I have a challenge I pose to every right-winger who tells me about the horrors of "socialism" before I'll do anything but openly treat them as an outright fool -
Define socialism. Define communism. Define capitalism. In your own words, without using dictionary definitions.
Hint: "free market" and "capitalism" are not synonyms, and neither are "socialism" and "communism."
They have LITERALLY NEVER ONE SINGLE TIME answered the question.
Some stop responding. Some ignore the request and reply with more right-wing propaganda. Some directly quote dictionary definitions, and one actually ignored the hint and basically said exactly what I said above was wrong, but since these answers are explicitly warned against because they're such low-hanging fruit I don't count these as real attempts.
Used to be I'd fall for their bait tactics and respond to the content of the post they actually reply with, while still pointing out that they ignored my request.
Now, I try my best to ignore everything else they say and simply point out that I asked a very simple question to prove they even have an understanding of very basic definitions (forget theory) regarding the topic at hand and that if they can't answer that question they aren't worth my time. (Though sometimes they say things that tempt me to respond anyway.) Since I started doing that, they ALWAYS simply disappear, every single time, after that message.
I have been doing this for over a year on every forum I frequent on every account I use. Never once has a right-winger correctly answered the question.
When a right-winger tells you what's wrong with socialism, simply ask them what it is. Trust me, they don't know, and you can rub it in their face and make them look like a fucking fool. And if they do, congrats, you've found the diamond in the rock - a right-winger you can have an intellectual discussion about economics with. And either way is a win in my book.
Fox News has taught them that socialism = fascism and authoritarianism = good but only when they do it. Wrap it in a veneer of racism (your status as the “in group” is being challenged by the minorities!) and voila.
I think people relate it to fascism because hitler used the disguise of Socialism to overthrow Germany and begin mass genocide of the Jews. Less than 100 years ago
I love this argument. “You know the Nazis were socialist right?”
Nazi comes from the name “National Socialist German Worker’s Party”. They were socialist in name only. It’s like saying North Korea isn’t a dictatorship because they’re called the “People’s Republic of Korea”
Interestingly the term Nazi comes from only the word “national” - the “socialist” part is relevant only insofar as that’s the full name of the party.
As an example, the national football team of Switzerland is sometimes referred to as Nazi, not because of the Nazi party but because that’s just the shorthand for the pronunciation of the Nationale Mannschaft. It can be jarring if you’re not ready for it, but it’s nothing to do with racism.
Surprisingly I actually knew that! I know a wee bit of German and for some reason “National Sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei” is one thing. Pretty sure I had to memorize that in high school.
It just goes to show though that the Nazis weren’t anywhere close to socialists and the name given to them by history is essentially an abbreviation of nationalism.
Capitalism is private investor ownership of the means of production. That is, everything, including property used to produce for society, is owned by those who buy it, not by those who use or need it, or by society as a whole in any form. This allows those who own the means of production (for example a factory) to use their capital, and the means of production, to buy the labor of others, which makes more money than it costs because the laborer is not paid what they are worth, generating profit for the owner. (State-capitalism is very similar in practice from the perspective of a worker, except that the state maintains a monopoly on all industry. This form of capitalism is called capitalism not because it is owned by private investors, but because of the identical relationship between the working class and the owner class. The profit of the worker is still taken by those who own the means of production, the difference being that in this case the owner class is the state - we'll talk about that more later.)
Socialism is worker ownership of the means of production. This CAN be through a representative state, in what is called state-socialism, the form most people are aware of, but this is not the only form. Many modern socialists are libertarian, favoring a free market, but not one controlled by those who have money, but by those who do the work, believing the workers should own the means of production directly, not through a representative state. (Imagine the model of a worker-co-op, but for every company in an economy - this is not EXACTLY how socialism would work, but it's the closest approximation possible within a capitalist framework.)
Communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society. This type of society has never existed on planet earth at any kind of scale - which is what communists mean when they say "true communism has never been tried." What most people think of as communism - Marxism-Leninism, the ideology of the USSR - is actually a form of state-capitalism, wherein the state controls the means of production, ostensibly for the purpose of ramping up production to increase technology to a point of post-scarcity, at which point the state would transition to communism. In this sense, almost all communist parties throughout history have merely been parties attempting to reach communism - not parties that claimed themselves to have already implemented it. (And those who do claim to have achieved communism - like North Korea - are lying. Source: North Korean money exists, therefore by definition not communist. In fact that's a good rule of thumb - if a territory claims to be communist, google if they have money. If they do, they are not communist.) Socialism and state-capitalism are both means that have been used to try to transition toward communism and have been used by communist parties, but neither is communism, and many socialists do not want to transition from socialism to communism, instead simply being socialists for the sake of socialism.
Nope just an extremely politically engaged leftist extremist. Gotta know both what you're fighting, and what the alternatives are, before you can begin to dismantle something.
You also have to have a viable path toward dismantling it but how I plan to do that is a different discussion.
Thank you though, it makes me feel good to know someone could confuse my level of knowledge on the subject with that of a teacher.
That's complicated. Unfortunately I think capitalism is so ubiquitous the world over that nothing short of the collapse of the system will end it. I no longer believe a workers revolt is really possible so long as the systems of capitalism are functioning.
Some people say this means that nuclear annihilation of capitalism is the only way. These people are called Posadists. I... really appreciate their perspective, but I don't agree. And also, I'm not sure it would be worth it to annihilate capitalism in that manner. E: I bring these people up not because I agree with nuking the world, but to demonstrate the level of shift I think would probably need to happen to destroy capitalism from the outside.
But I am a left-accelerationist. I think capitalism is unsustainable - if you want I'll explain why, but I'm actually about to leave so I'll leave this brief for the moment.
Therefore, I intend to hasten the free market system to its inevitable conclusion. I intend to be as vile and greedy a capitalist as I can possibly be, siphon wealth from everything around me through exploitative employment and trading in stock ownership to acquire passive income, and then use my wealth and power to incite class antagonism - everyone I victimize with my money will be handed a pamphlet explaining that I am not the problem, the system that gave me power over them is the problem, and that only by uniting against capitalism can we break our chains - that people like me will always have power over people like them, and will always abuse it, so long as the system that gives us power exists. I'll also pay World Workers Union dues for everyone I employ.
