239
Shits going down in Syria (sh.itjust.works)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Doom@ttrpg.network 3 points 5 days ago

the fuck is wrong with socialism here?

I can't speak for others, but I've seen nothing but death and hate under the banner of socialism: USSR, China, Venezuela, etc, the list goes on. What most non-crazy people seem to mean by "socialism" is liberalism with a strong social safety net and public services (e.g. Nordic countries, "Democratic socialists" like Bernie Sanders, etc), which is a separate thing altogether.

[-] vga@sopuli.xyz 5 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

What most non-crazy people seem to mean by “socialism” is liberalism with a strong social safety net and public services (e.g. Nordic countries, “Democratic socialists” like Bernie Sanders, etc), which is a separate thing altogether.

Exactly, and specifically for this thread this is not quite the same socialism what Bashar al-Assad has been going for.

[-] BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uk 1 points 4 days ago

It's funny how many of them seem to like national socialism

[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 points 4 days ago

Here's the issue. Capitalist nations are afraid of socialism spreading, so they do everything they can to destroy them. The only ones who have every survived this pressure are authoritarian dictatorships who have isolated themselves from western influence. This creates a situation (that the media, being capitalist, spreads) where socialism always ends up as authoritarian. That doesn't have to be the case, but it does when anything else is destroyed. It's ignorant to think that this is the fault of socialism and not circumstances.

Whether socialism results in authoritarianism because of the ideology or circumstances is irrelevant, the fact is that socialism generally ends in authoritarianism. It turns out that it takes a lot of force to transition a country from capitalism to socialism, so it's not surprising that this transition attracts authoritarians.

And yeah, it probably doesn't have anything to do with socialism itself, but on that transition. We see the same for other radical transitions. The problem isn't necessarily what you're transitioning to, but the process of transition and who is involved. Most countries in the world aren't socialist, so transitioning to socialism will be a radical change and will attract the worst kinds of leaders. So it's fair to criticize socialism precisely because a radical transition to it is highly likely to be fraught with authoritarianism.

Even transitions to liberalism runs that risk, but transitioning to liberalism has had a much better track record than transitioning to socialism.

That said, country-wide forms of socialism (arguably "pure" socialism) where capitalism is eradicated naturally come with a distillation of power in the government to control the flow of goods, and that concentration of power is what attracts authoritarians and is what's being opposed here. So socialism has a built-in problem that lends itself to authoritarianism. Yes, I know there are theoretical anarchist forms of socialism, but they usually have a transition period from an authoritarian system (big counter is libertarian socialism, but that's pretty "pie in the sky" IMO, as much as I respect Noam Chomsky).

[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 days ago

Whether socialism results in authoritarianism because of the ideology or circumstances is irrelevant, the fact is that socialism generally ends in authoritarianism. It turns out that it takes a lot of force to transition a country from capitalism to socialism, so it's not surprising that this transition attracts authoritarians.

The reason is because capitalists oppose it. If the world was ruled by Fascists you'd be saying we should try anything else because anyone opposed to Fascists gets undermined. It's a fault of capitalism, not socialism.

There have been many elected socialist democracies, but the West undermined them. We can have socialist countries without any issues. It just requires capitalists in the rest of the world not overthrowing them.

[-] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

There have been many elected socialist democracies, but the West undermined them

We're getting into very biased reporting territory.

Let's take Venezuela as an example. Here's the events as I understand them:

  1. Hugo Chavez takes power in 1999
  2. Venezuela becomes rich from oil (prices increased in early 2000s) and spends a ton on populist social programs (presumably to stay in power; corruption is rampant
  3. Rapid inflation and widespread shortages starting in 2010 due to over-reliance on imported goods and exported oil (oil prices started dropping in 2007) and no spending cuts after revenue shortfalls
  4. Maduro takes over in 2013 and is even more heavy handed and doesn't ease spending or improve anything economically
  5. Protests and unrest, which the government violently repressed, especially in 2015 when oil prices fell dramatically
  6. Sanctions due to human rights violations started in 2014-ish but really picked up steam from 2017-2019, which deepened the problems they already had, especially since the government refused to cut spending

Western sanctions only became a thing years (more like a decade) after they were already in crisis. The crisis wasn't caused by western countries, it was caused by mismanagement and corruption. Venezuela was held as a model for socialism under Chavez, but things only worked because of oil money.

I'm happy to discuss other countries as well.

[-] Doom@ttrpg.network 2 points 3 days ago

America.

