1274
Come on Barbie lets go Party
(lemmy.ml)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 Feb 2024
1274 points (89.6% liked)
Memes
47060 readers
1111 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Your data is Wikipedia. That's it. Read perhaps any Socialist literature and you're immediately debunked.
If Social Democracy was truly under Socialism, then the Workers of your country would own the Means of Production.
A more accurate reading of what you are claiming is that Social Democracy takes influence from Marxism while rejecting the conclusions and thus the necessity for Socialism, instead relying on Capitalism.
Tell me, plainly, how you can have Socialism with Capitalists and Capitalism. Or, does Nestlé not exist in the Nordic Countries?
"yOuR dAtA iS wIkIPeDiA"
No, it isn't.
Here's my source: Eatwell & Wright 1999, pp. 80–103; Newman 2005, p. 5; Heywood 2007, pp. 101, 134–136, 139; Ypi 2018; Watson 2019.
Want to go and read those books? No? I'm schocked.
The information from those books is listed on Wikipedia, yes. Are you so childish that you'll now pretend "you can't find real information on wikipedia"?
Weirdly enough, you don't have ANY sources for the things you pull out of your arse. Almost as if you didn't know what you were talking about and didn't HAVE any sources for your faulty claims, because like I said, you've conflated market economies and capitalism and think socialism equals communism, because you don't understand communism is just one form of socialism.
"How can you have socialism with capitalism"
Since I've already explained you keep conflating "capitalism" with "market economies", the question is then translated into "tell me, plainly, how can you have socialism and market economies", for which the answer is really quite simple for anyone literate. However, since you also conflate "socialism" with "communism", then the question becomes "how can you have communism with market economies", to which the answer is "you can't, since communism relies on planned economies instead of market economies".
That's where your confusion comes from.
Due to our good regulations because of our social demoractic, well governed economies, capitalist companies can participate, but they can't do the shenanigans they can do in less regulated markets. The degree of regulation is the question. Even the US doesn't have "pure" capitalism. Things like the antitrust laws are by definition socialist policies, but this doesn't mean the US is socialist in any way. It just means even they understand the necessity of regulation over "pure" capitalism, because "pure" capitalism is unsustainable as it leads to monopolies which then kill the economy.
This is why for example I can actually drink my tapwater and eat raw eggs that don't even have to be refrigerated. This is why the quality of all products here is higher, and why it's more expensive for companies like Nestle to try their bullshit here, which is why they mostly aim for developing countries. To avoid the regulation that comes with properly functioning social democracy.
If Socialism is Capitalism with more regulations, is the United States Socialist too? It has plenty of regulations, more than Social Democracies do in many areas, in fact. Are you going to tell me that every country is actually Socialist if it doesn't have a laissez Faire Capitalist economy, even if it uses Capitalism as the primary mode of production?
You want a source? Marx's Capital. Read it, you might learn something, even if accidentally.
Social Democracy absolutely takes influence from Marxism, that's perhaps what the source you list may be referring to, however the place where Social Democrats fight with Socialists on is Social Democrats believe Capitalism can be harnessed and benefited from, instead of needing to transition to a worker owned economy.
I am not confusing Capitalism with markets, again, Wikipedia defines Market Socialism as a market based economy of competing worker-owned entities. Your own source, against you! Ha.
Similarly, I am not confusing Socialism with Communism. Communism is a Post-Socialist society, one that is Stateless, Classless, and Moneyless. Communism is indeed one form of Socialism, as is Syndicalism, as is Anarchism, as is Council Communism, as is Market Socialism.
Please, stop making a fool of yourself.
Oh, believe me, it's a good-faith gotcha. Anyone who thinks one of the most Capitalist countries on the planet is Socialist has no idea what they are talking about.
I am well-aware of the concept of mixed economies. As an example, a truly centrist economy would have 50% of industry owned and controlled by workers, and the other 50% would be owned and controlled by Capitalists. Social Democracies lean heavily in the side of Capitalists and as such are Capitalist.
