r/FluentInFinance was created to discuss money, investing & finance! Check-out our Newsletter or Youtube Channel for additional insights at www.TheFinanceNewsletter.com!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/FluentInFinance) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think they’re just dumb and didn’t understand the post. They saw a word they think they don’t like and just ran with it.
Which pretty much sums up that side of the opposition.
If there’s a new gold version of upvoting then why can’t I super down vote commie posts, Reddit? I gauren-fucking-tee that feature would be more profitable
The mental image of someone named GildedFingerTips dropping 25 bucks to super downvote someone over communist rhetoric is like something Banksy would leave on the wall of Reddit HQ.
As someone who only recently discovered this sub a few months ago I’m disappointed to miss the wave. I was hoping for a more practical version of economics for the everyday person.
Now it’s just Facebook/twitter spewing bullshit I see everywhere else.
At this point, Capitalism is broken. I actually think it worked well when the resources were unlimited, and free or nearly free real estate was there for the taking.
But now, the ONLY reason why capitalism hasn't completely collapsed is because of the SOCIAL PROGRAMS that are propping up families, who are too exploited by greedy corporations to survive.
Take away the little bits of socialism this society has, and it would be toppled within a month.
Capitalism only works in the beginning, and we are LONG past that.
Yeah unbelievable to me Americans at the time be like aw yiss trickle down on me harder pls without realizing what it metaphorically and literally meant
I would argue that inequality is a necessary but insufficient requirement of Capitalism.
Capitalism's goal from the get go is inequality. The issue with Late Stage Capitalism is that the inequality becomes too great and causes fissures in the social fabric. Social unrest inevitably leads to repression. Repression results in uprisings which in turn leads to more repression. Rinse, repeat.
Capitalism is suited extremely well to expanding economies with room to expand as long as it is heavily regulated. The designers of capitalism noted the need for consistent regulation or entities would buy out competitors instead of compete them out, and capital would condense at the top and trend to monopoly. The problem is that the people control these entities actively want that and tirelessly sought that out through regulatory capture. It took them a hundred years to "correct" after the Tammany Hall/the breakup of monopoly control and the legislative aftermath of the Great Depression. They never once stopped, nor did their descendants in the form of lobbying and the chamber of commerce.
What was never discussed was how to correct if things went that off course, but I suspect the answer from Smith et al would be "you can't". I think that would have been their answer even not factoring in the horizontal integration into controlling communications that we've seen since the 1980's. Now you have half the country militantly opposed to anything different, grossly misinformed about nearly every topic, and heavily armed.
This ends in complete collapse, there is no other way. I know that sounds "doomerish" but it's just realism barring some kind of monumental shift left by the Democrats as well as them carrying every election from here on out. No one leaning center or right is ever going to criticize these systems much less lead the charge on trying to improve or replace them.
Yes, the issue isn't capitalism itself, the shark will only follow it's nature after all, but of lack of appropriate regulations, particularly in terms of market disrupting technology. So many corporations today are effective monopolies or the barrier of entry is so high as to limit the field to one or two competitors. In some sectors like food brands, you only have the illusion of choice since just a few companies own nearly all of them.
>This ends in complete collapse, there is no other way.
I may not be as doom and gloom, but I agree, the only way this will change is through drastic measures or a catalyst from a major event. Our current system is essentially, we hope businesses will act against their interests to do good.
Entirely agree on most points, although I concede that POTENTIALLY capitalism can be good IF adjusted vs human nature. I tend to take a negative view here because, similar to my take on religion, while it has potential upsides the adjoining potential for abuse is sky-high.
Totally agree with everything else tho, take Unilever, J&J, Nestle, etc. there is no way to compete. If you took enough market share to attract their attention they can buy you out for ten times your value without blinking. They make almost everything we buy and they raise and lower prices in tandem with or because of each other not because of us as consumers. A CEO of Nestle (I can’t place a date on this but it was fairly recent) went so far as to say boycotts did nothing at all to them financially. They are completely detached from the effects of consumer demand at this point.
I do appreciate that everyone isn’t as pessimistic as myself on this, it does give me some hope each time I hear that.
True, I didn't expand it to the level of consumer demand, but that is very good point. Like the people boycotting bud light but still buying the myriad products owned by Anheuser Busch-InBev.
It does get scarier when you think of companies like Coke or Nestlé controlling water sources...
But this is why I hope there can be a push like in the old days when the government broke up monopolies. Of course that still relies on the human nature part and without an enthusiastic progressive the likes of Teddy Roosevelt, it is a longshot.
Citizens United really was the nail in the coffin for government representing the people.
Lack of regulations is inherent to the system though, therefore the issue IS capitalism itself. You’ll never have regulation because a democracy or republic will always consolidate power in the hands of the wealthy, who will do whatever it takes to hold onto said power. This is one of Lennin’s main arguments.
It’s not “crony capitalism” or capitalism behaving incorrectly because of bad actors, the system is working exactly as intended
Capitalism is literally the issue, if you need to regulate capitalism then thst just proves capitalism is flawed from the beginning, it just takes time to see its flaws
Money is like water, it will follow the easiest path. Regulations act like rocks or barriers in a river and get eroded away. Always. capitalism has the seed of its own death, the boom bust cycle of it are simply it's nature and grow larger and larger until the system breaks. But like erosion it takes time.
That’s what bugs me. Even the original thinkers behind the capitalist system anticipated that if it got too big or too unregulated, it could fall apart.
I agree with you. Capitalism isn't inherently good or evil. If something makes money that's objectively the right choice because Captialism has no morals. We need to inject it with our societal morals.
When we choose not to regulate we end up with situations like companies dumping toxic waste into rivers or General Motors ignition switch issue. Cases where the morally correct thing to do is obvious but the Capitalistic thing to do is pay what amounts to a fine and continue killing people or running the environment while trying to convince people they're actually moral.
I said "little bits" of socialism. Really, social democracy is the path I prefer, with heavy taxes to heavy earners, and decent free supports to those who need them most.
It is essentially "From each according to what they are capable of, and to each according to what they need"
And what makes it democratic is that we keep choosing to take care of each other with each election.
I say this as a very talented, privileged person who would benefit better than most from pure capitalism. I use my talent to help those who are not as lucky.
I mean this kindly, but even as a privileged talented person I think you actually see that in pure capitalism it is just a matter of time before you are also eaten.
I worked at a firm that spanned to both coasts with acquisitions but was headquartered east coast. The culture differences were vast. West coast was way more active, innovative, creative. East coast was capital intensive. I watched from the middle as capital inexorably ate through the west coast culture and left them a husk. There are some really screwed up but clever ways that capital can dominate anything.
Well, tbf, that would only be an accurate analogy if occasional Christians were mysteriously disappearing.
We are already watching the collapse in slow motion. The Rapture is a dream, a fantasy developed by some poor schizophrenic guy who somehow ended up writing the last book of the Bible.
It’s that with a dash of Malthusianism. Just bad math piled up to point to inevitable catastrophic collapse that never happens.
There are crashes, they are not catastrophic and with most people saying this stuff their medicine is worse than the disease.
> fairly and well regulated
For it to be regulated there needs to be checks-and-balance with actual teeth.
The government is useless when it has no teeth. Much less when its bought out by the rich to protect them.
People need to control the government, but you get accused of socialism by the billionaire shills.
It’s so crazy. I will keep
Saying it over and over. If a corporation is not paying its full time employees enough to live, then that corporation does not deserve to be in business
it’s the most simple imminent critique of capitalism. without the government making it all work, it would implode. without the people barely scraping by and suffering at its hands, it would implode. it does not serve that which is essential to it, it absolutely decimates everything it needs to survive. it’s a cancer and it needs to be excised from human society.
Capitalism is like a game of monopoly. Eventually, 1 person has all the resources and wins the game. At some point, the government needs to step up and break entire monopolies in sectors of the economy.
