You're viewing a single thread.
It's easy to make a list of all communists countries that turned fascists and massacred people. You don't do that with capitalists because there are simply too many, everywhere, in about all of history.
It's almost like the main problem with both authoritarian communism and authoritarian capitalism might be the authoritarianism.
welcome
Just that most captialist counties are democracies and all communist countries are authoritarian because communism and it's limiting of rights doesn't go without a dictatorship and the murder of millions of innocent people 😇
The reason for this isn't because they have to be dictatorships. It's because the capitalist status-quo undermined any leftist nations. The only governments strong enough to last the CIA overthrow of them are strong central governments with cultural hegymony. This isnt to say these are good things (they aren't), they are just stable. The entire red scare period was about destroying any nation that was even slightly left.
The Guatemala coup for example was a dictatorship that was overthrown and a democracy was established. They elected a leftist president who implemented a minimum wage and returned land to the peasants, but the United Fruit Company didn't like this. They had the CIA overthrow this new democracy and replace it with a dictatorship more aligned with US interests. This dictatorship proceeded to commit a genocide of the native inhabitants, all unopposed by the US.
This is just one example from many similar events.
Just that most captialist counties are democracies
Your proof of this?
It would be 100% with capitalist as well.
As [email protected] less succinctly put it. Capitalism is barely a few hundred years old. It's barely existed a fraction of human history. It's barely older than many of the original socialist ideals. Let alone all of history. Markets and currency predate capitalism and socialism by millennia. And neither has claim to them. Despite both making use of them.
That said fuck leninists. Actual communists are pretty chill though. But leninists and capitalists are a threat to everyone. Including themselves.
That's not entirely true. The Hudsons Bay Company, for instance, was on the stock market in the 1600s. The London Royal Exchange was built in the 1500s.
Yes but they were in Mercantilism systems not Capitalist ones.
It's extremely sad how purposefully western education has failed so many people on this front. You are 100% correct.
It really shouldn't be that complex. Adam Smith, considered the Father of Capitalism, published The Wealth of Nations in 1776. So even if you argue that someone in power got a copy an implemented immediately; blaming Capitalism for things that happened before them is as backwards as blaming failures in Collectivism that happened before 1867 (Publishing of Das Kapital by Marx).
I agree with you though, we definitely need better economic education in the US and likely the rest of the West too.
Definitely in the US. I find interactions with people outside the United States tend to go a little better and they have a better understanding. But sometimes still lack in many areas. In the US, however, we tend to be pretty consistently misinformed.
The Hudson's Bay company was a joint stock company that was listed on the stock market. I don't know what else to tell you, it was one of the first corporations in the world.
I don't know if you know this. But the Hudson Bay Company predates capitalism. Other systems had stocks (joint ventures), markets and money that doesn't make them Capitalist. Specifically the Hudson Bay Company arose in a system known as Mercantilism (you should read the link).
It's not just Society created then everything is Capitalist until Communism. Humans have tried many ways to organize both society and economy.
I know what mercantilism is. My point was that Hudson's Bay company was a corporation, with a board of directors, investors who purchase stock, and the stock was listed on the stock market that allowed outside investors to invest in the company and to be paid in dividends from the company's profits.
In fact, the whole setup was designed to (drum roll) raise capital from outside investors to fund the expansion of the company.
Just as a true socialist country has never existed, a true capitalist country has never existed. Economies are always mixed.
Socialists are not fans of, and often are opposed to the state. That's the reason that a socialist state hasn't and will never realistically exist. It's an oxymoron. It's got nothing to do with mixed economies. That's just the reason exploitative authoritarians like capitalist indoctrinate people with to further their own goals.
How do you define socialism? Because I think it contradicts with how I (and I think most others) would
It's definitely does. But only because westerners especially are not properly educated on such things. It goes against the goals of the wealthy. I say that as a Westerner myself who only educated myself on it years later.
Basically I reside somewhere between social democrat and true libertarian. Left libertarian. Right libertarians reject a large chunk of libertarianism and are therefore not actually libertarians. They're just selfish and ignorant. Basically though an end to the bourgeoisie, worker ownership of the means of production not state, and much more simplified highly flattened governing structures. That would be the base and core of socialism. As traditionally defined.
Just as a true socialist country has never existed, a true capitalist country has never existed. Economies are always mixed.
Ssshhhjttt, don't be reasonable, you're gonna make them cry
If only we could imagine what a truly capitalist country would look like in the future! Like, I don't know, we call this genra something like cyberpunk?
Hahaha I win. I have created a work of fiction and where you are bad and I am good.
But that also exists for my side, yk, Orwellian. Brave New World too.
Yes. But you know of a capitalist utopia? Because there are many communist utopia.
