Skip Navigation

Come on Barbie lets go Party

383

You're viewing a single thread.

383 comments
  • By "socialism", are we talking:

    A. Worker-controlled economic system, or

    B. What American liberals think is socialism, which is just a capitalist system with welfare.

    • A.

    • Aka socdem vs demsoc

      • https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

        Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism[1]

        ^[1] Eatwell & Wright 1999, pp. 80–103; Newman 2005, p. 5; Heywood 2007, pp. 101, 134–136, 139; Ypi 2018; Watson 2019.

        • Today I learned that Socialism is when you do Capitalism in a nice way.

          Oh wait, no I didn't, because Capitalism and Socialism are completely different modes of Production.

          • No, they're not.

            They're economic systems, not modes of production.

            Today, you're still refusing to accept reality.

            It's right there before your eyes. You're too brainwashed to see it.

            • In your own words, they are economic systems. What do you call a system built on Capitalism, but with a slightly larger welfare net? Socialism? No, you call it Capitalism.

              You're calling me brainwashed for correctly pointing out that Capitalism is Capitalism, even if you dress it up nicely?

              • "system built on capitalism"

                You still don't even understand what I mean when I say you're conflating "capitalism" and market economies.

                You think when people buy and sell things, that's "capitalism."

                Is Finland a social democracy? Yes

                And what does this say about what school of thought does social democracies belong to? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

                #Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism[

                "wää wää wää no it's not socialism, it's capitalism, but I refuse to believe it and I don't have to explain myself"

                • you

                Please define socialism for me.

                Because this an official definition

                a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or REGULATED BY the community as a whole. "we want a real democratic and pluralist left party—one which unites all those who believe in socialism"

                Even the US has socialist policies, because "pure" capitalism is completely unworkable, because it kills the economy stone dead

                • Believe me, I'm not conflating Capitalism with markets. Capitalism is a specific form of market economy by which individual Capitalists buy and sell Means of Production, or Capital, by which they can pay Workers to use and create commodities via wage labor.

                  Examples of Socialist market economies include Market Socialism, a form of Socialism built on competing worker-owned co-operatives.

                  Examples of Socialist Market Economies do not include Capitalist Social Democracies, because the primary defining feature of Social Democracies is Capitalism with generous social safety nets, a kind of "human-centric" Capitalism.

                  You on the other hand are making the misconception that Socialism is simply when the government does stuff. You're wrong, of course, as countless people here have pointed put.

                  Capitalism with regulation is still Capitalism. Socialism is when Workers share ownership of the Means of Production, simple as.

                  • Examples of Socialist market economies include Market Socialism, a form of Socialism built on competing worker-owned co-operatives.

                    Honestly. Like seriously honestly adult adult honestly. Why the fuck do you not bother to spend 30 seconds checking concepts you have no idea about, and instead pull shit out of your arse?

                    Market socialism isn't defined by worker cooperatives, it's defined by socialism which utilises market economy. Like the socialist democracies of the Nordic countries.

                    You can't even define capitalism, yet demand everyone is utilising it.

                    If a country doesn't have a planned economy, you won't admit it's not capitalist. Which is so dumb I can't even find the words to describe it.

                    "Capitalist social democracies"

                    So just refusing reality, huh?

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

                    #Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism

                    #WITHIN SOCIALISM

                    How hard is this for you to understand?

                    #WITHIN SOCIALISM

                    not "withing capitalism"

                    Capitalism with regulation is still Capitalism. Socialism is when Workers share ownership of the Means of Production, simple as.

                    No, it simply isn't. That's like saying "you're not gay as long as you don't penetrate another mans anus, sexual attraction to men has nothing to do with being homosexual".

                    The simple definition of socialism is when the means of production are owned OR REGULATED BY the government.

                    Which part of "OR REGULATED" do you not understand?

                    This is exactly what I meant with my first comments. Delusional fuckers like you, pretending all market economy is capitalism. Even the US doesn't have "pure" capitalism, as the antitrust laws are by definition socialist policies.

                    • I did define Capitalism, it's a market based system by which Capitalists buy and sell Capital and Pay Workers wages to produce commodities.

                      Please read any Socialist literature, you've gotten completely twisted into thinking Socialism is a nice form of Capitalism.

                      • I did define Capitalism, it’s a market based system by which Capitalists buy and sell Capital and Pay Workers wages to produce commodities.

