8 ms·
Can we make socialism work? [audio]
- sharemywin 4y agoThe problem is the choice seems to be oiligarchs or socialism. either way the average person loses.
- thinkwithlucie 4y agowould you rather be the average Joe in capitalism or socialism?
- ceejayoz 4y agoEuropean or Soviet?
- thinkwithlucie 4y agoEuropean socialism? There is none.
- bpt3 4y agoCapitalism, no question.
- Turing_Machine 4y agoWell, you don't generally see doctors and engineers in Miami building rafts out of styrofoam-filled trash bags and crossing shark-infested, hurricane-prone waters because they'd rather be a busboy in Havana.
- vt85 4y ago[dead]
- enlightened 4y agoThat and liberal democracy, minor fkin details. Let's just forget the lessons of the last three hundred years?
- danaris 4y agoDemocracy is orthogonal to socialism. The one says how you choose the government; the other says what the government's modus operandi is.
- vt85 4y ago[dead]
- megaman821 4y agoEven in the current flawed system of capitalism, the top 20% are doing pretty great and the bottom 80% have a very slow rising tide. What does that look life for communism, 1% doing great and 99% barely surviving? Can we do better? A lot better. Is communism the way? God no. Now if you tell me America needs to reevaluate is social spending and priorities, I am totally on board.
- WalterGR 4y ago> the bottom 80% have a very slow rising tide. Obviously "rising tide" has many meanings, but: In the US, the poverty rate has remained fairly consistent since about 1970. Purchasing power has remained stagnant since about the same time.
- sharemywin 4y agoThat's my whole point this entire conversation about capitalism and socialism is a waste of time. It's a distraction designed to pit people against each other that probably agree on a lot more then disagree.
- pwinnski 4y ago> the bottom 80% have a very slow rising tide This was true until the 1980s in the US. I remember a very popular national politician showing that it wasn't true that the poor were getting poorer, they were just getting richer at a much slower rate. Then, in his eight years in office, he oversaw a shift so that now the poor are actually getting poorer, while the rich are getting richer at a far faster rate than they were. Also, nobody mentioned communism but you. The subject under discussion was socialism.
- vt85 4y ago
- bpt3 4y agoNo, we can't.
- Mikeb85 4y agoEveryone thinks it's a good idea and on paper it seems fine, however any time you centralize economic decision making you're basically inviting corruption. And even if you somehow avoid that, what's good for the majority often tramples the rights of minorities. Capitalism has its downsides but "capitalism" is also basically just economic freedom, and 10/10 times I'll choose freedom over some bureaucrat making decisions that affect me.
- WalterGR 4y ago> Everyone thinks it's a good idea and on paper it seems fine, however any time you centralize economic decision making That's not required for socialism, right?
- Mikeb85 4y agoIt's literally the defining feature of socialism...
- WalterGR 4y agoWhat is China? My understanding is that socialism is primarily about public rather than private ownership. And that centralization of market planning varies in different regimes. It may be a sufficient condition but it is not a necessary one.
- Mikeb85 4y agoPublic ownership = centralized ownership = centralized decision making. If you can't own anything individually you can't make economic decisions individually. It's like having a million business partners all with equal voting shares but in every aspect of your life.
- pwinnski 4y agoLeft unanswered is: What is China? China seems to manage largely-decentralized decision-making in a socialist society. There are exceptions, of course, as Jack Ma is finding out, but then, there seems to be more exceptions in the USA right now, as oligarchs are leveraging their wealth in obscene ways.
- whatshisface 4y agoExamples of socialism working, where working is defined as performing stably and accomplishing at least some of its intended goals: - Norwegian and Texan state resource wealth being used to fund the welfare state. (Texas only has welfare for the middle class via educational funding. When the state funds education, that's socialism, even if you like educational funding.) - National healthcare systems in most wealthy places except for America. They could be better, but they could be worse too. - Cuba, which is a poor country but is not experiencing the kind of total collapse that the decline and fall of the Soviet Union made us expect out of every socialist country.
- emteycz 4y agoCuba - given its position, climate, etc - should be absolutely thriving. What you're seeing there is a collapse, it has just reached its bottom (and there's no crazy politician who wants to build a huge ass rocket - yet).
- whatshisface 4y agoThe same argument could be applied to all of my examples, I think they all have people who argue that their current states are worse than they could be. That's why I defined "working" as "functioning" not "as good as it could be," or even "well-managed."
- emteycz 4y agoNo, that's absolutely incomparable. Cuba is a shithole from hell comparable only to places such as North Korea, Bolivia or Venezuela (coincidentally also socialist states, huh), none of the other places are.
- bpt3 4y agoWhat about Cuba gives you the impression it is functioning, unless your definition of functioning is anything above mass starvation and homelessness?
- 4y ago
- pupppet 4y agoWorking just fine in the Nordic countries. For those ready to argue they are not purely socialist, you're confusing socialism with communism.
- bryanlarsen 4y agoSocialism is defined as the means of production owned by the state. So the Nordics aren't socialist by the classical definition. Welfare state or social democracy are better terms. But whatever you call it, I want it.
- AnimalMuppet 4y agoOwned or controlled by the state. You can have socialism without state ownership if the state has sufficient control. (And that means that socialism isn't binary - you can have degrees of state control.)
- bryanlarsen 4y agoIkea et al aren't controlled by the state any more than American corporations are controlled by the US government.
- Turing_Machine 4y agoNo. The Nordic countries all have market economies. dictionary.com: a theory or system of social organization that advocates the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, capital, land, etc., by the community as a whole, usually through a centralized government. merriam-webster.com: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy: Political system in which the (major) means of production are not in private or institutional hands, but under social control. Wikipedia (just for the heck of it): Socialism is a political, social, and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership[1][2][3][4] of the means of production,[5][6][7][8] as opposed to private ownership. I'm not "confusing socialism with communism". You're confusing "market economy with high levels of government spending" with "socialism".
- charlescearl 4y agoOn reading Graeber’s The Dawn of Everthing, it becomes clear that “we” (humanity in most places we’ve lived on earth) have made what approximates socialism (broadly construed), work, at scale, for probably most of our existence. In addition to many other forms of society. The question is more what do we need to make work to prevent a catastrophic extinction event for our species? We can probably make anything work that we need to.
- kX4A8o4mVmX8aW 4y agoI'm reading that Graeber book now, it's good. I enjoyed his Debt book too. I recommend "Ministry for the Future" by Kim Stanley Robinson as a specific attempt to answer the question "what do we need to make work to prevent a catastrophic extinction event for our species." Whether what KSR describes is actually realistic is something you'll have to decide for yourself.
- AnimalMuppet 4y agoAt scale? For most of our existence, we haven't been at scale - or at least, not at what we today would consider "at scale". Does that matter? I think it may. I think that you plausibly may not be able to scale socialism above some multiple of Dunbar's Number.
- nradov 4y agoFor much of our existence, primitive human groups operated on something more like a gift economy rather than socialism. Those systems are quite different both in theory and practice.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- legitster 4y agoAt the end of the day, capitalism is a pluralistic concept that can contain a number of conflicting ideas and still function. Whatever your flavor of socialism - they generally rely on everyone agreeing on a particular vision. Your ideas can be cool or fair, but if they are not anti-fragile they will not persist.
- 0atman 4y agoWhat a weirdly US-centric question.