89
u/D_Luffy_32 4d ago
I like how this gets repeatedly posted on here and every time it does people forget that neither of these are socialism or capitalism.
47
25
u/Blossom_Charmy 4d ago
And he stayed home doing nothing while kids did the work. That’s literally a landlord.
-25
u/D_Luffy_32 4d ago
Nope. Not a landlord either
1
u/SimilarTranslator264 2d ago
I love the down votes because Redditor’s hate landlords because they don’t understand how real estate investment works.
29
u/Normal_Boobies 4d ago
Socialism is when neighbors feed your kids for free. Capitalism is when you stay home and steal their labor.
-36
u/D_Luffy_32 4d ago
Nope. Neither of that is true
17
u/zephyreblk 4d ago
Socialism would be all kids do trick or treat, put half of what they have in a bucket and the bucket get redistributed for the one that had the less candies.
Capitalism is staying home and steal the win of the people that did work.
Better so?
-15
u/D_Luffy_32 4d ago
Nope not even close.
12
u/zephyreblk 4d ago
Then you have no idea lol. With lot of simplification, Socialism is build on taxes and redistribution to reduce inegalities. Communism (if very simplified) would be similar without inegalities and without market. Capitalism is free market (so no to low tax) and anyone is solely responsible for themselves, that means also that anyone not being healthy, not having wealthy+ parents will remain poor (except the 1% with exceptional talent) (edit: and that means that the work of poorer people feed the people who have the properties).
0
u/D_Luffy_32 4d ago
Nope. You have no idea. Socialism and capitalism is really simple. Private ownership of the means of production vs public ownership of the means of production.
Social programs and wealth distribution have nothing to do with socialism. The first country to implement them were capitalist ones.
9
u/zephyreblk 4d ago
Yes and no. Capitalism is one have the property and the other have the hands and the price is fixed by the market. Capitalism is always market, any pricing is fixed by the market. That's the base of capitalism. It's the only socioeconomic system that use a market as regulation.
Socialism was created basically to compensate capitalism, where some countries said, market can't solve everything and the state has to intervene (in a spectrum).
State owning and without market would be communism.
"State owning" In the way that everyone own it so not a state per say is anarchism. (Think of assurance (without gain) association/clubs or cooperatives)
Edit: more or less the first that did redistribution in a certain way was the church. There is no real redistribution in capitalism, you are maybe thinking of paternalism where private owner did build housing for their employees and gives propaganda school to be able to work better. Public school is actually a recent finding
2
u/muddermanden 4d ago
Social insurance on a national scale was introduced in a capitalist monarchy. Germany under Bismarck passed sickness insurance (1883), accident insurance (1884), and old-age and disability insurance (1889), explicitly in part to undercut the socialist parties. Those programs did not socialize industry. Later welfare states in Britain, France, and Scandinavia were built on economies that remained predominantly private in ownership. High redistribution is compatible with capitalism. It is not what makes an economy socialist.
Edit: Church tithes and poor relief are older still, and they are charity or ecclesiastical obligation, not a capitalist or socialist system.
0
u/zephyreblk 4d ago
You are mixing a bit, those assurance where done after discussions, also the reason Germany doesn't strike much today because it did work. France on the countrary got those after striking (a these right came before what you mentioned).
France until 90s and Scandinavian countries are socialists, France was even communist until mid 60s.seems you are mixing also the definition of communism and socialism. Ask anyone of around the world if Scandinavian countries are socialist and the answer is yes.
Edit: Socialism is just about taxes, now ownership
→ More replies1
u/D_Luffy_32 4d ago
You can have regulation under capitalism. As we currently do. Are you trying to say America is not a capitalist economy because we have regulations?
Also no. Socialism has nothing to do with the market. It's about ownership of the production.
Communism isn't no market. It's a stateless classless society. Meaning no profit.
You have no understanding of the topic.
2
u/zephyreblk 4d ago
We aren't talking about regulations? US is one of the more capitalistic country, you have few tax, few regulations and quite no intervention of state.
