If Socialism is Capitalism with more regulations, is the United States Socialist too?
Not a bad question, if you’re honestly looking for conversation, but I get a feeling you’re trying a “gotcha” more than asking in good faith.
It’s more or less like sexuality; a spectrum more than anything black-and-white, even when people usually speak of it as either or (or “a mix of” = bi).
“Pure” capitalism doesn’t exist anywhere. It’s never even been tried as much as communism. Well, not in a developed, civilized world.
What I mean by that is by the time that any sort of currency has become a thing, there’s also been regulation, even if not written. “Pure” capitalism would mean large, completely unregulated markets. There’s just no such thing, nor ever has been. Because capitalism is by it’s nature self-defeating. The competition which puts profit over anything means that the one who profits most, by any means necessary, will win and get to establish a monopoly that will then dry the market completely out.
Which is why the US, despite being so obviously politically and economically (having such few regulations and worker protections for a supposedly developed nation) capitalist, has things like a minimum wage (more or less) and antritrust laws. Because they help keep the capitalism from eating itself to death.
You want a source? Marx’s Capital. Read it, you might learn something, even if accidentally.
Nice try, but you haven’t, that’s quite obvious.
Also, laissez-faire is essentially “without intervention”, when we all know that companies wield just a megaton of political power in the US and interfere in politics constantly, in order to keep free of regulation.
“Takes influence from Marxism”
And which economic school of thought hasn’t been influenced by Marx in some way or another? Since you say you’ve read “Das Kapital”, you obviously didn’t forget who came up with the term “capitalism”? Wouldn’t — arguably — taking a name for your school of thought be counted as “being influenced by”? (No, I’m not being serious, I’m doing the same sort of gotcha-shit you did in to showcase you how silly it is.)
I’m still waiting on you to elaborate on how I “misunderstood” this sentence:
Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism"
(sourced from Eatwell & Wright 1999, pp. 80–103; Newman 2005, p. 5; Heywood 2007, pp. 101, 134–136, 139; Ypi 2018; Watson 2019.)
Or you know, for you to source any of your hilarious bullshit
Oh, believe me, it’s a good-faith gotcha. Anyone who thinks one of the most Capitalist countries on the planet is Socialist has no idea what they are talking about.
I am well-aware of the concept of mixed economies. As an example, a truly centrist economy would have 50% of industry owned and controlled by workers, and the other 50% would be owned and controlled by Capitalists. Social Democracies lean heavily in the side of Capitalists and as such are Capitalist.
Capitalism is indeed self-defeating, that’s why the Nordic Countries are seeing steady rises in disparity and sliding of Worker protections, held largely at bay by strong unions. My hope is that one day the Nordic unions will take control and ownership of industry a la Syndicalism and finally become a group of actual Socialist countries.
Yes, the US has regulations. These do not make it more Socialist, rather, these regulations are often bought and paid for by large Corporations to cement their power as Capitalists.
What part of my analysis makes it so “obvious” to you that I haven’t read Capital, despite everything I have stated thus far being in line with it, and everything you’ve stated being firmly against it?
Fair enough, many fields have been influenced by Marxism, but what I’m specifically stating is that Social Democrats agree with initial marxian analysis and see that there is benefit for working class power, but disagree with his conclusions, and thus prefer to direct Capitalism to benefit workers.
I have already explained how you’ve misinterpreted that same sentence multiple times: Social Democracy seeks to directly existing liberal Capitalist frameworks for the benefit of all, while maintaining existing power structures and hierarchies.
Explain to me exactly why you think Socialism is polite Capitalism. You keep thinking Socialism is mere government regulation, when it is in fact worker ownership. You cannot have Socialism with Capitalists, if you still have a business owner but the business is regulated, it’s still Capitalist!
You’re extremely incoherent for a right-winger, even by right-winger standards.
You keep repeating “oh believe me”. You know why people like you say that? Do you know how liers also stress “I’m telling the truth”? Yeah, so… :)
No-one was talking about “mixed economies”. Learn to read.
that’s why the Nordic Countries are seeing steady rises in disparity and sliding of Worker protections,
None of that is remotely true. The laws keep improving all the time. I honestly don’t understand the need of people like you to literally make up things to pretend like you understand a thing? Just don’t reply. If you write less, people won’t be able to see what a moron you are.
these regulations are often bought and paid for by large Corporations to cement their power as Capitalists.
