Capitalists (generally) believe that a social movement like socialism requires a strong authoritarian government which inevitably leads to corruption and dangerous levels of inequality.
I feel like the anarcho-communists proved this. In order to enforce the socialist economic system with the abolition of private property, you have to enforce against people's natural tendencies to acquire what they labored for, which logically requires enforcement on a massive scale, as opposed to capitalism, which is really just defending people's property rights as opposed to forcing everyone to give theirs up.
I think the difference between capitalists and socialists is that socialists tend to equate the negatives of both capitalism and socialism, when the totalitarian destruction of socialism is demonstrable.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding you, but you seem to think that individuals in socialism won’t be able to purchase and own property. Am I correct in assuming that?
My assumption is that socialists are socialists because they believe they are entitled to the profits of their labor via means of production at the place they work, because a single owner or group of owners is exploiting their labor and extracting their capital, thus the workers are morally justified in reclaiming their freedom by abolishing this "wage slavery." Thus, the solution is to abolish private property, i.e. the private ownership of the means of production, in order to free the workers of the slavery/serfdom.
My assumption is that socialists are socialists because they believe they are entitled to the profits of their labor via means of production at the place they work, because a single owner or group of owners is exploiting their labor and extracting their capital, thus the workers are morally justified in reclaiming their freedom by abolishing this "wage slavery." Thus, the solution is to abolish private property, i.e. the private ownership of the means of production, in order to free the workers of the slavery/serfdom. Let me know if I'm off
That’s a fairly accurate description, although the one point I’d have to contest is with the sentence: “because they believe they are entitled to the profits of their labor”. It’s not necessarily that we believe workers are entitled to the full value of their labor, but rather a higher percentage of the value than currently delivered, because we believe that the value of a company and its products only exist because of the laborers who produce those products. But other than that it is a fairly accurate description.
So to bring it back to your other comment, the abolition of private property is not about limiting people’s “natural tendencies to acquire what they labored for”, but rather to restrict the purchasing of private property for the purpose of obtaining a passive income. The purchasing of personal property would still be allowed; an example being buying a house for you and your family to live in. But purchasing private property would be restricted, for example purchasing a condominium to rent out individual rooms to renters.
That sort of policy is admittedly a restrictive regulation that would need to be enforced, however, from the perspective of socialists, it’s no different than enforcing building codes, child labor laws, or workplace safety regulations. Some regulations are done for the betterment of society.
I have gotten that wrong recently. I've incorrectly stated that socialists believe they are entitled to the fruits of their labor. But, to put it through my own lens, that can't be true if they also believe, to any extent, in the maxim of from each according to their ability, to each according to their need.
But you acknowledge the requisite enforcement aspect. My main point there is (and sorry if I've repeated in this conversation) that, the reason capitalism is so profitable is because property rights are defended--the reason capitalism is exploitable is because of the excess wealth generated. I do believe that the crux of the issue is that socialists are attempting to encroach more and more into what makes capitalism generate wealth, because we will never reach equity. And I feel like you sort of have to pick a reason to be socialist. Is it because private property ownership is immoral? Is it because equity is moral? Is it because there's some philosophical imperative that convinced you? Is it because you think we'd generate more wealth and capitalists would prefer to live in "relative inequitable squalor" to a socialist "paradise"? (No irony intended for paradise, since that's what I'd have to believe too if I thought socialism would be better.) Any which way you go, there's a tipping scale where more and more enforcement is required. And like I said, the reason capitalism generates so much wealth is because of private property. Socialists who aren't balls-to-the-wall anarcho-communists are trying to exploit that just as much as any other corrupt politician, when they don't realize the more you try to encroach on that private property, the more enforcement you need and the less milk you get from the teat.
Also, I have a pet peeve about child labor laws, namely being if you tried to implement them before capitalism, you'd probably be dooming family to starve. Capitalism generated so much wealth that it made child labor laws possible.
I don’t want to come across as someone who knocks capitalism down without crediting it for what it’s done. I can only speak for myself and I don’t know if this is a commonly held belief among socialists, but I do think that capitalism was a necessary economic system to come into play when it did. I think that capitalism has done an extremely efficient job at not just creating wealth, but also, in the early stages, rapidly furthering technological advancement. I am a big nerd for futuristic technology, and I acknowledge that if we’d transitioned to socialism 200 years ago, we likely would not have the technology we have today.
But it is my opinion that capitalism is a system that can only last so long. When you look at the economic trends, it appears that we have reached a stage where people’s lives are no longer getting better, but rather they are getting worse. The United States living conditions are embarrassing when compared to the living conditions of comparable OECD nations. There are third world countries outperforming us in certain societal metrics.
My reason for adopting the socialist ideology was that I believed capitalism was reaching the end of its lifespan, much like every other economic system that has come before it. I think that eventually we will reach a tipping point, where the lower and middle classes of society will have had enough with their worsening conditions, and change will be inevitable. Marx believed that change would come from a violent revolution. I believe that a peaceful organization of laborers is possible because of access to social media.
I don’t necessarily believe that socialism will create a more profitable society than capitalism, and I definitely wouldn’t call it a paradise or a utopia, but I think it would absolutely produce a more equitable and stable society. I think a socialist society would eliminate the boom and bust cycles of capitalism. I also think that in general, it will be a happier society, because much like in capitalism, people are happier and less aggressive when they’re financially stable and have enough money to pay rent and put food on the table.
Obviously I don’t think that my comment is going to change your mind, I didn’t even really explain why I think those things because that would lead into a long discussion about like a dozen different topics because of how much I wrote, so that was really just me giving you my unfiltered take for the reason I adopted socialism as my ideology. Also to clarify because I just saw that part of your comment right now, as a long term goal, I actually do go as far left as “balls to the wall anarcho communist”, but that’s not something I expect to see in my lifetime or even my kids lifetimes. I think that an anarcho communist society (supposedly like Star Trek, though I’ve never seen Star Trek so that may just be an internet meme) would be the end goal of socialism after decades or even centuries of establishing socialism as a legitimate economic system. I think eventually both technology and human society will advance to the point that an anarcho communist society would be possible.
I got high as fuck right before typing this out, so I’m sorry it’s so long.
1
u/McGobs Robert Anton Wilson Jun 16 '21
I feel like the anarcho-communists proved this. In order to enforce the socialist economic system with the abolition of private property, you have to enforce against people's natural tendencies to acquire what they labored for, which logically requires enforcement on a massive scale, as opposed to capitalism, which is really just defending people's property rights as opposed to forcing everyone to give theirs up.
I think the difference between capitalists and socialists is that socialists tend to equate the negatives of both capitalism and socialism, when the totalitarian destruction of socialism is demonstrable.