Never thought of it like this before.

Never thought of it like this before.


A friend of mine argued that capitalism gives more freedom. That was his only argument and it didn't make a lot of sense to me.


*”America *[could be any western nation though]* touts itself as the land of the free, but the number one freedom that you and I have is the freedom to enter into a subservient role in the workplace. Once you exercise this freedom you’ve lost all control over what you do, what is produced, and how it is produced. And in the end, the product doesn’t belong to you. The only way you can avoid bosses and jobs is if you don’t care about making a living. Which leads to the second freedom: the freedom to starve”*


In America, you can have any freedom you can afford to pay for.


Even the freedom to circumvent the justice system, if you have enough to pay for it


This may be the truest thing I've read on Reddit.




What is this from? i feel like this has to be from something, and im almost just wondering which Douglas Adams book it is.


I can’t remember where I first read it, I had to Google it lol


Well what did Google say it was from? damn! Hahahah


It’s Tom Morello from RATM I can tell you that much. I’m not being cryptic, search just sent me straight to WikiQuote without context. An interview perhaps?


Personally think the right response to this is explanation of positive/negative freedom (liberty). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_liberty > Positive liberty is the possession of the capacity to act upon one's free will, as opposed to negative liberty, which is freedom from external restraint on one's actions.[1] A concept of positive liberty may also include freedom from internal constraints.[2] American capitalism, or at least the libertarian arguments that center it, tend to emphasize ~~negative~~ positive freedom. Something like “I want to do something. I don’t want the government to tell me I can’t do something,” without the understanding that without certain regulations, the actions of others can infringe on your freedoms. For example, a chemical manufacturer dumping onto public land infringes on your ~~positive~~ negative freedom to live without being exposed to unnecessary carcinogens. Per snuff’s reply, I actually gave an example of negative freedom. A better example would be the ability to move yourself to different circumstances. And on further reflection, worth explaining how American capitalism can impose additional violations on negative freedom, too, like the original example — by not restricting public dumping, you lose that negative freedom of not living in unsafe conditions. Man the more I think on this I got it totally twisted. They dislike violations of positive freedom. “I want to do X.” I think it’s worth pointing out how the current system **can** infringe on those (by prioritizing the positive freedoms of those more powerful) and highlight the existence of negative freedoms that are often neglected.


Exactly this, and we saw it clear as day during the pandemic.


I could be wrong but living without gov constraint (neg liberty) is identical to living without carcinogens (also neg liberty). Although having the ability (e.g , capital) to move away from those carcin would be positive liberty. Just semantics here but I've never heard this distinction before and I like it.


"well you see... My family had more initial wealth when the system started... We had access to financial institutions... Now we get a measly 40,000 a year... Tell me, could I buy a big Mac in Soviet Russia???.... Check mate liberal"


Freedom is when there's fifty different types of Frosted Flakes to choose from, and you also get to choose between dying of preventable illness or destitution.


You can't afford insulin, but did you see how long the cereal aisle is?


Capitalism in a nutshell


Choosing between types of processed, sugar filled cereal/poison that's heavily subsidized and been marketed to you from birth even in the classroom through government propaganda food pyramid bullshit while dying from the untreated diabetes that cereal gave you is peak freedom.


Yeah, once I did the opposite of what the government told me to do I lost 100lbs and regained my health. Funny how that works isn't it.


Your friend should read democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville.


It makes sense in that it gives you the freedom to exploit the system to your advantage, if you know how to


In theory yes but in practice the people who reach the top are either well off to begin with or exceptionally prodigious at convincing and lying.


Or just absurdly absurdly lucky. Or a combination of all 3.


It gives the people who have an unfair advantage the freedom to exploit the system. You got here too late.


Ah yes...the democracy of the dollar. Where you have 10 votes and the rich have billions.


It absolutely does not do that. If you are destitute, you cannot effectively exploit the system regardless of whether or not you know how.


If you have the resources to do so.* FTFY


The freedom to work or starve.


It gives *much* more freedom to the people at the top. Not so much for anyone else, though.


It really depends on your definition of freedom. For a capitalist, freedom is simply the absence of taxation, the freedom of Jeff Bezos to becomes a gazillionaire without having to give a shit about anyone else. For millions of others, freedom is about having actual choice and autonomy, the freedom to get an education, afford a home and not bankrupt your family if you get cancer. "Freedom from taxation" is pretty damn abstract if you live in a society without any empowerment, and are wondering how to even make rent.


my Grandad in the USSR wasn't able to source concrete to build his house because central planning didn't see him and "shops" (outside of the basics) were capitalist bullshit. So he had to turn to the black market by bribing a truck driver who drove through his town to get the materials he needed. Communism under the USSR definitely didn't give much freedom, the amount of paperwork you needed for anything was insane and sometimes they'd run seriously spooky population control measures (e.g. mass deportations without trial) to enforce their political control. So with that in mind it makes a lot of sense to me. EDIT: lol how the fuck is this comment CoNtRoVeRsIaL?


A lot of that is a result of Totalitarianism and excess bureaucracy though, a path which the US is now heading down, just obscured by capitalism rather than being directly from the government


> Communism under the USSR Wondering, how did they achieve communism in a state with at least 2 classes (workers and politicians) and no abolish of money?


A lot of people associate those problems with the theoretical concept of communism but in reality it was more a problem with how they went about doing communism. The difference between theory and practice is often overlooked because people just assume that the USSR was just communism and nothing more or less than that. The heavyhanded totalitarian means used to enforce communism were not an intended part of it.


