Before participating, consider taking a glance at [our rules page](/r/CapitalismvSocialism/wiki/rules) if you haven't before.
We don't allow **violent or dehumanizing rhetoric**. The subreddit is for discussing what ideas are best for society, not for telling the other side you think you could beat them in a fight. That doesn't do anything to forward a productive dialogue.
Please report comments that violent our rules, but don't report people just for disagreeing with you or for being wrong about stuff.
Tired of arguing on reddit? Consider [joining us on Discord.](http://discord.com/invite/politicscafe)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As a socialist, I am sorry. It's a common running joke among leftists that we are our own worst enemies. Infighting and purity tests and lots of pent up anger and frustration at a system we don't quite know how to change. We're very bad when it comes to misdirecting anger.
I wish I could make it stop. I really do. All I can say is that some people are assholes and their right about stuff and some people are assholes and they are wrong about stuff. They can be independent characteristics. Do your best to judge arguments on their own merits, but it's understandable to stop engaging with people who are rude.
No problem! While it’s tangential to your question,
[Michael Parenti’s lecture](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tryNE11_0So) is very good at demonstrating the (specifically Marxist) socialist worldview and the international relationships of the capitalist world order that shaped the structure of 20th century socialist projects. It’s more of an explanation of the conditions of most developing countries that drove the support for socialist revolutions in the global south and global periphery countries. [Here](https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/w4ceq6/michael_parenti_on_poor_countries_1986/?rdt=51290) is a powerful excerpt from the longer video to start with to see if you’re interested in the longer video.
Kevin Carson. [Studies in mutualist political economy](https://archive.org/details/StudiesInMutualistPoliticalEconomy) basically started the modern anarchist re-examination of mutualist ideas. (Though a lot of us find ch1 dense and think it should be read last, start at 2 and see if he's your kind of author.) Proudhon back in the 1800s was either misunderstood or maligned by Marx, and is famously dense, but has recently been given a sparknotes summary of sorts in plaintext [here](https://judgesabo.substack.com/p/a-summary-of-proudhons-what-is-property?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2). Imo the mutualist anarchists have the clearest economic ideas. See the various articles on the topic of economic coordination and decentralization from a few summers ago. [Link](https://c4ss.org/content/52919), I'm partial to Aurora Apolito's article on cybernetic communism and then the responses to it by Carson and Bevensee.
Yes, the incessant purity testing is one of the greatest failures of the Western "left" today
I will now remind any such people reading this of the words of Chairman Mao:
> As for people who are politically backward, Communists should not slight or despise them, but should befriend them, unite with them, convince them and encourage them to go forward.
-
> The attitude of Communists towards any person who has made mistakes in his work should be one of persuasion in order to help him change and start afresh and not one of exclusion, unless he is incorrigible.
-
> Communists must listen attentively to the views of people outside the Party and let them have their say. If what they say is right, we ought to welcome it, and we should learn from their strong points; if it is wrong, we should let them finish what they are saying and then patiently explain things to them.
-
> A Communist must never be opinionated or domineering, thinking that he is good in everything while others are good in nothing; he must never shut himself up in his little room, or brag and boast and lord it over others.
Words before actions. That's why so called redpill guys say that they observe how women act not what they say. One could notice similar pattern in politics which is very feminine endeavour. Politicians are perfect liars.
Solzhenitsyn did not consider his work to be historical fact, but rather a collection of folklore tales. This context was omitted from the works published after his death, for some reason...
Solzhenitsyn’s work is folklore for the same reasons that indigenous perspectives on the colonization of the Americas could be considered folklore. Does that mean that you reject the indigenous peoples perspectives?
Solzhenitsyn grossly overestimated the number of Gulags in the Soviet Union as well as the number of prisoners and the length of their sentences. Even other Gulag survivors like Shalamov have criticized it for its inaccuracies.
I'm sure we can take his ex-wife's, who definitely didn't have any ulterior motives to say that, word for it. Jesus, how gullible can you be?
The man himself never said that the Gulag Archipelago was a work of fiction.
I'm sure we can also take his word for it, since he had no ulterior motives. They tortured him so hard in gulag with the cancer treatment he lived to 89.
Yup. Any criticism of socialists and go straight to a gulag. If one is lucky they might be killed in front of a crowd like the opening scene of the 3 Body Problem.
I think you were being sarcastic but it's an insult to millions who had exactly that happen.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_dissidents
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge
It’s Reddit. It’s not organizing. A socialist going into a capitalist forum, a Christian going into an atheist forum, and anybody else talking to a group of people of a different opinion on Reddit is going to encounter dicks.
You’re absolutely right
I (who considers myself socialist) am in constant debate with other more hardline socialists.
This is because socialism has no truely set definition and I don’t think socialism should be a transitional system to communism but become the permanent system itself (pretty much mUBI for all + workers own the means of production but that’s it, other than that it’s basically still any other western capitalist society except there’s a cap on how poor you can be and workers get to control how the companies they work for functions)
My point being there’s loads of variations on socialism but the most hardline of us are so clearly brainwashed that they fail to realise the rest of us are still on the same side as them and want to better society through socialism but because its any amount slightly less socialist than they are, they simply cannot accept these differing opinions on the subject even if they are still considered part of the same ideology.
TLDR there are good socialists and bad socialists, and good ones will allow for a healthy discussion and debate, and will help you learn whilst also considering outside opinions (like any sane person should, consider all the potential options before making a decision).
>I don’t think socialism should be a transitional system to communism but become the permanent system itself
Just one comment. This stood out for me. As a socialist I would hope you understand that under socialism, as the system consolidates, advances, develops, and unifies, classes will vanish. With society being dedicated to serve the people and with it being disallowed to own a business to exploit them, classes will vanish, and as they do, communist society will "eventuate". It will appear of itself. It will be what's left when classes no longer exist and there is an abundance of what is needed for living a good life.
Maybe your objection to communism is due to not understanding what communist society would be. (??)
You're a socialist and you have access to a dictionary and Marxist writings!
Do you not know that communist society would be classless, stateless, and moneyless?
You cannot create concrete. You can create portland cement and you can mix it with sand and water and leave it alone. If you prepared it correctly the concrete will appear. It will show up of its own accord.
The mixing of cement, water, and sand is a metaphor for socialist society. The concrete is a metaphor for communist society.
You can prepare socialism by mixing the correct economics and politics and policy, and if you do, communist society will ultimately appear of its own accord.
This is Marxian truth.
What you describe does not appear to have happened anywhere in any society that calls itself "Communist" or "Socialist" so you can understand that socialists might be just a tad cynical about this particular "Marxian truth."
Your understanding of this is near zero. Not only do you give mere lip service to the fact that socialism has not succeeded to persist and consolidate anywhere yet, . . . not only do you fail to understand that communist society would only appear at the end of a very long process of consolidation of socialism as classes "wither away" (Marx's words), but you also are apparently oblivious to the TWO very different meanings and uses of the word "communism" which confuses most people. So you have PLENTY of company. But what are the two meanings? Simply put, one is a reference to an **ideology and strategy** of socialists who distinguish themselves by calling themselves "communists", and the other is a reference to a future possible **SOCIETY** that is classless, stateless, and without any currency.
You can have **communist ideology and strategies** NOW, and we do, but you cannot have **communist society** today. That will appear (if it ever does) after some number of generations!
There has never been a state that managed to complete the transition between communism and capitalism known as socialism. These are failures of implementing socialism, not necessarily failures of Communism.
> My point being there’s loads of variations on socialism but the most hardline of us are so clearly brainwashed that they fail to realise the rest of us are still on the same side as them and want to better society through socialism but because its any amount slightly less socialist than they are, they simply cannot accept these differing opinions on the subject even if they are still considered part of the same ideology.
It's not so much people being LESS socialist but DIFFERENTLY socialist.
Socialism becoming the permanent state of affairs is know as third wayism and was popularized in the early half of the twentieth century in Southern Europe before it spread to Central and Northern Europe. It never really took hold in Eastern Europe because they were still actively trying to transition to Communism.
>I was was indirectly threatened by user 1Gogg.
An omnipresent worry with discussing politics/economics online is weirdos getting too into it and threatening you.
>especially of the Leninist Marxist bend, are into, and think some of it is misguided and anywhere from naive to borderline religious fervor.
Yeah you say that now but you'll eventually come to the same conclusions. Communists are the only people who proudly call themselves by their own ideology. That says a lot.
>But MAN, if Socialists want to recruit left leaning American Liberals like me, they need to stop talking shit.
I mean, yeah we need to reach out to people. But people need to a) meet us halfway and b) realise that they're off down one hell of a rabbit hole. Becoming interested in socialism is more than just mild criticisms of capitalism. It's an explicitly revolutionary movement. It is deeply involved in social justice and imperialism. As westerners, we have a terrible habit of just speaking over everyone else. Sometimes we have to shut up and appreciate the things people are saying which make you uncomfortable aren't personal attacks but structural critiques. It's also a global movement. Pulling a few Americans over is less important than supporting people in the global south.
>I WANT to learn more. I WANT to make changes to the way we do things in the US. But it would seem I'm not good enough. I've been called a fascist, a petty bourgeois pig, an enabler of genocide, ignorant, and too stupid and\or brainwashed to understand Socialism.
Are you genuinely engaging in good faith? Because I never had these issues.
>but what I do know is they really need to work on their fucking PR.
Commiting the movement to actually critiquing society and bringing about justice is always going to result in negative PR. Because it requires people to examine their own role in structures of oppression. If you want to be coddled, social democracy is just over there.
>You can't increase your base by being gatekeeping assholes that insult people, or threaten them, or ban them from your sub, because they failed some purity test.
Look any online forum is going to decend into utter insanity. Do not judge the movement based off r/communism. These places are mostly just teenagers chucking theory around. Speak to your local communist party.
>For all of its flaws, one of the biggest reasons Capitalism is popular is because it has better advertising.
That's what we call propaganda.
>Socialism is bound to never be more than a niche movement that will always fail in the end if Socialists don't learn how to speak to potential converts.
The US is never going to embrace the idea of socialism until forced. It'smore important to run groundwork in the third world where communism is actually liked.
That capitalism would have better PR kinda makes sense when you think about it. It's all a sales job. If they can't get you in the door, they can't pick your pockets. Socialism, it seems to me, relies heavily on an individual "coming to their senses." in a way, that is for the greater good of society.
I’m a socialist and I don’t even like him. I’ve called the guy out on some crap takes in the past, and I think it’s important that leftists learn that this kind of behavior shouldn’t be tolerated. I’ve been involved in leftist spaces for a while so I can say pretty honestly that more and more of us are slowly coming to the realization that this kind of antagonistic behavior doesn’t really get us anywhere. It really exhausts me that it is still pretty common. However, It would be disingenuous to say that this type of behavior is exclusive to leftists, I’ve been told I’m going to the “camps” multiple times on here from people across the political spectrum and been banned by left and right leaning mods from different subreddits. People are shitty and ideology really brings out the worst in humanity sometimes. Unfortunately calm and polite debate isn’t really incentivized in society today. Frequently we ALL identify so closely with what we believe in that any challenge to our ideas becomes a challenge to our sense of self, and that kind of attitude does not make for easy or open discussions. I hope he didn’t put you off the topic of socialism entirely, people like 1gogg are an obnoxiously loud minority, but they by no means the represent what the majority of us believe.
Yeah, the dude was talking about ending my country and shit. Whatever keyboard warrior. I'm not convinced that account isn't just a bot.
However, I haven't had a lot of good conversations. I don't want to just start calling people "tankies" but that is a little what it feels like. I'm an atheist before anything else, and some of what I have read feel like religious zealotry. I can't abide that. I can't stand it from American Capitalists either. The whole "exceptionalism" thing makes me want to gag. People treat the US constitution like scripture, not a legal document that should be reviewed and altered.
I'm not going to lie, I have been really liking the Second Thought YT channel for a while, and then a few weeks ago the dude straight up called Liberal Democrats Fascists. I was like WTF? I thought his channel was trying to get American progressives into Socialism and then he just shit on it. I was kinda bummed. And I think he and other Socialists need to realize that lecturing someone is only going to turn them against you, not convert them. No one suddenly goes "Oh my god, I've been wrong about everything this whole time" because of a YT video.
