Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
more about markets than capitalism
“Socialism” vs. “Capitalism” debate
- Thread starter Kinsella
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran hold a long overdue conversation about United's awful league form with 1 win in 7. They discuss a disappointing draw at Bournemouth, a not so disappointing draw against Liverpool and a crushing defeat at Chelsea - Is time nearly over for Erik Ten Hag?
Then in a special second half of the pod, Nik welcomes Natalie ( https://twitter.com/natalie_17) to discuss the fortunes of Manchester United Women as they booked a place in the FA Cup Final after a historic first ever win vs. Chelsea.
more about markets than capitalism
The problem with socialism (and any other communistic (sub-)system) is that it is completely counter-intuitive to human nature and thus always REQUIRES authoritarianism in order to function.
Pro-socialism folks always tend to approach this from the best case scenario off everyone wanting to be and actually being a decent person and willing to share. That is not the case. In fact, it is opposite of our instincts and on a darwinistic view where you want to get the best possible survival and procreation chances for yourself - not for others. Meaning aquiring maximum amounts of ressources. So you need to use government power to force people to behave accordingly.
Next to make people equal, you need to find a common denominator among millions of poeople. Ever tried to find that for just a group of 10-15 people? Yeah, try doing that for millions. The result is in order to achieve equality you need to find the lowest common denominator - resulting in equal poverty.
And last but not least there is no government form that has no corruption. But in case of socialism you put so much power into government that any form of corruption is amplified in it's negative outcomes.
There are a few other aspects such as the eradication of competitiveness through removal of a reward system (= you get the same for doing better than others like. Would you still work as hard in school, if you knew everyone would get Cs independent of the performance?).
Pro-socialism folks always tend to approach this from the best case scenario off everyone wanting to be and actually being a decent person and willing to share. That is not the case. In fact, it is opposite of our instincts and on a darwinistic view where you want to get the best possible survival and procreation chances for yourself - not for others. Meaning aquiring maximum amounts of ressources. So you need to use government power to force people to behave accordingly.
Next to make people equal, you need to find a common denominator among millions of poeople. Ever tried to find that for just a group of 10-15 people? Yeah, try doing that for millions. The result is in order to achieve equality you need to find the lowest common denominator - resulting in equal poverty.
And last but not least there is no government form that has no corruption. But in case of socialism you put so much power into government that any form of corruption is amplified in it's negative outcomes.
There are a few other aspects such as the eradication of competitiveness through removal of a reward system (= you get the same for doing better than others like. Would you still work as hard in school, if you knew everyone would get Cs independent of the performance?).
No this is how the existing relations of production work, not human nature. Human nature isn't the billionaires of world or the people currently hoarding toilet paper.
''From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"
Socialism isn't(Thankfully)about sharing.
“Workers of the World, Unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains''
Class
A group of people sharing common relations to labor and the means of production.
Anyways If you are genuinely interested in socialism then I would suggest Why Marx Was Right By Terry Eagleton or The Communist Manifesto(Still holds up pretty well imo)as good starting points.
Last edited:
On the one hand, you're providing a classic example of projecting the current human condition (always a historic one, result of specific social conditions and developments) into an eternal 'human nature'.
On the other hand, some (or even all) of it might be true nevertheless, who's to say? The future is yet unwritten, for better or for worse.
Assuming I haven't educated myself on the matter solely based on me disagreeing with it is ridiculous and is way more telling about you than it is about me. I guarantee you, I have read enough of and about Marx to form an opinion. Bonuspoints for me also having lived in a socialist country.
So, if you wanna have an argument with me, come down from your high horse and start a proper discussion where you engage with what I say with your own words rather than just aimlessly quoting people you consider an authority rather than expressing your own opinion, if you have that. Else you are just wasting other peoples time.
There is no such thing as an "eternal" human nature. But there is such a thing as a current human nature. Evolution takes quite a bit of time, and I am sure you've learned about the time windows we are talking about here. To build up a system that can only function based on what humanity MAY be one day is borderline insane. If humanity really develops towards that direction, one day we (probably past our lifetimes) can genuinely consider using such a system - but until then it is dysfunctional.
May I suggest a second read through ?
Also no I like my high horse, he's big, shiny and keeps me above the backwards looking public! But seriously understanding simple marxist concepts is not being on a high horse, it's just reading the texts(My bad for considering Karl Marx an authority on Marxism) and because the conclusion you seemingly have come to is so horrible mistaken, any sort of argument would be pointless. It would be like debating the offside rule with someone who thinks football is played using monster trucks(Which of course would clearly improve the sport).