I'm down with socialism. Communism not so much. Probably because of the reasons you mentioned (theory vs practice). I agree with you but if it can't be implemented proficiently due to human character flaws or what have you, I don't believe the distinction really provides us with much


To be clear I'm not supporting communism either, I think the concept itself is fundamentally flawed. I just think that it makes for one of the best examples of theory vs practice. Any government system will eventually fall into unwanted hands, history teaches us this much. But to avoid the collapse due to poor management/decision making, certain safeguards need to be put in place. When the USSR was founded these safeguards were entirely absent because the revolutionaries were either too idealistic or just plain stupid or something. Historically governments often implemented safeguards to some degree but no defence is absolute, especially against human stupidity and malice.


Because it does by virtue. Capitalism = open market/no regulation. Where socialism traditionally comes with more regulation in the market. Ofcourse the two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, which most people seem not understand.


The open market bit doesn't hold water, there are regulations in every market and it's not even part of the definition of capitalism. Capitalism is mainly about the privatization of institutes and work places. A market can be as regulated or unregulated as possible without clashing with this.


Also the word regulation has a bad connotation. Regulations aren't always bad; they should ideally be in place to prevent monopolies, and to ensure product safety.


>Capitalism = open market/no regulation. That's not what capitalism is. Capitalism has nothing to do with markets or regulation, capitalism is about private ownership of the means of production. When labor is subject to the dictatorship of capital *that* is capitalism. Further, there has never been nor can there be an open market. The moment there is *no* regulation under capitalism you get corporate feudalism where the role and powers of the state are seized by the corporation. You still end up with rules and regulation - those rules are merely decided and enforced solely by capital rather than the thin veneer of democracy that they mostly control anyway we have now. >Where socialism traditionally comes with more regulation in the market. Socialism is not regulation, it is, like capitalism, about ownership. When workers own the means of production. This can be achieved in a myriad of ways, the simplest and closest analog to what we have today would be direct worker ownership wherein all workers simply own where they work, where all businesses are worker cooperatives rather than owned and exploited by parasites who by and large don't even work there.


I think a lot of Americans who think themselves Capitalists (when it reality they're wage-slaves) think that if America was more Socialist they wouldn't have the freedom to buy the big-screen TV they want


Anyone who thinks in extremes like that have no idea what they're talking about. If you're genuinely interested in the topic then the podcast Freakenomics have dozens of episodes that go into depth on the latest market data. More open market is undoubtedly the superior way to manage an economy. The problem is corruption. Which can be curbed by subtle regulation. But finding the balance can be difficult.


>Because it does by virtue. Capitalism = open market/no regulation. What countries would be capitalist by that definition? Certainly not the USA, nor any wealthier OECD nation, really. The USA has historically been very protectionist of its own markets, as well as having not-insignificant regulations and red tape for many businesses. Some industries are even de-facto nationalized, with the arms and agriculture markets in particular being propped up by government subsidizes and policies which guarantee them a market, year after year. This is the very opposite of an "open market" with "no regulation." You could make an argument that the "global south" is by comparison much more capitalist, as those wealthier nations, through things like IMF structural adjustment policies, are *forced* to be more capitalistic, by implementing austerity, privatization, trade liberalization, and removing subsidies and price controls. But that leaves Ghana and Nigeria looking like capitalist wunderkinds, and America looking like a model for protectionism and state interference in the market. You could argue that would make America fascist, in an economic sense, but arguing that America is in any sense anti-capitalist leaves you with a pretty confusing definition of "capitalism." Hence you're being downvoted here, as most people stick with a seemingly more consistent definition: capitalism is an economic mode of production in which a wealthy upper class accrues capital via their nominal and legally enforced ownership of just about everything, and a poorer lower class makes up the labor force while generally accumulating little wealth, power, and ownership for themselves.


HR wants you to find the difference between capitalism and a pyramid scheme.


It's a growth ponzy scheme.


You should look up the definition of a Ponzi Scam. It’s not what you think it is.


Ponzi scemes are fascinating, basically you get people to invest X amount and to get 5 of their friends to also invest, then you use the money from the 5 friends to give the first guy 2X what he invested and you have the 5 friends each recruit 5 more friends to invest, always using the next batch of investors to pay off the previous batch. The interesting thing about it is that for a while everybody gets what they want- the issue is just how completely unsustainable it is because there isn't actually a product being sold. Eventually you need to take the money and run


It's a reverse funnel system.


Lingun berries? Timeshare? RIP da maniac


Almost accidentally stole your comment. Have a silver.


Thanks internet stranger


It's an opportunity as rare as the Abani berries themselves! INVIGARON!


As a smug business student I took a meeting with a MLM recruiter. I had all my anti MLM talking points. Dude just says, aren’t you describing pretty much any capitalist business?


Capitalism literally is multiple levels of business ownership where the profits get funneled to the top


Yeah, it’s really hard to be anti MLM when you’re simultaneously participating in a capitalist society lol. I used to be super anti-MLM, then realized everything is fucking MLM. Edit: added “anti-”.


Going from MLM to MLM*. *Marxist-Leninist-Maoist


(they're the same picture)


tRiCkLe DoWn EcOnOmIcS


It does work actually. The piss trickles down over Reagan's grave.


A pyramid scheme falls apart because it relies on the constant injection of new capital from new investors to create profit for the people at the top of the pyramid. It's unsustainable. Capitalism is also unsustainable, but it functions in a different way. Capitalism is when private owners exploit the labor of others and pay these workers less than the value their labor produces to pocket the difference as "profit." Capitalism doesn't necessarily need injection of new resources from outside to remain profitable, it runs on the constantly renewed labor of the exploited working class. However, in a simple pyramid scheme, profit only comes from additional investors adding capital to the pool. There are no workers/slaves to exploit in a simple pyramid scheme, the capital investors at the bottom of the pyramid are the ones who get exploited. And that's why our capitalist society has laws against pyramid schemes. To protect capital investors from being exploited.


