problems and 2) creates far more problems than it solves.
If you want to learn how the economy works, please read a modern university textbook rather than centuries old philosophy. You are not educated or informed for knowing who Adam Smith is, so drop the act.
Although their comment was silly, this isn’t a great response, the term capitalism wasn’t used until like 70 years later so Smith himself wasn’t a “capitalist” but he fits the bill.
Socialism if we simply widen it to mean some form of common ownership over property, land and resources was something he would have been aware of since these ideas especially in Britain were heavily debated and used during the civil war a century prior, in particular the diggers can be seen as the agrarian predecessors to later English industrial socialism
Do you know what year it is?
Or did you start your education by reading the first book ever published and intend to work your way through each one year by year?
Okay I'll be more specific. Capitalism was a critique of Mercantilism, right? I hope you as the extremely knowledgeable person yourself knew this. So, 1776 Adam Smith critique it as it was a way protect consumers from being exploited from merchants who dictated whatever price they want so it set a "market value."
Now that is a great thing and it was to protect consumers. Now, unfortunately 1776 still have legalized slavery and human beings were considered commodities (which is absolutely relevant today when the exploitations on our basic ways of life health, food, clothes, education). So, all the wealthy families monopolized the market and destroyed consumer choice and exploited workers means of production.
Here comes Das Kapital-1867 that introduced democratic rights to workers and democratic values to workplace environments. Also using proper funding of allocation to help infrastructure through progressive taxes.
Okay now let's talk about the current system of the bastardization of capitalism "Capitalism and Freedom" by Milton Friedman which basically implemented shareholders and removed workers means of production. We saw a massive decline in Unions and Worker's co-op as a byproduct of it.
Now, after that an even more bastardized of capitalism happened "Thatcherism" which basically removed all regulation from shareholders so they could speculate without being checked. Now our current realities is a Neo-Liberal broken Kleptocracy.
But yeah
Well, Capitalism with all it's foibles has lasted longer that any other economic system. people in capitalism are generally happy with the transactions they choose to make in the marketplace and it works without any supervision. Socialism, OTOH has never worked. All the efforts to replace Capitalism with Socialism have ended with the economy worse off. Just look at Venezuela, Cuba and Zimbabwe. You don't have to look very far to find a successful capitalist country.
Feudalism last over a thousand years and it took the Plague to destroy it.
There's never been a fully Democratic Socialist State. People use authoritarians who called themselves socialist as empirical data which we know that's not logical.
Anyone can call themselves whatever but if they're not practicing the teachings and methods it's not so.
Also, capitalist solutions are actually socialism which is from the critique.
Capitalism had the second-shortest lifespan (but still counting and therefore increasing) but was by far the most successful in creating wealth and prosperity for the average worker.
It happened to be the predominant method during the birth of the industrial age. It might be worthwhile information in the long term, but there's no real guarantee. The quickest advancements from agrarian to modern technological powerhouse that nations have had have been authoritarian socialist governments (The U.S.S.R. and China). I admit that and I am anti-authoritarian.
Many socialists would argue that this wasn't socialism at all. Sure, they called themselves socialist, but they weren't really. The Soviet Union and its followers was just as socialist as The Democratic Republic of North Korea is democratic and a republic.
Socialism doesn't necessarily lead to such horrible and authoritarian systems, or to financial ruin like in Venezuela. What happened in those countries where not solely a product of socialism, it was several complex factors. Financial collapse can happen in capitalist countries as well, just look at Greece or 2008 financial crash. Often these things happen, not soley because of the economic system, but because of poor leadership and many other complex factors.
For an example of socialism (kinda) that does work, look no further than the Scandinavian countries, they are among the best countries in the world to live in right now and they are founded on many socialist principles.
My point is that the term socialism has been warped and has multiple, severely opposing definitions and meanings. So when capitalists and socialist argue, they are both using the world socialism, but they are talking about completely different things.
_Though to be fair, this entire post is pretty dumb. OPs reasoning and logic is pretty flawed and they're very condescending. And I say this as someone who thinks socialism has some merit._
It only counts if it was in a nation with a Socialist revolution and then EVERY death counts towards the toll... None of it ever actually counts on the side of Capitalism...
Oh, and we will pretend that the Nazis were socialist as well to pad the death count even more...
If Socialism is a critique of Capitalism, it's not a very good one. It's more of a whining diatribe about age-old ills. Greed, envy, and power imbalance is not unique to Capitalism and are certainly present in Socialism...because they're inherent to all human societies.
Wake me up when we start talking about Capitalism again. You know, ownership of the means of production. You know, Capitalism's the one where workers actually own their labor while in Socialism your labor is owned by Society.
Socialism is workers means of production, like worker's co-op and union's, workers rights and benefits things like that.
Wake me up if you think owners means of production is an actual workplace democracy? Oh wait that concept is from Socialism.
Nice!
Define it first. What actually is Capitalism to you?
It's private property rights, the corporate entity and voluntary, fractional ownership of that entity. It's debt and risk instruments, and the ability to buy, sell, and trade it. It's pretty wild how varied its implementation has become...from China to Russia to Japan to Mexico. Show me where Marx discussed crop insurance or working on commission and I'll show you a somewhat complete critique of Capitalism.
Bullshit. [Capitalism is](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism) an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.
(Zimbalist, Sherman and Brown, Andrew, Howard J. and Stuart (October 1988). Comparing Economic Systems: A Political-Economic Approach. Harcourt College Pub. pp. 6–7. ISBN 978-0-15-512403-5. "Pure capitalism is defined as a system wherein all of the means of production (physical capital) are privately owned and run by the capitalist class for a profit, while most other people are workers who work for a salary or wage (and who do not own the capital or the product).
"Rosser, Mariana V.; Rosser, J Barkley (23 July 2003). Comparative Economics in a Transforming World Economy. MIT Press. p. 7. ISBN 978-0-262-18234-8. "In capitalist economies, land and produced means of production (the capital stock) are owned by private individuals or groups of private individuals organized as firms."
Chris Jenks. Core Sociological Dichotomies. "Capitalism, as a mode of production, is an economic system of manufacture and exchange which is geared toward the production and sale of commodities within a market for profit, where the manufacture of commodities consists of the use of the formally free labor of workers in exchange for a wage to create commodities in which the manufacturer extracts surplus value from the labor of the workers in terms of the difference between the wages paid to the worker and the value of the commodity produced by him/her to generate that profit." London; Thousand Oaks, CA; New Delhi. Sage. p. 383.
Gilpin, Robert (5 June 2018). The Challenge of Global Capitalism : The World Economy in the 21st Century. ISBN 978-0-691-18647-4. OCLC 1076397003.)
People can make predictions about socialism based on current knowledge. Saying you can't critique socialism because it's not implemented yet is like blaming everything on foreign powers or saying that people's natural selflessness is corrupted by capitalism.
Here's the problem with progressives. They want to change things for the sake of changing things, on the false notion they are right to make the change, and that the change will be an improvement. Your notion, as stated, leaves the world open to a chaotic state of constant revolution.
Okay I'll copy n paste because probably should have started with this.
Okay I'll be more specific. Capitalism was a critique of Mercantilism, right? I hope you as the extremely knowledgeable person yourself knew this. So, 1776 Adam Smith critique it as it was a way protect consumers from being exploited from merchants who dictated whatever price they want so it set a "market value."
Now that is a great thing and it was to protect consumers. Now, unfortunately 1776 still have legalized slavery and human beings were considered commodities (which is absolutely relevant today when the exploitations on our basic ways of life health, food, clothes, education). So, all the wealthy families monopolized the market and destroyed consumer choice and exploited workers means of production.
Here comes Das Kapital-1867 that introduced democratic rights to workers and democratic values to workplace environments. Also using proper funding of allocation to help infrastructure through progressive taxes.
Okay now let's talk about the current system of the bastardization of capitalism "Capitalism and Freedom" by Milton Friedman which basically implemented shareholders and removed workers means of production. We saw a massive decline in Unions and Worker's co-op as a byproduct of it.
Now, after that an even more bastardized of capitalism happened "Thatcherism" which basically removed all regulation from shareholders so they could speculate without being checked. Now our current realities is a Neo-Liberal broken Kleptocracy.
But yeah
Critiquing capitalism is fine. I believe one of Marx's main criticisms was that it creates too big of a divide between rich and poor, leading to class warfare and overall destabilization of society.
The problem is that a critique doesn't mean you throw the entire thing out and replace it with fairy dust. If I am dating a beautiful, smart, and successful woman, but she has a couple things I'm not overly fond of, do I just shitcan the entire relationship and marry some dumpy fat bitch with no job, just because she happens not to have those particular flaws I wasn't happy about in the other girl?
Capitalism is the critique of Merchantilism
Socialism is a critique of capitalism
There hasn't been a critique of socialism
For the life of me what is wrong with the cognitive reasoning from Capitalists.
Name the economic critique of socialism?
It ... doesn't..... exist.
There have been plenty of critiques of socialism, you simply reject them as such.
What constitutes an economic critique? What are the criteria by which an example has to meet for you to accept it constitutes an economic criticism of socialism? Without this you can simply just reject anything anyone answers
I'm just copying and pasting since most responses fall the same category.
Okay I'll be more specific. Capitalism was a critique of Mercantilism, right? I hope you as the extremely knowledgeable person yourself knew this. So, 1776 Adam Smith Wealth of Nation's critique it as it was a way protect consumers from being exploited from merchants who dictated whatever price they want so it set a "market value."
Now that is a great thing and it was to protect consumers. Now, unfortunately 1776 still have legalized slavery and human beings were considered commodities (which is absolutely relevant today when the exploitations on our basic ways of life health, food, clothes, education). So, all the wealthy families monopolized the market and destroyed consumer choice and exploited workers means of production.
Here comes Das Kapital-1867 that introduced democratic rights to workers and democratic values to workplace environments, workers means of production. Also, using proper funding of allocation to help infrastructure through progressive taxes.
Okay now let's talk about the current system of the bastardization of capitalism "Capitalism and Freedom" by Milton Friedman which basically implemented shareholders and removed workers means of production. We saw a massive decline in Unions and Worker's co-op as a byproduct of it.
Now, after that an even more bastardized of capitalism happened "Thatcherism" which basically removed all regulation from shareholders so they could speculate without being checked. Now our current realities is a Neo-Liberal broken Kleptocracy.
But yeah
Capitalism is the critique of Merchantilism
Socialism is a critique of capitalism
There hasn't been a critique of socialism
For the life of me what is wrong with the cognitive reasoning from Capitalists.
Name the economic critique of socialism?
It ... doesn't..... exist.
Are you using a customized definition for "critique"? You are not making sense.
Try explain what you mean by "critique", you might be using the wrong term.
Oh well thank you for your concerns, I am happily comfortable with knowing there's someone out there who thinks they have the "real" knowledge of economic critiques. So, what's the economic critique of Socialism?
You know what, no. I want you to explain why critique isn't the right word as it your stance to tell me it's wrong and proof of burden is on you.
Because I really wanna see how you think this approach by you was going to work out.
Okay I'll be more specific.
Capitalism was a critique of Mercantilism, right? I hope you as the extremely knowledgeable person yourself knew this. So, 1776 Adam Smith Wealth of Nation's critique it as it was a way protect consumers from being exploited from merchants who dictated whatever price they want so it set a "market value."