Radical liberal George Washington and his gang of discovery daddies overthrow the just and fair and healthy rule of the king

Now you know none of that is true, but that's how you sound defending capitalism. All the death and destruction capitalism caused but they try to sell you on socialism being much worse. Which it is not, Capitalism has absolutely caused far more harm.

All the death and destruction capitalism caused but they try to sell you on socialism being much worse.

Then you're obviously ignoring the death and destruction socialism has caused. Socialism has only been a thing for 100 years or so, and yet it has caused nearly 100M deaths (source: a libertarian publication referencing an infographic based on WHO data):

Curiously, all of the world's worst famines during the 20th century were in communist countries: China (twice!), the Soviet Union, and North Korea.

[-] Doom@ttrpg.network 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Lmfao

Capitalism has killed no one then?

The Atlantic slave trade, the human trafficking of today, the resource wars, the embargo and economic punishment of those who don't submit to capitalism, the imperialistic wars, violence from police states to uphold capitalism, drug overdoses, those dying of homelessness/lack of healthcare/food.

Plus if we track the metric used that anyone who died under socialism died from socialism as you do, then let's see 3 million people die a year in America multiply that by 100.

300,000,000 million deaths from capitalism in ONE single capitalist country over the last 100 years. (America). That's not factoring in the other nations or the actions they've caused outside of their country that also applies to this total.

60 million people die globally a year. We live in a capitalist global economy so it's safe to claim most of that total but let's play it safe. Only 40 million die under capitalism a year. Multiply that by 100 and

4 BILLION PEOPLE HAVE DIED FROM CAPITALISM OVER THE LAST 100 YEARS

Wow sounds like socialism is the better option.

The Atlantic slave trade

About 2M.

human trafficking of today

Socialist countries are near the top of the charts here, like N. Korea and Cambodia. The problem isn't due to any economic system, but the failure of law enforcement.

resource wars... violence from police states to uphold capitalism...

Not sure what you mean by this, specifically, and I'd prefer to not wade too far into vagaries.

embargo and economic punishment of those who don’t submit to capitalism

If you look at the actual reasons here, it's usually due to human rights violations, authoritarianism, or something along those lines (affiliation w/ the USSR, the US's main enemy, used to be sufficient). Russia has recently received massive economic punishment and they are absolutely capitalist, and they got those sanctions due to the aforementioned reasons.

imperialistic wars

You'll need to be a bit more specific to arrive at a number, but generally speaking, the death toll wasn't that high, and all combined is likely way less than the Great Chinese Famine, which was entirely man-made.

drug overdoses

What's interesting is that most of those deaths are from fentanyl, and China is the main manufacturer of the ingredients to make fentanyl. So production starts in China, gets distributed abroad, and then ends up in the US, probably because it's relatively easy to get drugs into the US due to the cartels' established networks.

This isn't a failure of capitalism, unless you're blaming Americans for having enough money to buy drugs. Fentanyl production in the US is practically non-existent, so it's not like it's a failure of policy either.

Here's the source I used for this.

those dying of homelessness/lack of healthcare/food.

China and the US have about the same homelessness rate, and the US has a lower rate than many other developed countries, like France and Germany (and quite notably New Zealand). That said, reporting varies by country, so these figures probably can't be fully trusted.

These are generally more symptoms of the state of the economy and has little to do with the actual economic system in place, and most of the top countries here are quite poor generally and most of the countries with the least homelessness are generally wealthy, and their are outliers everywhere.

if we track the metric used that anyone who died under socialism died from socialism as you do

But I don't, those figures are deaths directly attributable to socialism, such as famines caused by poor central planning. Deaths due to natural causes and things not directly related to the regime in charge aren't included.

[-] Doom@ttrpg.network 1 points 2 days ago

Insanity.

My dude absolutely no. The entire premise was to point out this "100m died due to socialism" is a joke and people repeating it come off as completely foolish. The entire idea of attributing an economic system to death is ridiculous. Flipping that back onto any system you'll only see insane death tolls that are goofily interpreted to press a point not tell the truth.

Second this over run point of socialism = famine and capitalism doesn't is fuckin SILLY.

9 Million people a year from malnourishment now

Over a century that's 900 million people. Ridiculous numbers goofy.

The point is people want to fucking feed people. We both you and I wanna help people. Under this system now that rules globally we aren't doing it at least I and others like me do not. The points you're making is capitalist crap propaganda, unhelpful goalless and mostly soulless. Cherry picking death tolls by countries is an asinine way to judge government structure. How many died from the Military-Industrial complex or resource/land wars?