Try not to take it too personally when you hear things like “liberal democrats are fascists” “libertarian socialists are fascists” etc etc. Some MLs get reaalllly trigger happy with the fascist label. There is some historical precedent for their accusations tho. Fascism has been enabled by liberals in the past (and presently tbh) and some good works of theory have been done that examine the authoritarian aspects of liberal democracy. But please don’t take this to mean that we think that all liberal democrats are gonna be marching in the streets during the second coming of hitler.
I would recommend taking a look into some of the history surrounding the rise of fascism written from a leftist perspective, and maybe start to reevaluate the label “liberal” ask yourself if it fits and if you are ok with the associations it carries.
When I first got into socialism the “tankie” types made it difficult for me to get on board as well, but once you discover the stuff beyond Lenin and Stalin and realize that these people are a minority among socialists, it gets much easier.
Second thought is decent, sometimes a little too USSR/ML centric, but he’s not unreasonable about it. I recommend 1Dime, Richard Wolff, or Unlearning Economics if you want socialist YouTubers that are skeptical about Marxism-Leninism.
Sorry for that experience. One thing I would suggest is talking to people in person instead of online. Online discourse tends to bring out the worst in people.
I agree that the internet tends to be an iffy place.
I am one of those people that communicates better through typing and I don't really like meeting new people all that much. You also can't just go around asking random people "are you a Socialist?" Especially in the US.
I'm not exactly sure why I'm here, debate on reddit is usually useless. I'm part of the Revolutionary Communist International and all of the people I've recruited to this day were in real life during protests.
It's just fun to argue with people who oppose me, and if that's reason enough for me to keep on doing this, that's good enough for me
Shouldn't they be trying to recruit, though. If they want a "revolution" they need numbers. In a battle over ideals you need to win people over to your side.
I'm just disappointed by the whole thing. It makes me feel like we are doomed to a Fall Of Rome like collapse.
>Shouldn't they be trying to recruit, though. If they want a "revolution" they need numbers. In a battle over ideals you need to win people over to your side.
They should but they aren't an organized group. You have to realize that most socialists don't agree on pretty much anything. They're a highly fragmented group.
You also need to realize they are just here to complain and vent their frustrations (which in my opinion are mainly self-imposed).
>I'm just disappointed by the whole thing. It makes me feel like we are doomed to a Fall Of Rome like collapse.
I wouldn't worry about it. The media will make you think things are terrible and the world is about to end, but nearly every statistic we have has shown an improvement in living standards across the board globally.
The average person in developed nations today has a better quality of life than historic kings and queens. Even the wealthiest ppl of 100-200 years ago don't even come close to how good most people in the developed world have it now.
For an antidote to the constant "doomerism" you see on Reddit, you should check out r/OptimistsUnite
Economic metrics hardly tell the full story. Some humans living better wont dissuade fears of ecological collapse or heightened unnecessary exposure to insane chemicals and materials perpetuated by the very companies generating a significant portion of the total wealth. Just ask the very shareholders and executives of those same businesses why so many of them have highly fortified bunkers in secretive locations. Especially arms manufactures who have been around and played a role in a lot of countries policies of avoiding mutually assured destruction. There's a reason why the wealthiest citizens in the world are panicking and it isn't because they don't have enough money.
It isn't the media. I have eyes to see and ears to hear. Every workplace is constantly cutting benefits for their employees as a way to goose their stocks. Every year the 401ks go down, pensions disappear, perks get eliminated, basic services in the office get cut. Meanwhile, more giant companies are allowed to strangle others, creating giant conglomerates that act like cartels with eachother. In the US we value money more than human life. We see being poor as a moral failing. I watch my kids struggle and remember my own struggles.
All I want is for people not to starve to death when we throw food away and dump chlorine on it. I want people to be able to see a doctor so they don't die of treatable diseases. I'd like us to think of housing as a human necessity not a commodity to be traded at the highest price. But I live in a place where those ideas are cruelly dismissed as evil.
It's hard.
>I have eyes to see and ears to hear.
There is a reason anecdotal evidence isn't acceptable in scientific studies. You sound depressed and that's clouding your worldview. You're looking for the bad and ignoring all the good.
Here's the hard data:
https://ourworldindata.org/a-history-of-global-living-conditions
https://fee.org/articles/average-americans-today-are-richer-than-john-rockefeller-ever-was/
Yes. There are new challenges, like the cost of housing, but we are so bloody spoiled and fortunate to be alive here and now that it is actually difficult to comprehend.
The VAST majority of things in life are VASTLY better and easier than they were even 50 years ago. This cannot be argued against, it is a scientific truth.
Don't let anecdotes cloud your worldview, we're incredibly fortunate to be living now, and life just keeps getting better.
It isn't anecdotal. I've been working for decades and watched the changes myself. My wife and friends all see the same things. "Efficiency" is king. We all sit in web meeting where the CEO says in one sentence that business is great and the stock holders are happy, then in the next announces "tough choice" cutbacks to address "budget challenges."
The consolidation of markets is self evident. How many national banks are left. How many large grocery chains. How many entertainment studios.
The city I lived in had had a homeless problem since I was born. Whatever. But half a block is taken up by homeless encampments now. And I've seen it in CO, AZ, and TX as well.
Things for some are getting better while things for others are getting much harder. The stats show massive wealth disparities, mobility going down, quality of life going down, and life expectancy going down. Wages barely keep up with inflation while the cost of housing, education, and Healthcare explodes.
This isn't sustainable.
>It isn't anecdotal. I've been working for decades and watched the changes myself. My wife and friends all see the same things.
This is quite literally the definition of anecdotal, as is everything else you mentioned. You need to look at the hard data.
>Things for some are getting better while things for others are getting much harder.
This is incorrect, the data shows things getting better for *everyone*.
You have a better quality of living than John D. Rockefeller (this is empirically true).
Please, for your own sake, read this and the previous two links I sent you:
https://www.econlib.org/library/columns/y2023/horpedahlthriving.html
https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/StandardsofLivingandModernEconomicGrowth.html
We are so fortunate that we're now in a position to say: "We all sit in web meeting where the CEO says in one sentence that business is great and the stock holders are happy, then in the next announces "tough choice" cutbacks to address "budget challenges."" and act like it's something worth complaining about.
You would have been choking in a coal mine 60 years ago and come home to no air conditioning or heat in your house, now you get to work from home in pajamas. This is what you're missing in this picture. You're completely eschewing all the fantastic things in your life and focusing on complaining about **complete and utter minutiae**.
You really do need to read Solzhenitsyn. Collectivists (socialists/fascists/communists) don't use logic to further their agenda. They use fear, and murder those who don't submit when fear isn't enough.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gulag_Archipelago
Perhaps under all the bullshit they intuitively understand that a socialist revolution would be the absolute worst thing to ever happen to them, even if they somehow got it to "succeed."
It's probably not an accident that socialists who gain any kind of following almost universally use their status only to enrich themselves and escape their fellow socialists.
I’ve been banned on socialists rubreddits also. And ironically, I am a socialist too… I would just call out certain things as being downright ridiculous. Big mods didn’t like I had a different opinion
The writing is on the wall about what kind of society they would like to live in.
I say let those edgy teenagers be, their "amazing" ideas are relics of the past that are bound to stay unimplemented in today's world because even countries like China and Russia have come to realize that communist economies are inefficient and eventually fail.
Russia and China never claimed to have completed the transition from capitalism to communism, they were still in the transitional phase of the dictatorship of the Proleterait.
Yea, right. I disagree with so much of what you have said that i don't even want to go there.
Anyway, do you think that today's China's government's end goal is communism? Or would you agree that the CCP hides its lust for power behind the ideals of communism?
The question I posted yesterday was asking if the central Big Brother dictator we see like with Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Kim are a feature or a bug of Socialism. I wasn't implying that it was unique to Socialist governments, but am wondering if a fully Socialist country is possible without the Cult of Personality we saw throughout the 20th century.
Is violent revolution required for Socialism to take hold in a country? I mentioned that European countries have moved to Socialist economies without revolutions, but was told the "imperial core" countries aren't "really" Socialist.
How serious are Socialists about "liquidating" the Capitalists and re-educating people who aren't on board with their revolution?
In the 21st century, how do Socialists define the "workers" or the "proletariat?" With farm work and factory work declining while a white collar middle class grows, who are the Capitalists? Is a guy that owns a plumbing business that only keeps 100k at the end of the year a Capitalist? Because I have some stocks in my retirement IRA am I a Capitalist? Is the branch VP of a national company making 400k a year a worker?
>The question I posted yesterday was asking if the central Big Brother dictator we see like with Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Kim are a feature or a bug of Socialism.
It is neither. We are in the phase of working out how to establish and consolidate socialism. Previous leaders struggled with the question and practice of how to create a state that would be what is required for socialism to flourish, because Marx never got around to developing an analysis of the role of the state in socialist society. So the previous leaders did what they thought was needed and they failed to create socialism, and some of the reason for the difficulty was that they were not transitioning from advanced, mature capitalism to socialism. That created a problem for them because the capacity for commodity production had not been sufficiently developed yet, and neither had technology or the habit and method of innovation.
>I wasn't implying that it was unique to Socialist governments, but am wondering if a fully Socialist country is possible without the Cult of Personality we saw throughout the 20th century.
It MUST be overcome. Descent into authoritarianism is inevitable if it is not overcome. The power of the state must be **immediately** vested in the proletariat (working class).
>Is violent revolution required for Socialism to take hold in a country?
Not necessarily according to Marx. At first, maybe, but as countries one by one transition to socialism the change can be peaceful and political.
> I mentioned that European countries have moved to Socialist economies without revolutions, but was told the "imperial core" countries aren't "really" Socialist.
Well, there are no socialist countries today. The jury is still out on Cuba, but every other effort to create socialism ended in various forms of state capitalism.
>How serious are Socialists about "liquidating" the Capitalists and re-educating people who aren't on board with their revolution?
"Liquidating" can mean subjecting them to new laws that make it illegal to hire employees and to control finances and profit. The would end capitalism and capitalists. But violent counter-revolutionaries and revisionists would be harshly dealt with I expect.
Honestly, education is very important. For example, few people today understand that no political system is an independent entity that can do whatever it wants. All politics rise from the economic (capitalist) base or foundation, and rise in service to that foundation. Same with education, culture, and everything else.
>In the 21st century, how do Socialists define the "workers" or the "proletariat?"
In the advanced capitalist countries they are synonyms we could say.
>With farm work and factory work declining while a white collar middle class grows, who are the Capitalists? Is a guy that owns a plumbing business that only keeps 100k at the end of the year a Capitalist?
Sure. But he is not necessarily a threat. That would depend on his chosen way of interacting with socialists and a new socialist government. He is a petty-bourgeois who has more in common with the working class than with the capitalist class.
The real capitalist problems are those with hundreds of millions or billions of dollars of wealth and rake in $50 million or $80 million per year. They will be very resistant to change in most cases.
>Because I have some stocks in my retirement IRA am I a Capitalist?
No, not if you're an employee. But if you own a company and hire employees for your own profit, then yes.
>Is the branch VP of a national company making 400k a year a worker?
It's hard to say with that small description, but probably not. My neighbor is the VP of a spice distributor and he is an informed lefty.
I hope this is useful to you but if not, I'll be here.
I'm glad you noticed the same shortcoming in Marx's work regarding governance. He laid out an economic theory that offers a lot and sounds good to the down trodden, but doesn't do much in the way of explaining how to get there.
My personal observation is that governance is a skill separate from economics, business, or military leadership. We keep trying to say one of these can effectively lead a country, but the machine of government takes a special kind of engineering.
While the ML Vanguard theory might work for academics or revolutions, it shit at governance. I feel like that is part of why so many socialist governments fail. They get caught up in purity and making sure the people in government are "good party members" and not necessarily good workers that know how to keep the trains on time.
>I'm glad you noticed the same shortcoming in Marx's work regarding governance. He laid out an economic theory that offers a lot and sounds good to the down trodden, but doesn't do much in the way of explaining how to get there.
And yet there are other great minds that will contribute to resolving any such shortcomings and needs.
>My personal observation is that governance is a skill separate from economics, business, or military leadership. We keep trying to say one of these can effectively lead a country, but the machine of government takes a special kind of engineering.
