4 ms·

I don't have a good understanding, but is it actually socialist when it is about increasing personal wealth at the core? It does rather sound like a constrained

I don't have a good understanding, but is it actually socialist when it is about increasing personal wealth at the core? It does rather sound like a constrained version of capitalism to me.

cies 6y ago
Socialism tries in increase wealth of individuals, just like capitalism does. The difference is that different flavours of socialism want to increase it across the board, where capitalism wants an individuals wealth to be very well protected, especially when the numbers get high, so that wealth may accumulate in few. I find it fascinating that the original Monopoly game was desgined to teach us the difference and how Georgism (taxing bad behavior) may be used by "the people/democracy" to ensure capitalism is not the outcome. Also very telling that the game was thn ripped off, and got popular as Monopoly, where the only set of rules are the capitalistic ones.
- elzbardico 6y ago
  Lol, the Soviet Kid’s encyclopedia definition of capitalism and socialism. You Americans are so deliciously naive.
  - cies 6y ago
    Please explain. I dont get the joke. I'm not a USer btw.
- baq 6y ago
  maybe start from the names: socialism tries to put society first, capitalism tries to put capital first. western europe democracies try to be 'social capitalism', with mixed results, but maybe not as disastrous and scary as some folks here would like them to be.
  - cies 6y ago
    Capitalism puts capital first, sure, but it is necessary to say it specifically puts person-owned capital first. Economically the USSR had capital too, but it was mostly owned collectively (by the state). Hence I define the two in terms of the people that actually own stuff.
    - baq 6y ago
      fair points, but one could argue that USSR wasn't necessarily a socialist state. it was totalitarian, which somehow gets more confused with socialist the further west you go and ask.
      - cies 6y ago
        > USSR wasn't necessarily a socialist state it wasn't communist (defined as: no money, no classes, no state). it was commi thoug
- ethanbond 6y ago
  Georgism is extremely capitalist, and it is not “tax bad behavior.” Georgism can be summarized as such: A person is entitled to exactly what he or she produces. That’s the purest capitalism I’ve ever heard of. The scent of socialism you get is due to the examination that George provides of “exactly what he or she produces.” Laborers are therefore entitled to all of their wages. Capitalists, who earn money by deploying capital (which is actually stored up labor) are entitled to all of their returns. Landlords, however, earn money by charging for access to something they did not produce - either to the “productive powers of nature” such as rivers, mines, farmable land, or to value created by the community surrounding a plot of land (such as education, cultural amenities, public transit, or private employment opportunities). It’s really not socialist at all. It’s idealized capitalism.
  - perilunar 6y ago
    > Landlords, however, earn money by charging for access to something they did not produce Not only did they not produce it, in many places they (or the ancestors they inherited it from) actively stole it from the original inhabitants. e.g. The Inclosure Acts, Colonialism, etc.
    - ethanbond 6y ago
      Indeed. At bottom all land ownership originated at someone brutalizing or threatening to brutalize another person. This is mentioned in the moral/ethical argument by Henry George, but there are separately robust utilitarian arguments for all the same positions. If the moral position resonates, take it. If the economic position resonates, take it. If the political one resonates, take it. Each is very convincing by its own merits!
  - epistasis 6y ago
    "Capitalism" is a fraught word because it is used both with very specific definitions, many conflicting to a degree, and it's also in very general terms. So in general conversation with people of different backgrounds, it's important to connect its usage to specific schools of thought or to more precisely define what is meant I'll think you'll find that Marx is pretty upset about labor not being entitled to what labor produces, as well. And while Marx is not all of socialism, I don't know anybody who says that Marxian thought is outside of socialism, and I've sought out lots of socialist thought that critiques Marx. Most critiques of capitalism are that workers are not entitled to the fruits of their labor, that capital steals from them. So if saying that somebody is entitled to work and to keep their labor is capitalist, I'm having trouble understanding where you come from, and would like to hear more. In particular, I don't think George declares that capital is entitled to the fruits of others' labor, which is what you seem to be saying. Georgism is about socializing land, about preventing people from hoarding it and the wealth it produces. Land is the one input to production that we can't make more of, so therefore hoarding it is by far the most harmful. It's about restoring commons, after the commons had been taken away and privatized. It's about restoring all land to some form of social control, no matter who owns it and how much that person owns. And it's about redistributing that wealth that people are unfairly taking from society when they pocket unearned land rents. My problem with Georgism is that it tends to be politically unstable and lead to tax revolts. And my problem with the typical Marxist visions (Marx himself was not super prescriptive, but in that void, Marxist thought must expand upon Marx) is the tendency to dictators and totalitarianism, something which George also predicted. I think George is extremely compatible with, and perhaps required for, the type of socialism that was sought in the Spanish revolution of 1936.
DaedPsyker 6y ago
Well to be honest there is different versions of socialism with different meanings. Some do put personal wealth as more important, or at least indirectly. If it is part of the market socialism side then wealth is used the same way to promote self-interest. In market socialism the the difference from capitalism is stricter controls on business ownership (i.e. businesses must be coops or something along those lines).