What the fuck are you smoking? “Yeah capitalist companies actually enjoy good regulations”
Social Democracy seeks to directly existing liberal Capitalist frameworks for the benefit of all, while maintaining existing power structures and hierarchies.
Call an ambulance, you’re having a stroke. That is meaningless drivel that in no way argues against the fact that social democracy is SOCIALIST as established by Eatwell & Wright 1999, pp. 80–103; Newman 2005, p. 5; Heywood 2007, pp. 101, 134–136, 139; Ypi 2018; Watson 2019.
no matter how much you cry and stomp your foot, you’re just a teenager equivocating, without any understanding of this. This shctick is getting old. It was entertaining for a while.
You’ve not provided a single source. Because there aren’t any, becuse you’re a teenager who keeps pretending he undestands something
you still have a business owner but the business is regulated, it’s still Capitalist!
TLDR “if private property exists it’s not communism”
Stomp your foot all you want kid. The truth doesn’t care.
Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism
Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism
Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism
Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism
Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism
Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism
Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism
Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism
Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism
Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism
I have been saying “oh believe me” because nothing you have stated is new to me, other than your lack of understanding of the difference between Socialism, Capitalism, and markets in general.
Yes, Capitalist companies tend to love regulations, because they protect monopoly power. An example is Disney with IP protections, they seek to maintain absolute control over their aging IP and have lobbied the government to keep their power entrenched. Another example is tax filing companies like H&R block making the tax process incredibly inefficient and difficult for the average American, just so they can sell more of their services.
Please, elaborate on your Eatwell & Wright source. Why do they call Social Democracy Socialist if it is built on Capitalist frameworks, with individual business owners rather than the economy being owned and controlled by the workers?
You cannot have individual owners of the Means of Production in a Socialist economy. Simple as.
It’s also really funny that you say I’m having a stroke as you reenact the REDRUM scene from the shining, lmao. Get help.
So you criticise Wikipedia as a source, and then when I keep asking you for sources for your arguments, you link three different articles about how income inequality is slightly higher in the recent years, and think it proves…? What? That your gibberish about political philosophy makes sense?
I’m having a hard time breathing, my eyes are watering. I really suggest you learn to check a thing or two on Google before opening your mouth :DDDDD
Yes, Capitalist companies tend to love regulations, because they protect monopoly power.
“Companies like regulations”
No, companies like laws which favour them. They don’t like “regulations”, they like PROFIT. ANYTHING that increases their profit is something they like. That’s the base of CAPITALISM, dipshit.
Pease, elaborate on your Eatwell & Wright source
It’s right there in the pages, you’re welcome to check it out yourself. Or, if you don’t feel like it, make an argument against it?
You cannot have individual owners of the Means of Production in a Socialist economy. Simple as.
Because you say so. When no-one agrees with your inane 70’s red scare logic.
“wyaa wyaa if it’s not full blown communism it’s not socialism but if even one thing is traded between two people it’s capitalism”
It proves that disparity is rising in Capitalist Social Democracies, like I said. Simple.
Companies like regulations that help them make profits, yes. No need to sling insults.
I’m not paying to read a source that you refuse to actually reference in any meaningful capacity outside of an appeal to authority, when I already know what Marx, Engels, Lenin, Kropotkin, Bakunin, Luxembourg, and so forth are talking about when they speak of and define Socialism, not the revisionist Capitalism that is Social Democracy.
Why is it “red-scare” logic when it’s written by Marx and all Marxists to come after him? That’s just Marxist logic!
2 people can trade things and it need not be Capitalism, you can have 2 worker co-operatives trade commodities and it’s Market Socialism. Simple.
No need to throw slurs at me, but it’s fitting for a right-winger to turn to those when they fail to use logic.
Edit: Credit where credit is due, you did in fact change from using a slur to using a more tame insult once I called you out, so at least you’ve got that going for you.
You are amazing. I wouln’t have had the patience to have that conversation.
Thank you for explaining people… well…
Reality.
Just a bit of an off topic point:
I belive the use of “socialism” that the other comenter has is am apropiation or integration of socialisim into the kyriarchy. Defusing and making solcialism anti-revolutionary, taking away what it makes it dangerous and leaving a shell of it self.
Socialism is not anymore the controll of the means of production by the workers (simplify definition) but capitalism where they controlling group give you a bit of assurance and you have to thank them for it.