The problem is that there is no "outside" when it comes to capitalism. Participate or die.


Participation in pyramid schemes is optional.


"Let's say we give equal amount of money to everyone and then some of them lose their money in gamble..."


As opposed to giving billions to corporations the way we do now?


This. I always hear this.


I tried it. This is absolutely true. Mom: When I was a kid there were a lot of posters about how much someone had to work in order to buy (x) thing in America as opposed to Soviet countries Me: But nowadays Americans have to do more labor than people in more socialist countries such as those in Europe because the minimum wage in America is so small. And this is especially true for medical care and things like Insulin Mom: Well, I agree with your point about insulin, but there was this event where one of the Russian leaders went to show off space race technology and the US representative showed off hair dryers. You see, the soviets were focusing so much on winning the space race that they weren’t focusing on making life better for their citizens, Me (thinking): You could say the same thing about the US’s military spending Mom (continuing): so while the US had new, useful products, the soviets had to air-dry their hair Me (who air-dries my hair anyway): *oh no, air drying your hair* Mom: Well, you enjoy your smartphone- Me: Most inventions that went into it were publicly funded Mom: By the US, but you enjoy all your modern conveniences like plumbing and... Me: The soviets didn’t have plumbing? Mom: Well, they probably had plumbing but have you ever seen Home Hunters International? The soviet-style apartments were really cheep and bad Me (thinking): A lot of people in cities are paying a lot of money for really bad apartments Mom: And I remember from when we went to Hungary, and this is a remnant from soviet control, that they only ever had just as much food as they intended to sell. When we were there, there weren’t many fruits or vegetables in stores or on our plates in restaurants Me: Like in food deserts in America? Mom: Yeah, and sure, there don’t have much food waste, but if you got to a store late in the afternoon, there wouldn’t be any fruits or vegetables for you to buy Me (thinking): As opposed to the food deserts *and* mountains of food waste in America Mom: And the whole “From each according to their ability to each according to their needs” idea means nobody gets rewarded for their hard work Me: But laborers in America don’t get rewarded for their hard work because the money just goes to the billionaires Mom: Why are you asking me about communism if you’re just going to talk about problems in America? Edit: grammar


Honestly reading this exchange the day when everyone born before like 1970* is dead is when we can finally start making the changes we want to see. Not saying I want people to die just that once the generation stuck on that shit is gone we can finally move forward EDIT: Apologies to the gen x'ers, I typed this quickly and 7 is right next to the 8 key lol.


Unfortunately, they're ~~brainwashing~~ *influencing* the next generation to think just like them. I know a lot of people my age who are big into Reaganomics, think hard work is all you need, etc.


"Work hard!" (For me..)


Reminds me of the "if you work hard, I'll buy another Lamborghini next year!" story


I’m not sure how old you are, but I want to leave you a little hope here. Most of the data I’ve seen has shown that the younger generation (under 35, and especially 18-25) tend to be more accepting of others and compassionate toward others’ needs. Further, we can look at the voting breakdowns by age group and see that, for example, the democratic presidential primary was divided *heavily* by age group. I think it was ~80% of people under 30 and ~70% under 40 who supported Sanders (and/or warren?) over Biden. I can say the same carried with the two most recent elections in my local state and district, at least within the democratic constituency. I’m not sure what the republican side of the coin looks like, although I can only imagine what sort of worldview can develop in its current state.


It's the boomers more than the GenXers. Give it a decade.


>Honestly reading this exchange the day when everyone born *before like 1980* is dead is when we can finally start making the changes we want to see. Hey uhhh don't discount we Gen-X folks. We hate that bullshit too.


I do. You do. Fully half the people where I went to high school (mid west) supported trump. 🤦‍♀️


No no no I'm only a few months before that. I'm still good, I'm still good!


You don't think they're just going to start in on this shit anew? There were leftists or at least progressive libs in America born before 1980, and there are total bootlicker ancap types born in the 2000s.


Hey!!! Leave Generation-X out of this.


Are calling me old a d saying I need to die? Lol. As someone that was born before 1980, I think I’m offended. :-)


1980? So there were no progressives before 1980?


Europe isn't socialist


This is what boomers argue against though so its a useless distinction.


I one got my mom to agree, through a long chain of Q&A that the EPA was out of control (her starting point for this) and needs to be replaced with APE (Agency for Environmental Protection).


> nowadays Americans have to do more labor than people in more socialist countries such as those in Europe because the minimum wage in America is so small To be perfectly fair, this isn't a minimum wage problem, it's a union problem. Norway, one of the "socialist countries" has no minimum wage law. However, their work force gets fair wages from the fact that most workers belong to unions which: *A) raise wages for those workers due to increased bargaining power *B) raises industry wages in Norway due to the sheer existence of strong unions Minimum wage is putting a band aid on a bullet wound, the bullet wound being low worker power in their workplace. We have compelling evidence that converting businesses to worker co-ops or unionizing workers will do way more for the working class than just raising minimum wage. TL;DR - Americans have to work more than workers in socially democratic countries because America has weak unions, not because the federal minimum wage is too low.


Maybe your mom is just dumb


Mum doesnt sound dumb, just unwilling to change or examine her views.


See ignorant then.


> Mum doesnt sound dumb, just unwilling to change or examine her views. Soooooo, dumb then.