I don't think biological evolution has anything to do with it. The timeframes in which fundamental social changes have occurred in the past are way too short to be explained with evolutionary processes.
Let me guess. You are studying any sort of social sciences where it's not about creating a proper argument, but all about following the biggest alpha and just reciting what he said. In this case Marx being the golden figure to quote.
But you know what - first of all what Marx says and what these things do in practice are two very different matters. Marx did NOT have any scientific basis for his claims. He just wrote them down on behalf of his own observations (which mostly weren't even wrong), but went to conclusions that have been shown to be - and let's be nice about it - flawed.
Secondly - everything, including the concepts of Marx, need to be criticised. Of course Marx himself will think his concepts are fantastic - but that's one person claiming this hypothesis. This is why in science we have peer reviews to be critical form different people and perspectives.
And last but not least you are remaining unable to express why exactly my conclusion is so horribly mistaken. Originally you tried to plain and simply brush off this opposite opinion solely based on accusing me of lackluster education on the topic. Since this failed, you are now just putting your statement out based on nothing, but your own narcissism. Thus the only reason why any argument would be pointless isn't, beacuse I am "so horrible mistaken", but your inability to even express why that is the case beyond just quoting your messiah.
Once again, it says more about you than it says about me.
And none of these worked fundamentally against human nature. Socialism does. Thats the big difference. Hierarchies, competition, etc. all works within the frameset of these social changes.
For example having a hierarchy of merit isn't completely opposite to human nature. It is just a different expression of the need for hierarchies. Rather than the biggest, baddest and strongest warrior being up the hierarchy, now it's other attributes that define your position within the social hierarchy. But it's a hierarchy nonetheless and thus perfectly in line.
If you disagree with that assessment, I would like you to state fundamental social changes that have occured in the past that went against human nature and wasn't created through an outside force (authoritarian regimes, etc.).
@Atze-Peng what's the scientific basis for your claim that "human nature" is what you say it is?
Socialism and authoritarianism isn't looking so bad now is it?
I am not going to go into whether this is true or not, but I don't understand why the bolded bit is considered a bad thing by default.
I heard something interesting last week that (assuming it's true) is unbelievable and somewhat fits into this thread: less than 50 years after Cuban exile the people who had left Cuba for the US had a greater GDP than Cuba itself.
I'd still maintain "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Hey whatever you watch in you're private time is none of my business.
You're conclusions are wrong because you've failed to have a very basic understanding of socialism, as I pointed out earlier. But again for one last time
'From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" - Karl Marx Critique of the Gotha Program.
''The free development of individualities, and hence not the reduction of necessary labour time so as to posit surplus labour, but rather the general reduction of the necessary labour of society to a minimum, which then corresponds to the artistic, scientific etc. development of the individuals in the time set free, and with the means created, for all of them.'' - Karl Marx Grundrisse.
Now you can disagree with all of that and think it's a complete load of bollocks but that still doesn't mean socialism = sharing. Its quite clear here that Marx(And thus Socialism/Communism) has feck all to do with sharing.
Millions of people throughout history have been organised by a common denominator - Their class. The argument have you ''ever tried to find that for just a group of 10-15 people? Yeah, try doing that for millions'' is horribly wrong historical and a tad bit silly. Also even if we play into you're bizarre reading of socialism and pretend countries like the Soviet Union and 'current day China were/are socialist countries then you're line about equal poverty is just untrue. The Soviet Union took millions out of poverty and became the the 2nd biggest world power in short time span(Life expectancy after the fall of the soviet union has gone down about 10 years btw)and CCP in China is really the only successful story of the 21st century.
Sadly you've confused you're failure to understand the basics of socialism and to organise a group of people as the fault of socialism and not one of you're own making. I've got a shit left foot and a bad back that doesn't mean football is a terrible sport.
Last edited:
liberty. We live in a system designed to serve the interests of the wealthy elite. The rest of us are only tolerated because our labour keeps them wealthy.
Nobody will be talking up liberty when thousands die because we couldn't stop idiots going out in public.
As for Cuba... I'm sure 52 years of embargo and sanctions have nothing to do with it.
It a nice line but does it loses something when it comes from a slave owner tbh.
Last edited:
Agreed, but in my view that's little to do with Capitalism and more to do with governmental interests not being aligned to that of the populace. How we re-align these interests I'm sure is the subject of millions of pages of theory, but throwing the baby (Capitalism) out with the bathwater (mis-aligned interests) would be a step backwards in my opinion.