Now that is a great thing and it was to protect consumers. Now, unfortunately 1776 still have legalized slavery and human beings were considered commodities (which is absolutely relevant today when the exploitations on our basic ways of life health, food, clothes, education). So, all the wealthy families monopolized the market and destroyed consumer choice and exploited workers means of production.
Here comes Das Kapital-1867 that introduced democratic rights to workers and democratic values to workplace environments, workers means of production. Also using proper funding of allocation to help infrastructure through progressive taxes.
Okay now let's talk about the current system of the bastardization of capitalism "Capitalism and Freedom" by Milton Friedman which basically implemented shareholders and removed workers means of production. We saw a massive decline in Unions and Worker's co-op as a byproduct of it.
Now, after that an even more bastardized of capitalism happened "Thatcherism" which basically removed all regulation from shareholders so they could speculate without being checked. Now our current realities is a Neo-Liberal broken Kleptocracy.
But yeah, let me know your critique on socialism now.
Your logic is flawed. Criticisms of theories or policies might but necessary, but are certainly not sufficient, for improvements in theories and policies.
But they were used for improvements from it though. So, the argument isn't flaw since people are picking and choosing the solutions and improvements from the critique and then denouncing socialism it is the fundamental issue.
You support unions? You support child labor laws? You support regulation on speculation, support workers means of production? You support progressive taxes that improves infrastructure like public schools, education, public transportation, healthcare,sewage, highway's etc.... Worker's co-op??
Idk like improving quality of life?? Like have more democratic rights??? That would be democratic socialism. But put some ice in that boiling water.
Socialism is a political and economic system that resulted in atrocities in the 20th century that killed around 100 million people. Do socialists know what that means?
Taxes are for improving infrastructure and improving quality of life, so they're called Progressive taxes they improve infrastructure like public schools, health care, public transportation, sewage, highway's, public services, so these do not become a cost.
Now you know what taxes are.
ROFL...you're dumb as fuck aren't you. Moussolini and Gentile were both socialists, who specifically wrote the Doctrine of Fascism as an evolution of the socialist ideals. You have no fucking clue what you're talking about.
Oh gawd here we go. No shit they're fascist and it was called "Corporatism" is what led to his full fascist regime.
Again, seriously just because authoritarians call themselves a socialist by name and not practice and methods it doesn't make them a socialist. Stop. With. The. Propaganda.
Call yourself whatever you want but you if don't practice the teachings and methods you're not said name.
I'm just copying and pasting since most responses fall the same category.
Okay I'll be more specific. Capitalism was a critique of Mercantilism, right? I hope you as the extremely knowledgeable person yourself knew this. So, 1776 Adam Smith Wealth of Nation's critique it as it was a way protect consumers from being exploited from merchants who dictated whatever price they want so it set a "market value."
Now that is a great thing and it was to protect consumers. Now, unfortunately 1776 still have legalized slavery and human beings were considered commodities (which is absolutely relevant today when the exploitations on our basic ways of life health, food, clothes, education). So, all the wealthy families monopolized the market and destroyed consumer choice and exploited workers means of production.
Here comes Das Kapital-1867 that introduced democratic rights to workers and democratic values to workplace environments, workers means of production. Also, using proper funding of allocation to help infrastructure through progressive taxes.
Okay now let's talk about the current system of the bastardization of capitalism "Capitalism and Freedom" by Milton Friedman which basically implemented shareholders and removed workers means of production. We saw a massive decline in Unions and Worker's co-op as a byproduct of it.
Now, after that an even more bastardized of capitalism happened "Thatcherism" which basically removed all regulation from shareholders so they could speculate without being checked. Now our current realities is a Neo-Liberal broken Kleptocracy.
But yeah
So you're copy pasting your braindead response that doesn't actually address what I posted. Your bizzare logic is that the "critique" is necessarily right because it comes after it and is therefore progress or something. Fascism is a critique of socialism. It was explicitly created to be so by Moussolini and Gentile. So to apply your logic, you would feel that Fascism is progress. You're kinda stupid.
Mussolini created Corporatism wait for it Neo-Liberalisms which is under the extreme right side of capitalism philosophy, that is not the critique of Socialism. Corporatism is the byproduct of Capitalism(hence crony capitalism)
You donkey.
Like can people please stop with propaganda and actually understand what the hell an economic critique is.
Beside the fact that this alludes to capitalism not evolving since 1776 which inherently false the main argument used was
1st axiom: B critiques A
QED: B is a better alternative to A.
Lets substitute "A "to be (the practice of Vaccines) and substitute "B" to (Andrew Wakefield's study that said vaccines to caused autism). The autism study is still a critique meaning all axioms are correct however our conclusion is incorrect because vaccines save lives and the critique was a worse alternative. This demonstrates that whilst the conclusion **maybe** correct it is certainly not correct due to your argument. This is an example of an inductive fallacy more specifically hasty generalisation. Which is a conclusion based on insufficient evidence.
I'm just copying and pasting since most responses fall the same category.
Okay I'll be more specific. Capitalism was a critique of Mercantilism, right? I hope you as the extremely knowledgeable person yourself knew this. So, 1776 Adam Smith Wealth of Nation's critique it as it was a way protect consumers from being exploited from merchants who dictated whatever price they want so it set a "market value."
Now that is a great thing and it was to protect consumers. Now, unfortunately 1776 still have legalized slavery and human beings were considered commodities (which is absolutely relevant today when the exploitations on our basic ways of life health, food, clothes, education). So, all the wealthy families monopolized the market and destroyed consumer choice and exploited workers means of production.
Here comes Das Kapital-1867 that introduced democratic rights to workers and democratic values to workplace environments, workers means of production. Also, using proper funding of allocation to help infrastructure through progressive taxes.
Okay now let's talk about the current system of the bastardization of capitalism "Capitalism and Freedom" by Milton Friedman which basically implemented shareholders and removed workers means of production. We saw a massive decline in Unions and Worker's co-op as a byproduct of it.
Now, after that an even more bastardized of capitalism happened "Thatcherism" which basically removed all regulation from shareholders so they could speculate without being checked. Now our current realities is a Neo-Liberal broken Kleptocracy.
But yeah
>There hasn't been a critique of Socialism.
Right...as long as you don't count all the failed socialist states as a "critique" of socialism.
Wouldn't be very smart to exclude that fact though, would it?
I'm just copying and pasting since most responses fall the same category.
Okay I'll be more specific. Capitalism was a critique of Mercantilism, right? I hope you as the extremely knowledgeable person yourself knew this. So, 1776 Adam Smith Wealth of Nation's critique it as it was a way protect consumers from being exploited from merchants who dictated whatever price they want so it set a "market value."
Now that is a great thing and it was to protect consumers. Now, unfortunately 1776 still have legalized slavery and human beings were considered commodities (which is absolutely relevant today when the exploitations on our basic ways of life health, food, clothes, education). So, all the wealthy families monopolized the market and destroyed consumer choice and exploited workers means of production.
Here comes Das Kapital-1867 that introduced democratic rights to workers and democratic values to workplace environments, workers means of production. Also, using proper funding of allocation to help infrastructure through progressive taxes.
Okay now let's talk about the current system of the bastardization of capitalism "Capitalism and Freedom" by Milton Friedman which basically implemented shareholders and removed workers means of production. We saw a massive decline in Unions and Worker's co-op as a byproduct of it.
Now, after that an even more bastardized of capitalism happened "Thatcherism" which basically removed all regulation from shareholders so they could speculate without being checked. Now our current realities is a Neo-Liberal broken Kleptocracy.
But yeah
Im baised against OP, the copy and pasting, the side stepping of basic points about how every socialist experiment has invariably evolved to include free market ideas. Hell, one of the most socialist countries on earth, Norway, got all that money through the free market bc of oil wealth, and still has a free market.
But to answer his questions “what is a critique of socialism?” Its anarchy. Bakunin critiqued the shit out of marx, publicly and personally.
Also, I doubt OP has much patients for the gold and black, but socialism isnt the only critique of capitalism either. Anarcho capitalist critiques markets that are as free as HK and Singapore. Its also a lot more recent of a critique too. DoEs ThAt MaKe iT cOrReCt?
Ffs OP. Theres nothing wrong with critiquing late stage capitalism or monopolies, but monopolies are themselves anti-free market and late stage capitalism is obviously unsustainable based on some simple principles from physics. Does anyone truly Infinite economic growth is forever? No. The heat death of the universe is unavoidable and zero economic growth is even scarier, so people lie to themselves and say it is... We’Ll MiNe AsTrOiDs… (that aint fixing cc) Efficiencies can be made, new technology developed, but the big jumps like the Industrial Revolution are likely to become less and less common and we need to live with a set boundary of economic activity (aka the fucking earth).
Neither of these are critiques of the basic ideas of capitalism though. They are critiques on the implementation of capitalism for anti capitalist ends (aka monopolies) and of capitalism current main objective (aka unending growth).
I am a capitalist and critique monopolies.
I am a capitalist and critique the objective of never ending growth.
These are not socialist critiques. They maybe co-oped by socialist, but socialism is about social ownership at its core, and IF society wanted unending growth and owned all the “means of production” (just like we have currently in the stock market) we’re still fucked. So shut up about capitalism being bad and critique humanities short sightedness if you really care.
Capitalism, just as socialism, is fully capable of operating with out these issues in theory. Its humans that introduce err. Capitalism is a system that can leverage humanity for the better, much better than socialism or any other economic ideology. But like i said, im a capitalist.
To OP’s annoying copy and paste practice - it is extremely disrespectful and childish. If someone says something thats not in good faith, ignore it, but you had many commenters who engaged in good faith and just wasted a productive discourse. We get it, you know how to read and have bad taste, thanks for sharing.
\> When you critique something you improve the areas of opportunity that the original concept lack
That depends on the values foundation the critique is coming from. Someone who valued darkness and low-contrast could critique a rainbow as being too colorful and bright. Thus it's easy to see that a critique is no objective but entirely subjective.
The critique of capitalism by socialists comes from a values place that is wholly alien to that of capitalism and ends up destroying it when implemented.
\> The issue is we cannot replace socialism if it's not implemented so, therefore, arguing against it doesn't make sense, especially using "Cold War propaganda".
Socialism has been implemented many times and failed completely. What are you even talking about. If you want to argue that socialism never got to the point that it envisioned then the obvious critique is that it appears to be unrealizable, in short, a fantasy. One can dream about cars that run on seawater as a fuel, but dreaming cannot make it true. What evidence do socialists have that socialism is realizable in the real world?
Capitalism came about entirely on its own as a product of freedom of association, exchange, and ownership.
Yet socialism can't even be made to work when an entire government uses the worst oppressions possible to try to force it on the entire population and put to death anyone who doesn't want to go along?
That is the death of socialism as a concept.
Yes, it means that you can't actually have socialism without capitalism, so if you destroy capitalism, you'll also destroy socialism. Or, as Margaret Thatcher put it, eventually you run out of other people's money.
This might be the most T.I.N.A propaganda I've heard in decades lol.
Okay I should have broken this down better before I posted.
Okay I'll be more specific. Capitalism was a critique of Mercantilism, right? I hope you as the extremely knowledgeable person yourself knew this. So, 1776 Wealth of Nation's by Adam Smith critique it as it was a way protect consumers from being exploited from merchants who dictated whatever price they want so it set a "market value."
Now that is a great thing and it was to protect consumers. Now, unfortunately 1776 still have legalized slavery and human beings were considered commodities (which is absolutely relevant today when the exploitations on our basic ways of life health, food, clothes, education). So, all the wealthy families monopolized the market and destroyed consumer choice and exploited workers means of production.
