Democratic control over the means of production by workers
Yeah, it's just lacking the more global "democracy", so it'll attract all those power hungry grifters. Social democracy is not that bad.
It provides a safety net by pooling the resources of the community to support the less fortunate. This prevents people from having to sacrifice their long term goals because their short term needs may not be otherwise met.
Also in contrast to capitalism that treats society as a zero sum game ("I can't get ahead unless I take something from someone else") socialism is a benefit multiplier ("I'm part of the community. By making the life of everyone in the community better I'm also improving my own life").
Few movements self-identify as "Socialist", at best it's a taxonomical label. Attempting to talk about the finer points of socialism is akin to debating the pros/cons of "Animals" -- it's an overly broad topic and doomed to spiral into bike-shedding over semantics as soon as the conversation starts to look interesting.
With that being said, let's talk about some more concrete terms -- apologies in advance for wielding only slightly less clumsy terminology in my bullets:
Socialized Medicine: Healthcare is a human right. I am pro human rights.
Unions: Mostly positive. Nothing's perfect, but come on... you'd have to be blind not to see and feel for how exploited lower-class workers are without them
Democratic Socialists of America: I'm a member -- that means I like them. I think their platform represents the ideal incrementalist approach to improving the current status quo
European Welfare States (e.g.: Denmark): Too fuzzy to have a solid opinion on, but certainly a battle-tested template. I like most of their ideas most of the time
Marxism: A genius body of economic philosophy, but increasingly out of place as time marches onward. I'd be for a by-the-book implementation (insofar as that's possible) in 1923, but not 2023
Maoism/Leninism: Not exactly success stories. It's easier to appreciate their noble ideas & intentions with the distance lent by history, but that's altogether different from "liking"
Communism: As a whole? I think the template holds promise and can be made to work in a modern context, but viability =/= realizability. The world would have to get turned upside-down first and it's questionable exactly how many of us would live through that... but never say never.
Well, the biggest political party in Denmark for my entire life is called Socialdemokratiet, which is social democracy coming from socialism.
I think it's a pretty big movement.
Marxism: A genius body of economic philosophy, but increasingly out of place as time marches onward. I'd be for a by-the-book implementation (insofar as that's possible) in 1923, but not 2023
One of the most insightful critiques of Marxism I've ever seen is that there is literally no solidly prescribed actual economic policy. Marx spoke at length about social policy and issues. Freeing the workers from the bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie from themselves. But almost never and nowhere. Did he ever go into in-depth detail about economics. Or the economies that we would specifically have to go through to achieve his social vision. Which is what allowed bastardizations like those of Lenin, Mao, and the Ill families neptocracy.
Specifically ignoring the stateless part of his stateless, classes communism. Conflating the state that shouldn't exist with the workers who were supposed to own the means and tools they used for production themselves. Etc.
I like working and feeling like I'm helping others or working towards a larger goal without the constant ever present exploitation of myself and others.
Personal greed cannot grow to unlimited dimensions.
Well, under a free market system it can’t because of competition. Under a centrally-controlled system, greed can run unchecked in the environment of total control.
I've lived in a country with socialism for my entire life, and have studied the laws in my own and other countries without socialism.
I will talk about socialism as it is in Scandinavia, more specifically Denmark. Here's a few things other than paid education and free healthcare:
Getting paid to study: You get paid to study as soon as you turn 18. In that way you don't need a job while you studying. Basic salary when living away from parents: 1.000 USD/month.
UBI: In Denmark we have UBI for people being poor, basically. If you don't have a job, is sick and can't work, or any other reason you might be screwed, you get paid by the government to... well yeah, exist basically. You have to meet some requirements and actively trying to get better or find a job though, which seems fair I think. If the government thinks it's not possible to get better, you can get the money permanently for the rest of your life without doing anything. (this is used for people with disabilities, both mental and physical, both born with it or obtained later in life)
Shared heating system: This is maybe the biggest "socialism" thing I can mention. In Denmark your house or apartment can be hooked up to a country wide heating system, which means we all share the same heat. This is a way to make heat distribution centralised, which has major advantages such as; price, availability, maintenance. (Fun fact: every data center build in Denmark needs to be hooked up to this system, as they will "donate" all their excess heat from their servers to the central heating system)
Flex jobbing: If you are no longer able to work 37 hours a week, you can be a flex worker. This basically means that you can work 15 hours a week and still get paid a full salary. The government will cover the rest of the pay and also cover some expenses for the company having the flex worker. This system is great for peoples mental health, as they still can feel a part of society even though they can't work full time. While they still can live a worthy life because their pay is fine. It's a win-win for the country, the companies and the people needing this.
