6 ms·

Social democracy is still capitalism, it just redirects some taxes into a welfare program. If eliminating poverty is the end goal then we need a safety net for

Social democracy is still capitalism, it just redirects some taxes into a welfare program. If eliminating poverty is the end goal then we need a safety net for those who fail.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> Social democracy is still capitalism It's still capitalism in much the same way that capitalism is still feudalism.
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  Given that capitalism describes a mode of production, it literally is still capitalism. Capitalism is not feudalism in that serfdom is not the primary working relationship between classes in capitalism - though Yanis Varoufakis seems to think that we're headed that way.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Given that capitalism describes a mode of production, it literally is still capitalism Given that redistributive taxation and benefit systems labelled “social democracy” designed specifically to mitigate the adversity that provides the whip behind the capitalist mode of production modify both the property system and the mode of production that together are labelled “capitalism”, social democracy literally is not capitalism. It retains substantial elements of the property system of, and it's mode of production has important similarities to that of, the system for which the term “capitalism” was coined (as does that system with pre-capitalist aristocratic systems), but it's not the same system. It's not Marxist socialism, either, and I know Marxists like to deny that any system that isn't pre-capitalist that fails to be Marxist socialism can be anything other than capitalism-under-a-different-name, but that's a giant false dichotomy.
    - beaconstudios 5y ago
      A mixed economy still has private property and the capitalist-worker class dynamic, still experiences the crisis cycle - so it's still capitalist, it's just a better form of it. If your qualifying rules for "capitalism" require no welfare system whatsoever, then capitalism hasn't existed in the West for at least 100 years. Bearing in mind that I'm using "capitalism" as a descriptor, not a snarl word. The snarl one is "neoliberalism" ;)
nickpp 5y ago
And being a democracy, the welfare beneficiaries will then repeatedly decide to increase those "some taxes" thus demotivating the taxed to work. We’ve seen countless state welfare programs growing out of control and eating more and more funds and we are nowhere near eliminating poverty. You’d think that if it was just a matter of throwing money at the problem, we would have solved it by now.
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  I'd love to know where this has actually happened. It seems to me that this idea is often trotted out as a conservative scare tactic. I'd also like to know how you think we should maximise people's happiness and wellbeing. Because that's my primary interest, and economic productivity is valuable insofar as it enables that utility maximisation.
  - nickpp 5y ago
    Taxes are rising around the globe in developed countries. Also red tape and regulations which are a different type of "tax" with the same result: demotivating value creators. You can't maximise happiness by definition. Happiness is fleeting, a peak, it exists only through comparison to our regular state. Evolution made sure of that, or we'd've stopped evolving. The only way to cheat it is with drugs. I want to maximise humankind's potential instead. Gain infinite knowledge, spread through the stars. I think that is a much more worthwhile goal than happily dying out on a small planet at the edge of the galaxy.
    - beaconstudios 5y ago
      I don't mean happiness like the temporary pleasure state. I mean the minimisation of undesired suffering and maximisation of freedom for all people to pursue their preferences. I don't think "potential" is worth anything if it isn't used to benefit people and make their lives better. The imperium from 40k has much greater technology and planet span than us but it's deeply dystopic - I'd rather live here than there.

Social democracy is still capitalism, it just redirects some taxes into a welfare program. If eliminating poverty is the end goal then we need a safety net for those who fail.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> Social democracy is still capitalism It's still capitalism in much the same way that capitalism is still feudalism.

beaconstudios 5y ago
Given that capitalism describes a mode of production, it literally is still capitalism. Capitalism is not feudalism in that serfdom is not the primary working relationship between classes in capitalism - though Yanis Varoufakis seems to think that we're headed that way.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Given that capitalism describes a mode of production, it literally is still capitalism Given that redistributive taxation and benefit systems labelled “social democracy” designed specifically to mitigate the adversity that provides the whip behind the capitalist mode of production modify both the property system and the mode of production that together are labelled “capitalism”, social democracy literally is not capitalism. It retains substantial elements of the property system of, and it's mode of production has important similarities to that of, the system for which the term “capitalism” was coined (as does that system with pre-capitalist aristocratic systems), but it's not the same system. It's not Marxist socialism, either, and I know Marxists like to deny that any system that isn't pre-capitalist that fails to be Marxist socialism can be anything other than capitalism-under-a-different-name, but that's a giant false dichotomy.
  - beaconstudios 5y ago
    A mixed economy still has private property and the capitalist-worker class dynamic, still experiences the crisis cycle - so it's still capitalist, it's just a better form of it. If your qualifying rules for "capitalism" require no welfare system whatsoever, then capitalism hasn't existed in the West for at least 100 years. Bearing in mind that I'm using "capitalism" as a descriptor, not a snarl word. The snarl one is "neoliberalism" ;)

nickpp 5y ago

And being a democracy, the welfare beneficiaries will then repeatedly decide to increase those "some taxes" thus demotivating the taxed to work. We’ve seen countless state welfare programs growing out of control and eating more and more funds and we are nowhere near eliminating poverty. You’d think that if it was just a matter of throwing money at the problem, we would have solved it by now.

beaconstudios 5y ago
I'd love to know where this has actually happened. It seems to me that this idea is often trotted out as a conservative scare tactic. I'd also like to know how you think we should maximise people's happiness and wellbeing. Because that's my primary interest, and economic productivity is valuable insofar as it enables that utility maximisation.
- nickpp 5y ago
  Taxes are rising around the globe in developed countries. Also red tape and regulations which are a different type of "tax" with the same result: demotivating value creators. You can't maximise happiness by definition. Happiness is fleeting, a peak, it exists only through comparison to our regular state. Evolution made sure of that, or we'd've stopped evolving. The only way to cheat it is with drugs. I want to maximise humankind's potential instead. Gain infinite knowledge, spread through the stars. I think that is a much more worthwhile goal than happily dying out on a small planet at the edge of the galaxy.
  - beaconstudios 5y ago
    I don't mean happiness like the temporary pleasure state. I mean the minimisation of undesired suffering and maximisation of freedom for all people to pursue their preferences. I don't think "potential" is worth anything if it isn't used to benefit people and make their lives better. The imperium from 40k has much greater technology and planet span than us but it's deeply dystopic - I'd rather live here than there.