3 ms·

There's a difference between saying "Capitalism in America" vs the whole system of capitalism. That aside it's probably hyperbolic for me to claim that it "migh

by bbddg 9y ago

There's a difference between saying "Capitalism in America" vs the whole system of capitalism. That aside it's probably hyperbolic for me to claim that it "might not have even been possible." My point is that people ignore the ugly history of capitalism but only want to talk about the ugly side of socialism. I'm sure there's equally biased pro-socialist rhetoric but since we live in a capitalist society the scale is not even remotely the same. The last thing I want to do is ignore what has happened when countries have tried socialism. I want to be clear that horrible things have happened in socialist countries, but I don't think that is sufficient reason to throw out all of the ideas and philosophy behind socialism.

reading-at-work 9y ago
I see what you're saying, and it's a fair point. I've never claimed capitalism is without its flaws. You say "people ignore the ugly history of capitalism but only want to talk about the ugly side of socialism," but more often I hear the opposite. I see socialism promoted all the time as this utopian ideal, and capitalism detracted as a horrible injustice, at least in my circles. So I suppose I'm more conditioned to call out the flaws in socialism as a reflex. Regardless, I do think the past failures of socialist states are very important to consider, as they present concrete evidence for different ways it can go wrong. And I would make the argument that, given all that evidence, it does speak to flaws in the philosophy itself. Because in order for full socialism to occur, it necessitates an authoritarian takeover of the economy by the state. The state is supposed to represent the people, of course, but once they seize power to start managing property and the economy, well, now they're authoritarian bureaucrats with too much power. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" and all that. To me it's no wonder that dictators take control of socialist states so easily. Then, even if the state does avoid becoming despotic, you still have to deal with the problem of a centrally planned economy being incredibly inefficient at creating wealth when compared to a capitalist market economy. The adage "you don't make the poor richer, you just make everyone poorer" in regards to full socialism seems pretty spot-on in my observation. Just look at Venezuela for a live example. In 2013 they were hailed as an economic miracle [1] and now, well, we can all see for ourselves how it went [2]. To me, the most prosperous economic model we've come up with is free market capitalism with some government protections in place, like anti-trust and consumer protection laws, and a basic social safety net. I'm open to debate, though. Are there any socialist economies you would point to as a success? What parts of socialist philosophy in particular do you see as being effective and worth pursuing? 1. https://www.salon.com/2013/03/06/hugo_chavezs_economic_miracle/ https://www.salon.com/2013/03/06/hugo_chavezs_economic_mirac... 2. http://www.euronews.com/2018/03/26/colombia-s-venezuelan-migrant-influx http://www.euronews.com/2018/03/26/colombia-s-venezuelan-mig...
- bbddg 9y ago
  I would point to Scandinavian countries as probably the best functioning economies in the world right now. They aren't socialist, but they're closer than the US is. The fear of Authoritarianism is a real threat under any system. There is a certain level of authoritarianism that we live with here in the US I would argue. I don't think that socialism has to mean "large-centralized government". I look at it more like extending democracy to include the workplace and the economy. As for what that means exactly, I don't have a good answer for you. I'm trying to find answers myself. Maybe every business needs to be a worker-owned co-op. Maybe we should have a "National fund" that replaces private banks and investments in which every member of society would have equal ownership of. Maybe we should all live in communes in the woods. I guess I should explain why I think this is even necessary. If the only issue was poverty, we could probably just make do with the social-democratic, Scandinavian style economy. However, to really challenge climate change and automation I think we might need more radical solutions.
  - reading-at-work 9y ago
    As far as the Scandinavian countries, I'd agree that they're operating well. However, like you said, they aren't socialist. They're strong market economies with social safety nets layered on top. They're also very homogeneous, and smaller population-wise than the US, making those social programs easier to implement, fund, and maintain. "I don't think that socialism has to mean large-centralized government. I look at it more like extending democracy to include the workplace and the economy." And therein lies the problem. It seems nobody can agree on what socialism actually means these days. I think it does necessitate state control of the economy by definition, like the USSR back in the day or Venezuela more recently. That's more in line with what Marx originally advocated for and how a lot of countries have tried to implement it. However, if we scrap that definition, then it's anybody's guess. I have no problem with socialism on a small scale - by all means, start a co-op or go live in a commune. As long as it's your choice to do so. My problem with large-scale socialism is that it's "an idea so good, it's mandatory." There's no "opt-out" when the government seizes control of the economy under the guise of promoting equality. So that's what I worry about when people promote socialism. Like you said, there's a fear of authoritarianism in any system, but I can't help but notice socialist countries are historically much more likely to become despotic dictatorships than capitalist countries are. In terms of combating climate change and automation, that's a much broader issue for sure. But I'm optimistic that modifying our current system can help rather than overhauling it completely with an ideology that has proven so difficult to successfully implement.
jonhendry18 9y ago
"My point is that people ignore the ugly history of capitalism but only want to talk about the ugly side of socialism." I think that's because people tend to blame the uglyof capitalism on particular businesses, like Triangle Shirtwaist, or individuals like the golden age robber barons, without considering them as components of a whole flawed system. On the other hand, socialist systems get treated as flaws in the entire system. Yes, the governments have more control, but the ugly parts of capitalist systems also come about due to government action or inaction.

