5 ms·

That premise is open to debate, there are Western countries with different systems. E.g., most Western European countries have a system called "social market ec

That premise is open to debate, there are Western countries with different systems. E.g., most Western European countries have a system called "social market economy" (which is not [exactly] capitalism).

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> premise is open to debate Again, nobody disagrees. But if you ask me if I want red or white wine, and I, instead, launch into a diatribe in Marxist-Leninism, that’s not a valid argument and it’s very annoying. Outside these debate circuits, it could come across as debilitating.
- masswerk 3y ago
  Well as a classic example, you could debate "the unemployment rate is going down – is it good or bad?" (well, the Phillips curve…) and ask with Horkheimer/Adorno, if the entire notion of discussing this in terms of a relative change to a statistical rate isn't normalizing a dysfunctional aspect of economy, regardless, where it's at. This is still a debate, but it shifts the core argument to a conceptually more fundamental level.
astrange 3y ago
All countries in the world have mixed economies. (Except maybe Somalia or North Korea.) The US has a fair amount more publically owned sectors than Europe, which eg has privatized postal services.
- jerojero 3y ago
  Yes. This is correct. Though the extent of it really matters, I always hear "Norway is a capitalist country" when their economy is primarily in the hands of the state, more than for example Venezuela. But people tend to point to Venezuela, and not Norway, as an example of a failed state owned economy. It's not really about "sectors" of the economy that are publicly owned but actual economic output. The money in the US is produced and it is in the hands of private individuals most of it. In Norway near 70% of it is produced and in the hands of the state. Obviously Norway is a particular example because they're a country that relies on natural resources extraction. But you can look at other similar countries in terms of their exports (Australia, Chile) and see how the Norwegian model differs. The USPS, for example, is a service. It's not really a business, it doesn't have to be profitable it ideally has to be sustainable but I wouldn't say it's a necessity. Not only that, it subsidised private businesses like Amazon.
  - astrange 3y ago
    > The USPS, for example, is a service. It's not really a business, it doesn't have to be profitable it ideally has to be sustainable but I wouldn't say it's a necessity. Not only that, it subsidised private businesses like Amazon. USPS is profitable, though. (even if Congress messes with their retirement accounting to make it look worse) If they subsidize anyone it's China, because we forced them to do that by signing the UPU treaty. After that it's people who buy forever stamps.
    - jerojero 3y ago
      Sorry, my bad. Point still stands though, services don't necessarily need to be profitable because they're there for a different reason.
  - honzabe 3y ago
    > I always hear "Norway is a capitalist country" when their economy is primarily in the hands of the state, more than for example Venezuela. Can you please provide some sources backing up your claim? What metric did you use? The metrics that I would use, like the Index of Economic Freedom by The Heritage Foundation, seem to contradict your claim. The fact that the state owns some companies in key industrial sectors and has stakes in others does not mean that the country's economy is primarily in the hands of the state.
    - jerojero 3y ago
      Someone else has already posted a good source for it. But I just wanted to add here that the Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank particularly known for pushing "free-market economics" (read as: neoliberal policies of hyper-privatisation) so obviously it's on their best interest to label countries such as the nordic ones more capitalist than socialist. And I mean, yeah, nordic countries for sure participate in the free-market... but Capitalism is defined by private ownership; so when you have such important portions of your economy be collectively, socially or communally owned (state, coops, labour unions) it's misleading to use such labels so lightly. These are mixed-economies, and I would even go as far as to say they're more socialist than capitalist. Socialism does have a bad reputation though. So I don't blame for these countries to label themselves as "capitalist"; i mean, it's better for business.
- Paul-Craft 3y ago
  Socialism is when workers own and control the means of production. Capitalism is the opposite. There is no such thing as a "mixed economy." Social programs are not exclusive to socialism.
  - worrycue 3y ago
    > Socialism is when workers own and control the means of production. In most cases, workers can own the means to production as many corporations are public. They just have to risk their capital to buy a share of the company - like every other owner.
    - Paul-Craft 3y ago
      You missed the second part of that definition. Both parts must be satisfied. Workers do not control any public companies that I am familiar with.
      - worrycue 3y ago
        If they are owners, they control it as much as the other owners - following the same rules; which I believe in most companies is the majority get the final say.
      - astrange 3y ago
        If the workers control a company it's not a public company. That's what "public" means. There are worker coops, customer coops, and state owned companies in the US.
        Paul-Craft 3y ago
        This is true, but workers do not broadly own or control the MoP in the US. Thus, the US is not socialist. It is not a "mixed" economy, because there is no such thing.
        astrange 3y ago
throwaway894345 3y ago
I always hear that European economies fall under the socialist rubric, but they seem pretty capitalist—at least a lot more so than the economies of any Marxist-Leninist government throughout history. I imagine scholars have a reason for their taxonomy, but I wish it made more sense to me.
- masswerk 3y ago
  To illustrate the difference, the Ahlener Programm, the first political program of Germany's conservative party (CDU) after the war in 1947, originally stated: > The capitalist economic system has not done justice to the national and social vital interests of the German people. After the terrible political, economic and social collapse as a result of criminal power politics, only a fundamental reorganization can take place. > Content and goal of this social and economic reorganization can no longer be the capitalist striving for profit and power, but only the well-being of our people. Through a public economic order, the German people should receive an economic and social constitution that corresponds to the rights and dignity of human beings, serves the spiritual and material development of our people and ensures internal and external peace. This was dubbed "Christian Socialism", and, under the influence of Adenauer, the program soon inched somewhat to the center towards a concept now known as "social market economy", a term, which had also been in use by (some) social-democrats. Conceptionally, it's deemed different from ordoliberalism as it is more process-oriented and pragmatic. (We may also see how someone who is leaning marginally towards anarcho-capitalism like, say, Elon Musk, must be perceived as entirely misaligned.)