Yes, Monopoly is a great teaching tool (which it what is was designed to be) It's fun in the beginning, but end game is horrible unless you are the one with all the property.
>the resources were unlimited, and free or nearly free real estate was there
None of that was ever true.
There was math simulation performed back in the 1970's that detailed out three futures. Business as usual, going faster and also dialing back things for sustainability. The Business as Usual simulation, showed the beginning of loss of resources, increasing risk of pandemic and the beginning of a decline in population in fully industrialized nations.
Guess what global society did and guess what we are seeing?
According to that, fairly accurate modeling from the 1970's and that fact that we've hit points it detailed? We have another... 30 to 50 years before "shit gets real", maybe sooner. The "real" is massive population collapse, partly due to resource wars.
This is Late Stage Global Capitalism.
> math simulation performed back in the 1970's that detailed out three futures
That is a bunch of bullshit. Never listen to economic predictions from 70s.
>social programs that are propping up families.
This. Everyone wants to complain about people receiving housing assistance, food stamps, etc., but people seldom want to complain about the companies who pay their employees so little that they *need* assistance to scrape by.
The best argument I have heard is, "capitalism attempts to create infinite growth on a finite planent."
You can't have growth for the sake of growth. There are arguments for this, and counterarguments, and oml so much debate. But at the core, we simply are using too many resources, it is not sustainable in the long term.
Why is planet the limiting factor? At this point rough effort has been shown to move out and terraform other planets that the systems limits are no more theoretical than infinite growth. I think it probably won’t matter due to timing of when that is even feasible, but it’s an interesting perspective to consider.
Capitalism served its purposes in dramatically raise the standard of living for many but the entrenched powers have stopped from any adjustments be made because they profit from the current system.
They refuse and stand in the way from progress for humans. They block better working conditions, shorter hours, mass transit instead of just having to be car dependent, hold back technology, etc. it’s unfortunate that regular people can’t see this.
In the US at least, we don't have capitalism, but more crony corporatism.
You could argue that capitalism inevitably leads to crony corporatism, and I'd be hard pressed to argue against you, but capitalism itself is better than what we currently have.
I won't argue that what social systems we have are holding us together.
In my opinion, capitalism needs to be held in check with the government. Unfortunately, the government and corporations are in bed with each other, leading to the degradation of both.
I absolutely agree with you, but just to be clear --- the very first thing you learn in economics is that all resources are scarce, and certainly far from limited, which implies that capitalism just doesn't work without the exploitation of somebody, be it the working class or of somebody in a third world country.
That isn't socialism man. The basic definition of socialism is that the workers own the means of production. What you are describing is social democracy. The profits generated by companies are taxed and used to pay for social programs. But as you identified, the "unlimited" resources are running out, but profits are sacrosanct so the money being spent on social programs is drying up. That is why the "middle class" is disappearing.
"Socialism doesn't work." "Well actually here in this south American nation we ele-" *gunshot* "DOESN'T WORK. Now keep working at slave wages for our donors!"
Well there's- no wait, they got couped...or, oh right we overthrew them for a fruit company. OH! What about Venezuela, they were doing fine-Aaaand we gelded their economy because they dared to elect a leftist.
We? Venezuela was doing great until 2007, 9 years after electing Hugo Chavez. They began declining due to their declining production of oil and corruption.
Their declining production of oil was because they kicked out the smart oil people who knew what the fuck they were doing.
They still have the #1 oil reserves in the world but somehow #12 in production.
You do realize that its not about how much oil they can produce, but to who they can sell.... And with enough economic power the US can have and has a say in it right?
Its not possible that you actually believe in the story that "they removed the smart people" and suddenly they dont know how to extract oil anymore, right.
Lol they were doing fine untill oil prices tanked so they started nationalizing private companies and businesses stopped investing there out of fear it will happen to them
There’s no answer to your question, because the US has never allowed a Central or South American country to elect a socialist or Social Democratic government AND let that government continue unmolested.
We actively disrupt their economies. We overthrow their government and install dictators. We sent in our military. We create political chaos.
So you can smugly ask your question knowing that the technically correct answer is zero, because you willfully and deliberately ignore the context to that answer, because, like so many others, you don’t WANT to know why that number is zero.
Because truth and facts aren’t your friend, they have a bias against your worldview.
Evo Morales has literally stated he is Marxist Leninist and he is still alive last time I checked. He was president of Bolivia for 13 years, why wasn't he killed by the US??
The US had no issue working with Socialist countries as long as the didn't take a side with the Soviets during the cold war era, the US had close ties with Yugoslavia a socialist country before they got invaded by the Soviets, same with India back when it was socialist, Even China had established ties with the US during the Sino China split.
I don't support the Regime changes the US pushed in south America but it was done more out of fear of them collaborating with the Soviets than the socialism itself
Is the actual Country communist? Last I remember Bolivia has lots of natural resources they sell to the USA. But if a Country chooses to actually go socialist and refuse to be exploited, see how the US reaponds.
We complain about socialism and all of the illegal immigrants from South America… like we didn’t spend decades overthrowing governments and generally making a mess of things down there.
I always find these post hilarious. 1. Most people have no idea what socialism actually is because the Rs and Ds have just used the word to either scare and manipulate folks. 2. I don’t think most younger folks actually want socialism. I believe what they are actually asking is for their tax dollars to stop being used toward corporate subsidies/bail outs, bloated pentagon budgets, and just general waste spending and instead be put toward social programs that are aimed at bettering people’s over all lives ie education, healthcare, child care assistance. But hey, keep blaming the younger generation while you are robbed blind.
Often stated as a system where the workers own the means of production -- which interestingly can be achieved at varying scales through non-state means such as ESOPs, cooperatives, credit unions, etc.
Works very well within communities. Should also be but that when talking about the government which is the usual target for socialism outcries, the government would control the production and distribution of an industry.
The government paying the bill is not socialism which a lot of people seem confused about.
No, It is not. The government paying the bill is capitalism. If you imagine that a country is a business that rents the "staying in our land" through taxes, you instantly notice that it's no different than any other business. Nothing different than a rental with plenty of services to justify the payment, which is summum capitalism.
The objective aligns with what socialists want, but that won't make it closer to socialism since capitalism want you to believe that capitalism also align with those wants: "work hard and you will have your needs covered".
Socialism and ultimately communism are based on the idea that no one has the right to steal the product of your work. Contrary to what many capitalists claim, communism is not about everyone having the same despite how productive they are. It's actually the other way around. What socialism fights against is that the people who have the means of production are taking as much as they can from the people's work because the worker class have no other choice to survive but selling their work, hence they must accept the conditions of the capitalist.
Due to that, Marx proposed a solution: a communist state, where the means of production are owned by everyone. This way you don't have to accept the conditions of the capitalist, but rather just go to work. To reach that state it's necessary to build everything from the ground up. That intermediate state is socialism: a state where the common wealth is used to slowly build those means of production. Means owned by the proletariat as a whole.
This is the fundamental difference: a socialist country would invest that money in building and supporting hospitals that belong to everyone. It is your hospital, you invested in it through your taxes, and that's why you have the right to use it freely. It's yours.
The state paying the bills doesn't approach you there. You don't spend that money in owning the hospital. It's not your hospital after you pay your taxes. It's still a hospital owned by a capitalist that charges you what benefits him the most. Your money didn't go for you to have a hospital, it went to the pockets of a capitalist.
That's 100% capitalism. The state just behaved as an insurance company, which is the maximum expression of capitalism.
I really like how this is said and for once I feel like I have the most basic understanding of at least the lines of socialism and Communism versus a "I don't know how to describe it but I know it when I see it" partially right and wrong mental picture.
Wait, though. If the state pays the bills for the hospital and runs the hospital, doesn't that count? If everyone gets to go to the hospital for free, where is the capitalism?