Thanks! I just take combating bourgeois nonsense seriously when I see it.
You’re correct, by adopting good, common sense social safety nets as “socialism,” Socialism becomes defanged. “We already have Socialism, why do you want any more?” Can become a cry against the Proletariat.
Not a bad question, if you’re honestly looking for conversation, but I get a feeling you’re trying a “gotcha” more than asking in good faith.
It’s more or less like sexuality; a spectrum more than anything black-and-white, even when people usually speak of it as either or (or “a mix of” = bi).
“Pure” capitalism doesn’t exist anywhere. It’s never even been tried as much as communism. Well, not in a developed, civilized world. What I mean by that is by the time that any sort of currency has become a thing, there’s also been regulation, even if not written. “Pure” capitalism would mean large, completely unregulated markets. There’s just no such thing, nor ever has been. Because capitalism is by it’s nature self-defeating. The competition which puts profit over anything means that the one who profits most, by any means necessary, will win and get to establish a monopoly that will then dry the market completely out.
Which is why the US, despite being so obviously politically and economically (having such few regulations and worker protections for a supposedly developed nation) capitalist, has things like a minimum wage (more or less) and antritrust laws. Because they help keep the capitalism from eating itself to death.
Nice try, but you haven’t, that’s quite obvious.
Also, laissez-faire is essentially “without intervention”, when we all know that companies wield just a megaton of political power in the US and interfere in politics constantly, in order to keep free of regulation.
“Takes influence from Marxism”
And which economic school of thought hasn’t been influenced by Marx in some way or another? Since you say you’ve read “Das Kapital”, you obviously didn’t forget who came up with the term “capitalism”? Wouldn’t — arguably — taking a name for your school of thought be counted as “being influenced by”? (No, I’m not being serious, I’m doing the same sort of gotcha-shit you did in to showcase you how silly it is.)
I’m still waiting on you to elaborate on how I “misunderstood” this sentence:
Or you know, for you to source any of your hilarious bullshit
Oh, believe me, it’s a good-faith gotcha. Anyone who thinks one of the most Capitalist countries on the planet is Socialist has no idea what they are talking about.
I am well-aware of the concept of mixed economies. As an example, a truly centrist economy would have 50% of industry owned and controlled by workers, and the other 50% would be owned and controlled by Capitalists. Social Democracies lean heavily in the side of Capitalists and as such are Capitalist.
Capitalism is indeed self-defeating, that’s why the Nordic Countries are seeing steady rises in disparity and sliding of Worker protections, held largely at bay by strong unions. My hope is that one day the Nordic unions will take control and ownership of industry a la Syndicalism and finally become a group of actual Socialist countries.
Yes, the US has regulations. These do not make it more Socialist, rather, these regulations are often bought and paid for by large Corporations to cement their power as Capitalists.
What part of my analysis makes it so “obvious” to you that I haven’t read Capital, despite everything I have stated thus far being in line with it, and everything you’ve stated being firmly against it?
Fair enough, many fields have been influenced by Marxism, but what I’m specifically stating is that Social Democrats agree with initial marxian analysis and see that there is benefit for working class power, but disagree with his conclusions, and thus prefer to direct Capitalism to benefit workers.
I have already explained how you’ve misinterpreted that same sentence multiple times: Social Democracy seeks to directly existing liberal Capitalist frameworks for the benefit of all, while maintaining existing power structures and hierarchies.
Explain to me exactly why you think Socialism is polite Capitalism. You keep thinking Socialism is mere government regulation, when it is in fact worker ownership. You cannot have Socialism with Capitalists, if you still have a business owner but the business is regulated, it’s still Capitalist!
You’re extremely incoherent for a right-winger, even by right-winger standards.
You keep repeating “oh believe me”. You know why people like you say that? Do you know how liers also stress “I’m telling the truth”? Yeah, so… :)
No-one was talking about “mixed economies”. Learn to read.
None of that is remotely true. The laws keep improving all the time. I honestly don’t understand the need of people like you to literally make up things to pretend like you understand a thing? Just don’t reply. If you write less, people won’t be able to see what a moron you are.