Socialists in western democracies are looking to create food banks, free housing, and accessible healthcare. Help those literally dying from this. Why do you argue so hard against those people lol

The entire idea of attributing an economic system to death is ridiculous.

They're not, they're attributing a political system to death, because that political system enabled and perhaps rewarded those in power to do it.

Here's a Wikipedia article about it, which has plenty of sources and some criticism. There's no consensus on exact figures (which range from 10-20M all the way to 148M), but there does seem to be consensus that the number is high (definitely millions).

If you have a scholarly alternative to those mentioned in the article, I'd be interested in reviewing it, especially if it makes a strong case for Stalin and Mao not being responsible for tens of millions of deaths by starvation. But just know, once someone puts themselves in charge of coordination of production and distribution of food, I will hold them accountable when that goes wrong.

The capitalist system works around these issues by encouraging and rewarding over supply, since a famine in one area is an arbitrage opportunity in another. Communism, on the other hand, punishes over supply since that means workers aren't efficiently allocated. It also rewards hoarding because that means you're getting more than your fair share and is the closest thing to "profit" (and you can barter excess for other goods you want).

9 Million people a year from malnourishment now

And in most cases, the cause of that is corruption and authoritarianism. Western countries try to send aid to help solve hunger and malnourishment, but dictators take that aid so it doesn't reach the people, because hungry people don't have time to rise up.

Most of the countries with the worst malnutrition are in Africa, and largely in areas known for poor rule of law and high corruption. That said, aside from the early 2020s so far, hunger has been on a consistent downward trend. I couldn't find the source I saw earlier, but this one shows a general downward trend since 2000, and the other report I saw before showed a downward trend since 1900.

Under this system now that rules globally

There isn't a system that rules globally. Malnutrition tends to be much less in areas with freer markets and less repressive governments. The real enemy here is autocracy, the economic system isn't the interesting factor when it comes to things like access to basic necessities.

Why do you argue so hard against those people lol

I'm only arguing against authoritarianism, and that is what pure socialism tends to devolve into. I have no problem with food banks and other charitable endeavors, in fact I actively support that type of thing. But I draw the line at "just trust me bro" when it comes to putting control of an entire economic system into the hands of a political party. I just don't trust human nature that much.

[-] Doom@ttrpg.network 1 points 1 day ago

Roll my fuckin eyes

I'm only arguing against authoritarianism, and that is what pure socialism tends to devolve into.

Wonder how Gaza is doing.

The bros you are trusting are leading the corporations and the capitalist enabling governments they rule.

But just know, once someone puts themselves in charge of coordination of production and distribution of food, I will hold them accountable when that goes wrong

https://www.mercycorps.org/blog/facts-global-hunger

Food is thrown away under capitalism, locked in garbage bins. Most people who grow the food are the ones starving. 9 Million a year die of malnourishment. That's almost a billion people under capitalism in a century

You're a goon

Most people who grow the food are the ones starving.

That's not capitalism, that's either feudalism or slavery.

Ethiopia, Kenya and Somalia make up 2 percent of the world’s population, yet these three countries are home to 70 percent of the world’s most extreme food insecure.

What's special about those countries? They have a lot of corruption, poor economic policies in government, and barriers to foreign investment

Source and details for Ethiopia(US State Department on Ethiopia:

Investors report that doing business in Ethiopia remains a challenge. An acute foreign exchange shortage (the Ethiopian birr is not a freely convertible currency and is overvalued, with the official exchange rate at 56.7 birr/USD while the parallel market rate is around 116 birr/USD) impedes companies’ ability to repatriate profits and obtain investment inputs. Unclear property rights, particularly land rights, mean local communities and governments frequently seize land or capital from foreign companies with little to no legal recourse. Companies often face long lead-times importing goods and dispatching exports due to foreign currency shortages, logistical bottlenecks, corruption, high land-transportation costs, and bureaucratic delays. The lack of a capital market hinders private sector growth. Export performance remains weak as the country struggles to develop exports beyond primary commodities (coffee, gold, and oil seeds), further hindered by the overvalued Ethiopian birr. Ethiopia is not a signatory of major intellectual property rights treaties such as the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property and the Madrid System for the International Registration of Marks.

Source and details about KenyaArticle about Kenya.