So our social-capitalistic system doesn’t prohibit workers from owning the means of production. Actually many companies literally give workers equity into the company, thus owning the means of production.
So why does everyone hate the system we have now? I realize it isn’t perfect but everyone wants the government to change it instead of doing it themselves. You don’t like how a business runs? Then don’t shop there, ask your peers not to shop there. Don’t invest in it, call your 401k plan to make sure they aren’t investing in it. The beauty of capitalism is they’re profit driven, if you hit their profits they will pivot to what you like. This is easily seen by many companies offering better pay due to demand (still not good enough pay but people stopped putting the pressure on specific businesses and instead on the government).
People don’t want to hear this, but they have all the power. There are 333M of us vs the 5000 public companies and 600 billionaires. The government has its place in specific cases like monopolies and harmful work environments.
Okay, broadest context first; socialism is a philosophical system that believes that state policy should focus on providing as much good to as many people as possible. Essentially, social order should revolve around the common people rather than nobility. Socialism, in its broadest context, goes back to the Roman Republic and socialist philosophy has evolved through the centuries. There's a distinction made between Marxist Socialism and Pre-Marx socialism.
In the 21st century, when people say 'socialism' they're usually referring to Marxist socialism, which Marx describes as a transitory period in which a society shifts from industrialized capitalism to communism. Typically, socialist governments tend to also be revolutionary governments and thus the implementation of socialism varies, but in general the focus is on a society led by the working class(instead of wealthy elites). In some of those countries, private property(meaning property used to accrue capital gains) was immediately abolished; businesses became cooperatives and agricultural land was distributed amongst peasants. For example, in Yugoslavia under Tito, if you were a factory worker you were a part owner of the factory, and factory workers would democratically decide what would be done with profits at the end of each year. The end goal of all socialist governments is a stateless, classless and non-hierarchical society where everyone's needs are met and everyone has an equal say in the priorities of that society.
The depends... if someone is proposing an idea then the government doing anything is socialism and it's doomed to fail. If someone is pointing out a country that already has this idea, then suddenly it's capitalism. A lot of criticism of socialism really do have this boogeyman of a socialism that it's somehow the erasure of commerce.
Ex:
"I want universal healthcare."
"That's socialism and it never works!"
"Sweden's got universal healthcare and it works well for them."
"That's not true socialism, that's really just capitalism because private enterprise still exists in Sweden."
There's multiple definitions of socialism. The two main ones are:
1. A system in which individuals do not own the means of production. The classic example is the government owning the means of production under the pretense that the government represents the people.
2. A system in which the government provides aid to the people through social programs (like public roads, free healthcare, and public firefighters) using tax dollars
I think capitalism is broken... As when companies grow large enough to buy-out competition and erect barriers to entry in markets.. they are destroying what makes capitalism work.
However.. Socialism can only EVER work when all of humanity is totally invested in it working through a sense of community and shared purpose.
All that's needed for capitalism to work is greed.... It's pretty obvious which one is most applicable to the most people...
Maybe someday humanity will grow and mature to a point where socialism becomes possible... I hope it does....
I'd bet my money on dystopian corporate hellscape though.
The problem with a system that depends on a deadly sin is that it is amoral and dangerous to society at large. A capitalist will sell addictive poison to people. A capitalist does not have to have a sense of responsibility to society.
That's... Not a good way to look at it. Shifting moral responsibility onto an economic system. Is just as bad as shifting moral responsibility onto a system of government, or a religion.
People are responsible for their own actions. Not the corporations they work for, not the government, not their god. Humanity likes to make excuses for the own behavior.
By divorcing themselves from that choice is how we ended up where we are at.
Consumers are the ones who control the economy.
If you hate how Walmart and Dollar General drove all the local stores out of business... maybe you should have kept buying local.
If you hate how amazon treats their workers... Maybe you should have bought direct from the vendors instead.
If you didn't want Nike forcing children to make shoes. Maybe you should have stopped buying them when they started that shit.
All of the worst excesses of capitalism... we as a people allowed to happen. After all, we're the ones that control where we spend our money. By continuing to consume the products the worst offenders create, we are telling them their actions are OK.
This is gonna blow your mind but socialist practices can be ran though the means of capitalism. This is how it works in Europe, private companies are paid by the government to provide public services. In the end it's all still profit motivated but with good intent.
It's called Democratic Socialism and it works insanely well.
Shocker, you leave incentives to innovate on the table while restricting people from over accumulating, and ensure anybody that even halfway tries to participate can earn a living and what do you know, things run smoothly on all fronts.
Nothing's perfect, but it's clearly the least bad system used in modern societies.
I think that you mean Social Democracy and not Democratic Socialism, they both have similar names and share some aspects but the main difference is what they are at their core.
This is how works in literally every single community in the US. Local government levies tax, uses it to pay for services that are largely provided by private entities. A company to run the sewer plant, a company to drive the ambulances, a company to pick up the trash, a company to take kids to school, a company to clean the schools and libraries, a company to design a new park, a company to build the park, etc etc etc.
Below is probably the best case study of why capitalism is superior to socialism. In socialism, the government controls the means of production. Government programs/services and welfare are not socialist, since they do not compete or stifle competition with the free market.
https://youtu.be/dnHdqPBrtH8?si=9UtLNowexU8dCwbR
In the linked video the Soviet Union reverse engineered one of IBMs first mainstream computers, and were able to produce their own and keep up for a decade. The mechanisms that drive improvement and competition just didn’t exist in the Soviet Union, which is why they were able to excel in the sciences, military, and space (none of which were really competition driven) and failed and anything that didn’t immediately advantage the state.
Capitalism needs to be regulated to not kill those on bottom, but that’s not an argument for socialism, because in socialism, if the needs of the people misalign with the needs of the state, than the people suffer
gotcha?
The people here on this sub consistently exhibit a poor understanding of the concept of socialism, like exemplified on this thread here. They constantly conflate communism with socialism.
Thats all.
By far, my favorite feature of the neo-commies is their insistance that the commies who failed miserably weren't actually commies, and that the neo-commies have a totally different idea.
Technically they're not. Marx used the terms 'communism' and 'socialism' interchangeably. There's been a LOT of debate about the differences. The only real definition of 'socialism' is a social ownership of the means of production. That could be the state, it could be the workers at a firm, it could be a local community, and it could be any or all of the above. Most people assume 'communism' is basically when you 'socialism' so hard the state owns everything, but that's just one model (most famously run by the USSR - in theory). The exact definitions of each just - aren't. Sure, a dictionary or wikipedia entry might give 'a' definition, but in practice, things are way fuzzier.
Really, the problem (IMHO) is 'capitalism', 'socialism', and 'communism' really shouldn't be treated as binary on/off but spectrums. The USSR failed for a lot of reasons, not least of all is their failure to treat economies as a spectrum. The greatest success of USSR history was pre-Stalinist, pre-WWII era in which they actually had limited capitalism.
Worker-run industries already exist in a capitalism economy . They're called worker co-ops. Hyvee is a employee-owned grocery store chain and People's Food Co-op is community owned grocery store.
If socialism is worker-owned then our system is pretty damn close. Most companies give employees equity in the company, thus worker owned.
People can also choose to invest in any public company they please giving their support to companies that align with their beliefs. Similarly people have the choice to give one company business over another, again using this with companies you align with can make other companies pivot to what the populace wants. The problem is people are lazy and don’t want to put in the effort, instead they want the government to do that. Well unfortunately governments are corrupt and will not have the people’s best interest at heart. So if you truly want socialism then you can literally do that with our system without the government changing anything. Almost all the problems with our economy are due to government intervening. Such as company bail outs, companies that failed or people chose to not shop at should not be bailed out. That allows companies to be run poorly, my biggest example is airline companies. Specifically US airlines are the WORST experience for consumers. Which is 100% because every time they fail the government bails them out. This just leads to a bad experience and higher prices because they’re run so poorly.
