Socialism & Capitalism

[GoodEnoughForMe]

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.

Just because slaveholders or European colonists didn't tell African and Asian citizens to pull themselves up by their bootstraps doesn't mean millions weren't purged in intentionally designed famines, camps, slave labor industries, and more, all for purposes of profit. Modern capitalism's very roots began with the Atlantic slave trade, and anti-black racism was specifically tailored around that time to create a narrative that promulgated exploiting the labor of African people.

 

[Lexicus]

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

1) define success
2) what is responsible, in your view?

 

[GoodSarmatian]

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

I don't think so. Developed nations without at least similar policies usually do not do well.

 

[Hygro]

I agree with Lexicus's take that there are many concurrent institutions that can be categorized in Marxian mode-of-production ways. Capitalist, socialist, feudalist, slavist, and other ists (informationalist like this forum). But—and I haven't synthesized the two—I have a different take as well which is that socialism, being more explicitly ideological than the already ideological (and imposed) capitalism, is less a development in the order of things and more a reaction within an overall capitalist mode. Perhaps an attenuating social immune response or something else even. And when we finally do have Laser Gay Space Communism it won't be a communism by name or recognized by any of the soldiers of 20th century revolutionary communists.

Someone help me come to an understanding before the year's end

 

[Lexicus]

I agree with Lexicus's take that there are many concurrent institutions that can be categorized in Marxian mode-of-production ways. I haven't synthesized the two but I have a different take as well which is that socialism, being more explicitly ideological than the already ideological (and imposed) capitalism, is less a development in the order of things and more a reaction within an overall capitalist mode.

Someone help me come to an understanding before the year's end

I dunno man, my professor always said socialism is the "negation" of capitalism and I feel like to really understand I'll have to actually read Hegel, which I don't want to do all that much for obvious reasons.

I definitely think we can definitely draw an important distinction between intellectuals who call themselves socialists, and their various political programs, and socialism as a mode of production described in Marx' writings.

And when we finally do have Laser Gay Space Communism it won't be a communism by name or recognized by any of the soldiers of 20th century revolutionary communists.

QFT and maybe even just a lil extra T than that

In Volume III of Capital, the old comfortable bourgie wiser Marx wrote a lot about how the development of the corporate form and modern finance was basically taking capitalism out from under itself. He wrote that "the combination of modern limited liability corporations with modern banking represented the abolition of private property within the framework of capitalist production itself" (paraphrasing).

The upshot of this is that I think we are already pretty firmly within what old Marx would have described as the socialist mode of production. Old Marx was much less preoccupied with political revolution than the young Marx, which is understandable given that old Marx was fat and happy in England and young Marx had to deal with the repression of Prussia's police state.

 

[Hrothbern]

In Sweden long time existing and natural developing social and societal traditions are reflected in the policies of Sweden.
Those policies can be seen as social, sociaaldemocratic, socialist.... whatever name you give them from an external framework point of view.

The succes in Sweden of these policies is that they are rooted in centuries old traditions how you work and function together.
You cannot just copy-shift these policies to another country to the same effects.

Swap a Swedish manager with a British manager in a big company, both then working in the other country and both will become almost clueless how to do their work properly, how to work with their team and their boss.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

The succes in Sweden of these policies is that they are rooted in centuries old traditions how you work and function together.
You cannot just copy-shift these policies to another country to the same effects.

Swap a Swedish manager with a British manager in a big company, both then working in the other country and both will become almost clueless how to do their work properly, how to work with their team and their boss.

Let's not overromantisize swedish CEOs, IKEA was so competitive in the eighties because they used slavery East German prison labor.

 

[Hrothbern]

Let's not overromantisize swedish CEOs, IKEA was so competitive in the eighties because they used slavery East German prison labor.

I was not talking about IKEA or so
I was talking from my experience there with traditional manufacturing industry, like ABB, and suppliers for Volvo, Scania.

