But "socialism" is a scary word

[semjaza@lemmynsfw.com]

Does Kerala (though only a state and receives national funds) or Allendé's Chile (Overthrown by US supported military coup after a couple of years) count, or do they not for the reasons in brackets or others?

[semjaza@lemmynsfw.com]

We can at least agree that it was a dictatorship under Stalin, right?

[explodicle@sh.itjust.works]

Capitalism is private control over the factors of production. So you can for example have a socialist society in which the factors of production are owned by the community, but there's still markets and commerce.

[explodicle@sh.itjust.works]

Was it not improved by upgrading from Feudalism to Capitalism?

[explodicle@sh.itjust.works]

We have no choice but to compare imperfect systems and pick something.

[explodicle@sh.itjust.works]

Raises below inflation

[gravityowl@lemm.ee]

I have definitely read enough to not write something as incoherent as

No....not everyone hates capitalism. Everyone hates uncontrolled capitalism

and just proving the OP's post right.

I think you need to read more of the theory.

I truly could not care less about the opinion of someone like you who is defending capitalism with such passion in these comments

[intensely_human@lemm.ee]

Leading to lack of material resources?

Here’s some socialists feeling the effects of centrally-controlled economic distributuon:

[intensely_human@lemm.ee]

There’s nothing capitalist about American healthcare. If we had a free market I’d be able to buy my antidepressants ($15/mo) without seeing a doctor ($120).

[dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world]

At first, yes. To make that shift you have to throw the aristocracy, and perhaps a monarchy here or there, into the trash and divvy up the spoils. Over time, the new system can (and some say will inevitably) revert. Once you have enough wealth concentration in the hands of a few, you essentially re-create an aristocracy and the feudal system that goes with it.

It can also be argued that a feudal system is capitalist to begin with. Land and laborers to work it, used to be the key deciding factor in wealth and therefore, power. Wars are where you steal land from others, assuming control of the people that live on it, thereby securing more wealth and power. The industrial revolution saw a gradual shift towards energy production and consumption as a defining factor. So still somewhat land based, but with very different constraints and far less dependence on who lives on it. Now, in the late information age, access to energy and data are emerging as the main deciding factors. But it's also not hard to imagine players that have the most access to energy and data as feudal lords, provided they can influence politics and people's lives in the same way a feudal system can (just without borders). And all of that is top-to-bottom running within a capitalist framework.

Did we improve things? Well, moving towards a central government that supports an actual justice system that isn't prey to your employer or landlord's whims (feudal lord) is a huge win. For instance in the UK, that happened a long time ago. In practice, I think that is still mostly true, but there are some lingering artifacts and maybe even some creep backwards. Consider de-facto class systems, institutionalized bigotry, and racism. On balance, I'd say yes, but I can't say with certainty that it's an absolute win.

[intensely_human@lemm.ee]

By “crippling” here you mean unable to participate in the market. That’s the thing that’s crippled when debt affects a person’s life.

A socialist had no access to the market anyway. They’re born into that crippled state.

[explodicle@sh.itjust.works]

"It's socialism when the goverment does things"

[explodicle@sh.itjust.works]

It sounds like you're describing a free market, not capitalism.

[finitebanjo@lemmy.world]

You know there is a lot of great points in this comment, some of which I will now argue against:

You should read the theory, clearly you haven't read enough theory.

[realitista@lemm.ee]

Nepal: Installed by force in the armed uprising against Rana rule in 1951

India: Neverseized the means of production (or really got very powerful IMO)

San Marino: Attemped a coup and never seized the means of production.

[forensic_potato@lemmy.world]

"Nuance is for Communists!!" /s

[gerbler@lemmy.world]

One hurdle we have to deal with is the assumption by the general public that markets = capitalism.

You tell people capitalism has failed them and they worry that you mean to take away their ability to buy a latte.

[rekorse@sh.itjust.works]

Greedy people vote for greedy leaders. Money mattered more than morals in at least the last federal elections since 2000.

[blackmist@feddit.uk]

I don't think it's the theory most people disagree with.

[mutilationwave@lemmy.world]

Patriarchy appears to have been solved in Rojava/Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria. Though I'm afraid not for much longer.