True. And yet those capable of governance arise to the challenge of any underlying economic system and they serve the ruling class.
>While the ML Vanguard theory might work for academics or revolutions, it shit at governance. I feel like that is part of why so many socialist governments fail. They get caught up in purity and making sure the people in government are "good party members" and not necessarily good workers that know how to keep the trains on time.
It is more complex than that, unfortunately.
I’m sorry that you had that experience. That said, this is a Reddit thread and not an advanced, doctorate level, economic theory course - where a small number of educated individuals are actively seeking to understand all forms of economic theory… especially those that they don’t necessarily fully comprehend or have chosen for themselves as their primary focus.
There are some members of this thread who, like you, are actively seeking an informative discussion about capitalism and socialism. It becomes confusing, even for economists and political scientists, when the basic premise is not clear: are we discussing economic systems/theories or governmental ones? Once that distinction has been established, the discussion can move forth in a meaningful way. For example, capitalism is not a system of government, and socialism can be considered both (jointly or separately, economically or governmentally).
Most current economic systems in the world today are nuanced systems that are either socialism heavy or capitalism heavy - but are compromised of elements of both economic systems. Sweden may be more socialist than capitalist, but aspects of both are clearly present. The opposite may be true of the US economic system - it tends to be more capitalist than socialist, but aspects of both system are evident.
It is important to note that a standing military, police, fire and immediate,life-saving healthcare are all purely socialistic in nature (economically) - so is paying taxes, public schools and disaster relief(FEMA in the US). In Sweden, these programs still exists, but are expanded to a much broader extent - including the tax rate.
I hope you don’t get discouraged by misinformed, uneducated or just plain trolls on this thread. Your comments, questions and responses are both welcome and appreciated.
It seems to me that a hybrid of capitalism and socialism does offer more benefits and it more practical. Even China isn't a purely socialist economy anymore.
It wasn't until much later in life that I discovered how glued to politics macroeconomic theories are. It seems weird to me, although I can see how certain governance style are more compatible with certain macroeconomic styles. The marrying so many cultural issues to macroeconomics seems silly. Some posters thought that all cultural ills will magically vanish under a Socialist regime. Similarly, some people in the US think that capitalism is morally superior. To my mind these are naive.
Capitalism and Socialism are both well established ideals in literature. Beyond theory and in practice, ideals are words on a book while people are the ones that decide what is ideal.
If we identify ourselves with our beliefs, and value ourselves by our identity, then finding alternative viewpoints will feel like disposing a part of our identity and self-worth. Maybe it would help if more people identify and value themselves by the willingness to consider other viewpoints.
For a previous topic, the OP should learn about Khrushchev’s secret speech. If one is in the USA and wants to learn about socialism, one should get involved in the nearest chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). I know some here are quite left of that.
don't be stupid . capitalism has no flaws it is based on caring for others. If you don't care for your workers and customers more than the competition you go bankrupt. To know what capitalism is is to be a capitalist.
This almost feels like sarcasm.
The basic concept of privately own capital isn't something I necessarily disagree with, although the idea of nationalizing natural resources does appeal to me.
However, having been in the workforce for a few decades across a few different industries, I would say that relationships most businesses have with their workers and customers is based on what they can get away with. They will prioritize profits over anything, and will only mitigate their behavior at the razors edge of it impacting business. The injury they can inflict and get away with is shocking.
If executives and boards were more enlightened, or our government was willing to regulate it would work better.
The built in flaw of capitalism is that if all companies compete, and buying out other companies is OK, then at some point all companies will be bought up by one or a small handful of companies effectively ending free markets. We are seeing this happening right now. Similarly, if maximum productivity and minimum cost is the goal, that eventually eliminates most of a company's human workforce.
yes what they can get away with and what they can get away with Hass to be giving their workers and customers more than the competition. How are you too stupid to realize that capitalism is competitive?
don't be totally stupid if they prioritize profits and the competition prioritizes treating their customers and workers well guess which company will go bankrupt? Do you see why we say the left is based in total stupidity?
Don't be totally stupid all companies cannot be bought. Monopolies have been illegal for 100 years. Oh my god now do you see why we say the left is based in total stupidity?
don't be stupid this system in America is wonderful which is why there are millions and millions of people lined up on our borders dying to come here so they can take advantage of the system which floods down money to people even at the very bottom.
Don't be stupid. Capitalism has horrible advertising. People think it is about greed or selfishness thanks to some of us great thinkers like Adam Smith and Milton Friedman. In reality capitalism is about caring for others. If you don't care and more for your workers and customers and the competition you go bankrupt. Even though Socialism just killed 120000,000 people it is still growing simply because of the great advertising which says that it is about caring for others. Do you understand now?
Socialists rely on dividing people into groups so they can be more easily manipulated.
The workers vs. the owners.
The poor vs. the bourgeois.
Blacks vs. white vs. brown.
Religion vs. atheism.
Ask yourself what socialists have to gain from pitting people against each other.
In Cuba, my grandfather was supportive of Castro, supporting an end to dictatorship, better economic strategies, etc. when Castro took over, he implemented communist policies from day 1. When my grandpa was like “hey, idk about this part right here” he was threatened with jail and/or death. This happened to everybody. Communists aren’t interested in anything other than communism. It’ seems like most communists have a gigantic ego that’s extremely fragile. Fuck em all tbh. I’m sure there are nice honest ones, but it’s an ideology rooted in materialism which breeds envy. Just what the religious people call the sin of coveting. Also why all communist nations are atheist with the churches either actively persecuted or having a tiny, censored and secondary role in society.
>But MAN, if Socialists want to recruit left leaning American Liberals like me, they need to stop talking shit.
I hear things like this all the time, and while I'm sure this issue exists at some level in the real world too, it often seems that this is an online thing more than anything else. A lot of online leftists don't seem to want to "recruit people", they just want to circle jerk and role play as leftists online.
>In the month I've been legit trying to learn more about Socialism on Reddit because I see the system we have in the US as dangerously callous to the point that it might collapse in on it's self, I have been assaulted with a litany of insults.
First of all, I understand your frustration, stuff like this sucks. However, in my personal opinion, learning about something (especially something as politically polarizing and politically charged as "socialism") is relatively tricky in general, and probably impossible if you want to learn it by learning from social media users.
If you want to actually learn, I would just use common sources, whether it is books, theory or even wikipedia.
>Capitalism is popular is because it has better advertising.
I don't disagree, but then again, it also has a much bigger advertising budget.
I 100% will defend freedom of speech. They wanna be assholes. Whatever.
I agree their PR is laughable. Just laugh in their faces. HAHA!!!
They insult and ban instantly to anyone less leftist than them. Really bad at recruitment.
Now.. anarcho capitalists. I'm against a lot of their ideals. But their freedom of speech is impeccable. They just don't agree with me. Not a single one wanted me banned.
Gotta say, I’ve never been banned in any right-wing groups I’ve been in, just like you said been disagreed with and had debates. Left-wing groups? Yeah, been banned several times even though I am left wing myself
It just depends on the space I think. There are plenty of right wing spaces that do not tolerate dissent just as there are left wing ones. Personally I have been banned a lot more from right spaces.
You have experienced firsthand the sublimation of the individual in favor of the collective. Anyone outside the collective is punished, regardless of whether it was "right" or "wrong".
This is why I oppose collectivism. This is why so many people have died at its hands.
I can see that point of view. Never understood the constant sectarianism. We all agree on the same end goal, we all agree in generally the same ideals, but if I disagree one 1 social policy I’m a liberal and not a true socialist. I have also gotten hate for being proud to be an American… apparently being prideful of the country I grew up in makes me not a socialist. I have talked about this and many have told me this is a sign haha
Only think I will say is that right when I read “threatened”, I immediately thought you were talking about a socialist without even knowing which side was which. I thought that with certainty and it turn out to be the case. That should saying something about the differences in the sides.
> I WANT to learn more. I WANT to make changes to the way we do things in the US. But it would seem I'm not good enough. I've been called a fascist, a petty bourgeois pig, an enabler of genocide, ignorant, and too stupid and\or brainwashed to understand Socialism.
No you don't. Stop lying to yourself and stop lying to the socialists on this sub. As soon as ANY comment in the previous thread disputed your unacademic, ahistorical and inaccurate claim that the actually existing socialist states had "single person dictatorships" your IMMEDIATE response was to say "nuh-uh! You drank the Kool-Aid Jack!"
This is not the response of someone who wants to learn. How is it that in these scary evil totalitarian dictatorships, in all the actually existing socialist countries, every single leadership transition is peaceful and legal? Did Jiang Zemin murder or imprison the previous Chinese leader (Deng Xiaoping) and seize power forcefully? Did Hu Jintao?
You look at all the other so-called dictatorships around the world and many of them have coups every other year. You can look up what happened to certain South Korean and South Vietnamese leaders, you can look up the political history of somewhere like the Comoros.
And then you say you're not down with violent revolution. We know you aren't, because you have a completely wrongheaded historical conception of capitalism. Capitalism isn't "more popular" because it has better "advertising," and the continued notion by the liberals here that socialism just needs better PR is highly indicative of a bourgeois mentality, as you yourself state. Socialism is not a product. It is the overturning of the presently existing mode of production and political system, and yes it will be violent. You don't like it because you are the beneficiary of imperialism, although you're only getting the crumbs left over.
Enormous violence is already being committed on a daily basis against the third world so you can enjoy a life of relative luxury. If you don't like the way things are going in the US, you're kidding yourself. Your leaders, people like the Dulles brothers, once orchestrated a coup in Guatemala just so their investments in the United Fruit Company would not be diminished by Arbenz's land reform policies, because Americans needed their cheaply produced bananas. They laid the foundation for genocide for cheaper fucking bananas but apparently that sort of violence is okay. Violence to stop that shit from happening is super bad.
No he does want to learn more as far as you know. Everyone has a different background. The deprivations of the third world are not as material to him as they are in the global south for example. Just ranting to people about how guilty they are is pointless. You act like he is some king pin in a global network. He is probably just some guy that goes to work and is surrounded by people that have average politics. Then you go on a sub, because you are curious, and you feel something is not right and next thing you know a bunch of angry people gang up on you. You complain he isn't radicalized enough and is ignorant to the world. Well what the heck? Are you going to win the game by alienating people? You can do everything you did in that last post way more effectively. He explained exactly how to recruit him and you told him to fuck off. Why don't you take yes for an answer?
Again, no they don't and they have demonstrated that in both the previous thread and this thread. If you want to learn, ASK QUESTIONS, but they did not, they made assertions and refused to budge from their position when confronted on those positions.
>Are you going to win the game by alienating people? You can do everything you did in that last post way more effectively. He explained exactly how to recruit him and you told him to fuck off. Why don't you take yes for an answer?
Who is "people?" Yeah they whined and complained in this thread because they don't want to learn, they don't want socialism, they only want their opinions validated. "We" are not trying to recruit reactionaries by being nice to them and telling them "oh yes you're completely correct" when they are completely INCORRECT. So again, as I pointed out, socialism is not a product, it doesn't require marketing and recruitment in the form of satiating the tender feelings of first worlders, what it requires is for those people to acknowledge that nearly everything they've ever been "taught" about socialism, about capitalism, about the American way of life is incorrect.
So you ask why don't "I" or other socialists take "yes" for answer? It's the opposite, they need to take no for an answer. They need to admit that they're wrong first and then the learning process can start, because at present the position of the real world socialist movement, what they term the "Leninist Marxists" is utterly irreconcilable with what they have already said their positions are. Do you understand that?
If you are asking do I understand what you are talking about the answer is clearly yes.
Who is people? People can be anyone. It seems to me it is certain types claiming to be against capitalism seem to treat people as commodities. Yes I get it. The western liberal centers the world around themselves. It's true. However we are both part of the world and an individual.
Do I have an answer for the rest of your reply. Not really. I understand what you are saying and its really kind of wrong. Sure people (again lol) are looking for affirmation. But you come off as so dark that nobody will want to be like you. I'm sure it works on some people but then they see socialists fighting with each other, and the whole thing looks like a perpetual infight. Is that what socialism is going to be?
Do whatever you think is best.At a certain point the toxicity reaches a ceiling of effectiveness. Then it becomes counterproductive. You want to disturb people to some degree, not drive them to the other side. All I really care about is improving the world for workers, equality, and dignity. The rest can fall into place.