Capitalism is indeed self-defeating, that's why the Nordic Countries are seeing steady rises in disparity and sliding of Worker protections, held largely at bay by strong unions. My hope is that one day the Nordic unions will take control and ownership of industry a la Syndicalism and finally become a group of actual Socialist countries.
Yes, the US has regulations. These do not make it more Socialist, rather, these regulations are often bought and paid for by large Corporations to cement their power as Capitalists.
What part of my analysis makes it so "obvious" to you that I haven't read Capital, despite everything I have stated thus far being in line with it, and everything you've stated being firmly against it?
Fair enough, many fields have been influenced by Marxism, but what I'm specifically stating is that Social Democrats agree with initial marxian analysis and see that there is benefit for working class power, but disagree with his conclusions, and thus prefer to direct Capitalism to benefit workers.
I have already explained how you've misinterpreted that same sentence multiple times: Social Democracy seeks to directly existing liberal Capitalist frameworks for the benefit of all, while maintaining existing power structures and hierarchies.
Explain to me exactly why you think Socialism is polite Capitalism. You keep thinking Socialism is mere government regulation, when it is in fact worker ownership. You cannot have Socialism with Capitalists, if you still have a business owner but the business is regulated, it's still Capitalist!
You're extremely incoherent for a right-winger, even by right-winger standards.
I have been saying "oh believe me" because nothing you have stated is new to me, other than your lack of understanding of the difference between Socialism, Capitalism, and markets in general.
Here's a source on rising disparity: https://www.norden.org/en/news/increasing-income-inequality-nordics
And another: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7762(23)00028-5/fulltext
And yet another: https://academic.oup.com/book/39667/chapter-abstract/339652441?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false
Happy?
Yes, Capitalist companies tend to love regulations, because they protect monopoly power. An example is Disney with IP protections, they seek to maintain absolute control over their aging IP and have lobbied the government to keep their power entrenched. Another example is tax filing companies like H&R block making the tax process incredibly inefficient and difficult for the average American, just so they can sell more of their services.
Please, elaborate on your Eatwell & Wright source. Why do they call Social Democracy Socialist if it is built on Capitalist frameworks, with individual business owners rather than the economy being owned and controlled by the workers?
You cannot have individual owners of the Means of Production in a Socialist economy. Simple as.
It's also really funny that you say I'm having a stroke as you reenact the REDRUM scene from the shining, lmao. Get help.
It proves that disparity is rising in Capitalist Social Democracies, like I said. Simple.
Companies like regulations that help them make profits, yes. No need to sling insults.
I'm not paying to read a source that you refuse to actually reference in any meaningful capacity outside of an appeal to authority, when I already know what Marx, Engels, Lenin, Kropotkin, Bakunin, Luxembourg, and so forth are talking about when they speak of and define Socialism, not the revisionist Capitalism that is Social Democracy.
Why is it "red-scare" logic when it's written by Marx and all Marxists to come after him? That's just Marxist logic!
2 people can trade things and it need not be Capitalism, you can have 2 worker co-operatives trade commodities and it's Market Socialism. Simple.
No need to throw slurs at me, but it's fitting for a right-winger to turn to those when they fail to use logic.
Edit: Credit where credit is due, you did in fact change from using a slur to using a more tame insult once I called you out, so at least you've got that going for you.
Man,
You are amazing. I wouln't have had the patience to have that conversation.
Thank you for explaining people... well.. Reality.
Just a bit of an off topic point:
I belive the use of "socialism" that the other comenter has is am apropiation or integration of socialisim into the kyriarchy. Defusing and making solcialism anti-revolutionary, taking away what it makes it dangerous and leaving a shell of it self.
Socialism is not anymore the controll of the means of production by the workers (simplify definition) but capitalism where they controlling group give you a bit of assurance and you have to thank them for it.
Thanks! I just take combating bourgeois nonsense seriously when I see it.
You're correct, by adopting good, common sense social safety nets as "socialism," Socialism becomes defanged. "We already have Socialism, why do you want any more?" Can become a cry against the Proletariat.