4 ms·

i would argue the exact opposite. socialism, in its best form, is more democratic than capitalism. socialism != a CEO that controls everything. you put strong d

i would argue the exact opposite. socialism, in its best form, is more democratic than capitalism. socialism != a CEO that controls everything. you put strong democratic systems in place to prevent the CEO or dictator. your insurance company is controlled by all the workers rather than a CEO, and they get to make decisions about the business, etc. there are a ton of permutations for how socialism can function and many of them aren't what the red scare leads everybody to believe. the 20th century failures were more like dictatorships than socialism. socialism is all about how you organize a business by giving workers control, rather than organizing with the employer/employee relationship in capitalism. the workers can vote for a CEO to make the big decisions if they want, or a creative director to design or whatever, but they can also have the power to fire that individual if they don't think they're doing a good job. and to your point about centralized control — we already have that with a ton of industries in america. we already have it for the US military, etc. seeing capitalism as the free market and socialism as a planned economy is a false dichotomy.

chaostheory 4y ago
Your whole argument isn’t grounded in reality or history. ”socialism, in its best form, is more democratic than capitalism. socialism != a CEO that controls everything… you put strong democratic systems in place to prevent the CEO or dictator.” No, it is not more democratic than capitalism. You have one entity controlling all manufacturing and distribution. There is no competition. There are no other competing entities with competing powers. A free press doesn’t exist in a socialist state because there’s only a state press. There’s no independent press to check on the government and report back to the masses. ”your insurance company is controlled by all the workers rather than a CEO” That’s called a small co-op, and that can exist in a capitalist system. That cannot exist in socialism because there’s only one entity, the state. Not even large co-ops that span more than one building can function like this “the 20th century failures were more like dictatorships than socialism.” This is a bad argument. Using your logic, I can say what we have now isn’t capitalism because we have lots of regulatory capture and corruption. “It’s more like cronyism.” If we’re being honest. It’s still capitalism, just like all the failed experiments in the 20th century are still socialism. The reason why socialism devolves into communism is because of the extreme centralization of power. “socialism is all about how you organize a business by giving workers control, rather than organizing with the employer/employee relationship in capitalism. the workers can vote for a CEO to make the big decisions if they want, or a creative director to design or whatever, but they can also have the power to fire that individual if they don't think they're doing a good job.” No, it isn’t. That is idealist fantasy. It’s like saying in a democracy, the citizens vote on everything. We do not. The masses elect representatives to act as proxies. Similarly, in socialism the masses also have representatives or leaders. Why? Efficiency. Of course, this is a vector for corruption. Also, unlike in a capitalist system, there’s no competition to the state (no checks or balances from competing powers: private vs public), which greatly magnifies the effects of corruption. “and to your point about centralized control — we already have that with a ton of industries in america. we already have it for the US military, etc. seeing capitalism as the free market and socialism as a planned economy is a false dichotomy.” And to your point, I can come right back and say that capitalism can fix our current mess because what we have right now is not ideologically pure, theoretical capitalism /s …just as you refuse to acknowledge the pile of failed 20th century collectivist experiments as socialist.
- greenie_beans 4y ago
  nice cherry picked rebuttal. you missed a big point that there are tons of variations of how socialism can work. i define socialism as a way to organize a business where the workers control the business. that isn't capitalism and yes, you're right, it's closer to a co-op. i define capitalism where an owner (or owners) control the business and they employee workers who have little or no control over the business. if we can't agree on those definitions then there's really no point in nitpicking each other's arguments.
  - chaostheory 4y ago
    > nice cherry picked rebuttal. Your accusation is really comical since your arguments are way more cherry picked than mine. I at least acknowledge that what we have right now is indeed capitalism despite the lack of ideological purity. > you missed a big point that there are tons of variations of how socialism can work. We've literally had over a hundred years of political experiments with socialism. I've gone over all the variations that have existed in real life, with the longest running experiments being North Korea and Cuba. > i define socialism as a way to organize a business where the workers control the business The reason why this doesn't work is logistics. It's already incredibly hard just to get that co-op concept working in small company. (I believe it barely worked with a packaging company.) It's near impossible to even get that working for a co-op with locations nationwide. Our so-called national co-ops run more as a public benefit corporations than your strict view of a co-op. > i define capitalism where an owner (or owners) control the business and they employee workers who have little or no control over the business. In a system where even workers can own pieces of a corporation, that black and white view doesn't survive; especially when workers can strike, just leave for another company, or better yet start their own business. It is much harder for proletariats to influence the socialist state, than it is for employees to influence their bosses because capitalist systems have competing powers > if we can't agree on those definitions then there's really no point in nitpicking each other's arguments. When your entire argument falls apart from “nitpicking”, it means that it’s weak. Your argument is weak because it completely ignores history. We've done the socialism experiment for over a 100 years now. Ideas don’t live in an ivory vacuum. They need to survive reality. What we’ve seen in the 20th century is socialism in reality. If you ever get a chance to read the founding declarations of communist states, they are very similar to your co-op idealism. What Confucius, Marx, Paine, Plato, and even Smith all failed to realize is that humans will always find a way to cheat the system and subvert it for their own gain. In HN speak, "individual nodes will always seek to optimize their own efficiency, at the cost of the system as a whole". Corruption doesn't disappear when you switch to socialism. Every known system regardless of whether it's capitalism or socialism will always eventually fail ie hit late stage, unless you can completely neutralize the human propensity to hack everything. Capitalism and socialism are both poor, temporary bandaids. Capitalism is only slightly better because it offers more flexibility. All you have to read is Animal Farm