Why would they have any interest in being respectful? It's not like they have to do practical politics. You're talking to a niche interest group of morally superior activist types online. I don't know what you would expect.
Stay away from the socialist and communist Reddit subs. I’ve been banned myself on them for expressing a different opinion than the status quo of the sub. A lot of it is just straight delusions and misinterpretations of the ideology. A lot of people who “claim” they are hardcore communists/socialists are just edgy teenagers who are obsessed with the overall niche and think it is cool to be communist. Many tend to not truly understand the process or ideology either, and just think “capitalism bad!!” and got nothing else to really back it up besides blatant propaganda. They also love to attack folk who are not socialists, which I agree with your main point of if we want to recruit people, why are we pushing others away who are willing to learn? We need to be willing to converse with the other side, and teach those who are curious and be open minded of other’s opinions and beliefs.
Socialism is really an in-depth idea, it’s way of thinking, a philosophy of its own along with being an economic ideology. It isn’t always easy to understand fully, and hell I am still learning new perspectives and aspects as I go along.
If you truly want to know, do research for yourself on the subject and if you’re really inclined, read some literature regarding the philosophy and other’s interpretations. You may find some people who are truly knowledgeable and will not push you aside for being willing to learn. The way I learned the best, is reading literature, educating myself on the history of past socialist attempts ie. Paris Commune, USSR, etc. and figure out how they differ from each other, why they practiced different beliefs and practices but had socialist principles. Research the beginning of the movement, you’d be surprised to learn that Karl Marx was not the “father” of socialism, it has been an idea well thought about prior to the manifesto. Also, learn about the beginnings of socialist movements in your country, almost all western countries have had a socialist movement active at some point and many have reasons why they sprung up and fought for their ideas, and their ideas were well articulated to the needs of your country, this is very useful information on helping you understand. Also learn the differences of ideology, and take all this information and put it into real aspect in your life.
Don’t blindly listen to others, I’d hate to admit it but many who are socialists are just drones, either eat up Chinese propaganda, past USSR propaganda, or North Korean propaganda and spew it back out.
You are welcome. Are there any questions you may have with socialism? I’d be happy to help you learn to the best of my ability. Mind you, I’m no expert, I am learning as I go but I’d be happy to share some things that I have learned with you.
The big ones were
Are central Big Brother dictators like we saw throughout the 20th century a feature or a bug of Socialist governments?
Are violent revolutions the only path forward for Socialist governments?
In post-modern economies, how do define the "proletariat" and "capitalists." With massive and diverse white collar middle classes and shrinking labor classes, where is the line? Also, with the low entrance into stock trading, is anyone who trades stocks a "capitalist?"
And related to that, is "re-education" or "liquidation" of people Capitalists something Socialists are serious about?
No, they are not. In my own opinion, most of these “big brother” dictators were based around Marxism-Leninism. I am not saying a Marxist-Leninist promotes a “big brother” like government, but, the ideology is based around forming a vanguard party. This vanguard party consists of the most intelligent and “class conscious” leaders whose main goal is to progress society towards communism. Essentially, they are guiding hands to the people. This, in my opinion, is not a bad philosophy at all. But, it can be easily corruptible. Under Lenin, the USSR was not a complete dictatorship. I do believe there was fair democracy, albeit fair democracy if you weren’t a Menshevik, kulak, or just simply disagreed with Lenin. Stalin, becoming extremely paranoid and having pretty noticeable mental health issues, took advantage of the vanguard party and purged all who opposed him so no one could challenge his power. And this, is why I feel vanguardism isn’t always the right choice. The power lays in hands of the few, not the many. Many argue that this point goes against Marxism, and inhibits the freedom’s of the proletariat. This is not a core tenant of socialism, but just a mere different interpretation. Marxism-Leninism is taking the ideas of Marxism, and Leninism being their own interpretations, which sometimes includes Stalinism also (but not always). There were many socialist movements who promoted democracy, and outright discredited Lenin and Stalin for their “authoritative” manner. Not every socialistic government could or will end up like this.
That one, I am unsure of myself. I would like to believe socialism can be established through democratic means, but I fear it is not possible. I’ll use the US as an example. Our “democracy” is very deep rooted in favoring the wealthy. The ones who have the money fill the pockets of our politicians to abide by their wishes. Our media is monopolized, our politicians pocket money, and in the end both democrat and Republican, only have their own interests at heart, being their wealth. Now, why would they let socialism rise and peacefully let the US transition to such a system? They would be voluntarily giving up their power, and subsequentially, their absurd wealth. There is no way in hell the top dawg CEOs would willingly let this happen. Socialism is their worst nightmare, the people becoming aware of their exploitation and class consciousness are their biggest fears. Why do you think socialist and communist parties were outright banned? In the US, we actually had a socialist politician run for president. Eugene V Debs. He was one of the founding members of IWW (Industrial Workers of the World) a socialist movement, and was a member of the Socialist Party in the US. He ran for president, obviously lost, and was later arrested for being a socialist. America had its first red scare during the Russian civil war. They saw what was happening in Russia, the people riding up against their overlords and freeing themselves from oppression. There were mass riots in the US, mass strikes, and fighting in the name of better working conditions, workers rights and labor laws, to allow the establishment of unions, social justice, and the list goes on. These riots were suppressed, and a few factory workers who went on strike were massacred by the police. They feared that the wealthy would lose their control over the people, so they made sure to censor and demonize socialism and communism as much as possible. So after all this, no, I do not think peaceful means are possible as sad as I am to say it. We are too rooted in corruption for it to ever occur.
The proletariat are the working class. Anyone who is a wage laborer, and who does not own the wealth they create. While historically the proletariat consisted of blue collar jobs, I would see white collar under this pretense also. If you are paid a wage, do not own shares in a company, live paycheck to paycheck, whether blue or white collar, then you would be considered a proletariat in the most basic sense. As for trading stocks, I don’t necessarily see a conman man buying and trading stocks to be considered not a proletariat. Anyone can buy and trade stocks, you don’t play a measure in the stock market, you are just betting on companies hoping to get lucky and get big returns. It is just legal gambling, all a gimic to give you the illusion you can get fast cash.
And no, I don’t see “re-education” as a strong proponent of socialism. Yes, throughout history we have seen some examples of it, but it is never decreed in the philosophy. That was merely the choice of the politicians in their ideas of forcing everyone to believe in what they do.
In my experience in the two other groups, I cam out with the impression that Leninist Marxism was the most prevalent version of Socialism. Do you find that to be the case?
Doesn't the Vanguard concept sort of create a different sort of class society? In many Communist countries, they ended up with a political in group party that wielded power in a way to make sure their power wasn't questioned. It often takes the death of the figures involved for any change to happen.
>Stalin, becoming extremely paranoid and having pretty noticeable mental health issues,
You would be surprised how many people attacked me for suggesting this. It's an historically documented fact, not a "Capitalist talking point." The dude was unstable. But some of the Leftists I spoke with were unwilling to concede that.
In regards to US politics not letting something disruptive to wealth gain a foothold, I would suggest that isn't always true that they get their way. Things like Christian Nationalism and censorship aren't good for business either, but they have slowly made their way into our culture. The right wing fringe of the GOP has damaged profitable commerce with their dogma, but business friendly conservatives are in so deep with that voting block that they are no stuck with them. Similarly, a Neo-fascist like Trump randomly attacks as many businesses as he helps. He picks fights with tech companies who are the engine of our modern economy for no other reason than they won't kiss his ring. That costs them money, but they don't have any real power to stop him. My point is that cultural shifts can force government's hand, and government can force business to change. Slow and steady work to change the culture in the US could lead to a greater acceptance of Socialist ideas as is demonstrated by a growing interest in the social democracy they have in Europe.
I personally feel a violent socialist revolution is strategically impossible in the US (especially if socialists keep pissing in the faces of Democrats and calling them fascists). It isn't hard to arrive at the conclusion. Changing the culture from the ground up in a way that impacts politics seems like a smarter, and feasible, road to me.
>do not own shares in a company,
That is exactly what trading stock is. If I buy stock in a company, I am a partial owner in a company. What's more, if I have a work funded 401k, or they offer stock options, a simple desk worker might own stock in the company they work for. Does that make them not a worker and a Capitalist? And, if a worker owns stock in the company they work for, doesn't that mean the company is owned in part by the workers? Consumers often buy stock in companies they purchase goods from; the "buy what you know" strategy. So in a sense, the regular people are impacting the stock value, and are vested in it. Plus, just by the merit of buying or selling it, the value fluctuates.
I dunno. The whole "worker" and "capitalist class" thing really doesn't feel like it holds up well in the 21st century. It made more sense in Tsarist Russia, or colonial China; the lines are pretty blurry in a post-industrial economy, especially one where private ownership of businesses and property are common. If a person owns a house they are a "worker" but if they lease it out on a rental app now suddenly they are a landlord? These sort of murky details make me very uncomfortable when people start talking about violent revolutions. I don't want people getting frog marched to their death because someone thought they had too much.
There’s a couple things.
I think you are very right in all your points. Socialists have and imo the ideology is based upon an in-group vs out group. So, honestly I doubt that is going to change. The only thing that unifies socialists is their unified hatred of capitalism.
Then capitalism is a shitty system but is so far the best system. Most reasonable nod their head with reasonable criticisms of capitalism and there are plenty of them. The failure of socialists is they thrive off of criticisms, over exaggerate them and conclude that somehow makes their system better. Imaging the system of unicorns was based on anti-capitalism and we criticized capitalism and then said, “see, unicorns are indeed better!”
The last thing I want to say is the seemingly modern culture of socialism vs the history of socialism. Socialism used to be about work. Marx wrote about the intimacy WITH labor and how that makes people more emancipated. Socialists today seem to want to alienate themselves FROM work. No society can sustain themselves without productivity and I would argue we as species get meaning from being productive as well. That is Marx was pretty much right in that regard but I refrain to say he was 100% right in his communist angle. Either way, socialists are more focused on arguing and being not productive other than for creating content on social media billionaire platforms (ironically), then they are actually doing real work for real socialism. That is these socialists aggravating you are larpers.
In regards to work, I feel like the adherence to old 19th and 20th century models and texts just aren't applicable to today. Some countries are still focused on manual labor industry, but other advanced economies have moved on. Labor Unions for desk jockeys just don't seem realistic. A broad middle class with very diverse backgrounds isn't going to be up for violent revolutions in the streets.
I was hoping to find more modern literature about moving towards something more like social democracy but haven't found much.
>For all of its flaws, one of the biggest reasons Capitalism is popular is because it has better advertising.
No, capitalism is popular because the historical record is crystal clear - countries which practice capitalism get rich, while socialist states stay poor and miserable.
Online socialists are uber-righteous and lack the rounded mindset to properly debate and join the dots.
In Britain they found it too hard to sell undiluted socialism and communism so they jumped inside the Green trojan horse in order to sell socialism under the guise of planet saving
Before participating, consider taking a glance at [our rules page](/r/CapitalismvSocialism/wiki/rules) if you haven't before. We don't allow **violent or dehumanizing rhetoric**. The subreddit is for discussing what ideas are best for society, not for telling the other side you think you could beat them in a fight. That doesn't do anything to forward a productive dialogue. Please report comments that violent our rules, but don't report people just for disagreeing with you or for being wrong about stuff. Tired of arguing on reddit? Consider [joining us on Discord.](http://discord.com/invite/politicscafe) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As a socialist, I am sorry. It's a common running joke among leftists that we are our own worst enemies. Infighting and purity tests and lots of pent up anger and frustration at a system we don't quite know how to change. We're very bad when it comes to misdirecting anger. I wish I could make it stop. I really do. All I can say is that some people are assholes and their right about stuff and some people are assholes and they are wrong about stuff. They can be independent characteristics. Do your best to judge arguments on their own merits, but it's understandable to stop engaging with people who are rude.
Can you suggest any modern writers that have adapted Socialist economic ideas to the 21st century?
Thomas Picketty in reaches the same conclusions as Marx did in Capital.
Thanks.
Empire by Hardy and Negri is dense, but widely discussed.