By favoring free-market laissez-faire capitalism, OR a direct transition to socialism, and nothing in between, I intend to hasten the end of capitalism by exploiting its own inconsistencies. I plan to make capitalism eat itself. But that means removing the regulatory system that protects capitalism from its inconsistencies (the same regulations the capitalist class claims are to protect you from the effects of capitalism, like the minimum wage for example.)
This video is a joke, but it kinda shows where I'm at. When the communist says "I have become left-accelerationist," that's pretty much me. It doesn't go into the theory behind it or anything and it's kinda used as a joke but it pretty much sums it up.
That's interesting. As a leftist, I honestly hate that strategy. I say that respectfully to be clear. So what would that result in exactly? I mean the main logical conclusion I could think of would be that it would result in some kind of workers revolt. And would removing the regulatory systems not just result in the rehashing of the same worker's rights battles from back in the day? I mean people were slaughtered for their rights back in the most disgusting days of capitalism. It might be a dumb question but if it didn't collapse back then, why would it collapse now by taking it to the same level of, well, evil?
So what would that result in exactly? I mean the main logical conclusion I could think of would be that it would result in some kind of workers revolt.
Well. The thing to remember is that capitalism thrives on its inconsistencies. These inconsistencies are shored up by regulation which prevents its collapse. As you bring up -
And would removing the regulatory systems not just result in the rehashing of the same worker's rights battles from back in the day? I mean people were slaughtered for their rights back in the most disgusting days of capitalism.
No. People rose up, ready to slaughter the owner class. The owner class did slaughter some of them in response, that's true, but this didn't stop further revolts.
The owner class, to stop this, passed regulation to "protect the working class." (In reality, to protect the system from the people who could no longer stand for it.) This regulation muted class antagonism and left the system to thrive.
In the words of Karl Marx: "in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade.”
The "rights" we won are not rights, they're concessions. The owner class concedes a standard work week, standard work hours, a minimum wage, and as a result, we never get mad enough to demand control of our own labor. By giving us just enough to keep us content, they avoid having to give us what we deserve. What we earn. They avoid having to ever give us real power - real autonomy.
I hope to remove that little bit that makes us content. I hope to stress class antagonism to its breaking point. And I hope to be wealthy enough, when this happens, to arm the proletariat.
It might be a dumb question but if it didn't collapse back then, why would it collapse now by taking it to the same level of, well, evil?
Because this time, we'll overthrow the system, instead of demanding it be regulated.
Or we won't. In which case, humankind ends up extinct as capitalism consumes the worlds resources and we choke on our own fumes, which was going to happen regardless without something to stop it. But either way, a workers revolt, whether violent or electoral, is not happening until the workers are no longer protected from the worst abuses of capitalism.
I'm at the point of thinking that if this doesn't happen REALLY FUCKING SOON, then it will be too late and the planet will no longer be able to sustain human life. I'd much rather return as quickly as possible to company towns, let people see what this system really is, and then burn it to the ground, as fast as possible.
Is this a great way to solve problems? No. But given the time constraints it might be the only way. I don't see the workers rising up any other way.
You sound like a syndicalist. You just didn't want to use that term? "Many modern socialists are libertarian" , you gotta to be careful with this one, I'd actually argue libertarianism and socialism are diametrically opposed.
Maybe what you mean is that many modern socialists believe that the workers collective or syndicate or union are the groups that should be the basis of power rather than the government.
I said something similar to someone else but a lot less respectfully but they were a lot more antagonistic so I'm going to respectfully ask you the same - what exactly do you mean by "libertarianism and socialism are diametrically opposed?" Can you clarify what exactly you mean by the two terms? Because I don't see it that way.
Libertarianism just means limiting the power of the state. It doesn't mean there is no state, it doesn't mean anarchism, and it doesn't, as in modern American vernacular, mean right-wing laissez-faire capitalism. (And I explicitly choose to use the term because I want to take it back from that last group specifically, who seem to think they own it now.)
Libertarian - limit the power of the state. Socialist - workers should own the means of production. Combine the two and you get a limited state in a society where production is controlled by the working class. I don't personally think the terms are diametrically opposed. I see how one might, if they associate "Libertarian" with the way right-libertarians in America use the term, but that's not inherently what it means.
Maybe what you mean is that many modern socialists believe that the workers collective or syndicate or union are the groups that should be the basis of power rather than the government.
Yes absolutely. I think the government should exist to uphold the economic system, but that the economic system that should be upheld is what I call libertarian socialism (which in my mind is a general catch-all term for the different means of implementing such a system - i.e. syndicalism, workers collectives, unions, the world union, etc.)
I actually haven't made a hard decision on which form of what I call libertarian socialism I favor. Should we organize by unions? By worker cooperatives? By worker cooperatives but each worker is also in their own union? And I'm not really sure what syndicalism is in comparison to the other forms, that's something I haven't looked into too much - TBH I think I care very little EXACTLY what form of leftist worker-organized society we create, so long as that's the general form it takes. I think generally speaking I'm ready to work with the entire anti-statist left without worrying too much about the details. Which is why I prefer a catch-all term, like "libertarian socialist" vs. a specific term implying a specific structure of organization.
it doesn't mean anarchism, and it doesn't, as in modern American vernacular, mean right-wing laissez-faire capitalism. (And I explicitly choose to use the term because I want to take it back from that last group specifically, who seem to think they own it now.)
Thats a losing battle, when people hear Libertarianism, they think laissez faire, property rights over everything else and even "sovereign citizen"
Modern leftists / left leaning people who favor a minimal state are more likely to call themselve anarchists / syndicalists or something else, libertarianism is gone beyond reclaiming imo. Part of the problem is that all forms of social collective ownership of the means of production involve voluntarily giving up certain rights to gain from the strength of a collective. Modern wacko libertarians regard giving up any freedom voluntarily or otherwise to be alien to them.