                        I honestly almost suffocated. I laughed so hard I could barely breath, exactly like Risitas.

                        You seriously think you've "defined capitalism"? And to think you're doing it in the exact way that shows I'm correct in that you've conflated capitalism with market economies? :DDD I can't fucking believe this.

                        I'd like to keep pointing out how ridiculous this is, but I think you're like a 14-year old yank or something and I don't want to be that mean to kids.

                        Capitalism is defined by private ownership of industries and especially FOR PROFIT. (In case you were unaware, that's what the "capital" in "capitalism" means.) FOR PROFIT*. That's the main thing. Putting profit above everything, and being owned privately. The definition has nothing to do with "trading commodities and paying workers". I... honestly I'm just slightly in loss of words at your stupidity.

                        Here in Finland our railroads aren't private. Hell, there's not even one single privately owned liquor store in the country. We still use market economies. Which means you are allowed to sell your time to an employer who has a private business, in exchange for money. Unlike the US though, we don't even have a minimum wage set in the law. Why? Because our trade unions are so strong that there is a de facto minimum wage in all industries, so a de jure one isn't even needed.

    • OP is definitely in camp B..

      • Why? OP clearly states "worker controlled systems," it's not difficult to see what they're talking about.

    • Worker-controlled economic system

      "Worker-controlled" isn't a requirement.

      Socialism is wheb and the government owns or regulates the means of production.

      Which brings me to your "B".

      No, we Nordics aren't "capitalist systems with strong welfare policies".

      We're socialist nations with strong market economies. Market economies =/= capitalism.

      We have stronger regulation of the means of production. We're also social-democrats which is a school within socialism.*

      • Nope.

        Socialism is Worker Ownership of the Means of Production.

        The Nordic Countries are in fact Social Democracies, not Socialist Democracies. Social Democracy is Capitalist in nature.

        • Wrong wrong and wrong.

          Honestly, why won't you do 30s of Googling to check what you're saying?

          Communism is when the state owns the economy and you have a planned economy.

          Socialism is the ownership OR regulation of the means of production.

          Yes. We are social democracies.

          But no, social democracies aren't capitalist, dingdong. Let's look at the very first sentence here:

          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

          #Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism[1]

          #WITHIN SOCIALISM

          You're just conflating market economies and capitalism, like I already explained

          • Your greatest source is misinterpreting a line in Wikipedia? You think that means your Capitalism is actually Socialism despite relying on Capitalism, because the welfare net is larger? Lmao

            • "I refuse to look or acknowledge any data on the subject, so I'm correct"

              Is the little kiddo having to backpedal and ignore the facts because he made a bit of a boo-boo in his rhetoric?

              Please do elaborate on how I misunderstood something such as: "Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism" to mean what it says. Im sure you've a really good reasoning on how it ACTUALLY means that "social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within capitalism"

              • Your data is Wikipedia. That's it. Read perhaps any Socialist literature and you're immediately debunked.

                If Social Democracy was truly under Socialism, then the Workers of your country would own the Means of Production.

                A more accurate reading of what you are claiming is that Social Democracy takes influence from Marxism while rejecting the conclusions and thus the necessity for Socialism, instead relying on Capitalism.

                Tell me, plainly, how you can have Socialism with Capitalists and Capitalism. Or, does Nestlé not exist in the Nordic Countries?

                • "yOuR dAtA iS wIkIPeDiA"

                  No, it isn't.

                  Here's my source: Eatwell & Wright 1999, pp. 80–103; Newman 2005, p. 5; Heywood 2007, pp. 101, 134–136, 139; Ypi 2018; Watson 2019.

                  Want to go and read those books? No? I'm schocked.

                  The information from those books is listed on Wikipedia, yes. Are you so childish that you'll now pretend "you can't find real information on wikipedia"?

                  Weirdly enough, you don't have ANY sources for the things you pull out of your arse. Almost as if you didn't know what you were talking about and didn't HAVE any sources for your faulty claims, because like I said, you've conflated market economies and capitalism and think socialism equals communism, because you don't understand communism is just one form of socialism.

                  "How can you have socialism with capitalism"

                  Since I've already explained you keep conflating "capitalism" with "market economies", the question is then translated into "tell me, plainly, how can you have socialism and market economies", for which the answer is really quite simple for anyone literate. However, since you also conflate "socialism" with "communism", then the question becomes "how can you have communism with market economies", to which the answer is "you can't, since communism relies on planned economies instead of market economies".