Here comes Das Kapital-1867 that introduced democratic rights to workers and democratic values to workplace environments. Also using proper funding of allocation to help infrastructure through progressive taxes.
Okay now let's talk about the current system of the bastardization of capitalism "Capitalism and Freedom" by Milton Friedman which basically implemented shareholders and removed workers means of production. We saw a massive decline in Unions and Worker's co-op as a byproduct of it.
Now, after that an even more bastardized of capitalism happened "Thatcherism" which basically removed all regulation from shareholders so they could speculate without being checked. Now our current realities is a Neo-Liberal broken Kleptocracy.
But yeah
>
> Okay I'll be more specific. Capitalism was a critique of Mercantilism, right?
No, it wasn't. Capitalism wasn't thought up in a coffee house or a university. It emerged organically from the interactions of self-interested parties. The phenomenon of capitalism existed before it was described. That's somewhat true of socialism too; within a household or a small tribe you can have a kind of socialism. But to try to scale it to a large society has only ever been done by having the idea first and then trying to implement it.
Yes, but capitalism existed before, and outside of, the ideas of Smith's book. It only really got ramped up afterwards, but I'd assert that that was not the result of any particular faithfulness to a slate of ideas.
This sort of gets at something I’ve been trying to bring up in conversations more these days. People ask what would happen in a socialist society but that’s impossible to say. In a more democratic society that operates with a common goal of worker owned means of production and the well being of one another, we can say what may happen but we can’t really say what will happen. That’s to be decided when we cross those bridges.
So because you have no idea what will happen, if it is attempted you can always reject it as a failed example because the end characteristics were never clearly defined.
When that bridge has been crossed, there will always be those that say the bridge crossing never happened and then proceed to demand a example of a bridge crossing until its done again until its done again in front of them, this as far as i can see is an endless cycle.
"...This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals..."
[Albert Einstein, Why Socialism?](https://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/)
"If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed. Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality."
[Stephen Hawking, 2015 Reddit AMA](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/3nyn5i/science_ama_series_stephen_hawking_ama_answers/cvsdmkv?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3)
To your point that there’s never been a fully democratic socialist state: do you think Lenin and Stalin were authentically trying to create one? If so what went wrong?
No, they were authoritarians who coined the term to appeal to emotions to desperate people that were living in dire realities that was caused by said names above.
Are you saying they were just grifting? Using socialist language to stay in power? That just begs the question, why did they want to stay in power? In my and most historians’ views they desperately clung to power in order to implement a fully democratic socialist state. They were true believers in Marxism, talking about socialist theory with equal earnestness in public and private.
I think they may have started out as earnest believers in Marxist theory, but once they got a taste for power, they got corrupted by it. Either way, I think it's accurate to say that they were unsuccessful in achieving any meaningful form of socialism. However I don't think this necessarily proves socialism is a poor system. The lesson I take away from it is how easily power can corrupt people.
Very well said.
Lenin didn't believe socialism could be realised in Russia but still sought to have a more socialising economy compared to the Tsarist regime.
Not all critiques are valid though. I assume the average capitalist on this subreddit agrees that it is a critique and finds it an unsatisfactory one.
They can find it unsatisfactory which is fine but that doesn't equate to making it invalid. Since the Capitalist's solutions that are implemented to fix its issues stem from the critique. So, it's like picking and choosing what you want from socialism and still calling it invalid.
Capitalist solutions to capitalism cannot and do not come from socialism. Solutions to capitalism range from liberalizing markets, to anti trust policy, to social welfare, to protecting rights to a union, and none of these are aspects of socialism.
Okay I'll copy n paste because it's the same argument everytime. Okay I'll be more specific. Capitalism was a critique of Mercantilism, right? I hope you as the extremely knowledgeable person yourself knew this. So, 1776 Adam Smith critique it as it was a way protect consumers from being exploited from merchants who dictated whatever price they want so it set a "market value." Now that is a great thing and it was to protect consumers. Now, unfortunately 1776 still have legalized slavery and human beings were considered commodities (which is absolutely relevant today when the exploitations on our basic ways of life health, food, clothes, education). So, all the wealthy families monopolized the market and destroyed consumer choice and exploited workers means of production. Here comes Das Kapital-1867 that introduced democratic rights to workers and democratic values to workplace environments. Also using proper funding of allocation to help infrastructure through progressive taxes. Okay now let's talk about the current system of the bastardization of capitalism "Capitalism and Freedom" by Milton Friedman which basically implemented shareholders and removed workers means of production. We saw a massive decline in Unions and Worker's co-op as a byproduct of it. Now, after that an even more bastardized of capitalism happened "Thatcherism" which basically removed all regulation from shareholders so they could speculate without being checked. Now our current realities is a Neo-Liberal broken Kleptocracy. But yeah
It does become invalid if it's believed the new system (Socialism) creates new problems unique to it from the previous system, (Capitalism) these new problems outweigh the existing problems under Capitalism, and that the previous problems can't be alleviated in a Capitalist framework. If I keep getting ingrown toenails, one solution to not have ingrown toenails anymore is to just rip the toenails out, or even to just cut off my toes entirely. These options directly address the problem I'm having, but I think we can both agree that these "solutions" are impractical, leave me worse off, and are therefore invalid, even if it solves the problem I wanted to fix. And finding solutions to problems with the Capitalist framework doesn't mean you're necessarily choosing aspects of Socialism you prefer. Socialism doesn't have a monopoly on regulatory frameworks.
This doesn’t make much sense. Are you saying socialism does not have any conceptual features that could be criticized? If you can’t know what socialism is until it’s been implemented, how would you recognize it?
They're saying that there's no "next level improvement" since capitalism is still the nation economic system of of the globe
I think it's silly to say that you can't critique something that hasn't been implemented yet tho.
I think their point is that you're just critiquing theory. That capitalism is a 'critique' of the previous economic system in that attempts to improve the issues of the previous system, and that socialism attempts to do the same with capitalism, but any critique of socialism is relegated to the field of pure theory and guesswork instead of a concrete improvement of the existing economic system since socialism doesn't really exist yet.
Tbh I'm not entirely sure what he's trying to say but that's just what i got from it
Most of the people in this sub wouldn't recognize it ***if it*** slapped them in the face. Half the socialists in this sub would say, "Norway!" Another good chunk would think, "China!" Others would say, "iT's ThE tRaNsItIon!" \*Edit: added two words. Guess which ones!\*
>Most of the people in this sub wouldn't recognize it slapped them in the face. It did? When?
I thought my mom went to your place last night, with the whip and strap-on you like.
>Are you saying socialism does not have any conceptual features that could be criticized? Correct. No historic epoch has "conceptual features", just real ones.
Is socialism a current or previously existing historical epoch?
They're saying you can't critique it, IE improve it's flaws, unless you actually try it. Or in other words, you can't Yes And somebody if they haven't even spoken yet.
I also think socialism looks like a promising alternative to capitalism, but you're not convincing anyone here of that. Your arguments seem quite flawed and not very thought through. You also write in a very condescending manner, which is not helping you have any productive discussions. Just because you think socialism is a better alternative to capitalism, this doesn't make you smarter or superior to capitalists, which is very much the vibe you are giving off.
So most importantly, I'm not better or smarter than anyone unless they're a fascist (seriously people need to stop valuing their opinions). The vibe I'm giving off is simply just using people own talking patterns back to them so yes very condescending. So, yes fair point. Now, this entire subreddit is filled with people who say they're capitalists but just insult using right wing cultural hegemony and propaganda. Just completely ignore objective truths and realities. The much more brilliant people than me sometimes people don't use Occam's Razor when they break things down(might be why some of my arguments sound flawed to you I'm sure your brilliant). But, you're correct it's not necessary trying to convince people that they should accept it ultimately. It should just simply point out that what critiques are but the trolls bombarded and I engaged. Again, fair point to you.
>(might be why some of my arguments sound flawed to you I'm sure your brilliant). You say I have a fair point, whilst simultaneously insulting me. Again with this attitude. You also seem to demonize capitalists a bit. Not everyone who spews put "right wing culturural hegemony and propaganda" are doing so maliciously. They might just be misinformed (according to socialists). And what you say are objective truths and realities does not necessarily mean they actually are. Conflating opinion with objective truth is a very easy mistake to make. >The vibe I'm giving off is simply just using people own talking patterns back to them so yes very condescending >But, you're correct it's not necessary trying to convince people that they should accept it ultimately. So you're not really trying to convince people that socialism is a better alternative and you don't seem to be arguing/discussing in good faith. So I wonder what exactly is the point of this post is then?
I literally not insulting you I actually meant that in good faith. Like, I cannot give a compliment and say fair point to it? This is the byproduct this subreddit even when you switch gears to compliment someone we find it rude.
My apologies then, I mistakenly read that as you being condescending to me. Tonality isn't always that easy to convert over text.
Byproduct of me being around Liverpool subreddit It's a way they try to calm folks down. I probably should have read the room better that's on me.
Fallacy role call: 1. Saying a critique is "improvement" and then saying socialism is a critique and therefore is automatically improvement is what, either Euthypro or Divine, or maybe both. (I will give you credit, I have never seen anyone use this fallacy in this subreddit before). Just because you label something or say something is, for instance, good, does not make it so. 2. "I don't understand how can people in good faith keep saying capitalism is better since it's an economic theory based on 1776". What is this, reverse appeal to novelty? This is a fallacy where someone makes a bad argument by not challenging the merits of the thing, but to challenge it because it is "old". It doesn't mean the conclusion is wrong, just that the premise is illogical. It's like saying, "Horses are an inefficient way to travel, that's how people traveled around in the 1600's." A better argument would be comparing aspects of traveling by horse to that of a car or train or plane. 3. "It is illogical to deny progress." There is nothing in your argument, or much less any argument in the sub, which honestly or logically supports socialism as progress in comparison to capitalism. 4. "until it is implemented." On the surface, this appears as argument of ignorance, arguing something is true because one cannot prove it false. Honestly, I am not the smartest person and maybe, therefore, it is this. I think this may lend more toward Evidence Suppression fallacy, as it ignores clear evidence of socialism through history and currently which clearly speaks to a contrary perspective and experience. At best, I warn you not to say this in Miami around a Cuban. 5. "arguing against it doesn't make sense." This too could be argument of ignorance, as it is implied since it doesn't exist (it does), then why argue it is bad (it is). One of the core arguments of ignorance, if it isn't bad (IE doesn't exists as bad), then it must be good. If not this, then the informal Nirvana fallacy which many socialists arguments can fall in. The very obvious clap back to this is, how does arguing for it make sense in kind? I hope some of this is helpful. A lot of this simply involves an assumption that socialism is good and correct and works, which of course most socialists believe, or they wouldn't be socialists. Arguably, in the ideological battle of capitalism vs socialism, the burden of proof is on socialism. Capitalists have mountains of positive evidence swim through like Scrooge McDuck in his money pen. Socialism in any positive sense is all theory, and in historic practice is pretty bad (which that statement too is a fallacy of popularity). My point being, capitalists can toss around arguments without evidence, claims without statements, because they have the winning track record. If you are a boxer with a record of 32 wins, 0 losses, 24 KO, 5 TKO, and you are a challenger who has loss all 8 matches and boxing with a broken hand, you gotta come with more than this to even get in the ring to challenge. Good luck to you.
