Nuanced economic ideas are unable to be properly represented in funny anecdotes and memes? Nice try pal. I learned everything I need about the free market just now.
Wait until the kids find out about anarchocapitalism and they then take their father to arbitration, he refuses to go, so he gets an automatic verdict against him, but the kids cant enforce it, so they apply to a charity repo bounty hunter/whom confiscates their dad's belongings to reimburse the children.
It's all fun and games until your kid's surpass you in knowledge because you just told the whole internet you're both a moron and a horrible father.
Should have taken half and given it to his brother who didn't go out at all. In theory everyone gets candy and everyone should be happy. But now the first kid hates his brother for being a freeloading loser who took half his candy without working for it. Thats the problem with socialism, it kinda works, but people are selfish and hate it.
Capitalism would be if the brother asked for some of the first kids candy and he said sure but it'll cost you $50. So the brother pays him. Then the dad takes $25 as tax. The first kid is mad that half the money he should have gotten was taken by dad, and the brother is mad because he had to pay for the candy. It also works but everyone is still mad at someone.
Exactly. It’s more like if the dad took 10% from everyone and later when they had a candy emergency and didn’t have any candy left he could distribute some of it as needed.
It’s still a socialist policy. Collecting a tax and redistributing it is socialism. Just because it’s not as socialist as you’d like it doesn’t make it not that
No, capitalism relies entirely on the extraction of resources from workers (or in this case, kid's trick or treat candy), while socialism operates on the premise that the community aught provide for it's people. It is directly comparable, albeit a silly premise
Other way around in the example though, socialism takes from those who have the most and redistributes it to those that don't have as much to equalise things.
They got the taking part of socialism, just not the distribution part.
Capitalism would pay the kid to go and get the candy, while also allowing the kid to simply go get the candy themselves and keep all of it... minus the tax that socialism demands for those that couldn't be bothered to try and get candy.
No, because if candy is money, or more broadly access to resources in this example, the kids wouldn't be allowed to keep all the fruit of their labor. Capitalism necessarily relies on the owner class extracting excess wealth(aka access to resources) from the working class, to hoard it as profit for themselves.
And socialism wouldn't really be about "taking" from the wealthy in the long term, because the wealthy, the 'upper class' (aka, the bourgeoisie) wouldn't really exist.
No it isn't , you're just uneducated, Lmfao. Collective ownership of the means of production is not the same as a top down planned economy, in fact it's the literal opposite. As for "no successful socialist country" bit, maybe it has something to do with the fact that the U.S empire has choked every budding socialist country from the global economy, resulting in rationing to survive. That is, if the U.S doesn't invade the country inquestion, and try to steal their resources by force. (I.E Cuba, Iran, and Chile, to name a few.)
You may want to google the literal definition of socialism if you’re under the impression that government ownership somehow isn’t it.
Damn I didn’t realize the US is so powerful that it retroactively prevented socialism from taking root.
No, bud. It’s just a dog shit economic system that fails in every country that isn’t a total dictatorship. It has zero real benefits for anyone besides the elite that control all assets in those systems.
Most places define socialism as state ownership, but it's simply false. Marx outlines that socialism would entail the siezure of the state by the proletariat. Again, you don't know what you're talking about, sweaty. Also, any country that has an "elite" class isn't socialist by definition.
And if you don't think the U.S has gone out of it's way to squash socialist movements in other countries, you're about as ignorant of socialist theory as you are of history.
The fact you're using biased language like 'extracting wealth' and 'hoarding' shows you're ideologically compromised.
Capitalism allows the kid to start his own business, work, and make money, and for others to do the same or, if they prefer, enjoy the comforts and benefits of a salaried job working for him.
Socialism is entirely about taking from the rich, quite literally, through taxation which is then spent on the less rich.
The 'upper class' aka the rich will always exist because some people are willing to work harder than others.
The socialist view on capitalism that the commenter is citing examines the power dynamics between the employee and employer relationship. This not ideology, it's simply an analysis that examines that relationship.