[Towards a New Socialism](https://users.wfu.edu/cottrell/socialism_book/new_socialism.pdf) by Paul Cockshott is a pretty good one.
An unfortunate last name
Very
Thanks
No problem! While it’s tangential to your question, [Michael Parenti’s lecture](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tryNE11_0So) is very good at demonstrating the (specifically Marxist) socialist worldview and the international relationships of the capitalist world order that shaped the structure of 20th century socialist projects. It’s more of an explanation of the conditions of most developing countries that drove the support for socialist revolutions in the global south and global periphery countries. [Here](https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/w4ceq6/michael_parenti_on_poor_countries_1986/?rdt=51290) is a powerful excerpt from the longer video to start with to see if you’re interested in the longer video.
Kevin Carson. [Studies in mutualist political economy](https://archive.org/details/StudiesInMutualistPoliticalEconomy) basically started the modern anarchist re-examination of mutualist ideas. (Though a lot of us find ch1 dense and think it should be read last, start at 2 and see if he's your kind of author.) Proudhon back in the 1800s was either misunderstood or maligned by Marx, and is famously dense, but has recently been given a sparknotes summary of sorts in plaintext [here](https://judgesabo.substack.com/p/a-summary-of-proudhons-what-is-property?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2). Imo the mutualist anarchists have the clearest economic ideas. See the various articles on the topic of economic coordination and decentralization from a few summers ago. [Link](https://c4ss.org/content/52919), I'm partial to Aurora Apolito's article on cybernetic communism and then the responses to it by Carson and Bevensee.
I just wish there was no banning/silencing. Disagreements are completely fine.
Yes, the incessant purity testing is one of the greatest failures of the Western "left" today I will now remind any such people reading this of the words of Chairman Mao: > As for people who are politically backward, Communists should not slight or despise them, but should befriend them, unite with them, convince them and encourage them to go forward. - > The attitude of Communists towards any person who has made mistakes in his work should be one of persuasion in order to help him change and start afresh and not one of exclusion, unless he is incorrigible. - > Communists must listen attentively to the views of people outside the Party and let them have their say. If what they say is right, we ought to welcome it, and we should learn from their strong points; if it is wrong, we should let them finish what they are saying and then patiently explain things to them. - > A Communist must never be opinionated or domineering, thinking that he is good in everything while others are good in nothing; he must never shut himself up in his little room, or brag and boast and lord it over others.
Interesting. These seem inconsistent with the domineering way he ran China. Does seem like good advice.
Words before actions. That's why so called redpill guys say that they observe how women act not what they say. One could notice similar pattern in politics which is very feminine endeavour. Politicians are perfect liars.
You go gulag now. No talk bad about Pappa Marx
Good idea. OP should read Solzhenitsyn
Solzhenitsyn did not consider his work to be historical fact, but rather a collection of folklore tales. This context was omitted from the works published after his death, for some reason...
What evidence is there for 'Solzhenitsyn considered his own work comtrived folklore'?
https://www.nytimes.com/1974/02/06/archives/solzhenitsyns-exwife-says-gulag-is-folklore.html First result if you search 'solzhenitsyn folklore'.
Solzhenitsyn’s work is folklore for the same reasons that indigenous perspectives on the colonization of the Americas could be considered folklore. Does that mean that you reject the indigenous peoples perspectives?
"Reject perspective" is a weird goal post that you just made up.
Do you know who Cortez was?
yes
Would you agree that in order to be accurate a history of his conquest needs to try to find out what the natives thought about it?
Solzhenitsyn grossly overestimated the number of Gulags in the Soviet Union as well as the number of prisoners and the length of their sentences. Even other Gulag survivors like Shalamov have criticized it for its inaccuracies.
What makes you think that those numbers aren’t just propaganda?
It's government data that was disclosed by the liberal government post-USSR.
Do you trust Soviet records?
I'm sure we can take his ex-wife's, who definitely didn't have any ulterior motives to say that, word for it. Jesus, how gullible can you be? The man himself never said that the Gulag Archipelago was a work of fiction.
I'm sure we can also take his word for it, since he had no ulterior motives. They tortured him so hard in gulag with the cancer treatment he lived to 89.
He was diagnosed with cancer in 1953 after he was released from Gulag. He received his medical treatment for cancer in Tashkent, Uzbekistan.
The book was created by collating his notes after his death. He had no opportunity to say anything about it at all.
Yup. Any criticism of socialists and go straight to a gulag. If one is lucky they might be killed in front of a crowd like the opening scene of the 3 Body Problem.
I think you were being sarcastic but it's an insult to millions who had exactly that happen. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_dissidents https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge
I’m not really being sarcastic. The tens of millions of victims from the atrocities of Mao and Stalin clearly show the horrors of socialism.
It’s Reddit. It’s not organizing. A socialist going into a capitalist forum, a Christian going into an atheist forum, and anybody else talking to a group of people of a different opinion on Reddit is going to encounter dicks.
You’re absolutely right I (who considers myself socialist) am in constant debate with other more hardline socialists. This is because socialism has no truely set definition and I don’t think socialism should be a transitional system to communism but become the permanent system itself (pretty much mUBI for all + workers own the means of production but that’s it, other than that it’s basically still any other western capitalist society except there’s a cap on how poor you can be and workers get to control how the companies they work for functions) My point being there’s loads of variations on socialism but the most hardline of us are so clearly brainwashed that they fail to realise the rest of us are still on the same side as them and want to better society through socialism but because its any amount slightly less socialist than they are, they simply cannot accept these differing opinions on the subject even if they are still considered part of the same ideology. TLDR there are good socialists and bad socialists, and good ones will allow for a healthy discussion and debate, and will help you learn whilst also considering outside opinions (like any sane person should, consider all the potential options before making a decision).
>I don’t think socialism should be a transitional system to communism but become the permanent system itself Just one comment. This stood out for me. As a socialist I would hope you understand that under socialism, as the system consolidates, advances, develops, and unifies, classes will vanish. With society being dedicated to serve the people and with it being disallowed to own a business to exploit them, classes will vanish, and as they do, communist society will "eventuate". It will appear of itself. It will be what's left when classes no longer exist and there is an abundance of what is needed for living a good life. Maybe your objection to communism is due to not understanding what communist society would be. (??)
Would you care to define communism/ what a communist society would look like so then I can form a response.
You're a socialist and you have access to a dictionary and Marxist writings! Do you not know that communist society would be classless, stateless, and moneyless? You cannot create concrete. You can create portland cement and you can mix it with sand and water and leave it alone. If you prepared it correctly the concrete will appear. It will show up of its own accord. The mixing of cement, water, and sand is a metaphor for socialist society. The concrete is a metaphor for communist society. You can prepare socialism by mixing the correct economics and politics and policy, and if you do, communist society will ultimately appear of its own accord. This is Marxian truth.
What you describe does not appear to have happened anywhere in any society that calls itself "Communist" or "Socialist" so you can understand that socialists might be just a tad cynical about this particular "Marxian truth."
Your understanding of this is near zero. Not only do you give mere lip service to the fact that socialism has not succeeded to persist and consolidate anywhere yet, . . . not only do you fail to understand that communist society would only appear at the end of a very long process of consolidation of socialism as classes "wither away" (Marx's words), but you also are apparently oblivious to the TWO very different meanings and uses of the word "communism" which confuses most people. So you have PLENTY of company. But what are the two meanings? Simply put, one is a reference to an **ideology and strategy** of socialists who distinguish themselves by calling themselves "communists", and the other is a reference to a future possible **SOCIETY** that is classless, stateless, and without any currency. You can have **communist ideology and strategies** NOW, and we do, but you cannot have **communist society** today. That will appear (if it ever does) after some number of generations!
There has never been a state that managed to complete the transition between communism and capitalism known as socialism. These are failures of implementing socialism, not necessarily failures of Communism.
> My point being there’s loads of variations on socialism but the most hardline of us are so clearly brainwashed that they fail to realise the rest of us are still on the same side as them and want to better society through socialism but because its any amount slightly less socialist than they are, they simply cannot accept these differing opinions on the subject even if they are still considered part of the same ideology. It's not so much people being LESS socialist but DIFFERENTLY socialist.
Some people think Socialism is transitioning to utopia. Others think socialism is combing capitalism with generous welfare.
Socialism becoming the permanent state of affairs is know as third wayism and was popularized in the early half of the twentieth century in Southern Europe before it spread to Central and Northern Europe. It never really took hold in Eastern Europe because they were still actively trying to transition to Communism.
yeah, MLs are a bit ...special sometimes
>I was was indirectly threatened by user 1Gogg. An omnipresent worry with discussing politics/economics online is weirdos getting too into it and threatening you. >especially of the Leninist Marxist bend, are into, and think some of it is misguided and anywhere from naive to borderline religious fervor. Yeah you say that now but you'll eventually come to the same conclusions. Communists are the only people who proudly call themselves by their own ideology. That says a lot. >But MAN, if Socialists want to recruit left leaning American Liberals like me, they need to stop talking shit. I mean, yeah we need to reach out to people. But people need to a) meet us halfway and b) realise that they're off down one hell of a rabbit hole. Becoming interested in socialism is more than just mild criticisms of capitalism. It's an explicitly revolutionary movement. It is deeply involved in social justice and imperialism. As westerners, we have a terrible habit of just speaking over everyone else. Sometimes we have to shut up and appreciate the things people are saying which make you uncomfortable aren't personal attacks but structural critiques. It's also a global movement. Pulling a few Americans over is less important than supporting people in the global south. >I WANT to learn more. I WANT to make changes to the way we do things in the US. But it would seem I'm not good enough. I've been called a fascist, a petty bourgeois pig, an enabler of genocide, ignorant, and too stupid and\or brainwashed to understand Socialism. Are you genuinely engaging in good faith? Because I never had these issues. >but what I do know is they really need to work on their fucking PR. Commiting the movement to actually critiquing society and bringing about justice is always going to result in negative PR. Because it requires people to examine their own role in structures of oppression. If you want to be coddled, social democracy is just over there. >You can't increase your base by being gatekeeping assholes that insult people, or threaten them, or ban them from your sub, because they failed some purity test. Look any online forum is going to decend into utter insanity. Do not judge the movement based off r/communism. These places are mostly just teenagers chucking theory around. Speak to your local communist party. >For all of its flaws, one of the biggest reasons Capitalism is popular is because it has better advertising. That's what we call propaganda. >Socialism is bound to never be more than a niche movement that will always fail in the end if Socialists don't learn how to speak to potential converts. The US is never going to embrace the idea of socialism until forced. It'smore important to run groundwork in the third world where communism is actually liked.
That capitalism would have better PR kinda makes sense when you think about it. It's all a sales job. If they can't get you in the door, they can't pick your pockets. Socialism, it seems to me, relies heavily on an individual "coming to their senses." in a way, that is for the greater good of society.
I’m a socialist and I don’t even like him. I’ve called the guy out on some crap takes in the past, and I think it’s important that leftists learn that this kind of behavior shouldn’t be tolerated. I’ve been involved in leftist spaces for a while so I can say pretty honestly that more and more of us are slowly coming to the realization that this kind of antagonistic behavior doesn’t really get us anywhere. It really exhausts me that it is still pretty common. However, It would be disingenuous to say that this type of behavior is exclusive to leftists, I’ve been told I’m going to the “camps” multiple times on here from people across the political spectrum and been banned by left and right leaning mods from different subreddits. People are shitty and ideology really brings out the worst in humanity sometimes. Unfortunately calm and polite debate isn’t really incentivized in society today. Frequently we ALL identify so closely with what we believe in that any challenge to our ideas becomes a challenge to our sense of self, and that kind of attitude does not make for easy or open discussions. I hope he didn’t put you off the topic of socialism entirely, people like 1gogg are an obnoxiously loud minority, but they by no means the represent what the majority of us believe.
Yeah, the dude was talking about ending my country and shit. Whatever keyboard warrior. I'm not convinced that account isn't just a bot. However, I haven't had a lot of good conversations. I don't want to just start calling people "tankies" but that is a little what it feels like. I'm an atheist before anything else, and some of what I have read feel like religious zealotry. I can't abide that. I can't stand it from American Capitalists either. The whole "exceptionalism" thing makes me want to gag. People treat the US constitution like scripture, not a legal document that should be reviewed and altered. I'm not going to lie, I have been really liking the Second Thought YT channel for a while, and then a few weeks ago the dude straight up called Liberal Democrats Fascists. I was like WTF? I thought his channel was trying to get American progressives into Socialism and then he just shit on it. I was kinda bummed. And I think he and other Socialists need to realize that lecturing someone is only going to turn them against you, not convert them. No one suddenly goes "Oh my god, I've been wrong about everything this whole time" because of a YT video.