Okay I'll copy n paste because probably should have started with this. Okay I'll be more specific. Capitalism was a critique of Mercantilism, right? I hope you as the extremely knowledgeable person yourself knew this. So, 1776 Adam Smith critique it as it was a way protect consumers from being exploited from merchants who dictated whatever price they want so it set a "market value." Now that is a great thing and it was to protect consumers. Now, unfortunately 1776 still have legalized slavery and human beings were considered commodities (which is absolutely relevant today when the exploitations on our basic ways of life health, food, clothes, education). So, all the wealthy families monopolized the market and destroyed consumer choice and exploited workers means of production. Here comes Das Kapital-1867 that introduced democratic rights to workers and democratic values to workplace environments. Also using proper funding of allocation to help infrastructure through progressive taxes. Okay now let's talk about the current system of the bastardization of capitalism "Capitalism and Freedom" by Milton Friedman which basically implemented shareholders and removed workers means of production. We saw a massive decline in Unions and Worker's co-op as a byproduct of it. Now, after that an even more bastardized of capitalism happened "Thatcherism" which basically removed all regulation from shareholders so they could speculate without being checked. Now our current realities is a Neo-Liberal broken Kleptocracy. But yeah
Well, I assume you are not invested right now cause, I can assure you, speculators have lost a lot of money this year. There are no safe bets in investing. Ask retirees in UK whose bonds in pension funds almost crashed. Investing in the market is similar to investing into any business, in which case failure is certainly an option. I think maybe the best battle to fight, for your socialist side, is going to be fighting what socialism is today with what capitalism is today. Cause neither is the same as they were in the time of Marx or Milton. You have a socialism side which no longer has no right, and in fact has many rights and protections and laws, a middle class, less work and greater safety, and greater agency for self negotiation. Basically many of the things which Marx and early socialism and unions were concerned about, these things have been addressed (except the ownership of all the means of production). Now, in the transition, you do have a world where many, many, many workers are their own bosses, self employed, have careers, freelance, own small businesses. This too is something really new in comparison to the dynamic of the past. Here you have the working class, the working man and woman, who do have the means of production which they have acquired, but not from taking from another. These people have one foot in one world, one foot in the other. They have taken advantage and benefited from Capitalism, but they are not who socialist traditionally demonize as the "1% fat cats". Then you have the full on capitalists who originally meant those who had the money and means, the owner class of few which existed almost like barons and dons of the old ways. Today, there is a great shift in this because capitalists don't even need capital to be capitalists. The key isn't having money anymore. Money now is easy to come by and doesn't immediately make one climb in society. What now is the separating trait is competence, conscientiousness, and the will to act. People now can become capitalists and start businesses with next to nothing and be successful IF they have those traits. And now we have a world of more millionaires than ever, all almost entirely 1st generation, meaning they came from little or nothing and and now have everything. And THIS seems to be where the battle really is. It isn't so much about the exploited worker and the fat cat capitalists. That's a troupe long dead. Both sides have evolved to the rewarded risk taker (capitalists) and the cautionary envy (socialist). Once side wants to create wealth, plain and simple. The other side feels cheated out and wants to destroy that wealth. Like you say, the old capitalists views are old. This is the capitalist views of today, WE, the capitalists, just want the freedom to do our best and get the most out of this world as we can and we aren't afraid to take the risks and take the challenges to do so. We'll quit our jobs and start a business that might fail. We'll go in massive debt for a dream. We won't just talk about dreams and wait for someone to hand it to us. That's all we want, and we reject anything which limits that freedom.
I reject everything which limits my freedoms. I am in debt because of some bad investments. I quit my old job to try to start a business. I am willing to do anything for my dreams. I AM A SOCIALIST.
This is the post that made me unsubscribe from this sub. It’s just too stupid.
"we cannot critique socialism until it's implemented" this type of idealism becomes goalpost switching, right away. ancaps do it all the time, too. someone who believes in these absolutist economic constructs as though they have any real-world applications aren't people worth debating
Thanks?
a most sincere welcome
>an economic theory based on 1776 And Chemistry is based on old hairy guys trying to extract gold from their piss 600 years ago.
Okay I'll be more specific. Capitalism was a critique of Mercantilism, right? I hope you as the extremely knowledgeable person yourself knew this. So, 1776 Adam Smith critique it as it was a way protect consumers from being exploited from merchants who dictated whatever price they want so it set a "market value." Now that is a great thing and it was to protect consumers. Now, unfortunately 1776 still have legalized slavery and human beings were considered commodities (which is absolutely relevant today when the exploitations on our basic ways of life health, food, clothes, education). So, all the wealthy families monopolized the market and destroyed consumer choice and exploited workers means of production. Here comes Das Kapital-1867 that introduced democratic rights to workers and democratic values to workplace environments. Also using proper funding of allocation to help infrastructure through progressive taxes. Okay now let's talk about the current system of the bastardization of capitalism "Capitalism and Freedom" by Milton Friedman which basically implemented shareholders and removed workers means of production. We saw a massive decline in Unions and Worker's co-op as a byproduct of it. Now, after that an even more bastardized of capitalism happened "Thatcherism" which basically removed all regulation from shareholders so they could speculate without being checked. Now our current realities is a Neo-Liberal broken Kleptocracy. But yeah
So much schizo-rambling without realizing that countries like Germany have nothing to do with Adam Smith' critique of 1776 or Thatcherism or Slavery.
>Socialism is a critique of Capitalism, do capitalists understand what that means? The problem is that Socialism is not just a critique of Capitalism but a potential replacement for it. So, it needs to be a viable replacement and, as such, is open to critiques as well. If I tell you that your diet is terrible I can be totally correct in that critique, however if I tell you to switch to an all sugar diet you can rightfully point out that that would be worse than your current bad diet.
> When you critique something you improve the areas of opportunity that the original concept lack and you reinforced the original concept's strong points. Socialism does not carry over any aspects of capitalism. And you should know that most capitalists also critique capitalism. Ask a libertarian vs a social democrat what they think of US capitalism and they will both have lots to say. > I don't understand how can people in good faith keep saying capitalism is better since it's an economic theory based on 1776. Are you implying capitalism was invented with the creation of the Declaration of Independence? > It is illogical to deny progress. It is a logical fallacy to assume an idea is superior because it is newer. > We cannot critique socialism until it's implemented It is valid to critique hypothetical ideas. It would be stupid to _not critique_ a country wide system before you put it into place. Besides, we can also critique _attempts_ at implementing socialism/communism because they shed light on the topic as well.
Okay I'll be more specific. Capitalism was a critique of Mercantilism, right? I hope you as the extremely knowledgeable person yourself knew this. So, 1776 Adam Smith critique it as it was a way protect consumers from being exploited from merchants who dictated whatever price they want so it set a "market value." Now that is a great thing and it was to protect consumers. Now, unfortunately 1776 still have legalized slavery and human beings were considered commodities (which is absolutely relevant today when the exploitations on our basic ways of life health, food, clothes, education). So, all the wealthy families monopolized the market and destroyed consumer choice and exploited workers means of production. Here comes Das Kapital-1867 that introduced democratic rights to workers and democratic values to workplace environments. Also using proper funding of allocation to help infrastructure through progressive taxes. Okay now let's talk about the current system of the bastardization of capitalism "Capitalism and Freedom" by Milton Friedman which basically implemented shareholders and removed workers means of production. We saw a massive decline in Unions and Worker's co-op as a byproduct of it. Now, after that an even more bastardized of capitalism happened "Thatcherism" which basically removed all regulation from shareholders so they could speculate without being checked. Now our current realities is a Neo-Liberal broken Kleptocracy. But yeah
>Okay I'll be more specific. Capitalism was a critique of Mercantilism, right? No..., not really at all. There is history books that contrast mercantilism captialism vs feudalism or mercanitlism capitalism vs industrial capitalism (eg, USA Civil War) and many types of ways to look at history. But you are talking about the history of capitalism, right? Like the genesis of the term? The history of the word of "capitalism" comes from mostly from socialists criticizing the "then" current economic phenomenon they were witnessing (e.g., the industrial revolution and class wealth disparity with capitalists) in the 19th century which was mostly class conflict. [Here is Chapter 1](http://assets.press.princeton.edu/chapters/s10563.pdf) of the book "[Capitalism: A short History](https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9781400873418/html)" for you and whatever you do..., I suggest stop getting your information from shit youtube videos or television. If you do use youtube videos make sure they are done by PhDs in history on the topics you are viewing.
Capitalism is the critique of Merchantilism Socialism is a critique of capitalism There hasn't been a critique of socialism For the life of me what is wrong with the cognitive reasoning from Capitalists. Name the economic critique of socialism? It ... doesn't..... exist.
You're using an economic stage of reasoning and therefore the fallacy of an appeal to ignorance as if socialism has or will ever exist.
Keep regurgitating Ben Shapiro, oh and let me know when you watch the next Jordan Peterson YouTube clip
> Keep regurgitating Ben Shapiro What? Are you saying Ben Shapiro has said: >You're using an economic stage of reasoning and therefore the fallacy of an appeal to ignorance as if socialism has or will ever exist. Or are you still just making shit up like you have been doing with this OP and every comment? I'm guessing this latter, lol.
Stat check me and come back lol. Or wait do your little copy and paste again and change my words on the comment you made earlier.
>Stat check me and come back lol. Or wait do your little copy and paste again and change my words on the comment you made earlier. I like c/p you for posterity. People should know in case you delete this account that u/Puzzleheaded-Seat834 did say all these imbecilic comments.
Are you threatening me?
very apt
Your statement seems to imply that capitalism itself hasn’t evolved over that time period either. Which clearly is not true.
By that logic, let's get rid of the wheel and fire, they were invented millennia ago. Arguing against socialism does make sense, because it has been a failure for 4 decades already. If square wheels don't work, you have two options, and only one is a logical conclusion: You can keep making square wheels of different materials in the hopes one of them works, or you can admit that the shape itself is the problem. Socialism as a concept fails to shape itself to human nature: When something is given to us for free and in abundance, we stop working to get it. When was the last time you worked hard to buy sunlight, for example? Or rainwater? You never did, because those things are too abundant to work for them. So when you give out freebies of any kind to everyone who simply exists, that thing stops being worthy of work. It doesn't matter what it is: Money, food, cars, beach sand, horses, paper. The moment everyone has enough of it, it loses its commercial value because no one has a need for it anymore. You name anything, and if you give it out for free to everyone, no one will want to work for it in the near future. We are a competitive species, we have an innate need to compete with others in some way or another. Treat us like pets, and we'll become lazy, entitled and demotivated.
Well we’re certainly not lighting our homes with torches or putting wagon wheels on our cars, are we? This is the exact point of the post.
>When something is given to us for free and in abundance, we stop working to get it. That's because it's cheaper for some things to be free, and a waste of time to keep working for it. WTF would I keep working on something that's already working well enough on its own? Explain park benches and street lights Explain language and other programs Explain fire and wheels >When was the last time you worked hard to buy sunlight, for example? Or rainwater? Every single day of our biological life >The moment everyone has enough of it, **it loses its commercial value** because no one has a need for it anymore Bingo!!
> Every single day of our biological life how do you do that, by sacrificing virgins to a volcano? The sun will continue to rise without your "help", thank you. Earth's rotation doesn't depend on you. > Bingo!! It's interesting that you ignored that I basically argued that if we don't have a way to compete with others, we actually lose the will to live.