I could go on, but I don't want to be that guy praising my own country all the time. We Scandinavians tend to do that.
that it holds that social practices are created from social practice and not inherited from immutable law, enabling criticism of the underlying machinations of society without being hindered by the argument that such machinations are an inherited and instinctual product of nature and thus unalterable.
It's one of the better -isms currently available.
Workers owning the means of production is the way it should be. Until we can mature further.
A friendly reminder that socialism is not communism. The latter is closer to capitalism as it's just state-owned instead of privately owned. However, socialism and capitalism can coexist, which cannot be said the same about communism.
Friendly reminder that Communism isn't communism. Communism is "nominally" socialist, 100% authoritarian ideology that completely disregards most of what was supposed to actually define communism. You are accurate in calling it, especially in China's case, state capitalism.
Where as communism is 100% a type of socialism. And ultimate end goal of most socialist ideologies. Basically Communists are communists in the same way capitalists are libertarians.
Socialism is a political philosophy and movement encompassing a range of economic and social systems[1] characterised by social ownership of the means of production,[2] as opposed to private ownership.[3][4][5]
Hard disagree. Capitalism with a handful of social systems implemented is not socialism.
I did not say it was?
No, you said they could coexist, on which I disagree.
So communism is closer to capitalism because it’s state-owned?
Why are we trusting the output of your brain again?
You have no idea. For a society to be communist it has to have no state. Marxist states like the USSR or Cuba aspire to be communist one day in the future but believe you need a stage of state socialism first to get there without capitalism taking over again. How close they actually get to socialism is debatable. This is different to anarchists who want the state abolished after the revolution.
Socialism is not compatible with capitalism. Any communist society is socialist by definition, but not every socialist society is communist by necessity. Socialism is compatible with market economy where communism is not.
Under the definition of socialism the working class must own and control the means of production. Outside of that requirement you can have a range of different economic systems which may or may not involve a state, money, or markets. Socialist market economy has markets and possibly a state but where each worker owns a share of the company and votes in company leaders and/or decisions.
Used to dismiss it out of hand because all the 'socialist countries' are complete authoritarian hellholes. But in hindsight this is a kind of thought-terminating cliche. I never really knew what the idea was apart from some vague notion about sharing or something that's well intentioned but never works out in practice. I think most people share this belief.
Turns out the idea is pretty simple: Worker ownership and control. Places like the USSR and China fail this definition because they don't have any of that. Therefore they are not socialist. Those countries replicate the worker/owner dynamic of Capitalism, so it is 'State Capitalism'. And they both have the same problem: A small group of people have all the power and they fuck over everyone else.
I had to get sold on the specific idea of 'market socialism' / ' workplace democracy ' before I learned and realised this. The general idea is that if you can run a country like a democracy, you can run a business like one too. In fact, many are. So lets do that as much as possible in order to wrestle power away from the owner class who spend all of their money bribing politicians and ruining everything.
The concept of helping people.
The idea behind it, making life that little bit more fair. It wouldn't work, but as miguided as it might be, it's born of empathy and that's worth something.
Why wouldn't it work?
I don't think that socialism offers people enough incentive to innovate and improve, because it greatly limits the possible reward. I'm all in favour of regulating capitalism to protect the lower classes though, I don't want to be enslaved by the likes of amazon either.
That it's anticorporatist.
I wish there was a movement called anti corporatism, literally. I feel like we need something new since anything socialism related is automatically bad to a lot of people...
Those people tend to be the ones benefiting most from socialism without realizing it. There also is a lot of confusing communism with socialism in here, they are not the same thing
What I like is that when there is progress, the progress is actually experienced by everybody and not just by a wider or narrower elite.
For instance, I love robotics but I can't stand that adding robots to society results in unemployment. You can't just let the owners scoop up all the capital gain.
I like some of the goals of it (like evening out the economical inequalities), but I don’t think socialism is the right way to do it. Democratic welfare state systems found in Western European countries are much better solutions (and hasn’t turned into authoritarian tyrannies).
UBI might also be a good option, but currently there have been no large scale implementation of it yet.
You cannot even out the real inequalities without demolishing the capitalist class, pretty much by definition. If you want to make everyone equal part of the capitalist class, that is pretty much socialism by definition.
You cannot even out the real inequalities without demolishing the capitalist class
Absent that happening, you still can improve the situation quite a lot with strong, well enforced regulations on their activities.
Employment laws are usually a good place to start.
I like democracy
reduction in suffering and increase in dignity of our whole race.
It addresses the crudeness of the hand that deals some people, rather than assume equal opportunism is automatic.
To me, it's all about rational return on investment providing economic incentives to achieve what we want to achieve.
My favorite example to explain what I mean is my own personal health insurance. I have a chronic medical condition that requires constant medication, frequent visits to specialists, and expensive medical tests and procedures. There is simply zero chance that I will ever pay enough in a monthly premium to cover what I cost. Meaning I am always a net financial loss for a private, for-profit insurance company.