What the fuck are you smoking? “Yeah capitalist companies actually enjoy good regulations”
Call an ambulance, you’re having a stroke. That is meaningless drivel that in no way argues against the fact that social democracy is SOCIALIST as established by Eatwell & Wright 1999, pp. 80–103; Newman 2005, p. 5; Heywood 2007, pp. 101, 134–136, 139; Ypi 2018; Watson 2019.
no matter how much you cry and stomp your foot, you’re just a teenager equivocating, without any understanding of this. This shctick is getting old. It was entertaining for a while.
You’ve not provided a single source. Because there aren’t any, becuse you’re a teenager who keeps pretending he undestands something
TLDR “if private property exists it’s not communism”
Stomp your foot all you want kid. The truth doesn’t care.
Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy#cite_note-FOOTNOTEEatwellWright199980–103Newman20055Heywood2007101,_134–136,_139Ypi2018Watson2019-1
You don’t have a single source
I have been saying “oh believe me” because nothing you have stated is new to me, other than your lack of understanding of the difference between Socialism, Capitalism, and markets in general.
Here’s a source on rising disparity: https://www.norden.org/en/news/increasing-income-inequality-nordics
And another: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7762(23)00028-5/fulltext
And yet another: https://academic.oup.com/book/39667/chapter-abstract/339652441?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false
Happy?
Yes, Capitalist companies tend to love regulations, because they protect monopoly power. An example is Disney with IP protections, they seek to maintain absolute control over their aging IP and have lobbied the government to keep their power entrenched. Another example is tax filing companies like H&R block making the tax process incredibly inefficient and difficult for the average American, just so they can sell more of their services.
Please, elaborate on your Eatwell & Wright source. Why do they call Social Democracy Socialist if it is built on Capitalist frameworks, with individual business owners rather than the economy being owned and controlled by the workers?
You cannot have individual owners of the Means of Production in a Socialist economy. Simple as.
It’s also really funny that you say I’m having a stroke as you reenact the REDRUM scene from the shining, lmao. Get help.
So you criticise Wikipedia as a source, and then when I keep asking you for sources for your arguments, you link three different articles about how income inequality is slightly higher in the recent years, and think it proves…? What? That your gibberish about political philosophy makes sense?
I’m having a hard time breathing, my eyes are watering. I really suggest you learn to check a thing or two on Google before opening your mouth :DDDDD
“Companies like regulations”
No, companies like laws which favour them. They don’t like “regulations”, they like PROFIT. ANYTHING that increases their profit is something they like. That’s the base of CAPITALISM, dipshit.
It’s right there in the pages, you’re welcome to check it out yourself. Or, if you don’t feel like it, make an argument against it?
Because you say so. When no-one agrees with your inane 70’s red scare logic.
“wyaa wyaa if it’s not full blown communism it’s not socialism but if even one thing is traded between two people it’s capitalism”
Go and read a dictionary, kiddo.
It proves that disparity is rising in Capitalist Social Democracies, like I said. Simple.
Companies like regulations that help them make profits, yes. No need to sling insults.
I’m not paying to read a source that you refuse to actually reference in any meaningful capacity outside of an appeal to authority, when I already know what Marx, Engels, Lenin, Kropotkin, Bakunin, Luxembourg, and so forth are talking about when they speak of and define Socialism, not the revisionist Capitalism that is Social Democracy.
Why is it “red-scare” logic when it’s written by Marx and all Marxists to come after him? That’s just Marxist logic!
2 people can trade things and it need not be Capitalism, you can have 2 worker co-operatives trade commodities and it’s Market Socialism. Simple.
No need to throw slurs at me, but it’s fitting for a right-winger to turn to those when they fail to use logic.
Edit: Credit where credit is due, you did in fact change from using a slur to using a more tame insult once I called you out, so at least you’ve got that going for you.
Man,
You are amazing. I wouln’t have had the patience to have that conversation.
Thank you for explaining people… well… Reality.
Just a bit of an off topic point:
I belive the use of “socialism” that the other comenter has is am apropiation or integration of socialisim into the kyriarchy. Defusing and making solcialism anti-revolutionary, taking away what it makes it dangerous and leaving a shell of it self.
Socialism is not anymore the controll of the means of production by the workers (simplify definition) but capitalism where they controlling group give you a bit of assurance and you have to thank them for it.
Thanks! I just take combating bourgeois nonsense seriously when I see it.
You’re correct, by adopting good, common sense social safety nets as “socialism,” Socialism becomes defanged. “We already have Socialism, why do you want any more?” Can become a cry against the Proletariat.