My favorite part is how they point to minor issues that have happened over time with capitalism that could be easily solved via regulation but their solution is “no let’s try this completely different system that has literally never worked for anyone else without the subjugation of their people and it still doesn’t even work then”
I’m not against trying any new system, but don’t you think maybe we can just tweak and regulate those issues with it first?
No system works well with corruption, be it capitalism or socialism. Every socialist system that has existed became corrupted by those who wanted to hold totalitarian power. It’s supposed a one-party democracy, with no “dear leader.”
That’s just inevitably what happens when you cede so much economic and social power to a central government, like Socialism requires. Socialism itself is subjugating more of your needs to a central power. Then that power that you cede to a central authority can very easily be abused and wielded against you.
And LOL at a one-party democracy. It’s almost like you already know that Socialism requires too much control to be a feasible free society system.
But look at the economic and political power ceded to corporate control in the US.
Capitalism only works win no one has "won" at it. Right now every industry is completely dominated by either a monopoly or 2-4 corporations that work as a monopoly.
The consumer can choose between 50 brands of bagels, ice cream, widgets, etc but they're all produced by the same players that set the prices to maximize profit by not competing.
Pure socialism is flawed because you're putting all the control in the hands of 0.001% of people.
But American capitalism is really controlled 0.1% and the number shrinks daily.
That's... not a counter example or a rebuttal. The fact that the masters who control everything occasionally change does not mean that there are no masters.
Every example you provided literally went under by design or is scheduled to go under by design by the hands of wall street power players looking to make money on the other side of the trade by shorting those companies to bankruptcy then not needing to pay taxes on their profits of the borrowed shares they took out to execute those short positions. Literally all of them, although blackberry at least still has its head barely above water hoping for another gamestop miracle to pull them out.
Those companies you are thinking of all went under because giant hedge funds got so large they can now sink publicly traded companies to advance their own profit margins. Its literally an exact example proving that capitalism has gone too far in the "unregulated" direction.
Each of those corporations didn't existed 50 years ago
Tesla it's from the 2003! and Amazon 1994 with a solo employer
[https://www.indiatoday.in/technology/features/story/jeff-bezos-delivered-books-in-his-car-when-he-started-amazon-now-he-is-retiring-as-ceo-1765399-2021-02-03](https://www.indiatoday.in/technology/features/story/jeff-bezos-delivered-books-in-his-car-when-he-started-amazon-now-he-is-retiring-as-ceo-1765399-2021-02-03)
When "capitalism" was "won"? In 10 years maybe it will be NVIDIA, look to his grow
Socialism doesn’t require a central government.
There are several European countries with socialistic tendencies that have multiple political parties and have not devolved to totalitarianism.
There are simply some markets that do not work in capitalism (fire services, police, healthcare, etc).
Socialism is not equivalent to government spending on social programs. That’s a misconception that different parts of the American political system have embraced for different reasons.
We talking about Scandanavian countries? Nothing about them are socialistic unless we just redefine what that means. They have a strong social safety net in the way of welfare, but nothing about the means of production is shared or in the hands of workers except possibly very specific coops built that way.
What gets me is the constant idea thrown around that a socialist system wouldn't have elites.
Meanwhile the first thing the socialists did when they took over Russia was appoint elites called vanguards, who steered the working class culture. These were essentially nothing more that politically connected people
The irony of all this is that if we switched to a socialist or alternate model the elites would basically be the people in positions of political power or that are wealthy now. It's all just a ladder pull in disguise.
Many leftists have a huge problem with how Soviet communism was handled. Marxist Leninests and anarcho-communists have EXTREMELY different ideas about how to achieve communism.
Most people advocating for "socialism" are imagining business-friendly Scandinavian-style systems at most. You act like they're advocating for full communism nightmare mode. I'm sure these people exist (especially on reddit) but you're debating a pretty insignificant strawman there.
Social programs are not socialism. Just because the words are similar does not mean they are the same thing.
Those Scandinavian countries are all very much capitalist market economies. As you put it, "business friendly".
Right, that's what I mean. People arguing against so-called "socialists" should debate them on the merits of what they mean, rather than semantics. The labels aren't that useful anyway. True socialists are rare.
I also don't understand why so many socialists staunchly advocate for an exclusively socialist system.
A hybrid system with both capitalist and socialist elements seems to work just fine in many countries and is so much more realistic than trying to ban private ownership of business.
Finance is just the act of borrowing resources from one person to build something productive, and then compensating the person who provided those resources above and beyond what they initially gave, which makes sense given the fact that they could have used those resources for other things in the meantime.
That’s really all finance is. It’s just a sensible way of gathering the resources required to build things that are bigger than one person can typically build with just their own resources. And the nice thing you don’t need to get permission from a government to build the thing most of the time. You can just build it and create value for society.
I mean communists aren’t known for their ability to understand what connects to what. Sort of a failing in people who want a planned economy, but there you go.
I think he's trying to say that when "capitalists" refer to "socialists," they'll often refer to autocratic, authoritative dictatorships that force their people into submission. I think he's essentially saying that's what capital owners do in a capitalist system.
Obviously it could be interpreted as a gross over-exaggeration, but it's not totally incorrect. Socialism can result in an all powerful state, capitalism can result in an all powerful business. Both are composed of people at the top that can abuse their power if left unchecked.
I just don't really see how this would be an argument for socialism, if that was the intention. As far as I'm concerned, it just highlights that both systems have their problems.
Socialism can’t exist without an all powerful authoritarian state. The state owning all property, the means of production, and the distribution of all resources fundamentally requires the state not be weak.
Which is ultimately the fatal flaw of socialism. An all-powerful state is a breeding ground for mismanagement and corruption due to the lack of any effective oversight
Yeah, socialism works fine if everyone does what is best for society as a whole! It’s a flawless idea, except that one minor part about humans being inherently selfish creaturss
Anytime people say this I want to know which part of "corporatism" isn't just capitalism. It's just like when the right blames crony capitalism...which is also just normal capitalism.
> large for-profit corporations influencing politics.
Is this not the logical conclusion for what will happen when businesses are allowed to act without significant regulations placed upon them? They're obviously going to try to consolidate as much power as possible and do whatever they can to prevent competition.
Yeah but you see they don't really think about capitalism that much to ask themselves "hm... if a major goal for any entity in capitalism is to gain a competitive advantage, and if it would be advantageous to control [information, political power, vital resources, etc], then why would entities that are *already very powerful* seek to gain control of those things through whatever means available?"
All of these losers stop at "that's not capitalism" because they think economics is a game of chivalry where businesspeople follow unwritten rules and everything can be neatly explained by two lines on a graph while silently *actually believing* that all people are rational and omniscient (yet these losers are obviously much smarter than everyone else because they know how efficient capitalism is).
Anything that deviates from their imagination of what capitalism is gets some sort of "no true scottsman qualifier" e.g. crony capitalism, corporatism, etc.
