The lie of the "right" regarding socialism

[Lazarus Long]

No I am not inclined to let you rewrite my posts. Capitalism benefits everyone to a degree but the benefits of capitalism will accrue more to those that innovate, achieve , take good decisions and are not risk averse than they will to others. This is a problem for those that see their self worth in terms of social status and measure their social status in terms of how much others have more than themselves. As a measure of fulfilling of basic needs, Capitalism is a unmitigated success story raising entire populations out of crippling destitution. Socialism is an unmitigated failure returning those that have risen out of crippling destitution back to that state.

Why is it that Americans can't understand socialism? Oh that's right, 70yrs of right wing propaganda.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

I don't think this is the correct definition of capitalism, at least according to Marxist theory, where the key factor in capitalism is that the means of production are owned by the bourgeoisie rather than the workers themselves.

Capitalism didn't emerge against socialism, it emerged against feudalism. The key factor in capitalism is that the Industrial Revolution lead to the bourgeoisie, whose wealth was based on ownership of capital, expropriating political power from the old feudal aristocracy of the Middle Ages, whose wealth was based on land ownership.

Capitalism ultimately did disappear, though not the way Marx predicted. Between the World Wars, the bourgeoisie in turn was displaced by an emergent managerial class. The managerial states with relatively free market economic policies continued to call their systems "capitalism", but this meant something quite different than Marx's definition. Those managerial states with planned economies called what they had "socialism". However, there was no class difference between the two systems.

According to Marxist theory? Why would anyone base their ideas about reality using Karl Marx's fairy tales?

It was Marx who coined the term "capitalism".

 

[KCfromNC]

Yes it is because the middle class here is moving up, not down.

The facts say otherwise : America's Humongous Wealth Gap Is Widening Further

In 2018, the richest 10% held 70% of total household wealth, up from 60% in 1989. The share funneled to the top 1%’ jumped to 32% last year from 23% in 1989.

"The increase in the wealth share of the top 10% came at the expense of households in the 50th to 90th percentiles of the wealth distribution," the paper said.

Their share dropped to 29% from over the same period. The bottom 50% saw essentially zero net gains in wealth over those 30 years, driving their already meager share of total wealth down to just 1% from 4%.​

 

[KCfromNC]

No I am not inclined to let you rewrite my posts. Capitalism benefits everyone to a degree but the benefits of capitalism will accrue more to those that innovate, achieve , take good decisions and are not risk averse than they will to others.

It was also pretty good to those who lucked into having monopolies, at least until the government stepped in to help.

 

[KCfromNC]

Similar accusations of rampant communism were made when you guys first got a national grid over there.

And people keep falling for it. Fool me once ...

 

[grasping the after wind]

It was also pretty good to those who lucked into having monopolies, at least until the government stepped in to help.

No one lucks into a monopoly. A company must outperform all those that competed against them to gain market ascendency. That is unless the government steps in and eliminates the competition for them. Companies that become a monopoly in a free market system do not last long as they stagnate and new more efficient and innovative competition arises that the former monopoly is ill equipped to compete with. That is unless the government steps in and props it up or fashions regulations to harm the competition.

 

[childeye 2]

"The love of money is the root of all evil."

I hear where you're coming from, and I can see the connection between the love of money as an impetus for capitalism. I've also noted that you have already acknowledged that such a greed will also corrupt the collectivism of a socialistic construct. As your thread indicates, there are sources that promote laziness and productivity in both systems.

Therefore it suggests to me that the more that power becomes centralized into one place, the more it becomes problematic regardless of which system it happens in. There is also a valid narrative against socialism, which is that people will complain no matter how fair and efficient the system is. After all, it's in mankind's nature to tend to forget where we have fallen from and also where we have been delivered from. This is probably why we fall victim to so much propaganda in our politics. However on the other hand, Mystery Babylon is identified in scripture as the place where all goods are traded, bought and sold for profit, including the souls of men. So in the end, the only place to put our hope is God in His wisdom, mercy, and understanding.

