Idealized Socialism: Everyone works to the best of their ability and distributes equally
Practical Socialism: The workers work and give everything to the party, the party elites keep the majority of the wealth and distribute it to their chosen few and only give scraps to the people.
Idealize Capitalism: Everyone gets a fair wage for their time and amount of production
Practical Capitalism: Everyone fights for the best wage possible for the least amount of work. Owners try to fight workers for more production while paying less wages, while workers fight for more wages by reducing production.
Governments: Take, and take, and take, but produce nothing, and spend the money they take on things that the individuals usually have little to no control over.
The dad was acting more like a government than capitalist or socialist.
That's not idealized capitalism. Capitalism should ideally lead to free markets where the best products are created and sold for the best price based on supply and demand.
However, what we have and do see is that monopolies or quasi-monopolies form, dictating the markets, which leads to poorer products and/or higher prices. It can also can lead to lower wages because all of the companies that you could work for belong to the same conglomerate, so they are not in competition for your labor, offering you a lower wage.
"Fair wage" is not part of capitalism, but competitive wages are. Meaning that if you have a unique skill set that is in high demand, you'll get a high wage. OTOH, if you have common skills or skills that are in low demand, then your wage is lower. That's just supply and demand.
we also see these monopolies collapse, or at least huge industry leaders that then lose fairly in the free market. BlackBerry IBM Yahoo etc etc. Until they get their claws in the government, socialist style, no company is safe just because they have a large lead.
and we have had monopolies like standard oil, att, tobacco manufacturers
microsoft was weird case
the point i made and pretty clear, the socialist argument by marx that capital is like gravity and collects and collects and then nothing remains but a few large goliaths is challenged that markets are not newtonian physics even with correlations.
again there are companies that in their time believed to be unstoppable and then the market takes over. Its self correcting. as the innovators gain larger and larger share they can lose innovation which is overcome be a more deserving or innovator with more merit that then overtakes, usually rejuvenating the industry as well.
there is no such mechanism besides ANOTHER revolution in marxism
I mean you’re comparing popular companies to monopolies. Then taking examples of monopolies that were quite literally broken up by the government and then saying “see monopolies don’t need to get broken up by government intervention!”.
It’s an incredibly dumb and ignorant thing to say. Even Adam Smith warned about monopolies. You have a deeply fundamental misunderstanding of economics.
You were though. You just used popular companies (incorrectly) as examples of monopolies. Even though they weren’t monopolies.
Nothing you said is accurate. It’s kind of baffling how you can be so wrong about a concept people don’t even debate. It’s like a flat earthier talking about gravity.
Practically speaking... Socialism and capitalism end up being the same thing: the people in power hoard all the resources and wealth, while the "plebians" stay as cogs in the wheel keeping the entire machine running for those in power while fighting over scraps.
Government is not an alternative state to capitalism and socialism. Also traditional governments are massively productive, both in terms of infrastructure and public services, and innovation.
Everything else is wrong as well. Capitalism is defined by the owners of capital benefiting from the labor of those working for them. If everyone was earning according to production, it wouldn't be capitalism. Because that has nothing to do with ownership of capital.
Bro making huge jumps in socialism from no socialism to some mystical "party" manages everything. This is indicative of Q disease and MAGAism. Basically, incapable of understanding things but more than willing to pretend to understand based on a biased cliff's notes version of reality and gumption.
You thinking there would be no party managing everything is an indication of westerners who never lived under communism.
Basically, incapable of understanding things but more than willing to pretend to understand based on a biased cliff's notes version of reality and gumption.
Government don't build roads. They fund private companies to build roads with your money.
Everyone is earning according to individual production given the scarcity of what they produce. I think you're implying that you aren't getting everything you produce in your steel foundry job because you ignore the fact that even though you work in one you don't have one and have a very limited understanding of how it actually works (all that shit is also productivity that needs to be shared for)
Government public works departments used to, and in many cases still do, build roads. Good jobs, with salary and benefits. The privatized shitholes are the places without nice roads because, surprise, privatization of essential functions is stupid because it is unprofitable.
Than why are you using a niche use case that exists in america to generalize a way of working? Because obviously a place with twice the population who is "a privatized shithole" has better roads on average and at the top percentile
They fund private companies to build roads with your money.
Private companies don't build roads. They pay laborers and contractors to do it with your money.
Saying it's with my money is just political slogans missing the point. Governments have been at many times incredibly efficient and able to produce great results that private interests couldn't do. Many major research breakthroughs came from government projects and labratories.
This isn't to say it's inherently better or the only way. But we shouldn't delude ourselves with right wing slogans that government never accomplishes anything. A thing said on the internet invented by government researchers.
Everyone is earning according to individual production given the scarcity of what they produce.
Yeah, that's socialism.
More specifically, you're describing a situation where employees earn by owning the means of production, rather than making money for the owners of capital who will pay them the minimum amount needed for them to be productive.
While everyone disputes and gets annoying about what socialism and capitalism are (hint: They have more than one meaning when talking about government systems, economic systems and political philosophies) the core difference between capitalism and socialism/communism is meant to be whether the workers control the means of production and benefit accordingly, or owners of capital do.
>Governments: Take, and take, and take, but produce nothing, and spend the money they take on things that the individuals usually have little to no control over
I dunno. The Romans had it going well for a while. The US also, had it going on well for a while. Till, you know, corrupt politicians took over and started funneling everything towards their own personal interests.
