I can’t speak for others, but I’ve seen nothing but death and hate under the banner of socialism: USSR, China, Venezuela, etc, the list goes on. What most non-crazy people seem to mean by “socialism” is liberalism with a strong social safety net and public services (e.g. Nordic countries, “Democratic socialists” like Bernie Sanders, etc), which is a separate thing altogether.
What most non-crazy people seem to mean by “socialism” is liberalism with a strong social safety net and public services (e.g. Nordic countries, “Democratic socialists” like Bernie Sanders, etc), which is a separate thing altogether.
Exactly, and specifically for this thread this is not quite the same socialism what Bashar al-Assad has been going for.
He really isn’t anti-capitalist, he’s against concentrations of wealth generally, but he’s absolutely in favor of our capitalist system, he just thinks there should be more rules so workers fare better. He’s not a socialist, much as the right wants to think, he’s just in favor of a large welfare system and high taxes on the wealthy. He doesn’t want to fundamentally change our economic system, he just wants to make it more fair for his definition of “fair.”
I agree he is not a socialist in the 20th century sense, but he clearly says that workers should have ownership stake in companies, which is not a capitalist sentiment. He advocates for employee ownership of companies. I also am aware of who his economic advisors on these issues are and they are very much anti-capitalist
he clearly says that workers should have ownership stake in companies, which is not a capitalist sentiment
It absolutely is though. Partnerships have been a thing since pretty much forever, and a lot of publicly traded companies and some private companies hand out company stock as part of compensation. Employees owning stock isn’t socialism, it’s capitalism, and the goal is for employees’ interests to be more aligned with the company’s so overall profitability is higher.
Sanders is approaching it from an employee outcomes perspective, but it’s still very much from a capitalist mindset.
He’s not advocating for companies to be run democratically like they would under socialism, he’s advocating for more profit sharing without meaningfully changing ownership.
I agree that giving alienable voting shares to workers isn’t anti-capitalist. It becomes anti-capitalist when the voting rights over management and corporate governance are inalienable meaning they are legally recognized as non-transferable even with consent.
Here is a talk by people involved with Bernie Sanders politically about how all companies should be democratically controlled by the workers: https://youtu.be/E8mq9va5_ZE
Sure, and many capitalists support socialist ownership structures within an otherwise capitalist system.
I’m pretty supportive of laissez faire capitalism (with caveats; I consider myself a left-leaning libertarian), and I also agree that worker co-ops are a great idea in many cases. The important thing, to me, with capitalism is that profit motive drive the decision making process in a competitive market. Sanders seems to largely agree, he just wants more of that profit to make its way to the workers.
Socialism (generally speaking, I know socialism is a big tent), seeks to eliminate both the profit motive and competitive markets, seeing both as waste. From what I know of Bernie Sanders, he’s not on board with that view of socialism, he just wants the average person to be better off.
Democratic worker co-ops are postcapitalist, but are also non-socialist because they are perfectly compatible with markets and private property. I’m suggesting that Sanders is authentically anti-capitalist, but he conflates his anti-capitalism with being socialist in a category error and thus buys into a false dichotomy.
All firms must be legally mandated to be worker coops on classical liberal inalienable rights theory grounds
Worker co-ops are socialist, because the workers literally own the means of production. In fact, I argue they’re about as pure as you can get with socialism, since there’s no government getting in the way so it could theoretically exist in a stateless society.
Being compatible with capitalism does not preclude something from being socialist.
Here’s the issue. Capitalist nations are afraid of socialism spreading, so they do everything they can to destroy them. The only ones who have every survived this pressure are authoritarian dictatorships who have isolated themselves from western influence. This creates a situation (that the media, being capitalist, spreads) where socialism always ends up as authoritarian. That doesn’t have to be the case, but it does when anything else is destroyed. It’s ignorant to think that this is the fault of socialism and not circumstances.
Whether socialism results in authoritarianism because of the ideology or circumstances is irrelevant, the fact is that socialism generally ends in authoritarianism. It turns out that it takes a lot of force to transition a country from capitalism to socialism, so it’s not surprising that this transition attracts authoritarians.