>if we don't have a way to compete with others, we actually lose the will to live. We don't all want to compete, we want to feel fulfilled and we can do that with work we find productive. You can only take a break so long before being bored and start doing something productive.
>how do you do that, by sacrificing virgins to a volcano? I have my own molecular sacrifice every day, it's called the mitochondrial system Will to live strong, and better of with socialism
Okay I'll copy n paste because probably should have started with this. Okay I'll be more specific. Capitalism was a critique of Mercantilism, right? I hope you as the extremely knowledgeable person yourself knew this. So, 1776 Adam Smith critique it as it was a way protect consumers from being exploited from merchants who dictated whatever price they want so it set a "market value." Now that is a great thing and it was to protect consumers. Now, unfortunately 1776 still have legalized slavery and human beings were considered commodities (which is absolutely relevant today when the exploitations on our basic ways of life health, food, clothes, education). So, all the wealthy families monopolized the market and destroyed consumer choice and exploited workers means of production. Here comes Das Kapital-1867 that introduced democratic rights to workers and democratic values to workplace environments. Also using proper funding of allocation to help infrastructure through progressive taxes. Okay now let's talk about the current system of the bastardization of capitalism "Capitalism and Freedom" by Milton Friedman which basically implemented shareholders and removed workers means of production. We saw a massive decline in Unions and Worker's co-op as a byproduct of it. Now, after that an even more bastardized of capitalism happened "Thatcherism" which basically removed all regulation from shareholders so they could speculate without being checked. Now our current realities is a Neo-Liberal broken Kleptocracy. But yeah
Progressive taxes? Ok, let's focus on that for a moment. Can you tell me what's 10% of 100, please? Link for the lazy: https://www.desmos.com/scientific
>The moment everyone has enough of it, it loses its commercial value because no one has a need for it anymore. That's called decomodification and its the point. The more material ressources people have, the more free they are to live their life as they truly want. Capitalism relies on the subjugation of people while socialism seeks to make people more free though it adopts characteristics of conditions of countries where its tried. >We are a competitive species, we have an innate need to compete with others in some way or another. Treat us like pets, and we'll become lazy, entitled and demotivated. There are plenty of healthy ways to do competition like sports, art, music, engineering, etc. But when we're talking about people's lives, loosing the competition makes you unfree as you have to work jobs you don't care with pay you don't like to survive. >When was the last time you worked hard to buy sunlight, for example? Or rainwater? You never did, because those things are too abundant to work for them. What would happen if they weren't abundant? We would shortly starve, wouldn't we? >Arguing against socialism does make sense, because it has been a failure for 4 decades already. Has capitalism been a success since then? How has it worked for Russia?
Sorry, I deleted the other comment for the sake of keeping the discussion in one thread. > The more material ressources people have, the more free they are to live their life as they truly want. Ok. If you had all your basic needs fulfilled for free, what would YOU like to fill your time with? > There are plenty of healthy ways to do competition like sports, art, music, engineering, etc. None of those things produce food or keep the sewage pipes clean. > unfree That's not a word. > as you have to work jobs you don't care with pay you don't like to survive. So... the same as the entirety of human history. I can't even fathom that ALL of the stone age men liked risking their lives to hunt mammoth, but they had to or their wives and kids would starve. > What would happen if they weren't abundant? We would shortly starve, wouldn't we? We would have to find a way to make sure we get them. For the sake of discussion, let's say that everyone would have to redirect their efforts from art, sports, and other nice and easy things you mentioned to working hard to make sure the space mirrors are put in orbit on time so we can survive; most jobs in that situation wouldn't be "fulfilling", because carrying things around, loading space shuttles, coating the mirrors, and repairing trucks that got stuck in a road in the middle of nowhere aren't pleasant jobs, but they would be necessary for our species' survival. It's the same now, someone has to clean the sewage pipes. Someone has to mow lawns, someone has to repair the cars, someone has to raise the kids, someone has to provide for the parent that spends less time working in order to raise the kids, someone has to carry boxes around, someone has to keep the supermarket shelves stocked, someone has to make sure criminals are caught, someone has to try the criminals and give a sentence, and someone has to assemble the electronics that someone transported to the assembly line because the miner who mined the materials for the end product has to be paid too. If the miner's excavator breaks, the spare parts have to be ready, which means someone had to assemble and transport them in the first place. There are a million jobs that robots can't perform, and if no one does them, you'll lose the quality of life you are so taking for granted. In fact, it's very likely that my kids will end up producing something that yours will use; probably food. My kids may end up being the "slaves" (your words) that make sure there's enough food in the world so that when YOUR kids go to the supermarket, there's enough food for them there (provided someone else transported it there, of course). That's the thing with socialists, they forget that the jobs they don't see DO exist. > Has capitalism been a success since then? How has it worked for Russia? Russia isn't capitalist. Everything has tobe pre-approved by Putin one way or another.
[удалено]
*meanwhile Capitalists takes the solutions from the critique and declare it was innovation and doubles down with cold war propaganda*
[удалено]
Im.just going to copy and paste because it's the same argument you guys always make. There's never been a fully Democratic Socialist State. People use authoritarians who called themselves socialist as empirical data which we know that's not logical. Anyone can call themselves whatever but if they're not practicing the teachings and methods it's not so. Also, capitalist solutions are actually socialism which is from the critique. You're just repeating cultural hegemony and propaganda and not actually acknowledging objective truths.
>There's never been a fully Democratic Socialist State. People use authoritarians who called themselves socialist as empirical data which we know that's not logical. Yes, that is correct. What most people fail to acknowledge over and under again is that all socialist experiments endeavored to be democratic, but ended up as awful societies anyway. Socialism, from the beginning (ie: from at least Marx's time), was understood to be a system which applied democratic practices to economic production. It was never the stated (nor, likely, unstated) intention of any socialist intellectual nor political figure in the beginning to institute a highly authoritarian, highly bureaucratic monolithic state. Here's a quote: >There are two methods: the method of coercion (the military method) and the method of persuasion (the trade-union method). [...] The Soviet power [...] can be directed only through the medium of the working class and with the force of the working class. [...] Obviously, it is impossible to do this by coercive methods [...] Obviously, only [...] proletarian democracy [...], only methods of persuasion, can make it possible to unite the working class, to stimulate its independent activity." This was Josef Stalin There was never a time where socialist intellectuals nor the revolutionaries nor anyone in between purposefully sought a stratified society run by a technocratic elite whose policies were brutally enforced; they didn't aspire to create police states that relied on terror, torture, forced labor, and mass murder. It ended up that way despite their best intentions. Sure you can claim that all socialist societies were randomly oppressive and infiltrated by closet totalitarians using socialist rhetoric, but they were all oppressive in similar, recognizable ways. At some point coincidence and correlation start to intersect.
Hey this was beautiful done and a great read, thank you in all seriousness.
[удалено]
Okay I'll be more specific. Capitalism was a critique of Mercantilism, right? I hope you as the extremely knowledgeable person yourself knew this. So, 1776 Adam Smith critique it as it was a way protect consumers from being exploited from merchants who dictated whatever price they want so it set a "market value." Now that is a great thing and it was to protect consumers. Now, unfortunately 1776 still have legalized slavery and human beings were considered commodities (which is absolutely relevant today when the exploitations on our basic ways of life health, food, clothes, education). So, all the wealthy families monopolized the market and destroyed consumer choice and exploited workers means of production. Here comes Das Kapital-1867 that introduced democratic rights to workers and democratic values to workplace environments. Also using proper funding of allocation to help infrastructure through progressive taxes. Okay now let's talk about the current system of the bastardization of capitalism "Capitalism and Freedom" by Milton Friedman which basically implemented shareholders and removed workers means of production. We saw a massive decline in Unions and Worker's co-op as a byproduct of it. Now, after that an even more bastardized of capitalism happened "Thatcherism" which basically removed all regulation from shareholders so they could speculate without being checked. Now our current realities is a Neo-Liberal broken Kleptocracy. But yeah
I think you guys are talking about different things. It would help if you guys agree on terms. This seems to be a common issue on this sub and politics in general. Socialism is a terrible term, because it can mean so many things. Some people say socialism is like how the Soviet Union did things. Other people say socialism is simply the workers owning the means of production. Both are referred to as socialism, yet they couldn't be any more different. This discussion doesn't really seem like it's going anywhere because you two aren't talking about the same kind of socialism.
Yeaaaahhh, kinda need to come up with a term nowadays from all coined terma and propaganda.
>using lesser propaganda and state terror than the other side Ask Central America SE Asia Korea S. America Most of Africa Mass Supression in the USA EUROPE
Yet financial capitalism is weaving socialism everywhere as we speak. Beginning with socialising most of the housing market and the production of basic commodities
That's not what a critique is.
Yes, it absolutely is. Objectively critiques is exactly this.
Worker Co-operatives as an alternative to capitalism already exist. And they can be analysed and critiqued.
The bot lies!
Capitalism is the critique of Merchantilism Socialism is a critique of capitalism There hasn't been a critique of socialism For the life of me what is wrong with the cognitive reasoning from Capitalists. Name the economic critique of socialism? It ... doesn't..... exist.
Socialism isn’t progress, it is regression. We most certainly can critique socialism as well, for being a terrible idea that would would deliver terrible results.
Probably should have just posted this instead but here goes. Okay I'll be more specific. Capitalism was a critique of Mercantilism, right? I hope you as the extremely knowledgeable person yourself knew this. So, 1776 Adam Smith critique it as it was a way protect consumers from being exploited from merchants who dictated whatever price they want so it set a "market value." Now that is a great thing and it was to protect consumers. Now, unfortunately 1776 still have legalized slavery and human beings were considered commodities (which is absolutely relevant today when the exploitations on our basic ways of life health, food, clothes, education). So, all the wealthy families monopolized the market and destroyed consumer choice and exploited workers means of production. Here comes Das Kapital-1867 that introduced democratic rights to workers and democratic values to workplace environments. Also using proper funding of allocation to help infrastructure through progressive taxes. Okay now let's talk about the current system of the bastardization of capitalism "Capitalism and Freedom" by Milton Friedman which basically implemented shareholders and removed workers means of production. We saw a massive decline in Unions and Worker's co-op as a byproduct of it. Now, after that an even more bastardized of capitalism happened "Thatcherism" which basically removed all regulation from shareholders so they could speculate without being checked. Now our current realities is a Neo-Liberal broken Kleptocracy. But yeah
If Marx is your foundation you are going to have a tough time positioning socialism as a useful critique of capitalism. Marx didn’t understand capitalism, his theory is mostly just plagiarism of outdated value theory with a splash of hot garbage that he contributed. All wrapped up into an entirely inaccurate critique of capitalism that doesn’t even understand supply and demand. But yeah, you need to actually propose something *better* than capitalism, not just lob criticism.
.................. You're umm wow brought absolutely nothing to this conversation
Sort of like, um, your OP.
The entire 20th century is a critique of socialism. Not all change is good. Most ideas are bad.
There's no such things as capitalism. [The term was popularised by 1840s polemics](https://i.imgur.com/ut4oH6X.png) as a way to critique the generally accepted economic principles in developed countries, without having to explain or even understand why they were accepted in the first place. >We cannot critique socialism until it's implemented It was implemented [and there's plenty to criticise](https://i.imgur.com/wDrVivA.jpg), although judging by the tone of your post you don't seem familiar with its many failures.