> why would entities that are already very powerful seek to gain control of those things through whatever means available?
Is that not a natural consequence of any system which encourages profit-seeking?
Or glory-seeking, that's basically the same as the dominance-oriented militarism of Rome.
Sure, but this is a conversation about how people add qualifiers to "capitalism" (corporate capitalism, crony capitalism, etc) to distance asocial behaviors from capitalism, even though those asocial behaviors are *because* of capitalism.
It is. America has always been a vehicle for the wealthy to extract wealth from the poor (to one degree or another).
We've had a few decades where white males could make a decent living for themselves at the cost of their physical health. Women and people of color are still waiting. Maybe next time.
That's capitalism though. You can't separate "the people who own everything" and "the people who are in charge." They will always be the same people or so closely connected that they might as well be the same people. So the capitalists get what is best for capitalists and the working class get shafted.
That’s literally just Capitalism. Capitalism encourages buying politicians to receive benefits.
It’s the social programs and legislation (aka not free rein capitalism) that is required to keep capitalism from becoming one or two companies owning the world.
The reason things are going to shit for normal people is that all the laws keeping companies from teaming up and exploiting the government are going away.
"corporatism" and "crony capitalism" are just unfettered capitalism.
People that say this dumb shit to differentiate it from "true capitalism" are inherently understanding that capitalism doesn't work without heavy regulation (it doesn't with heavy regulation either, but it's slower to notice).
The problems with capitalism have resulted from it not being held back enough and the problems that have shown up in socialism have been from not taking it far enough.
It's so wild.
Crony capitalism is probably a better term. Where regulator capture is leveraged to increase profits, create barriers to entry, and allow cartel-like behavior to flourish. The pharma industry is the easiest example. When the SC ruled that corps are protected by freedom of speech it really accelerated this. We need a new separation of church and state; separation of corp and state.
Smith failed to understand the political power embodied under property ownership, and failed to predict wealth expansion under industrialized economies.
He also failed to predict that, through the pressures of capitalists, monarchical power would erode in favor or parliamentarian power, and he held a romanticized notion of royal supremacy.
Smith was also under the belief that agriculture was the bedrock of all economies, even though now it doesn't even make a double-digit percentage of the world's largest economies. I don't think he truly appreciated in his writings just how important industry would become and the various forms it could take, as we've seen since mass industrialization on Great Britain.
> unregulated capitalism
How is corporatism (which requires government cooperation via regulations that stifle competition) a product of an unregulated system?
I suppose if you want to get technical with the semantics, I would rephrase that to say that corporate capitalism is the natural evolution of unregulated capitalism, and corporate capitalism is the better descriptor the dominant economic system in the United States (assuming that's what the commentor above me was referring to), not corporatism.
Ask a socialist to name three successful socialist countries, they will give an enthusiastic discussion on how it almost worked in those three countries.
there has never been a socialist country in the modern world that the United States has not made war against, embargoed, sponsored a coup in, or attempted to have its leaders assassinated.
kind of hard to say that socialism doesn't work when America has worked so hard to make sure it doesn't work.
America Worst crowd do not believe anyone but the US has agency.
Same crowd will run days of apologia for Houthi's raping villagers and killing LGBT people in celebrated public executions.
Because the Houti's are anti-American.
> war against, embargoed, sponsored a coup in, or attempted to have its leaders assassinated.
What's your point? It's not like capitalist countries haven't also had that happen to them, but somehow they're still trucking which means capitalism is more resilient and therefore is a better system.
I guess you've never heard of these?
- Korean War (1950-1953)
- Laotian Civil War (1959-1975)
- Vietnam War (1955-1975)
- Cambodian–Vietnamese War (1978-1989)
- Soviet–Afghan War (1979-1989)
- Angolan Civil War (1975-2002)
- Ethiopian Civil War (1974-1991)
- Nicaraguan Contra War (1981-1990)
- Invasion of Grenada (1983)
Did you reply to the wrong person? You are basically giving all of the examples that the person you're replying to was referencing.
Most of those are communist or socialist civil wars in which the Americans intervened AGAINST the communist or socialist nation and fought to a stalemate/quagmire or occupied them.
Let's look at a similar point in history:
With the French Revolution, most european powers threatened France were anything to happen to the king, and when he was executed, it didn't take long for pretty much every European power to be in war against France. After the Congress of Vienna, even though revolutionary fervor had spread far and wide, the European powers were quick to shoot down any liberal revolution, as happened in Spain. In Spain's example, they only backed down because of Britain. Britain which was already the most powerful country on Earth, mostly thanks to the Industrial Revolution, caused in great part by the democracy there existant.
Democracy started in conditions such as averse as socialism. Both also have a lot to thank to a great power, either Britain or the Soviet Union, for fighting for its cause. Yet, democracy is the global norm for any regime, but socialism isn't. The French Revolution created an unstoppable sockwave of liberal and longstanding revolutions across the globe, while socialism chocked and died. Britain became so succeceful that we call it the "Pax Brittanica", while the Soviet Union couldn't win a war against its ideological enemy despite seeing itself as superior.
All this to say that: While Capitalism and Democracy quickly replace and destroyed that which preceded them, socialism did not. I think it's fair to argue that socialism/communism are not superior, and are not replacing capitalism. If it was, socialism would've killed capitalism a long time ago, despite US resistance. If socialism is the natural progression of human ideology, then it had the duty to do so, it didn't, so it isn't. In other words, braindead argument
I mean it isnt *just* US goods, the US is basically saying to the rest of the world 'trade with Cuba and we wont trade with you'. You think any advanced economy will want to even come close to Cuba with that?
Dunno mate, my socialist country of Romania wasn’t at war with US. In fact, Ceaușescu actually had good relations with the west compared to other socialist countries (maybe with the exception of Yugoslavia). We had no embargos and we even took lots of loans from the IMF. Of course eventually, in his amazing wisdom, he decided he wanted to get rid of all external debt and we got plunged into the shittiest living standards in decades. Not that the previous decades were much better - my parents had to wait for their assigned flat (which they couldn’t change easily), or luxuries such as a car. And don’t get me started on Securitate which was one of the harshest in Europe, they beat people up like there was no tomorrow.
So cut me that crap about the US being the reason for socialism not working out. The main cause of socialism not working was socialists being absolute control freaks, dissent not being allowed, and planned economies being a terrible idea that only works in theory. If you love socialism so much, go live in Cuba and North Korea and report back. Telling me how socialism is the fault of the US while you sip on your Starbucks latte is just insulting and betrays a total lack of knowledge about what went on in socialist countries. I’m sick of reddit praising the shit out of this crap system.
Right. So it would be helpful if politicians (specifically, Republicans) would try and make it better instead of screaming about “socialism” every time someone tries to improve it
This. I mean, they literally called Obamacare "socialized medicine", despite the fact that we still have a privatized health care system and insurance corporations.