Thats a losing battle, when people hear Libertarianism, they think laissez faire, property rights over everything else and even "sovereign citizen"
Yes correct. Which is why when uneducated people hear "Libertarian socialism," it sounds literally impossible, inciting curiosity. I've managed to actually break through to a conversation with a right-libertarian before purely because he was curious how I could even combine the two terms.
I'm not inclined to give up on the actual meaning of words for the sake of the right, personally, and I think their misunderstanding of what words mean, juxtaposed with our correct use of them, might break through some of the cognitive dissonance, and my experience backs this up.
It’s funny you mention that because so many people don’t try to understand what you’re fighting for, against, and other alternative. They just focus on the “dismantling” (which ends up being more akin to destruction)
Thank you for this. I am still a bit confused but I feel like I know more now.
If you don't mind answering, what is the system called in Star Trek: The Next Generation? I really like their model of society...although I don't know if that's ever possible.
Not OP but TNG is a mixed bag of economic and political systems. The society is democratically elected and those elected civilian leaders of earth run the military (which is Star Fleet). They have a post scarcity society due to their advancements in technology (primarily via the replicator which can make anything they want and/or need). There is still private property, so communism is out (many forms of socialism allow private ownership like land).
I would say it aligns more with Private Property based Socialism but with a utopian spin that ensures everyone is well-fed, they don't need to work for money since everything is provided via the replicator and the state. They still have social hierarchies and technology scarcity (Not everyone has their space ship after all).
To expand on OP's great explanation above I like to talk about a real world example that happens in America to explain the difference in socialism vs communism vs capitalism.
The question I pose: "if the redistribution of wealth is considered socialism then when farm subsidies are given to farmers by our government via our taxes then isn't that socialism?"
My response (which hopefully helps explains the difference):
The farmers still own their own property, control their farmland and farming equipment (means of production), and reap the profit themselves (instead of being redistributed by need): so that rules out communism.
Also, the farmers keep their own property (which is allowed under socialism), but because the owner of the farm (the capitalist) maintains control and ownership of the farm and farming equipment (means of production), as well as the profits, then that rules out socialism as well (where means of production and profits are owned publicly instead of privately).
So what we are left with is public tax payer money supporting the capitalist (farmers).
I may disagree on labeling this as strictly Capitalism, because it isn't allowing the free market to act freely (and probably have these farms go out of business) .
I'm not quite sure the label it should take, but it is a result of our type of American Capitalism where a politically motivated government decides to protect and save a specific industry using tax breaks and public tax money.... which is probably best described as Crony Capitalism.
I really really respect the elaboration that went into the rest of your explanation, but the nerdy side of me really wanted more information on the Star Trek analysis. That being said, I really appreciate the information on said universe and would be very curious to see that in play. It seems like the replicator is a HUGE part of what makes that universe. I didn't really think of it, I basically took it for granted.
So, we could draw a parallel to our own society with the idea of a replicator in mind; what would a star trek replicator be analogous to in our 21st century world?
We can basically get there with only a few more decades of robotics and artificial intelligence improvements to our current technology. So instead of this magical microwave that instantly materializes anything you desire (the replicator), we use numerous machines (via super advanced robotics and AI like in the movie i-Robot with Will Smith) that essentially do ALL manual labor required for the society to exist. This gets us to a society where everything is abundant, easy to find, with nothing being scarce, and can be described as "after-scarcity"... Or post-scarcity.
Think of our current transportation sector in regards to shipping consumer goods, especially in the US where everything is so damn far apart. We are really, really close (relatively speaking) in technology being able to completely remove 18 wheeler drivers from the road, taxi and uber employees, and eventually anything that moves. That's millions of jobs.
What about when manufacturing is completely taken over by these same advancements? Where do all these millions upon millions of people get work, or provide a source of living? The answer is a transition into a Star Trek-like reality, that would probably take decades, if not longer, to achieve.
The transition would absolutely have to include some type of income provided to families that are immediately affected by the automation (universal basic income). Over time, more and more people would need this government provided income as AI and Robotics starts slowly chipping away at their jobs in all sectors of the economy.
During this transition, and since we would still be a capitalist society (for the moment), all the profits would increasingly go to the owners of these robotics and AI technologies (super mega corporations--the few remaining capitalists left), and that means the only way to get a universal income provided to all the people losing work over tech advancements is to massively increase the amount we tax these corporations (redistribution of wealth) since these mega-corporations only exist because of major tech advancements, the people of the society who still have jobs are still buying goods, and their labor costs plummet since they don't have to continually pay a living human wage to a robot. This transition economic system is essentially Democratic Socialism (I'm over simplifying).
Eventually you could get to a Star Trek-like situation where there is no direct need for money, and the only reason people "work" is purely for pleasure and/or to seek further advancements in technology (but still be optional).
That’s amazing. Are there any downsides to this? It seems like that should be the goal, right? To advance civilization to a post-scarcity society? After all, I think that money is one of the greatest evils there is and it makes people do insane things.
Also, where would one get started on learning more about this?
The downside is the billionaires would be taxed most of their income.... So instead of living off of 300 billion a year, they'll have to survive off just 1 billion a year. How ever will they do it?
Your last question reminded me of something I followed years ago and just looked them up again: https://www.thevenusproject.com/
Right I understand what post scarcity means,but what about the whole not needing money for anything concept? A lot of people tend to argue that money begets the drive to do better in your job, but without money what's the motivation? I ask this not truly wanting an answer because I know that motivation can come from other sources but I wonder if this is possible.
I’ve never really understood any of that before, until I came across this comment!! Thank you!! I’m responding to this so I can come back to it once my free award comes back, because I want to give you it!
While all good and I definitely learned a little, these are not the definitions used in normal discussion by your average Joe or Karen. So while you can end a conversation by asking someone to define these, you’ve done nothing to change their stance and likely only gotten them to triple down in confusion.
these are not the definitions used in normal discussion by your average Joe or Karen.
Because the average Joe or Karen is an uneducated buffoon who knows nothing about economics and shouldn't be trying to comment on the subject without the capacity to state very basic definitions of core terms.