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> premise is open to debate Again, nobody disagrees. But if you ask me if I want red or white wine, and I, instead, launch into a diatribe in Marxist-Leninism, that’s not a valid argument and it’s very annoying. Outside these debate circuits, it could come across as debilitating.

masswerk 3y ago
Well as a classic example, you could debate "the unemployment rate is going down – is it good or bad?" (well, the Phillips curve…) and ask with Horkheimer/Adorno, if the entire notion of discussing this in terms of a relative change to a statistical rate isn't normalizing a dysfunctional aspect of economy, regardless, where it's at. This is still a debate, but it shifts the core argument to a conceptually more fundamental level.

astrange 3y ago

All countries in the world have mixed economies. (Except maybe Somalia or North Korea.) The US has a fair amount more publically owned sectors than Europe, which eg has privatized postal services.

jerojero 3y ago
Yes. This is correct. Though the extent of it really matters, I always hear "Norway is a capitalist country" when their economy is primarily in the hands of the state, more than for example Venezuela. But people tend to point to Venezuela, and not Norway, as an example of a failed state owned economy. It's not really about "sectors" of the economy that are publicly owned but actual economic output. The money in the US is produced and it is in the hands of private individuals most of it. In Norway near 70% of it is produced and in the hands of the state. Obviously Norway is a particular example because they're a country that relies on natural resources extraction. But you can look at other similar countries in terms of their exports (Australia, Chile) and see how the Norwegian model differs. The USPS, for example, is a service. It's not really a business, it doesn't have to be profitable it ideally has to be sustainable but I wouldn't say it's a necessity. Not only that, it subsidised private businesses like Amazon.
- astrange 3y ago
  > The USPS, for example, is a service. It's not really a business, it doesn't have to be profitable it ideally has to be sustainable but I wouldn't say it's a necessity. Not only that, it subsidised private businesses like Amazon. USPS is profitable, though. (even if Congress messes with their retirement accounting to make it look worse) If they subsidize anyone it's China, because we forced them to do that by signing the UPU treaty. After that it's people who buy forever stamps.
  - jerojero 3y ago
    Sorry, my bad. Point still stands though, services don't necessarily need to be profitable because they're there for a different reason.
- honzabe 3y ago
  > I always hear "Norway is a capitalist country" when their economy is primarily in the hands of the state, more than for example Venezuela. Can you please provide some sources backing up your claim? What metric did you use? The metrics that I would use, like the Index of Economic Freedom by The Heritage Foundation, seem to contradict your claim. The fact that the state owns some companies in key industrial sectors and has stakes in others does not mean that the country's economy is primarily in the hands of the state.
  - jerojero 3y ago
    Someone else has already posted a good source for it. But I just wanted to add here that the Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank particularly known for pushing "free-market economics" (read as: neoliberal policies of hyper-privatisation) so obviously it's on their best interest to label countries such as the nordic ones more capitalist than socialist. And I mean, yeah, nordic countries for sure participate in the free-market... but Capitalism is defined by private ownership; so when you have such important portions of your economy be collectively, socially or communally owned (state, coops, labour unions) it's misleading to use such labels so lightly. These are mixed-economies, and I would even go as far as to say they're more socialist than capitalist. Socialism does have a bad reputation though. So I don't blame for these countries to label themselves as "capitalist"; i mean, it's better for business.
Paul-Craft 3y ago
Socialism is when workers own and control the means of production. Capitalism is the opposite. There is no such thing as a "mixed economy." Social programs are not exclusive to socialism.
- worrycue 3y ago
  > Socialism is when workers own and control the means of production. In most cases, workers can own the means to production as many corporations are public. They just have to risk their capital to buy a share of the company - like every other owner.
  - Paul-Craft 3y ago
    You missed the second part of that definition. Both parts must be satisfied. Workers do not control any public companies that I am familiar with.
    - worrycue 3y ago
      If they are owners, they control it as much as the other owners - following the same rules; which I believe in most companies is the majority get the final say.
    - astrange 3y ago
      If the workers control a company it's not a public company. That's what "public" means. There are worker coops, customer coops, and state owned companies in the US.
      - Paul-Craft 3y ago
        This is true, but workers do not broadly own or control the MoP in the US. Thus, the US is not socialist. It is not a "mixed" economy, because there is no such thing.
        astrange 3y ago

throwaway894345 3y ago

I always hear that European economies fall under the socialist rubric, but they seem pretty capitalist—at least a lot more so than the economies of any Marxist-Leninist government throughout history. I imagine scholars have a reason for their taxonomy, but I wish it made more sense to me.

masswerk 3y ago
To illustrate the difference, the Ahlener Programm, the first political program of Germany's conservative party (CDU) after the war in 1947, originally stated: > The capitalist economic system has not done justice to the national and social vital interests of the German people. After the terrible political, economic and social collapse as a result of criminal power politics, only a fundamental reorganization can take place. > Content and goal of this social and economic reorganization can no longer be the capitalist striving for profit and power, but only the well-being of our people. Through a public economic order, the German people should receive an economic and social constitution that corresponds to the rights and dignity of human beings, serves the spiritual and material development of our people and ensures internal and external peace. This was dubbed "Christian Socialism", and, under the influence of Adenauer, the program soon inched somewhat to the center towards a concept now known as "social market economy", a term, which had also been in use by (some) social-democrats. Conceptionally, it's deemed different from ordoliberalism as it is more process-oriented and pragmatic. (We may also see how someone who is leaning marginally towards anarcho-capitalism like, say, Elon Musk, must be perceived as entirely misaligned.)