Longstanding corruption within Kenya’s government such as bribery, fraud, and tribal favoritism is one of the leading causes of continuing poverty in Kenya, as problems such as these hinder attempts at reform and positive change. While reforms in the 2000s started to address these issues, it remains difficult for the average citizen of Kenya to pull him or herself out of poverty.

Why is Kenya poor? Another reason that Kenya is and remains poor is that about 75% of the population relies on agriculture to make a living. Yet Kenya’s erratic weather and arid climate make it a very unstable living to rely on. Jobs outside the agriculture industry are rare, and the education required for such jobs is even rarer, especially for poor families. The lack of economic diversity, opportunity, and education along with rapid population growth are crippling for the average citizen.

And for Somalia, it's mostly civil war (ironically sparked by military dictatorship founded on Marxist principles) and now Islamist insurgency (against an Islamist government backed by Ethiopia).

That said, Western countries provide aid where possible (US aid to Kenya, US aid to Ethiopia). Also, here's aid by countries, funny how it's the capitalist countries that give the most favorable terms... There's also a number of charities that add to that aid.

But the problems in these countries have less to do with food distribution and more to do with corruption and poor economic development. They rely on agriculture in an area with poor land for agriculture, as well as poor investment into agriculture (as in modern farming technology). The governments in these areas are failing their people, so what they need is more capitalism (foreign investment to create jobs) and better political policy. Kenya is moving in the right direction while Ethiopia is floundering (though they are taking loans from China, so hopefully that ends up helping, but I have my doubts).

If these areas had stable governments based on capitalism, there would be more foreign and domestic investment, meaning more jobs, corporate tax revenue, and other local investment.

[-] Doom@ttrpg.network 1 points 1 day ago

If these areas had stable governments based on capitalism, there would be more foreign and domestic investment, meaning more jobs, corporate tax revenue, and other local investment.

So clueless. Back to step one with this kid. Capitalism doesn't let anything else live it subverts and uses violence to control. Tale as old as time. The famines in India because of the British, the famines in Ireland because of the British all in the name of capital and money making. Disgusting.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic

[-] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

The famines in India because of the British

Not capitalism, that was imperialist mercantilism (source):

Nightingale identified two types of famine: a grain famine and a "money famine". Money was drained from the peasant to the landlord, making it impossible for the peasant to procure food. Money that should have been made available to the producers of food via public works projects and jobs was instead diverted to other uses. Nightingale pointed out that money needed to combat famine was being diverted towards activities like paying for the British military effort in Afghanistan in 1878–80.

The British took money from peasants and used it to fight in Afghanistan. That sounds a lot like feudalism or mercantilism to me, not capitalism. Capitalism doesn't funnel money into war, governments and warlords do.

famines in Ireland

This one is much closer to capitalism:

The proximate cause of the famine was the infection of potato crops by blight (Phytophthora infestans) throughout Europe during the 1840s. Blight infection caused 100,000 deaths outside Ireland and influenced much of the unrest that culminated in European Revolutions of 1848. Longer-term reasons for the massive impact of this particular famine included the system of absentee landlordism and single-crop dependence. Initial limited but constructive government actions to alleviate famine distress were ended by a new Whig administration in London, which pursued a laissez-faire economic doctrine, but also because some in power believed in divine providence or that the Irish lacked moral character, with aid only resuming to some degree later.

Basically, it seems to have started with a colonial mindset (absentee landlordism) and transitioned rather abruptly to laissez-faire capitalism, with a backdrop of racism. Basically, Protestant supporters of Elizabeth 1 were granted a lot of land, and they rented that out to the Irish people. It's a bit more complicated than that, but it absolutely didn't start out as capitalism, it started out with grants from the monarch, and then during the famine, London transitioned to more laissez-faire policies, which basically just cemented the position of those large land-owners.

Laissez-faire capitalism can absolutely help longer term, but there needs to be enough time for more productive owners to beat out entrenched owners, and that's just not possible in a famine, and it certainly doesn't happen overnight. The way this would work is some natives would pool up enough money to buy land outright (or accept foreign investment to do so), improve it, and get more profit than the absentee land-owners who didn't care to invest in their properties (and the farmers didn't care to improve land they're merely renting). Once land is producing more, that would lead to excess and opportunities to invest elsewhere (e.g. factories).

Great Britain completely mismanaged things though, especially the transition from crown handouts to laissez-faire economic policy. So I think the biggest explanatory factor here is racism ("divine providence" or whatever).