This gives a private company every incentive in the world to obstruct and deny my care in hopes that I'll get frustrated and give up, or maybe even die and get off their books forever.
The government, on the other hand, has a positive financial incentive to keep me healthy. If I am healthy, I am working, paying taxes, buying goods and services that contribute to the economy, and hopefully contributing something beneficial to my community. Only the government (acting as a proxy for "society") naturally profits from insuring my healthcare.
This is why I believe we should have fully socialized medical care. Because there are some specific things that only the government has natural positive economic incentives that align with what is beneficial for the general public.
Whatever those things are, they should be socialized. And generally those things are basic life sustaining things like food, housing, medicine, education, utilities.
I'm fine with privatized capitalism in a very restricted, heavily regulated niche form. But all the basic necessities should be socialized.
I've always said it like this:
"Socialism for the things we need. Capitalism for the things we want."
GOP death cult be like, "Hear me out, do you really NEED to live though?"
I like the idea of a deliberate and rational society. Unfortunately we need to be cautious with this kind of thing and pay attention to where others have failed in the past.
It makes me feel like I fit in on internet discussions!! We're on the same team :)))
Even ants and bees falls into the trap of having one tyrannical leader all the workers are serving.
That’s… not how bees and ants work tho? They don’t “follow orders” from anyone except their own biology.
Pros: It's nice in theory.
Cons: It will never work in practice because human nature is a thing.
Maybe if we stop teaching our children that the most important thing in life is to have more stuff than your neighbors, it will stop being part of our nature.
"it will never work in practice" says the person using the internet who can drive down the paved road to the community credit union, or indeed one of the banks that was bailed out by the government before going to the library, posting a letter, and then goes to work the next day in which they are required to be efficient in their job in order to make sure other people's work isn't affected, and must not break the law while at work, laws created to preserve the health and wellbeing of society, themselves and their colleagues, meanwhile while at work their trash is collected and sent to a public refuse center, spends the weekend at the local state park, which is subject to pollution laws, and indeed even has the temerity to vote in a democracy and is allowed to participate in the stock market without owning a business or a warehouse of goods, experiences freedom of movement across a union of states (one might even call them United States, and one formed as a socialist revolt against Monarchism and the capitalist imposed taxes without representation, and later held a civil war around the socialist ideal of abolitionism).
They may even express sentiments such as "food waste is bad", "pollution is bad", "I enjoy watching TV, reading books, listening to music, and/or participating in sports" and "I can change careers and do something different to what the family business is".
All of which are socialist ideas that clearly don't work in real life.
Socialist ideas is to move away from the idea of private ownership. Everything is owned by the “people” in collective (which in practice often means the state). You don’t own your cellphone, your computer or your shoes. They’re all provided to you by the “people” (the state).
The roads in your example are paved by private companies in a competitive market (often funded by tax money). They may have been selected by the state to do the work at an agreed price. Next time some other private company might do the work because they compete with even better prices. This process is not socialistic.
that is one very strict definition of socialism, which is not a monolith. Nor is there any agreed Purity test of what is or is not socialism
... with that in mind - following your roads example still
if roads are paid for, described, prescribed and constructed / maintained by private companies as you say - why is the government involved at all? Isn't it more accurate to say the government owns all roads (in the US- due to eminant domain- all land) and contracts private companies to build them
companies only exist by the express permission of and after registration by the government, and we can argue who holds the most soft power, but the fact is if you fuck up bad enough the government will disband your company for you
the existence of a market does not mean socialism is not happening: in reality, the "profit incentive" of capitalism is also tempered by the social contract of socialism. In my post I was careful to give examples of the social contract that outway pure profit incentives (ie you can't build a factory in a national park)
I would say the process of agreeing to do something in exchange for money is neither (/unknowably) capitalist or socialist (or neither or both) without further context.
In these cases it’s capitalism with some social systems in place. A far cry from full on socialism.
why can we only critique "full on" socialism? (what does that even mean) and yet capitalism with democratic-socialistic elements is treated as if it's "full on" capitalism?
Cons: It will never work in practice because human nature is a thing.
This exact reason is why capitalism will never work. Human nature will look to exploit.
Exploitation is the point of capitalism. It's working as designed.
Historically, human nature led naturally to socialist societies. It happened for thousands of years even before anyone named it socialism
It's absolutely disturbing how avidly people seem to want to ignore that inconvenient truth...
"The people will own the means of production". Except it's never once worked out that way.
"Everyone will be happy to go to work, because it's for the good of all". Except it's never once worked out that way.
"Nobody will ever have to worry about basic needs". Except it's never once worked out that way.