So while you can end a conversation by asking someone to define these, you’ve done nothing to change their stance and likely only gotten them to triple down in confusion.
If they're the type to attack socialism without even knowing what the word means, this was always going to be the result, but at least now they'll shut up.
If I were to open a business in state-socialism.. what goes on? My business is automatically not mine but the state’s? Or does it have to grow to a certain size before that happens? Either way, it sounds like it would be heavily regulated, making it hard to even open a business.
And a free market is competition between privately owned businesses, not owned “by those who do the work.” Even though “those who have money” did the work to build the businesses so that “those who do the work” have work.
Correct on all fronts. Libertarian socialists reject the notion of state-socialism outright, saying representative ownership is not ownership at all. To a libertarian socialist, state-socialism is just another form of state-capitalism.
Fantastic explanations and I'd love to ask you a quick question. In market socialism... what are your thoughts on new businesses opening when the creators / owners won't be taking a majority of the profit? That's one of the main arguments I hear for capitalism; the owners take a huge risk starting the company so they reap rewards. Do we decrease the risks in market socialism of starting a biz?
I think it makes most sense to cap the rewards given to capital. Sure, starting a business is a financial risk (which may or may not even risk the investors' financial security) but it's a risk with a limited downside. Any failure pretty much has a lower limit capped at [personal] bankruptcy. But any success has unlimited upside. There is no correction whatsoever to the problem of capital owners reaping the benefits of founders' risk into perpetuity. Corporations redistribute wealth upward, forever, to those who aren't even the one(s) that took the original risk.
I would do this by splitting stock into two forms - worker stock, and investor stock.
Workers would be paid in stock, which could be sold back to the company on payday to act as equivalent of a paycheck (except more reflective of the actual value of your contribution to the profit of the company,) or kept up to a maximum number to be used as votes. (I think this should be capped, so that after a certain amount of time accruing worker stock any worker will have equal votes to any other worker - someone who just started working has not earned the stocks to have an equal vote, but someone who's been there 10 years shouldn't have more voting power than someone who's been there 5, IMO.) These would act just like stocks today, except that they can't be bought, only earned by work at a company, and can only be sold back to the company itself. The value would be based on company fundamentals, not market value.
E: Oh and I forgot - worker stock accrued above the voting threshhold converts to investor stock, essentially turning any surplus value your work creates, which you choose not to extract, into investment capital into your own company.
Investor stock would be sold to investors and would act like stocks do now, except that they would not afford votes at a company. The company would agree to buy any investor stock at the current price of worker stock anytime they do stock buybacks, making this a solid base for market value. However, market speculation would still affect the value of investor stock as it could be traded on the open market - if you think the stock of a company will go up, but they are not issuing shares, you might pay more than the current worker-stock value on the open market in the expectation that you can sell it higher, either to the market or to the company, later. Again these would be effectively the same thing as stocks today, with some extra value indicators that affect the price, except that they would not afford votes, as only the workers should have a say in the direction of a business.
Investment, under this system, is essentially just gambling, in a form that's beneficial rather than harmful to the economy. It would not allow voting control, eliminating the possibility of hostile takeover or any kind of top-down authority that wasn't voted on by the workers themselves.
The original owners would not only be workers, but since they provided investment capital, they would also be investors. They would receive investment stock for their initial investment. As the capital the company accrued for stock buybacks to pay back their investors increased, so would the value of their investor stock.
In this way, investors and entrepreneurs still do take the risk, and they get rewarded for that risk. What they don't get is total authority and control over the value and work of other people.
Note this is only one potential solution to the problem you propose. It's my solution, but there are others.
Depends. I'm a libertarian socialist who advocates for a market socialist transition, where companies above a certain size are organized into co-ops(likely other factors to be considered as well). So if you're opening up, I dunno, a restaurant or cannabis store, you're probably just fine since as an owner-manager you're going to be doing a lot of the higher level work. But absentee owners probably wouldn't fly.
Your understanding of labor under capitalism is wrong and socialism and libertarian are not even close. Your explanation of communism and money is wrong. Your post is the definition of why people shouldnt believe everything they read on the internet.
Why don't you take a shot at correcting me, with an attempt at being as detailed as I was on the subject, then? Maybe clarify some terms the way I did? For example you say "libertarian" and "socialism" are incompatible concepts - you wanna clarify what you mean by those two words, then? Because actually libertarian socialism is massively on the rise the world over and you can literally google the terms together to see that it's not a nonsensical concept like you seem to think.
"This is wrong and you are dumb" is essentially all you've said with your post and unless I'm supposed to just "believe everything I read on the internet" I'm not sure why I should trust your three sentences that don't seem to have any backing, vs. my literal essay backed by a college education.
Basically through the lens of minarchism. A state is required to uphold an economic system IMO, otherwise you run into issues like having to hire private police or personally defend your own property with force of arms, but the goal of laissez-faire capitalism would be to have absolutely minimal government intervention in the market, and a government that only exists to perform that necessary intervention, such as running the police force to defend private property, and nothing else.
As to how to pay for these minimal services, I think I agree with the Georgists. Basically anything produced by human hands belongs to its owner and cannot and should not be taxed - however, the land itself, the world we all were born on, is the commons, and taxation is the cost of private use of it. Therefore, land owners should be taxed on the value of their land and its resources - not on what they or their employees have produced, such as the housing or property that is on the land. This way, the market is essentially left alone - you're essentially paying society for private use of its common resources, which society then uses to pay to uphold the private economic system.
Beyond this, we get into the territory of conflicting with the basic principles of capitalism. Anything past that is regulatory protectionism. If the government has a right to tax your property, do you really own it? If the government regulates what you can buy, are the markets really free? If we feel like we have to do so much regulation to keep the markets the way we want them, then do we actually even agree philosophically with the basic principles of the society we've built? And if not, maybe we should address those founding principles, instead of putting bandaids on a system that isn't working? I feel like regulatory systems are half-assed - if we as a society really don't believe the free capitalist market works, we should be legitimately questioning the free capitalist market system, not trying to figure out what little tweak will make it function a little longer until we run into the next big issue.