Yes, the reasoning in both is to make money, but neither was operating under a proper capitalist system, since both operated under the thumb of British aristocrats. If you want to see what can happen when people throw off the aristocracy, create a stable government, and actually let laissez-faire capitalism work, look at the northern United States after independence from Great Britain. They abolished slavery and progressed the economy very rapidly, to the point where they could largely hold their own against the British in the war of 1812 less than 50 years later.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic

This is state capitalism, which is closer to whatever China is than laissez-faire capitalism. It's pretty much textbook cronyism, since the only ones allowed to actually operate in the economy are cronies of the state.

[-] Doom@ttrpg.network 1 points 10 hours ago

Lol

"tHaT wAsN't CaPiTaLiSm!!!"

yes it was. Capitalism has existed in Europe since the 1500s and dominated it for most of the time since then. The entire imperialist age of Europe is because of capitalism.

Just shy of a billion dead over a century dead from malnourishment. The cause of every war from preventing any other political scene to unfold to the Holocaust. All from Capitalists.

Go on tell me the Nazis were socialist lol tell me Mussolini built Fascism based on Socialism or something stupid

[-] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 hours ago

The entire imperialist age of Europe is because of capitalism.

That's just not true.

Capitalism is economic activity with little to no interaction with the government. When the economic activity is done directly by or closely affiliated with a government, I don't consider it capitalism. Capitalism is all about private ownership, meaning not the government, so the more distanced the activity is from the government, the more pure capitalism is.

Go on tell me the Nazis were socialist lol tell me Mussolini built Fascism based on Socialism or something stupid

They certainly used certain socialist institutions, but no, they absolutely were not socialist.

They were fascist, and fascism is built on the idea that everything should be done in service of the state, which is the justification they used for seizing private businesses to use in service of state interests. Fascism is directly opposed to socialism, because socialism is built on the idea that everything should be done in the service of the collective, and the state only exists to serve the interests of the collective.

Capitalism, on the other hand, is opposed to both, since it's built on the idea that everything should be done in service of the individual, meaning individuals should be empowered to make their own choices. Fascism is also directly opposed to capitalism, because fascism does not care at all about the individual and only cares about the state. Fascists will lie to you and say they support capitalism, but once they get in power, they'll seize your assets if it furthers their interests.

Socialism is dangerous because the "state" and the "collective" often get confused, and those in power prioritize the "state" (i.e. themselves) over the collective. It's not a problem with the ideology directly, but with how humans naturally behave. Fascism is dangerous because it doesn't even pretend to prioritize the needs of anyone, it only exists to get more power for the people in charge. Capitalism is dangerous because individuals can get too powerful by accruing wealth, which is why a strong government must exist to keep the playing field fair, and it needs to simultaneously be as separated from private interests as possible so it doesn't devolve into oligarchy (as in, those with money also get political power).

So far, it seems like liberalism paired with (mostly) free markets has done the best at preserving and protecting individual rights and slowing the collapse into authoritarianism. But the human condition seems to gravitate toward authoritarianism, so nothing is prefect.

[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 days ago

How about Guatemala.

Democratically elected leftist president who enacted a minimum wage and was going to redistribute land owned by The United Fruit Company to the people, since they owned most of the nation's land.

Couped with the support of the CIA and replaced by a dictator who went on to lead a genocide of the native people.

For more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change_in_Latin_America

Arévalo wasn't socialist, he was actually anti-communist and generally pro-capitalist. He had way more overlap with FDR than Stalin or Castro.

That wasn't "capitalists keeping the socialists down," it was cronyism and FUD from United Fruit Company, which Eisenhower bought into.

[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 days ago

Hence why I said leftist, yes. It was an example of what happens to any leftist government, including but not limited to socialists.

Anyone who goes against the interests of capitalists is scary to them. They say (similar to what you said) that they must always fail. If this were true, they wouldn't be so scared.

[-] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

It's important to take the broader context into account. This happened at the start of the Cold War, so anything that looked remotely connected to the USSR was suspect. Árbenz legalized a communist party, and that seems to be what pushed Eisenhower over the edge.

It had nothing to do with the actual ideology of the Guatamalan government, but suspected ties to USSR. At the time, "communism" meant "USSR," and anyone that was sympathetic to communism in any form was suspected of being in league with the USSR.

If the Guatamalan Revolution happened just 10 years or so later, the US probably would've been an ally instead of an enemy of someone like Árbenz.

[-] Doom@ttrpg.network 1 points 2 days ago

Lol reread your comment and tell me you aren't at least slightly influenced by propaganda.

