Socialism & Capitalism

[Lexicus]

True. In that instance, there was no argument, really. The argument was the source. I happen to agree that the Scandinavian countries aren't 'socialist', because then it ignores 'true socialism' that is the stated goal of some people. I think of them like a mixed economy, surprise surprise.

"True socialism" is an empty concept. Every actually-existing society is a mishmash of different theoretical ideals we call "modes of production". Every society has elements of not only socialism and capitalism but of communism and various other precapitalist social formations like feudalism and even slavery.

 

[onejayhawk]

"True socialism" is an empty concept. Every actually-existing society is a mishmash of different theoretical ideals we call "modes of production". Every society has elements of not only socialism and capitalism but of communism and various other precapitalist social formations like feudalism and even slavery.

Meh. True but worth little. Most societies have one ideal that is preeminent. It suffices for some useful generalizations.

J

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Rationality is a good choice to substitute for an arbitrarily chosen religion. It seems this is an unpopular choice, however.

On that note, capitalism has a clear track record of outperforming socialism, so it's reasonable to prefer it over socialism. That is different from making a case that it's optimal however; doing better than socialism in empirical reality is not a high bar.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Rationality is a good choice to substitute for an arbitrarily chosen religion. It seems this is an unpopular choice, however.

On that note, capitalism has a clear track record of outperforming socialism, so it's reasonable to prefer it over socialism. That is different from making a case that it's optimal however; doing better than socialism in empirical reality is not a high bar.

Its not an either/or choice though, and there are some things that capitalism is very bad at providing where even a strong champion of capitalism like the US finds it necessary for the state to intervene.

 

[Lexicus]

On that note, capitalism has a clear track record of outperforming socialism

Yeah I mean capitalism has only killed tens of millions, malnourished hundreds of millions, and is literally destroying the biosphere and the basis of human civilization. Best system imaginable, way better than socialism, trust me folks my hands are very large

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Yeah I mean capitalism has only killed tens of millions, malnourished hundreds of millions, and is literally destroying the biosphere and the basis of human civilization. Best system imaginable, way better than socialism, trust me folks my hands are very large

By casualty and starvation count alone, those numbers are indeed indicative of better performance than socialism, and let's not pretend stuff like the Aral sea leaves socialism clean and green.

Still not a high bar obviously.

 

[Lexicus]

By casualty and starvation count alone, those numbers are indeed indicative of better performance than socialism, and let's not pretend stuff like the Aral sea leaves socialism clean and green.

Um. No they aren't. Not even close.

 

[warpus]

My personal view is that Capitalism along with Christianity is the greatest gift the world has ever and will ever have

You are probably right. Without Christianity we probably wouldn't know that it's possible to walk on water, and so we'd still be walking around bodies of water as opposed to over them. Christianity saves lots of time.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Um. No they aren't. Not even close.

USSR managed the better part of your cited statistics by itself. USSR was not the only country to attempt failed socialist principles.

 

[Lexicus]

USSR managed the better part of your cited statistics by itself. USSR was not the only country to attempt failed socialist principles.

USSR was capitalist by any consistent definition of the term. And incidentally, the peak population of the USSR was something like 180 million, it never came close to malnourishing "hundreds of millions" of people. Global capitalism is doing that today, there is enough food to feed everyone but hundreds of millions go hungry because it's not profitable to feed them when they can't afford to pay.

 

[Ryika]

malnourished hundreds of millions

Well, at least it HAS nourished them. That can't really be said about socialism, can it?

Socialist: DESTRoYED.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

USSR managed the better part of your cited statistics by itself. USSR was not the only country to attempt failed socialist principles.

That's because when you try to transition directly from "feudalism" to "socialism" without going through the stage of "capitalism", you're doing "Marxism" wrong.
And when you keep holding on to "capitalism" when your country is already developed enough you're doing "economics" and "morality" wrong.

Scare quotes to admit that the terms are vague and make any semantic pedantry redundand.

 

[Commodore]

There wasn't much of an argument. His entire post was "For the most part, Scandinavia isn't actually socialist at all." with a couple of links.

So you resort to condescension and mockery instead of asking for clarification or elaboration? Sorry, but there's no way you are looking like the civilized one here.

"True socialism" is an empty concept. Every actually-existing society is a mishmash of different theoretical ideals we call "modes of production". Every society has elements of not only socialism and capitalism but of communism and various other precapitalist social formations like feudalism and even slavery.