Usually media about utopias aren't very interesting. But yeah many people have imagined capitalist utopias.
On the contrary. Star trek is a well known utopia, and it's definitely not capitalist. You didn't mentioned a capitalist utopia still.
Much of Robert Heinlein's "Future History" series fits the bill
I can't think of any fictional utopias that are entirely utopian. I didn't know Star Trek was utopian. I can think of a lot of medias that condemn different forms of central planning. I can't think of any forms of media that condemn Georgism, or anarcho-socialism- does that mean those ideologies are good?
a true capitalist country has never existed.
That may have something to do with the fact that there is no such thing as "true capitalism." Capitalism is as "true" as it can possibly get.
Economies are always mixed.
There can be no "mixture" between socialism and capitalism. If the means of production isn't controlled by workers it means there is no socialism to "mix" in the first place.
If “true communist country” is taken to mean “libertarian socialist country”, which then it seems fair to say that a “true capitalist country” has never existed in the sense of a “libertarian capitalist country”. Taxation, commercial regulation, and public ownership (public land, utilities, schools, parks, roads, transportation, etc.) are all contrary to the capitalist ideology.
are all contrary to the capitalist ideology.
Lol! No, they aren't - capitalists have always understood that they need the protection of a state... it's only a realtively small fringe of not-so-rich ideologues that loudly pretends otherwise.
"Capitalist ideology" isn't coherent - it doesn't have to be, because the only purpose it has to serve is to provide pretexts and justifications for whatever the power and privilege of the wealthy requires. That's why capitalists are perfectly happy to fund fascists into power when liberal regimes prove incapable of dealing with working-class revolt.
Lol! No, they aren't - capitalists have always understood that they need the protection of a state... it's only a realtively small fringe of not-so-rich ideologues that loudly pretends otherwise.
You can’t use what you believe to be “true capitalism” in practice to prove that the practice is true capitalism. Yes, Lockean-adjacent ideologies require a government tasked with the protection of property, but you may have noticed that none of the examples I gave serve that purpose.
That's why capitalists are perfectly happy to fund fascists into power
You are confusing capitalists with those who have benefitted from capitalism. People in power seldom support a system that allows them to easily lose power should a better alternative arise, despite those mechanisms being a foundational component of the efficient-market hypothesis.
Respectfully, I don’t see the benefit of making this argument. To claim that socialized aspects of a generally capitalist society are not actually socialist is to claim that what are often the best aspects of the society do not support your beliefs. The fact that the “winners” of capitalism are incentivized not to be capitalists is a glaring problem; why not focus on that?
You can’t use what you believe to be “true capitalism” in practice to prove that the practice is true capitalism.
No, but it might help to explain that there is no such thing as "true capitalism" because capitalists have never needed "true capitalism" - that is, unless you want to argue with the people who obsessively calculate Jeff Bezos's net worth.
but you may have noticed that none of the examples I gave serve that purpose.
Are you not aware that your taxes fund the police? You know... the violent institution that was specifically invented by the capitalist class to protect the property of capitalists from the very people capitalists parasitize off?
There is no point in trying to sound smart when it's blatantly obvious that you can't see what's going on right in front of your nose, Clyde.
You are confusing capitalists with those who have benefitted from capitalism.
No... I don't think I am.
People in power seldom support a system that allows them to easily lose power should a better alternative arise
So this "efficient-market hypothesis" isn't worth the paper it's written on?
No surprises there.
To claim that socialized aspects of a generally capitalist society are not actually socialist
The term socialism has a very hard and uncompromising meaning which it has retained no matter the efforts spent trying to warp it. Unlike concepts such as fascism and capitalism, socialism actually requires logical consistency in order to be useful to the people it has always been intended to be useful for.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence... and if you claim that anything has been "socialized" in a capitalist society (apart from all the real costs that the working-class has to bear in such a society) you need to provide evidence for that.
The mix is that the control is mixed, for example through regulation but private ownership. As well as some production is fully state run. Socialism is generally understood to not be exclusively worker control, but include other forms of collective control- such as state control.
Socialism is generally understood to not be exclusively worker control, but include other forms of collective control- such as state control.
Generally understood by whom? If your understanding of socialism means state control it probably means your ideas of it doesn't have much coherence at all.
My understanding of socialism is that it describes collective control of the means of production, collective control can take many forms, including state control
Control by a bunch of party bureaucrats and apparatchiks who, like their counter-parts in corporate capitalist countries, are only interested in maintaining and expanding their own power and privilege in no way constitutes anything that can be called "collective" with a straight face - period.
The term "socialism" has a very hard and uncompromising meaning - it becomes utterly meaningless when it becomes whatever "Dear Brother Comrade Leader" says it is.