chaostheory 4y ago

Your whole argument isn’t grounded in reality or history. ”socialism, in its best form, is more democratic than capitalism. socialism != a CEO that controls everything… you put strong democratic systems in place to prevent the CEO or dictator.” No, it is not more democratic than capitalism. You have one entity controlling all manufacturing and distribution. There is no competition. There are no other competing entities with competing powers. A free press doesn’t exist in a socialist state because there’s only a state press. There’s no independent press to check on the government and report back to the masses. ”your insurance company is controlled by all the workers rather than a CEO” That’s called a small co-op, and that can exist in a capitalist system. That cannot exist in socialism because there’s only one entity, the state. Not even large co-ops that span more than one building can function like this “the 20th century failures were more like dictatorships than socialism.” This is a bad argument. Using your logic, I can say what we have now isn’t capitalism because we have lots of regulatory capture and corruption. “It’s more like cronyism.” If we’re being honest. It’s still capitalism, just like all the failed experiments in the 20th century are still socialism. The reason why socialism devolves into communism is because of the extreme centralization of power. “socialism is all about how you organize a business by giving workers control, rather than organizing with the employer/employee relationship in capitalism. the workers can vote for a CEO to make the big decisions if they want, or a creative director to design or whatever, but they can also have the power to fire that individual if they don't think they're doing a good job.” No, it isn’t. That is idealist fantasy. It’s like saying in a democracy, the citizens vote on everything. We do not. The masses elect representatives to act as proxies. Similarly, in socialism the masses also have representatives or leaders. Why? Efficiency. Of course, this is a vector for corruption. Also, unlike in a capitalist system, there’s no competition to the state (no checks or balances from competing powers: private vs public), which greatly magnifies the effects of corruption. “and to your point about centralized control — we already have that with a ton of industries in america. we already have it for the US military, etc. seeing capitalism as the free market and socialism as a planned economy is a false dichotomy.” And to your point, I can come right back and say that capitalism can fix our current mess because what we have right now is not ideologically pure, theoretical capitalism /s …just as you refuse to acknowledge the pile of failed 20th century collectivist experiments as socialist.

greenie_beans 4y ago
nice cherry picked rebuttal. you missed a big point that there are tons of variations of how socialism can work. i define socialism as a way to organize a business where the workers control the business. that isn't capitalism and yes, you're right, it's closer to a co-op. i define capitalism where an owner (or owners) control the business and they employee workers who have little or no control over the business. if we can't agree on those definitions then there's really no point in nitpicking each other's arguments.
- chaostheory 4y ago
  > nice cherry picked rebuttal. Your accusation is really comical since your arguments are way more cherry picked than mine. I at least acknowledge that what we have right now is indeed capitalism despite the lack of ideological purity. > you missed a big point that there are tons of variations of how socialism can work. We've literally had over a hundred years of political experiments with socialism. I've gone over all the variations that have existed in real life, with the longest running experiments being North Korea and Cuba. > i define socialism as a way to organize a business where the workers control the business The reason why this doesn't work is logistics. It's already incredibly hard just to get that co-op concept working in small company. (I believe it barely worked with a packaging company.) It's near impossible to even get that working for a co-op with locations nationwide. Our so-called national co-ops run more as a public benefit corporations than your strict view of a co-op. > i define capitalism where an owner (or owners) control the business and they employee workers who have little or no control over the business. In a system where even workers can own pieces of a corporation, that black and white view doesn't survive; especially when workers can strike, just leave for another company, or better yet start their own business. It is much harder for proletariats to influence the socialist state, than it is for employees to influence their bosses because capitalist systems have competing powers > if we can't agree on those definitions then there's really no point in nitpicking each other's arguments. When your entire argument falls apart from “nitpicking”, it means that it’s weak. Your argument is weak because it completely ignores history. We've done the socialism experiment for over a 100 years now. Ideas don’t live in an ivory vacuum. They need to survive reality. What we’ve seen in the 20th century is socialism in reality. If you ever get a chance to read the founding declarations of communist states, they are very similar to your co-op idealism. What Confucius, Marx, Paine, Plato, and even Smith all failed to realize is that humans will always find a way to cheat the system and subvert it for their own gain. In HN speak, "individual nodes will always seek to optimize their own efficiency, at the cost of the system as a whole". Corruption doesn't disappear when you switch to socialism. Every known system regardless of whether it's capitalism or socialism will always eventually fail ie hit late stage, unless you can completely neutralize the human propensity to hack everything. Capitalism and socialism are both poor, temporary bandaids. Capitalism is only slightly better because it offers more flexibility. All you have to read is Animal Farm