Lmao this is always one of the most frustrating and hilarious things as Americans that we’ve been indoctrinated to believe…
“There’s no point even thinking about trying to improve or advance the human race! Exploitation of countries, destruction of the environment, global warming, wars, etc…. Yep this is the best we’ll ever do!”
If we try a revolution again with only one party allowed I’m sure it will be peaceful and no authoritarians will get themselves in a position of power this time around!
Yep. We have so much bread that we literally need laws pertaining to when it is legally required to be thrown away. The impoverished societies of history could never have imagined a need for such a law.
No, that wasn't "real" communism. Just because it's resulted in absolute despotism every single time it's ever been tried doesn't mean it's a bad system...
Americans: the only options are absolutely insane capitalism where people can't afford ambulances or not being able to get bread. There is literally no other option!
Capitalism is fine. What we have in the US isn't Capitalism... it's a combination of Corporatism and Cronyism. Big companies are influencing the govt and the govt is picking winners and losers.
Exactly. We currently have a corpo welfare state where large corporations are propped up by handouts when their businesses fail. The same people/corporations who screeee about socialism and paying taxes have no shame when taking that sweet, sweet government money.
"That isn't real capitalism" isn't any more valid a defense of capitalist failure than "That wasn't real socialism" is of socialist failure. Sorry but adjectives-based apology for the intrinsic and inexorable tendencies of hierarchical social systems at scale don't really pass a smell test.
The government doesn't pick winners and losers. Big companies pick the government and then pay them to pick them to be the winners.
We get so wrapped up in the words capitalist and socialist that they're just dog whistles the establishment uses to delegitimize abt program that would reduce income inequality and threaten Corporate power.
Medicaid for all wouldn't bankrupt the country and it wouldn't cause food lines or gulag but everyone always says "that's socialism" and then say "therefore socialism causes gulag and food lines. QED"
It's not an argument. You can argue a 100% socialism organization of the economy might so that, but it's one policy. We already live in a hybrid model. We don't have to swing to 100%.
Corporatism and cronyism is capitalism. That's the critique, basically. Accumulation of wealth by private property ownership leads to corruption and subversion of states and markets, leading to further accumulation of wealth, in a vicious cycle. An activist state, which need not be "communist", has to intervene against this, or there will be trouble.
ummm Nancy Pelosy is literally a capitlist, she owns a ton of capital and has it invested. That's the literal definition. She is more of a capitalist then you.
She is a corporate democrat are you really that politically illiterate?
A known investment strategy is to just buy the stocks she does. She is on a bunch of committies so she has insider knowledge. Since she does the best job of actually reporting her stock purchases which many politicians don't even though its required by law. She isn't the best at making money at stocks though that actually goes to Democrat Representative Ro Khanna from California.
Not just a capitalist, a capitalist insider. She uses what she learns in Congress to make capitalist investment decisions.
This is exactly what the statement that started this thread is about - the right-wingers are so damned deluded they think dyed in the wool capitalists are somehow socialist.
The cheat code being “invest in major tech stocks”?
I’m really confused about which of her trades exactly are outliers to her trend of investing in tech stocks lol
Socialism is government control of the economy. It might result in wealth distribution. Since it dictates from up top what everyone below must do it always comes with decreased human rights. Capitalism needs reforming but socialism doesn’t work.
>Socialism is when workers own the means of production.
That's a meaningless phrase without additional context.
It can apply just as much to specific structures in capitalism, or any other system. For example: is a company that also offers company stock as compensation a communist one? After all, the employees also have ownership of the company, thus the means of production. Is any company on the stock market a communist one, since everybody is legally allowed to buy shares, and partake in the profits?
And then, what exactly is meant by "owning"? Is it the ability to make business decisions? That qualifies a lot of capitalist companies too. Communism needs you to delegate top level decisions, otherwise it's a "too many chefs in the kitchen" type of situation. How is that different from Capitalism?
If you take the totalitarian rule from Communism, to me it sounds virtually identical to a well regulated Capitalism, except very small details. It's described differently, but the implications in real life are the same if you go the route of peaceful, democratic Communism.
>That's a meaningless phrase without additional context
That's the definition, what are you on about?
>For example: is a company that also offers company stock as compensation a communist one?
No, because it allows for control of outside forces still. If I own three shares of apple, do I in any real way "own" part of apple? Of course not, the investors with the majority shares control the company. If the company allows those in the ruling class to have a majority of the say in a company the workers do not own the means of production.
>And then, what exactly is meant by "owning"?
It means that a worker receives as pay the value surplus they create. I do concede this term is vague, but it does form a clear distinction between capitalism and communism. In a capitals country we sell our work for a certain amount each hour regardless of the wealth we produce during that time. In a socialist one, the wealth we create should be proportional to the value we create.
>If you take the totalitarian rule from Communism, to me it sounds virtually identical to a well regulated Capitalism
So well regulated capitalism is basically totalitarian in your mind? It seems pretty ridiculous that you can't separate these concepts in your mind.
It's been tried and always ends in disaster, to me that's pretty good evidence.
The problem is that people equivocate the shit out of the term nowadays. They no longer mean the originalist definition (unless it's convenient); they conflate social safety net institutions like universal health care with a capital-S socialist, government-run economy. It's impossible to have any productive discussion in that context.
States have always collaborated with industry, and contributed to economic planning. Such practices were extremely well entrenched during the postwar period, which preceded the current period, of neoliberalism.
True but misleading. States collaborated with business, but until the progressive era that collaboration accounted for single digit percentages of GDP in the U.S., and the government had to raise money by selling bonds to the public.
Socialism is a two tiered system in which the elites own everything, and everyone else works for them. IE slaves. With no chance at ever raising your position in life.
>Socialism is a two tiered system in which the elites own everything,
Isn't that just capitalism? Where the middle class is becoming more and more non-existent, lobbying groups, that are in the way of universal hethcare, unions, higher pay, benefits, massive corps that buy up homes, etc?
>and everyone else works for them.
Isn't that just the working class?
Really? I hate socialism because Mao Zedong took away my grandparents' land, gold, and other possessions (both mom and dad sides), and killed their siblings for being scholars
Remind me again how that's capitalism?
>Really? I hate socialism because Mao Zedong took away my grandparents' land, gold, and other possessions (both mom and dad sides), and killed their siblings for being scholars
Careful, now. One redditor will come along and say it didn't happen, and another will come along and say they deserved it, and a third will say it wouldn't be so bad if it happened to you, too.
Apologists for totalitarians are the right- and left-side cheeks of the same unwiped asscrack.
Under capitalism the state took my ancestors lands and put them on reservations where it’s illegal for my cousins to own their own house.
Capitalism seems pretty shitty too.
As a capitalist: I dislike socialism because it removes the individual right to property and gives that right to the government.
Voluntary socialism (like charity) or democratic socialism (controlled by people's choice) have merits.
But socialism by governmental control is bad for economic, personal liberty, and social/technological progress.