Encouraging the poor and the young to vote to the same (or greater) degree compared with the wealthy and the aged would be a good start. Removing as many powers as possible from Westminster and instead putting them in the hands of the local council's would also be a large step forward in my view.
Considering the deaths of millions of allied troops didn't repress the hunger for liberty I highly doubt COVID-19 will.
If the ideas and accomplishments of every great person were diminished by looking through a lens of today's values then we'd have little to celebrate.
Don't worry though the twisted irony of Franklin talking about Liberty whilst conspicuously denying other people even their basic liberties isn't lost on me.
That's a strange question. Everything that has ever happened in human history is obviously compatible with human nature (whatever that may be). Otherwise it wouldn't have been possible for humans to do it.
In that sense, I also don't understand why an authoritarian regime should be considered an "outside force" - outside of what? That's a bit puzzling, especially since you seem so fond of hierarchies as the basis for human interaction.
As for your request, my understanding is that there were many social changes that disproved popular predecessors of the ideology you offer - the claim that certain freedoms and basic equality for specific sets of people (or humans as such) are impossible, because a supposed "human nature" does not allow for it. That concerns social betterment of women, slaves, workers, peasants, children, colonized people, specific minorities such as Jews, and many others. The go-to argument of power has always been to declare their marginalized status as natural and inevitable, and their emancipation as being "against human nature" (or "God's will", or whatever). On the long run, this has usually been proven to be essentialist (and interest-driven) nonsense.
Last edited:
Yes it does, was communism who didn’t contain this virus because they were incompetents and thanks of capitalism with their obsession of globalization they sprayed the virus in every country. Is the capitalism who’s going to find a vaccine or cure not the socialists/communists.
I just hope the world learned a lesson and they cannot put all their eggs in the same basket - China.
Capitalism as we are shown today isn't it that's for sure.. Anything in the middle would be ideal.. But like we saw in the financial collapse in 2008 is really but capitalism if you need the state to bail you out.
Marx's theory of alienation is fascinating.
The amount of people i know who find their jobs boring is huge. Yet they must persevere. There are bills to be paid.
The amount of people i know who find their jobs boring is huge. Yet they must persevere. There are bills to be paid.
Bill Achman said recently that if this pandemic goes on for months, the American economy will suffer terribly if not collapse.
He argued in favour of a one month lock down. "Capitalism can take a one month hit and not a 18 month hit." That is what he said.
He argued in favour of a one month lock down. "Capitalism can take a one month hit and not a 18 month hit." That is what he said.
What a bunch of complete and utter garbage
- Every political and economic system (except maybe libertarianism) requires some deal of authoritarianism because in a cooperative society rules must be enforced (ie. contracts)
- Socialism isn't about making everyone equal. It's about providing a safety net for the most vulnerable because everyone isn't born with the same opportunities. The most straight forward way to accomplish this is to tax (not steal or take) from those with an overabundance of resources.
- Are you pretending like private enterprises don't engage in corruption? Do lobbyists not exist? If you give too much power to anything corruption is amplified. This isn't a socialism specific problem.
- Socialism does not eradicate competitiveness. Many of the current social democracies have highly skilled workforces that can compete in the global economy.
- Given the scarcity of things such as natural resources and land (which is the number one indicator of wealth throughout history), it is never in the public good to allow small groups of people to acquire resources indefinitely. That's why we have things such as anti-trust laws
- Darwinism applies to biology. What you are describing is social Darwinism and there is absolutely no scientific support for that nutjob theory.
- In biology, cooperation is has been a staple of many species (including humans) and many times increased the chances for survival.
Agree with you on the ideas part, but yeah my post was just a ironic comment.
Agree. When bad things happen that's a communism but when good things happen that's a capitalism.
Me very smart.
I think you are talking for social-democracy systems while the poster was talking about full communism/socialism.
What the hell is "full communism/socialism"? Communism is authoritarian socialism. Socialism isn't a subsystem of communism as the poster stated. Socialism is a broad concept that can have varied implementations. Democratic socialism cannot be lumped into communism, unless he wants to false argue Norway is similar to the USSR.
I stand firmly by what I said. His post is complete nonsense and lacks a basic understanding of the things he talks about.
He was talking about socialist countries (USSR, Cuba, PRC etc), not social democratic countriles like Norway or Germany. At least that was my understanding from his post.
Therin lies the issue. He's painting socialism with a broad brush. In addition, it's just plain wrong to call socialism is a subsystem of communism. I don't care if he lived in a socialist country or not, what he wrote was a load of rubbish.