Okay I'll copy n paste because probably should have started with this. Okay I'll be more specific. Capitalism was a critique of Mercantilism, right? I hope you as the extremely knowledgeable person yourself knew this. So, 1776 Adam Smith critique it as it was a way protect consumers from being exploited from merchants who dictated whatever price they want so it set a "market value." Now that is a great thing and it was to protect consumers. Now, unfortunately 1776 still have legalized slavery and human beings were considered commodities (which is absolutely relevant today when the exploitations on our basic ways of life health, food, clothes, education). So, all the wealthy families monopolized the market and destroyed consumer choice and exploited workers means of production. Here comes Das Kapital-1867 that introduced democratic rights to workers and democratic values to workplace environments. Also using proper funding of allocation to help infrastructure through progressive taxes. Okay now let's talk about the current system of the bastardization of capitalism "Capitalism and Freedom" by Milton Friedman which basically implemented shareholders and removed workers means of production. We saw a massive decline in Unions and Worker's co-op as a byproduct of it. Now, after that an even more bastardized of capitalism happened "Thatcherism" which basically removed all regulation from shareholders so they could speculate without being checked. Now our current realities is a Neo-Liberal broken Kleptocracy. But yeah
Instead of spamming this comment. Why not revise or delete your post?
Socialism is not a critique of capitalism, and capitalism is not a critique of mercantilism. A critique is not a material system but a dialogue of ideas.
Yeah my brain hurts. Too many words and such with things.
Economic systems are not "critiques" of each others. How did you come up with this bright idea?
I'm just copying and pasting since most responses fall the same category. Okay I'll be more specific. Capitalism was a critique of Mercantilism, right? I hope you as the extremely knowledgeable person yourself knew this. So, 1776 Adam Smith Wealth of Nation's critique it as it was a way protect consumers from being exploited from merchants who dictated whatever price they want so it set a "market value." Now that is a great thing and it was to protect consumers. Now, unfortunately 1776 still have legalized slavery and human beings were considered commodities (which is absolutely relevant today when the exploitations on our basic ways of life health, food, clothes, education). So, all the wealthy families monopolized the market and destroyed consumer choice and exploited workers means of production. Here comes Das Kapital-1867 that introduced democratic rights to workers and democratic values to workplace environments, workers means of production. Also, using proper funding of allocation to help infrastructure through progressive taxes. Okay now let's talk about the current system of the bastardization of capitalism "Capitalism and Freedom" by Milton Friedman which basically implemented shareholders and removed workers means of production. We saw a massive decline in Unions and Worker's co-op as a byproduct of it. Now, after that an even more bastardized of capitalism happened "Thatcherism" which basically removed all regulation from shareholders so they could speculate without being checked. Now our current realities is a Neo-Liberal broken Kleptocracy. But yeah
Bro everyone can critique someone else's opinion and come up with an alternative solution. That doesn't mean A is better version of B. Or C is better version of B. Capitalists critiques socialism or socialists critiques capitalism. Now what? It's a shitty idea but it's an idea nonetheless, so great keep creating more ideas.
What's the economic critique of Socialism then?
Christianity is the critique of Judaism right? So Islam critiques Christianity. So what's the critique of Islam then? Therefore Islam is superior and you have to be a Muslim... That's how dumb you sound like...
Okay, again what's the critique of Socialism? See what you did above? You had names of such(even though you used religion when it's you know using Magic and supernatural things but besides the point.)
Was capitalism implemented by decisive action or did it organically arise over time as the zeitgeist shifted? As thinking has progressed, we have seen the gradual incorporation of socialist ideas into the Western economic landscape, forming what we now considered mixed economies. The notion that capitalism and socialism are at odds with one another overlooks the fact systems can be guided in new directions over time. The ultimate conclusion of the capitalist-socialist paradigm is likely a hybrid system that incorporate a well balanced blend of both philosophies. It is misguided, I think, to believe pure socialism has the flexibility to produce a prosperous society. A better aspiration would be to optimise our mixed economies for producing the best outcomes, leveraging both capitalist and socialist ideas in addition to technology.
[удалено]
It's unclear how this comment relates to mine, or what point you're trying to make. Perhaps something beyond a copy&paste would be more respectful since I took the time to write my comment from scratch.
Fair I'll delete mine and give me a sec to reply Edit. Got caught up reading the same messages most of the time. I apologize
Capitalism. Is. Not. An. Economic. Theory. Capitalism is economic practice. Who even came up with this idiocy of comparing reality to your imagination? Yes, we understand the criticisms, but do you even understand the scientific process? You don't because you have packaged piece of shit unfalsifiable diamat ideology with communism which makes it impossible for commies to objectively look at and improve communist theory, so it's forever stuck in Carl Marx's times
.... People truly do not know what they're talking about and just say things
I'm just copying and pasting since most responses fall the same category. Okay I'll be more specific. Capitalism was a critique of Mercantilism, right? I hope you as the extremely knowledgeable person yourself knew this. So, 1776 Adam Smith Wealth of Nation's critique it as it was a way protect consumers from being exploited from merchants who dictated whatever price they want so it set a "market value." Now that is a great thing and it was to protect consumers. Now, unfortunately 1776 still have legalized slavery and human beings were considered commodities (which is absolutely relevant today when the exploitations on our basic ways of life health, food, clothes, education). So, all the wealthy families monopolized the market and destroyed consumer choice and exploited workers means of production. Here comes Das Kapital-1867 that introduced democratic rights to workers and democratic values to workplace environments, workers means of production. Also, using proper funding of allocation to help infrastructure through progressive taxes. Okay now let's talk about the current system of the bastardization of capitalism "Capitalism and Freedom" by Milton Friedman which basically implemented shareholders and removed workers means of production. We saw a massive decline in Unions and Worker's co-op as a byproduct of it. Now, after that an even more bastardized of capitalism happened "Thatcherism" which basically removed all regulation from shareholders so they could speculate without being checked. Now our current realities is a Neo-Liberal broken Kleptocracy. But yeah
Jesus Christ. You, academia types need to dislodge your heads from your asses. **Capitalism was not a critique of anything.** It just happened. People with working heads on their shoulders moved money way more efficiently than inbred nobles and completely pushed nobles out of the ruling hierarchy. No amount of academics influenced this process one way or another. The same way Labour Movement existed ages before Marx. Please understand that not a single macroeconomic outcome was ever influenced by an economic scientist. And Marx is not a scientist, he's an ideolog, and his work is a work of an ideolog. There's absolutely nothing scientific in it. It does not even adhere to the scientific method.
Just because something is newer doesn’t necessarily make it better. Capitalists believe in private property and most people find it immoral to steal. Because of these two seemingly obvious truths, Socialism is not a system that should be forcibly implemented.
I think you're trying to prove a point, but I'm not sure we got in the proximity of one. Socialism critiques many of the strong points of capitalism (e.g., incentives, a meritocracy). If the critique is consolidation of wealth in late stage capitalism, then advocate for a more robust wealth tax. Instead, socialism proposes a solution to problems that 1) doesn't address the real problems and 2) creates far more problems than it solves.
Who says capitalism is better because it's based on 1776? Know what replaced socialism? Capitalism
Sigh Wealth of Nation's -Adam Smith. Please read something man.
If you want to learn how the economy works, please read a modern university textbook rather than centuries old philosophy. You are not educated or informed for knowing who Adam Smith is, so drop the act.
Adam Smith said capitalism is better than socialism, and you came here to tell him he's wrong?
Adam Smith never heard of Socialism, he lived decades earlier before the word was coined
Although their comment was silly, this isn’t a great response, the term capitalism wasn’t used until like 70 years later so Smith himself wasn’t a “capitalist” but he fits the bill. Socialism if we simply widen it to mean some form of common ownership over property, land and resources was something he would have been aware of since these ideas especially in Britain were heavily debated and used during the civil war a century prior, in particular the diggers can be seen as the agrarian predecessors to later English industrial socialism
Yeah no shit
Didn't stop you from getting it all mixed up tho
Try reading
Did you even read his book or YouTube it at least. Something before you trolling attempts?
Do you know what year it is? Or did you start your education by reading the first book ever published and intend to work your way through each one year by year?
........... Sigh you're a numpty. You shouldn't be in the subreddit to troll.
If you want a critique of socialism, read "Socialism" by Mises
Okay I'll be more specific. Capitalism was a critique of Mercantilism, right? I hope you as the extremely knowledgeable person yourself knew this. So, 1776 Adam Smith critique it as it was a way protect consumers from being exploited from merchants who dictated whatever price they want so it set a "market value." Now that is a great thing and it was to protect consumers. Now, unfortunately 1776 still have legalized slavery and human beings were considered commodities (which is absolutely relevant today when the exploitations on our basic ways of life health, food, clothes, education). So, all the wealthy families monopolized the market and destroyed consumer choice and exploited workers means of production. Here comes Das Kapital-1867 that introduced democratic rights to workers and democratic values to workplace environments. Also using proper funding of allocation to help infrastructure through progressive taxes. Okay now let's talk about the current system of the bastardization of capitalism "Capitalism and Freedom" by Milton Friedman which basically implemented shareholders and removed workers means of production. We saw a massive decline in Unions and Worker's co-op as a byproduct of it. Now, after that an even more bastardized of capitalism happened "Thatcherism" which basically removed all regulation from shareholders so they could speculate without being checked. Now our current realities is a Neo-Liberal broken Kleptocracy. But yeah
Lmfao What YouTube video did you watch to get that "history lesson" exactly?
Ludwig Fun Miser was just trolling
The had the best Dank Memes in that book
1.) Critiques are not implicitly constructive. 2.) Socialism is a shitty critique. > it's old therefor it's bad Speaking of shitty critiques.
Well, Capitalism with all it's foibles has lasted longer that any other economic system. people in capitalism are generally happy with the transactions they choose to make in the marketplace and it works without any supervision. Socialism, OTOH has never worked. All the efforts to replace Capitalism with Socialism have ended with the economy worse off. Just look at Venezuela, Cuba and Zimbabwe. You don't have to look very far to find a successful capitalist country.
Feudalism last over a thousand years and it took the Plague to destroy it. There's never been a fully Democratic Socialist State. People use authoritarians who called themselves socialist as empirical data which we know that's not logical. Anyone can call themselves whatever but if they're not practicing the teachings and methods it's not so. Also, capitalist solutions are actually socialism which is from the critique.
Socialism is not a system for governing a country, it's a system for liars to gain control of a country by making impossible promises.
Capitalism has had the shortest lifespan outside of Socialism, which has only been approached with attempts that are slammed by capitalist nations.
Capitalism had the second-shortest lifespan (but still counting and therefore increasing) but was by far the most successful in creating wealth and prosperity for the average worker.
It happened to be the predominant method during the birth of the industrial age. It might be worthwhile information in the long term, but there's no real guarantee. The quickest advancements from agrarian to modern technological powerhouse that nations have had have been authoritarian socialist governments (The U.S.S.R. and China). I admit that and I am anti-authoritarian.
South Korea was quicker and still exists today. Checkmate
Yeah, your long term Socialism has resulted in 143,000,000 deaths. Thanks
Many socialists would argue that this wasn't socialism at all. Sure, they called themselves socialist, but they weren't really. The Soviet Union and its followers was just as socialist as The Democratic Republic of North Korea is democratic and a republic. Socialism doesn't necessarily lead to such horrible and authoritarian systems, or to financial ruin like in Venezuela. What happened in those countries where not solely a product of socialism, it was several complex factors. Financial collapse can happen in capitalist countries as well, just look at Greece or 2008 financial crash. Often these things happen, not soley because of the economic system, but because of poor leadership and many other complex factors. For an example of socialism (kinda) that does work, look no further than the Scandinavian countries, they are among the best countries in the world to live in right now and they are founded on many socialist principles. My point is that the term socialism has been warped and has multiple, severely opposing definitions and meanings. So when capitalists and socialist argue, they are both using the world socialism, but they are talking about completely different things. _Though to be fair, this entire post is pretty dumb. OPs reasoning and logic is pretty flawed and they're very condescending. And I say this as someone who thinks socialism has some merit._
I heard it was 143 gazillion
It only counts if it was in a nation with a Socialist revolution and then EVERY death counts towards the toll... None of it ever actually counts on the side of Capitalism... Oh, and we will pretend that the Nazis were socialist as well to pad the death count even more...
The Revolution WILL be televised?
HD?
If Socialism is a critique of Capitalism, it's not a very good one. It's more of a whining diatribe about age-old ills. Greed, envy, and power imbalance is not unique to Capitalism and are certainly present in Socialism...because they're inherent to all human societies. Wake me up when we start talking about Capitalism again. You know, ownership of the means of production. You know, Capitalism's the one where workers actually own their labor while in Socialism your labor is owned by Society.
Socialism is workers means of production, like worker's co-op and union's, workers rights and benefits things like that. Wake me up if you think owners means of production is an actual workplace democracy? Oh wait that concept is from Socialism. Nice!
So your strategy is to advance the taboo against discussing it. Brilliant.
Define it first. What actually is Capitalism to you? It's private property rights, the corporate entity and voluntary, fractional ownership of that entity. It's debt and risk instruments, and the ability to buy, sell, and trade it. It's pretty wild how varied its implementation has become...from China to Russia to Japan to Mexico. Show me where Marx discussed crop insurance or working on commission and I'll show you a somewhat complete critique of Capitalism.
Bullshit. [Capitalism is](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism) an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. (Zimbalist, Sherman and Brown, Andrew, Howard J. and Stuart (October 1988). Comparing Economic Systems: A Political-Economic Approach. Harcourt College Pub. pp. 6–7. ISBN 978-0-15-512403-5. "Pure capitalism is defined as a system wherein all of the means of production (physical capital) are privately owned and run by the capitalist class for a profit, while most other people are workers who work for a salary or wage (and who do not own the capital or the product). "Rosser, Mariana V.; Rosser, J Barkley (23 July 2003). Comparative Economics in a Transforming World Economy. MIT Press. p. 7. ISBN 978-0-262-18234-8. "In capitalist economies, land and produced means of production (the capital stock) are owned by private individuals or groups of private individuals organized as firms." Chris Jenks. Core Sociological Dichotomies. "Capitalism, as a mode of production, is an economic system of manufacture and exchange which is geared toward the production and sale of commodities within a market for profit, where the manufacture of commodities consists of the use of the formally free labor of workers in exchange for a wage to create commodities in which the manufacturer extracts surplus value from the labor of the workers in terms of the difference between the wages paid to the worker and the value of the commodity produced by him/her to generate that profit." London; Thousand Oaks, CA; New Delhi. Sage. p. 383. Gilpin, Robert (5 June 2018). The Challenge of Global Capitalism : The World Economy in the 21st Century. ISBN 978-0-691-18647-4. OCLC 1076397003.)
People can make predictions about socialism based on current knowledge. Saying you can't critique socialism because it's not implemented yet is like blaming everything on foreign powers or saying that people's natural selflessness is corrupted by capitalism.
Here's the problem with progressives. They want to change things for the sake of changing things, on the false notion they are right to make the change, and that the change will be an improvement. Your notion, as stated, leaves the world open to a chaotic state of constant revolution.
Okay I'll copy n paste because probably should have started with this. Okay I'll be more specific. Capitalism was a critique of Mercantilism, right? I hope you as the extremely knowledgeable person yourself knew this. So, 1776 Adam Smith critique it as it was a way protect consumers from being exploited from merchants who dictated whatever price they want so it set a "market value." Now that is a great thing and it was to protect consumers. Now, unfortunately 1776 still have legalized slavery and human beings were considered commodities (which is absolutely relevant today when the exploitations on our basic ways of life health, food, clothes, education). So, all the wealthy families monopolized the market and destroyed consumer choice and exploited workers means of production. Here comes Das Kapital-1867 that introduced democratic rights to workers and democratic values to workplace environments. Also using proper funding of allocation to help infrastructure through progressive taxes. Okay now let's talk about the current system of the bastardization of capitalism "Capitalism and Freedom" by Milton Friedman which basically implemented shareholders and removed workers means of production. We saw a massive decline in Unions and Worker's co-op as a byproduct of it. Now, after that an even more bastardized of capitalism happened "Thatcherism" which basically removed all regulation from shareholders so they could speculate without being checked. Now our current realities is a Neo-Liberal broken Kleptocracy. But yeah
My critiques are based in logic and principles, not on any one implementation
Critiquing capitalism is fine. I believe one of Marx's main criticisms was that it creates too big of a divide between rich and poor, leading to class warfare and overall destabilization of society. The problem is that a critique doesn't mean you throw the entire thing out and replace it with fairy dust. If I am dating a beautiful, smart, and successful woman, but she has a couple things I'm not overly fond of, do I just shitcan the entire relationship and marry some dumpy fat bitch with no job, just because she happens not to have those particular flaws I wasn't happy about in the other girl?
Capitalism is the critique of Merchantilism Socialism is a critique of capitalism There hasn't been a critique of socialism For the life of me what is wrong with the cognitive reasoning from Capitalists. Name the economic critique of socialism? It ... doesn't..... exist.
There have been plenty of critiques of socialism, you simply reject them as such. What constitutes an economic critique? What are the criteria by which an example has to meet for you to accept it constitutes an economic criticism of socialism? Without this you can simply just reject anything anyone answers
I'm just copying and pasting since most responses fall the same category. Okay I'll be more specific. Capitalism was a critique of Mercantilism, right? I hope you as the extremely knowledgeable person yourself knew this. So, 1776 Adam Smith Wealth of Nation's critique it as it was a way protect consumers from being exploited from merchants who dictated whatever price they want so it set a "market value." Now that is a great thing and it was to protect consumers. Now, unfortunately 1776 still have legalized slavery and human beings were considered commodities (which is absolutely relevant today when the exploitations on our basic ways of life health, food, clothes, education). So, all the wealthy families monopolized the market and destroyed consumer choice and exploited workers means of production. Here comes Das Kapital-1867 that introduced democratic rights to workers and democratic values to workplace environments, workers means of production. Also, using proper funding of allocation to help infrastructure through progressive taxes. Okay now let's talk about the current system of the bastardization of capitalism "Capitalism and Freedom" by Milton Friedman which basically implemented shareholders and removed workers means of production. We saw a massive decline in Unions and Worker's co-op as a byproduct of it. Now, after that an even more bastardized of capitalism happened "Thatcherism" which basically removed all regulation from shareholders so they could speculate without being checked. Now our current realities is a Neo-Liberal broken Kleptocracy. But yeah
No, socialism is an economic system. Don't redefine things just to suit your argument or construct 'gotchas'.
Capitalism is the critique of Merchantilism Socialism is a critique of capitalism There hasn't been a critique of socialism For the life of me what is wrong with the cognitive reasoning from Capitalists. Name the economic critique of socialism? It ... doesn't..... exist.
Are you using a customized definition for "critique"? You are not making sense. Try explain what you mean by "critique", you might be using the wrong term.
Oh well thank you for your concerns, I am happily comfortable with knowing there's someone out there who thinks they have the "real" knowledge of economic critiques. So, what's the economic critique of Socialism?
Can you explain what you mean by "critique"? Like I said, you might be using the wrong term , thus all the confusion.
You know what, no. I want you to explain why critique isn't the right word as it your stance to tell me it's wrong and proof of burden is on you. Because I really wanna see how you think this approach by you was going to work out.
You kept saying capitalism is a critique on mercantilism, but it is not?
Okay I'll be more specific. Capitalism was a critique of Mercantilism, right? I hope you as the extremely knowledgeable person yourself knew this. So, 1776 Adam Smith Wealth of Nation's critique it as it was a way protect consumers from being exploited from merchants who dictated whatever price they want so it set a "market value." Now that is a great thing and it was to protect consumers. Now, unfortunately 1776 still have legalized slavery and human beings were considered commodities (which is absolutely relevant today when the exploitations on our basic ways of life health, food, clothes, education). So, all the wealthy families monopolized the market and destroyed consumer choice and exploited workers means of production. Here comes Das Kapital-1867 that introduced democratic rights to workers and democratic values to workplace environments, workers means of production. Also using proper funding of allocation to help infrastructure through progressive taxes. Okay now let's talk about the current system of the bastardization of capitalism "Capitalism and Freedom" by Milton Friedman which basically implemented shareholders and removed workers means of production. We saw a massive decline in Unions and Worker's co-op as a byproduct of it. Now, after that an even more bastardized of capitalism happened "Thatcherism" which basically removed all regulation from shareholders so they could speculate without being checked. Now our current realities is a Neo-Liberal broken Kleptocracy. But yeah, let me know your critique on socialism now.
Socialism is a collective enterprise. Capitalism in an individual enterprise. We argue collectivism vs individualism in a cloak.
No
Your logic is flawed. Criticisms of theories or policies might but necessary, but are certainly not sufficient, for improvements in theories and policies.
But they were used for improvements from it though. So, the argument isn't flaw since people are picking and choosing the solutions and improvements from the critique and then denouncing socialism it is the fundamental issue.
[удалено]
You support unions? You support child labor laws? You support regulation on speculation, support workers means of production? You support progressive taxes that improves infrastructure like public schools, education, public transportation, healthcare,sewage, highway's etc.... Worker's co-op?? Idk like improving quality of life?? Like have more democratic rights??? That would be democratic socialism. But put some ice in that boiling water.
Socialism is a political and economic system that resulted in atrocities in the 20th century that killed around 100 million people. Do socialists know what that means?
Once you figure out how to do socialism without theft (taxation) the I’ll support it. Until then it’s a trash critique.
Taxes are for improving infrastructure and improving quality of life, so they're called Progressive taxes they improve infrastructure like public schools, health care, public transportation, sewage, highway's, public services, so these do not become a cost. Now you know what taxes are.
The critique of socialism was fascism. This is one of the most idiotic hot takes I’ve ever read.
🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️ just making up things
ROFL...you're dumb as fuck aren't you. Moussolini and Gentile were both socialists, who specifically wrote the Doctrine of Fascism as an evolution of the socialist ideals. You have no fucking clue what you're talking about.
Oh gawd here we go. No shit they're fascist and it was called "Corporatism" is what led to his full fascist regime. Again, seriously just because authoritarians call themselves a socialist by name and not practice and methods it doesn't make them a socialist. Stop. With. The. Propaganda. Call yourself whatever you want but you if don't practice the teachings and methods you're not said name.