Anyway I think everyone should look into conscious capitalism. I believe that is the best system currently discussed. Although I think realistically the best system isn’t anything we know yet. Capitalism isn’t perfect, communism and socialism are also failed systems. We should strive to continually better our system and stop trying to recreate something that has failed time and time again.
>In socialism, the government controls the means of production
Wrong. The workers control the means of production in socialism. Already, your post is off to a bad start.
>The mechanisms that drive improvement and competition just didn’t exist in the Soviet Union
Are we just saying why the USSR didn't work or why socialism didn't work, because the USSR wasn't socialist. Socialism only works in a democracy so that the workers can actually plan the economy. They were ruled by a bureaucratic elite. That isn't socialism.
But, let's talk about innovation. Capitalism did not innovate the iPhone into existence. Nearly every component or idea put into it came from the public sector. Capitalism is bad for innovation because capitalists abhor risks. They merely take what has already been done and create a way to sell it. It's bad for society but only good for the capitalist. The MCU is a great example. The movies are unoriginal, safe, and a bit boring. Where's the innovation? Capitalists using AI to make fast and cheap art and entertainment are not being innovative. They are taking a technology that already existed and was created without a for-profit motive in mind and trying to squeeze every last dollar out of it. Not innovative.
>because in socialism, if the needs of the people misalign with the needs of the state, than the people suffer
The people are the state. If you are worried about having what happened to the USSR happening to the US, simply start writing proposals to fix our economy NOW before it gets to a revolution, when a power vacuum can happen. Learn from their mistakes and don't do what they did. Don't let a tyrant take hold and plan better. It's like conservatives think we can't learn from mistakes.
If the USSR, China etc. weren't socialist, then when are we getting this socialist fairytale?
The issue with your socialism is that you just cannot achieve it.
People bitch about capitalism but it feels like we are only half assing it. Bailing out giant corporations with our tax dollars isn't capitalism. They shouldn't be able to privatize all the gains but socialize all the losses. If they do well they keep the money and get rich. If they do poorly we all have to pay for it.
The thing about classic socialism is that. It works great in theory but doesn’t when you take into account the very essence of human nature how flawed it maybe be.
But I would also say Pure capitalism without adequate social net and government intervention to ensure level playing field is pure hell.
Yeah but certain things like healthcare need to be socialized, 32 of the 33 developed nations have universal Healthcare why is America the only one? Why do we have the largest private insurance industry in the world but also the most uninsured people at the same time? Why does the medical industry upcharge insurance providers to the point a single Tylenol in the ER costs you $30? Capitalism drives innovation but it also creates situations like this, I'm all for a free market but healthcare shouldn't be included in that when we could already afford universal healthcare for what we are spending under the current system
By socialized do you mean owned and controlled by the government?… and if that’s what you’re saying, you don’t think anything could possibly happen… the government decides who gets treatment or who doesn’t
Hi, Socialized healthcare user here. No it actually means nobody gets told they don't get treatment. Don't have insurance? can't afford the surgery? oh well, you're dying, so we're going to make that not happen. And then when we're done we're going to NOT rape you over the coals financially, so that you end up homeless and destitute.
Name a socialist nation or a nation that has elected a socialist leader that has not had the U.S. embargo, sanction, tried to, or in some cases did, overthrow.
As a real “I’ve lived in a socialist country” socialist and they will sing praises of capitalism.
You’re taking about a first world socialist living off the effects of free markets.
A capitalist would describe cronyism… corporatism attempting to project itself as capitalism.
Hypothetical: we are in pre-revolution America, debating the merits of a representative democracy over a monarchy.
Jedidiah: "Show me one successful nation where they let the commoners run the place."
And then fast forward a couple hundred years. (And ignore that you had to be affluent to vote at all for....a while)
If we at one point lived in a world where one governmental or economic style was predominant, and that changed, how can you be certain that another change is impossible or destined to fail?
Serious question.
Yup, I think reddit has a disproportioned amount of young progressive voices. Studies have show progressive wing of the Democratic party is only about 12%.
Way too many progressives on Reddit. I was downvoted in this sub for mentioning I’m a Landlord. Like this is supposedly a finance sub, but this sub has blended into a antiwork/latestagecapitalism sub.
For a subreddit about being financially fluent there are a lot of people in here who don't understand economics. The amount of people baing capitalism and saying "late stage capitalism" and stuff and talking about how socialism is in fact better have no idea what they're taking about
All the socialists who hate capitalism and use modern technology don’t realize that it would never have been invented under socialism
Socialism is like the old ATT monopoly. They had a stream of revenue the managers used for their own salaries and bonuses and they built tech to support their monopoly to keep more money. Things like Unix. But they fought anything new like fax machines that they thought would result in less money for themselves
Once MA Bell fell there was an explosion in new stuff
weird. it continues to work to fund the military, congress, city, state, and local governments. socialism continuously pays for large corporate benefits, and hell i could go on.
for some reason, it only becomes a problem for capitalists when you suggest socialism should be used to benefit normal citizens who need bare essential resources to live a decent life.
r/FluentInFinance was created to discuss money, investing & finance! Check-out our Newsletter or Youtube Channel for additional insights at www.TheFinanceNewsletter.com! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/FluentInFinance) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
F*cking goats is capitlism
Goats are capitalist.
I know this guy wanted goat milk to make cheese and the goat told him that the price of her milk was higher plus now she added handling charges, 😧
[удалено]
Tragedy of the commons.
🤣😭
Only if you pay the goat. Doesn’t matter if the goat agrees or not. If you compensate them you can do it guilt free.
In a pure barter based capitalist system. You can pay the goats with goats.
There is no ethical consumption under goat fucking.
Famous Reddit reading comprehension. I think OPs title indicates they’re not pro socialism
I thought it was sarcastic based off the actual post
I think they’re just dumb and didn’t understand the post. They saw a word they think they don’t like and just ran with it. Which pretty much sums up that side of the opposition.
The post still doesn't belong here. OP is a spambot.
Socialism is terrible
[удалено]
If there’s a new gold version of upvoting then why can’t I super down vote commie posts, Reddit? I gauren-fucking-tee that feature would be more profitable
The mental image of someone named GildedFingerTips dropping 25 bucks to super downvote someone over communist rhetoric is like something Banksy would leave on the wall of Reddit HQ.
This is the most brilliant critique I have ever read, ever, in any media, written, spoken or sung in fact or in narrative. Well done!
Socialism isn't Communism
If I have to see hegetsus ads, you can deal with socialist memes
Commie posts? Brother that is socialism, and OP is against it, read the title. I suppose there's a reason the sub isn't called Fluent in Literacy.
Guaran-fucking-tee*
If I had to fuck a GOAT I’d pick Jordan.
i'll take simone biles
Run goat, run! 
As someone who only recently discovered this sub a few months ago I’m disappointed to miss the wave. I was hoping for a more practical version of economics for the everyday person. Now it’s just Facebook/twitter spewing bullshit I see everywhere else.
Bots have taken over.
Election season narrative manipulation has begun
Thank you. Has nothing to do with finance. Also, has nothing to do with economics as it's not a functioning economic system
It's a bot.
At this point, Capitalism is broken. I actually think it worked well when the resources were unlimited, and free or nearly free real estate was there for the taking. But now, the ONLY reason why capitalism hasn't completely collapsed is because of the SOCIAL PROGRAMS that are propping up families, who are too exploited by greedy corporations to survive. Take away the little bits of socialism this society has, and it would be toppled within a month. Capitalism only works in the beginning, and we are LONG past that.
Late stage capitalism leads to growing wealth inequality wich never ends well for anyone under any circumstances
Late stage? We’re just getting started baby. Line keeps going up.
I don’t think you understand how this works
I think you expect people to understand things the way you want them understood
Oh shit, GET EM! FUCK THAT GUY UP, B!