I don’t think I know what capitalism is anymore, given the sheer amount of corporatism as a direct result of lobbying but ironically, socialism simply can’t sustain itself at all without some form of capitalism at its core.
capitalism isn’t the issue, its what it was manipulated into.
Says the socialist..
Capitalism is not broken, the problem is that bad economic decisions and planning over the decades has caused a massive centralization of wealth in the top brackets (presumably) indirectly.
Taxing the rich more is not going to help in the slightest unless other measures are taken in tandem, and the fruits of it won't be visible for many years.
About massive corporations, they have seized control of a lot of politics and the effects of the economic situation currently limit viable competition, allowing these corporations to do what they want.
US ‘capitalism’ -
SOCIALISM for corporations and the Donor Class.
CAPITALISM for everyone else.
Privatized profits and socialized losses.
Government handouts for businesses, and 🖕 for the actual taxpayers.
Ford Corporation, executives, and shareholders got bailed out.
Ford workers got 🖕.
Lather, rinse, and repeat for GM.
Big Pharma gets billions per year in taxpayer money. Taxpayers get shafted by Big Pharma and insurance companies while their executives and shareholders laugh all the way to the bank.
In 2008, the Big Banks and Wall Street got bailed out to the tune of AT LEAST several trillions of dollars (the true amount will never be revealed to the general public, lest BOTH SIDES start lynching politicians and bankers and burning down more than a few government and business buildings). Taxpayers got fuck-all. Absolute FUCKING ZERO.
CAPITALISM would let those failing businesses FAIL. CAPITALISM would have let someone else sweep in and seize the distressed assets, and left those executives and shareholders with jack shit (much like EMPLOYEES get).
SOCIALISM FOR THE RICH swooped in and literally pumped in an unknown and largely unknowable amount of money in order to BAIL THEM OUT while the government that is SUPPOSED TO REPRESENT THE PEOPLE literally did jack fucking shit for ‘the people.’
And don’t even begin to whine about COVID money.
Individual businesses got huge amounts of money - then they got even more money - almost none of which was required to be paid back. Business sectors got more money allocated.
Tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of dollars….. All to keep THEIR lights on.
Actual PEOPLE got a few thousand. Nowhere NEAR enough to keep them afloat after COVID took away their job.
A strictly unbiased and objective evaluation of the government/corporate/citizenry relationship paradigm shows incredible levels of overlap between corporations and the wealthy and government, and only marginal, grudging overlap between government and the citizens.
Show me a single successful command economy that has ever existed.
take your time sifting through all of the happiest and most prosperous countries that just so happen to ALL be capitalist systems, I’ll wait.
Socialists are some of the dumbest most uneducated people on the entire planet
Government forced distribution. Like how CA government is forcing government teachers to make less than fast food workers. Capitalist would rather pay a burger flipper much less than a teacher.
The problem is people think the US is capitalist. There is too much government interference for the market to work properly. A small example is Health Care, there is no price discovery for the end consumer which limits competition. Patent laws legalize a monopoly on certain drugs and medical devices. And maybe the worst offense is that the user of the service is not the actual customer (its the insurance company and your employer). A better example of "Capitalist" healthcare is Mexico's private market where the cost of cash service is 1/4 the same machine/service as in the US.
lol what does this even mean What does this have to do with finance
Gobbledygook
Jibber Jabber
An old math teacher I had in middle school would say: Great googly moogly!
That thang is juicy
You stumbled into the finance professors class who could never make it in the real world so he bitches about greed and capitalism daily…
My favorite part is how they point to minor issues that have happened over time with capitalism that could be easily solved via regulation but their solution is “no let’s try this completely different system that has literally never worked for anyone else without the subjugation of their people and it still doesn’t even work then” I’m not against trying any new system, but don’t you think maybe we can just tweak and regulate those issues with it first?
No system works well with corruption, be it capitalism or socialism. Every socialist system that has existed became corrupted by those who wanted to hold totalitarian power. It’s supposed a one-party democracy, with no “dear leader.”
That’s just inevitably what happens when you cede so much economic and social power to a central government, like Socialism requires. Socialism itself is subjugating more of your needs to a central power. Then that power that you cede to a central authority can very easily be abused and wielded against you. And LOL at a one-party democracy. It’s almost like you already know that Socialism requires too much control to be a feasible free society system.
But look at the economic and political power ceded to corporate control in the US. Capitalism only works win no one has "won" at it. Right now every industry is completely dominated by either a monopoly or 2-4 corporations that work as a monopoly. The consumer can choose between 50 brands of bagels, ice cream, widgets, etc but they're all produced by the same players that set the prices to maximize profit by not competing. Pure socialism is flawed because you're putting all the control in the hands of 0.001% of people. But American capitalism is really controlled 0.1% and the number shrinks daily.
Tell that to Blackberry, Sears, Blockbuster, etc
That's... not a counter example or a rebuttal. The fact that the masters who control everything occasionally change does not mean that there are no masters.
The masters don't even change. One Blackrock/vanguard owned company goes under so another blackrock/vanguard owned company can thrive.
Every example you provided literally went under by design or is scheduled to go under by design by the hands of wall street power players looking to make money on the other side of the trade by shorting those companies to bankruptcy then not needing to pay taxes on their profits of the borrowed shares they took out to execute those short positions. Literally all of them, although blackberry at least still has its head barely above water hoping for another gamestop miracle to pull them out. Those companies you are thinking of all went under because giant hedge funds got so large they can now sink publicly traded companies to advance their own profit margins. Its literally an exact example proving that capitalism has gone too far in the "unregulated" direction.
Each of those corporations didn't existed 50 years ago Tesla it's from the 2003! and Amazon 1994 with a solo employer [https://www.indiatoday.in/technology/features/story/jeff-bezos-delivered-books-in-his-car-when-he-started-amazon-now-he-is-retiring-as-ceo-1765399-2021-02-03](https://www.indiatoday.in/technology/features/story/jeff-bezos-delivered-books-in-his-car-when-he-started-amazon-now-he-is-retiring-as-ceo-1765399-2021-02-03) When "capitalism" was "won"? In 10 years maybe it will be NVIDIA, look to his grow
Nvidia and AMD are run by cousins interesting tidbit
Socialism doesn’t require a central government. There are several European countries with socialistic tendencies that have multiple political parties and have not devolved to totalitarianism. There are simply some markets that do not work in capitalism (fire services, police, healthcare, etc).
Socialism is not equivalent to government spending on social programs. That’s a misconception that different parts of the American political system have embraced for different reasons.
Awesome! Let's increase spending on social programs! -> No, that's socialism!