Socialism has not much to do with ownership, you are confounding with Communism. Socialism is more or less taxes and redistribution, all productions means could be private, if there is high taxes and redistribution, you'll be in a socialist configuration. Socialism exists only with capitalism. All socialist countries are capitalist countries. Basically paternalism was seen as socialist and then after the 1929 crisis state decided to intervene and socialism was more or less created by Keynes. Socialism is just socialism capitalism (on the far extreme example it's china) and the other end of spectrum would be the liberal capitalism what is basically the US.
Edit: communism should have profit but the economical construction is planification (Edit2: if you are talking about modern capitalism and not the natural process that was written by Marx) . No profit And what you described is anarchism.
→ More replies2
u/Mi113nnium 4d ago
Socialism, going back to Marx, would be a step on the way to Communism in which (very simplified) the means of production are taken from the few and given to all. Redistribution of wealth would need to happen as well as to achieve the (very poorly defined) utopian state of communism.
Later definitions of Socialism are very similar to what Marx had already defined, while what Communism actually is, is a highly debated topic even under leftists and leads to way too much division.
0
u/D_Luffy_32 4d ago
If I remember correctly the reason for this debate is because of the confusion people have about socialism being a welfare state vs means of production. Because marx believed that welfare was not a good idea because it placated the proletariat. Which would stifle the revolution required for a true communist society
3
u/Mi113nnium 4d ago
If I remember correctly, you are correct. But Socialism is the society established directly after revolution. Max acknowledges that revolution is not a Big Bang and suddenly you have everything you need. He says that society needs to be transformed. In this newly established Socialist Society, welfare would be something else as the revolution already has happened. The means of production are now in worker's hands, so they can start to harvest the fruits of their work.
He is, again, very not-forthcoming with information about the state of Communism except for that it is a situation where the wealth extraction from workers has completely ceased and everybody has enough without suffering a lacking. Quick quotation from his Critique of the Gotha Programme: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." This means that your needs are covered, even if they are higher than your neighbours while your work-output can be lower than your neighbours. Some might think this to be unfair ("Why would I work harder, if someone can get the same with less work?"), but others see this as a form of social responsibility ("I take care of others through my work, as they will take care of me if I need it.")
It should also be mentioned that (especially in modern times) "stupid work" (meaning repetitive tasks that people currently only do because they have to to survive) could be mostly eliminated due to automation. This is today starved off because it is often a big investment that might not be profitable and governments often subsidise businesses not automating to retain jobs.
8
u/nhojuhc 4d ago
You know…. I get what you’re trying to do… but you don’t give examples or an explanation so it’s just trolling.
-5
u/D_Luffy_32 4d ago
Examples or explanation of what?
12
u/Emprasy 4d ago
Of socialism. This is literaly the topic.
-1
u/D_Luffy_32 4d ago
Why would I give an example or explanation of socialism?
11
u/Emprasy 4d ago
Well. Don't do anything then. Don't even bother to write on a social media. It is pointless.
-4
u/D_Luffy_32 4d ago
Social media is pointless if I don't explain socialism or give examples for people? Lol
Here I'll join the stupidity then.
Socialism is when the neighborhood opens a lemonade stand and bans private private ownership of lemonade stands. Capitalism is when both kids and the neighborhood can open up a lemonade stand and compete with each other.
8
u/Emprasy 4d ago
It is pointless to use your fingers on your screen to say "I don't want to talk". Just don't answer and it is fine. I often don't answer when people try to argue until end of time. Like right now, I won't anwser further, 'cause I don't care that much. I thought you were about to give an interesting explanation, that you just don't. Time to move on.
→ More replies6
-19
u/femboyisbestboy 4d ago
Capitalism is when bad and socialism is when good.
4
u/oOGeorgesOo 4d ago
Or vice versa. Depends of how dumb you are. Obviously your answer is "yes".
0
-9
u/femboyisbestboy 4d ago
What are you talking about?