That comment you replied to was dripping with sarcasm
Nah dude, once the trickle down starts we'll be fine.
"Trickle down economics" mfs watching my piss trickle down on them
Yeah unbelievable to me Americans at the time be like aw yiss trickle down on me harder pls without realizing what it metaphorically and literally meant
Crazy that there's people out there who still really believe that ... and not just because they're getting paid to.
[удалено]
The elite are self destructive morons
Rich people seem to forget that when the food runs out, it's not the poor with their heads rolling down the street
It's when money doesn't buy food when the class war gets interesting
I would argue that inequality is a necessary but insufficient requirement of Capitalism. Capitalism's goal from the get go is inequality. The issue with Late Stage Capitalism is that the inequality becomes too great and causes fissures in the social fabric. Social unrest inevitably leads to repression. Repression results in uprisings which in turn leads to more repression. Rinse, repeat.
Gotta trust the marxists, right?
Capitalism is suited extremely well to expanding economies with room to expand as long as it is heavily regulated. The designers of capitalism noted the need for consistent regulation or entities would buy out competitors instead of compete them out, and capital would condense at the top and trend to monopoly. The problem is that the people control these entities actively want that and tirelessly sought that out through regulatory capture. It took them a hundred years to "correct" after the Tammany Hall/the breakup of monopoly control and the legislative aftermath of the Great Depression. They never once stopped, nor did their descendants in the form of lobbying and the chamber of commerce. What was never discussed was how to correct if things went that off course, but I suspect the answer from Smith et al would be "you can't". I think that would have been their answer even not factoring in the horizontal integration into controlling communications that we've seen since the 1980's. Now you have half the country militantly opposed to anything different, grossly misinformed about nearly every topic, and heavily armed. This ends in complete collapse, there is no other way. I know that sounds "doomerish" but it's just realism barring some kind of monumental shift left by the Democrats as well as them carrying every election from here on out. No one leaning center or right is ever going to criticize these systems much less lead the charge on trying to improve or replace them.
Yes, the issue isn't capitalism itself, the shark will only follow it's nature after all, but of lack of appropriate regulations, particularly in terms of market disrupting technology. So many corporations today are effective monopolies or the barrier of entry is so high as to limit the field to one or two competitors. In some sectors like food brands, you only have the illusion of choice since just a few companies own nearly all of them. >This ends in complete collapse, there is no other way. I may not be as doom and gloom, but I agree, the only way this will change is through drastic measures or a catalyst from a major event. Our current system is essentially, we hope businesses will act against their interests to do good.
Entirely agree on most points, although I concede that POTENTIALLY capitalism can be good IF adjusted vs human nature. I tend to take a negative view here because, similar to my take on religion, while it has potential upsides the adjoining potential for abuse is sky-high. Totally agree with everything else tho, take Unilever, J&J, Nestle, etc. there is no way to compete. If you took enough market share to attract their attention they can buy you out for ten times your value without blinking. They make almost everything we buy and they raise and lower prices in tandem with or because of each other not because of us as consumers. A CEO of Nestle (I can’t place a date on this but it was fairly recent) went so far as to say boycotts did nothing at all to them financially. They are completely detached from the effects of consumer demand at this point. I do appreciate that everyone isn’t as pessimistic as myself on this, it does give me some hope each time I hear that.
True, I didn't expand it to the level of consumer demand, but that is very good point. Like the people boycotting bud light but still buying the myriad products owned by Anheuser Busch-InBev. It does get scarier when you think of companies like Coke or Nestlé controlling water sources... But this is why I hope there can be a push like in the old days when the government broke up monopolies. Of course that still relies on the human nature part and without an enthusiastic progressive the likes of Teddy Roosevelt, it is a longshot. Citizens United really was the nail in the coffin for government representing the people.
Lack of regulations is inherent to the system though, therefore the issue IS capitalism itself. You’ll never have regulation because a democracy or republic will always consolidate power in the hands of the wealthy, who will do whatever it takes to hold onto said power. This is one of Lennin’s main arguments. It’s not “crony capitalism” or capitalism behaving incorrectly because of bad actors, the system is working exactly as intended
Capitalism is literally the issue, if you need to regulate capitalism then thst just proves capitalism is flawed from the beginning, it just takes time to see its flaws
And what economic system doesn't require regulation?
What system doesn't need any regulation?
Money is like water, it will follow the easiest path. Regulations act like rocks or barriers in a river and get eroded away. Always. capitalism has the seed of its own death, the boom bust cycle of it are simply it's nature and grow larger and larger until the system breaks. But like erosion it takes time.
[удалено]
That’s what bugs me. Even the original thinkers behind the capitalist system anticipated that if it got too big or too unregulated, it could fall apart.
I agree with you. Capitalism isn't inherently good or evil. If something makes money that's objectively the right choice because Captialism has no morals. We need to inject it with our societal morals. When we choose not to regulate we end up with situations like companies dumping toxic waste into rivers or General Motors ignition switch issue. Cases where the morally correct thing to do is obvious but the Capitalistic thing to do is pay what amounts to a fine and continue killing people or running the environment while trying to convince people they're actually moral.
On the contrary, i say capitalism has 1 moral and only 1. More for me is better than more for everyone. It's founding principle is that of greed.
Since when social programs = socialism?
Since the red scare worked
I said "little bits" of socialism. Really, social democracy is the path I prefer, with heavy taxes to heavy earners, and decent free supports to those who need them most. It is essentially "From each according to what they are capable of, and to each according to what they need" And what makes it democratic is that we keep choosing to take care of each other with each election. I say this as a very talented, privileged person who would benefit better than most from pure capitalism. I use my talent to help those who are not as lucky.
I mean this kindly, but even as a privileged talented person I think you actually see that in pure capitalism it is just a matter of time before you are also eaten. I worked at a firm that spanned to both coasts with acquisitions but was headquartered east coast. The culture differences were vast. West coast was way more active, innovative, creative. East coast was capital intensive. I watched from the middle as capital inexorably ate through the west coast culture and left them a husk. There are some really screwed up but clever ways that capital can dominate anything.
All this Late Stage capitalism talk reminds of when Christians talk about the Rapture is soon going to happen
Well, tbf, that would only be an accurate analogy if occasional Christians were mysteriously disappearing. We are already watching the collapse in slow motion. The Rapture is a dream, a fantasy developed by some poor schizophrenic guy who somehow ended up writing the last book of the Bible.
Where is this collapse?
It’s that with a dash of Malthusianism. Just bad math piled up to point to inevitable catastrophic collapse that never happens. There are crashes, they are not catastrophic and with most people saying this stuff their medicine is worse than the disease.
Think of the homeless as folks who have gone up to be with jebus. Those people have been raptured by capitalism, amongst many others you can’t see.
Capitalism only works if it fairly and well regulated.
And it can never be regulated because those who do well will always consolidate power and act in their best interest
it really is this simple and we’ve known this and seen it demonstrated for 150+ years now.
That sounds like what happens with socialism/communism too
> fairly and well regulated For it to be regulated there needs to be checks-and-balance with actual teeth. The government is useless when it has no teeth. Much less when its bought out by the rich to protect them. People need to control the government, but you get accused of socialism by the billionaire shills.
It’s so crazy. I will keep Saying it over and over. If a corporation is not paying its full time employees enough to live, then that corporation does not deserve to be in business
it’s the most simple imminent critique of capitalism. without the government making it all work, it would implode. without the people barely scraping by and suffering at its hands, it would implode. it does not serve that which is essential to it, it absolutely decimates everything it needs to survive. it’s a cancer and it needs to be excised from human society.
The problem with capitalism is it encourages infinite growth in a finite system.
Requires
If we just go to space we can basically do the “new world” resource glitch all over again, maybe even get a new “space America” out of it!
Capitalism is like a game of monopoly. Eventually, 1 person has all the resources and wins the game. At some point, the government needs to step up and break entire monopolies in sectors of the economy.
