• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    34 months ago

    If Socialism is Capitalism with more regulations, is the United States Socialist too? It has plenty of regulations, more than Social Democracies do in many areas, in fact. Are you going to tell me that every country is actually Socialist if it doesn’t have a laissez Faire Capitalist economy, even if it uses Capitalism as the primary mode of production?

    You want a source? Marx’s Capital. Read it, you might learn something, even if accidentally.

    Social Democracy absolutely takes influence from Marxism, that’s perhaps what the source you list may be referring to, however the place where Social Democrats fight with Socialists on is Social Democrats believe Capitalism can be harnessed and benefited from, instead of needing to transition to a worker owned economy.

    I am not confusing Capitalism with markets, again, Wikipedia defines Market Socialism as a market based economy of competing worker-owned entities. Your own source, against you! Ha.

    Similarly, I am not confusing Socialism with Communism. Communism is a Post-Socialist society, one that is Stateless, Classless, and Moneyless. Communism is indeed one form of Socialism, as is Syndicalism, as is Anarchism, as is Council Communism, as is Market Socialism.

    Please, stop making a fool of yourself.

    • @Dasus
      link
      -14 months ago

      Removed by mod

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        24 months ago

        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.

        • @Dasus
          link
          04 months ago

          Removed by mod

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            34 months ago

            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.

            • @Dasus
              link
              0
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              Removed by mod

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                2
                edit-2
                4 months ago

                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.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  24 months ago

                  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.

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    14 months ago

                    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.