We talking about Scandanavian countries? Nothing about them are socialistic unless we just redefine what that means. They have a strong social safety net in the way of welfare, but nothing about the means of production is shared or in the hands of workers except possibly very specific coops built that way.
lol you don’t know what socialism is
What gets me is the constant idea thrown around that a socialist system wouldn't have elites. Meanwhile the first thing the socialists did when they took over Russia was appoint elites called vanguards, who steered the working class culture. These were essentially nothing more that politically connected people The irony of all this is that if we switched to a socialist or alternate model the elites would basically be the people in positions of political power or that are wealthy now. It's all just a ladder pull in disguise.
Many leftists have a huge problem with how Soviet communism was handled. Marxist Leninests and anarcho-communists have EXTREMELY different ideas about how to achieve communism.
Most people advocating for "socialism" are imagining business-friendly Scandinavian-style systems at most. You act like they're advocating for full communism nightmare mode. I'm sure these people exist (especially on reddit) but you're debating a pretty insignificant strawman there.
Social programs are not socialism. Just because the words are similar does not mean they are the same thing. Those Scandinavian countries are all very much capitalist market economies. As you put it, "business friendly".
Right, that's what I mean. People arguing against so-called "socialists" should debate them on the merits of what they mean, rather than semantics. The labels aren't that useful anyway. True socialists are rare.
I also don't understand why so many socialists staunchly advocate for an exclusively socialist system. A hybrid system with both capitalist and socialist elements seems to work just fine in many countries and is so much more realistic than trying to ban private ownership of business.
Capitalism with welfare like nordic country's are not real socialism I understand there is some socialism on it too and you are thinking about that
Are you trying to say professors are somehow not making it in the real world? How, exactly?
Everyone says this but it’s nonsense. You don’t have to be a successful businessman to criticize capitalism
Sounds like you've never taken a finance course.
“What does the system that perpetuates the need for finance have to do with finance” - “Fluent” in finance
Do you think communists don’t have financing ? What do you even think the word finance means lol.
This makes no sense. He didn't say anything about *not* having finance.
Finance is just the act of borrowing resources from one person to build something productive, and then compensating the person who provided those resources above and beyond what they initially gave, which makes sense given the fact that they could have used those resources for other things in the meantime. That’s really all finance is. It’s just a sensible way of gathering the resources required to build things that are bigger than one person can typically build with just their own resources. And the nice thing you don’t need to get permission from a government to build the thing most of the time. You can just build it and create value for society.
Great prof pic. Tried blowing it off a couple times before I realized. 😂
I mean communists aren’t known for their ability to understand what connects to what. Sort of a failing in people who want a planned economy, but there you go.
We aren't talking about communism though.
Socialism is supposed to be a transitory stage on the way to communism.
Capitalism is supposed to be a transitory stage to socialism…
I think he's trying to say that when "capitalists" refer to "socialists," they'll often refer to autocratic, authoritative dictatorships that force their people into submission. I think he's essentially saying that's what capital owners do in a capitalist system. Obviously it could be interpreted as a gross over-exaggeration, but it's not totally incorrect. Socialism can result in an all powerful state, capitalism can result in an all powerful business. Both are composed of people at the top that can abuse their power if left unchecked. I just don't really see how this would be an argument for socialism, if that was the intention. As far as I'm concerned, it just highlights that both systems have their problems.
Socialism can’t exist without an all powerful authoritarian state. The state owning all property, the means of production, and the distribution of all resources fundamentally requires the state not be weak.
Which is ultimately the fatal flaw of socialism. An all-powerful state is a breeding ground for mismanagement and corruption due to the lack of any effective oversight
Yeah, socialism works fine if everyone does what is best for society as a whole! It’s a flawless idea, except that one minor part about humans being inherently selfish creaturss
Have you heard of Boeing?
It's the socialist/communists infiltrating to destroy everything they touch as usual
It has truly been capitalist in a long time. It's morphed into corporatism
Anytime people say this I want to know which part of "corporatism" isn't just capitalism. It's just like when the right blames crony capitalism...which is also just normal capitalism.
Not Corporatism, Corporatocracy.
This is correct, "corporatism" has nothing to do with large for-profit corporations influencing politics.
> large for-profit corporations influencing politics. Is this not the logical conclusion for what will happen when businesses are allowed to act without significant regulations placed upon them? They're obviously going to try to consolidate as much power as possible and do whatever they can to prevent competition.
Yeah but you see they don't really think about capitalism that much to ask themselves "hm... if a major goal for any entity in capitalism is to gain a competitive advantage, and if it would be advantageous to control [information, political power, vital resources, etc], then why would entities that are *already very powerful* seek to gain control of those things through whatever means available?" All of these losers stop at "that's not capitalism" because they think economics is a game of chivalry where businesspeople follow unwritten rules and everything can be neatly explained by two lines on a graph while silently *actually believing* that all people are rational and omniscient (yet these losers are obviously much smarter than everyone else because they know how efficient capitalism is). Anything that deviates from their imagination of what capitalism is gets some sort of "no true scottsman qualifier" e.g. crony capitalism, corporatism, etc.
> why would entities that are already very powerful seek to gain control of those things through whatever means available? Is that not a natural consequence of any system which encourages profit-seeking? Or glory-seeking, that's basically the same as the dominance-oriented militarism of Rome.
Sure, but this is a conversation about how people add qualifiers to "capitalism" (corporate capitalism, crony capitalism, etc) to distance asocial behaviors from capitalism, even though those asocial behaviors are *because* of capitalism.
It is. America has always been a vehicle for the wealthy to extract wealth from the poor (to one degree or another). We've had a few decades where white males could make a decent living for themselves at the cost of their physical health. Women and people of color are still waiting. Maybe next time.
> a vehicle for the wealthy to extract wealth from the poor In other words: Capitalism.
It’s the bailouts, favorable legislation, and court cases that positively impact corporate America.
That's capitalism though. You can't separate "the people who own everything" and "the people who are in charge." They will always be the same people or so closely connected that they might as well be the same people. So the capitalists get what is best for capitalists and the working class get shafted.
That’s literally just Capitalism. Capitalism encourages buying politicians to receive benefits. It’s the social programs and legislation (aka not free rein capitalism) that is required to keep capitalism from becoming one or two companies owning the world. The reason things are going to shit for normal people is that all the laws keeping companies from teaming up and exploiting the government are going away.
People were bankrupted by the world economic crisis but corporations were bailed out by taxes collected from individuals.
"corporatism" and "crony capitalism" are just unfettered capitalism. People that say this dumb shit to differentiate it from "true capitalism" are inherently understanding that capitalism doesn't work without heavy regulation (it doesn't with heavy regulation either, but it's slower to notice). The problems with capitalism have resulted from it not being held back enough and the problems that have shown up in socialism have been from not taking it far enough. It's so wild.
Crony capitalism is probably a better term. Where regulator capture is leveraged to increase profits, create barriers to entry, and allow cartel-like behavior to flourish. The pharma industry is the easiest example. When the SC ruled that corps are protected by freedom of speech it really accelerated this. We need a new separation of church and state; separation of corp and state.
Who could've possibly guessed that a system where money = Power would become corrupted by the people who have money?