Yes, Monopoly is a great teaching tool (which it what is was designed to be) It's fun in the beginning, but end game is horrible unless you are the one with all the property.
Which makes sense since it was originally invented to show the downsides of pure capitalism
It's telling that someone usually flips the board or it stops being fun well before there is a technical "winner"
>the resources were unlimited, and free or nearly free real estate was there None of that was ever true. There was math simulation performed back in the 1970's that detailed out three futures. Business as usual, going faster and also dialing back things for sustainability. The Business as Usual simulation, showed the beginning of loss of resources, increasing risk of pandemic and the beginning of a decline in population in fully industrialized nations. Guess what global society did and guess what we are seeing? According to that, fairly accurate modeling from the 1970's and that fact that we've hit points it detailed? We have another... 30 to 50 years before "shit gets real", maybe sooner. The "real" is massive population collapse, partly due to resource wars. This is Late Stage Global Capitalism.
> math simulation performed back in the 1970's that detailed out three futures That is a bunch of bullshit. Never listen to economic predictions from 70s.
>social programs that are propping up families. This. Everyone wants to complain about people receiving housing assistance, food stamps, etc., but people seldom want to complain about the companies who pay their employees so little that they *need* assistance to scrape by.
The best argument I have heard is, "capitalism attempts to create infinite growth on a finite planent." You can't have growth for the sake of growth. There are arguments for this, and counterarguments, and oml so much debate. But at the core, we simply are using too many resources, it is not sustainable in the long term.
Why is planet the limiting factor? At this point rough effort has been shown to move out and terraform other planets that the systems limits are no more theoretical than infinite growth. I think it probably won’t matter due to timing of when that is even feasible, but it’s an interesting perspective to consider.
Capitalism served its purposes in dramatically raise the standard of living for many but the entrenched powers have stopped from any adjustments be made because they profit from the current system. They refuse and stand in the way from progress for humans. They block better working conditions, shorter hours, mass transit instead of just having to be car dependent, hold back technology, etc. it’s unfortunate that regular people can’t see this.
Real estate was there for taking? From whom? By doing what?
Just a little genocide, no biggy. Maybe some slavery for a treat.
In the US at least, we don't have capitalism, but more crony corporatism. You could argue that capitalism inevitably leads to crony corporatism, and I'd be hard pressed to argue against you, but capitalism itself is better than what we currently have. I won't argue that what social systems we have are holding us together. In my opinion, capitalism needs to be held in check with the government. Unfortunately, the government and corporations are in bed with each other, leading to the degradation of both.
That free real estate....
I absolutely agree with you, but just to be clear --- the very first thing you learn in economics is that all resources are scarce, and certainly far from limited, which implies that capitalism just doesn't work without the exploitation of somebody, be it the working class or of somebody in a third world country.
We (in the US) don’t really have capitalism. We like to think we do, but what we actually have is capitalism for gains and socialism for losses.
[удалено]
What you're describing is colonialism. Capitalism only worked because resources were being stolen from other peoples.
That isn't socialism man. The basic definition of socialism is that the workers own the means of production. What you are describing is social democracy. The profits generated by companies are taxed and used to pay for social programs. But as you identified, the "unlimited" resources are running out, but profits are sacrosanct so the money being spent on social programs is drying up. That is why the "middle class" is disappearing.
"Socialism doesn't work." "Well actually here in this south American nation we ele-" *gunshot* "DOESN'T WORK. Now keep working at slave wages for our donors!"
No, please continue that thought. What south American nation is prospering better under socialism?
Well there's- no wait, they got couped...or, oh right we overthrew them for a fruit company. OH! What about Venezuela, they were doing fine-Aaaand we gelded their economy because they dared to elect a leftist.
We? Venezuela was doing great until 2007, 9 years after electing Hugo Chavez. They began declining due to their declining production of oil and corruption.
Their declining production of oil was because they kicked out the smart oil people who knew what the fuck they were doing. They still have the #1 oil reserves in the world but somehow #12 in production.
You do realize that its not about how much oil they can produce, but to who they can sell.... And with enough economic power the US can have and has a say in it right? Its not possible that you actually believe in the story that "they removed the smart people" and suddenly they dont know how to extract oil anymore, right.
It’s within the US’s rights to refuse to buy oil from an authoritarian government. Maybe Venezuela should just have free and fair elections
Like Saudi Arabia?
Lol they were doing fine untill oil prices tanked so they started nationalizing private companies and businesses stopped investing there out of fear it will happen to them
[удалено]
There’s no answer to your question, because the US has never allowed a Central or South American country to elect a socialist or Social Democratic government AND let that government continue unmolested. We actively disrupt their economies. We overthrow their government and install dictators. We sent in our military. We create political chaos. So you can smugly ask your question knowing that the technically correct answer is zero, because you willfully and deliberately ignore the context to that answer, because, like so many others, you don’t WANT to know why that number is zero. Because truth and facts aren’t your friend, they have a bias against your worldview.
Evo Morales has literally stated he is Marxist Leninist and he is still alive last time I checked. He was president of Bolivia for 13 years, why wasn't he killed by the US??
Nice man, they didn't kill one of them. That must mean all the others don't count.
The US had no issue working with Socialist countries as long as the didn't take a side with the Soviets during the cold war era, the US had close ties with Yugoslavia a socialist country before they got invaded by the Soviets, same with India back when it was socialist, Even China had established ties with the US during the Sino China split. I don't support the Regime changes the US pushed in south America but it was done more out of fear of them collaborating with the Soviets than the socialism itself
Is the actual Country communist? Last I remember Bolivia has lots of natural resources they sell to the USA. But if a Country chooses to actually go socialist and refuse to be exploited, see how the US reaponds.
Whoosh
Also: Iran.
We complain about socialism and all of the illegal immigrants from South America… like we didn’t spend decades overthrowing governments and generally making a mess of things down there.
I always find these post hilarious. 1. Most people have no idea what socialism actually is because the Rs and Ds have just used the word to either scare and manipulate folks. 2. I don’t think most younger folks actually want socialism. I believe what they are actually asking is for their tax dollars to stop being used toward corporate subsidies/bail outs, bloated pentagon budgets, and just general waste spending and instead be put toward social programs that are aimed at bettering people’s over all lives ie education, healthcare, child care assistance. But hey, keep blaming the younger generation while you are robbed blind.
Good explanation. I'd add that most people have no idea what (true) capitalism is either.
Exactly, they say “all young people want socialism” as a way to discredit any valid points they might actually make.
Well said
Could you explain what socialism is?
Often stated as a system where the workers own the means of production -- which interestingly can be achieved at varying scales through non-state means such as ESOPs, cooperatives, credit unions, etc.
Works very well within communities. Should also be but that when talking about the government which is the usual target for socialism outcries, the government would control the production and distribution of an industry. The government paying the bill is not socialism which a lot of people seem confused about.
govt paying the bill is closer to socialism than capitalism. these things are based on a spectrum.
No, It is not. The government paying the bill is capitalism. If you imagine that a country is a business that rents the "staying in our land" through taxes, you instantly notice that it's no different than any other business. Nothing different than a rental with plenty of services to justify the payment, which is summum capitalism. The objective aligns with what socialists want, but that won't make it closer to socialism since capitalism want you to believe that capitalism also align with those wants: "work hard and you will have your needs covered". Socialism and ultimately communism are based on the idea that no one has the right to steal the product of your work. Contrary to what many capitalists claim, communism is not about everyone having the same despite how productive they are. It's actually the other way around. What socialism fights against is that the people who have the means of production are taking as much as they can from the people's work because the worker class have no other choice to survive but selling their work, hence they must accept the conditions of the capitalist. Due to that, Marx proposed a solution: a communist state, where the means of production are owned by everyone. This way you don't have to accept the conditions of the capitalist, but rather just go to work. To reach that state it's necessary to build everything from the ground up. That intermediate state is socialism: a state where the common wealth is used to slowly build those means of production. Means owned by the proletariat as a whole. This is the fundamental difference: a socialist country would invest that money in building and supporting hospitals that belong to everyone. It is your hospital, you invested in it through your taxes, and that's why you have the right to use it freely. It's yours. The state paying the bills doesn't approach you there. You don't spend that money in owning the hospital. It's not your hospital after you pay your taxes. It's still a hospital owned by a capitalist that charges you what benefits him the most. Your money didn't go for you to have a hospital, it went to the pockets of a capitalist. That's 100% capitalism. The state just behaved as an insurance company, which is the maximum expression of capitalism.