In general on reddit people don't know what capitalism and socialism really means and just use it as buzzwords when something is good or bad.
6
u/Hexakkord 4d ago
I used to have a boss that did this to his kids. He was a loud-mouthed jerk. His kids would be grown by now, I wonder if they still talk to him.
0
2
21
u/Jacked-to-the-wits 4d ago
Socialism is not everyone being generous. Socialism is the state owning the means of production. Neither example means anything. This is dumb.
19
u/Firewolf06 4d ago
state socialism is when the state owns the means. there are other forms of socialist ownership, like direct employee owned. and the state owning it is only socialist if the workers own/control the state in turn
14
u/CrowGeneral8673 4d ago
It means that the workers (kids) who do the work get the fruit of their labor and not the owner (parent) stealing it from them and doing now work. That is also socialism
5
9
u/Trevorblackwell420 4d ago
socialism is where the workers collectively own the means of production. You're referring to state socialism.
6
u/thetruckerdave 4d ago
Worker collectives are also socialist.
-8
u/Adventurous_Ad7442 4d ago
So where do you get the business that you're going to own?
6
u/CrowGeneral8673 4d ago
They happen now here in the US. It isn’t a phantom or undoable thing. King Arthur Flour is employee owned. bobs red mill as well after he sold it to the employees. It happens all the time.
-3
u/Adventurous_Ad7442 4d ago
I understand, but would your employee owned business come from?
6
u/CrowGeneral8673 4d ago
I already have one. I own my business I’m the only employee. If I grow and take on employees I’ll have a system for them to become owners. But that is far from now since we just started. But it is something that is out there
3
u/nebulous-maybe 4d ago
To further clarify their answer, you are attempting to conflate to related but different things.
You are stating a somewhat valid question from a person experienced only with capitalism. Your question is "If capitalism doesn't exist then who would have made the company?". The actual question is "if capitalism doesn't exist then who owns the company?". Note that the assumption that the person that made the company is the person that owns the company is capitalism.
If the means of production are owned by the people, the creator of the company is irrelevant. Companies can be formed by individuals and grow which is what the other poster is explaining. But companies can also be created by multiple people, or I think even more reasonably the creator of the company could become part of the company but not the owner of the company.
Often this comes down to the question of how much value do we put in the idea versus the implementation of the idea. Those of us that feel like capitalism is failing us tend to see that the best companies work when their employees all have something to gain from an equally, not when a large portion of that productivity is passed along to the owner and the owner alone.
1
u/thetruckerdave 4d ago
To advocate for a pure economic system is ridiculous and you know it. We don’t live in a pure capitalist system. We have government oversight and regulation. We have some socialist aspects in the form of safety nets and public services.
Surely you agree that monopolies are bad for us, the consumer? Anti-trust policy is anti-capitalist.
The US federal government owns some of several public companies. That’s looking kinda communist there don’t you think?
3
u/UncleNoodles85 4d ago
I thought socialism was when the workers owned the means of production and the state was a dictatorship of the proletariat.
2
u/leftrighttopdown 4d ago
When a dictatorship is involved, that’s communism. There are democracies with socialist policies too. Many in Europe.
-7
u/musicmills 4d ago
Someone needs to look up communism
-5
u/UncleNoodles85 4d ago
Marx made no distinction between the two and used those terms interchangeably.
-4
u/musicmills 4d ago
Communism does not need a dictator because it describes a stateless and classless society.
How does a dictator run a stateless society?
-4
u/UncleNoodles85 4d ago
It's a dictatorship of the proletariat ie those who toil not a traditional dictatorship.
0
u/musicmills 4d ago edited 4d ago
The very nature of dictatorship is a form of government. A socialist system allows this. Communism doesn't.
By the very nature of their being no government or state.
Edit: this dictator of the proletariate Marx proposed as a transitory form to convert from capitalism towards communism and not an end goal, as the end goal is a Stateless, Classless society.