I don't have a good understanding, but is it actually socialist when it is about increasing personal wealth at the core? It does rather sound like a constrained version of capitalism to me.

cies 6y ago

Socialism tries in increase wealth of individuals, just like capitalism does. The difference is that different flavours of socialism want to increase it across the board, where capitalism wants an individuals wealth to be very well protected, especially when the numbers get high, so that wealth may accumulate in few. I find it fascinating that the original Monopoly game was desgined to teach us the difference and how Georgism (taxing bad behavior) may be used by "the people/democracy" to ensure capitalism is not the outcome. Also very telling that the game was thn ripped off, and got popular as Monopoly, where the only set of rules are the capitalistic ones.

elzbardico 6y ago
Lol, the Soviet Kid’s encyclopedia definition of capitalism and socialism. You Americans are so deliciously naive.
- cies 6y ago
  Please explain. I dont get the joke. I'm not a USer btw.
baq 6y ago
maybe start from the names: socialism tries to put society first, capitalism tries to put capital first. western europe democracies try to be 'social capitalism', with mixed results, but maybe not as disastrous and scary as some folks here would like them to be.
- cies 6y ago
  Capitalism puts capital first, sure, but it is necessary to say it specifically puts person-owned capital first. Economically the USSR had capital too, but it was mostly owned collectively (by the state). Hence I define the two in terms of the people that actually own stuff.
  - baq 6y ago
    fair points, but one could argue that USSR wasn't necessarily a socialist state. it was totalitarian, which somehow gets more confused with socialist the further west you go and ask.
    - cies 6y ago
      > USSR wasn't necessarily a socialist state it wasn't communist (defined as: no money, no classes, no state). it was commi thoug
ethanbond 6y ago
Georgism is extremely capitalist, and it is not “tax bad behavior.” Georgism can be summarized as such: A person is entitled to exactly what he or she produces. That’s the purest capitalism I’ve ever heard of. The scent of socialism you get is due to the examination that George provides of “exactly what he or she produces.” Laborers are therefore entitled to all of their wages. Capitalists, who earn money by deploying capital (which is actually stored up labor) are entitled to all of their returns. Landlords, however, earn money by charging for access to something they did not produce - either to the “productive powers of nature” such as rivers, mines, farmable land, or to value created by the community surrounding a plot of land (such as education, cultural amenities, public transit, or private employment opportunities). It’s really not socialist at all. It’s idealized capitalism.
- perilunar 6y ago
  > Landlords, however, earn money by charging for access to something they did not produce Not only did they not produce it, in many places they (or the ancestors they inherited it from) actively stole it from the original inhabitants. e.g. The Inclosure Acts, Colonialism, etc.
  - ethanbond 6y ago
    Indeed. At bottom all land ownership originated at someone brutalizing or threatening to brutalize another person. This is mentioned in the moral/ethical argument by Henry George, but there are separately robust utilitarian arguments for all the same positions. If the moral position resonates, take it. If the economic position resonates, take it. If the political one resonates, take it. Each is very convincing by its own merits!
- epistasis 6y ago
  "Capitalism" is a fraught word because it is used both with very specific definitions, many conflicting to a degree, and it's also in very general terms. So in general conversation with people of different backgrounds, it's important to connect its usage to specific schools of thought or to more precisely define what is meant I'll think you'll find that Marx is pretty upset about labor not being entitled to what labor produces, as well. And while Marx is not all of socialism, I don't know anybody who says that Marxian thought is outside of socialism, and I've sought out lots of socialist thought that critiques Marx. Most critiques of capitalism are that workers are not entitled to the fruits of their labor, that capital steals from them. So if saying that somebody is entitled to work and to keep their labor is capitalist, I'm having trouble understanding where you come from, and would like to hear more. In particular, I don't think George declares that capital is entitled to the fruits of others' labor, which is what you seem to be saying. Georgism is about socializing land, about preventing people from hoarding it and the wealth it produces. Land is the one input to production that we can't make more of, so therefore hoarding it is by far the most harmful. It's about restoring commons, after the commons had been taken away and privatized. It's about restoring all land to some form of social control, no matter who owns it and how much that person owns. And it's about redistributing that wealth that people are unfairly taking from society when they pocket unearned land rents. My problem with Georgism is that it tends to be politically unstable and lead to tax revolts. And my problem with the typical Marxist visions (Marx himself was not super prescriptive, but in that void, Marxist thought must expand upon Marx) is the tendency to dictators and totalitarianism, something which George also predicted. I think George is extremely compatible with, and perhaps required for, the type of socialism that was sought in the Spanish revolution of 1936.

DaedPsyker 6y ago

Well to be honest there is different versions of socialism with different meanings. Some do put personal wealth as more important, or at least indirectly. If it is part of the market socialism side then wealth is used the same way to promote self-interest. In market socialism the the difference from capitalism is stricter controls on business ownership (i.e. businesses must be coops or something along those lines).