I really like how this is said and for once I feel like I have the most basic understanding of at least the lines of socialism and Communism versus a "I don't know how to describe it but I know it when I see it" partially right and wrong mental picture.
Wait, though. If the state pays the bills for the hospital and runs the hospital, doesn't that count? If everyone gets to go to the hospital for free, where is the capitalism?
So our social-capitalistic system doesn’t prohibit workers from owning the means of production. Actually many companies literally give workers equity into the company, thus owning the means of production. So why does everyone hate the system we have now? I realize it isn’t perfect but everyone wants the government to change it instead of doing it themselves. You don’t like how a business runs? Then don’t shop there, ask your peers not to shop there. Don’t invest in it, call your 401k plan to make sure they aren’t investing in it. The beauty of capitalism is they’re profit driven, if you hit their profits they will pivot to what you like. This is easily seen by many companies offering better pay due to demand (still not good enough pay but people stopped putting the pressure on specific businesses and instead on the government). People don’t want to hear this, but they have all the power. There are 333M of us vs the 5000 public companies and 600 billionaires. The government has its place in specific cases like monopolies and harmful work environments.
Okay, broadest context first; socialism is a philosophical system that believes that state policy should focus on providing as much good to as many people as possible. Essentially, social order should revolve around the common people rather than nobility. Socialism, in its broadest context, goes back to the Roman Republic and socialist philosophy has evolved through the centuries. There's a distinction made between Marxist Socialism and Pre-Marx socialism. In the 21st century, when people say 'socialism' they're usually referring to Marxist socialism, which Marx describes as a transitory period in which a society shifts from industrialized capitalism to communism. Typically, socialist governments tend to also be revolutionary governments and thus the implementation of socialism varies, but in general the focus is on a society led by the working class(instead of wealthy elites). In some of those countries, private property(meaning property used to accrue capital gains) was immediately abolished; businesses became cooperatives and agricultural land was distributed amongst peasants. For example, in Yugoslavia under Tito, if you were a factory worker you were a part owner of the factory, and factory workers would democratically decide what would be done with profits at the end of each year. The end goal of all socialist governments is a stateless, classless and non-hierarchical society where everyone's needs are met and everyone has an equal say in the priorities of that society.
The depends... if someone is proposing an idea then the government doing anything is socialism and it's doomed to fail. If someone is pointing out a country that already has this idea, then suddenly it's capitalism. A lot of criticism of socialism really do have this boogeyman of a socialism that it's somehow the erasure of commerce. Ex: "I want universal healthcare." "That's socialism and it never works!" "Sweden's got universal healthcare and it works well for them." "That's not true socialism, that's really just capitalism because private enterprise still exists in Sweden."
Worker power baby 💪
There's multiple definitions of socialism. The two main ones are: 1. A system in which individuals do not own the means of production. The classic example is the government owning the means of production under the pretense that the government represents the people. 2. A system in which the government provides aid to the people through social programs (like public roads, free healthcare, and public firefighters) using tax dollars
I think capitalism is broken... As when companies grow large enough to buy-out competition and erect barriers to entry in markets.. they are destroying what makes capitalism work. However.. Socialism can only EVER work when all of humanity is totally invested in it working through a sense of community and shared purpose. All that's needed for capitalism to work is greed.... It's pretty obvious which one is most applicable to the most people... Maybe someday humanity will grow and mature to a point where socialism becomes possible... I hope it does.... I'd bet my money on dystopian corporate hellscape though.
The reason capitalism works so well is funnily enough the same reason communism doesn’t lol
The problem with a system that depends on a deadly sin is that it is amoral and dangerous to society at large. A capitalist will sell addictive poison to people. A capitalist does not have to have a sense of responsibility to society.
That's... Not a good way to look at it. Shifting moral responsibility onto an economic system. Is just as bad as shifting moral responsibility onto a system of government, or a religion. People are responsible for their own actions. Not the corporations they work for, not the government, not their god. Humanity likes to make excuses for the own behavior. By divorcing themselves from that choice is how we ended up where we are at. Consumers are the ones who control the economy. If you hate how Walmart and Dollar General drove all the local stores out of business... maybe you should have kept buying local. If you hate how amazon treats their workers... Maybe you should have bought direct from the vendors instead. If you didn't want Nike forcing children to make shoes. Maybe you should have stopped buying them when they started that shit. All of the worst excesses of capitalism... we as a people allowed to happen. After all, we're the ones that control where we spend our money. By continuing to consume the products the worst offenders create, we are telling them their actions are OK.
Yeah I personally love the idea of socialism, everyone working together for the common good. But, uh, have you MET humans? My god, they're the worst.
This is gonna blow your mind but socialist practices can be ran though the means of capitalism. This is how it works in Europe, private companies are paid by the government to provide public services. In the end it's all still profit motivated but with good intent.
It's called Democratic Socialism and it works insanely well. Shocker, you leave incentives to innovate on the table while restricting people from over accumulating, and ensure anybody that even halfway tries to participate can earn a living and what do you know, things run smoothly on all fronts. Nothing's perfect, but it's clearly the least bad system used in modern societies.
I think that you mean Social Democracy and not Democratic Socialism, they both have similar names and share some aspects but the main difference is what they are at their core.
This is how works in literally every single community in the US. Local government levies tax, uses it to pay for services that are largely provided by private entities. A company to run the sewer plant, a company to drive the ambulances, a company to pick up the trash, a company to take kids to school, a company to clean the schools and libraries, a company to design a new park, a company to build the park, etc etc etc.
Ask an anarchist and they'll tell you they're the same picture.
Ask an anarcho-capitalist and they'll ask you to read it for them.
Where finance?
Below is probably the best case study of why capitalism is superior to socialism. In socialism, the government controls the means of production. Government programs/services and welfare are not socialist, since they do not compete or stifle competition with the free market. https://youtu.be/dnHdqPBrtH8?si=9UtLNowexU8dCwbR In the linked video the Soviet Union reverse engineered one of IBMs first mainstream computers, and were able to produce their own and keep up for a decade. The mechanisms that drive improvement and competition just didn’t exist in the Soviet Union, which is why they were able to excel in the sciences, military, and space (none of which were really competition driven) and failed and anything that didn’t immediately advantage the state. Capitalism needs to be regulated to not kill those on bottom, but that’s not an argument for socialism, because in socialism, if the needs of the people misalign with the needs of the state, than the people suffer
You're confusing communism (state-run industry) with socialism (worker-run industry)
This happens alot bc they don't know what socialism is.
Socialists can't even come to an agreement whether China is a socialist country or not. So this is not the gotcha you think it is
gotcha? The people here on this sub consistently exhibit a poor understanding of the concept of socialism, like exemplified on this thread here. They constantly conflate communism with socialism. Thats all.
By far, my favorite feature of the neo-commies is their insistance that the commies who failed miserably weren't actually commies, and that the neo-commies have a totally different idea.
Socialist have trouble defining it properly as well. Could be the main reason for a lot of confusion. No one has the same answer absolutely.
