4 ms·

Capitalist countries can be free and open democracies or they can be brutal dictatorships, but they at least have a path to a free society if they so choose it.

by tharne 6y ago

Capitalist countries can be free and open democracies or they can be brutal dictatorships, but they at least have a path to a free society if they so choose it. A country where wealth is primarily controlled and distributed by state cannot, by definition, ever be free, even if the people doing the redistribution got elected at one point. That's simply mob rule with no respect or regard for the individual. Socialism or social democracy, or whatever you want to call it requires constant state coercion of individuals to work at all. This type of coercion may happen in capitalism systems like those in dictatorships, but it's not a built in requirement of the system itself.

ClumsyPilot 6y ago
There is no modern state without collectively funded education, police, fire service, justice system, military, reseach, environmental protection, FDA,FAA, etc. So where is this magical line, once we cross it, the system suddently becomes oppressive?
- stale2002 6y ago
  The magic line would be when the majority of privately owned businesses are illegal. Or, as the socialists would call it, when they take control of "the means of production". Which is just another way of saying that private businesses are illegal. Collectively funding some services has nothing to do with socialism.
  - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    If that's the magic line, then it's a thousand miles away. I can't find a single country (maybe North Korea?) still in existence, that has outlawed private business. We aren't just talking social democracy, even Cuba and Venesuela allow private business.
    - stale2002 6y ago
      > that has outlawed private business. From my original comment: "the majority". The examples you have given, have indeed outlawed many private businesses, in the past. Although, I agree that those countries have become significantly more capitalistic over the years. You also skipped the most famous example of socialism, which was the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union absolutely banned almost all forms of private enterprise. But sure, socialism has significantly decreased in relevancy over the last few decades, to the point where basically all old socialist countries are becoming more and more capitalistic. Socialism is dying, all throughout the world.
      - mc32 6y ago
        Also _when_ socialistic government allow some controlled capitalism (usually heavily regulated-meaning it applies to small business and not just your sulfur emoting power plants), they do it as a temporary concession on the way to complete abolition of private business. Before Stalin forced the kulaks out of their farms Lenin allowed private farming as a means to an end. Stalin lost patience and forced it.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > Or, as the socialists would call it, when they take control of "the means of production". > Which is just another way of saying that private businesses are illegal. No, it's not. Private businesses executed through private labor applied to public capital which the business rents from the state are perfectly compatible with socialism in which private ownership of the means of production is prohibited. It's true that there are “socialist” states and parties that have banned or sought to ban private business, but that's not essential to socialism. Also, all of those collectively funded services listed upthread tend to feature public capital ownership of the means of delivering the service as well as public operating funds, and often exclude private ownership of some of the means of delivering those services and/or use of privately owned capital to provide the same service, resulting in a domain in which private capital ownership is restricted.
    - stale2002 6y ago
      > private ownership of the means of production is prohibited. This is a borderline semantic argument. There is very little difference between banning almost all private businesses, and banning all owenership of private capital. Everything that everyone does, relates to capital. If I write code, I just produced capital. And now the socialists are saying that I won't own that. Yes, code is capital. The value of almost all software companies, is not in the server racks, it is in the code that they produced. As far as I am concerned, banning all private ownership of capital, is only very slightly different than banning private enterprise, given that the main function of many private enterprises is to create capital, and now that capital would be illegal for them to own, even if they produced it.
      - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
        > And now the socialists are saying that I won't own that. Dude, the cold war is over, the communists are gone, noone is coming for your code. Every half-sensible discussion of modern socialism is not about taking away all of your stuff. I am really tired of this bait and switch social democracy for communism. Einstein, Heinzenberg and many other scientists have advanced the whole human race, but you can't have IP on ideas and on laws of nature, and on scientific theories. So have they produced capital? The discussion of IP is very nuanced, and raises question for why code is covered by overlapping patents and copyright, how long it should last, what rights does end user have and how right to repair is affected, etc. Anyway, this thread has been massively derailed. It started with a bizzare slippery slope argument of "for every Finland there is a North Korea" as if social democracies are in danger of turning totalitarian any day.

by tharne 6y ago

ClumsyPilot 6y ago

There is no modern state without collectively funded education, police, fire service, justice system, military, reseach, environmental protection, FDA,FAA, etc. So where is this magical line, once we cross it, the system suddently becomes oppressive?

stale2002 6y ago
The magic line would be when the majority of privately owned businesses are illegal. Or, as the socialists would call it, when they take control of "the means of production". Which is just another way of saying that private businesses are illegal. Collectively funding some services has nothing to do with socialism.
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  If that's the magic line, then it's a thousand miles away. I can't find a single country (maybe North Korea?) still in existence, that has outlawed private business. We aren't just talking social democracy, even Cuba and Venesuela allow private business.
  - stale2002 6y ago
    > that has outlawed private business. From my original comment: "the majority". The examples you have given, have indeed outlawed many private businesses, in the past. Although, I agree that those countries have become significantly more capitalistic over the years. You also skipped the most famous example of socialism, which was the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union absolutely banned almost all forms of private enterprise. But sure, socialism has significantly decreased in relevancy over the last few decades, to the point where basically all old socialist countries are becoming more and more capitalistic. Socialism is dying, all throughout the world.
    - mc32 6y ago
      Also _when_ socialistic government allow some controlled capitalism (usually heavily regulated-meaning it applies to small business and not just your sulfur emoting power plants), they do it as a temporary concession on the way to complete abolition of private business. Before Stalin forced the kulaks out of their farms Lenin allowed private farming as a means to an end. Stalin lost patience and forced it.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Or, as the socialists would call it, when they take control of "the means of production". > Which is just another way of saying that private businesses are illegal. No, it's not. Private businesses executed through private labor applied to public capital which the business rents from the state are perfectly compatible with socialism in which private ownership of the means of production is prohibited. It's true that there are “socialist” states and parties that have banned or sought to ban private business, but that's not essential to socialism. Also, all of those collectively funded services listed upthread tend to feature public capital ownership of the means of delivering the service as well as public operating funds, and often exclude private ownership of some of the means of delivering those services and/or use of privately owned capital to provide the same service, resulting in a domain in which private capital ownership is restricted.
  - stale2002 6y ago
    > private ownership of the means of production is prohibited. This is a borderline semantic argument. There is very little difference between banning almost all private businesses, and banning all owenership of private capital. Everything that everyone does, relates to capital. If I write code, I just produced capital. And now the socialists are saying that I won't own that. Yes, code is capital. The value of almost all software companies, is not in the server racks, it is in the code that they produced. As far as I am concerned, banning all private ownership of capital, is only very slightly different than banning private enterprise, given that the main function of many private enterprises is to create capital, and now that capital would be illegal for them to own, even if they produced it.
    - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
      > And now the socialists are saying that I won't own that. Dude, the cold war is over, the communists are gone, noone is coming for your code. Every half-sensible discussion of modern socialism is not about taking away all of your stuff. I am really tired of this bait and switch social democracy for communism. Einstein, Heinzenberg and many other scientists have advanced the whole human race, but you can't have IP on ideas and on laws of nature, and on scientific theories. So have they produced capital? The discussion of IP is very nuanced, and raises question for why code is covered by overlapping patents and copyright, how long it should last, what rights does end user have and how right to repair is affected, etc. Anyway, this thread has been massively derailed. It started with a bizzare slippery slope argument of "for every Finland there is a North Korea" as if social democracies are in danger of turning totalitarian any day.