Socialism has historically consolidated both power and wealth just as reliably as capitalism has, and frankly, I don't buy that the impetus behind the growing advocacy for socialism even is actually equality... I think it's a desire to have more shit, with less effort required to get it (and that sounds sketchy, and I think people are generally averse to stating it openly due to this)
I personally think the most likely means to achieve that is ironically the capitalist system we currently have, with a huge boost to the economy in the form of universal basic income.
Give literally everyone $50k/yr. Period. Even musk, the zuck, bezos... Everyone... The people who don't want to do jack can sit around and enjoy the product of labor that will inevitably be increasingly provided by automation, out of necessity. The dream of the 1960's, of having robots do everything for us while we sit around at the park, will come to fruition finally, because while we've had the ability to do it, we've not had any means of paying our bills while sitting around. UBI would provide that, and "the capitalists" will have the incentive to automate because there will be less labor available.
Of course, we're talking about a massive spike in income tax here... But we're also making the labor far more valuable, by way of rarity. Harder to find workers, so you pay them more, and even with the increased taxation, even a modest salary reflects economic advantage over a nonworker. The guy that used to make $50k/yr is only making $25k/yr if we slap a 50% tax on him, but he's still putting $75k/yr in the bank, aint he?
I think "socialism" is the wrong direction. 180° exactly in the wrong direction. Unless by "socialism" people are actually advocating the "advanced welfare" Nordic approach...
Another pro is we can eat our neighbors when food becomes scarce. Or we can report them for owning a grain of wheat and have them murdered.
I think of it as a mental disease societies can catch. I do acknowledge that is full of good intentions. it just doesn't work and ends in missery. it just fails to account for basic facts like human nature.
Sounds like capitalism
Nope. Capitalism doesn't have good intentions, just good PR.
at least the way a socialist teacher taught me in primary school (and i don't completely agree with him but it's a good charactherization) you have desirable values of freedom and equality and they are in conflict. again I don't necesarrily agree with that and it boils down to the fact that when equality is implemented is always by averaging down everyone which is at the expense of freedom. anyways so supposedly you have capitalism as a system that places freedom above equality and communism as a system that places equality above freedom. so it's not really about good and bad but a conflict of virtues.
it's completely besides the point but i do rank freedom slightly above equality. in reality i would like to ensure some minimum level of support for everyone , i think that should be a pretty low level of support. just the bare minimun e.g. ensured education and equal chance at success at life, and health care depending on the actual amount of resources that can be allocated to it, nothing unrealistic but just the minimum to live without suffering, including other stuff like food and clothing and shelther as well. and then to have the freedom so that if anyone wants more than the minimum they should work for it. I'm sure that the people that wanted to work would be able to produce enough value to provide that minimum life support for everyone. so about 80% freedom and 20% equality.
Capitalism isn't about freedom, it's about exploitation. The "freedom" it prioritizes is the freedom of individuals to lay private claim to the value of public resources (land, natural resources, etc), then use their control of those resources to lay claim to the value of the labor of others (the employee/employer relationship). It's literally parasitism.
Capitalism is the "freedom" to extract profit. Profit is the difference between the price you sell something for, and the cost to produce it. It naturally results in paying employees less than the value of their labor, and/or charging the customer more than the value of a product. It is fundamentally a grift, profiting by skimming off value as a middleman. The freedom of the capitalist comes fundamentally at the restriction of freedom of everyone else, the majority "averages down", that's just a mathematical truth.
The longer capitalism exists, the more "freedom" is siphoned into generational wealth, and the more extreme inequality becomes. Capitalists gain the freedom to live a luxurious life without actually doing any work, while everyone else loses the freedom to use land and natural resources. It's literally just "dibs" metastasized.
Capitalism takes into account for basic facts like human nature.
Yes. Even a communal style of life works at small scales. But not at civilization scale. This is accepted and studied. And in particular the studies focus on the effects of the size of the group. As the groups grow larger the free riders appear. But I think what’s worse is that even if they didn’t have that problem they would still face the economic calculation problem and end up producing the wrong things instead.
edit: I should add that I think i would personally love to live in some small community in that sort of shared community setting even though I'm "white collar high earner".
Not that it's necessarily what you're implying, but it's ridiculous to me that people think capitalism is an inevitable result of human nature but socialism isn't. Either of them are just ideas we made up. The benefits and flaws of each are the result of human nature, just with different influences and in different ways. Socialism may fail to account for the parts of human nature that you find relevant. Because you've been brought up in a capitalist system to believe that, OR you're directly benefiting from its exploitation. That doesn't mean those are the only relevant parts of human nature.
I don’t think it’s an inevitable result. As we get better at handling complex systems we might have a chance at a more efficient planned economy (that would still have issues but so does capitalism) we are not there yet. I do think that capitalism is the best system we can currently use. It doesn’t mean it’s not flawed
I don’t think that my opinion is about how relevant I think the economic calculation problem is or worker productivity. It’s the famines that follow its implementation that i find “relevant”.
