3 ms·
> And is the argument there that the Dutch no longer practice capitalism? Who is saying that? Nobody. > They are one of the major names in the history of the
by mcv 1y ago
> And is the argument there that the Dutch no longer practice capitalism?
Who is saying that? Nobody.
> They are one of the major names in the history of the limited-liability stock corporation, we've already had the VOC invoked in this thread.
That's quite some time ago, though. That's not what we do today. What's your point with this?
> Having a welfare state isn't capitalism but having one isn't the complete antithesis of capitalism.
Exactly. It's about finding the right balance between the best parts of different ideas, while avoiding the worst parts.
> It is easy to see how a society could simultaneously support the VOC and a welfare state.
But it didn't. There was extreme poverty in the Dutch Republic during the days of the VOC. It was neither social, nor a democracy.
> At best that just establishes that capitalism isn't fundamentally steeped in blood since the Dutch have theoretically learned to behave responsibly over the centuries.
How does that undo the blood? It's that responsibility that's putting the brakes on the excesses of capitalism.
> I suppose the real question here is what exactly do you think "social democracy" is if not just standard democracy + welfare?
I'm really wondering what you think social democracy is, with a rant like that. It's certainly more than democracy + welfare, although those are definitely big parts of it. It's regulation, it's capitalism within responsible limits, it's cooperation and negotiation between unions and corporations. And it's government investment where it's necessary. That last part is something governments like to do less and less since neoliberalism, and they're also rolling back too much of the regulation.
It's undeniable that they've been weakening the social democratic system, but the core of it is still there. It's proven itself effective enough that all the toxic shit the right has been spewing about the left, even the right-wing parties don't truly dare to dismantle it.
- roenxi 1y ago>> > And is the argument there that the Dutch no longer practice capitalism? > Who is saying that? Nobody. Well a few comments ago you had that throwaway that the social democrats were less blood-steeped than the capitalists. Then you've held up, as social democrats, a group of capitalists with a long bloody history of capitalism and as far as I know never really did anything much to repudiate that history. And still practice capitalism today. You can still notionally buy shares from the same stock exchange that hosted the VOC [0]. And the follow up is me being a bit bemused. If the social democrats are the blood-steeped capitalists, how are they less blood steeped than the capitalists? Which capitalists are the blood-seeped ones if not the British, French and Dutch? I'd assumed you were talking about those 3 and the Americans until you held the Dutch up as a counterexample to bloodied capitalists. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euronext_Amsterdam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euronext_Amsterdam - Great read
- mcv 1y agoI get it. You don't really know what social democracy is. So let me give you the briefest definition: social democracy tries to balance the best parts of socialism and capitalism, while trying to avoid the worst parts. Those worst parts include that blood-steeped history. Social democracy explicitly tries to avoid that, by regulating corporations and protecting people's rights. The corporations can still make profit, but not by any means; not by hurting people. That is something that didn't happen during that blood steeped history. The VOC had no meaningful restrictions. They could wage war, kill people, enslave people. They could sentence their own employees to death. These are the kind of excesses you want to prevent. Social democracy is something that was invented about a century and a half ago, although in the early days, the difference with socialism and anarchism wasn't very well-defined yet; those three terms were used fairly interchangeably much of the time. But at least it was explicit about democracy, and it grew to become the dominant form of socialism in capitalist democratic countries. And there it grew to be what it became over the course of the 20th century: a balance to capitalism, instead of an outright rejection of it. It hasn't always been perfect; there have been slip ups and poor decisions, but it doesn't have the kind of blood-steeped history that capitalism and totalitarian communism have. It's been fairly effective at what it tries to do. More so than any other ideology, except maybe liberalism. But they go fairly well together.
- roenxi 1y agoAnd would you accept then that capitalism as an ideology is no longer implemented anywhere? Because there aren't many modern nations more capitalist than the Dutch. And those that arguably are are only marginally more capitalistic. Like, if you do a search for "capitalistic countries" you can find [0] people who consider them to be in the top 10. Must admit I'm having trouble getting over the idea that the Dutch of all people are being held up as different than the capitalists. Good bad or otherwise this conversation is going to be a high point of the week. What's next? Socialist Switzerland? [0] https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/capitalist-countries https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/capitalis...
- mcv 1y ago