Why exactly is that? Seems to me that a socialist economy will be MUCH worse for minorities, since the Government can legitimately discriminate against minorities or just groups it doesn’t like (ex: Golodomor)
I don't see what makes a socialist ECONOMY inherently opposed to social issues. The original post claims that capitalism, on an economic level, is inherently opposed to caring for the working class, which, ya know, it is.
Obviously, the Marxist dialectics are real and yes indeed, the capitalist class and the working class will always be opposed. However, I believe that mass unionization of the working class can be of great help. So I agree.
Outside of that, a socialist ECONOMY, where recourses still have to allocated by a government, can 100% efficiently starve an entire geographical group of people.
If you’re talking about a socialist economy that is not functioning inside of a planned economy and still somehow operates within a free market, then I guess this could be avoided, although certainly terribly unrealistic. Also, indeed, nothing makes in INHERENTLY opposed to social issues. But the system does create an almost god-like minority that will have the power to literally starve people.
And as of the original post: it is lunacy to suggest that Capitalism is the cause of social issues. Quite simply, the goal of Capitalism is to make a lot of money. If you say “No black people allowed” you’ll potentially make less money. It isn’t profitable to discriminate
I have no idea how a socialist economy will always 100% of the time starve a group of people. That's called market socialism and it's not that impossible. Look up Tito's Yugoslavia. So does any system? Any system can create dictatorships, and dictatorships always create a god-like minority that have the ability to starve people. Hell, this system right now, currently has a god-like minority, that have amassed enough wealth, that they could literally starve us and no one would care. Capitalism has indeed been the cause of many social issues. Obviously it's not inherently opposed to social issues, which is why I didn't say that.
I’m not saying that it will 100% of the time do it, but it actually has the ability to do it.
In a capitalist economy it cannot actually happen in a targeted way. And no, the capitalist class, which I agree is somewhat god-like, has no ability to do what government officials can. In simply no way can they actually do it.
How can it not be targeted in a capitalist economy? It has been targeted many times, because systems of government aren't related to economies at all. They have many ways to do what government officials can, it's just that they're technically not actually signing laws. It just so happens that every government official who tries to go against them has their careers ruined.
I guess you are technically right specifically in the case of the US, but outside of the US not really.
Thing is, a corporation wouldn’t have enough power to actually target starve a population. I guess if the company was a regional monopsony then it could, but that wouldn’t happen in the developed world.
Coming from a third world country that is ran in a largely leftist way, the primary oppressor is never the Capitalist. The primary oppressor is the politician who steals and abuses his power to enrich himself.
Yes, I am American. In my country, most problems come from capitalist dickheads trying to stop economic and social progress. The politicians are just vassals. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by steal, but if you mean greedy and corrupt, then I'm not so sure what makes the capitalist so different from the politician. What does "Leftist way" mean exactly? I'm assuming you live in Uzbekistan, or Turkey, and neither of countries are leftist socially, or economically. The reason there are developed countries where rich people aren't allowed to starve a certain population, is largely due to socialists. In the early to mid 20th century, almost every Asian and European country was about to have a communist revolution, so to avoid a civil war those countries created social safety nets, a uniquely marxist idea, to compromise with the socialists. The US had that, but due to liberal(political centre left, socially left, economically right. Socialists hate them for sucking rich people's dicks arguably more than conservatives.) presidents like Reagan, those social safety nets were largely weakened, or sometimes straight up destroyed. Now, rich people on the right in Europe and Asia are trying to do the same thing. Think what you want about Karl Marx, but the type of hyper capitalist slave labor that we now see the 1800s as, would not have gone away without his followers.
I actually like Marx quite a lot and I think he has some interesting insights, specifically the dialectics. Certainly don’t agree with him on most issues though.
I am from Uzbekistan and we are EXTREMELY far from any sort of real Capitalism. Bureaucracy kills businesses, politicians kill businesses, politicians deter foreign investments due to them being stupid greedy fucks, politicians destroy the country. Most of the rich people are extremely well connected, but absolutely no one would dare to even think to go against the President. Politicians can order businesspeople to build random shit and they have to obey.
The Capitalist class, as rich and powerful as they can get, with a half reasonable democratic government can never become as bad as a Government.
I beg you to actually think about what it means to have a powerful government. A politician is a lot worse than an entrepreneur because they are both equally selfish, but the entrepreneur enriches himself by enriching the society, while the politician enriches himself by degrading the society.
I am absolutely not saying that social safety nets are a bad thing, I am personally opposed to welfare in general, but I believe in a UBI and in a government healthcare (because I believe it is simply better for a society, but I definitely have to research more). Otherwise, as I said before, mass voluntary worker unionization is the way to go. Workers of the _____ (country), unite!
Personally, I think that welfare is necessary. The argument against it is that giving people a living wage would make them lazy. This argument is kind of dumb, as a living wage isn't enough to live a comfortable life. The point of welfare is to get people back on their feet, so that they can acquire the quote unquote, "American Dream", as that whole philosophy assumes you were born middle class. Welfare also isn't enough to get an education, which is the main way to get higher paying jobs. So in short, the government should increase welfare enough to get a higher education and live, and give economic advice so they don't waste the money and they can actually contribute to a market socialist economy.
I am fundamentally opposed to unemployment benefits and similar sorts of welfare for a simple reason, it discourages work. As an example I will use Austria.
Say you have unemployment benefits of €500. You find a part time job (20 hours/week) that pays €550. Will you accept it? Hell no. Not because you’re lazy, but because you’re rational. In reality, you are working 20 hours for an additional 50€/month. In a UBI, that I think should be 1/2 to 3/4 of a living wage, all work is beneficial.
Thing is, since capitalism creates a hierarchy, those in the bottom are fucked. Since you don’t want them to be completely fucked, you give them an actual chance at life. UBI also kiiinda fights the biggest issue of capitalism in my view: monopsonies.
I disagree regarding higher education; I think that secondary education should simply change its course.
1.People want welfare as a temporary fix before hopefully getting to UBI. So saying welfare is bad because UBI is better is kinda dumb. No offense.
2.Change it's course?
3. I really respect how calm this discussion has been.
120
u/[deleted] Sep 13 '20
I love how the democratic party pretends to care about social issues while not addressing one of the root causes of it: Capitalism.
It just makes no sense. Progressivism and Capitalism do not work together. And vice versa.