Soviet Russia is not a good example. How about modern day Scandanavia.


Scandinavian countries aren’t socialist though. They have a capitalist economy with strong workers’ protection, provision of public services and a welfare state. Socialism would be if the means of production were in the hands of the workers instead of the capitalists and the landowners. This is not the case in Scandinavian countries. These countries are heavily **social democratic** but not **socialist** and they would never refer to themselves as such.


It's a bit frustrating because there is a conversation in which I'm particularly quick to use Canada or Scandinavia or Europe in general as examples of "socialism" - namely, any discussion about universal healthcare, where someone is saying, "but that's socialism!" Okay, sure, if that's socialism, then clearly, it works just fine. Outside of that particular conversation, then, clearly, no, none of those countries are socialist. They are welfare state capitalism. They have an investor class, and a labor class (and, of course, a middle class in between who still often votes with the former even though they may live more like the latter). There is state enforcement of investor ownership of land, factories, technology, what have you. They are clearly in no way socialist, and clearly are capitalistic. But still, every time someone calls universal healthcare "socialist," I can't help but blurt out immediately that, if that's the case, then clearly such-and-such countries show that "socialism" works just fine. Anyways, clearly I agree with you completely. It's just that the political discourse/Overton window/etc in the US is so messed up that consistent conversations are not always easy.


I'd like to point out that in socialist discourse there isn't really any worthwhile distinction between middle class and labor class. There's the owner class and the worker class, and while the middle class may be better off, they still typically work for a paycheck instead of owning a means of production as a paycheck. It helps to raise class consciousness when people understand where their income is sourced.


Scandinavia, whether directly or indirectly through trade, still partakes in imperialism. Wage slavery and commodities are still a thing.


Soviet Russia also took part in imperialism. They invaded many eastern European countries, and essentially forced those countries to learn and speak Russian under the new USSR


They did.


But it is raging socialism by comparison to the US system, so I think it's a good point. Soviet Russia was an attempt at communism that failed miserably... it's a poor comparative example... by comparison... lol.


Finlands minimum wage is lower that that of the US.


What's your point? What is the overall result, for the individual's well being, of their socialist policies and socio-economic philosophies by comparison to the capitalist versions of the same in the states? Is their quality of life objectively better? I think we are done here.


Modern Scandinavian countries are capitalist. The USSR was far closer to achieving socialism, and honestly the quicker you dispell yourself of the propaganda that paints them as this evil empire the better. Like, not that they didn't do bad shit also. But the propaganda everyone is steeped in is not an accurate view of them and it's being used to point people (even would be leftists) towards "good socialism" that's actually just capitalism.


I’ve learned over the past two years, making videos about politics, that most people haven’t the faintest idea what socialism is. They are still stuck on red-scare propaganda and think socialism and communism are interchangeable. Socialism has become their new word for “things I don’t like” and so when capitalism shits the bed, they call it socialism.


A dude from my HS posts very frequent and angry right wing political stuff all over social media. Pretty stereotypical shit. "Socialism is evil", "Unemployed people are lazy freeloaders" "Justifies everything Trump does and says, but throws a fit when Kamala Harris said 'have a nice weekend' on memorial weekend." "Anything negative about the troops or police means you are Satan" ...That sorta shit. Well, this dude writes this long post about the evils of socialism. How they're all just freeloaders who want free shit while people like him work 2 jobs, 60+ hours a week. By the amount he posts all day, every day, I find that hard to believe, but I digress... He's going on and on about socialism and then he starts comparing our country to being like the years before the third reich took control. I mean this dude is literally calling Biden the next Hitler and Bernie Sanders socialist ideas as an even worse Hitler that we narrowly avoided having in office. After a while it became clear that this dude literally thought Hitler's Germany was socialist. I almost never comment on anything on facebook, but I had to point out not only was 1930's and 40s Germany NOT socialist, it was probably the most famous extreme right wing totalitarian gov't that has existed in modern times. This dude literally called himself proud to be extreme far-right in the beginning of the post that meant he was opposed to socialist. I also pointed out that Bernie Sanders was Jewish so, among a lot of other reasons, it was unlikely he was going to be the next Hitler. Welp... 122 people liked this dudes rant. I got angry commented into oblivion. It did not matter that all I did was point out literal historical facts. I wasn't even arguing with the dude. Just pointing out his facts were objectively incorrect. He still thinks socialism and Nazi Germany are the same thing and I am some libtard.


When you literally only read Freedom Eagle Patriot News.com it’s like you’re trapped in a pocket dimension. Also, the internet was a mistake. Most of these folks, if they just spent actual time with actual people outside of their insular networks, wouldn’t be nearly as mean and nuts.


What really gets me is how many people agreed with him. This dude has about 1300 facebook friends and 122 of them read that crazy, factually incorrect rant and then liked it. That guy is nuts. I can accept that. The other 122 people who don't post insane shit, but still agree with him and then defend him and write off literal facts because those facts contradict him is scary.


We should give some slack to folks who struggle to understand what the term means. Look at the Wikipedia entry for the word: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism) The variation of the use of the term over the years has done little to add to its clarity. In fact, I would argue that the word Socialism is almost useless and it would be better to speak in more detail about what specific economic policies one advocates for or wants to avoid. In all fairness, the term capitalism also suffers from many of the same problems. One isn't sure if someone is using the term as Adam Smith meant it or as it is used more commonly.


I believe in socialism but I also believe that I should have a cushy management role while you guys dig rocks. How do we settle this conflict of interest?


We make someone who has actual management experience/skills the manager


Perhaps we vote on it and bring democracy to the workplace.