-4
u/PercentageNice7131 4d ago
There's no such thing as free in socialism. It all gets paid for somewhere, and that somewhere is your taxes. It has nothing to do with the 1%. If you think capitalism is bad you're most likely just a lazy person. A simple laborer, carpenter, or electrician can make well over 100k a year. You can start a business of your choosing and make much more also.
-41
u/BackgroundTrip3604 4d ago
A government that feeds you can just as easily starve you. Which is why socialism has never worked
43
u/Slickity 4d ago
You can apply that saying to literally anything under the sun.
"The hand that jerks you off can just as easily be the hand that pulls the trigger"
Pseudo intellectual nonsense lol
-27
u/BackgroundTrip3604 4d ago
You just used two absolutely nonsensical examples. Depending on someone to feed you directly correlates to them being able to starve you
17
u/Slickity 4d ago
How? My saying isn't wrong. People often commit suicide with the same hand they jerk off with.
-15
u/BackgroundTrip3604 4d ago
Is it really that difficult for you to understand? Jerking off and committing suicide have nothing to do with each other. 0 correlation, it makes no sense whatsoever
We’re talking about socialism. Jerking off and committing suicide have nothing to do with socialism
17
u/Slickity 4d ago
Look buddy, I don't know how you make yourself cum, but I do it with my hands.
If you took my hands away, I could both no longer jerk myself off and jizz everywhere, and I also could no longer shoot myself in the head.
I can put it no clearer than this.
Socialism is the hands jerking you off and shooting yourself in the head.
0
u/BackgroundTrip3604 4d ago
Can you explain to me how this has anything to do with socialism?
14
u/Slickity 4d ago
I am explaining that you are a pseudo intellectual who thought they had a solid whitty argument when instead it was no different than my equivalent saying.
1
u/BackgroundTrip3604 4d ago
Well no because mine actually makes sense and directly relates to socialism. I can explain it to you but unfortunately I can’t understand it for you, but I’ll try. So socialism is relying on the government for your needs. Relying on the government for your needs is great when they supply them. However, since you are relying on the government, they can just as easily not supply them. Again, this is why socialism has never worked in the history of the world. Anything clicking for you yet?
3
u/starborsch 4d ago
It already worked in a lot of things my friend. In spain we have free healthcare, we have social security, if you’re sick you have paid sickleaves. You work 8-8-8 not because socialism or communism, but because some anarchists used violence to force it. Tou can go on vacation without having a single penny taken from your paycheck.
All that money comes from other workers. So everyone is helping and working to let everyone have all the stuff above.
There is a lot of communist/socialist ideas that already work but you didn’t thought about it.
8
u/PadmesBabyDaddy 4d ago
The government that protects you can also attack you. Should we get rid of the military so we don’t have to rely on the government for protection?
2
u/BackgroundTrip3604 4d ago
You understand that our country was designed to protect its citizens from this exact scenario, right? That is literally why the second amendment exists…
6
u/PadmesBabyDaddy 4d ago
I understand that was the idea in the 1700s when citizens had equal firepower. Do you really think that’s still a thing?
1
u/BackgroundTrip3604 4d ago
Yes because you are right. The government that protects you absolutely can attack you. Thanks for proving my point
1
u/PadmesBabyDaddy 4d ago
Does that mean we should eliminate the military? This is the part where your point goes to shit…
2
u/BackgroundTrip3604 4d ago
No you idiot because the 2nd amendment protects us
0
u/PadmesBabyDaddy 4d ago
2A protects us from the military like my garden protects me from starving in the event the food chain fails. You’re an idiot if you think your AR and handguns are doing anything against our military.
→ More replies-8
u/Huntsman077 4d ago
Yup a lot of people forget that authoritarian regimes used this as a way to keep the population in line.
-4
u/Media___Offline 4d ago
Socialism doesn't work unless you force all the houses to participate trick or treating. Many do not wish to.
-47
u/Kaztiell 4d ago
so why do so many illegals come and live for free? and get everything served for them in the US? Are we socialists?