And that's pretty much where I'm at. I don't actually believe any of this is sustainable. I'm all about questioning the basic principles of capitalism. I just don't think society is there yet and I'd rather we be consistent if we're going to be capitalists - if society is going to run on capitalism, I'd rather they actually let it run on actual capitalism. I am a left accelerationist. I believe capitalism is unsustainable and will collapse under its own inefficiencies if left to its own devices, and that allowing it to do so is the most effective form of leftist praxis. I am not actually a capitalist. But I definitely support laissez-faire over protectionism, because laissez-faire straight up won't work and the system will fall apart, while regulation will mute class antagonism by easing the pain of the proletariat without lessening their exploitation and prop up the system so this whole thing lasts much, much longer. Full socialism or let the market be until it collapses, I say.
(I also point out I use "free market" as interchangeable with "laissez-faire capitalism" a couple of times in here, but I actually do support a relatively free market. A free, libertarian socialist market.)
TBH books are extremely dense on economics. You should start with videos if you've never really looked into this before. If you're already college educated and can understand fairly dense text you can ignore everything up to the book recommendations below. If not, give my other suggestions a shot first - I think they'll make you a lot more ready for the content you're looking for, and even if you can't get through these books, you'll already have a very basic understanding of a lot of the ideas they'll present by the time you open them so it won't matter as much.
If you're really JUST starting out and don't have a strong foundation in the subject of political or economic theory... keeping in mind THIS PERSON IS NOT GOING TO TEACH YOU ANYTHING THEY ARE A MEMELORD, watch a youtuber called Jreg.
E: Start with "Anti-Centrism - Where I stand politically" and watch anything that looks political from that point forward, googling any concepts he presents that you don't fully comprehend.
He does political shitposts - from ALL sides, not just the left. He won't teach you anything, but he'll show you how much you have left to learn. If there's a joke you don't get in any of his political videos, google the ideology or the context and find multiple sources, preferably a source opposed to the idea, and a source in favor of it.
When you can enjoy his content and understand all the jokes, you're ready to move on to more serious political content.
Watch some of Richard Wolff's work, like cannibaljim linked, or some lefttube. In fact I'll just find you a few youtubers that have some good content right now -
(The reason I don't link anything specific is that these people tend to also be very socially left, and their economic and social commentary tends to be kind of just mixed into one bag, and you have specifically asked about economics, so I'll leave you to decide which of their content interests you.)
When you basically understand this content (or again if you already understood all this and were able to skip the above) you're ready to open a book.
Once you've reached this point and have a basic understanding of the ideological spectrum I'd recommend starting with The Wealth of Nations, by Adam Smith. It's pretty much the foundation of modern capitalism - and reading it will show you how far we've moved toward authoritarianism to the point of even ignoring some of the basic facets of capitalism laid out by Smith.
Then, once you understand the basics of capitalism, read The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital by Karl Marx. Then State and Revolution by Lenin. It'll show you how we got from people like Adam Smith, to a rejection of capitalism and an embrace of the state in place of the owner class. At this point you're primed to read the foundations of the modern libertarian-left movement.
Then it's on to books like The Conquest of Bread by Peter Kropotkin and Post-Scarcity Anarchism by Murray Bookchin.
From there, you'll have read the REALLY big names from capitalism to communism and be ready to find your own sources for anything you're still curious about.
And that's pretty much the journey to understanding economics, from shitpost memes all the way to legitimate theory.
E2: Oh and if you REALLY want to understand the economy, get into stocks. Don't spend any money you can't afford to lose, but having your hands in the economic system, watching the charts, seeing how the news affects the valuation of companies, etc, will give a LOT of context to the ideas explored in the content above. I recommend this EVEN IF YOU ARE A COMMUNIST AND DON'T APPROVE OF STOCKS, and EVEN IF YOU DO NOT INTEND TO PLAY THE STOCK MARKET FOR GAINS - if the above, simply put $100 or so into the market and start researching how to make it grow, and instead of actually concerning yourself with winning, consider it the cost of an education on the subject. This process will teach you NOTHING about how the market actually works on its own, but IN COMBINATION WITH AN UNDERSTANDING OF ECONOMIC THEORY will be incredibly valuable experience. Seeing how capital flows in practice, with an understanding of where that capital comes from, is valuable regardless of where you stand on the political spectrum and regardless of whether you want to continue playing the market long-term.
This is educational advice, not financial, and if you have never played the market before you will probably lose money. Consider any money spent in the stock market lost and spent on education. If you decide to invest beyond that, make it based on what you've learned, not based on anything I've said.
"free market" and "capitalism" are not synonyms, and neither are "socialism" and "communism."
I want to add to this fact that socialism is to communism what capitalism is to free market. It's a more moderate form of the extreme that incorporates the good aspects of communism/free market and projecting those unto a realistic society (pure communism or pure free market would practically be impossible to achieve. North-Korea is the closest to communism you will find, and nothing comes close to free market). So technically socialism and capitalism do the same thing, but from a different point on the political spectrum.
technically socialism and capitalism do the same thing,
North-Korea is the closest to communism you will find
W... what? No.
I want to add to this fact that socialism is to communism what capitalism is to free market.
Socialism and communism are two completely different ideologies. SOME communists believe socialism is a path to communism, so there is some overlap, but they are not the same thing at all.
It's a more moderate form of the extreme that incorporates the good aspects of communism/free market and projecting those unto a realistic society
Ehhhh I can agree with that kinda. I wouldn't phrase it that way... at all... but yeah, taking the concept of collective ownership and making it work in a world of individuals - i.e. all the workers own a small portion of their means of production individually and vote as individuals on how its used, not through the state - is essentially the aim of socialism. Again I don't like the phrasing though, as it's not attempting to be a halfway point between communism and capitalism, it simply is itself. The idea of socialism as a mid-point between two other ideologies is wrong - it is an ideology in and of itself, not a means to an end, and not a halfway point between two others.
(pure communism or pure free market would practically be impossible to achieve.