I don’t know if people are arguing the right aspect of this. They keep referencing the digging of rocks. So in capitalism, are you currently in a managerial role? If not, do you have any experience in this role? Have you lead any projects that would show you valuable as a manager? Are you concerned with specifically the title of manager, would you be OK with the title of supervisor? What specifically do you have experience managing? Financial? Technical?, project management? What expectations do you have for your role as a manager to consider it cushy? You seem to assume that just because you want a cushy managerial job, you can just put on your job hat and go to the job store in jobsville and just get your cushy managerial job because you asked for it. That’s not how capitalism works and is not really any different from socialism. Let’s approach this from socialism, are you currently in a managerial role? If not, do you have any experience in this role? Have you lead any projects that would show you valuable as a manager? Are you concerned with specifically the title of manager, would you be OK with the title of supervisor? What specifically do you have experience managing? Financial? Technical? project management? What expectations do you have for your role as a manager to consider it cushy? See how none of that changed? In neither system do you get handed a cushy managerial role. The difference is instead of a manager responsible for giving you a raise or promotion or responsibilities, there is a collective of people making that decision. Those decisions can be made in a localized group, full department, or full company, depending on the impact. The only things that really change is that instead of decisions primarily flowing in one direction, the collective company has the ability to make decisions going upwards as well. Have you ever had a job where that cushy manager role was a bit too cushy, with no real working knowledge of what the department they managed did, with no hands on experience, and only made decisions based on some convention they went to in Vegas. Even though you as a department knew the application of this decision would not cleanly apply to operation of your company. But they still spend millions of dollars to try and implement it, even though everyone is shouting it won’t work, because your department has functional knowledge that the others lack. Imagine being in that department and actually having just as much of a voice in the conversation. Knowing that that person had no independent power to fire you, as a collective would have to make that choice. So you and your department get to present your argument on equal footing and have a decision made based on that. Maybe the collective isn’t convinced a the decision is made to move forward and it fails. The collective now sees that manager as maybe not knowing as much as they should and maybe he gets ousted and replaced, possibly by someone in the department that was able to speak intelligently about it. They would have the right to refuse, but of course the likely hood of ending up in this position in the first place would be slim, because your department would have had the ability to block that persons hiring because you knew they were full of it from the beginning and moved in to find someone else more qualified. EDIT: As far as the “what if I don’t want to dig rocks” well in capitalism you are told to take what ever job you are qualified for, if you aren’t a good rock digger, then you won’t be digger rocks either in socialism. But you’ll have to settle for what ever you are good at, and what ever skills you have in demand, if you don’t have any, you may need to learn some. If you aren’t good at anything, then you at least need to find something adequate. The difference is that it will be the department that you are working for that makes the initial decision to higher you, while selective representation from the other groups may be brought in to make the final decision. However they may not as they would have already agreed that the position is required and they need a person to fill that position, they may then entirely leave the hiring up to that specific department.


I’d add the addendum that the managers in your example aren’t even the capitalists. Someone else entirely might own the company, and the “managers” might be constrained by the whim of someone that just happens to have wealth. Kind of what you were getting at (at least via the pitch of worker coops) is that allocation of roles and decisions with regard to the future of the coop are incentivized both for the success of the business and interest of employees. Outsourcing I think is the strongest example here, as it pretty exclusively benefits owners at the expense of employees.


speaking as a European social democracy is pretty lit compared to what the US has to suffer. I've experienced a little communism and its okay but it has its own issues.


I’m definitely a fan of social democracy, seeing how it works in Europe.


It's awfully strange, isn't it?


Why do you hate socialism Dad? Well how would you feel if I took half of the money you make from mowing lawns and gave it to your sister who doesn't work, but then you'll be equal? I would probably feel the same as you do when you complain about your boss making ten times more than you while they "work from home" in their mansion and take lavish vacations.


It’s like the meme “what turned you into an atheist?” “Reading the Bible.”. It’s the same but what made me a socialist was the capitalism


I lived in the former USSR a bit and what I can describe is just a different version of shit to what we get under capitalism. Idk why people wanna think one of the systems ain't garbage, its people that suck and they suck under either system.


I don't understand the utopianism some espouse on either side of the argument.


No, if you'll ask a capitalist he will actually point you to dozens of poorly implemented socialist regimes that mostly ended up in authoritarian/totalitarian rule. He will also point out that due to human nature (envy, lust, greed, etc.) it is not possible to build stable socialist regime that would be governed by the masses. The questions remain: How likely it is that these examples were created by miscomprehension of socialist values? Is it possible that these regimes were built as authoritarian/totalitarian right from the get-go? What steps could we take to prevent Nomenklatura from seizing the power? How do we educate people to utilize the effects of human nature for social benefit? Capitalism is just a step for humanity just as socialism will be. Just as feudalism was.


Capitalist countries fail all the other time. There is just a double standard for the failure. When a poor capitalist country fails it is because they had too much corruption (ignoring that developed countries also have corruption). When a socialist country fails it rests entirely on the ideology of socialism.


It fails in the US often too but gets bailed out under "too big to fail"


To be clear, companies failing is not the same thing as a country collapsing in on itself.


If socialism is impossible due to "human nature" why would an unregulated "free" market work? Guess they never read The Jungle.


Good thing most Capitalists are not anarcho capitalists


not a real ideology


What unregulated free market?


He will point you to dozens of socialist regimes where the CIA started ramboing around and replace with a fascist dictator who would sell them bananas for cheaper


I mean a lot of the smaller socialist regimes were directly overthrown by the US who then installed useful dictators... a lot of failed capitalist regimes also got overthrown by the US who then installed dictators... its almost like there's a common link.