This sounds suspiciously like a way for socialists to claim credit for the successes of non-socialist systems. This whole tiff over Scandinavia being a prime example. The Scandinavian nations aren't socialist, but just because they may have some socialist elements in their economic system, you claim it as a roaring success of socialism.

Yeah I mean capitalism has only killed tens of millions,

No, it hasn't. Just because people living under a capitalist system may do horrible things does not mean capitalism is to blame. And before you try to make the same argument about socialism, I'll just point out that no one has ever purged millions of people in the name of the great capitalist revolution. And that's the difference. Capitalists may have killed, but they have never killed specifically in the name of capitalism. The same cannot be said of socialists. Hell, you yourself have advocated for and tolerate the idea of using violence to advance the socialist cause. People like you don't really help fight the stereotype that all socialists are just wannabe Stalins.

Um. No they aren't. Not even close.

Taking a page out of Trump's book and using some of those "alternative facts" I see.

More seriously though, I keep seeing socialists rant on and on about the "millions" capitalism has killed, yet not one has ever been able to produce a source showing these casualty numbers. I'm guessing you aren't going to produce such a source either

 

[GoodSarmatian]

This sounds suspiciously like a way for socialists to claim credit for the successes of non-socialist systems. This whole tiff over Scandinavia being a prime example. The Scandinavian nations aren't socialist, but just because they may have some socialist elements in their economic system, you claim it as a roaring success of socialism.

These "socialist" policies don't just happen unless Socialists fight for them.

 

[Lexicus]

This sounds suspiciously like a way for socialists to claim credit for the successes of non-socialist systems. This whole tiff over Scandinavia being a prime example. The Scandinavian nations aren't socialist, but just because they may have some socialist elements in their economic system, you claim it as a roaring success of socialism.

Yes, as we can see:

"True socialism" is an empty concept. Every actually-existing society is a mishmash of different theoretical ideals we call "modes of production". Every society has elements of not only socialism and capitalism but of communism and various other precapitalist social formations like feudalism and even slavery.

And before you try to make the same argument about socialism, I'll just point out that no one has ever purged millions of people in the name of the great capitalist revolution.

You've hit on an important point. There were no self-described capitalist revolutionaries. So why would we think that we need to look for socialism where we see self-described socialist revolutionaries?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

These "socialist" policies don't just happen unless Socialists fight for them.

Turns out people don't usually like it when you take stuff they have, true.

That said, in practice there comes a point where history tells us people will consistently use violence to grab stuff when enough feel the game is rigged against them and they lack enough of their own stuff. That seems to happen regardless of ideology in place. Any model that doesn't account for this has the same problem with ignoring human nature/general biological drivers/incentives that is typically associated with socialism.

Better would be to not-rig systems, keep incentives in place that actually produce and avoid a revolution. Though there are no historical examples of sustaining that.

 

[AmazonQueen]

So you resort to condescension and mockery instead of asking for clarification or elaboration? Sorry, but there's no way you are looking like the civilized one here.
No, it hasn't. Just because people living under a capitalist system may do horrible things does not mean capitalism is to blame. And before you try to make the same argument about socialism, I'll just point out that no one has ever purged millions of people in the name of the great capitalist revolution. And that's the difference. Capitalists may have killed, but they have never killed specifically in the name of capitalism. The same cannot be said of socialists. Hell, you yourself have advocated for and tolerate the idea of using violence to advance the socialist cause. People like you don't really help fight the stereotype that all socialists are just wannabe Stalins.

Maybe not in the name of capitalism but for the sake of capitalism certainly. People like Allende and Mosaddegh weren't overthrown to protect democracy.

 

[AmazonQueen]

This sounds suspiciously like a way for socialists to claim credit for the successes of non-socialist systems. This whole tiff over Scandinavia being a prime example. The Scandinavian nations aren't socialist, but just because they may have some socialist elements in their economic system, you claim it as a roaring success of socialism.

Its certainly not an argument for capitalism when even its strongest advocates like the US have to resort to state intervention because of its many failures.

 

[Lexicus]

Turns out people don't usually like it when you take stuff they have, true.

This is why capitalists perennially attempt to destroy democracy, as it allows the majority to prevent thieving.

Better would be to not-rig systems, keep incentives in place that actually produce and avoid a revolution.

Ie, better to have more socialism

 

[Commodore]

These "socialist" policies don't just happen unless Socialists fight for them.

Okay? My point was that it's not the socialist policies that are responsible for the success of the Scandinavian nations.