But "socialism" is a scary word

atro_city

Socialism and capitalism have a lot of overlap. This belief and meme that they are completely separate is incredibly simple-minded and indicative of US thinking patterns. US Americans have had it beaten into their heads that there are only two sides for so long that it permeates their very being.

To have a fair system, components of multiple philosophies and systems will have to be mixed. Treating capitalism as all bad is plain dumb.

[email protected]

You are repeating false statements. There have been fully communist elected governments in Nepal, India, San Marino and probably more. In Spain we had a elected republican government run mainly by socialists and even an anarchist president.

The reason why most of them have been through a revolution is because they were declared illegal.

[email protected]

Real democratic mechanisms in the USSR: highest unionisation rates in the world, announcement/news boarboards in every workplace administered by the union, free education to the highest level for everyone, free healthcare, guaranteed employment and housing (how do the supposedly "authoritarian leaders" benefit from that?), neighbour commissions legally overviewing the activity and transparency of local administration, neighbour tribunals dealing with most petty crime, millions of members of the party, women's rights, local ethnicities in different republics having an option to education in their language and widespread availability of reading material and newspapers in their language, lowest rates of wealth inequality in any country, more female engineers in the USSR than in the rest of the world, higher representation of women in the party and in the justice system than anywhere else at the time...

Please explain me how getting to vote for the less-evil but equally neoliberal party once every 4 years is more democratic than that.

[email protected]

You clearly have never read anything about it, so I’d be curious to know specifically which part of socialist theory you disagree with.

By definition, capitalism demands to be uncontrolled and without rules to bring the most profit. So when you're done pulling stuff out of thin air, let us know

[email protected]

Which channel specifically are you referring to?

Your comment smells of "enlightened cantrist trying to sound reasonable" ~but failing~

[email protected]

You can tell by some of these comments

[email protected]

It's not but it can't be divorced form capitalism either.

A farmer does not produce grain out of the goodness of his heart. He's doing it to provide for his family's needs and wants, maybe new clothes for his kids or a new stove, etc.
We work jobs to get paid so we can feed ourselves and our families and maybe buy something nice or shiny once in a while and save for retirement.

Production of commodities and services, profit-motive, capital accumulation, If that's not the basis of capitalism, I'm not sure what is?

[email protected]

To answer your rhetorical question, a lot of people think Capitalism stands for the corrupt ignoble western governments, unlike their own glorious reputable eastern "socialist" governments.

[email protected]

Well you could really only vote for one party. And usually the elections were to some degree rigged. And the government that did all the nice things you mention also committed genocides, mass starvation, massively oppressed its people, and finally spent so much on its military that they crashed the economy.

[email protected]

To me, left means progressive reform, so leftists definitely aren't the anarchists or authoritarians who rant all day and night about the capitalism boogeyman.

[email protected]

But have you read enough theory? I think you need to read more of the theory.

[email protected]

So the government who regulates is simultaneously the enemy of and the definition of capitalists?

[email protected]

What a dumb question. Ya'll really act like that dude is obligated to give you a free economics lesson with such a vague pointless question.

On a broad scale any economy is simply how money is created and used.

When the federal state has complete control over the money supply and dictates how it is allocated to firms in various markets, as is the case in both "socialist" dictatorships and social democracies: the channel through which your labor is bought is purely through the government via offices and contract bids with industry suits attempting to maximize profits for themselves.

When the federal state takes a more unregulated hands off approach: the channel through which your labor is bought is purely through industry suits attempting to maximize profits for themselves.

Anarchist Society theoretically works very different, but they tend to only exist for about 5 minutes before devolving into the former case.

When the federal state takes a highly regulated and invested approach ("The Market System"): your labor is bought via your association to one or more of a series of small firms competing to fill demands to maximize profits for themselves. Some industries are allowed to operate at larger "economy of scale" for the sake of efficiency but ideally such a state wouldn't allow businesses to grow too large and would tax them such that doing so much more work would yield fast diminishing returns on investment.

[email protected]

"The government did all the nice things you mention" you don't get it, that's not the government doing things, all of those are mechanisms for democracy that barely exist in western countries. You're basically saying "well yeah those things did exist, but have you considered that you get to vote for republicans/democrats (US) or socialdemocrats/christian-conservatives (EU) every 4 years to decide which of the two parties will apply austerity policy?" You're not talking about democracy, you're talking about electoralism, yes we have electoralismo in the west more than they had in the USSR, it's just that electoralism isn't democracy.

committed genocides, mass starvation

Not true, there's not one case of genocide committed by the USSR. There was famine in the preindustrial soviet union during the period of land collectivisation, but guess what, there's famine everywhere in preindustrial societies recurringly, and once the country industrialised, hunger disappeared.

massively oppressed its people

Again, revisionism. We are literally living in an era in which the NSA has access to your information in a digital database, and in which the government will happily tell you how they use facial recognition on protests to see who's protesting. There are literally more people in jail in the USA TODAY than there were in Gulags at the peak of the gulag system.

spent so much on its military

The academic consensus is that the USSR constantly tried to put an end to the arms race with the US, at times going as far as unilaterally reducing their nuclear arsenal, which the US never corresponded back. The militaristic empire which forced huge military expenditure in the USSR was none other than the USA, and again, that's academic consensus. Fucking Zbigniew Brzezinski used to brag about that himself.

they crashed the economy

Again, ahistorical bullshit that you've never even bothered to look into. The USSR NEVER suffered a crisis after WW2, the only time that there were some problems economically was during the liberalization process in Perestroika, towards the end of the soviet union. It's the illegal and antidemocratic dismantling of the eastern block its centrally planned economy which drove the economy to the gutter and ended the lives of millions of people through unemployment, lack of basic goods, lack of healthcare, homelessness, alcoholism and suicide. Seriously, do a quick search, look at the historic GDP of the USSR/Russia, and tell me when it falls, before or after 1991.

[email protected]

~~capitalists~~ the upper class. This exists in communism and every other system as well.

[email protected]

The only real problem I have with capitalism is the people that refuse to consider any other way of operating, or immediately make it a binary choice between capitalism and “scary” communism.

Economic systems don’t need to be corralled into boxes and never be allowed cross lines. The people forcing that take are the ones profiting from the status quo, by power and/or wealth.

Any of the systems can be combined, the problem is fight against greed that makes people bend the system to funnel power money to a specific group. Whether it be the dictator and his cronies or a bunch of oligarchs. If this cannot be prevented, then no system will work without eventually crushing the average person.

[email protected]

Exactly. Greed and self-interest are not eliminated by changing economic systems. They wil justl manifest differently (for example, the nomenklatura in the USSR).

[email protected]

Socialism invariably fails and ends ups corrupted into some shithole authoritarianism decorated with leftie-sounding slogans. It is however meant to do the greatest good for the greatest number, it's just that in practice in the real world it's crap at it so it doesn't work because of human nature.

Capitalism doesn't even try to do the greatest good for the greatest number - it's quite literally The Sociopath's Credo: only care about what's best for yourself.

Ultimately they both fail at making most people's lives better, but Capitalism doesn't even try.

The best we've achieved has been Capitalism narrowly applied to just Trade and overseen by some other separate political theory that actually tries in some way to go towards the greatest good for the greatest number, such as Social Democracy, but as we've been seeing right now in realtime, with enough time Capitalism ultimately grounds down such bounds and oversight and corrupts everything.

[email protected]

"It's either fully privatised Healthcare or it's Stalinism"

[email protected]

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?