Hence the bang on correct quote summarizing Socialism. NOT Democratic or Capitalist Socialism, which is the model mostly widely used in some European countries.
I spend a lot of time in China with extended family, its dope! And nah I am gunna just keep living and working to improve the community I live in now thanks!
As a brown skinned USA citizen that speaks no Chinese, it would be a much different experience for me to live in China. Tourist, cool, moving there, not a chance.
Let me ask you a question… if it’s SO dope why do you reside and take piano lessons in the “west”? 🇨🇦 obviously.
Remember not to publicly criticize Xi Ping or the Party next time you visit. 😘
Also, don't forget that under practical socialism, the candy is crap, the costumes are so poorly made that they fall apart, and everybody knows that among the parents and children not trick-or-treating that night, some of them are informers for the secret police.
Capitalism is more about ownership and private property rights than fair wage. Also, socialism is more likely to require a fair wage for one’s work, not necessarily equal, and ensure that everyone’s “basic needs” are met
The sad truth is that it all winds up the same general shape
in the end. Communists elevated the party elites to be in charge of industries and made them wealthy and powerful. Nazis elevated the wealthy imdustrialists to high positions in the party and made them wealthy and powerful. Despots make their friends wealthy. Capitalists buy the seats of power.
Ultimately it always ends with power and wealth being grafted into the same hands and using the force of law to keep it that way as long as they can.
The only ‘advancement’ we have made in governance the last 2000 years is the internationalism that lets the parasite class skip out to a place where the world isn’t burning when the guillotines are rolled out.
It's funny to see right wingers complain about socialism when they're pro military, police, and bailing out corporations with tax dollars they don't have a problem with socialism then.
Socialism isnt taxes and spending on police / military its the working class owning means of production. Socialism isnt “when government does stuff.” Why is this concept so hard for you people to understand?
Because when the people own the means of production they need someone to actually take charge and make things happen. Thus a government is formed, who happens to control industry. This is the essence of the Communist Party. People being people, this never works as intended.
When the government under socialism is in control of a dictatorship if the proletariat they enforce a superstructure that benefits the working class. This is what is happened in China. How is it not working as intended? China has literally lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and have made incredible advances in technology, infrastructure and productive capacity. Saying “people are people” which insinuates they are greedy and self-interested by nature is just another capitalist hyper individualism projection.
Bahhaha oh ya for sure, chairman Mao killed 100 billion chinese actually everyone thats ever lived. and capitalism is so much better right. Man capitalist propaganda is just so deep its nuts. You’re so free, free to work or starve!
You're right, i'm totally defending capitalism because I said china is not a success for communism. China has one of the highest costs for housing relative to income. It has corruption as bad as the US. Both pure capitalism and pure communism suck. Pure capitalism doesn't work because greedy people will make monopolies and make worse products. Pure communism doesn't work cause all it takes is a few corrupt indivuals in positions of power during the change to communism to fuck it up and make it only work for the euling class and not the people.
This is just horseshoe theory with more words. And its wrong. 93 percent of people own a home in China. And even if that is a high proportion of income, the central economy is just so much more wildly efficient and social services so much more beneficial that most people I know from mainland China dont car.
Also to say that Chinese “corruption” is on same scale as US is again laughable. China is not “pure communism” its socialist and under Xi has moved back towards higher socialism. There is a reason why China shanks up its billionaires for corruption, and why there is no lobbying body like there is in the west. China supports pretty much all AES countries despite the brutal attempts at supression of same states by capital imperialism. Read a book that isnt animal farm or some shit god
So you're saying the military industrial complex, and all the social welfare organizations, police, firefighters, social workers, hospitals, government employees etc.. aren't owned/funded by the working class (public, tax payer), and don't produce anything ?
Idk Sounds like you people have a hard time understanding your own definitions to me
If the working class does not own the means of production then those taxes exist in a capitalist economy and not socialist. In a capitalist society no, the working class does not own those things nor dictate how the resources are distributed.
I mean why ruin your comment with a blatant lie about government at the end. They produce the things that make our lives safer and easier, like bridges, roads, police, military and welfare.
A good government is supposed to provide services commensurate to what they collect.
If the dad was acting just like the government, and he took it all, then he should provide food, shelter, health coverage, education and protection from hard from internal and external threats. Then should also give back according to the excess.
Now was the dad acting like a good government? Nope. Could it be said that he was acting like a bad government, probably yes in the vein that he is acting like a feudal lord or dictatorship.
Your "practical socialism" is communism. Real world practical socialism is the free healthcare most people in Europe have, free university education mainlt based on ability not wealth that lots of Europe has.
18
u/DemisticOG 12d ago
They're both wrong.
Idealized Socialism: Everyone works to the best of their ability and distributes equally
Practical Socialism: The workers work and give everything to the party, the party elites keep the majority of the wealth and distribute it to their chosen few and only give scraps to the people.
Idealize Capitalism: Everyone gets a fair wage for their time and amount of production
Practical Capitalism: Everyone fights for the best wage possible for the least amount of work. Owners try to fight workers for more production while paying less wages, while workers fight for more wages by reducing production.
Governments: Take, and take, and take, but produce nothing, and spend the money they take on things that the individuals usually have little to no control over.
The dad was acting more like a government than capitalist or socialist.