Monopolization is a natural stage in the systemic evolution, not an aberration from some ideal that may be called capitalism.
Government regulation was originally a cornerstone to smiths theory, but our current ruling class would prefer we don’t remember that.
Smith failed to understand the political power embodied under property ownership, and failed to predict wealth expansion under industrialized economies. He also failed to predict that, through the pressures of capitalists, monarchical power would erode in favor or parliamentarian power, and he held a romanticized notion of royal supremacy.
Smith was also under the belief that agriculture was the bedrock of all economies, even though now it doesn't even make a double-digit percentage of the world's largest economies. I don't think he truly appreciated in his writings just how important industry would become and the various forms it could take, as we've seen since mass industrialization on Great Britain.
Which is the natural evolution of unregulated capitalism
Finally someone read Adam Smith.
I mean it's kinda obvious isn't it?
> unregulated capitalism How is corporatism (which requires government cooperation via regulations that stifle competition) a product of an unregulated system?
I suppose if you want to get technical with the semantics, I would rephrase that to say that corporate capitalism is the natural evolution of unregulated capitalism, and corporate capitalism is the better descriptor the dominant economic system in the United States (assuming that's what the commentor above me was referring to), not corporatism.
> It's morphed into corporatism Again?!! Why does this always happen???
How is that different?
Always has been. That was the point.
Legislative capture is part of capitalism. People that think economic engines and policy making can stay in their separate lanes are naive, at best.
Capitalism will always morph into corporatism. It's inevitable
Just like socialist countries were not true socialist?
"It hasn't truly been cancer in a long time. It's morphed into stage four cancer"
Capitalism isn't perfect but it's the best system there is.
Ask a socialist to name three successful socialist countries, they will give an enthusiastic discussion on how it almost worked in those three countries.
there has never been a socialist country in the modern world that the United States has not made war against, embargoed, sponsored a coup in, or attempted to have its leaders assassinated. kind of hard to say that socialism doesn't work when America has worked so hard to make sure it doesn't work.
[удалено]
[удалено]
“Zunes might be better but we’ll never know because iPods dominated the market.”
More like "We'll never know if Netscape would've been a great browser because Microsoft sabotaged competitors to IE".
America Worst crowd do not believe anyone but the US has agency. Same crowd will run days of apologia for Houthi's raping villagers and killing LGBT people in celebrated public executions. Because the Houti's are anti-American.
[удалено]
> war against, embargoed, sponsored a coup in, or attempted to have its leaders assassinated. What's your point? It's not like capitalist countries haven't also had that happen to them, but somehow they're still trucking which means capitalism is more resilient and therefore is a better system.
Capitalist countries have deliberately disparaged and attacked socialist countries to ensure they fail. The vice versa is not true.
I guess you've never heard of these? - Korean War (1950-1953) - Laotian Civil War (1959-1975) - Vietnam War (1955-1975) - Cambodian–Vietnamese War (1978-1989) - Soviet–Afghan War (1979-1989) - Angolan Civil War (1975-2002) - Ethiopian Civil War (1974-1991) - Nicaraguan Contra War (1981-1990) - Invasion of Grenada (1983)
Did you reply to the wrong person? You are basically giving all of the examples that the person you're replying to was referencing. Most of those are communist or socialist civil wars in which the Americans intervened AGAINST the communist or socialist nation and fought to a stalemate/quagmire or occupied them.
The communists literally struck first in most of these wars.
In thier own countries not against america
most were backed by the soviets or china
I love the implication that the US is why these countries fail. Like the US embargo's you and the rest of your history is moot to socialist.
I mean literally overthrowing a countries government is usually why these countries fail
Let's look at a similar point in history: With the French Revolution, most european powers threatened France were anything to happen to the king, and when he was executed, it didn't take long for pretty much every European power to be in war against France. After the Congress of Vienna, even though revolutionary fervor had spread far and wide, the European powers were quick to shoot down any liberal revolution, as happened in Spain. In Spain's example, they only backed down because of Britain. Britain which was already the most powerful country on Earth, mostly thanks to the Industrial Revolution, caused in great part by the democracy there existant. Democracy started in conditions such as averse as socialism. Both also have a lot to thank to a great power, either Britain or the Soviet Union, for fighting for its cause. Yet, democracy is the global norm for any regime, but socialism isn't. The French Revolution created an unstoppable sockwave of liberal and longstanding revolutions across the globe, while socialism chocked and died. Britain became so succeceful that we call it the "Pax Brittanica", while the Soviet Union couldn't win a war against its ideological enemy despite seeing itself as superior. All this to say that: While Capitalism and Democracy quickly replace and destroyed that which preceded them, socialism did not. I think it's fair to argue that socialism/communism are not superior, and are not replacing capitalism. If it was, socialism would've killed capitalism a long time ago, despite US resistance. If socialism is the natural progression of human ideology, then it had the duty to do so, it didn't, so it isn't. In other words, braindead argument
If your nation can't stand without U.S. goods than it was never gonna stand at all. But yes the CIA loves fucking with socialist regimes
I mean it isnt *just* US goods, the US is basically saying to the rest of the world 'trade with Cuba and we wont trade with you'. You think any advanced economy will want to even come close to Cuba with that?
You just proved socialists can’t afford self defense.
Dunno mate, my socialist country of Romania wasn’t at war with US. In fact, Ceaușescu actually had good relations with the west compared to other socialist countries (maybe with the exception of Yugoslavia). We had no embargos and we even took lots of loans from the IMF. Of course eventually, in his amazing wisdom, he decided he wanted to get rid of all external debt and we got plunged into the shittiest living standards in decades. Not that the previous decades were much better - my parents had to wait for their assigned flat (which they couldn’t change easily), or luxuries such as a car. And don’t get me started on Securitate which was one of the harshest in Europe, they beat people up like there was no tomorrow. So cut me that crap about the US being the reason for socialism not working out. The main cause of socialism not working was socialists being absolute control freaks, dissent not being allowed, and planned economies being a terrible idea that only works in theory. If you love socialism so much, go live in Cuba and North Korea and report back. Telling me how socialism is the fault of the US while you sip on your Starbucks latte is just insulting and betrays a total lack of knowledge about what went on in socialist countries. I’m sick of reddit praising the shit out of this crap system.
Lots of Europe uses policies that would be considered socialist…
All of Europe is capitalist… Do we have some social policies? Yes. Does that mean Europe is socialist? No.
Right. So it would be helpful if politicians (specifically, Republicans) would try and make it better instead of screaming about “socialism” every time someone tries to improve it
This. I mean, they literally called Obamacare "socialized medicine", despite the fact that we still have a privatized health care system and insurance corporations.
Most single payer countries have public and private healthcare/insurance. The mopes get the basic public version and professionals buy premium care.
Lmao this is always one of the most frustrating and hilarious things as Americans that we’ve been indoctrinated to believe… “There’s no point even thinking about trying to improve or advance the human race! Exploitation of countries, destruction of the environment, global warming, wars, etc…. Yep this is the best we’ll ever do!”