So capitalism has existed since "about all of history"? About as dumb a take as folks insisting that the Israel/Palestine conflict has been going on for thousands of years.
It’s easy to make a list of all communists countries that turned fascists and massacred people.
Because there's a 100% overlap with "ML countries" and "Red-painted fascist murderers"?
You don't do that with capitalists because capitalism does not exist in authoritarian regimes.
Hahahaha! Sure! Capitalism goes in pair with democracy and never bred fascism! And it will totaly never be neo-feudalism!
Democracy doesn't mean non-authoritarian. Nor free. Democratic societies often are authoritarian.
Only when they are failing. Actual democracy does mean non-authoritarian and free.
No? Imo democracy essentially boils down to majority rule. The majority often oppressed the minority
While that could technically be a possibility under democracy. Don't you find it? Extremely ironic that no democracy in the world could currently be described that way? That they've all been turned on their head with the minority ruling over the majority?
And basically when it comes down to it they are incompatible or different. Because under authoritarianism you don't have any say, regardless of whether you're in the minority or the majority.
This is a mixed economy, not a capitalist one.
By that standard no capitalist country exists.
Capitalists don't care much for ideological purity.
Yes? Essentially every economy is mixed to some extent.
So what would be a better mix?
In the US: I'd prefer stronger protections against externalities (so pollution and so on). Removal of IP protections, deregulation of drug production but also drug companies losing protections so they can more easily be sued. Easier medical licensing. Ending federal student lending, so universities have to lower prices. Open borders. And I'm sure many other things. So, I'd say making it more capitalist, but I guess it somewhat depends how you define capitalism.
I think we put our faith in different forces. Aside from the suing, I feel like this would unleash capital to roam the world, sucking up all value before zipping off, to the next fallowed region.
Haha, yeah my beliefs are not based on utilitarian good. Instead they are based on a basic belief in individual freedoms. I do hope they will have a utilitarian benefit, but I would support them even if they didn't.
Liberal countries are the only ones capable of providing a safe and prosperous society for all. It doesn't mean all liberal societies are like that, but liberalism is the only one that can create and maintain one.
Lmao
What countries do you think are best for human rights? And how many of them are fascist and how many are liberal?
None of either.
Do you often struggle understanding written language?
Again with the self L
What country is "None"?
ESL peeps should probably not try to beef about people refusing to engage with their nonsense
Do you want me to ask those two questions again holding your hand and explaining the words I use as they come, or will you admit that the only countries with decent human rights situations are liberal?
All but those who are excluded from it. Who are the slaves in your countries? How many societies had to be destroyed for your country to become what it is now?
Who are the slaves in your countries?
Speaking for my country, uh idk, don't think anyone here's a slave. Occasionally you hear of some sketchy work practices, usually involving underpaid immigrant workers at restaurants but those issues are quickly dealt with.
How many societies had to be destroyed for your country to become what it is now?
None as far as I'm aware. We were first exploited by the swedish empire and later by the rus*ian empire. After which we were destroyed twice by soviets and barely scraped against the nazis. So I'd say we were on the colonized side of history rather than the exploiting colonial one, the swedish speaking population here still owns way more than the rest of the country - relatively speaking - as often is the case in exploited countries as old money never really dies out even if the underlying society progresses past it. Of course I'm glossing over a ton of historical events here and straightening out corners, but I'm happy with the answer.
You're still in the honeymoon phase with capitalism. You'll see in a few decades.
Czechoslovakia was leaning capitalist and prosperous before the Nazis and then Soviets invaded, both leaning much more leftist, and surpressing the people.
The nazis are leftists now? That's basically political illiteracy.
In my opinion yes, but you're free to have your own definitions for left and right since historians and economists alike disagree on their definitions too.
My definitions are basically, leftistism is collective control of the means of production. Rightism is individual control. The left is therefore a much more broas category as collective control can take a ton of different forms.
Damn it is hard for fascists to admit being wrong, isn't it? Looking at yours and the other guys' squirming is nearly cringe.
Well, I'm living in a country that's turning fascist. It prides itself for being the country of the human rights yet it's being condemned by EU human rights tribunal regularly.
In 50 years it was on a turbo run for liberalism. What this gave us is more poverty, more riches inequalities, less public services, mental health problems, and fascism might be our next government. Congratulation capitalism! Go on!
I'm not advocating for fascism btw. But it is a fact that the winners or capitalism are turning their countries into fascist ones.
So it was liberal, and everything was good, and now it's turning fascist and everything's turning bad?
Read my first messages again now and think.
Read my first messages again now and think.
The irony here is palpable.
I think you fail to realize liberalism has multiple contextual definitions, depending largely on location, and that neoliberalism is largely criticized by progressives.