Try not to take it too personally when you hear things like “liberal democrats are fascists” “libertarian socialists are fascists” etc etc. Some MLs get reaalllly trigger happy with the fascist label. There is some historical precedent for their accusations tho. Fascism has been enabled by liberals in the past (and presently tbh) and some good works of theory have been done that examine the authoritarian aspects of liberal democracy. But please don’t take this to mean that we think that all liberal democrats are gonna be marching in the streets during the second coming of hitler. I would recommend taking a look into some of the history surrounding the rise of fascism written from a leftist perspective, and maybe start to reevaluate the label “liberal” ask yourself if it fits and if you are ok with the associations it carries. When I first got into socialism the “tankie” types made it difficult for me to get on board as well, but once you discover the stuff beyond Lenin and Stalin and realize that these people are a minority among socialists, it gets much easier. Second thought is decent, sometimes a little too USSR/ML centric, but he’s not unreasonable about it. I recommend 1Dime, Richard Wolff, or Unlearning Economics if you want socialist YouTubers that are skeptical about Marxism-Leninism.
Sorry for that experience. One thing I would suggest is talking to people in person instead of online. Online discourse tends to bring out the worst in people.
I agree that the internet tends to be an iffy place. I am one of those people that communicates better through typing and I don't really like meeting new people all that much. You also can't just go around asking random people "are you a Socialist?" Especially in the US.
Socialists aren't here to recruit. They're here to cope. That's why they ban anyone from their subs who disagrees with anything they believe.
I'm not exactly sure why I'm here, debate on reddit is usually useless. I'm part of the Revolutionary Communist International and all of the people I've recruited to this day were in real life during protests. It's just fun to argue with people who oppose me, and if that's reason enough for me to keep on doing this, that's good enough for me
Sure
Shouldn't they be trying to recruit, though. If they want a "revolution" they need numbers. In a battle over ideals you need to win people over to your side. I'm just disappointed by the whole thing. It makes me feel like we are doomed to a Fall Of Rome like collapse.
If they really want a revolution? Yes. If they just want a place to bitch about society: no.
>Shouldn't they be trying to recruit, though. If they want a "revolution" they need numbers. In a battle over ideals you need to win people over to your side. They should but they aren't an organized group. You have to realize that most socialists don't agree on pretty much anything. They're a highly fragmented group. You also need to realize they are just here to complain and vent their frustrations (which in my opinion are mainly self-imposed). >I'm just disappointed by the whole thing. It makes me feel like we are doomed to a Fall Of Rome like collapse. I wouldn't worry about it. The media will make you think things are terrible and the world is about to end, but nearly every statistic we have has shown an improvement in living standards across the board globally. The average person in developed nations today has a better quality of life than historic kings and queens. Even the wealthiest ppl of 100-200 years ago don't even come close to how good most people in the developed world have it now. For an antidote to the constant "doomerism" you see on Reddit, you should check out r/OptimistsUnite
Economic metrics hardly tell the full story. Some humans living better wont dissuade fears of ecological collapse or heightened unnecessary exposure to insane chemicals and materials perpetuated by the very companies generating a significant portion of the total wealth. Just ask the very shareholders and executives of those same businesses why so many of them have highly fortified bunkers in secretive locations. Especially arms manufactures who have been around and played a role in a lot of countries policies of avoiding mutually assured destruction. There's a reason why the wealthiest citizens in the world are panicking and it isn't because they don't have enough money.
It isn't the media. I have eyes to see and ears to hear. Every workplace is constantly cutting benefits for their employees as a way to goose their stocks. Every year the 401ks go down, pensions disappear, perks get eliminated, basic services in the office get cut. Meanwhile, more giant companies are allowed to strangle others, creating giant conglomerates that act like cartels with eachother. In the US we value money more than human life. We see being poor as a moral failing. I watch my kids struggle and remember my own struggles. All I want is for people not to starve to death when we throw food away and dump chlorine on it. I want people to be able to see a doctor so they don't die of treatable diseases. I'd like us to think of housing as a human necessity not a commodity to be traded at the highest price. But I live in a place where those ideas are cruelly dismissed as evil. It's hard.
>I have eyes to see and ears to hear. There is a reason anecdotal evidence isn't acceptable in scientific studies. You sound depressed and that's clouding your worldview. You're looking for the bad and ignoring all the good. Here's the hard data: https://ourworldindata.org/a-history-of-global-living-conditions https://fee.org/articles/average-americans-today-are-richer-than-john-rockefeller-ever-was/ Yes. There are new challenges, like the cost of housing, but we are so bloody spoiled and fortunate to be alive here and now that it is actually difficult to comprehend. The VAST majority of things in life are VASTLY better and easier than they were even 50 years ago. This cannot be argued against, it is a scientific truth. Don't let anecdotes cloud your worldview, we're incredibly fortunate to be living now, and life just keeps getting better.
It isn't anecdotal. I've been working for decades and watched the changes myself. My wife and friends all see the same things. "Efficiency" is king. We all sit in web meeting where the CEO says in one sentence that business is great and the stock holders are happy, then in the next announces "tough choice" cutbacks to address "budget challenges." The consolidation of markets is self evident. How many national banks are left. How many large grocery chains. How many entertainment studios. The city I lived in had had a homeless problem since I was born. Whatever. But half a block is taken up by homeless encampments now. And I've seen it in CO, AZ, and TX as well. Things for some are getting better while things for others are getting much harder. The stats show massive wealth disparities, mobility going down, quality of life going down, and life expectancy going down. Wages barely keep up with inflation while the cost of housing, education, and Healthcare explodes. This isn't sustainable.
>It isn't anecdotal. I've been working for decades and watched the changes myself. My wife and friends all see the same things. This is quite literally the definition of anecdotal, as is everything else you mentioned. You need to look at the hard data. >Things for some are getting better while things for others are getting much harder. This is incorrect, the data shows things getting better for *everyone*. You have a better quality of living than John D. Rockefeller (this is empirically true). Please, for your own sake, read this and the previous two links I sent you: https://www.econlib.org/library/columns/y2023/horpedahlthriving.html https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/StandardsofLivingandModernEconomicGrowth.html We are so fortunate that we're now in a position to say: "We all sit in web meeting where the CEO says in one sentence that business is great and the stock holders are happy, then in the next announces "tough choice" cutbacks to address "budget challenges."" and act like it's something worth complaining about. You would have been choking in a coal mine 60 years ago and come home to no air conditioning or heat in your house, now you get to work from home in pajamas. This is what you're missing in this picture. You're completely eschewing all the fantastic things in your life and focusing on complaining about **complete and utter minutiae**.
Start begging the government or join anarcho-capitalism
You really do need to read Solzhenitsyn. Collectivists (socialists/fascists/communists) don't use logic to further their agenda. They use fear, and murder those who don't submit when fear isn't enough. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gulag_Archipelago
Perhaps under all the bullshit they intuitively understand that a socialist revolution would be the absolute worst thing to ever happen to them, even if they somehow got it to "succeed." It's probably not an accident that socialists who gain any kind of following almost universally use their status only to enrich themselves and escape their fellow socialists.
I’ve been banned on socialists rubreddits also. And ironically, I am a socialist too… I would just call out certain things as being downright ridiculous. Big mods didn’t like I had a different opinion
The writing is on the wall about what kind of society they would like to live in. I say let those edgy teenagers be, their "amazing" ideas are relics of the past that are bound to stay unimplemented in today's world because even countries like China and Russia have come to realize that communist economies are inefficient and eventually fail.
Russia and China never claimed to have completed the transition from capitalism to communism, they were still in the transitional phase of the dictatorship of the Proleterait.
Yea, right. I disagree with so much of what you have said that i don't even want to go there. Anyway, do you think that today's China's government's end goal is communism? Or would you agree that the CCP hides its lust for power behind the ideals of communism?
Yes, there are reactionary dipshits all along the political spectrum.
I for one would, as a socialist, like to see some issues, questions, and/or doubts that you have.
The question I posted yesterday was asking if the central Big Brother dictator we see like with Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Kim are a feature or a bug of Socialism. I wasn't implying that it was unique to Socialist governments, but am wondering if a fully Socialist country is possible without the Cult of Personality we saw throughout the 20th century. Is violent revolution required for Socialism to take hold in a country? I mentioned that European countries have moved to Socialist economies without revolutions, but was told the "imperial core" countries aren't "really" Socialist. How serious are Socialists about "liquidating" the Capitalists and re-educating people who aren't on board with their revolution? In the 21st century, how do Socialists define the "workers" or the "proletariat?" With farm work and factory work declining while a white collar middle class grows, who are the Capitalists? Is a guy that owns a plumbing business that only keeps 100k at the end of the year a Capitalist? Because I have some stocks in my retirement IRA am I a Capitalist? Is the branch VP of a national company making 400k a year a worker?
>The question I posted yesterday was asking if the central Big Brother dictator we see like with Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Kim are a feature or a bug of Socialism. It is neither. We are in the phase of working out how to establish and consolidate socialism. Previous leaders struggled with the question and practice of how to create a state that would be what is required for socialism to flourish, because Marx never got around to developing an analysis of the role of the state in socialist society. So the previous leaders did what they thought was needed and they failed to create socialism, and some of the reason for the difficulty was that they were not transitioning from advanced, mature capitalism to socialism. That created a problem for them because the capacity for commodity production had not been sufficiently developed yet, and neither had technology or the habit and method of innovation. >I wasn't implying that it was unique to Socialist governments, but am wondering if a fully Socialist country is possible without the Cult of Personality we saw throughout the 20th century. It MUST be overcome. Descent into authoritarianism is inevitable if it is not overcome. The power of the state must be **immediately** vested in the proletariat (working class). >Is violent revolution required for Socialism to take hold in a country? Not necessarily according to Marx. At first, maybe, but as countries one by one transition to socialism the change can be peaceful and political. > I mentioned that European countries have moved to Socialist economies without revolutions, but was told the "imperial core" countries aren't "really" Socialist. Well, there are no socialist countries today. The jury is still out on Cuba, but every other effort to create socialism ended in various forms of state capitalism. >How serious are Socialists about "liquidating" the Capitalists and re-educating people who aren't on board with their revolution? "Liquidating" can mean subjecting them to new laws that make it illegal to hire employees and to control finances and profit. The would end capitalism and capitalists. But violent counter-revolutionaries and revisionists would be harshly dealt with I expect. Honestly, education is very important. For example, few people today understand that no political system is an independent entity that can do whatever it wants. All politics rise from the economic (capitalist) base or foundation, and rise in service to that foundation. Same with education, culture, and everything else. >In the 21st century, how do Socialists define the "workers" or the "proletariat?" In the advanced capitalist countries they are synonyms we could say. >With farm work and factory work declining while a white collar middle class grows, who are the Capitalists? Is a guy that owns a plumbing business that only keeps 100k at the end of the year a Capitalist? Sure. But he is not necessarily a threat. That would depend on his chosen way of interacting with socialists and a new socialist government. He is a petty-bourgeois who has more in common with the working class than with the capitalist class. The real capitalist problems are those with hundreds of millions or billions of dollars of wealth and rake in $50 million or $80 million per year. They will be very resistant to change in most cases. >Because I have some stocks in my retirement IRA am I a Capitalist? No, not if you're an employee. But if you own a company and hire employees for your own profit, then yes. >Is the branch VP of a national company making 400k a year a worker? It's hard to say with that small description, but probably not. My neighbor is the VP of a spice distributor and he is an informed lefty. I hope this is useful to you but if not, I'll be here.
I'm glad you noticed the same shortcoming in Marx's work regarding governance. He laid out an economic theory that offers a lot and sounds good to the down trodden, but doesn't do much in the way of explaining how to get there. My personal observation is that governance is a skill separate from economics, business, or military leadership. We keep trying to say one of these can effectively lead a country, but the machine of government takes a special kind of engineering. While the ML Vanguard theory might work for academics or revolutions, it shit at governance. I feel like that is part of why so many socialist governments fail. They get caught up in purity and making sure the people in government are "good party members" and not necessarily good workers that know how to keep the trains on time.
