You're viewing a single thread.
Yeah, of course I have.
In particular, I've noticed how the pro-capitalist people don't seem to realize that we're not living in a pure capitalist system. Instead we're living in a mixed economy where key elements are socialist: road building, firefighting, postal services, food and drug safety testing, old age pensions, even ambulances (except for one minor exception).
A 100% socialist (a.k.a. communist) system might not be possible (at least not yet) due to human nature. The few times that it has been tried, at least in theory, it has quickly become an authoritarian system instead. But, AFAIK, it's so obvious that 100% capitalist would fail completely that no society has even bothered to try it. Hundreds of years ago there were brief experiments with things like capitalist fire services, and Pinkertons as police, but they failed so spectacularly that nobody even thinks of going back.
So, instead we quibble about "capitalist" vs "socialist" when we're really just arguing about whether the mix should be 80% capitalist, 20% socialist or 60% capitalist, 40% socialist.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what socialism and capitalism are. Simplified it's who owns the means of production, that is basically the "capital" in the name "capitalism", in socialism these means of production have a shared ownership. Now you can have a discussion of what that means, if state ownership counts or whatever but as long as individuals own the means of production it's not socialism no matter how much you tax them(it would still be an improvement to tax them more it's just not socialism)
Ummm excuse me, no, the CIA is an extremely based communist organization because taxes.
I can't tell if your agreeing or disagreeing with op comment.
This understanding of capitalism is a misunderstanding that both Marxists and neoclassical types share. It is not capital ownership that gives the employer the right to appropriate a firm's whole product. The employment contract is what gives them that right. Sure, capital ownership affects bargaining power, but the root cause is that contract. Abolishing the employment contract while still having individual ownership is possible (i.e. a market economy of worker coops)
Thinking of The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists/The Great Money Trick, now.
Is the US socialist because nVidia is a public company, therefore the shares are owned by the public? Is it a socialist country because most workers have 401(k) plans containing index funds, so they own a tiny portion of every major company? The ownership of the company is shared, so it must be socialism, right? I'd say no, because it's not shared evenly.
What if a single individual owns a single "mean" of production, but everything else is owned by the state, is that whole system capitalist? To me, it's clearly not. You could argue that it's mixed, but I'd say if it's 99.9% not capitalist, it's not capitalist.
Modern economies are mixes of socialism and capitalism. The people (through the government) own certain things, and individuals own other things.
Is the US socialist because nVidia is a public company, therefore the shares are owned by the public? [...] The ownership of the company is shared, so it must be socialism, right? I’d say no, because it’s not shared evenly.
How did you mess up this badly? A "public company" [sic, the correct term is "publicly traded company"] is a regular private company where the owners are hundreds or even thousands of individuals. A publicly owned company is one where every single citizen owns the company simply by being alive or every single worker owns the company simply by working there.
What if a single individual owns a single “mean” of production, but everything else is owned by the state
I don't even understand what you mean by this...
Modern economies are mixes of socialism and capitalism. The people (through the government) own certain things, and individuals own other things.
No, they're not, and this shows a very serious hole in your knowledge of economic and social systems. While, informally, it's sometimes said to be the case, that's strictly an oversimplification to communicate a different idea. Countries like the US simply use a government-assisted capitalist model. Places like the Nordic countries have a more transitional system, but are ultimately still just capitalist.
Of course they are. How can you be so confused. Countries like the US are a mix of socialist and capitalist systems. Some things are owned and run by the government (socialism), other things are owned and run by private individuals (capitalism). No society has ever worked where it was 100% socialist or 100% capitalist.
Are you illiterate? I specifically pointed to why that's not the case...
Are you dumb? I specifically pointed out how you're wrong.
You couldn't specify your breakfast if you were in the middle of eating it. Grow up.
Ah, so you can't find a flaw in my argument, instead you tell me to "grow up", as if you're an adult and I'm not. It's pretty clear you have no idea what you're talking about since you can't argue your point.
What "Human Nature" goes against the idea of sharing tools, rather than letting wealthy people hold dictatorial control over them?
Why do chimps kill chimps from other groups that come into their territory? Why do some chimps use aggression against other chimps to manipulate them, while other chimps use grooming?
A certain degree of sharing is part of our human / animal nature, but so is a certain degree of claiming ownership over things, and certain individuals have more sway over decisions than others. Flat hierarchies with nobody in command seem to work in theory, but in practice it's different.
