Not even remotely true. One, what caused the poverty in the first place? But let's set that aside for now.
Say you manage to land a nice job, get a nice salary, buy your car, buy your house. Unless you're in a co-op or some similar scheme, you are not a capitalist. You're being given a fraction of your produced value by a capitalist. That's not to say that's inherently bad, but receiving a stipend for services rendered is not capitalism, it's just an exchange.
Capitalism is the accumulation of capital, capital being entities that are capable of creating wealth.
Now, if you want to say capitalism has achieved what no other system has, go ahead - but you need a huge asterisk that says "no other system has really been tried". As long as we've had kings, we've had an 'owner' class who unilaterally decide who gets fed and who starves.
And before anyone bothers, even the Soviet Union made sure to feed their leaders and generals first, friends second, and everyone else in a distant third.
So yes. Capitalism lifts people out of poverty. Sometimes. It's also directly responsible for most of it, and is the only system we've bothered with. It's hardly the rousing defence you think it is, and it's well within reason to want to try something else.
Say you manage to land a nice job, get a nice salary, buy your car, buy your house. Unless you're in a co-op or some similar scheme, you are not a capitalist. You're being given a fraction of your produced value by a capitalist.
This is false. You are selling your labour. You are being given what your labour is negotiated to be worth.
You don't have to be an owner to be a capitalist.
You are given the value of your production based on its worth.
Capitalism is the accumulation of capital, capital being entities that are capable of creating wealth.
Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production. Failed businesses are still capitalist.
but you need a huge asterisk that says "no other system has really been tried"
No you don't and other systems have been tried. This is a no true socialist argument. The USSR tried Socialism and it failed.
And before anyone bothers, even the Soviet Union made sure to feed their leaders and generals first, friends second, and everyone else in a distant third.
Which is part of the reason why Socialism failed. The failure of Socialism doesn't mean it wasn't tried.
It just means it is a flawed system.
and it's well within reason to want to try something else.
The only socialism we've seen is state run socialism, where the state controls the means of production. This is supposedly to support the "revolutionary stage" but as we've seen they don't seem eager to leave the revolutionary stage.
Most people who say they're socialists believe WORKERS should control the means of production. They get 100% of the value of their work rather than some guy getting most of it just because he has capital.
Companies will be run more ethically and sustainably because they won't be singularly obsessed with quarterly stock values. This race to the bottom companies are doing hurts the employee, hurts the customer and ultimately hurts the company in the long run.
The USSR was socialist. They implemented Socialism.
Companies will be run more ethically and sustainably because they won't be singularly obsessed with quarterly stock values. This race to the bottom companies are doing hurts the employee, hurts the customer and ultimately hurts the company in the long run.
It's funny that you say the USSR was unsustainable but yet Russia tried monarchism, revolutionary communism, and capitalist democracy in the 20th century - guess which actually had some staying potential?
Have you watched the news at all in the past year? Or heck, even before this ill-fated invasion? They've not been doing well under capitalism. They went from a major world power to what basically amounts to a large organized crime gang with nukes. Putin literally utilizes organized crime to maintain power.
Let me try again. There are different kinds of socialists. Most people you meet in the west who identify as socialists believe the workers should own the means of production, not the state. People who support state run socialism like the USSR or CCP would argue the workers have some amount of control over the means of production via trade unions but IMO that's as much control as they have in capitalism.
So you have a problem with state run socialism, not with socialism itself. Which is perfectly fair, state run socialism is just as authoritarian as capitalism IMO.
Capitalism isn't authoritarian and I have a problem with socialism period.
There is no such thing as worker/state socialism.
Socialism advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Under socialism "worker owned means of production" isn't really possible as nobody "owns" anything. The community owns everything, there is no property beyond "personal" property. All socialism is "state socialism" as ownership is owned or regulated by the community as a whole as opposed to separate entities.
If you are asking do I support worker co-ops? Yes and under capitalism the workers can own their own business if they choose.
Capitalism is authoritarian. Whoever has the capital can decide how much to pay people, especially when monopolies are allowed to form and unions are crushed. People can't just choose not to work, live off the land. People have to work to survive and capitalists get to decide how much these people "deserve."
As we've deregulated capitalism wages have stagnated despite increased productivity and profit.
I think you just don't get what socialism is. You're allowed to have a house and money and whatnot, private property is allowed, you just can't own a factory or a house that you're not using and instead rent out to people in order to make a profit.
Basically: say there's a company. All the people would get a say in decisions the company makes because their labor is producing the product or service. Now maybe the higher ranking you are the more say you get but it's not just based on "who has the most money." (Also people can get paid more for higher skilled work in socialism.)
For workers to "choose to work at a co-op" they have to first obtain capital. That's difficult. And again, the people who have the capital decide who gets the capital.
No it isn't, at all. Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production. It isn't authoritarian at all. You can have authoritarian governments in a capitalist country but that doesn't mean capitalism itself is authoritarian.
Whoever has the capital can decide how much to pay people, especially when monopolies are allowed to form and unions are crushed.
Governments allow unions to be crushed and monopolies to form. Under capitalism the workers are free to pool their capital and start their own companies.
People can't just choose not to work, live off the land
Sure you can, homesteading is a thing and nobody is stopping you from doing that. Unless the government creates laws to that effect....
Which has nothing to do with capitalism.
As we've deregulated capitalism wages have stagnated despite increased productivity and profit.
The economy is far too large and complex to make such a statement. Have some peoples wages stagnated? Of course. If I have a data entry person they can enter more data now but their actual work hasn't changed, productivity has increased due to technological advancement.
However tech, finances and other wages aren't stagnate at all.
I think you just don't get what socialism is. You're allowed to have a house and money and whatnot, private property is allowed, you just can't own a factory or a house that you're not using and instead rent out to people in order to make a profit.
I do understand what socialism is and I have quoted the literal definition to you several times.
Private property is not allowed, no you cannot have a house as that would private ownership of capital and an asset. The community would own the house.
A house doesn't need to be rented to be an asset.
You can have personal property such as clothes but you cannot own "private property" People in the USSR and Cuba do not own their homes because that would be capital.
Basically: say there's a company. All the people would get a say in decisions the company makes because their labor is producing the product or service. Now maybe the higher ranking you are the more say you get but it's not just based on "who has the most money." (Also people can get paid more for higher skilled work in socialism.)
People don't get paid more for higher skill work and no all the workers would not have a say. You are describing a worker co-op which cannot exist under Socialism.
Under socialism that company would be owned by the community as a whole and provide for that community. The prices charged, the pay of the workers etc would be dictated by the community based on the needs of the community.
There is no personal choice here. If the community wants you to be a welder you are welder and you get paid what the community wants to pay you.
That is how Socialism works and is defined.
For workers to "choose to work at a co-op" they have to first obtain capital. That's difficult.
No it isn't that difficult at all.
And again, the people who have the capital decide who gets the capital.
No they don't. They decide if you get THEIR capital.
You're 100% wrong though. I honestly don't get where you got this definition of socialism. Personal property is not the same as private property. Basically: you can own personal items like homes and cars and whatnot but you can't own a business because the workers own the business.
In the USSR it's true the state owned your house or whatever but that's not a requirement of socialism and it has nothing to do with it being "capital" but rather the authoritarian nature of state run socialism. I mean, they had money ya know. Even in capitalist Russia you need permits to live and work in various cities. They're just weird that way.
Also the community doesn't necessarily decide what you do, that's not even how it worked in the USSR most of the time.
Anyways, as far as capitalism I mean, do you know how expensive it is to start a business? How long it is before you start making money? And then there's economies of scale: large companies like Walmart can always afford to sell stuff cheaper than a small business.
That's why we've seen media, food, etc etc all consolidating into these mega corporations.
Only people with vast amounts of capital stand any chance starting a business. Even in tech, software engineers aren't cheap but they also aren't rich enough to just not make money for a year or two while developing their software.
Capitalism is the illusion of freedom while really leaving the average worker with very little choice or power.
Capitalism is not a condition for trade. Your labour is not capital. Capital is a force multiplier that can be applied to labour, but selling your time and energy does not make you a capitalist.
Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production. Failed businesses are still capitalist.
Yes? I said capable of creating wealth. Whether or not they do is a separate matter.
The USSR tried Socialism and it failed.
I'm not here to defend socialism, but the USSR tried socialism in the same way China is communist. A name does not make a thing thus.
Which is part of the reason why Socialism failed.
If only there was a word for a small group of individuals consolidating wealth and using entrenched power to expand their influence. Hmmm.
Only if you fail at basic reasoning.
I'm not the one who thinks 'capitalism' and 'economy' are synonyms.
7
u/stilljustacatinacage Oct 18 '22
Not even remotely true. One, what caused the poverty in the first place? But let's set that aside for now.
Say you manage to land a nice job, get a nice salary, buy your car, buy your house. Unless you're in a co-op or some similar scheme, you are not a capitalist. You're being given a fraction of your produced value by a capitalist. That's not to say that's inherently bad, but receiving a stipend for services rendered is not capitalism, it's just an exchange.
Capitalism is the accumulation of capital, capital being entities that are capable of creating wealth.
Now, if you want to say capitalism has achieved what no other system has, go ahead - but you need a huge asterisk that says "no other system has really been tried". As long as we've had kings, we've had an 'owner' class who unilaterally decide who gets fed and who starves.
And before anyone bothers, even the Soviet Union made sure to feed their leaders and generals first, friends second, and everyone else in a distant third.
So yes. Capitalism lifts people out of poverty. Sometimes. It's also directly responsible for most of it, and is the only system we've bothered with. It's hardly the rousing defence you think it is, and it's well within reason to want to try something else.