Democratic control over the means of production by workers
Yeah, it's just lacking the more global "democracy", so it'll attract all those power hungry grifters. Social democracy is not that bad.
It provides a safety net by pooling the resources of the community to support the less fortunate. This prevents people from having to sacrifice their long term goals because their short term needs may not be otherwise met.
Also in contrast to capitalism that treats society as a zero sum game ("I can't get ahead unless I take something from someone else") socialism is a benefit multiplier ("I'm part of the community. By making the life of everyone in the community better I'm also improving my own life").
Few movements self-identify as "Socialist", at best it's a taxonomical label. Attempting to talk about the finer points of socialism is akin to debating the pros/cons of "Animals" -- it's an overly broad topic and doomed to spiral into bike-shedding over semantics as soon as the conversation starts to look interesting.
With that being said, let's talk about some more concrete terms -- apologies in advance for wielding only slightly less clumsy terminology in my bullets:
Well, the biggest political party in Denmark for my entire life is called Socialdemokratiet, which is social democracy coming from socialism.
I think it's a pretty big movement.
One of the most insightful critiques of Marxism I've ever seen is that there is literally no solidly prescribed actual economic policy. Marx spoke at length about social policy and issues. Freeing the workers from the bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie from themselves. But almost never and nowhere. Did he ever go into in-depth detail about economics. Or the economies that we would specifically have to go through to achieve his social vision. Which is what allowed bastardizations like those of Lenin, Mao, and the Ill families neptocracy.
Specifically ignoring the stateless part of his stateless, classes communism. Conflating the state that shouldn't exist with the workers who were supposed to own the means and tools they used for production themselves. Etc.
I like working and feeling like I'm helping others or working towards a larger goal without the constant ever present exploitation of myself and others.
Personal greed cannot grow to unlimited dimensions.
Well, under a free market system it can’t because of competition. Under a centrally-controlled system, greed can run unchecked in the environment of total control.
I've lived in a country with socialism for my entire life, and have studied the laws in my own and other countries without socialism.
I will talk about socialism as it is in Scandinavia, more specifically Denmark. Here's a few things other than paid education and free healthcare:
Getting paid to study: You get paid to study as soon as you turn 18. In that way you don't need a job while you studying. Basic salary when living away from parents: 1.000 USD/month.
UBI: In Denmark we have UBI for people being poor, basically. If you don't have a job, is sick and can't work, or any other reason you might be screwed, you get paid by the government to... well yeah, exist basically. You have to meet some requirements and actively trying to get better or find a job though, which seems fair I think. If the government thinks it's not possible to get better, you can get the money permanently for the rest of your life without doing anything. (this is used for people with disabilities, both mental and physical, both born with it or obtained later in life)
Shared heating system: This is maybe the biggest "socialism" thing I can mention. In Denmark your house or apartment can be hooked up to a country wide heating system, which means we all share the same heat. This is a way to make heat distribution centralised, which has major advantages such as; price, availability, maintenance. (Fun fact: every data center build in Denmark needs to be hooked up to this system, as they will "donate" all their excess heat from their servers to the central heating system)
Flex jobbing: If you are no longer able to work 37 hours a week, you can be a flex worker. This basically means that you can work 15 hours a week and still get paid a full salary. The government will cover the rest of the pay and also cover some expenses for the company having the flex worker. This system is great for peoples mental health, as they still can feel a part of society even though they can't work full time. While they still can live a worthy life because their pay is fine. It's a win-win for the country, the companies and the people needing this.
I could go on, but I don't want to be that guy praising my own country all the time. We Scandinavians tend to do that.
that it holds that social practices are created from social practice and not inherited from immutable law, enabling criticism of the underlying machinations of society without being hindered by the argument that such machinations are an inherited and instinctual product of nature and thus unalterable.
It's one of the better -isms currently available.
Workers owning the means of production is the way it should be. Until we can mature further.
A friendly reminder that socialism is not communism. The latter is closer to capitalism as it's just state-owned instead of privately owned. However, socialism and capitalism can coexist, which cannot be said the same about communism.
Friendly reminder that Communism isn't communism. Communism is "nominally" socialist, 100% authoritarian ideology that completely disregards most of what was supposed to actually define communism. You are accurate in calling it, especially in China's case, state capitalism.
Where as communism is 100% a type of socialism. And ultimate end goal of most socialist ideologies. Basically Communists are communists in the same way capitalists are libertarians.
Hard disagree. Capitalism with a handful of social systems implemented is not socialism.
I did not say it was?
No, you said they could coexist, on which I disagree.