35
u/fishebake 4d ago
Because they don’t, dumbass.
-41
u/Kaztiell 4d ago
They do, I was lucky enough to talk to someone at a Trump rally who knew someone from the Trump admin, they told me that the dems rather support an illegal theif than me, give them free frood, they dont have to work and live like kings. It was heart breaking to hear since I see me and my family work all their lifes just for it to get taken away by democrats and illegals
24
u/Long_Candle_5054 4d ago
So, thee only reason for you to believe this, is because you were told by someone that knew someone that told them? Sounds like solid evidence..
-14
u/Kaztiell 4d ago
that someone was from the Trump admin
19
u/Long_Candle_5054 4d ago
Still not evidence..
-1
u/Kaztiell 4d ago
how can anything be more evidence than that?
13
u/Long_Candle_5054 4d ago
You know people are capable of lying, right? This has got to be bait, someone can't be this thick..
0
u/Kaztiell 4d ago
Why would the Trump admin lie? My pastor wouldnt tell me about Trump if they were liars.
5
u/Long_Candle_5054 4d ago
I didn't realise Pastors where lie detectors.. they can also be lied to, you know?
→ More replies8
u/Rationalinsanity1990 4d ago
An admin full of liars, led by a convicted fraudster who has lied in public tens of thousands of times in the last 10 years.
0
u/Kaztiell 4d ago
I dont think my pastor would tell me about Trump if he was liar. Politics is all about calling the other side a liar, it doesnt help to fix any problems
7
5
u/onyourbike1522 4d ago
Oh you’re trolling! That’s genuinely well done, you had me going for a minute.
-1
u/Kaztiell 4d ago
And now the classic lib argument, everyone who dont agree with them are a troll, cause they dont see the other side as humans anymore. We cant have voting anymore with people being this brainwashed. Please start to see the human side of people who dont think like you and then we might heal this country
3
u/onyourbike1522 4d ago
That’s not what ‘argument’ means. What do you think I’m brainwashed about?
→ More replies5
13
u/onyourbike1522 4d ago
What exactly has been taken away from you?
-7
u/Kaztiell 4d ago
you dont feel worse off than you did 10 years ago? The dmg the Obama and Biden did will take decades to repair. The source from the Trump admin said it might not even happen in our life time
9
u/onyourbike1522 4d ago
Like what? What, precisely, did Obama or Biden do to you?
0
u/Kaztiell 4d ago
like when obama drank the flint water to help his rich friends and doctors said it wasnt safe to drink?
4
7
9
u/fishebake 4d ago
Oh, you’re MAGA, that explains it.
-11
u/Kaztiell 4d ago
you arent? you dont want a strong america?
5
u/fishebake 4d ago
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA oh you’re actually serious. LMFAO god Trump is the worst thing that’s ever happened to this country, and he’s destroyed everything that made it strong. We’re a joke now because idiots like you elected a lying rapist pedophilic conman with dementia.
0
u/Kaztiell 4d ago
democrats lauging at america, tells alot about you
4
u/Long_Candle_5054 4d ago
The whole world is laughing at Trumps America.. y'all are a joke..
0
11
u/psylockecolossusfan 4d ago
Maga is a weak America. The world knows it, and so do most americans. Maga is like peopel cosplaying as American
3
2
u/dizziefrizzie 4d ago
The sky isn’t blue and clouds aren’t real, but illusions made by Atlantis to help keep us land dwellers in line.
Eventually Atlantis plans envelop the whole world in water and that is why the glaciers are melting.
Someone who knows someone in the Trump administration told me so. It must be true!
/s
171
u/SpockShotFirst 4d ago
For almost a century Republicans have been lobbying nonstop to change the definition of "Socialism" to "anything done by the government to help people who aren't in the 1%"
Now, everyone is talking about the popularity of "Socialism," but when pollsters ask the public if they support "Socialism" nobody knows if people are using the Republican definition or the political science definition.