Thank you:)
Both of you seem to believe there is only 2 systems in this world but got a wild idea what about a system with capitalism but with regulations to stop exploitation and allow people to lift themselves out of poverty. Also we taxes people so we can help other people. There is a middle ground. Centrism is good
A lot of arguments for socialism henge on European countries with welfare systems. The distinction I’m seeing is while you could call it “socialized” that doesn’t mean it’s socialism seeing how they still operate from private companies and have markets/no public means of production.
I don’t see this as a semantics issue but I have a feeling the distinction is a critical one .
I more or less know the answer to my questions but I’m looking for input while I think it through. More viewpoints and good discussion are always a plus.
Threads keep going like:
"Why don't Capitalists support UBI?"
"Why don't Capitalists support UHC?"
"Why don't Capitalists support ________ social program?"
Some do and some don't. If you start pretending socialism means having welfare programs then EVERY DEVELOPED COUNTRY in the world is socialist. But in reality even the nordic countries are capitalist countries that use the government revenues collected from their market economies to have large social programs. Some of them even get rated higher than the U.S. for economic freedom and ease of doing business.
I'm sure most of you guys know there's a difference between social democracy and socialism but lol this basic mistake popping up so much is annoying.
Welfare capitalism has been proven to be a very successful model and the middle ground. Scandinavian countries and West european countries enjoy literally the highest standards of living.
Capitalists enjoy their freedom to expand their capital and the proletariat is fully satisfied.
Why not try it everywhere?
Majority of Humanity today suffer as victims of Capitalism.
Many people seem to believe that social democracy is just ''welfare programs.'' This is an absurd definition, to tell the truth. So many ideologies have supported the idea of extensive welfare programs within capitalism, which makes none of them social democracy. Conservatives such as Bismarck, liberals like Roosevelt and Loyd George, and even fascists like Mussolini.
If ''social democracy'' means we do slightly more government spending than the liberals, we have an issue.
Of course, social democrats in history rejected this notion.
Here is the 1976 party conference of the Swedish Social Democrats. They state plainly that completely stoping at programs in capitalism is the argument of conservative opponents of social democracy:
''We decided to put our efforts into economic progress so that we could build up the public sector and counter discontent of frustrated expectations.''
''You may recall discussions from those days? Our opponents claimed that social democracy had muffed its chance, that increasing welfare had wrenched away the grounds for socialism. Besides, the industrial working-class had ceased to grow numerically.''
''The increasing numbers of white collar workers would sweep the bourgeoisie into power. Socialism was possibly the answer for poor countries in the third world, but not countries with a high standard of living.''
They state that the final goal is socialism, namely ''economic democracy, planned economizing and employee co-determination.''
''Democracy, for us, is the heart of socialism.''
Or do you think the government should actually own the means of production?
I’m not going to say much but I think it’s unfortunate how (at least from my perspective) welfare gets a bad name because of how closely related people have made it to socialism and communism than it really is. What are your views on this?
I think that we can mostly agree that socialism will never take root long term if living standards actually fall after trying it (just for practical reasons because the majority wouldn’t accept it, like how people born in former communist countries are now pro-capitalist).
https://www.movehub.com/blog/the-most-liberal-countries-in-the-world/ Iceland most liberal country in the world
Iceland, the land of ice and fire has made it to the top of the list of most liberal countries in the world. It has a modest population of just over 330,000 people, but it’s the closest to achieving gender equality with the smallest gender pay gap in the world. In addition to this, approximately 85% of its energy comes from renewable sources.
QUICK FACTS
- Population:
- 0.3 million
- GDP (PPP):
- $19.5 billion
- 4.6% growth
- 4.5% 5-year compound annual growth
- $55,917 per capita
- Unemployment:
- 2.9%
- Inflation (CPI):
- 2.7%
- FDI Inflow:
https://www.heritage.org/index/country/iceland
Adam Smith actually opposed Laissez Faire capitalism, which was an ideology that was becoming increasingly popular in Europe around his time. Laissez Faire opposes any government intervention whatsoever, and this includes the welfare-state. Laissez Faire was founded by the Physiocrats in 18th France, and later on they influenced Adam Smith. However, not all Physiocrats were 100% on the idea of Laissez Faire, as Turgot and Marquis de Condorcet supported some public polices. I don't know how many times I have to say this, but Adam Smith didn't invent capitalism.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/laissez-faire
https://www.economist.com/free-exchange/2013/10/11/who-were-the-physiocrats
Adam "Smith rejects government interference in market activities, and instead states governments should serve just 3 functions: protect national borders; enforce civil law; and engage in public works (e.g. education)."