So communism is closer to capitalism because it’s state-owned?
Why are we trusting the output of your brain again?
You have no idea. For a society to be communist it has to have no state. Marxist states like the USSR or Cuba aspire to be communist one day in the future but believe you need a stage of state socialism first to get there without capitalism taking over again. How close they actually get to socialism is debatable. This is different to anarchists who want the state abolished after the revolution.
Socialism is not compatible with capitalism. Any communist society is socialist by definition, but not every socialist society is communist by necessity. Socialism is compatible with market economy where communism is not.
Under the definition of socialism the working class must own and control the means of production. Outside of that requirement you can have a range of different economic systems which may or may not involve a state, money, or markets. Socialist market economy has markets and possibly a state but where each worker owns a share of the company and votes in company leaders and/or decisions.
Used to dismiss it out of hand because all the 'socialist countries' are complete authoritarian hellholes. But in hindsight this is a kind of thought-terminating cliche. I never really knew what the idea was apart from some vague notion about sharing or something that's well intentioned but never works out in practice. I think most people share this belief.
Turns out the idea is pretty simple: Worker ownership and control. Places like the USSR and China fail this definition because they don't have any of that. Therefore they are not socialist. Those countries replicate the worker/owner dynamic of Capitalism, so it is 'State Capitalism'. And they both have the same problem: A small group of people have all the power and they fuck over everyone else.
I had to get sold on the specific idea of 'market socialism' / ' workplace democracy ' before I learned and realised this. The general idea is that if you can run a country like a democracy, you can run a business like one too. In fact, many are. So lets do that as much as possible in order to wrestle power away from the owner class who spend all of their money bribing politicians and ruining everything.
The concept of helping people.
The idea behind it, making life that little bit more fair. It wouldn't work, but as miguided as it might be, it's born of empathy and that's worth something.
Why wouldn't it work?
I don't think that socialism offers people enough incentive to innovate and improve, because it greatly limits the possible reward. I'm all in favour of regulating capitalism to protect the lower classes though, I don't want to be enslaved by the likes of amazon either.
That it's anticorporatist.
I wish there was a movement called anti corporatism, literally. I feel like we need something new since anything socialism related is automatically bad to a lot of people...
Those people tend to be the ones benefiting most from socialism without realizing it. There also is a lot of confusing communism with socialism in here, they are not the same thing
What I like is that when there is progress, the progress is actually experienced by everybody and not just by a wider or narrower elite.
For instance, I love robotics but I can't stand that adding robots to society results in unemployment. You can't just let the owners scoop up all the capital gain.
I like some of the goals of it (like evening out the economical inequalities), but I don’t think socialism is the right way to do it. Democratic welfare state systems found in Western European countries are much better solutions (and hasn’t turned into authoritarian tyrannies).
UBI might also be a good option, but currently there have been no large scale implementation of it yet.
You cannot even out the real inequalities without demolishing the capitalist class, pretty much by definition. If you want to make everyone equal part of the capitalist class, that is pretty much socialism by definition.
Absent that happening, you still can improve the situation quite a lot with strong, well enforced regulations on their activities.
Employment laws are usually a good place to start.
I like democracy
reduction in suffering and increase in dignity of our whole race.
It addresses the crudeness of the hand that deals some people, rather than assume equal opportunism is automatic.
To me, it's all about rational return on investment providing economic incentives to achieve what we want to achieve.
My favorite example to explain what I mean is my own personal health insurance. I have a chronic medical condition that requires constant medication, frequent visits to specialists, and expensive medical tests and procedures. There is simply zero chance that I will ever pay enough in a monthly premium to cover what I cost. Meaning I am always a net financial loss for a private, for-profit insurance company.
This gives a private company every incentive in the world to obstruct and deny my care in hopes that I'll get frustrated and give up, or maybe even die and get off their books forever.
The government, on the other hand, has a positive financial incentive to keep me healthy. If I am healthy, I am working, paying taxes, buying goods and services that contribute to the economy, and hopefully contributing something beneficial to my community. Only the government (acting as a proxy for "society") naturally profits from insuring my healthcare.
This is why I believe we should have fully socialized medical care. Because there are some specific things that only the government has natural positive economic incentives that align with what is beneficial for the general public.
Whatever those things are, they should be socialized. And generally those things are basic life sustaining things like food, housing, medicine, education, utilities.
I'm fine with privatized capitalism in a very restricted, heavily regulated niche form. But all the basic necessities should be socialized.
I've always said it like this:
"Socialism for the things we need. Capitalism for the things we want."
GOP death cult be like, "Hear me out, do you really NEED to live though?"
I like the idea of a deliberate and rational society. Unfortunately we need to be cautious with this kind of thing and pay attention to where others have failed in the past.
It makes me feel like I fit in on internet discussions!! We're on the same team :)))
What do you like about capitalism?
https://lemmy.world/post/9976688
justice
I love the idea of socialism. It unfortunately dies at the hand of human nature, but it’s great for ants and bees.
Humans being the most social and cooperative of all big animals ever?
Ever consider that what capitalism has lied to you about what human nature is for its own benefit?
https://theconversation.com/humans-arent-inherently-selfish-were-actually-hardwired-to-work-together-144145
Even ants and bees falls into the trap of having one tyrannical leader all the workers are serving.
That’s… not how bees and ants work tho? They don’t “follow orders” from anyone except their own biology.
Pros: It's nice in theory.
Cons: It will never work in practice because human nature is a thing.
Maybe if we stop teaching our children that the most important thing in life is to have more stuff than your neighbors, it will stop being part of our nature.
"it will never work in practice" says the person using the internet who can drive down the paved road to the community credit union, or indeed one of the banks that was bailed out by the government before going to the library, posting a letter, and then goes to work the next day in which they are required to be efficient in their job in order to make sure other people's work isn't affected, and must not break the law while at work, laws created to preserve the health and wellbeing of society, themselves and their colleagues, meanwhile while at work their trash is collected and sent to a public refuse center, spends the weekend at the local state park, which is subject to pollution laws, and indeed even has the temerity to vote in a democracy and is allowed to participate in the stock market without owning a business or a warehouse of goods, experiences freedom of movement across a union of states (one might even call them United States, and one formed as a socialist revolt against Monarchism and the capitalist imposed taxes without representation, and later held a civil war around the socialist ideal of abolitionism).
They may even express sentiments such as "food waste is bad", "pollution is bad", "I enjoy watching TV, reading books, listening to music, and/or participating in sports" and "I can change careers and do something different to what the family business is".
All of which are socialist ideas that clearly don't work in real life.
Socialist ideas is to move away from the idea of private ownership. Everything is owned by the “people” in collective (which in practice often means the state). You don’t own your cellphone, your computer or your shoes. They’re all provided to you by the “people” (the state).
The roads in your example are paved by private companies in a competitive market (often funded by tax money). They may have been selected by the state to do the work at an agreed price. Next time some other private company might do the work because they compete with even better prices. This process is not socialistic.
that is one very strict definition of socialism, which is not a monolith. Nor is there any agreed Purity test of what is or is not socialism
... with that in mind - following your roads example still
if roads are paid for, described, prescribed and constructed / maintained by private companies as you say - why is the government involved at all? Isn't it more accurate to say the government owns all roads (in the US- due to eminant domain- all land) and contracts private companies to build them
companies only exist by the express permission of and after registration by the government, and we can argue who holds the most soft power, but the fact is if you fuck up bad enough the government will disband your company for you
the existence of a market does not mean socialism is not happening: in reality, the "profit incentive" of capitalism is also tempered by the social contract of socialism. In my post I was careful to give examples of the social contract that outway pure profit incentives (ie you can't build a factory in a national park)
I would say the process of agreeing to do something in exchange for money is neither (/unknowably) capitalist or socialist (or neither or both) without further context.
In these cases it’s capitalism with some social systems in place. A far cry from full on socialism.
why can we only critique "full on" socialism? (what does that even mean) and yet capitalism with democratic-socialistic elements is treated as if it's "full on" capitalism?
This exact reason is why capitalism will never work. Human nature will look to exploit.
Exploitation is the point of capitalism. It's working as designed.
Historically, human nature led naturally to socialist societies. It happened for thousands of years even before anyone named it socialism
It's absolutely disturbing how avidly people seem to want to ignore that inconvenient truth...
"The people will own the means of production". Except it's never once worked out that way.
"Everyone will be happy to go to work, because it's for the good of all". Except it's never once worked out that way.
"Nobody will ever have to worry about basic needs". Except it's never once worked out that way.
Socialism has historically consolidated both power and wealth just as reliably as capitalism has, and frankly, I don't buy that the impetus behind the growing advocacy for socialism even is actually equality... I think it's a desire to have more shit, with less effort required to get it (and that sounds sketchy, and I think people are generally averse to stating it openly due to this)
I personally think the most likely means to achieve that is ironically the capitalist system we currently have, with a huge boost to the economy in the form of universal basic income.
Give literally everyone $50k/yr. Period. Even musk, the zuck, bezos... Everyone... The people who don't want to do jack can sit around and enjoy the product of labor that will inevitably be increasingly provided by automation, out of necessity. The dream of the 1960's, of having robots do everything for us while we sit around at the park, will come to fruition finally, because while we've had the ability to do it, we've not had any means of paying our bills while sitting around. UBI would provide that, and "the capitalists" will have the incentive to automate because there will be less labor available.
Of course, we're talking about a massive spike in income tax here... But we're also making the labor far more valuable, by way of rarity. Harder to find workers, so you pay them more, and even with the increased taxation, even a modest salary reflects economic advantage over a nonworker. The guy that used to make $50k/yr is only making $25k/yr if we slap a 50% tax on him, but he's still putting $75k/yr in the bank, aint he?
I think "socialism" is the wrong direction. 180° exactly in the wrong direction. Unless by "socialism" people are actually advocating the "advanced welfare" Nordic approach...
Another pro is we can eat our neighbors when food becomes scarce. Or we can report them for owning a grain of wheat and have them murdered.
I think of it as a mental disease societies can catch. I do acknowledge that is full of good intentions. it just doesn't work and ends in missery. it just fails to account for basic facts like human nature.
Sounds like capitalism
Nope. Capitalism doesn't have good intentions, just good PR.
at least the way a socialist teacher taught me in primary school (and i don't completely agree with him but it's a good charactherization) you have desirable values of freedom and equality and they are in conflict. again I don't necesarrily agree with that and it boils down to the fact that when equality is implemented is always by averaging down everyone which is at the expense of freedom. anyways so supposedly you have capitalism as a system that places freedom above equality and communism as a system that places equality above freedom. so it's not really about good and bad but a conflict of virtues.
it's completely besides the point but i do rank freedom slightly above equality. in reality i would like to ensure some minimum level of support for everyone , i think that should be a pretty low level of support. just the bare minimun e.g. ensured education and equal chance at success at life, and health care depending on the actual amount of resources that can be allocated to it, nothing unrealistic but just the minimum to live without suffering, including other stuff like food and clothing and shelther as well. and then to have the freedom so that if anyone wants more than the minimum they should work for it. I'm sure that the people that wanted to work would be able to produce enough value to provide that minimum life support for everyone. so about 80% freedom and 20% equality.
Capitalism isn't about freedom, it's about exploitation. The "freedom" it prioritizes is the freedom of individuals to lay private claim to the value of public resources (land, natural resources, etc), then use their control of those resources to lay claim to the value of the labor of others (the employee/employer relationship). It's literally parasitism.
Capitalism is the "freedom" to extract profit. Profit is the difference between the price you sell something for, and the cost to produce it. It naturally results in paying employees less than the value of their labor, and/or charging the customer more than the value of a product. It is fundamentally a grift, profiting by skimming off value as a middleman. The freedom of the capitalist comes fundamentally at the restriction of freedom of everyone else, the majority "averages down", that's just a mathematical truth.
The longer capitalism exists, the more "freedom" is siphoned into generational wealth, and the more extreme inequality becomes. Capitalists gain the freedom to live a luxurious life without actually doing any work, while everyone else loses the freedom to use land and natural resources. It's literally just "dibs" metastasized.
Capitalism takes into account for basic facts like human nature.
No, it lies about it
https://theconversation.com/humans-arent-inherently-selfish-were-actually-hardwired-to-work-together-144145
We’re long past the hunter-gatherer reality with a world population of 20,000, which your post concerns.
you might have hearing issues.
Yeah, capitalism is completely bereft of good intentions.
yeah. unfortunately rejecting reality and substituting it with your own only works on the mind. it doesn't put food on your stomach.
Unfortunately attacking someone for holding a different position is why society sucks so much
I don't see anyone attacking anyone here. perhaps some light trolling but nothing beyond that.
https://theconversation.com/humans-arent-inherently-selfish-were-actually-hardwired-to-work-together-144145
Yes. Even a communal style of life works at small scales. But not at civilization scale. This is accepted and studied. And in particular the studies focus on the effects of the size of the group. As the groups grow larger the free riders appear. But I think what’s worse is that even if they didn’t have that problem they would still face the economic calculation problem and end up producing the wrong things instead.
edit: I should add that I think i would personally love to live in some small community in that sort of shared community setting even though I'm "white collar high earner".
Not that it's necessarily what you're implying, but it's ridiculous to me that people think capitalism is an inevitable result of human nature but socialism isn't. Either of them are just ideas we made up. The benefits and flaws of each are the result of human nature, just with different influences and in different ways. Socialism may fail to account for the parts of human nature that you find relevant. Because you've been brought up in a capitalist system to believe that, OR you're directly benefiting from its exploitation. That doesn't mean those are the only relevant parts of human nature.
I don’t think it’s an inevitable result. As we get better at handling complex systems we might have a chance at a more efficient planned economy (that would still have issues but so does capitalism) we are not there yet. I do think that capitalism is the best system we can currently use. It doesn’t mean it’s not flawed
I don’t think that my opinion is about how relevant I think the economic calculation problem is or worker productivity. It’s the famines that follow its implementation that i find “relevant”.