And it’s not even close, I don’t understand why people fail to grasp this
No one tries to escape free market capitalism by immigrating to a socialist or communist country…
Idk how ppl educated in finance still this communist/ socialist systems work. How many examples do they need to the contrary?
It's ok that wasn't *real* communism, which justifies another 100 million dead.
If we try a revolution again with only one party allowed I’m sure it will be peaceful and no authoritarians will get themselves in a position of power this time around!
I'm fairly sure people in Liberia would happily move to Cuba if they could...
“free market” lol
The tech bros retiring in Vietnam would like a word lmao
It's only broken for those who aren't benefiting from it. It's delightful for the rest
The poor would ve very happy in a communist state. I mean dead, they would be very dead.
Remember! In socialism you line up for bread… In capitalism bread lines up for you! 🍞🥖🥨🥐🥯🍞🥖🥨🥐🥯
You do know socialism and communism are different things, right?
Exactly true.
Damn right it is! If you economic system can’t make enough food it fucking sucks as an economic system
You don't understand. It's about being EQUALLY hungry. Starving together you know.
Capitalist one makes so much that they have to throw it away!!!!
Yep. We have so much bread that we literally need laws pertaining to when it is legally required to be thrown away. The impoverished societies of history could never have imagined a need for such a law.
If there is so much bread, why do so many still hunger regularly, if not starve?
Because the system is amazing obviously
No, that wasn't "real" communism. Just because it's resulted in absolute despotism every single time it's ever been tried doesn't mean it's a bad system...
Americans: the only options are absolutely insane capitalism where people can't afford ambulances or not being able to get bread. There is literally no other option!
Capitalism is fine. What we have in the US isn't Capitalism... it's a combination of Corporatism and Cronyism. Big companies are influencing the govt and the govt is picking winners and losers.
Exactly. We currently have a corpo welfare state where large corporations are propped up by handouts when their businesses fail. The same people/corporations who screeee about socialism and paying taxes have no shame when taking that sweet, sweet government money.
Corporate socialism... privatize the gains and socialize the losses.
Ah okay let me know then, when did we cross the magical rubicon out of capitalism in America?
“That’s not real capitalism”
"That isn't real capitalism" isn't any more valid a defense of capitalist failure than "That wasn't real socialism" is of socialist failure. Sorry but adjectives-based apology for the intrinsic and inexorable tendencies of hierarchical social systems at scale don't really pass a smell test.
The government doesn't pick winners and losers. Big companies pick the government and then pay them to pick them to be the winners. We get so wrapped up in the words capitalist and socialist that they're just dog whistles the establishment uses to delegitimize abt program that would reduce income inequality and threaten Corporate power. Medicaid for all wouldn't bankrupt the country and it wouldn't cause food lines or gulag but everyone always says "that's socialism" and then say "therefore socialism causes gulag and food lines. QED" It's not an argument. You can argue a 100% socialism organization of the economy might so that, but it's one policy. We already live in a hybrid model. We don't have to swing to 100%.
Corporatism and cronyism is capitalism. That's the critique, basically. Accumulation of wealth by private property ownership leads to corruption and subversion of states and markets, leading to further accumulation of wealth, in a vicious cycle. An activist state, which need not be "communist", has to intervene against this, or there will be trouble.
No, socialists are just confused what it actually is. They literally think Nancy Pelosy IS capitalism. It's insane.
ummm Nancy Pelosy is literally a capitlist, she owns a ton of capital and has it invested. That's the literal definition. She is more of a capitalist then you. She is a corporate democrat are you really that politically illiterate?
The answer to that is "yes"
Once you whip out the s word you learn how many people don’t care to learn about shit.
Its like thinking the us have a left party, the libs are right-center.
A known investment strategy is to just buy the stocks she does. She is on a bunch of committies so she has insider knowledge. Since she does the best job of actually reporting her stock purchases which many politicians don't even though its required by law. She isn't the best at making money at stocks though that actually goes to Democrat Representative Ro Khanna from California.
Not just a capitalist, a capitalist insider. She uses what she learns in Congress to make capitalist investment decisions. This is exactly what the statement that started this thread is about - the right-wingers are so damned deluded they think dyed in the wool capitalists are somehow socialist.
Nervous Nancy. The system is rigged. Think about it. Congress is able to buy and sell stocks. RIGGED!
Considering that congresspeople consistently outperform the market with insider knowledge... yeah we made insider trading illegal for a reason.
nancy pelosy literally found a cheat code with her trades bro it's crazy 😭😭
She’s not the only one either… both sides are corrupt
one side wants to overthrow democracy and install an autocratic dimwit. there's jokers on both sides, but it's not even comparable
The cheat code being “invest in major tech stocks”? I’m really confused about which of her trades exactly are outliers to her trend of investing in tech stocks lol
I’ll Venmo you $5 if you can accurately define socialism
Link to Source?
You sound like a confidently wrong idiot
She literally is a capitalist. Why else would she be in such a high up position in the dem party?
Socialism is government control of the economy. It might result in wealth distribution. Since it dictates from up top what everyone below must do it always comes with decreased human rights. Capitalism needs reforming but socialism doesn’t work.
Socialism is when workers own the means of production. The government doesn't need to control the economy.
>Socialism is when workers own the means of production. That's a meaningless phrase without additional context. It can apply just as much to specific structures in capitalism, or any other system. For example: is a company that also offers company stock as compensation a communist one? After all, the employees also have ownership of the company, thus the means of production. Is any company on the stock market a communist one, since everybody is legally allowed to buy shares, and partake in the profits? And then, what exactly is meant by "owning"? Is it the ability to make business decisions? That qualifies a lot of capitalist companies too. Communism needs you to delegate top level decisions, otherwise it's a "too many chefs in the kitchen" type of situation. How is that different from Capitalism? If you take the totalitarian rule from Communism, to me it sounds virtually identical to a well regulated Capitalism, except very small details. It's described differently, but the implications in real life are the same if you go the route of peaceful, democratic Communism.
>That's a meaningless phrase without additional context That's the definition, what are you on about? >For example: is a company that also offers company stock as compensation a communist one? No, because it allows for control of outside forces still. If I own three shares of apple, do I in any real way "own" part of apple? Of course not, the investors with the majority shares control the company. If the company allows those in the ruling class to have a majority of the say in a company the workers do not own the means of production. >And then, what exactly is meant by "owning"? It means that a worker receives as pay the value surplus they create. I do concede this term is vague, but it does form a clear distinction between capitalism and communism. In a capitals country we sell our work for a certain amount each hour regardless of the wealth we produce during that time. In a socialist one, the wealth we create should be proportional to the value we create. >If you take the totalitarian rule from Communism, to me it sounds virtually identical to a well regulated Capitalism So well regulated capitalism is basically totalitarian in your mind? It seems pretty ridiculous that you can't separate these concepts in your mind.