                  That's where your confusion comes from.

                  Due to our good regulations because of our social demoractic, well governed economies, capitalist companies can participate, but they can't do the shenanigans they can do in less regulated markets. The degree of regulation is the question. Even the US doesn't have "pure" capitalism. Things like the antitrust laws are by definition socialist policies, but this doesn't mean the US is socialist in any way. It just means even they understand the necessity of regulation over "pure" capitalism, because "pure" capitalism is unsustainable as it leads to monopolies which then kill the economy.

                  This is why for example I can actually drink my tapwater and eat raw eggs that don't even have to be refrigerated. This is why the quality of all products here is higher, and why it's more expensive for companies like Nestle to try their bullshit here, which is why they mostly aim for developing countries. To avoid the regulation that comes with properly functioning social democracy.

                  • If Socialism is Capitalism with more regulations, is the United States Socialist too? It has plenty of regulations, more than Social Democracies do in many areas, in fact. Are you going to tell me that every country is actually Socialist if it doesn't have a laissez Faire Capitalist economy, even if it uses Capitalism as the primary mode of production?

                    You want a source? Marx's Capital. Read it, you might learn something, even if accidentally.

                    Social Democracy absolutely takes influence from Marxism, that's perhaps what the source you list may be referring to, however the place where Social Democrats fight with Socialists on is Social Democrats believe Capitalism can be harnessed and benefited from, instead of needing to transition to a worker owned economy.

                    I am not confusing Capitalism with markets, again, Wikipedia defines Market Socialism as a market based economy of competing worker-owned entities. Your own source, against you! Ha.

                    Similarly, I am not confusing Socialism with Communism. Communism is a Post-Socialist society, one that is Stateless, Classless, and Moneyless. Communism is indeed one form of Socialism, as is Syndicalism, as is Anarchism, as is Council Communism, as is Market Socialism.

                    Please, stop making a fool of yourself.

                    • If Socialism is Capitalism with more regulations, is the United States Socialist too?

                      Not a bad question, if you're honestly looking for conversation, but I get a feeling you're trying a "gotcha" more than asking in good faith.

                      It's more or less like sexuality; a spectrum more than anything black-and-white, even when people usually speak of it as either or (or "a mix of" = bi).

                      "Pure" capitalism doesn't exist anywhere. It's never even been tried as much as communism. Well, not in a developed, civilized world. What I mean by that is by the time that any sort of currency has become a thing, there's also been regulation, even if not written. "Pure" capitalism would mean large, completely unregulated markets. There's just no such thing, nor ever has been. Because capitalism is by it's nature self-defeating. The competition which puts profit over anything means that the one who profits most, by any means necessary, will win and get to establish a monopoly that will then dry the market completely out.

                      Which is why the US, despite being so obviously politically and economically (having such few regulations and worker protections for a supposedly developed nation) capitalist, has things like a minimum wage (more or less) and antritrust laws. Because they help keep the capitalism from eating itself to death.

                      You want a source? Marx’s Capital. Read it, you might learn something, even if accidentally.

                      Nice try, but you haven't, that's quite obvious.

                      Also, laissez-faire is essentially "without intervention", when we all know that companies wield just a megaton of political power in the US and interfere in politics constantly, in order to keep free of regulation.

                      "Takes influence from Marxism"

                      And which economic school of thought hasn't been influenced by Marx in some way or another? Since you say you've read "Das Kapital", you obviously didn't forget who came up with the term "capitalism"? Wouldn't — arguably — taking a name for your school of thought be counted as "being influenced by"? (No, I'm not being serious, I'm doing the same sort of gotcha-shit you did in to showcase you how silly it is.)

                      I'm still waiting on you to elaborate on how I "misunderstood" this sentence:

                      Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism" (sourced from Eatwell & Wright 1999, pp. 80–103; Newman 2005, p. 5; Heywood 2007, pp. 101, 134–136, 139; Ypi 2018; Watson 2019.)

                      Or you know, for you to source any of your hilarious bullshit

                      • Oh, believe me, it's a good-faith gotcha. Anyone who thinks one of the most Capitalist countries on the planet is Socialist has no idea what they are talking about.