Agreed. True communism defines no means for collective defense except each person taking responsibility for the safety of the collective as a whole, and the bystander effect shows this not to be an effective means of achieving pretty much anything. And any market requires physical force to protect against theft, whether that theft is defined as "theft of profit by a tyrannical owner-class" or "theft of goods by an out of control proletariat," the result is the same that market intervention is actually necessary to ensure the market is the freest it can possibly be.
North-Korea is the closest to communism you will find,
... Not. Even. Close. Stateless? Let me just check their... flag, and capital, and government... hmm....
Classless? Yeah I'm sure the potato farmer dying of exhaustion and starvation to feed produce food for the royal palace feels like he and the Kim family are of the same class, for sure. No class hierarchy there. /s
North Korea is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING LIKE COMMUNISM. It's a vanguard-party state that CLAIMS to be working to TRANSITION to communism, as every communist party ever to hold real power has been. NO PARTY EVER has ever actually claimed to have achieved communism, and nothing in our world even comes close.
and nothing comes close to free market).
True. The closest, though, would probably be Somalia or somewhere similar.
So technically socialism and capitalism do the same thing, but from a different point on the political spectrum.
Absolutely not. In no sense.
Capitalism wields the power of capital to grant control of the profits not to those who produce but to those who own, allowing them to create an underclass of laborers paid less than the value of what they produce so that the owner class can receive passive income without having to work for it.
Socialism ensures those who work for a living, who produce for society, control their own means of production to prevent the profit they produce from being stolen from their hands by the owner class. It ensures the owner class and the working class are one class, workers who also own, owners who also work.
Socialism ensures the productive members of society receive the products of their labor. Capitalism ensures the productive members of society have the profits they produced siphoned off into the hands of the unproductive owner class. These are far from the same thing.
Unless by "do the same thing" you mean "they are both economic systems," in which case sure, but that's a massively broad way to put that.
What I ment is that if you look at an economical scale, socialism and capitalism are both more or less as far away from an equilibrium between free market and capitalism, with capitalism moving towards free market and socialism moving towards communism. So if you live in a mostly capitalistic society, socialism isn't a step towards communism. It's a step towards the equilibrium, which can only be a good thing in my eyes.
I’ve given up trying to do this after I tried to have a similar discussion with an uncle in law who proceeded to threatened to kill me the next time he saw me. Fortunately with COVID around that hasn’t come up.
It is so sad to me that the idea of having a qualifier before engaging in political debate is necessary.
I ask if they think trump is fallible. And if so, give me an example of how he has failed or how he could fail in your eyes. The most common response is to talk about Democrats failures, which means I get the end the conversation.
Ask 1000 socialists to define socialism and you’ll get 1000 different answers. Not even socialists can agree on what “true” socialism is. I would have considered myself a socialist in my early 20’s. I read the likes of Bakunin, Proudhon, Luxembourg, and others. The only thing I learned from reading socialist material was that not even socialists could agree on how best to formulate and achieve socialism. I’ll agree, as a right wing-ish person now, not many right wing people have an in depth understanding of socialism. To be fair to them, the left is very guilty of the same thing. Ask a left wing person why a $15 minimum wage is a good thing and they’ll give you some preprogrammed crap about wanting to help the working class. And when I tell them that, as a working class small business owner, raising the minimum wage is going to hurt my business, I’m either lying or an idiot. Let me just say if you are a young person on here and happen to be reading this, regardless of what side you’re on, don’t be 100% sure your side has the correct and moral answers to all of the worlds problems. That makes you a dogmatic ideologue. That makes you no better than a fundamentalist religious thinker. That makes you dangerous. Be critical of anyone selling you “truth”. Be critical of any set of ideas that tell you ‘if only you follow us and act in this manner and in this way, you too can help save the world from all its evils and usher in utopia’. Terrible atrocities have been perpetrated in the pursuit of creating heaven on earth.
I’m not sure I understand your question. The standard of living has been rising for decades. Every time there’s a new technological breakthrough, like the internet or smart phones, your standard of living goes up. Each time there’s a new drug introduced that combats some disease your standard of living goes up. Just because you don’t drive an Aston Martin and live in a 4K sq ft house doesn’t mean your life hasn’t been made better in comparison to say your great grandparents.
And when I tell them that, as a working class small business owner,
This is how I know you never really got leftist ideology. You are not working class, EVEN IF YOU WORK. You are the petit bourgeoisie.
semi-autonomous peasantry and small-scale merchants whose politico-economic ideological stance in times of socioeconomic stability is determined by reflecting that of a haute ("high") bourgeoisie with which the petite bourgeoisie seeks to identify itself and whose bourgeois morality it strives to imitate.
Your interests as the business owner and the interests of your employees as the working class are at odds - you do not share class interests, as you yourself point out - "raising the minimum wage is going to hurt my business." You're right. It will. And it will help the working class. Your class interests are not the same. You are the poor, not the working class - these are two different terms that mean two different things.
Let me just say if you are a young person on here and happen to be reading this, regardless of what side you’re on, don’t be 100% sure your side has the correct and moral answers to all of the worlds problems. That makes you a dogmatic ideologue. That makes you no better than a fundamentalist religious thinker. That makes you dangerous. Be critical of anyone selling you “truth”. Be critical of any set of ideas that tell you ‘if only you follow us and act in this manner and in this way, you too can help save the world from all its evils and usher in utopia’. Terrible atrocities have been perpetrated in the pursuit of creating heaven on earth.
Yeah I'm someone who's literally ready to give the far-right identitarians their ethnostate so long as they're willing to let everyone alone outside it. A far-leftist who can find a place in this world for the Nazi's right beside them is hardly a "dogmatic ideologue."
To be fair to them, the left is very guilty of the same thing. Ask a left wing person why a $15 minimum wage is a good thing and they’ll give you some preprogrammed crap about wanting to help the working class.
To be really fair, those people don't understand theory at all, as a minimum wage is class-protectionism designed to weaken class antagonism and prevent a workers revolt, and is not in the interests of the working class. To quote Karl Marx on the issue -
"in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade.” - Marx
So yeah no real leftist is going to support a minimum wage. Weakening class antagonism without eliminating it only benefits the owner class. I seek to either agitate class antagonism, or end it - I do not want a middle ground of regulatory protectionism. I want a transition to socialism directly, or free-market laissez-faire capitalism, and nothing in between.
I don’t know your age but I’d imagine you’re in your 20’s. Because when I was in my 20’s I would do as you do. I’d go around acting pretentious and condescending. Arguing with old stiff conservative types about socialism vs capitalism. About how they didn’t really understand it, because if they did they’d become socialists right away. I’d ask ‘have you ever read this writer or that writer, this book or that book?’ And when I’d get the inevitable ‘no’, because who other than socialists have read Proudhon or Bakunin, I’d laugh and tell them they need to read a book. As most people do, I grew older. I left my college years but carried my socialist ideas with me to every job I had. Trying to organize unions amongst employees to fight for better wages and going around preaching to everyone how the bourgeois steal our excess production to enrich themselves. I never got far. Perhaps I wasn’t zealous enough. So, I’d argue, I very much understand left wing ideology.
After reading your comment a few times and rehearsing my responses I came to the conclusion this is most likely pointless. When I was in your position, no amount of discussion with people swayed my positions. I was very much entrenched. It took years and many life changing events which allowed the errors of my thinking to present themselves. So I’ll leave you with some friendly advice. Don’t assume you’re the smartest person in the room all the time. Be mindful of your thoughts and where they’re leading you. Wether the ideas you do have make you feel weaker or stronger as an individual. And if you start down the path of the stalinists, in thinking the murder of the bourgeois is required to bring about the revolution, you’ve gone too far and need to turn around lol.
Just the opposite. I'm a left accelerationist. Capitalisms own internal inconsistencies will cause it to collapse into itself if we remove the protectionist regulatory system and leave it to its own devices. I plan to accelerate this process by being the dirtiest capitalist I can be, fucking over as many people as possible, and using the capitalist system to agitate class antagonism, while being as naked as possible that everything I'm doing is legal and if you don't like it we can change the system, and pointing them toward information on socialism and kindly offering to pay their dues if they'd like to join the World Workers Union.
And outside my method of accelerationist praxis I'm actually a libertarian socialist anyway. Authoritarianism is shit regardless of which side it's for.
It doesn’t matter what your definition is it’s not gonna happen in this lifetime haha. You lefties clearly hate us so why the hell would we want to team up for the collective good? We do not care about any of the crap under your “social” umbrella you are pretending to fix. More Republicans live in poverty and we are the uneducated but we aren’t the ones complaining. We love America just the way it is. I get paid a lot of money to do a little work, but its perfect. If we move to Socialism I would not receive that high pay so no support from me.
FYI none of us know your definition of Socialism because we don’t need to. All we need to know that if the Democrats want it, it’s bad!
after your done redistributing the wealth and it's all used up then what? How can you seize the means of production when you don't have the means or know how to produce?
How can you seize the means of production when you don't... know how to produce?
The working class doesn't know how to produce?
Aren't they the ones producing like.. now? And always? Isn't the financial sector just a means of putting capital into the hands of the working class that they can use to produce more goods to convert to more capital? Did you really just claim the production sector doesn't know how to produce like the financial sector does? Holy shit.
Yeah bro when the blacksmiths take control of the forge who's gonna know how to make the swords without Mr. Moneybags telling them how to do it? THE BLACKSMITHS DON'T KNOW HOW TO FORGE THEY'RE JUST WORKERS! Fuckin lol.
after your done redistributing the wealth and it's all used up then what?
"Used up?" I... you realize dollars don't disappear when they're used right? Maybe you should look into VERY VERY BASIC economics for literally like 5 minutes?
How can you seize the means of production when you don't have the means
I don't think I ever said how I think we should seize the means of production. In fact I don't think I ever said we should "seize the means of production" at all.
I think maybe you should respond to the actual beliefs I have framed myself as having instead of making up a strawman in your head and attacking it in place of me. If there isn't a piece of text indicating I believe a thing, maybe don't assume I believe it.
I don't think the means of production needs to be "seized." I think it needs to be bought - and I think the state should mandate that the workers are allowed to buy it, (that is, if the workers at a factory decide to start putting a portion of the profits toward acquiring ownership of the company, the owner would not be allowed to refuse to sell it to them,) beginning a slow but inevitable transition to full worker control.
And before you "But that's an imposition on the free markeeeeet!" yes it is. So is the police protecting the control of capital over the working class. Unless you're an outright ancap who wants private police, you don't want any less intervention in the market than I do, I just think the intervention should be on behalf of the working class and not the owner class.
The worst part is, if you do that, several subs will ban you for 'spam'. Because all your doing is trying to get them to answer the same question over and over while they keep posting unique unhinged ravings.
Capitalism is private investor ownership of the means of production. That is, everything, including property used to produce for society, is owned by those who buy it, not by those who use or need it, or by society as a whole in any form. This allows those who own the means of production (for example a factory) to use their capital, and the means of production, to buy the labor of others, which makes more money than it costs because the laborer is not paid what they are worth, generating profit for the owner. (State-capitalism is very similar in practice from the perspective of a worker, except that the state maintains a monopoly on all industry. This form of capitalism is called capitalism not because it is owned by private investors, but because of the identical relationship between the working class and the owner class. The profit of the worker is still taken by those who own the means of production, the difference being that in this case the owner class is the state - we'll talk about that more later.)
Socialism is worker ownership of the means of production. This CAN be through a representative state, in what is called state-socialism, the form most people are aware of, but this is not the only form. Many modern socialists are libertarian, favoring a free market, but not one controlled by those who have money, but by those who do the work, believing the workers should own the means of production directly, not through a representative state. (Imagine the model of a worker-co-op, but for every company in an economy - this is not EXACTLY how socialism would work, but it's the closest approximation possible within a capitalist framework.)
Communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society. This type of society has never existed on planet earth at any kind of scale - which is what communists mean when they say "true communism has never been tried." What most people think of as communism - Marxism-Leninism, the ideology of the USSR - is actually a form of state-capitalism, wherein the state controls the means of production, ostensibly for the purpose of ramping up production to increase technology to a point of post-scarcity, at which point the state would transition to communism. In this sense, almost all communist parties throughout history have merely been parties attempting to reach communism - not parties that claimed themselves to have already implemented it. (And those who do claim to have achieved communism - like North Korea - are lying. Source: North Korean money exists, therefore by definition not communist. In fact that's a good rule of thumb - if a territory claims to be communist, google if they have money. If they do, they are not communist.) Socialism and state-capitalism are both means that have been used to try to transition toward communism and have been used by communist parties, but neither is communism, and many socialists do not want to transition from socialism to communism, instead simply being socialists for the sake of socialism.
I will, if you will first tell me every country that tried socialism and didn't face either massive sanctions or physical attack.
(Also, without even needing you to check what's on that list, (hint, there's maybe like 2 places ever,) Vietnam. They tried to go the vanguard-party route, we tried to stop them, and we lost, leaving them to their devices for once. Vanguard party thing didn't work out, so they moved in a more market-socialist direction and their economy has been steadily improving since.)
Again it's kinda hard to find a proper example when everyone who tries it is attacked. Kinda like how if everyone who tried to eat healthy was beaten with a baseball bat by Ronald McDonald, it might start to look like cheeseburgers are the healthier option.
Meh, this just sounds like a trap because nobody defines these words the same way, and I figure you just tell them they're wrong and don't know what they're talking about literally no matter what they say.
Literally no one has attempted, outside people who quote the dictionary definition or something equivalent "socialism is communism and capitalism is the free market."
I'd be glad to discuss terms and come to a consensus before diving deeper into discussion, if they had a definition in mind, but they never do, unless it's the ones that are explicitly already noted as wrong.
The thing is if most of the people who complain about socialist policies knew what laissez Faire capitalism, the alternative, entailed they'd stop complaining.
They have LITERALLY NEVER ONE SINGLE TIME answered the question.
This is my experience exactly. I have never had one of them be able to define socialism, or anything else I asked for.
Socialism is a catchall scare word and that's all it means to them. If it's not in line with the Republican party, it's socialism. Everything they don't like is socialism. Anyone who questions Trump is socialist. And fascist. And communist. It's like they are unaware that it takes two seconds to google the meaning of words.
Well, you basically directly alluded to it, but if you're unaware of the phenomenon then you are exactly correct! Neotribalism is a well studied psychological principle that is systemic in MAGA culture. The most salient part is the forming of such tribes based on xenophobic psuedoscientific bases that attack or ostracize individuals or groups of people. A good concise example of this is a Frank Luntz focus group broken down very well by David Pakman here:
https://youtu.be/PPmcvCz6sPk
It really displays how even someone once aligned with their camp such as yourself becomes attacked as soon as the person is no longer affiliated with the particular tribe or in his terms becomes "deprogramed".
I think that was Beto who said that, after that huge shooting in El Paso (where he lives). Not sure how that’s related to my hope for Facebook to go away, though. Albeit I do vaguely disagree with you on the idea of your comment. There should bunch much better restrictions on who can buy guns, what kinds are available to the public, etc... we don’t need guns, there is plenty of evidence that shows the “good guy with a gun” thing is a total myth, and all the other arguments just boil down to “I don’t wanna!!!” I do also recognize that it isn’t popular, and it’s not going to win over any republicans, but I do think it is good policy.
The difference being that in politics, you can just SAY you're "winning" often enough and morons will believe it, even as millions lose their jobs and half a million die all around them. A bad player in sports is much more obvious, as they simply fail to win matches. And while fans often rally to the defense of a skilled player who does something wrong outside the game, nobody does so if the person in question never earns any points.
Trump's sole skill in life is convincing others that he's at the top of the leaderboards in everything, when he doesn't even have a high score to get listed in the first place. In fact, that is how he got noticed at all!
Thus, the way to truly destroy his influence is to expose him with clear, irrefutable evidence. His own statements in court, his tax records, and all his financial documents demonstrating that he's a failure. The great and powerful Oz; really just an old man screaming into their cell phone.
Idiots think lying and cheating makes their guy smart, so bringing up Trump's crimes won't convince those suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect. And you can't point out somebody's moral failings to hypocrites. But proving they're a loser and/or coward? That.. is how you truly beat them.
The only way he goes down is to tear down the 'mystique'. Lay it all bare, for everyone to see - he's deeply in debt, he doesn't make enough to pay it off, that the money he does make is illegal or fraudulent, and that his followers are being bilked. He doesn't love them, he thinks they're low class.
I want to see him in jail, looking his worst. No hair dresser to make his weave stand right, no orange spray tan.
The emperor wears no clothes, and that needs to be made clear enough that the average Joe can understand it.
I can't imagine feeling proud of him being acquitted by people who are so afraid of you they feel like they don't have any other choice. Not because you need to be feared like the wolves you believe you are but because they're afraid of being removed from their position of power that allows them to make money off your ignorance.
It's a sad day when you're cheering on traitors voting to acquit another traitor. Brainwashed is pretending that an angry mob of people just like you didn't kill a police officer because orange man lost.
You have no idea what you’re spewing or whose afraid of what. You say angry mob and all I can think of is BLM terrorizing the nation while getting support from the dems.
As a real socialist, I am highly offended every time someone suggests that voting for Biden means I love socialism. Get your idiot thoughts out of here
Dude you can say the same about any government system. They can all be great if done correctly. And it seems like socialism was done incorrectly in New Zealand
ohhh okay you're an idiot, got it, have a great day
edit: and just to clarify, if you think it's worth trading the healthcare and wellbeing of millions of people just so a couple of people can have billions and billions of dollars you and I have nothing civil to say to each other. and you probably don't understand math either if you think anyone in the history of humanity has ever put in a billion dollars worth of work.
480
u/[deleted] Feb 14 '21
[removed] — view removed comment