And yeah, it probably doesn’t have anything to do with socialism itself, but on that transition. We see the same for other radical transitions. The problem isn’t necessarily what you’re transitioning to, but the process of transition and who is involved. Most countries in the world aren’t socialist, so transitioning to socialism will be a radical change and will attract the worst kinds of leaders. So it’s fair to criticize socialism precisely because a radical transition to it is highly likely to be fraught with authoritarianism.
Even transitions to liberalism runs that risk, but transitioning to liberalism has had a much better track record than transitioning to socialism.
That said, country-wide forms of socialism (arguably “pure” socialism) where capitalism is eradicated naturally come with a distillation of power in the government to control the flow of goods, and that concentration of power is what attracts authoritarians and is what’s being opposed here. So socialism has a built-in problem that lends itself to authoritarianism. Yes, I know there are theoretical anarchist forms of socialism, but they usually have a transition period from an authoritarian system (big counter is libertarian socialism, but that’s pretty “pie in the sky” IMO, as much as I respect Noam Chomsky).
Whether socialism results in authoritarianism because of the ideology or circumstances is irrelevant, the fact is that socialism generally ends in authoritarianism. It turns out that it takes a lot of force to transition a country from capitalism to socialism, so it’s not surprising that this transition attracts authoritarians.
The reason is because capitalists oppose it. If the world was ruled by Fascists you’d be saying we should try anything else because anyone opposed to Fascists gets undermined. It’s a fault of capitalism, not socialism.
There have been many elected socialist democracies, but the West undermined them. We can have socialist countries without any issues. It just requires capitalists in the rest of the world not overthrowing them.
There have been many elected socialist democracies, but the West undermined them
We’re getting into very biased reporting territory.
Let’s take Venezuela as an example. Here’s the events as I understand them:
Hugo Chavez takes power in 1999
Venezuela becomes rich from oil (prices increased in early 2000s) and spends a ton on populist social programs (presumably to stay in power; corruption is rampant
Rapid inflation and widespread shortages starting in 2010 due to over-reliance on imported goods and exported oil (oil prices started dropping in 2007) and no spending cuts after revenue shortfalls
Maduro takes over in 2013 and is even more heavy handed and doesn’t ease spending or improve anything economically
Protests and unrest, which the government violently repressed, especially in 2015 when oil prices fell dramatically
Sanctions due to human rights violations started in 2014-ish but really picked up steam from 2017-2019, which deepened the problems they already had, especially since the government refused to cut spending
Western sanctions only became a thing years (more like a decade) after they were already in crisis. The crisis wasn’t caused by western countries, it was caused by mismanagement and corruption. Venezuela was held as a model for socialism under Chavez, but things only worked because of oil money.
Radical liberal George Washington and his gang of discovery daddies overthrow the just and fair and healthy rule of the king
Now you know none of that is true, but that’s how you sound defending capitalism. All the death and destruction capitalism caused but they try to sell you on socialism being much worse. Which it is not, Capitalism has absolutely caused far more harm.
The Atlantic slave trade, the human trafficking of today, the resource wars, the embargo and economic punishment of those who don’t submit to capitalism, the imperialistic wars, violence from police states to uphold capitalism, drug overdoses, those dying of homelessness/lack of healthcare/food.
Plus if we track the metric used that anyone who died under socialism died from socialism as you do, then let’s see 3 million people die a year in America multiply that by 100.
300,000,000 million deaths from capitalism in ONE single capitalist country over the last 100 years. (America). That’s not factoring in the other nations or the actions they’ve caused outside of their country that also applies to this total.
60 million people die globally a year. We live in a capitalist global economy so it’s safe to claim most of that total but let’s play it safe. Only 40 million die under capitalism a year. Multiply that by 100 and
4 BILLION PEOPLE HAVE DIED FROM CAPITALISM OVER THE LAST 100 YEARS
resource wars… violence from police states to uphold capitalism…
Not sure what you mean by this, specifically, and I’d prefer to not wade too far into vagaries.
embargo and economic punishment of those who don’t submit to capitalism
If you look at the actual reasons here, it’s usually due to human rights violations, authoritarianism, or something along those lines (affiliation w/ the USSR, the US’s main enemy, used to be sufficient). Russia has recently received massive economic punishment and they are absolutely capitalist, and they got those sanctions due to the aforementioned reasons.
imperialistic wars
You’ll need to be a bit more specific to arrive at a number, but generally speaking, the death toll wasn’t that high, and all combined is likely way less than the Great Chinese Famine, which was entirely man-made.
drug overdoses
What’s interesting is that most of those deaths are from fentanyl, and China is the main manufacturer of the ingredients to make fentanyl. So production starts in China, gets distributed abroad, and then ends up in the US, probably because it’s relatively easy to get drugs into the US due to the cartels’ established networks.
This isn’t a failure of capitalism, unless you’re blaming Americans for having enough money to buy drugs. Fentanyl production in the US is practically non-existent, so it’s not like it’s a failure of policy either.
those dying of homelessness/lack of healthcare/food.
China and the US have about the same homelessness rate, and the US has a lower rate than many other developed countries, like France and Germany (and quite notably New Zealand). That said, reporting varies by country, so these figures probably can’t be fully trusted.
These are generally more symptoms of the state of the economy and has little to do with the actual economic system in place, and most of the top countries here are quite poor generally and most of the countries with the least homelessness are generally wealthy, and their are outliers everywhere.
if we track the metric used that anyone who died under socialism died from socialism as you do
But I don’t, those figures are deaths directly attributable to socialism, such as famines caused by poor central planning. Deaths due to natural causes and things not directly related to the regime in charge aren’t included.
Democratically elected leftist president who enacted a minimum wage and was going to redistribute land owned by The United Fruit Company to the people, since they owned most of the nation’s land.
Couped with the support of the CIA and replaced by a dictator who went on to lead a genocide of the native people.
Hence why I said leftist, yes. It was an example of what happens to any leftist government, including but not limited to socialists.
Anyone who goes against the interests of capitalists is scary to them. They say (similar to what you said) that they must always fail. If this were true, they wouldn’t be so scared.
It’s important to take the broader context into account. This happened at the start of the Cold War, so anything that looked remotely connected to the USSR was suspect. Árbenz legalized a communist party, and that seems to be what pushed Eisenhower over the edge.
It had nothing to do with the actual ideology of the Guatamalan government, but suspected ties to USSR. At the time, “communism” meant “USSR,” and anyone that was sympathetic to communism in any form was suspected of being in league with the USSR.
If the Guatamalan Revolution happened just 10 years or so later, the US probably would’ve been an ally instead of an enemy of someone like Árbenz.
I can’t speak for others, but I’ve seen nothing but death and hate under the banner of socialism: USSR, China, Venezuela, etc, the list goes on. What most non-crazy people seem to mean by “socialism” is liberalism with a strong social safety net and public services (e.g. Nordic countries, “Democratic socialists” like Bernie Sanders, etc), which is a separate thing altogether.
Exactly, and specifically for this thread this is not quite the same socialism what Bashar al-Assad has been going for.
It’s funny how many of them seem to like national socialism
Bernie Sanders is a proper anti-capitalist not just social democratic capitalist. See: https://berniesanders.com/issues/corporate-accountability-and-democracy/
@noncredibledefense
He really isn’t anti-capitalist, he’s against concentrations of wealth generally, but he’s absolutely in favor of our capitalist system, he just thinks there should be more rules so workers fare better. He’s not a socialist, much as the right wants to think, he’s just in favor of a large welfare system and high taxes on the wealthy. He doesn’t want to fundamentally change our economic system, he just wants to make it more fair for his definition of “fair.”
I agree he is not a socialist in the 20th century sense, but he clearly says that workers should have ownership stake in companies, which is not a capitalist sentiment. He advocates for employee ownership of companies. I also am aware of who his economic advisors on these issues are and they are very much anti-capitalist
@noncredibledefense
It absolutely is though. Partnerships have been a thing since pretty much forever, and a lot of publicly traded companies and some private companies hand out company stock as part of compensation. Employees owning stock isn’t socialism, it’s capitalism, and the goal is for employees’ interests to be more aligned with the company’s so overall profitability is higher.
Sanders is approaching it from an employee outcomes perspective, but it’s still very much from a capitalist mindset.
He’s not advocating for companies to be run democratically like they would under socialism, he’s advocating for more profit sharing without meaningfully changing ownership.
I agree that giving alienable voting shares to workers isn’t anti-capitalist. It becomes anti-capitalist when the voting rights over management and corporate governance are inalienable meaning they are legally recognized as non-transferable even with consent.
Here is a talk by people involved with Bernie Sanders politically about how all companies should be democratically controlled by the workers: https://youtu.be/E8mq9va5_ZE
Sanders supports worker co-op conversions
@noncredibledefense
Sure, and many capitalists support socialist ownership structures within an otherwise capitalist system.
I’m pretty supportive of laissez faire capitalism (with caveats; I consider myself a left-leaning libertarian), and I also agree that worker co-ops are a great idea in many cases. The important thing, to me, with capitalism is that profit motive drive the decision making process in a competitive market. Sanders seems to largely agree, he just wants more of that profit to make its way to the workers.
Socialism (generally speaking, I know socialism is a big tent), seeks to eliminate both the profit motive and competitive markets, seeing both as waste. From what I know of Bernie Sanders, he’s not on board with that view of socialism, he just wants the average person to be better off.
Remember: anti-capitalism ≠ socialism
Democratic worker co-ops are postcapitalist, but are also non-socialist because they are perfectly compatible with markets and private property. I’m suggesting that Sanders is authentically anti-capitalist, but he conflates his anti-capitalism with being socialist in a category error and thus buys into a false dichotomy.
All firms must be legally mandated to be worker coops on classical liberal inalienable rights theory grounds
@noncredibledefense
Worker co-ops are socialist, because the workers literally own the means of production. In fact, I argue they’re about as pure as you can get with socialism, since there’s no government getting in the way so it could theoretically exist in a stateless society.
Being compatible with capitalism does not preclude something from being socialist.
Here’s the issue. Capitalist nations are afraid of socialism spreading, so they do everything they can to destroy them. The only ones who have every survived this pressure are authoritarian dictatorships who have isolated themselves from western influence. This creates a situation (that the media, being capitalist, spreads) where socialism always ends up as authoritarian. That doesn’t have to be the case, but it does when anything else is destroyed. It’s ignorant to think that this is the fault of socialism and not circumstances.
Whether socialism results in authoritarianism because of the ideology or circumstances is irrelevant, the fact is that socialism generally ends in authoritarianism. It turns out that it takes a lot of force to transition a country from capitalism to socialism, so it’s not surprising that this transition attracts authoritarians.
And yeah, it probably doesn’t have anything to do with socialism itself, but on that transition. We see the same for other radical transitions. The problem isn’t necessarily what you’re transitioning to, but the process of transition and who is involved. Most countries in the world aren’t socialist, so transitioning to socialism will be a radical change and will attract the worst kinds of leaders. So it’s fair to criticize socialism precisely because a radical transition to it is highly likely to be fraught with authoritarianism.
Even transitions to liberalism runs that risk, but transitioning to liberalism has had a much better track record than transitioning to socialism.
That said, country-wide forms of socialism (arguably “pure” socialism) where capitalism is eradicated naturally come with a distillation of power in the government to control the flow of goods, and that concentration of power is what attracts authoritarians and is what’s being opposed here. So socialism has a built-in problem that lends itself to authoritarianism. Yes, I know there are theoretical anarchist forms of socialism, but they usually have a transition period from an authoritarian system (big counter is libertarian socialism, but that’s pretty “pie in the sky” IMO, as much as I respect Noam Chomsky).
The reason is because capitalists oppose it. If the world was ruled by Fascists you’d be saying we should try anything else because anyone opposed to Fascists gets undermined. It’s a fault of capitalism, not socialism.
There have been many elected socialist democracies, but the West undermined them. We can have socialist countries without any issues. It just requires capitalists in the rest of the world not overthrowing them.
We’re getting into very biased reporting territory.
Let’s take Venezuela as an example. Here’s the events as I understand them:
Western sanctions only became a thing years (more like a decade) after they were already in crisis. The crisis wasn’t caused by western countries, it was caused by mismanagement and corruption. Venezuela was held as a model for socialism under Chavez, but things only worked because of oil money.
I’m happy to discuss other countries as well.
America.
Radical liberal George Washington and his gang of discovery daddies overthrow the just and fair and healthy rule of the king
Now you know none of that is true, but that’s how you sound defending capitalism. All the death and destruction capitalism caused but they try to sell you on socialism being much worse. Which it is not, Capitalism has absolutely caused far more harm.
Then you’re obviously ignoring the death and destruction socialism has caused. Socialism has only been a thing for 100 years or so, and yet it has caused nearly 100M deaths (source: a libertarian publication referencing an infographic based on WHO data):
Lmfao
Capitalism has killed no one then?
The Atlantic slave trade, the human trafficking of today, the resource wars, the embargo and economic punishment of those who don’t submit to capitalism, the imperialistic wars, violence from police states to uphold capitalism, drug overdoses, those dying of homelessness/lack of healthcare/food.
Plus if we track the metric used that anyone who died under socialism died from socialism as you do, then let’s see 3 million people die a year in America multiply that by 100.
300,000,000 million deaths from capitalism in ONE single capitalist country over the last 100 years. (America). That’s not factoring in the other nations or the actions they’ve caused outside of their country that also applies to this total.
60 million people die globally a year. We live in a capitalist global economy so it’s safe to claim most of that total but let’s play it safe. Only 40 million die under capitalism a year. Multiply that by 100 and
4 BILLION PEOPLE HAVE DIED FROM CAPITALISM OVER THE LAST 100 YEARS
Wow sounds like socialism is the better option.
About 2M.
Socialist countries are near the top of the charts here, like N. Korea and Cambodia. The problem isn’t due to any economic system, but the failure of law enforcement.
Not sure what you mean by this, specifically, and I’d prefer to not wade too far into vagaries.
If you look at the actual reasons here, it’s usually due to human rights violations, authoritarianism, or something along those lines (affiliation w/ the USSR, the US’s main enemy, used to be sufficient). Russia has recently received massive economic punishment and they are absolutely capitalist, and they got those sanctions due to the aforementioned reasons.
You’ll need to be a bit more specific to arrive at a number, but generally speaking, the death toll wasn’t that high, and all combined is likely way less than the Great Chinese Famine, which was entirely man-made.
What’s interesting is that most of those deaths are from fentanyl, and China is the main manufacturer of the ingredients to make fentanyl. So production starts in China, gets distributed abroad, and then ends up in the US, probably because it’s relatively easy to get drugs into the US due to the cartels’ established networks.
This isn’t a failure of capitalism, unless you’re blaming Americans for having enough money to buy drugs. Fentanyl production in the US is practically non-existent, so it’s not like it’s a failure of policy either.
Here’s the source I used for this.
China and the US have about the same homelessness rate, and the US has a lower rate than many other developed countries, like France and Germany (and quite notably New Zealand). That said, reporting varies by country, so these figures probably can’t be fully trusted.
These are generally more symptoms of the state of the economy and has little to do with the actual economic system in place, and most of the top countries here are quite poor generally and most of the countries with the least homelessness are generally wealthy, and their are outliers everywhere.
But I don’t, those figures are deaths directly attributable to socialism, such as famines caused by poor central planning. Deaths due to natural causes and things not directly related to the regime in charge aren’t included.
How about Guatemala.
Democratically elected leftist president who enacted a minimum wage and was going to redistribute land owned by The United Fruit Company to the people, since they owned most of the nation’s land.
Couped with the support of the CIA and replaced by a dictator who went on to lead a genocide of the native people.
For more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change_in_Latin_America
Arévalo wasn’t socialist, he was actually anti-communist and generally pro-capitalist. He had way more overlap with FDR than Stalin or Castro.
That wasn’t “capitalists keeping the socialists down,” it was cronyism and FUD from United Fruit Company, which Eisenhower bought into.
Hence why I said leftist, yes. It was an example of what happens to any leftist government, including but not limited to socialists.
Anyone who goes against the interests of capitalists is scary to them. They say (similar to what you said) that they must always fail. If this were true, they wouldn’t be so scared.
It’s important to take the broader context into account. This happened at the start of the Cold War, so anything that looked remotely connected to the USSR was suspect. Árbenz legalized a communist party, and that seems to be what pushed Eisenhower over the edge.
It had nothing to do with the actual ideology of the Guatamalan government, but suspected ties to USSR. At the time, “communism” meant “USSR,” and anyone that was sympathetic to communism in any form was suspected of being in league with the USSR.
If the Guatamalan Revolution happened just 10 years or so later, the US probably would’ve been an ally instead of an enemy of someone like Árbenz.