You're viewing a single thread.
The problem with blanket attacks on capitalism is that it ignores the fact that the US became an economic superpower under capitalism, and we built the strongest middle class in history under capitalism WHEN WE MIXED IN SOCIALIST PROGRAMS.
BASIC economics shows that BY FAR capitalism is the most efficient way to generate wealth.
It sounds profoundly ignorant to be against that system.
Instead, we should be talking about what to do with the wealth it generates.
Bernie Sanders "Democratic socialism" is actually "capitalist socialism". It leaves in place all the profit incentives and machinery of innovation and production, but then it redistributes wealth away from the hoarders at the top, and gives it back to the workers who generated it.
This is a much more compelling system to fight for than just a blanket "capitalism bad!" argument.
The US became an economic superpower because all of the others had to rebuild from rubble after WW2.
Also by draining wealth from poorer countries. Banana Republics in Central America. The constant pro-american coups in South America. The plantations of Liberia that used essentially slave labor to harvest rubber.
Social programs are not socialism. It's often up to the socialists to put enough pressure on the system to get social programs implemented, but that's because liberals are completely devoid of compassion.
Socialism is an economic idea diametrically opposed to capitalism in one key point: private property.
Social programs are not socialist. The government is not socialism.
Modern governments are tools directly descendent from the capitalist bourgeoisie revolutions of the 18th and 19th centuries. They are tools of the capitalist class.
Social programs are appeasements to the proletariat class so they don’t revolt and destroy the government/capitalist class.
Socialism is the collective ownership of the means of production. Capitalism is (among other things) the private ownership of the means of production.
By the way, when socialists/communists say “private property”, they mean “private property of the means of production”. So “abolish private property” is to collectivise the means of production amongst the workers. Not to share toothbrushes.
Is the generation of wealth really the end goal, though?
On top of that, yes I agree that there are various declinations and modifications of capitalism. And yes, democratic socialism is still a version of capitalism, but one where the harshest edges of capitalism have been significantly smoothed over. Looking at Europe, they are also under capitalism, but implemented significant socialist policies, and the problems there are less extreme than in US. And still, this meme would apply.
democratic socialism is still a version of capitalism
I think you mean social democracy. Democratic socialism is a form of socialism.
Social democracy is democratic socialism. It's reformist socialism.
What people actually usually mean is social liberalism, which is liberalism with pretensions of empathy.
No. Social democracy is what nordic countries practice—a capitalist system with relatively strong social and welfare programs. It does not do away with private property and owner class, just tries to reform and regulate it.
Democratic socialism is a socialist system (means of production collectively owned) which is ruled by democratic principles. Instead of reforms and regulations to try and reign in the owner class, it completely does away with private property. You can also have socialist systems ruled non-democratically, by a dictator.
Wealth is the incentive, and fuel for innovation.
As pointed out above the problem is that if the wealth is hoarded, eventually the game falls apart. (We are here)
Wealth is the result of an equitable transaction that gave both parties value. So yes it is very much the goal, in any economic system.
Is wealth really the one thing we should be capitalism thankful for? I wouldn't argue that it helped make so many advancements in so many fields in such a short time, but from my understanding, wealth isn’t really something that helps living a better life. Wealth is more a by-product of hoarding. Like if someone would hold the monopoly over something like housing, they would have immense wealth. If all houses were to be distributed, so that in this theoretical village everyone would have a house, this would still lower the overall wealth of the village. First of all the houses would be priced more competitively and secondly no one would be in desperate need of a house and thus wouldn’t buy houses at an impractical price. I would agree with you that throwing away all lessons learned from capitalism is a bad idea, but wealth isn’t it.
Social safety nets and taxpayer funded programs aren't socialism either. Socialism is a tainted word anymore and is basically used wrong by everyone including Bernie.