https://www.investopedia.com/updates/adam-smith-wealth-of-nations/
"Smith states explicitly that the true measure of a nation's wealth is not the size of the king's treasury or the holdings of the affluent few but rather the wages of “the labouring poor” (WN I.viii.27, 91; see also I.viii.42, 99). It is a matter of simple “equity,” he famously declares, “that they who feed, cloath and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, cloathed, and lodged (WN I.viii.36, 96) There is now broad agreement among Smith scholars that he regarded poverty as deeply problematic and sought ways to combat it, a consensus that includes those who approach his thought from the contemporary right, such as Gertrude Himmelfarb (1984, chap. 2), as well as the contemporary left, such as Samuel Fleischacker (2004, chap. 10). After summarizing some of the recent literature and rehearsing Smith's own statements on the subject, Ryan Hanley ([2009](h
... keep reading on reddit ➡E.g. food stamps exist to support the agriculture industry (which is why farm State Republicans have always voted for them) and grocers. But this understanding is rarely understood.
More harmful than beneficial.
Since they make the proletariat more fond of capitalism, and capitalism more tolerable for the workers.
Also isn't worker ownership of MoPs inconsistent with community ownership of the MoPs?
I remember Stalin and the 1930s communists called the Social Democrats fascists, but thats Wikipedia
A common argument I see against the statement that "capitalism is coercive because the workers are threatened with poverty, homelessness and starving etc" is that we have welfare/benefits and social safety nets to stop people from becoming homeless etc.
could someone provide a rebuttal to this please? its stumped me for some reason.
It's not at all fair to say Christ was a Socialist or that he advocated any political ideology but he clearly talked extensively about supporting the poor and those who couldn't fend for themselves. This seems at odds with true free-market Capitalism that the American Republican ideology espouses.
I also understand that not all American Christians are Republicans but that seems to be the general leaning (and certainly the GOP leans into it). Was there ever a time that the major Christian religions in the US leaned more heavily towards social programs?
I found a few posts connecting the Republican party to Christianity but not so much the entanglement of economic conservatism (specifically free-market capitalism) and Christianity. I believe part of it is rooted in the religious importance of liberty and agency (and the implication that big government limits those) but wasn't sure if there was more depth to it.
I'm not really sure if us SocDems are libertarian or socialists, we are disliked by right wing libertarians, what do socialists think about us?
Is there a clear line at all?
Adam Smith actually opposed Laissez Faire capitalism, which was an ideology that was becoming increasingly popular in Europe around his time. Laissez Faire opposes any government intervention whatsoever, and this includes the welfare-state. Laissez Faire was founded by the Physiocrats in 18th France, and later on they influenced Adam Smith. However, not all Physiocrats were 100% on the idea of Laissez Faire, as Turgot and Marquis de Condorcet supported some public polices. I don't know how many times I have to say this, but Adam Smith didn't invent capitalism.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/laissez-faire
https://www.economist.com/free-exchange/2013/10/11/who-were-the-physiocrats
Adam "Smith rejects government interference in market activities, and instead states governments should serve just 3 functions: protect national borders; enforce civil law; and engage in public works (e.g. education)."
https://www.investopedia.com/updates/adam-smith-wealth-of-nations/
"Smith states explicitly that the true measure of a nation's wealth is not the size of the king's treasury or the holdings of the affluent few but rather the wages of “the labouring poor” (WN I.viii.27, 91; see also I.viii.42, 99). It is a matter of simple “equity,” he famously declares, “that they who feed, cloath and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, cloathed, and lodged (WN I.viii.36, 96) There is now broad agreement among Smith scholars that he regarded poverty as deeply problematic and sought ways to combat it, a consensus that includes those who approach his thought from the contemporary right, such as Gertrude Himmelfarb (1984, chap. 2), as well as the contemporary left, such as Samuel Fleischacker (2004, chap. 10). After summarizing some of the recent literature and rehearsing Smith's own statements on the subject, Ryan Hanley ([2009](h
... keep reading on reddit ➡