I know the Chinese call it the Communist Party of China but it is crazy to call them communist. China is no more communist than that of Saudi Arabia. They are an authoritarian capitalist country. Communist countries do not have billionaires and millionaires. China has a lot.
The same with Russia. They are no more communist that the USA. They are also an authoritarian capitalistic country.
The same with Russia. They are no more communist that the USA. They are also an authoritarian capitalistic country.
Since this came up: Is "Darwinism" even a thing, in a positive sense?
I mean, Darwin conceived a theory of evolution, an observation of nature, not an ideological system as the suffix suggests. No one talks of "Einsteinism" or "Galileism" either, and it would make no sense to do so.
It seems to only make sense as a disapproving label or a metaphor to me, not a precise scientific term.
I mean, Darwin conceived a theory of evolution, an observation of nature, not an ideological system as the suffix suggests. No one talks of "Einsteinism" or "Galileism" either, and it would make no sense to do so.
It seems to only make sense as a disapproving label or a metaphor to me, not a precise scientific term.
Last edited:
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I love the idea of communism. A society were no one works for money, everyone cooperate and make sure everyone get treated equally. Enviromental issues would be solved, because money wouldn't be a factor anymore, so society would choose the option that's more beneficial to the enviroment. Everyone get to choose their careers based on their interests, because money isn't a factor.
That's my view of how communism is. I just don't have faith in humanity to build a society like that. The majority of people are incredibly greedy, and never satisfied with what they got. We always want more, and more. Millionares want to become billionaries, billionaries want to own as much as possible. Communism or Socialism will never work.
With that being said, I'm not very fond of captialism.
That's my view of how communism is. I just don't have faith in humanity to build a society like that. The majority of people are incredibly greedy, and never satisfied with what they got. We always want more, and more. Millionares want to become billionaries, billionaries want to own as much as possible. Communism or Socialism will never work.
With that being said, I'm not very fond of captialism.
Social Darwinism is a thing, and it a racist, xenophobic ideology that has NO scientific standing and was largely abandoned by most sane academics after WWII. People who envoke "Darwinism" to talk about socioeconomic issues are usually low-information voters regurgitating a right-wing talking point.
Socialism can NOT be used interchangeably with communism. Please stop.
Star trek
---------Nerd alert------
I'm not sure this actual true. Marx used socialism and communism interchangeably. Plus the communist manifesto.
Long but good video on the topic here
(Also youtubers are the oddest people)
I could be wrong here but I think the transitional stages thing - capitalism to social democracy to socialism and then finally communism, comes more from Lenin than Marx.
Yeah, sorry. Socialism is the revolution that occurs when captialism has ended, and the transistion to communism has begins if I remember correctly. Feel free to correct me! It was a long time ago I read about this stuff.
these are historic debates and loaded terms that aren't going to be resolved by a link to investopedia or indeed most other websites.
for example, many people say bernie wrongly calls himself a socialist while he is actually a social democrat, you can flip that on its head and say that lenin headed the russian social democratic labour party (majority faction) while no actually existing social democrats (all across europe) are anything like him.
The main point is the concept of socialism predates communism. In the Communist Manifesto, other forms of socialism were criticized. Many people erroneously think Marx was the creator of socialism as well. I used the links above because their historical references are accurate and the explanations are easy to read for the layman.
Lumping socialism and communism is a right-wing tactic b/c communism is a failed economic system and has a deserved negative connotation. Bernie Sanders is a socialist, but he isn't an authoritarian and he's never said he doesn't believe in private property.
Doesn't this back up my point about Marx using socialism and communism interchangeably ? I would agree with @berbatrick that this can't be debated by using investopedia or history.com But I will say just because marxists often refer to something doesn't mean it's correct, socialism being the first stage is a mis reading of Marx(Something I've done plenty of before).
There is no state in a communism society or at the very least it's a state that is withering away. This is just a incorrect reading of communism imo(It seems to be using the USSR as a model of communism but the USSR was never a communist state, it was state capitalist state or at best a degenerated workers' state)
Like I told him, socialism predates communism AND Marx was critical of socialism in the Communist Manifesto. I think you guys are focusing on the source of the links rather than the simplified but accurate historical references.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch03.htm
From the horse's mouth. Granted he's describing a specific form of socialism here, but that entire section of the manifesto illustrates even Marx made a distinction.
I also don't understand what you mean by there is no state in a communist society. It seems fairly explicitly stated: