You're viewing a single thread.
This is the main problem I have with the people who call for socialism. If you boil it down to what they really want, it usually gets down to "i want free stuff". They dont want to socialize means of production.. most of the time they dont even know what that even means. People conflate social programs with socialism when thats just not the case.
If you truly hate capitalism so much, you will be willing to reduce your paycheck, willing to purchase less, willing to donate your social wealth for the common good.
If you boil it down to what they really want, it usually gets down to "i want free stuff".
This is the main problem I have with the people who call for capitalism . If you boil down to what capitalist really want, it usually gets down to "I want to own people". They don't want to free the markets... most of the time they don't even know what it means. People conflate employees as people when that's just not the case.
If you truly hate socialism so much, you would be willing to shun unions, willing to work more for less, willing to donate your body and health to enrich your employer for their own self interest.
How do you even claim to love capitalism when you aren't even a child working in a coal mind?
Based
Socialism doesnt imply that you cant have coal mines with children... unions are not socialism. Capitalism doesnt have to be rutheless top-down... What are you even talking about.
You can make a case where you want to see more co-ops but this still is in a capitalist structure. You can have more unions and not be more socialist i am so confused by what you are saying. Socialism hasba strict definition of work to work place relationship. Joining a union doesnt mean you are going to own a piece of the company.
Capitalism doesn't imply that you should have coal mines with children..... just that you can. Socialism doesn't have to be ruthless top-down.....What are you even talking about?
My point was that your statement was so vague and based on vibes that you could literally change a few words and make the opposite claim.
Socialism hasba strict definition of work to work place relationship. Joining a union doesnt mean you are going to own a piece of the company.
Hmmm, what if were to have just one big international union? One that could dictate the command of the entire global economy ? One with enough group bargaining power to perhaps control the means of production........?
Like a some sort ruling body that sets rules for the unions. Something like a relationship between governments and workers where goods and services give more worth to the most desired workers. They can use the capital given to them in exchange for more goods and services at a competitive rate. We can call it capitalism!
Like a some sort ruling body that sets rules for the unions.
Like forbidding people to strike , forcing unions to utilize arbitration, destroying their fund raising capabilities, and sending in the national guard to murder the people who don't capitulate? Yep sounds like capitalism......
Something like a relationship between governments and workers where goods and services give more worth to the most desired workers.
Lol, how does the government "give more worth to the most desired workers" when the workers themselves are the ones who create the wealth in the first place?
They can use the capital given to them in exchange for more goods and services at a competitive rate.
Ahh yes, I love to be given a tiny portion of the wealth that I created.
Bud, you can have a capitalist economy where the government cares for its workers. I can point to capitalist countries like Norway or Sweden on how a government can employ social programs where the population benefits. You are acting like capitalisms end is always the poor getting poorer when thats not always the case. However, i can see how you can come to that conclusion when your only position is 'rich man bad'. If apple decided to split all its money with all its workers do you know how much each employee would make? Its about $20M per employee. Is that still ok or is that still too rich for you?
Give me an example of what a rivalrous socialist economy would look like without capitalism.
Bud, you can have a capitalist economy where the government cares for its workers.
That's pretty arguable.... mixed economies can function adequately for a while, but theyre typically hampered by inflation and a constant press to privative socialized sectors which drains away at social monetary funds.
can point to capitalist countries like Norway or Sweden on how a government can employ social programs where the population benefits.
How do they find these social programs.....? Oh yeah, by socializing massive aspects of their resources and economy.
You are acting like capitalisms end is always the poor getting poorer when thats not always the case.
Can you give me an example of post industrial capitalist nations with a shrinking inequality gap?
However, i can see how you can come to that conclusion when your only position is 'rich man bad'. If apple decided to split all its money with all its workers do you know how much each employee would make? Its about $20M per employee. Is that still ok or is that still too rich for you?
Lol, I don't care about rich people, I care about the huge wealth inequality capitalism thrives upon. As you said, the workers of apple have created on average 20m in profits each, and yet how much of that will they ever see?
Give me an example of what a rivalrous socialist economy would look like without capitalism.
What would a socialist economy be rivalrous against if there is no capitalism?
If a capitalist economy started giving out mass UBI without somehow creating inflation and expanded healthcare/ social programs but they acted competitively would you be on board with that? Would this still be the evil capitalism? These ideas are not exclusive to socialism... in fact, I would argue that it doesnt have to do with socialism at all. A socialist economy suggests a split of the earnings from their production equally. Thats it. You can scream "mixed economies" all day but its just not true.
Broadening the scope of non excludable public goods is not the same as being in a socialist economy. It seems like ideas are being mixed up and I hate that we are conflating capitalism with 'rich bad man' and socialism with 'poor enlightened worker'. I feel like i am falling on deaf ears though so ill just leave it here. You have a blessed day.
If a capitalist economy started giving out mass UBI without somehow creating inflation and expanded healthcare/ social programs but they acted competitively would you be on board with that?
The problem is that programs like UBI directly conflict with the competitive nature of capitalism. Capitalism is dependent on stripping away choice from workers to achieve it's labour needs. The expansion of social healthcare programs conflicts with competitive nature of capitalism.
Would this still be the evil capitalism?
In this scenario, what do you think would happen to the labour market? If we had an actual functional UBI, who do you think is working all the he shitty low paying jobs? Do you honestly think corporations would start offering higher pay to attract labour, or do you think they'd just hire migrant workers who have no rights?
These ideas are not exclusive to socialism... in fact, I would argue that it doesnt have to do with socialism at all.
I think you have some core misconceptions on the consolidating nature of capital. The problem with the types of economies you are advocating for is that even if they are created with good intentions, there is always going to be conflicts of interest.
Capitalism sees a social programs as competition, to them it's a entity that is receiving government funding that could be captured by private interest. Just look at any social programs started in a capitalist country, and then see how much of it has been privatized or minimized in a span of 20 years.
A socialist economy suggests a split of the earnings from their production equally. Thats it. You can scream "mixed economies" all day but its just not true.
Socialism isn't that specifically defined, it's most based description is that the workers have control over the means of production. What they decide to do with the means of production is left to them.
Broadening the scope of non excludable public goods is not the same as being in a socialist economy.
I think you're over thinking what the difference between capitalism and socialism is. It doesn't have to do with competitive markets, or private property, it's specifically the about organizational structure of the hierarchy of labour.
Capitalism is when private interest owns the means of production, meaning business owners and the management class owns the means to produce goods and thus the control of the capital those goods create. Socialism is when the workers control the means of production and the capital that they create.
When you apply that to something like healthcare we can clearly see the difference in motive. In America we have capitalist social programs, where private interest is subsidized by the people, but we have little to no influence on how it operates.
When private interest controls the social service, they have a motivation to provide services, but they also have a profit motive. They have motivations that do not align with the people they serve. There is motive to deny care, limit coverage, and siphon funding that should be going directly back into the insurance pool.
It seems like ideas are being mixed up and I hate that we are conflating capitalism with 'rich bad man' and socialism with 'poor enlightened worker'.
I think you are the only one whos made that claim? I just think you are as uninformed about capitalism as you are about socialism. Capitalism is inherently dependent on exploiting the labour of workers to create a surplus to be sold for profit.
Because of the inherent competitive nature of the free market, corporations are dependent on growth to remain solvent. There are only a couple ways in established markets to create that growth. The first being to lower your operating cost ie, pay your labour less. The other form of growth is outcompeting your competition, but this is really hard. You either have to secure material goods at a cheaper rate, or get into price war and see who wins the monopoly war through attrition. Alternatively you can just form conglomerates with your competition, and avoid destructive competition. Whatever you choose, the base motive of growth remains the same.
Now let's tie this all together...... for a sustainable capitalist economy to remain solvent and out of recession the majority of the corporations in that economy have to be experiencing growth. To achieve this growth the economy needs three things. An increase in consumers to purchase the surplus production, an increase in production to meet the increased demand, and an increase in material goods to meet the increased productivity.
What does that mean? Well, unless we have access to an ever increasing population to meet our need for growth in consumption and production, and more importantly access to an infinite amount of material goods, capitalism is doomed to eventually enter an endless economic recession.
I honestly don't think capitalism is that terrible of an economic structure for certain governments at certain times, depending on their level of economic growth. But it's only helpful during specific times in technological and economic development, namely during industrialization. Once a country is post industrialized and rapid unorganized growth has slowed to a controllable pace, capitalism begins to cannibalize itself to the benefit of the ownership class.
You have a blessed day.
Same to you.
Let's try a thought experiment. Lets pretend I appointed you into a position of power where you can decide any or every aspect of how the economy would behave until you die. How would that economy look like? What does the ideal workforce look like in your vision? (You start with how the world is currently set up, greedy people still exist, billionaires still exist, conservatives still exist, etc)
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
And they all think they will be philosophers and social knitting club leaders when in fact they would all be potato farmers.