>Is it possible that these regimes were built as authoritarian/totalitarian right from the get-go? It’s this. Capitalists love to point to failed “socialist” or “communist” countries which were never founded on actual Marxist principles at all. And American capitalists have been taking advantage of this misunderstanding since the Cold War to scare people with a boogeyman that isn’t actually a representation of socialism at all.


Although Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space communism will be the final stage of human development.


How many of those end up in authoritarian rule because of a CIA sponsored military coup to displace the democratically elected socialist leader?


“Human nature” This argument always comes up from people who don’t understand human nature in the slightest. We are a social animal. Damn near every last bit of progress we’ve made in our history as a species has been from cooperation, not greed or competition. Research has shown over and over again that when people have their basic needs taken care of - food, housing, education, healthcare, a little bit of leisure time - they completely check out from being ‘selfish’ and start spending their time on other things - helping others, volunteering, spending time with their community and loved ones. Humans are *highly* responsive to culture, incentives, and their material needs. Tilt those towards needing to be selfish and they will be. Don’t, and they won’t. We are all a combination of selfish and selfless and the people who have arrived at the conclusion “human nature is selfish” have done so via the laziest logic they could possibly take to justifying their own guttural behavior/values. The fact of the matter is the vast majority of people are a balance between selfish and selfless, and can happily get along in a system where the group comes first as long as those basic needs mentioned above aren’t a problem.


I’m fine with capitalism, I just think that people should be able to live off their work, and have free healthcare. But that’s not socialism


Thats social democracy. The most based economic system.


Social democracy still depends on plundering the global south for it to function. Their capitalist system would collapse immediately if they couldn’t exploit slave-like labor in poor countries. The owning class is also still exploiting the domestic working class, though not as bad as under liberal capitalism. A better way of divvying up the spoils of imperialism, for sure, but still decidedly not based.


Easily one of the most based economic systems


Yes, but the kids like to call it "democratic socialism" now, because... Reasons. It is so frustrating.


No democratic socialism is different than social democracy. They share similarities but differ in their central economic system. DS is straight socialism where SD is capitalist backed by a welfare state.


>i’m fine with a death cult


bUt VeNeZuElA~~~~


link to original: https://twitter.com/logan_ofthecorn/status/1345111466370883588?s=21


Give your reasons for hating capitalism and some smoothbrain will say "THat'S noT CaPitALIsm, thAT's cOrPorAtISm".


This isn't hyperbole. [US elected officials literally do this.](https://twitter.com/mtgreenee/status/1402782409767231488)


My social studies teacher said that communism does not motivate people with skills to work, because they get the same pay, but with capitalism you pretty much all get the same job.


I forgot that they literally teach pro-capitalist red scare propaganda in schools. And I shouldn't be surprised considering that most history books are whitewashed, but still,


Capitalism worked so well The US had to install brutal capitalist dictatorships so they can blame it on communism


Now ask a capitalist what socialism means, and they will give you a totally inaccurate answer. Hell, ask them to define any ideology, their own included.


I don’t get why college socialists confuse Capital Welfare State For Democratic Socialism… https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2018/07/08/sorry-bernie-bros-but-nordic-countries-are-not-socialist/amp/


I've never described capitalism as a centrally planed dysfunctional system, backed by jealous inadequate morons that can't stand the thought of others living in better condition than they are. but ok..


Socialism and capitalism are not mutually exclusive. Socialism can be built on a base of capitalism with a strong government to regulate it (e.g. to ensure health, education, security, ... for all). In Europe we have a number of countries fairly socialist and all are also capitalist.


Those same countries are also seeing growing influence from far right-wing parties who are making it their goal to destroy their established safety nets to move towards privatization of the industry which screws over all. You’ve just described social democracies, where the “mix of socialism” is hardly any. The vast majority of industry is still privately owned.


Socialism and capitalism *are* mutually exclusive. In capitalism, individuals control the means of production and collect the surplus labor value produced by the workers as profit. In socialism, the means of production are democratically controlled by the workers, who collect the full value of their labor. Worker co-ops and unions are socialist constructs, but *socialism* as a dominant economic ideology is not present in Europe - mostly because capitalists work incredibly hard to prevent it from happening. You are right that socialism is built on capitalism, however. Marx hypothesized that socialism was the next step in economic evolution, just like how capitalism replaced feudalism. Once productive forces were sufficiently developed, socialism could replace capitalism. This can be done in a peaceful or forceful revolution where the capitalists' control of the means of production is democratized, thereby significantly expanding individual liberties and freedoms. We've seen socialism begin in a number of nations, and capitalists immediately war on them to prevent it from spreading. The Soviet Union, Cuba, Burkina Faso, Vietnam, Laos, East Germany, and so forth. It's a very predictable pattern: a capitalist government is overthrown by a people's revolution, which institutes a socialist state. The socialists enact popular reforms and increase civil liberties (see Sankara). Capitalists fund mercenary kill squads, run propaganda, and lobby capitalist governments to intercede. Capitalist intelligence agencies send assassins and agents provocateur and coup the socialist government, typically instating a capitalist-friendly dictator who brutally cracks down and erases progress in the interests of furthering imperialist exploitation.


No, that's not what socialism means. There is no "fairly socialist." No European country is remotely socialist, they are all capitalist. Words have meanings. This is critical for communication. Stop trying to muddy the definitions. Socialism ≠ social welfare + government regulations. That's just bog standard social democracy.


You got SocDem countries in Europe which is what the US definitely needs to strive for but people on the left, especially the terminally online left, don't want anything short of completely tearing down capitalism and expecting socialism to work right away.