That's the Naturalistic fallacy at work, though. We aren't chimps, nor is doing what humans did in the past necessarily better than what we do now. By that chain, you would be an Anarcho-primitivist.
We're apes, even if we're not chimps.
You're a mammal, a rat is a mammal - should we just consider you the same as a rat?
We can learn a lot about humans by studying rats. It doesn't mean that humans are the same as rats, but clearly we're not completely different either.
Yes?
But we aren't chimps, and you shouldn't judge the effectiveness of economic structures on what chimps do.
Nor should you pretend that we're not apes, and that ape behaviour has no relevance to humans.
It has about as much relevance as the behavior of any other mammal, circling back to my comment about rats.
We could study what various apes do, and try to use that to guess at possible human behaviour - or we could literally just look at human behaviour directly. Surely the direct observations of what humans do is going to give us a more accurate and useful model of human behaviour compared to observations of other species.
or we could literally just look at human behaviour directly.
And when we do, we'll discover that in many ways it's similar to how other apes behave.
Surely knowing that the behaviour is so ingrained that it's also how apes behave makes it clear that it's not some easy thing to change.
Let me know when you start eating bananas naked in the woods and let me bring my camera.
As humans, we are greedy by nature. Not always, but when push comes to shove, we are.
What part of that goes against sharing tools, rather than letting wealthy people hold dictatorial control over them? Doesn't your point mean that we shouldn't have Capitalism at all?
Exactly, this argument is so weird, even if the assumption was true. "People are naturally greedy so we should have a system that allows them to do as much damage as possible"
I don't think the poster who was down voted meant anything of the sort. They were just elaborating on their view of human nature.
The view shoved into their brain by the oligarchy, which is why it's the most unoriginal cope out there.
In any society, some people will be leaders, some will be followers, this is natural. You cannot have a society without someone organizing the work and setting the course.
Of those who are naturally leaders, some will be much greedier than most. Some will also be ambitious, corrupt, two faced etc.
These people will do their best to gather wealth and power for themselves, be it in a capitalist or communist system. In the capitalist system they'll become entrepreneurs if they also have good business acumen. In the communist system they'll become managers and state officials if they can also navigate politics well.
At the end of the day, the same people will get to power and will hold dictatorial control over the means of production. In communist countries a literal dictatorship seems inevitable, while capitalist ones usually favor democracy (can be better for business) but they can also descend into dictatorship.
If you disagree, show me an example where all this is not the case. I'm honestly curious
Capitalism is the opposite of democracy. In a capitalist firm, the managers are not accountable to the governed (i.e. workers). The employer is not a delegate of the workers. They manage the company in their own name not in the workers' name. Managers do not have to have dictatorial control. It is entirely possible to have management be democratically accountable to the workers they govern as in a worker cooperative.
Capitalism v. Communism is a false dilemma. There are other options.
Capitalists aren't leaders, but owners.
Secondly, you are just tying Socialism and Communism with dictatorship without proving why you think it's necessary. It's purely vibes for you.
Tell me this: why do you think a system where Workers have no say, only Capitalists do and serve as mini dictators, is more democratic than a system where Workers vote on how to run production?
Socialism is not when the government does stuff, so those institutions are not examples of socialism. Anti-capitalists are arguing for the complete abolition of exploitative capitalist property relations that violate workers' human rights.
This is a false dilemma. There are other alternatives to capitalism besides communism. It is entirely possible to have a non-capitalist non-communist system (e.g. an economy where every firm is democratically-controlled by the people that work in it)
Socialism is not when the government does stuff
Socialism is when the "means of production" are owned by the people as a whole rather than individuals. Capitalism is when the "means of production" are owned by individuals. Every modern state contains a mix of both.
If the US is 100% capitalist, then explain how the fire department is a capitalist institution.
Capitalism is not just when the means of production are owned by individuals. For example, in an economy where all firms are democratically-controlled by the people that work in them, the means of production can be owned by individuals, but such an economy is not capitalist because exploitative property relations associated with capitalism are abolished
Oh there are people who dream about going back. Mostly people who would profit and/or gain power.
Maga and libertarians seem to want to go back.
Pinkertons as police, but they failed so spectacularly
uhh you might want to brush up on your history there, the pinkertons are still around, still quite closely tied to the government, and still being used (among other things) to suppress union organizing at places like amazon and starbucks! Kinda ridiculous to hear that our government is somehow 'socialist' when it does stuff like this.
I didn't say they weren't still around, just that they're not the police.