                        I am well-aware of the concept of mixed economies. As an example, a truly centrist economy would have 50% of industry owned and controlled by workers, and the other 50% would be owned and controlled by Capitalists. Social Democracies lean heavily in the side of Capitalists and as such are Capitalist.

                        Capitalism is indeed self-defeating, that's why the Nordic Countries are seeing steady rises in disparity and sliding of Worker protections, held largely at bay by strong unions. My hope is that one day the Nordic unions will take control and ownership of industry a la Syndicalism and finally become a group of actual Socialist countries.

                        Yes, the US has regulations. These do not make it more Socialist, rather, these regulations are often bought and paid for by large Corporations to cement their power as Capitalists.

                        What part of my analysis makes it so "obvious" to you that I haven't read Capital, despite everything I have stated thus far being in line with it, and everything you've stated being firmly against it?

                        Fair enough, many fields have been influenced by Marxism, but what I'm specifically stating is that Social Democrats agree with initial marxian analysis and see that there is benefit for working class power, but disagree with his conclusions, and thus prefer to direct Capitalism to benefit workers.

                        I have already explained how you've misinterpreted that same sentence multiple times: Social Democracy seeks to directly existing liberal Capitalist frameworks for the benefit of all, while maintaining existing power structures and hierarchies.

                        Explain to me exactly why you think Socialism is polite Capitalism. You keep thinking Socialism is mere government regulation, when it is in fact worker ownership. You cannot have Socialism with Capitalists, if you still have a business owner but the business is regulated, it's still Capitalist!

                        You're extremely incoherent for a right-winger, even by right-winger standards.

      • There are specific definitions and I'm sticking to them. If your economy has capitalists controlling companies with workers trading their labor for a wage underneath them, then it is capitalist, full stop.

        Unless your economy is full of co-ops or something. I don't know the common typical structure for a nordic company.

        • You haven't even read a single "basic definition" my man.

          Here's one :

          Socialism

          Dictionary

          Definitions from Oxford Languages

          socialism

          noun a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned OR REGULATED by the community as a whole.

          If your economy has capitalists controlling companies with workers trading their labor for a wage underneath them, then it is capitalist, full stop.

          Youre refusing (or unable, lol) to understand that "capitalism" does not equal market economies.

          Selling things doesn't mean capitalism. Trading goods doesn't mean capitalism. Owning a company doesn't mean capitalism. Having companies with workers doesn't mean capitalism.

          Jesus fucking God I'm tired of explaining concepts that my 8 year old niece could google and learn by her self in five minutes

          "unless you have a planned economy you're not socialist"

          Yeah, exactly the point I'm making. Brainwashed morons think socialism means full planked economy, when it's no such thing.

          Fucking spend 2 min on Google, is it so much to ask?

          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism

          Fucking perpetuating shitty 70's red scare propaganda mf sides are hurting.

          • I said nothing about a planned economy, now you're putting words in my mouth.

            Ever hear of libertarian socialism?

            Edit: I get the feeling we are talking about the same thing using different terms...

            • "I never said anything about a planned ecnoomy"

              Unless your economy is full of co-ops or something. I don’t know the common typical structure for a nordic company.

              You're really pretending that talkign about cooperatives isn't referring to communism? What are you, 12?

              And what, you think co-ops didn't have hierarchies?

              What the fuck are you smoking, because I want to be equally fucked up.

              • If you're going to continue to insult me and gaslight me, we are done here. Have a good day.

                • How am I "gaslighting" you?

                  You literally said "Unless your economy is full of co-ops or something [it's not socialist]".

                  You're referring to the collectives of the Soviet union. A distinct feature of PLANNED ECONOMIES.

                  "I never anything about a planned economy."

                  Yes, you did. And now you're pretending you didn't. Like pretending reality isn't what it actually is. Trying to convince me something that happened didn't happen. Is there a word for behaving like that...?

                  • Why do you think a co-op can only ever possibly exist in an authoritarian soviet type system? My power company is a co-op.

                    Here, I'll help you:

                    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative

                    Nothing in there except a tiny blurb about the Soviet Union as far as I can see. A soviet "worker's council" is not a cooperative.

                    • And where exactly do you live? Is it a socialist state, then?

                      Don't pretend like you weren't implying Soviet style collectives.

                      • Don’t pretend like you weren’t implying Soviet style collectives.

                        Why do you believe this? I'm a fuckin' anarchist for christ sake. I already mentioned libertarian socialism once.

You've viewed 383 comments.