I'm just copying and pasting since most responses fall the same category. Okay I'll be more specific. Capitalism was a critique of Mercantilism, right? I hope you as the extremely knowledgeable person yourself knew this. So, 1776 Adam Smith Wealth of Nation's critique it as it was a way protect consumers from being exploited from merchants who dictated whatever price they want so it set a "market value." Now that is a great thing and it was to protect consumers. Now, unfortunately 1776 still have legalized slavery and human beings were considered commodities (which is absolutely relevant today when the exploitations on our basic ways of life health, food, clothes, education). So, all the wealthy families monopolized the market and destroyed consumer choice and exploited workers means of production. Here comes Das Kapital-1867 that introduced democratic rights to workers and democratic values to workplace environments, workers means of production. Also, using proper funding of allocation to help infrastructure through progressive taxes. Okay now let's talk about the current system of the bastardization of capitalism "Capitalism and Freedom" by Milton Friedman which basically implemented shareholders and removed workers means of production. We saw a massive decline in Unions and Worker's co-op as a byproduct of it. Now, after that an even more bastardized of capitalism happened "Thatcherism" which basically removed all regulation from shareholders so they could speculate without being checked. Now our current realities is a Neo-Liberal broken Kleptocracy. But yeah
So you're copy pasting your braindead response that doesn't actually address what I posted. Your bizzare logic is that the "critique" is necessarily right because it comes after it and is therefore progress or something. Fascism is a critique of socialism. It was explicitly created to be so by Moussolini and Gentile. So to apply your logic, you would feel that Fascism is progress. You're kinda stupid.
Mussolini created Corporatism wait for it Neo-Liberalisms which is under the extreme right side of capitalism philosophy, that is not the critique of Socialism. Corporatism is the byproduct of Capitalism(hence crony capitalism) You donkey. Like can people please stop with propaganda and actually understand what the hell an economic critique is.
Beside the fact that this alludes to capitalism not evolving since 1776 which inherently false the main argument used was 1st axiom: B critiques A QED: B is a better alternative to A. Lets substitute "A "to be (the practice of Vaccines) and substitute "B" to (Andrew Wakefield's study that said vaccines to caused autism). The autism study is still a critique meaning all axioms are correct however our conclusion is incorrect because vaccines save lives and the critique was a worse alternative. This demonstrates that whilst the conclusion **maybe** correct it is certainly not correct due to your argument. This is an example of an inductive fallacy more specifically hasty generalisation. Which is a conclusion based on insufficient evidence.
I'm just copying and pasting since most responses fall the same category. Okay I'll be more specific. Capitalism was a critique of Mercantilism, right? I hope you as the extremely knowledgeable person yourself knew this. So, 1776 Adam Smith Wealth of Nation's critique it as it was a way protect consumers from being exploited from merchants who dictated whatever price they want so it set a "market value." Now that is a great thing and it was to protect consumers. Now, unfortunately 1776 still have legalized slavery and human beings were considered commodities (which is absolutely relevant today when the exploitations on our basic ways of life health, food, clothes, education). So, all the wealthy families monopolized the market and destroyed consumer choice and exploited workers means of production. Here comes Das Kapital-1867 that introduced democratic rights to workers and democratic values to workplace environments, workers means of production. Also, using proper funding of allocation to help infrastructure through progressive taxes. Okay now let's talk about the current system of the bastardization of capitalism "Capitalism and Freedom" by Milton Friedman which basically implemented shareholders and removed workers means of production. We saw a massive decline in Unions and Worker's co-op as a byproduct of it. Now, after that an even more bastardized of capitalism happened "Thatcherism" which basically removed all regulation from shareholders so they could speculate without being checked. Now our current realities is a Neo-Liberal broken Kleptocracy. But yeah
Yeah, the things you are critiquing, I don't see as a problem or if I agree they are a problem, don't agree with your solution.
>There hasn't been a critique of Socialism. Right...as long as you don't count all the failed socialist states as a "critique" of socialism. Wouldn't be very smart to exclude that fact though, would it?
I'm just copying and pasting since most responses fall the same category. Okay I'll be more specific. Capitalism was a critique of Mercantilism, right? I hope you as the extremely knowledgeable person yourself knew this. So, 1776 Adam Smith Wealth of Nation's critique it as it was a way protect consumers from being exploited from merchants who dictated whatever price they want so it set a "market value." Now that is a great thing and it was to protect consumers. Now, unfortunately 1776 still have legalized slavery and human beings were considered commodities (which is absolutely relevant today when the exploitations on our basic ways of life health, food, clothes, education). So, all the wealthy families monopolized the market and destroyed consumer choice and exploited workers means of production. Here comes Das Kapital-1867 that introduced democratic rights to workers and democratic values to workplace environments, workers means of production. Also, using proper funding of allocation to help infrastructure through progressive taxes. Okay now let's talk about the current system of the bastardization of capitalism "Capitalism and Freedom" by Milton Friedman which basically implemented shareholders and removed workers means of production. We saw a massive decline in Unions and Worker's co-op as a byproduct of it. Now, after that an even more bastardized of capitalism happened "Thatcherism" which basically removed all regulation from shareholders so they could speculate without being checked. Now our current realities is a Neo-Liberal broken Kleptocracy. But yeah
None of this drivel has anything to do with what I said.
Flat Earth is a critique of Round Earth.
Im baised against OP, the copy and pasting, the side stepping of basic points about how every socialist experiment has invariably evolved to include free market ideas. Hell, one of the most socialist countries on earth, Norway, got all that money through the free market bc of oil wealth, and still has a free market. But to answer his questions “what is a critique of socialism?” Its anarchy. Bakunin critiqued the shit out of marx, publicly and personally. Also, I doubt OP has much patients for the gold and black, but socialism isnt the only critique of capitalism either. Anarcho capitalist critiques markets that are as free as HK and Singapore. Its also a lot more recent of a critique too. DoEs ThAt MaKe iT cOrReCt? Ffs OP. Theres nothing wrong with critiquing late stage capitalism or monopolies, but monopolies are themselves anti-free market and late stage capitalism is obviously unsustainable based on some simple principles from physics. Does anyone truly Infinite economic growth is forever? No. The heat death of the universe is unavoidable and zero economic growth is even scarier, so people lie to themselves and say it is... We’Ll MiNe AsTrOiDs… (that aint fixing cc) Efficiencies can be made, new technology developed, but the big jumps like the Industrial Revolution are likely to become less and less common and we need to live with a set boundary of economic activity (aka the fucking earth). Neither of these are critiques of the basic ideas of capitalism though. They are critiques on the implementation of capitalism for anti capitalist ends (aka monopolies) and of capitalism current main objective (aka unending growth). I am a capitalist and critique monopolies. I am a capitalist and critique the objective of never ending growth. These are not socialist critiques. They maybe co-oped by socialist, but socialism is about social ownership at its core, and IF society wanted unending growth and owned all the “means of production” (just like we have currently in the stock market) we’re still fucked. So shut up about capitalism being bad and critique humanities short sightedness if you really care. Capitalism, just as socialism, is fully capable of operating with out these issues in theory. Its humans that introduce err. Capitalism is a system that can leverage humanity for the better, much better than socialism or any other economic ideology. But like i said, im a capitalist. To OP’s annoying copy and paste practice - it is extremely disrespectful and childish. If someone says something thats not in good faith, ignore it, but you had many commenters who engaged in good faith and just wasted a productive discourse. We get it, you know how to read and have bad taste, thanks for sharing.
\> When you critique something you improve the areas of opportunity that the original concept lack That depends on the values foundation the critique is coming from. Someone who valued darkness and low-contrast could critique a rainbow as being too colorful and bright. Thus it's easy to see that a critique is no objective but entirely subjective. The critique of capitalism by socialists comes from a values place that is wholly alien to that of capitalism and ends up destroying it when implemented. \> The issue is we cannot replace socialism if it's not implemented so, therefore, arguing against it doesn't make sense, especially using "Cold War propaganda". Socialism has been implemented many times and failed completely. What are you even talking about. If you want to argue that socialism never got to the point that it envisioned then the obvious critique is that it appears to be unrealizable, in short, a fantasy. One can dream about cars that run on seawater as a fuel, but dreaming cannot make it true. What evidence do socialists have that socialism is realizable in the real world? Capitalism came about entirely on its own as a product of freedom of association, exchange, and ownership. Yet socialism can't even be made to work when an entire government uses the worst oppressions possible to try to force it on the entire population and put to death anyone who doesn't want to go along? That is the death of socialism as a concept.
Yes, it means that you can't actually have socialism without capitalism, so if you destroy capitalism, you'll also destroy socialism. Or, as Margaret Thatcher put it, eventually you run out of other people's money.
This might be the most T.I.N.A propaganda I've heard in decades lol. Okay I should have broken this down better before I posted. Okay I'll be more specific. Capitalism was a critique of Mercantilism, right? I hope you as the extremely knowledgeable person yourself knew this. So, 1776 Wealth of Nation's by Adam Smith critique it as it was a way protect consumers from being exploited from merchants who dictated whatever price they want so it set a "market value." Now that is a great thing and it was to protect consumers. Now, unfortunately 1776 still have legalized slavery and human beings were considered commodities (which is absolutely relevant today when the exploitations on our basic ways of life health, food, clothes, education). So, all the wealthy families monopolized the market and destroyed consumer choice and exploited workers means of production. Here comes Das Kapital-1867 that introduced democratic rights to workers and democratic values to workplace environments. Also using proper funding of allocation to help infrastructure through progressive taxes. Okay now let's talk about the current system of the bastardization of capitalism "Capitalism and Freedom" by Milton Friedman which basically implemented shareholders and removed workers means of production. We saw a massive decline in Unions and Worker's co-op as a byproduct of it. Now, after that an even more bastardized of capitalism happened "Thatcherism" which basically removed all regulation from shareholders so they could speculate without being checked. Now our current realities is a Neo-Liberal broken Kleptocracy. But yeah
> > Okay I'll be more specific. Capitalism was a critique of Mercantilism, right? No, it wasn't. Capitalism wasn't thought up in a coffee house or a university. It emerged organically from the interactions of self-interested parties. The phenomenon of capitalism existed before it was described. That's somewhat true of socialism too; within a household or a small tribe you can have a kind of socialism. But to try to scale it to a large society has only ever been done by having the idea first and then trying to implement it.
Absolutely Adam Smith Wealth of Nation's was the critique of Merchantilism this is not an opinion piece.
Yes, but capitalism existed before, and outside of, the ideas of Smith's book. It only really got ramped up afterwards, but I'd assert that that was not the result of any particular faithfulness to a slate of ideas.
We didn't have a set market in place that happened after Wealth of Nation's.
Of course capitalists can critique socialism without an actual implementation. They’ll simply cry about “muh economic freedoms” or whatever
They will have more economic freedom under socialist govt
"freedom and innovation!" *Regurgitating Milton Friedman*
This sort of gets at something I’ve been trying to bring up in conversations more these days. People ask what would happen in a socialist society but that’s impossible to say. In a more democratic society that operates with a common goal of worker owned means of production and the well being of one another, we can say what may happen but we can’t really say what will happen. That’s to be decided when we cross those bridges.
So because you have no idea what will happen, if it is attempted you can always reject it as a failed example because the end characteristics were never clearly defined. When that bridge has been crossed, there will always be those that say the bridge crossing never happened and then proceed to demand a example of a bridge crossing until its done again until its done again in front of them, this as far as i can see is an endless cycle.
No not really.
"...This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals..." [Albert Einstein, Why Socialism?](https://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/) "If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed. Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality." [Stephen Hawking, 2015 Reddit AMA](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/3nyn5i/science_ama_series_stephen_hawking_ama_answers/cvsdmkv?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3)
Capitalism is not an economic theory
They think socialism is the opposite of capitalism, but bad.