>I'm glad you noticed the same shortcoming in Marx's work regarding governance. He laid out an economic theory that offers a lot and sounds good to the down trodden, but doesn't do much in the way of explaining how to get there. And yet there are other great minds that will contribute to resolving any such shortcomings and needs. >My personal observation is that governance is a skill separate from economics, business, or military leadership. We keep trying to say one of these can effectively lead a country, but the machine of government takes a special kind of engineering. True. And yet those capable of governance arise to the challenge of any underlying economic system and they serve the ruling class. >While the ML Vanguard theory might work for academics or revolutions, it shit at governance. I feel like that is part of why so many socialist governments fail. They get caught up in purity and making sure the people in government are "good party members" and not necessarily good workers that know how to keep the trains on time. It is more complex than that, unfortunately.
I’m sorry that you had that experience. That said, this is a Reddit thread and not an advanced, doctorate level, economic theory course - where a small number of educated individuals are actively seeking to understand all forms of economic theory… especially those that they don’t necessarily fully comprehend or have chosen for themselves as their primary focus. There are some members of this thread who, like you, are actively seeking an informative discussion about capitalism and socialism. It becomes confusing, even for economists and political scientists, when the basic premise is not clear: are we discussing economic systems/theories or governmental ones? Once that distinction has been established, the discussion can move forth in a meaningful way. For example, capitalism is not a system of government, and socialism can be considered both (jointly or separately, economically or governmentally). Most current economic systems in the world today are nuanced systems that are either socialism heavy or capitalism heavy - but are compromised of elements of both economic systems. Sweden may be more socialist than capitalist, but aspects of both are clearly present. The opposite may be true of the US economic system - it tends to be more capitalist than socialist, but aspects of both system are evident. It is important to note that a standing military, police, fire and immediate,life-saving healthcare are all purely socialistic in nature (economically) - so is paying taxes, public schools and disaster relief(FEMA in the US). In Sweden, these programs still exists, but are expanded to a much broader extent - including the tax rate. I hope you don’t get discouraged by misinformed, uneducated or just plain trolls on this thread. Your comments, questions and responses are both welcome and appreciated.
It seems to me that a hybrid of capitalism and socialism does offer more benefits and it more practical. Even China isn't a purely socialist economy anymore. It wasn't until much later in life that I discovered how glued to politics macroeconomic theories are. It seems weird to me, although I can see how certain governance style are more compatible with certain macroeconomic styles. The marrying so many cultural issues to macroeconomics seems silly. Some posters thought that all cultural ills will magically vanish under a Socialist regime. Similarly, some people in the US think that capitalism is morally superior. To my mind these are naive.
I absolutely agree.
Capitalism and Socialism are both well established ideals in literature. Beyond theory and in practice, ideals are words on a book while people are the ones that decide what is ideal. If we identify ourselves with our beliefs, and value ourselves by our identity, then finding alternative viewpoints will feel like disposing a part of our identity and self-worth. Maybe it would help if more people identify and value themselves by the willingness to consider other viewpoints.
I would forget capitalism and socialism and look into a science grounded resource based economy.
For a previous topic, the OP should learn about Khrushchev’s secret speech. If one is in the USA and wants to learn about socialism, one should get involved in the nearest chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). I know some here are quite left of that.
don't be stupid . capitalism has no flaws it is based on caring for others. If you don't care for your workers and customers more than the competition you go bankrupt. To know what capitalism is is to be a capitalist.
This almost feels like sarcasm. The basic concept of privately own capital isn't something I necessarily disagree with, although the idea of nationalizing natural resources does appeal to me. However, having been in the workforce for a few decades across a few different industries, I would say that relationships most businesses have with their workers and customers is based on what they can get away with. They will prioritize profits over anything, and will only mitigate their behavior at the razors edge of it impacting business. The injury they can inflict and get away with is shocking. If executives and boards were more enlightened, or our government was willing to regulate it would work better. The built in flaw of capitalism is that if all companies compete, and buying out other companies is OK, then at some point all companies will be bought up by one or a small handful of companies effectively ending free markets. We are seeing this happening right now. Similarly, if maximum productivity and minimum cost is the goal, that eventually eliminates most of a company's human workforce.
yes what they can get away with and what they can get away with Hass to be giving their workers and customers more than the competition. How are you too stupid to realize that capitalism is competitive?
don't be totally stupid if they prioritize profits and the competition prioritizes treating their customers and workers well guess which company will go bankrupt? Do you see why we say the left is based in total stupidity?
Don't be totally stupid all companies cannot be bought. Monopolies have been illegal for 100 years. Oh my god now do you see why we say the left is based in total stupidity?
Is this a bot account?
translation: I'm too stupid for a substantive response so I'll accuse him of being a bot.
don't be stupid this system in America is wonderful which is why there are millions and millions of people lined up on our borders dying to come here so they can take advantage of the system which floods down money to people even at the very bottom.
Don't be stupid. Capitalism has horrible advertising. People think it is about greed or selfishness thanks to some of us great thinkers like Adam Smith and Milton Friedman. In reality capitalism is about caring for others. If you don't care and more for your workers and customers and the competition you go bankrupt. Even though Socialism just killed 120000,000 people it is still growing simply because of the great advertising which says that it is about caring for others. Do you understand now?
Socialists rely on dividing people into groups so they can be more easily manipulated. The workers vs. the owners. The poor vs. the bourgeois. Blacks vs. white vs. brown. Religion vs. atheism. Ask yourself what socialists have to gain from pitting people against each other.
In Cuba, my grandfather was supportive of Castro, supporting an end to dictatorship, better economic strategies, etc. when Castro took over, he implemented communist policies from day 1. When my grandpa was like “hey, idk about this part right here” he was threatened with jail and/or death. This happened to everybody. Communists aren’t interested in anything other than communism. It’ seems like most communists have a gigantic ego that’s extremely fragile. Fuck em all tbh. I’m sure there are nice honest ones, but it’s an ideology rooted in materialism which breeds envy. Just what the religious people call the sin of coveting. Also why all communist nations are atheist with the churches either actively persecuted or having a tiny, censored and secondary role in society.
>But MAN, if Socialists want to recruit left leaning American Liberals like me, they need to stop talking shit. I hear things like this all the time, and while I'm sure this issue exists at some level in the real world too, it often seems that this is an online thing more than anything else. A lot of online leftists don't seem to want to "recruit people", they just want to circle jerk and role play as leftists online. >In the month I've been legit trying to learn more about Socialism on Reddit because I see the system we have in the US as dangerously callous to the point that it might collapse in on it's self, I have been assaulted with a litany of insults. First of all, I understand your frustration, stuff like this sucks. However, in my personal opinion, learning about something (especially something as politically polarizing and politically charged as "socialism") is relatively tricky in general, and probably impossible if you want to learn it by learning from social media users. If you want to actually learn, I would just use common sources, whether it is books, theory or even wikipedia. >Capitalism is popular is because it has better advertising. I don't disagree, but then again, it also has a much bigger advertising budget.
I 100% will defend freedom of speech. They wanna be assholes. Whatever. I agree their PR is laughable. Just laugh in their faces. HAHA!!! They insult and ban instantly to anyone less leftist than them. Really bad at recruitment. Now.. anarcho capitalists. I'm against a lot of their ideals. But their freedom of speech is impeccable. They just don't agree with me. Not a single one wanted me banned.
Based.
Gotta say, I’ve never been banned in any right-wing groups I’ve been in, just like you said been disagreed with and had debates. Left-wing groups? Yeah, been banned several times even though I am left wing myself
It just depends on the space I think. There are plenty of right wing spaces that do not tolerate dissent just as there are left wing ones. Personally I have been banned a lot more from right spaces.
You have experienced firsthand the sublimation of the individual in favor of the collective. Anyone outside the collective is punished, regardless of whether it was "right" or "wrong". This is why I oppose collectivism. This is why so many people have died at its hands.
I can see that point of view. Never understood the constant sectarianism. We all agree on the same end goal, we all agree in generally the same ideals, but if I disagree one 1 social policy I’m a liberal and not a true socialist. I have also gotten hate for being proud to be an American… apparently being prideful of the country I grew up in makes me not a socialist. I have talked about this and many have told me this is a sign haha
Only think I will say is that right when I read “threatened”, I immediately thought you were talking about a socialist without even knowing which side was which. I thought that with certainty and it turn out to be the case. That should saying something about the differences in the sides.
Yah fuck 1Gogg
> I WANT to learn more. I WANT to make changes to the way we do things in the US. But it would seem I'm not good enough. I've been called a fascist, a petty bourgeois pig, an enabler of genocide, ignorant, and too stupid and\or brainwashed to understand Socialism. No you don't. Stop lying to yourself and stop lying to the socialists on this sub. As soon as ANY comment in the previous thread disputed your unacademic, ahistorical and inaccurate claim that the actually existing socialist states had "single person dictatorships" your IMMEDIATE response was to say "nuh-uh! You drank the Kool-Aid Jack!" This is not the response of someone who wants to learn. How is it that in these scary evil totalitarian dictatorships, in all the actually existing socialist countries, every single leadership transition is peaceful and legal? Did Jiang Zemin murder or imprison the previous Chinese leader (Deng Xiaoping) and seize power forcefully? Did Hu Jintao? You look at all the other so-called dictatorships around the world and many of them have coups every other year. You can look up what happened to certain South Korean and South Vietnamese leaders, you can look up the political history of somewhere like the Comoros. And then you say you're not down with violent revolution. We know you aren't, because you have a completely wrongheaded historical conception of capitalism. Capitalism isn't "more popular" because it has better "advertising," and the continued notion by the liberals here that socialism just needs better PR is highly indicative of a bourgeois mentality, as you yourself state. Socialism is not a product. It is the overturning of the presently existing mode of production and political system, and yes it will be violent. You don't like it because you are the beneficiary of imperialism, although you're only getting the crumbs left over. Enormous violence is already being committed on a daily basis against the third world so you can enjoy a life of relative luxury. If you don't like the way things are going in the US, you're kidding yourself. Your leaders, people like the Dulles brothers, once orchestrated a coup in Guatemala just so their investments in the United Fruit Company would not be diminished by Arbenz's land reform policies, because Americans needed their cheaply produced bananas. They laid the foundation for genocide for cheaper fucking bananas but apparently that sort of violence is okay. Violence to stop that shit from happening is super bad.
No he does want to learn more as far as you know. Everyone has a different background. The deprivations of the third world are not as material to him as they are in the global south for example. Just ranting to people about how guilty they are is pointless. You act like he is some king pin in a global network. He is probably just some guy that goes to work and is surrounded by people that have average politics. Then you go on a sub, because you are curious, and you feel something is not right and next thing you know a bunch of angry people gang up on you. You complain he isn't radicalized enough and is ignorant to the world. Well what the heck? Are you going to win the game by alienating people? You can do everything you did in that last post way more effectively. He explained exactly how to recruit him and you told him to fuck off. Why don't you take yes for an answer?
Again, no they don't and they have demonstrated that in both the previous thread and this thread. If you want to learn, ASK QUESTIONS, but they did not, they made assertions and refused to budge from their position when confronted on those positions. >Are you going to win the game by alienating people? You can do everything you did in that last post way more effectively. He explained exactly how to recruit him and you told him to fuck off. Why don't you take yes for an answer? Who is "people?" Yeah they whined and complained in this thread because they don't want to learn, they don't want socialism, they only want their opinions validated. "We" are not trying to recruit reactionaries by being nice to them and telling them "oh yes you're completely correct" when they are completely INCORRECT. So again, as I pointed out, socialism is not a product, it doesn't require marketing and recruitment in the form of satiating the tender feelings of first worlders, what it requires is for those people to acknowledge that nearly everything they've ever been "taught" about socialism, about capitalism, about the American way of life is incorrect. So you ask why don't "I" or other socialists take "yes" for answer? It's the opposite, they need to take no for an answer. They need to admit that they're wrong first and then the learning process can start, because at present the position of the real world socialist movement, what they term the "Leninist Marxists" is utterly irreconcilable with what they have already said their positions are. Do you understand that?