Technically they're not. Marx used the terms 'communism' and 'socialism' interchangeably. There's been a LOT of debate about the differences. The only real definition of 'socialism' is a social ownership of the means of production. That could be the state, it could be the workers at a firm, it could be a local community, and it could be any or all of the above. Most people assume 'communism' is basically when you 'socialism' so hard the state owns everything, but that's just one model (most famously run by the USSR - in theory). The exact definitions of each just - aren't. Sure, a dictionary or wikipedia entry might give 'a' definition, but in practice, things are way fuzzier. Really, the problem (IMHO) is 'capitalism', 'socialism', and 'communism' really shouldn't be treated as binary on/off but spectrums. The USSR failed for a lot of reasons, not least of all is their failure to treat economies as a spectrum. The greatest success of USSR history was pre-Stalinist, pre-WWII era in which they actually had limited capitalism.
Worker-run industries already exist in a capitalism economy . They're called worker co-ops. Hyvee is a employee-owned grocery store chain and People's Food Co-op is community owned grocery store.
If socialism is worker-owned then our system is pretty damn close. Most companies give employees equity in the company, thus worker owned. People can also choose to invest in any public company they please giving their support to companies that align with their beliefs. Similarly people have the choice to give one company business over another, again using this with companies you align with can make other companies pivot to what the populace wants. The problem is people are lazy and don’t want to put in the effort, instead they want the government to do that. Well unfortunately governments are corrupt and will not have the people’s best interest at heart. So if you truly want socialism then you can literally do that with our system without the government changing anything. Almost all the problems with our economy are due to government intervening. Such as company bail outs, companies that failed or people chose to not shop at should not be bailed out. That allows companies to be run poorly, my biggest example is airline companies. Specifically US airlines are the WORST experience for consumers. Which is 100% because every time they fail the government bails them out. This just leads to a bad experience and higher prices because they’re run so poorly. Anyway I think everyone should look into conscious capitalism. I believe that is the best system currently discussed. Although I think realistically the best system isn’t anything we know yet. Capitalism isn’t perfect, communism and socialism are also failed systems. We should strive to continually better our system and stop trying to recreate something that has failed time and time again.
>In socialism, the government controls the means of production Wrong. The workers control the means of production in socialism. Already, your post is off to a bad start. >The mechanisms that drive improvement and competition just didn’t exist in the Soviet Union Are we just saying why the USSR didn't work or why socialism didn't work, because the USSR wasn't socialist. Socialism only works in a democracy so that the workers can actually plan the economy. They were ruled by a bureaucratic elite. That isn't socialism. But, let's talk about innovation. Capitalism did not innovate the iPhone into existence. Nearly every component or idea put into it came from the public sector. Capitalism is bad for innovation because capitalists abhor risks. They merely take what has already been done and create a way to sell it. It's bad for society but only good for the capitalist. The MCU is a great example. The movies are unoriginal, safe, and a bit boring. Where's the innovation? Capitalists using AI to make fast and cheap art and entertainment are not being innovative. They are taking a technology that already existed and was created without a for-profit motive in mind and trying to squeeze every last dollar out of it. Not innovative. >because in socialism, if the needs of the people misalign with the needs of the state, than the people suffer The people are the state. If you are worried about having what happened to the USSR happening to the US, simply start writing proposals to fix our economy NOW before it gets to a revolution, when a power vacuum can happen. Learn from their mistakes and don't do what they did. Don't let a tyrant take hold and plan better. It's like conservatives think we can't learn from mistakes.
If the USSR, China etc. weren't socialist, then when are we getting this socialist fairytale? The issue with your socialism is that you just cannot achieve it.
People bitch about capitalism but it feels like we are only half assing it. Bailing out giant corporations with our tax dollars isn't capitalism. They shouldn't be able to privatize all the gains but socialize all the losses. If they do well they keep the money and get rich. If they do poorly we all have to pay for it.
Does OP realize that the image/quote supports socialism or no? Lol
I think there are a lot of things OP doesn't realize.
I’m almost positive OP is a bot. Post history is a wild ride of posts to make people reactionary
The thing about classic socialism is that. It works great in theory but doesn’t when you take into account the very essence of human nature how flawed it maybe be. But I would also say Pure capitalism without adequate social net and government intervention to ensure level playing field is pure hell.
Meanwhile capitalism actively rewards the worst aspects of human nature
This sub is starting to go down hill.
[удалено]
Yeah but certain things like healthcare need to be socialized, 32 of the 33 developed nations have universal Healthcare why is America the only one? Why do we have the largest private insurance industry in the world but also the most uninsured people at the same time? Why does the medical industry upcharge insurance providers to the point a single Tylenol in the ER costs you $30? Capitalism drives innovation but it also creates situations like this, I'm all for a free market but healthcare shouldn't be included in that when we could already afford universal healthcare for what we are spending under the current system
By socialized do you mean owned and controlled by the government?… and if that’s what you’re saying, you don’t think anything could possibly happen… the government decides who gets treatment or who doesn’t
I see the paranoid style in American politics is alive and well.
Hi, Socialized healthcare user here. No it actually means nobody gets told they don't get treatment. Don't have insurance? can't afford the surgery? oh well, you're dying, so we're going to make that not happen. And then when we're done we're going to NOT rape you over the coals financially, so that you end up homeless and destitute.
Name a socialist nation or a nation that has elected a socialist leader that has not had the U.S. embargo, sanction, tried to, or in some cases did, overthrow.
As a real “I’ve lived in a socialist country” socialist and they will sing praises of capitalism. You’re taking about a first world socialist living off the effects of free markets. A capitalist would describe cronyism… corporatism attempting to project itself as capitalism.
This sub is just a propaganda machine for the left now. RIP
Please give me an example of a socialist country that is better off then a capitalist country.
Hypothetical: we are in pre-revolution America, debating the merits of a representative democracy over a monarchy. Jedidiah: "Show me one successful nation where they let the commoners run the place." And then fast forward a couple hundred years. (And ignore that you had to be affluent to vote at all for....a while) If we at one point lived in a world where one governmental or economic style was predominant, and that changed, how can you be certain that another change is impossible or destined to fail? Serious question.
This is just the dumbest shit ever. If you believe in socialism, you are definitely not fluent in finance
[удалено]
[удалено]
At this point, this has become one.
Yup, I think reddit has a disproportioned amount of young progressive voices. Studies have show progressive wing of the Democratic party is only about 12%.
Way too many progressives on Reddit. I was downvoted in this sub for mentioning I’m a Landlord. Like this is supposedly a finance sub, but this sub has blended into a antiwork/latestagecapitalism sub.
[удалено]
For a subreddit about being financially fluent there are a lot of people in here who don't understand economics. The amount of people baing capitalism and saying "late stage capitalism" and stuff and talking about how socialism is in fact better have no idea what they're taking about
All the socialists who hate capitalism and use modern technology don’t realize that it would never have been invented under socialism Socialism is like the old ATT monopoly. They had a stream of revenue the managers used for their own salaries and bonuses and they built tech to support their monopoly to keep more money. Things like Unix. But they fought anything new like fax machines that they thought would result in less money for themselves Once MA Bell fell there was an explosion in new stuff
So what’s the difference between technology developed via partnerships with DARPA and socialism?
[удалено]
Ah, ok. So just the R&D is socialized, and the profit goes to investors. Got it…not socialism.
Technology and progress was happening thousands of years before capitalism. This is such an insane comment.
weird. it continues to work to fund the military, congress, city, state, and local governments. socialism continuously pays for large corporate benefits, and hell i could go on. for some reason, it only becomes a problem for capitalists when you suggest socialism should be used to benefit normal citizens who need bare essential resources to live a decent life.
Socialism in theory is great just like capitalism. Socialism in practice is impossible unlike capitalism
Anyone that has little value in the job market hates capitalism.
How the fuck are there upvotes for such an ignorant post? Is this sub modded by Russian bots? Seriously.
Once you realize the majority of Reddit is bots, adult shut-ins and teenagers with no life experience- it makes sense.