 

[Lazarus Long]

Socialism is always going to benefit

Socialism benefits all. Capitalism benefits the 1%

 

[Silmarien]

Capitalism didn't emerge against socialism, it emerged against feudalism. The key factor in capitalism is that the Industrial Revolution lead to the bourgeoisie, whose wealth was based on ownership of capital, expropriating political power from the old feudal aristocracy of the Middle Ages, whose wealth was based on land ownership.

It didn't emerge against socialism, but when comparing it to socialism, how the two systems purport to differ strikes me as the most important concern.

Capitalism ultimately did disappear, though not the way Marx predicted. Between the World Wars, the bourgeoisie in turn was displaced by an emergent managerial class. The managerial states with relatively free market economic policies continued to call their systems "capitalism", but this meant something quite different than Marx's definition. Those managerial states with planned economies called what they had "socialism". However, there was no class difference between the two systems.

Why would the Industrial Era bourgeoisie being replaced by a managerial class entail the disappearance of capitalism (as defined by Marx)? If the means of production are still concentrated in the hands of the few, then the Marxist definition seems to still be valid. I think it's started to fall apart now, since it's not clear to me what the phrase "means of production" even entails in certain parts of the technology sector, but if one's definition is based around who controls production, a managerial class is not very different than the bourgeoisie. I think it's identifying who the proletariat is which has become almost impossible now.

State socialism in practice doesn't strike me as that different--if the state controls the means of production, then ironically enough, it's still concentrated in the hands of the capitalist class (cue, "real communism has never been tried, we need more time to get it to work properly!"), but I don't think that alone ultimately disqualifies the Marxist categories.

 

[Robin Mauro]

Why use millions when billions sounds even better. Both are a long way off from the true number (in the hundreds of thousands …)

There are millions of homeless people in this country. The only reason they instituted the yearly count was to under-represent just how many people there are. You cannot posdibly find, nor count, all the people without homes in one night.

 

[Robin Mauro]

I like how you make me to be the enemy of the environment because of the socialist policies that created the situation that causes me to have to purchase water to drink. Funny how you let the milk, soda, and other bottled beverage consumers get their free pass. Let me guess, Coke and Pepsi have you on the payroll to shut down the bottled water industry.

It is also funny how each of the Nestle Waters brands were all founded over 100 years ago and weren’t acquired by Nestle until the 1980s. They were selling water and no one had a problem, until Socialist European Nestle took them over.

Oh brother, I do not make you the enemy of the environment. We all need to be aware and take actions to do better, like refilling jugs. But more than that, we need to hold corporations, and the government accountable.
Nestle has always been a Swiss company, but it is our government that allows them to steal water for profit, just like they do with all extractive industries. This has nothing whatsoever to do with socialism, and everything to do with corporate welfare (socialism for the rich)

 

[Robin Mauro]

I like how you make me to be the enemy of the environment because of the socialist policies that created the situation that causes me to have to purchase water to drink. Funny how you let the milk, soda, and other bottled beverage consumers get their free pass. Let me guess, Coke and Pepsi have you on the payroll to shut down the bottled water industry.

It is also funny how each of the Nestle Waters brands were all founded over 100 years ago and weren’t acquired by Nestle until the 1980s. They were selling water and no one had a problem, until Socialist European Nestle took them over.

P.S.
Allowing corporations to extact resources for pennies and sell them for fotunes is all about capitalism, not socialism.

 

[Robin Mauro]

I hear where you're coming from, and I can see the connection between the love of money as an impetus for capitalism. I've also noted that you have already acknowledged that such a greed will also corrupt the collectivism of a socialistic construct. As your thread indicates, there are sources that promote laziness and productivity in both systems.

Therefore it suggests to me that the more that power becomes centralized into one place, the more it becomes problematic regardless of which system it happens in. There is also a valid narrative against socialism, which is that people will complain no matter how fair and efficient the system is. After all, it's in mankind's nature to tend to forget where we have fallen from and also where we have been delivered from. This is probably why we fall victim to so much propaganda in our politics. However on the other hand, Mystery Babylon is identified in scripture as the place where all goods are traded, bought and sold for profit, including the souls of men. So in the end, the only place to put our hope is God in His wisdom, mercy, and understanding.

We trust in God, and work to make the world a better place, for ourselves and for our neighbors...
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
""Speak up for the poor and the oppressed."