And on the other hand you have people who seem to think the dictatorship of the proletariat is itself the end goal instead of the transitional state. Scary amount of people who have never even touched Marx or Engels. Seems like it's either anarchism or a maoist hellhole with online leftists.


Literally so untrue


Ask a socialist why they love socialism and they'll describe capitalism with a welfare state.


I don't hate socialism, but the problem, at least in America (because I only heard Americans complain about capitalism), is that companies are exploiting workers and are underpaying them. And in my opinion that can be fixed without having to switch to socialism. And a worldwide problem, companies polluting/destroying nature, could be fixed somehow else too, because I'm sure some governments would still do that without capitalism. What I do not understand, is when an entrepreneur (well it's mostly his partner who speaks about it, but they share the views) says that socialism is better. Although socialism is about everyone being in working class and being equal and not about private businesses. I also think that planned economy (sorry if that's not the exact name for it, my first language is Russian) has proved itself worse than supply and demand system. Both capitalism and socialism could work, but the issues people aim to fix by switching to socialism can be fixed another way, or even may or may not stay either way. PS: Correct me if I'm wrong on anything, but I am 99% sure I know the difference between socialism and capitalism, if I haven't forgotten what I learned about them lol PPS: And as far as I know there is a really small amount of actually socialist countries in the modern days, like Sweden which is called socialist actually has a lot of care for vulnerable people such as unemployed, but is still capitalist. And China has a very weird form of capitalism which allows private businesses sometimes or something like that.


You can have a market system in a socialist society. Youd still have companies, they just would be owned by the workers. The workers would decide what to make and sell, so you can still have a market, and consumers would decide what to buy. It just so happens that Russia opted for a command economy, and it didnt work too well. Markets arent sufficient to have capitalism, and they arent necessary either. You could have a system where a handful of oligarchs own companies that fulfil government contracts, and all other trade is banned. This would still be capitalism, but there would be no market as there is only one buyer. It is still capitalism because the capital is owned privately by said oligarchs.


Hm, I don't really get how would a company be owned by the workers, there's always some state which controls stuff to some extent, right?


Well, just like companies are owned by shareholders in capitalism. The state would merely enforce the democratization of the workplace (1 worker gets 1 vote for everything inside the workplace). That's basically what socialism is at its core. It has nothing to do with markets. Conversely, capitalism is when you can own tradeable shares of companies without even working for them (i.e the nonworkers hold all decisionmaking power)


Socialism doesn't require a planned economy.


Not sure you can find too many things to hate about something that’s never been successfully implemented. I understand the desire for change. Capitalism as it exists has quite a few glaring issues. But socialism is an incomplete theory to me, and too fragile to exist anywhere but hermetically sealed inside of a bubble. I admit that I am no scholar of socialism, so if anyone could point me in the right direction, I promise that I am genuinely curious if anyone has outlined any suggestions about how a socialist country would be able to operate surrounded by capitalist countries and fascist dictatorships, without being financially undercut at every turn, invaded, and then ultimately annexed. Economically, it may be possible to close all boarders and completely isolate the country from all others, perhaps implementing harsh penalties for importing goods that aren’t manufactured in-country. But in order to produce anything but the most basic necessities, half of the citizens would probably need to work in factories, and chemical plants. If we haven’t all switched to electric cars and weened ourselves completely off of all plastics and or other of the myriad petroleum derivatives by then, a *lot* more people would need to be drilling for oil locally. Perhaps we could import only pre-approved things that aren’t manufactured here. But anything we make ourselves will not be able to compete in a global market unless the workers decide to pay themselves less than a living wage. How would the workers decide what direction to take their business in? Has someone developed a method by which the worker/owners can come to an agreement without half of them getting upset and quitting in situations when they don’t see eye to eye? Who gets the means of production when half the workers leave? Is the company split in two, sold and divided amongst them? What if it’s the only company that provides an essential product to a particular region? If the business is successful, I imagine it won’t last very long. I’m not sure why CEOs continue to work after making millions of dollars, but I sure as hell wouldn’t. Not too many would still see the need to work after that. Would it be possible to fire someone? What happens when a small contingent of employees figure out how to game the system and start to skew things in their favor? What system has been proposed to maintain accountability? By what methods does this system maintain its own integrity? I understand that nothing is ever perfect. But what use would it be trying to implement a system statistically doomed to failure, and subject to the same corruption issues that plague the system already in place? Socialism or capitalism, I think either would work if we could just find a reliable method to ensure accountability.


More like: Ask a Socialist why capitalist countries are the best places on earth to live and they’ll pretend Stalinist Russia was better


The average person living under capitalism is objectively worse off than the average person living in even the deeply flawed Cuba. You seem to want to ignore all the billions of people that are forced to suffer and be exploited in the global south for the relative prosperity and wealth of the imperialist nations and their allies. Capitalism is *objectively* terrible for the average person when you stop pretending the global south doesn't exist.


LMFAO you are fucking retarded. Go live in Cuba.


Capitalism has raised billions out of poverty. Socialism has put billions of people into poverty.


It’s stupid to distinguish them like this because they work best when used together. All successful examples of socialist countries benefit from the advantages of capitalism


You cannot have both at the same time.


What do you mean? What are some socialist country examples?


What examples do you have of countries with both socialism and capitalism?


Britain? Norway? Sweden? Pretty much every western liberal capitalist society?