You're literally giving a pass, an asterix to something you just don't wanna agree to.

If socialism has only existed for a short time, and really only considered during the cold war then has it really ever been actually tried since outside powers kneecap it at every turn?

Then I wanna ask, how many died from the introduction of capitalism/destruction of imperial European powers? We have no record of it but I'd bet my britches it's a lot of people

[-] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Lol reread your comment and tell me you aren’t at least slightly influenced by propaganda.

It's impossible to escape, and I imagine you are also quite influenced by propaganda. The best I can do is look for multiple sources for information and avoid the worst offenders.

You’re literally giving a pass, an asterix to something you just don’t wanna agree to.

No, I'm just saying the situation in Guatamala is completely different because they weren't even socialist, and the elected President was openly capitalist. Eisenhower was an idiot here and gave in to United Fruit Company.

has it really ever been actually tried since outside powers kneecap it at every turn?

The context in the past 100 years was the USSR, which was the main rival and enemy of the US, so it absolutely makes sense for the US to attempt to stop any expansion by the USSR, and vice versa. Most of the interventions by the US into countries going through a socialist revolution were actually proxy wars w/ the USSR, like Korea and Vietnam. I don't think it would particularly matter if the USSR was socialist/communist or fascist, the they would butt heads over any expansion. Both the US and the USSR wanted to be the top superpower, and that's what all the interventionism was about.

Look at socialist revolutions after the fall of the USSR, there are far fewer, and those that happen have little if any opposition by western powers. Why is that? The USSR doesn't exist, and China doesn't seem particularly interested in backing socialist/communist revolutions, so they're generally left to resolve themselves. One significant counter example is the revolution in Nepal, but China also opposed that regime change, so it has little to do with socialism and more to do with how friendly the new regime would be to our (or China's) interests.

how many died from the introduction of capitalism/destruction of imperial European powers?

The proper answer to this would have to be in percents, not absolute numbers, because populations at the time were much lower. But yeah, I don't have a good figure for this.

One especially tricky part of this is that casualties of capitalism are much harder to associate with any particular group because capitalism is largely decentralized, whereas socialism/communism tends to be centralized. A failure under socialism/communism is much easier to assign a cause to than a failure under capitalism. The clearest examples are slavery in the Americas, but that actually started under mercantilism and was quickly abolished in the northern colonies after getting independence (i.e. the areas with higher development).

That said, liberalism and capitalism together have done wonders to improve the lives of the average person. There's a good reason why China has pivoted from socialism/communism to capitalism in recent decades, and it's because it works. Socialism seems to work best when paired with a capitalist system, such as in most developed economies (i.e. a robust social safety net, support for unions, etc).

[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

The justification doesn't really matter. The point is this is the situation the makes "all socialist countries are bad" a belief people hold. It's wrong. It's "the only socialist countries who could survive capitalist intervention also did bad things. The ones that didn't last are forgotten and we can't know how they'd fare."

The reason why the Cold War was happening at all was because the US shoved themselves into a role of preventing "communism," which extended to any leftist government, from spreading. They needed to ensure socialism couldn't achieve its goals, because if it could then other capitalist countries would see the benefits and follow suit. Obviously the owner class in capitalist nations couldn't let that happen. You can even see it even within the US with the dismantling of leftist policy.

Socialism isn't bad. It's what capitalists forced socialism to be in order to survive that's bad. Capitalists are the issue with socialism. To use it as an argument for capitalism seems pretty fucked up. It also ignores all the harm done by capitalism. This mostly happens outside of the rich countries though, so most of us don't interact with it.

The reason why the Cold War was happening at all was because the US shoved themselves into a role of preventing “communism,”

That's an unfair assessment. The USSR also placed itself into the role of defeating "capitalism" and intervened in a number of countries to encourage socialist/communist revolutions. The actual ideologies here aren't particularly important, what is important is who has the most influence in those regions. The US didn't particularly care what government was in power, provided it was more friendly to western countries than the USSR.

By the Cold War, the US was already more socialist than much of the world. We had just passed the New Deal, unions were quite common, and 34% of Americans were in a union in 1954, and we still have most of those institutions (though union membership fell to around 20% by the fall of the USSR and 10% today).

The opposition here wasn't ideological, that was just how it was sold (the whole "red scare"). The opposition to socialism was to prevent further expansion of influence by the USSR. If the opposition was purely on ideological lines, surely politicians would have eradicated socialist institutions like Social Security and Medicare, but they instead expanded them (source is about SS expansions).