 

[Traitorfish]

This is why Social Democracy works...It brings the best things of Socialism into an open-market democracy...This is why Scandinavian countries have become models of success among other nations...

Scandinavian countries are full throttle socialism. I believe you are confusing socialism with communism (which is what Venezuela has, by the way).

At a certain level, yes. And the key point here is that the fact that Scandinavia has socialist policies doesn't mean it's not also capitalist. Socialism and capitalism coexist in the same society!

Why do I feel that we're each using our own private, secret definitions of "socialism"?

 

[Broken_Erika]

Why do I feel that we're each using our own private, secret definitions of "socialism"?

Socialism is the Lism of Socks!

 

[Lexicus]

Why do I feel that we're each using our own private, secret definitions of "socialism"?

I mean, I've never made any secret of my definition of socialism nor that it's different from what most people think of as socialism.

 

[El_Machinae]

Why do I feel that we're each using our own private, secret definitions of "socialism"?

It's why avoiding the semantic argument is so important. Best to figure out which particular interventions by the democracy work better than merely protecting the property rights and contract rights that have already been established.

 

[Lexicus]

It's why avoiding the semantic argument is so important. Best to figure out which particular interventions by the democracy work better than merely protecting the property rights and contract rights that have already been established.

The problem is that property rights themselves need to be negotiable to some degree.

 

[El_Machinae]

They do indeed. Which is why I find it best to avoid the semantic debate, and just zing straight to the various interventions that are win/win for a society.

 

[adcarrymaokai]

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.

> fake outrage over something very insignificant
> invocation of the civility discourse

Yeah, I honestly figured out where you were going with this after the "show some respect" part, and I just don't have time for this today. Bye.

 

[Cutlass]

Why do I feel that we're each using our own private, secret definitions of "socialism"?

You mean besides the fact that they are?

 

[Ajidica]

Scandinavia is socialist. You should really be ashamed of the idiotic propaganda you just cited to "prove" it's not. Talk about indoctrination by political masters.

Is it though? Over the last 20-30 years Scandinavian countries have taken substantial steps rightward under center-right and New Labour-styled Social Democrats.

 

[Lexicus]

Is it though? Over the last 20-30 years Scandinavian countries have taken substantial steps rightward under center-right and New Labour-styled Social Democrats.

Baby steps

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Consider the following list, which of the following would you equate with the left spectrum of politics, and which of the right?

- Pro-Abortionist
- Progressive
- Revolutionary
- Socialist
- Eugenics
- Despises the Bourgeoisie / Capitalists
- Dislikes free market enterprise
- Dislikes Christianity
- Government controlled healthcare
- Supports the idea of slavery and forced labour
- Supports the idea of gulags and detention camps for dissidents
- Violent protests
- Vandalism of both private and public property
- Confiscation of property
- Identity politics
- Intimidation tactics of anyone opposing their views
- One world government
- Darwinian style survival of the fittest
- Big on deficit spending
- Big government

Hmmmmm, they kind of sound familiar, almost like the doctrine of the Left? Hitler was all about the above list.

Only just dipped into this thread so I didn't see any context, but I honestly thought you were throwing together a mix bag of "left", "right" and "both" there (and a few "neither" if we're honest) and didn't really know where you were going with it. But you really think all of those things are left wing?!

 

[Manfred Belheim]

But the EU total gdp is very close to the US and most of the top EU countries have socialized medicine. I'm just wondering why everyone points to the US for most of the medical research. I mean I don't buy the argument that big pharma is suppressing cancer cures anyway, it seems like a cure would be insanely profitable and they could move to treating other conditions and making money that way, but even if you assumed all the US companies are, why can't Europe or China or Japan come up with a cure? I think the world just doesn't have the tech yet.

Having a socialised health care system doesn't mean that drugs are made and researched in big government labs. It still all comes from private drug companies. Most of the NHS is de facto privatised now anyway.