by bbddg 9y ago

reading-at-work 9y ago

I see what you're saying, and it's a fair point. I've never claimed capitalism is without its flaws. You say "people ignore the ugly history of capitalism but only want to talk about the ugly side of socialism," but more often I hear the opposite. I see socialism promoted all the time as this utopian ideal, and capitalism detracted as a horrible injustice, at least in my circles. So I suppose I'm more conditioned to call out the flaws in socialism as a reflex. Regardless, I do think the past failures of socialist states are very important to consider, as they present concrete evidence for different ways it can go wrong. And I would make the argument that, given all that evidence, it does speak to flaws in the philosophy itself. Because in order for full socialism to occur, it necessitates an authoritarian takeover of the economy by the state. The state is supposed to represent the people, of course, but once they seize power to start managing property and the economy, well, now they're authoritarian bureaucrats with too much power. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" and all that. To me it's no wonder that dictators take control of socialist states so easily. Then, even if the state does avoid becoming despotic, you still have to deal with the problem of a centrally planned economy being incredibly inefficient at creating wealth when compared to a capitalist market economy. The adage "you don't make the poor richer, you just make everyone poorer" in regards to full socialism seems pretty spot-on in my observation. Just look at Venezuela for a live example. In 2013 they were hailed as an economic miracle [1] and now, well, we can all see for ourselves how it went [2]. To me, the most prosperous economic model we've come up with is free market capitalism with some government protections in place, like anti-trust and consumer protection laws, and a basic social safety net. I'm open to debate, though. Are there any socialist economies you would point to as a success? What parts of socialist philosophy in particular do you see as being effective and worth pursuing? 1. https://www.salon.com/2013/03/06/hugo_chavezs_economic_miracle/ https://www.salon.com/2013/03/06/hugo_chavezs_economic_mirac... 2. http://www.euronews.com/2018/03/26/colombia-s-venezuelan-migrant-influx http://www.euronews.com/2018/03/26/colombia-s-venezuelan-mig...

bbddg 9y ago
I would point to Scandinavian countries as probably the best functioning economies in the world right now. They aren't socialist, but they're closer than the US is. The fear of Authoritarianism is a real threat under any system. There is a certain level of authoritarianism that we live with here in the US I would argue. I don't think that socialism has to mean "large-centralized government". I look at it more like extending democracy to include the workplace and the economy. As for what that means exactly, I don't have a good answer for you. I'm trying to find answers myself. Maybe every business needs to be a worker-owned co-op. Maybe we should have a "National fund" that replaces private banks and investments in which every member of society would have equal ownership of. Maybe we should all live in communes in the woods. I guess I should explain why I think this is even necessary. If the only issue was poverty, we could probably just make do with the social-democratic, Scandinavian style economy. However, to really challenge climate change and automation I think we might need more radical solutions.
- reading-at-work 9y ago
  As far as the Scandinavian countries, I'd agree that they're operating well. However, like you said, they aren't socialist. They're strong market economies with social safety nets layered on top. They're also very homogeneous, and smaller population-wise than the US, making those social programs easier to implement, fund, and maintain. "I don't think that socialism has to mean large-centralized government. I look at it more like extending democracy to include the workplace and the economy." And therein lies the problem. It seems nobody can agree on what socialism actually means these days. I think it does necessitate state control of the economy by definition, like the USSR back in the day or Venezuela more recently. That's more in line with what Marx originally advocated for and how a lot of countries have tried to implement it. However, if we scrap that definition, then it's anybody's guess. I have no problem with socialism on a small scale - by all means, start a co-op or go live in a commune. As long as it's your choice to do so. My problem with large-scale socialism is that it's "an idea so good, it's mandatory." There's no "opt-out" when the government seizes control of the economy under the guise of promoting equality. So that's what I worry about when people promote socialism. Like you said, there's a fear of authoritarianism in any system, but I can't help but notice socialist countries are historically much more likely to become despotic dictatorships than capitalist countries are. In terms of combating climate change and automation, that's a much broader issue for sure. But I'm optimistic that modifying our current system can help rather than overhauling it completely with an ideology that has proven so difficult to successfully implement.

jonhendry18 9y ago

"My point is that people ignore the ugly history of capitalism but only want to talk about the ugly side of socialism." I think that's because people tend to blame the uglyof capitalism on particular businesses, like Triangle Shirtwaist, or individuals like the golden age robber barons, without considering them as components of a whole flawed system. On the other hand, socialist systems get treated as flaws in the entire system. Yes, the governments have more control, but the ugly parts of capitalist systems also come about due to government action or inaction.