To complement the other response you got, socialism is when the means of production are owned/controlled by the workers/the common people, as opposed to systems like capitalism where the means of production are owned and controlled by a small elite instead. As having the workers micromanaging everything is of course not possible (or at least not possible yet), Marxism acknowledge that a state will be used to manage them in the name and benefit of the workers, socialism actually require a democratic state to work. That's also why a government nationalizing something is not by itself socialism. If for example you have a government that nationalize industry to enrich a dictator that control said government, it's not socialism because the means of production are actually under control (direct or indirect) of the dictator and not of the workers/common people. For similar reasons, socialism encourage a welfare state, meaning caring for the people, because it's part of the state role in serving the workers/common people. That's why actually effective socialism will always create a form of welfare state as well as nationalize the means of production, but neitheir nationalized means of production nor a welfare state are exclusive to socialism. That bring me to the notion of a social democracy, in which you simply have capitalism + a welfare state (well, some of them have less welfare than others, but it's the general idea) The issue is that in the end even with a welfare state, the social democracies still leave the means of production under control of the capitalists, and that's why they are NOT a form of socialism, just a less bad form of capitalism.


Socialism is about democratic control of production.


None of those are socialist, they are like you said, liberal *capitalist* nations. Wellfare programs aren't socialism. And these nations fund their wellfare programs with imperialism.


Norway and Sweden fund the state with imperialism?


Indeed, Norway is straight-up part of Nato, and Sweden lends "peacekeepers" (read occupation-forces) to Nato. And both nations acquire cheap products and resources from imperialised nations, making them complicit in said imperialism.


You asked for an example of a country with both socialism and capitalism. Is it a capitalist policy to have social healthcare or free education? Clearly not, so I’d say these countries have or are with socialism and capitalism. If you view the world in the absolute that a country that has a capitalist economic system is entirely capitalist and unable of being socialist and capitalist simultaneously then we reduce the argument to a series of best fit labels where there is no distinction regarding the level of socialism within capitalist Norway and capitalist US, when there clearly is.


Capitalism is where production is privately owned. Socialism is when production is democratically owned. That's the distinction.


>Is it a capitalist policy to have social healthcare or free education? What even is a "capitalist policy", capitalism is an economic model, any policy that operates under capitalism is a "capitalist" policy. Socialism and capitalism are total opposites, they cannot co-exist. >If you view the world in the absolute that a country that has a capitalist economic system is entirely capitalist and unable of being socialist and capitalist simultaneously then we reduce the argument to a series of best fit labels where there is no distinction regarding the level of socialism within capitalist Norway and capitalist US, when there clearly is. There is no "level of socialism", an economy is either socialist (means of production are owned by the working-class) or capitalist (means of production are owned by capitalists), in theory you can have both at the same time, but one will replace the other eventually, and usually with a civil war. Norway is a capitalist state with social programs, thats it. America is a capitalist state with fewer social programs, there is your distinction.


And Americans *think* Norway is a heathen socialist nation because they're so propagandized to hate anything that helps the common people without profiting the rich (because we're propagandized to believe that one day, YOU, TOO can be rich, so why help the poor?)


You answer questions with questions? I like your style


Im not the one you were talking to, but it is true that you can't have a nation that is socialist and capitalist at the same time.


Yes you can't have pure free market capitalism and pure socialism at once, but you can have elements of each, like capitalism with social benefits like healthcare or, you know, publicly built roads.


That's the definition of a social democracy, and despite the name it's absolutely not socialism because the means of production are still owned and controlled by the capitalists.




> Right now it is literally only socialism for the rich. And capitalism for the rest of us. But not normal capitalism. Rigged capitalism. In a rigged market. And that is why it is so bad. It's not socialism for the rich, it's still just capitalism. Capitalism is always going to evolve towards a form where government is subservient to the interests of capital. I can go into more detail on why but there's plenty of historic evidence of capitalists becoming more powerful than governments and capitalism then doing what it's doing now.


The problem is some people thinks it’s gotta be totally one way or the other nothing else.


It literally is; they are diametrically opposed. Socialism and by extension communism is opposed to capitalism.


THIS is literally the war. Motherfucking Americans are so entirely brainwashed that the average Republican, supposedly a conservative who ostensibly wants to conserve the ideology of the founding fathers, does not know what liberalism, the ideology created by the founding fathers, is, and believe it to be a type of marxism, constantly conflating the liberals and the leftists. If you ask them what capitalism is, they will not say a kind of resource distribution where the means of production are privately owned, they will say it means we have markets. If you ask them what a free market is they will not tell you a market that is ungoverned and unrestricted, they'll tell you it's when markets don't have slaves and are between free peoples. When you ask them about the border policy, they will not cite what is written on the Statue of Liberty, because this is yet another thing they do not know, they will say we need to build a wall, and then unironically jam out to Pink Floyd. The world is a shithole on fire, and the primary reason for it is that Americans, the people in a primary position to deal with unchecked global capitalism, are fucking ignorant as shit, and proud of it. This is the war.


I want no government regulations on nearly anything. Is that socialism? Just pure free market capitalism. It’ll drop prices tremendously, cause more innovation, and start some new manufacturing.


Hmmm, sounds kinda AnCap to me


Socialists are socialists because they are poor and see no way up. Capitalists are capitalists because they are rich and see no way down. Both systems are incredibly radical ideas and neither can work in a pure sense. A mix is needed, both sides need to compromise


Are you forgetting that socialism isn't just a theoretical system, but had actually been implemented in several nations in the 20th century? Socialism ruined half my country. Even decades later you can still see the scars it left in our society. When you talk about socialism you can't just talk about an idealised version that could maybe exist. You have to acknowledge the times socialism was tried and failed.


Me giving my money to God.