Socialism isn’t bad. It’s what capitalists forced socialism to be in order to survive that’s bad.

Blame whatever you want, but the facts remain that socialist countries by and large have been bad for the people living under them, whereas capitalist countries with a mix of socialist institutions have been good for people living under them. Those are the facts available to me, and until I see evidence that pure socialism is actually a net positive, I'll continue to believe that it's not.

It also ignores all the harm done by capitalism

Most of those harms have little if anything to do with capitalism itself. Capitalism is only an economy policy, not a political ideology, whereas socialism covers both. Most of the evils "under capitalism" can largely be tied to authoritarianism of some variety, and to me that's the main issue w/ socialism as it tends to exist. The problems don't necessarily come from the economic system, they come from the political systems in place.

[-] jlou@mastodon.social 1 points 4 days ago

He really isn't anti-capitalist, he's against concentrations of wealth generally, but he's absolutely in favor of our capitalist system, he just thinks there should be more rules so workers fare better. He's not a socialist, much as the right wants to think, he's just in favor of a large welfare system and high taxes on the wealthy. He doesn't want to fundamentally change our economic system, he just wants to make it more fair for his definition of "fair."

[-] jlou@mastodon.social 1 points 3 days ago

I agree he is not a socialist in the 20th century sense, but he clearly says that workers should have ownership stake in companies, which is not a capitalist sentiment. He advocates for employee ownership of companies. I also am aware of who his economic advisors on these issues are and they are very much anti-capitalist

@noncredibledefense

he clearly says that workers should have ownership stake in companies, which is not a capitalist sentiment

It absolutely is though. Partnerships have been a thing since pretty much forever, and a lot of publicly traded companies and some private companies hand out company stock as part of compensation. Employees owning stock isn't socialism, it's capitalism, and the goal is for employees' interests to be more aligned with the company's so overall profitability is higher.

Sanders is approaching it from an employee outcomes perspective, but it's still very much from a capitalist mindset.

He's not advocating for companies to be run democratically like they would under socialism, he's advocating for more profit sharing without meaningfully changing ownership.

[-] jlou@mastodon.social 1 points 3 days ago

I agree that giving alienable voting shares to workers isn't anti-capitalist. It becomes anti-capitalist when the voting rights over management and corporate governance are inalienable meaning they are legally recognized as non-transferable even with consent.

Here is a talk by people involved with Bernie Sanders politically about how all companies should be democratically controlled by the workers: https://youtu.be/E8mq9va5_ZE

Sanders supports worker co-op conversions

@noncredibledefense

Sure, and many capitalists support socialist ownership structures within an otherwise capitalist system.

I'm pretty supportive of laissez faire capitalism (with caveats; I consider myself a left-leaning libertarian), and I also agree that worker co-ops are a great idea in many cases. The important thing, to me, with capitalism is that profit motive drive the decision making process in a competitive market. Sanders seems to largely agree, he just wants more of that profit to make its way to the workers.

Socialism (generally speaking, I know socialism is a big tent), seeks to eliminate both the profit motive and competitive markets, seeing both as waste. From what I know of Bernie Sanders, he's not on board with that view of socialism, he just wants the average person to be better off.

[-] jlou@mastodon.social 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Remember: anti-capitalism ≠ socialism

Democratic worker co-ops are postcapitalist, but are also non-socialist because they are perfectly compatible with markets and private property. I'm suggesting that Sanders is authentically anti-capitalist, but he conflates his anti-capitalism with being socialist in a category error and thus buys into a false dichotomy.

All firms must be legally mandated to be worker coops on classical liberal inalienable rights theory grounds

@noncredibledefense

Worker co-ops are socialist, because the workers literally own the means of production. In fact, I argue they're about as pure as you can get with socialism, since there's no government getting in the way so it could theoretically exist in a stateless society.

Being compatible with capitalism does not preclude something from being socialist.

[-] jlou@mastodon.social 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Worker co-ops don't necessarily involve the workers owning the means of production as worker cooperatives can lease means of production from third parties. Who owns the means of production doesn't determine which legal party is the firm. The firm is a contractual role determined by the direction of the hiring contracts.

A market economy where all firms are legally mandated to be worker co-ops is not capitalism

@noncredibledefense

legally mandated

Sure, but one where all firms happen to be worker co-ops is. The difference is how much the government gets involved.