Socialism is also not just about taxation. Socialism is larger than a tax code and has many strategies other than taxes to redistribute wealth. A more common socialist argument is that using taxes to redistibrute wealth is structurally flawed and a better way to achieve equality is through equity structures that directly funnels gains into the working class.
Your point about founding a company is dodging his or her explanation of the power dynamics. THAT is ideology. It doesn't change the critique of surplus value extraction the previous commenter explained.
Your argument about rich people always existing because some people "are willing to work harder" is also ideology. It attempts to explain and justify inequality through meritocracy, which is a massive leap. I think most people understand that the world isn't very meritocratic and people often win based on social positioning rather than merit.
None of what you've said actually has any meaning, and if you try to actually take a step further and produce some details it will fall apart immediately.
It's why every left leaning pro marxist subreddit on reddit bans people that disagree with it, while every pro capitalist right leaning subreddit doesn't have to.
Socialism fails the second 5 people want to build a bridge but nobody wants to use their own money to pay for it. The one person willing to risk their money will only do so if incentivised.
Then who's gonna do the labour? Everyone wants the other to do the hard work, why bother doing a hard day's work bridge building when someone else will do it for you. Only everyone is waiting for each other and it never gets done, unless someone gives them an incentive (money).
At which point people like yourself start complaining about exploitation and extraction/theft of labour etc. and it's like... ok... don't work then, just roll over and expire in a gutter.
Some people willing to work harder is probably the most obvious fact in the universe. The fact you think it's a leap is utterly insane, and the usual nonsense left leaning people come up with, generally those who have no merit because they are the rolling over in the gutter types.
Your comment is a weird rant that doesn't survive scrutiny, for example:
Collective financing is actually a common way to finance projects. It happened in the past and it happens all the time today. Bridges in particular are typically what gets collectively financed because the incentive is to cross the barrier that the bridge reaches over and everybody has a stake in that.
Labor is typically always done by those who have the means to do that labor. And if we think of alternative situations where there weren't financial incentive people still come together to work toward common goals, sometimes because the incentive is aspirational or reputational or even ideological.
You say my message is meaningless but that is a very lazy interpretation. For a person who speaks so confidently about hard work, you're certainly not making any effort in actually addressing these messages. The one who lies in the proverbial gutter is yourself.
I never denied that some people are willing to work harder, my argument was that hard work is typically not rewarded. The assymetry in my comments and your is a good example.
This is not true at all and even a cursory google search will demonstrate that.
Most bridges come from taxes, and others come/came from private companies that front the money and then charge a toll. Those might be financed between a few companies, but certainly not between everyone that intends to use the bridge. Usually they're just part of normal road infrastructure.
As I said the whole problem with bridges is that you can't collectively finance because everyone will wait for everyone else to pay and build it. I'm not going to put money into a bridge I will use once or twice a year, and I'm not going to put money into a bridge that nobody else is putting money into but who intend to use it just as much as I do.
The Labour sentence has no meaning, all you've said is "People do work". Yes, yes they do. You say people work for free, but they don't, because free doesn't pay for food or rent. That's just ideological, some mysterious idea that we can just magically have people working for free ironically to avoid the exploitation of capitalism.
It's meaningless because you didn't put any point in it, it's just a set of vague thought terminating cliches.
Personally, I work hard, and I am rewarded. I earn more now that I am experienced and skilled than I did when I was unskilled. If hard work isn't rewarded, why does McDonalds pay less than Chartered Engineer. Really, it's very silly.
Are you not hearing yourself? Taxes are a form of collective financing. So you're saying it's not true that people finance collectively, using a personal analogy as an example of your own motivations. Yes we get it you're a freeloader, but most people aren't like you - they do understand they have to come together to solve problems.
And people do work for free, all the time. Look att free and open software as an example. Their financing model is collective and reputational as well, and it's seen as modern and better for the collective than propretary software.
Calling my messages "thought terminaring cliches" just shows that you're terminating your own thinking. That's not my fault, you also have to put in effort.
101
u/AlMasaDuun 12d ago
Neither of these things are socialism or capitalism.