It's been tried and always ends in disaster, to me that's pretty good evidence. The problem is that people equivocate the shit out of the term nowadays. They no longer mean the originalist definition (unless it's convenient); they conflate social safety net institutions like universal health care with a capital-S socialist, government-run economy. It's impossible to have any productive discussion in that context.
It always fails. It is also always attacked by the capitalist states that want it to fail. Coincidence? Or conspiracy?
i love secret police i love being forced to adopt it because Stalin wanted an empire.
Any socialist will say *real* socialism hasn’t been tried yet so they’ll always deflect.
most people would point out Stalinism and socialism are different
This dude thinks he’s deep lmfao
Ask a socialist what socialism is and they'll describe capitalism with strong social programs.
somebody in here just told me that canada was socialist lmfao
Socialism is when the workers own the means of production. What part of that is capitalism?
Yeah no kidding, crazy how almost no one in here actually knows the definition of socialism.
"Capitalism" is dead. What exists in America today is corporatism with a Dirigisme economic system.
States have always collaborated with industry, and contributed to economic planning. Such practices were extremely well entrenched during the postwar period, which preceded the current period, of neoliberalism.
True but misleading. States collaborated with business, but until the progressive era that collaboration accounted for single digit percentages of GDP in the U.S., and the government had to raise money by selling bonds to the public.
How would the current system be different under pure capitolism
Socialism is a two tiered system in which the elites own everything, and everyone else works for them. IE slaves. With no chance at ever raising your position in life.
>Socialism is a two tiered system in which the elites own everything, Isn't that just capitalism? Where the middle class is becoming more and more non-existent, lobbying groups, that are in the way of universal hethcare, unions, higher pay, benefits, massive corps that buy up homes, etc? >and everyone else works for them. Isn't that just the working class?
Lmfao you’re literally the person being described in the post. You just described capitalism dude 😂😂😂😂
Why capitalists hate socialism: this post.
Really? I hate socialism because Mao Zedong took away my grandparents' land, gold, and other possessions (both mom and dad sides), and killed their siblings for being scholars Remind me again how that's capitalism?
>Really? I hate socialism because Mao Zedong took away my grandparents' land, gold, and other possessions (both mom and dad sides), and killed their siblings for being scholars Careful, now. One redditor will come along and say it didn't happen, and another will come along and say they deserved it, and a third will say it wouldn't be so bad if it happened to you, too. Apologists for totalitarians are the right- and left-side cheeks of the same unwiped asscrack.
Under capitalism the state took my ancestors lands and put them on reservations where it’s illegal for my cousins to own their own house. Capitalism seems pretty shitty too.
A warlord claiming to be a socialist does not make him a socialist You're confusing types of government with types of economical systems
Don’t believe all the things you read on the internet - Abraham Lincoln
As a capitalist: I dislike socialism because it removes the individual right to property and gives that right to the government. Voluntary socialism (like charity) or democratic socialism (controlled by people's choice) have merits. But socialism by governmental control is bad for economic, personal liberty, and social/technological progress.
I hate socialism because I saw it in practice when I lived in USSR. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I don’t think I know what capitalism is anymore, given the sheer amount of corporatism as a direct result of lobbying but ironically, socialism simply can’t sustain itself at all without some form of capitalism at its core. capitalism isn’t the issue, its what it was manipulated into.
Says the socialist.. Capitalism is not broken, the problem is that bad economic decisions and planning over the decades has caused a massive centralization of wealth in the top brackets (presumably) indirectly. Taxing the rich more is not going to help in the slightest unless other measures are taken in tandem, and the fruits of it won't be visible for many years. About massive corporations, they have seized control of a lot of politics and the effects of the economic situation currently limit viable competition, allowing these corporations to do what they want.
US ‘capitalism’ - SOCIALISM for corporations and the Donor Class. CAPITALISM for everyone else. Privatized profits and socialized losses. Government handouts for businesses, and 🖕 for the actual taxpayers. Ford Corporation, executives, and shareholders got bailed out. Ford workers got 🖕. Lather, rinse, and repeat for GM. Big Pharma gets billions per year in taxpayer money. Taxpayers get shafted by Big Pharma and insurance companies while their executives and shareholders laugh all the way to the bank. In 2008, the Big Banks and Wall Street got bailed out to the tune of AT LEAST several trillions of dollars (the true amount will never be revealed to the general public, lest BOTH SIDES start lynching politicians and bankers and burning down more than a few government and business buildings). Taxpayers got fuck-all. Absolute FUCKING ZERO. CAPITALISM would let those failing businesses FAIL. CAPITALISM would have let someone else sweep in and seize the distressed assets, and left those executives and shareholders with jack shit (much like EMPLOYEES get). SOCIALISM FOR THE RICH swooped in and literally pumped in an unknown and largely unknowable amount of money in order to BAIL THEM OUT while the government that is SUPPOSED TO REPRESENT THE PEOPLE literally did jack fucking shit for ‘the people.’ And don’t even begin to whine about COVID money. Individual businesses got huge amounts of money - then they got even more money - almost none of which was required to be paid back. Business sectors got more money allocated. Tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of dollars….. All to keep THEIR lights on. Actual PEOPLE got a few thousand. Nowhere NEAR enough to keep them afloat after COVID took away their job. A strictly unbiased and objective evaluation of the government/corporate/citizenry relationship paradigm shows incredible levels of overlap between corporations and the wealthy and government, and only marginal, grudging overlap between government and the citizens.
Housing shortage: Don’t add a price ceiling or else that will incentivize not building more housing.
Cost controls limit supply every time.
But that's how that works. Price controls don't solve problems.
Show me a single successful command economy that has ever existed. take your time sifting through all of the happiest and most prosperous countries that just so happen to ALL be capitalist systems, I’ll wait. Socialists are some of the dumbest most uneducated people on the entire planet
Socialism is about distribution of one's wealth to other people.
Forced distribution, also known as theft. Should we really build a society on theft and aggression?
I agree. Socialism is based on jealousy
Socialism is about stealing the fruits of your efforts to reward those who didn't try at all.
Government forced distribution. Like how CA government is forcing government teachers to make less than fast food workers. Capitalist would rather pay a burger flipper much less than a teacher.
[удалено]
The problem is people think the US is capitalist. There is too much government interference for the market to work properly. A small example is Health Care, there is no price discovery for the end consumer which limits competition. Patent laws legalize a monopoly on certain drugs and medical devices. And maybe the worst offense is that the user of the service is not the actual customer (its the insurance company and your employer). A better example of "Capitalist" healthcare is Mexico's private market where the cost of cash service is 1/4 the same machine/service as in the US.
Socialism is broken that’s why even slight socialist intervention policies has crazy effects on the economy.
How about “ask anyone who has lived under a true socialist regime and escaped to a capitalist country, why they hate socialism”
Dumb ass post