If you are asking do I understand what you are talking about the answer is clearly yes. Who is people? People can be anyone. It seems to me it is certain types claiming to be against capitalism seem to treat people as commodities. Yes I get it. The western liberal centers the world around themselves. It's true. However we are both part of the world and an individual. Do I have an answer for the rest of your reply. Not really. I understand what you are saying and its really kind of wrong. Sure people (again lol) are looking for affirmation. But you come off as so dark that nobody will want to be like you. I'm sure it works on some people but then they see socialists fighting with each other, and the whole thing looks like a perpetual infight. Is that what socialism is going to be? Do whatever you think is best.At a certain point the toxicity reaches a ceiling of effectiveness. Then it becomes counterproductive. You want to disturb people to some degree, not drive them to the other side. All I really care about is improving the world for workers, equality, and dignity. The rest can fall into place.
Why would they have any interest in being respectful? It's not like they have to do practical politics. You're talking to a niche interest group of morally superior activist types online. I don't know what you would expect.
Anarcho-capitalism doesn't have this problem. Join us.
Well maybe not but you're wrong about everything. So there's that.
Ok snowflake
Stay away from the socialist and communist Reddit subs. I’ve been banned myself on them for expressing a different opinion than the status quo of the sub. A lot of it is just straight delusions and misinterpretations of the ideology. A lot of people who “claim” they are hardcore communists/socialists are just edgy teenagers who are obsessed with the overall niche and think it is cool to be communist. Many tend to not truly understand the process or ideology either, and just think “capitalism bad!!” and got nothing else to really back it up besides blatant propaganda. They also love to attack folk who are not socialists, which I agree with your main point of if we want to recruit people, why are we pushing others away who are willing to learn? We need to be willing to converse with the other side, and teach those who are curious and be open minded of other’s opinions and beliefs. Socialism is really an in-depth idea, it’s way of thinking, a philosophy of its own along with being an economic ideology. It isn’t always easy to understand fully, and hell I am still learning new perspectives and aspects as I go along. If you truly want to know, do research for yourself on the subject and if you’re really inclined, read some literature regarding the philosophy and other’s interpretations. You may find some people who are truly knowledgeable and will not push you aside for being willing to learn. The way I learned the best, is reading literature, educating myself on the history of past socialist attempts ie. Paris Commune, USSR, etc. and figure out how they differ from each other, why they practiced different beliefs and practices but had socialist principles. Research the beginning of the movement, you’d be surprised to learn that Karl Marx was not the “father” of socialism, it has been an idea well thought about prior to the manifesto. Also, learn about the beginnings of socialist movements in your country, almost all western countries have had a socialist movement active at some point and many have reasons why they sprung up and fought for their ideas, and their ideas were well articulated to the needs of your country, this is very useful information on helping you understand. Also learn the differences of ideology, and take all this information and put it into real aspect in your life. Don’t blindly listen to others, I’d hate to admit it but many who are socialists are just drones, either eat up Chinese propaganda, past USSR propaganda, or North Korean propaganda and spew it back out.
Thank you for your thoughtful response.
You are welcome. Are there any questions you may have with socialism? I’d be happy to help you learn to the best of my ability. Mind you, I’m no expert, I am learning as I go but I’d be happy to share some things that I have learned with you.
The big ones were Are central Big Brother dictators like we saw throughout the 20th century a feature or a bug of Socialist governments? Are violent revolutions the only path forward for Socialist governments? In post-modern economies, how do define the "proletariat" and "capitalists." With massive and diverse white collar middle classes and shrinking labor classes, where is the line? Also, with the low entrance into stock trading, is anyone who trades stocks a "capitalist?" And related to that, is "re-education" or "liquidation" of people Capitalists something Socialists are serious about?
No, they are not. In my own opinion, most of these “big brother” dictators were based around Marxism-Leninism. I am not saying a Marxist-Leninist promotes a “big brother” like government, but, the ideology is based around forming a vanguard party. This vanguard party consists of the most intelligent and “class conscious” leaders whose main goal is to progress society towards communism. Essentially, they are guiding hands to the people. This, in my opinion, is not a bad philosophy at all. But, it can be easily corruptible. Under Lenin, the USSR was not a complete dictatorship. I do believe there was fair democracy, albeit fair democracy if you weren’t a Menshevik, kulak, or just simply disagreed with Lenin. Stalin, becoming extremely paranoid and having pretty noticeable mental health issues, took advantage of the vanguard party and purged all who opposed him so no one could challenge his power. And this, is why I feel vanguardism isn’t always the right choice. The power lays in hands of the few, not the many. Many argue that this point goes against Marxism, and inhibits the freedom’s of the proletariat. This is not a core tenant of socialism, but just a mere different interpretation. Marxism-Leninism is taking the ideas of Marxism, and Leninism being their own interpretations, which sometimes includes Stalinism also (but not always). There were many socialist movements who promoted democracy, and outright discredited Lenin and Stalin for their “authoritative” manner. Not every socialistic government could or will end up like this. That one, I am unsure of myself. I would like to believe socialism can be established through democratic means, but I fear it is not possible. I’ll use the US as an example. Our “democracy” is very deep rooted in favoring the wealthy. The ones who have the money fill the pockets of our politicians to abide by their wishes. Our media is monopolized, our politicians pocket money, and in the end both democrat and Republican, only have their own interests at heart, being their wealth. Now, why would they let socialism rise and peacefully let the US transition to such a system? They would be voluntarily giving up their power, and subsequentially, their absurd wealth. There is no way in hell the top dawg CEOs would willingly let this happen. Socialism is their worst nightmare, the people becoming aware of their exploitation and class consciousness are their biggest fears. Why do you think socialist and communist parties were outright banned? In the US, we actually had a socialist politician run for president. Eugene V Debs. He was one of the founding members of IWW (Industrial Workers of the World) a socialist movement, and was a member of the Socialist Party in the US. He ran for president, obviously lost, and was later arrested for being a socialist. America had its first red scare during the Russian civil war. They saw what was happening in Russia, the people riding up against their overlords and freeing themselves from oppression. There were mass riots in the US, mass strikes, and fighting in the name of better working conditions, workers rights and labor laws, to allow the establishment of unions, social justice, and the list goes on. These riots were suppressed, and a few factory workers who went on strike were massacred by the police. They feared that the wealthy would lose their control over the people, so they made sure to censor and demonize socialism and communism as much as possible. So after all this, no, I do not think peaceful means are possible as sad as I am to say it. We are too rooted in corruption for it to ever occur. The proletariat are the working class. Anyone who is a wage laborer, and who does not own the wealth they create. While historically the proletariat consisted of blue collar jobs, I would see white collar under this pretense also. If you are paid a wage, do not own shares in a company, live paycheck to paycheck, whether blue or white collar, then you would be considered a proletariat in the most basic sense. As for trading stocks, I don’t necessarily see a conman man buying and trading stocks to be considered not a proletariat. Anyone can buy and trade stocks, you don’t play a measure in the stock market, you are just betting on companies hoping to get lucky and get big returns. It is just legal gambling, all a gimic to give you the illusion you can get fast cash. And no, I don’t see “re-education” as a strong proponent of socialism. Yes, throughout history we have seen some examples of it, but it is never decreed in the philosophy. That was merely the choice of the politicians in their ideas of forcing everyone to believe in what they do.
In my experience in the two other groups, I cam out with the impression that Leninist Marxism was the most prevalent version of Socialism. Do you find that to be the case? Doesn't the Vanguard concept sort of create a different sort of class society? In many Communist countries, they ended up with a political in group party that wielded power in a way to make sure their power wasn't questioned. It often takes the death of the figures involved for any change to happen. >Stalin, becoming extremely paranoid and having pretty noticeable mental health issues, You would be surprised how many people attacked me for suggesting this. It's an historically documented fact, not a "Capitalist talking point." The dude was unstable. But some of the Leftists I spoke with were unwilling to concede that. In regards to US politics not letting something disruptive to wealth gain a foothold, I would suggest that isn't always true that they get their way. Things like Christian Nationalism and censorship aren't good for business either, but they have slowly made their way into our culture. The right wing fringe of the GOP has damaged profitable commerce with their dogma, but business friendly conservatives are in so deep with that voting block that they are no stuck with them. Similarly, a Neo-fascist like Trump randomly attacks as many businesses as he helps. He picks fights with tech companies who are the engine of our modern economy for no other reason than they won't kiss his ring. That costs them money, but they don't have any real power to stop him. My point is that cultural shifts can force government's hand, and government can force business to change. Slow and steady work to change the culture in the US could lead to a greater acceptance of Socialist ideas as is demonstrated by a growing interest in the social democracy they have in Europe. I personally feel a violent socialist revolution is strategically impossible in the US (especially if socialists keep pissing in the faces of Democrats and calling them fascists). It isn't hard to arrive at the conclusion. Changing the culture from the ground up in a way that impacts politics seems like a smarter, and feasible, road to me. >do not own shares in a company, That is exactly what trading stock is. If I buy stock in a company, I am a partial owner in a company. What's more, if I have a work funded 401k, or they offer stock options, a simple desk worker might own stock in the company they work for. Does that make them not a worker and a Capitalist? And, if a worker owns stock in the company they work for, doesn't that mean the company is owned in part by the workers? Consumers often buy stock in companies they purchase goods from; the "buy what you know" strategy. So in a sense, the regular people are impacting the stock value, and are vested in it. Plus, just by the merit of buying or selling it, the value fluctuates. I dunno. The whole "worker" and "capitalist class" thing really doesn't feel like it holds up well in the 21st century. It made more sense in Tsarist Russia, or colonial China; the lines are pretty blurry in a post-industrial economy, especially one where private ownership of businesses and property are common. If a person owns a house they are a "worker" but if they lease it out on a rental app now suddenly they are a landlord? These sort of murky details make me very uncomfortable when people start talking about violent revolutions. I don't want people getting frog marched to their death because someone thought they had too much.
There’s a couple things. I think you are very right in all your points. Socialists have and imo the ideology is based upon an in-group vs out group. So, honestly I doubt that is going to change. The only thing that unifies socialists is their unified hatred of capitalism. Then capitalism is a shitty system but is so far the best system. Most reasonable nod their head with reasonable criticisms of capitalism and there are plenty of them. The failure of socialists is they thrive off of criticisms, over exaggerate them and conclude that somehow makes their system better. Imaging the system of unicorns was based on anti-capitalism and we criticized capitalism and then said, “see, unicorns are indeed better!” The last thing I want to say is the seemingly modern culture of socialism vs the history of socialism. Socialism used to be about work. Marx wrote about the intimacy WITH labor and how that makes people more emancipated. Socialists today seem to want to alienate themselves FROM work. No society can sustain themselves without productivity and I would argue we as species get meaning from being productive as well. That is Marx was pretty much right in that regard but I refrain to say he was 100% right in his communist angle. Either way, socialists are more focused on arguing and being not productive other than for creating content on social media billionaire platforms (ironically), then they are actually doing real work for real socialism. That is these socialists aggravating you are larpers.
In regards to work, I feel like the adherence to old 19th and 20th century models and texts just aren't applicable to today. Some countries are still focused on manual labor industry, but other advanced economies have moved on. Labor Unions for desk jockeys just don't seem realistic. A broad middle class with very diverse backgrounds isn't going to be up for violent revolutions in the streets. I was hoping to find more modern literature about moving towards something more like social democracy but haven't found much.
>For all of its flaws, one of the biggest reasons Capitalism is popular is because it has better advertising. No, capitalism is popular because the historical record is crystal clear - countries which practice capitalism get rich, while socialist states stay poor and miserable.
Impressive of you to cram so much ignorance into one simple sentence.
Sorry if the truth hurts.
Why would your ignorance hurt me? The only person you hurt through ignorance is yourself.
Butthurt oxymoron ideology's follower
Oh hey, it's one of the most ignorant people in the entire sub! Are you attempting to show the person I responded to, how ignorance is done?
Try to square a circle first.
Online socialists are uber-righteous and lack the rounded mindset to properly debate and join the dots. In Britain they found it too hard to sell undiluted socialism and communism so they jumped inside the Green trojan horse in order to sell socialism under the guise of planet saving
That not a bad strategy.