[-] jlou@mastodon.social 1 points 2 days ago

A country where worker coops aren't legally mandated is illiberal because it violates workers' inalienable rights. It denies workers' private property rights over the positive and negative fruits of their labor.

The government is already involved in the legal structure of firms, so I don't see how a worker co-op mandate could be considered as more government involvement. It seems to me like different government involvement

@noncredibledefense

A country where worker coops aren’t legally mandated is illiberal because it violates workers’ inalienable rights. It denies workers’ private property rights over the positive and negative fruits of their labor.

That's not true. Workers also have a right to exchange their labor for a paycheck. That's what employment is, you exchange your rights to the fruits of your labor for a steady paycheck. That way you don't have to worry if the fruits of your labor becomes less valuable, you only have to worry about the paycheck.

If workers truly want to own the entirety of the fruits of their labor, they can start their own business. That they don't want that level of risk is why we have a separation between owners and employees.

[-] jlou@mastodon.social 1 points 2 days ago

An inalienable right is one that can't be given up or transferred even with consent. This is because the right is tied to the person's de facto personhood. Like political voting rights, workers' right to appropriate the fruits of their labor is inalienable. Workers can't exchange their labor for a paycheck because, at a non-institutional level, labor is de facto non-transferable even with consent. What really happens is that inputs are transferred to workers

@noncredibledefense

If workers change their mind about the arrangement, they can break their contract w/ no repercussions. The employer only has a right to the fruit of the labor they paid for, nothing more. Since the agreement is always revokable, there's no violation here.

It's the same idea as w/ slavery. You can't sell yourself (or anyone else) into slavery, but you can agree to unfair labor terms, but you can always break your end of the contract w/o repercussions.

[-] jlou@mastodon.social 1 points 2 days ago

If the employer has the legal right to appropriate the positive and negative fruits of their labor, then the workers have legally alienated their right to appropriate the positive and negative fruits of their labor to the employer violating their inalienable rights. The workers have to first jointly appropriate the positive and negative fruits of their labor. This appropriation essentially implies a worker co-op mandate

@noncredibledefense

[-] vga@sopuli.xyz 0 points 4 days ago

To such a simple question I can offer a simple answer: Everything.

The real answer is not that simple of course. There's some good ideas in socialism.

this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2024
239 points (100.0% liked)

NonCredibleDefense

6686 readers
1827 users here now

A community for your defence shitposting needs

Rules

1. Be niceDo not make personal attacks against each other, call for violence against anyone, or intentionally antagonize people in the comment sections.

2. Explain incorrect defense articles and takes

If you want to post a non-credible take, it must be from a "credible" source (news article, politician, or military leader) and must have a comment laying out exactly why it's non-credible. Low-hanging fruit such as random Twitter and YouTube comments belong in the Matrix chat.

3. Content must be relevant

Posts must be about military hardware or international security/defense. This is not the page to fawn over Youtube personalities, simp over political leaders, or discuss other areas of international policy.

4. No racism / hatespeech

No slurs. No advocating for the killing of people or insulting them based on physical, religious, or ideological traits.

5. No politics

We don't care if you're Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Stalinist, Baathist, or some other hot mess. Leave it at the door. This applies to comments as well.

6. No seriousposting

We don't want your uncut war footage, fundraisers, credible news articles, or other such things. The world is already serious enough as it is.

7. No classified material

Classified ‘western’ information is off limits regardless of how "open source" and "easy to find" it is.

8. Source artwork

If you use somebody's art in your post or as your post, the OP must provide a direct link to the art's source in the comment section, or a good reason why this was not possible (such as the artist deleting their account). The source should be a place that the artist themselves uploaded the art. A booru is not a source. A watermark is not a source.

9. No low-effort posts

No egregiously low effort posts. E.g. screenshots, recent reposts, simple reaction & template memes, and images with the punchline in the title. Put these in weekly Matrix chat instead.

10. Don't get us banned

No brigading or harassing other communities. Do not post memes with a "haha people that I hate died… haha" punchline or violating the sh.itjust.works rules (below). This includes content illegal in Canada.

11. No misinformation

NCD exists to make fun of misinformation, not to spread it. Make outlandish claims, but if your take doesn’t show signs of satire or exaggeration it will be removed. Misleading content may result in a ban. Regardless of source, don’t post obvious propaganda or fake news. Double-check facts and don't be an idiot.


Join our Matrix chatroom


Other communities you may be interested in


Banner made by u/Fertility18

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS