683
Capitalism rule
(slrpnk.net)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Sep 2024
683 points (94.3% liked)
196
16722 readers
2455 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Literally none of these are an implication of socialism.
Some of these, like taking away all food, are explicitly anti-socialist. Just because states that acted under the name of a socialist government did many of these things, that doesn't mean that they have anything to do with socialism. That's like acting as if the current Chinese government were actually socialist instead of being a capitalist oligarchy, or like the Soviet Union under Stalin was anything but a hyper-authoritarian quasi-fascist military regime.
Socialism is expressed in socialist policies in states in Europe too and while it certain somewhat increases the tax burden on society, it alleviates the grueling effects of wage slavery and lack of access to food, as well as in especially well developed cases, allowing for greater personal expression than can be true otherwise in capitalist settings.
Claiming that having to move only happens under authoritarian regimes, completely besides the point of whether or not that is relevant to socialism in general, is in complete disregard to the constant forces exhibited by uncontrolled capitalism, forcing people to move, eat whatever cheap crap they can get and, believe it or not, experiencing how loved ones and acquaintances disappear, not due to the government taking them, but due to the for-profit society grinding them down into addiction, depression and death.
Note that in no way I wish to support any military regime or other undemocratic government. But socialism is the policy of putting the government to work to support society, by having everyone partaking in society assist in supporting those that need it. What you listed is not representative of that ideal and only serves to show the degeneracy of the governments that did so in the name of socialism.
I never understood the beef people have with taxes. How can an uncertain individual money supply be better and less anxiety inducing that knowing that you give most of your earnings away but are guaranteed certain essential things for a good quality of life?
Except of course that the tax burden falls disproportionately on the working class still, but that's another issue. In itself, taxes are amazing. Tax me hard big daddy.
I think the problem just comes from dissatisfaction with the government. If I lived in the US, I'd have my own gripes with paying taxes to be honest. Where I live I'm still not 100% satisfied with it, but not because I don't want to pay them, but because I feel like they could be used better.
The difference to me being that I feel like it's something that can be reasonably fixed here whereas people struggle with believing the same in the US. Then again, there's people who don't want to pay taxes even here, so I guess there's just a general phenomenon going on.
Part of it seems to also just be a lack of social cohesion. People feel so incredibly negative to the thought of their money going to someone they don't know personally because they don't imagine them as people to be empathetic for. I've got the advantage, if you want to call it that, to have lived in poverty, to have had health emergencies and to have required government assistance to help me achieve my goals. I've seen first hand why these systems are critical. It makes it a lot easier to feel like these taxes are going somewhere good.
Come on, socialism is an economic system where society owns means of production. That's what happened in USSR. The problem is, society cannot function without structure. There should be some representatives like secretaries. And those people have more power than others, even more, they can have near absolute power. And those people aren't the best. As a result, bad people own all society, and there's nothing to do with it. Under capitalism, if an employer is bad, workers can just quit and find another job. Under socialism, if the employer is bad, there is nothing to do because there is only one employer: the state. Capitalism is not bad, people who have lots of money are bad. But imagine exactly same people gain absolute power. That's what was in the USSR. Greedy people, who wrote anonymous letters accusing others, benefited from it. They received confiscated flats and furniture. People of power lived better than others, they had better flats, better food, better goods. They were "elite". All of them were actually higher class. And they stated they were caring for society. All their deeds were for good, they said.
I believe regulated capitalism and democracy are the best for imperfect humans. If people were ideal, any system would work flawlessly. But people are flawed, and any system giving absolute power leads to a state where bad people rule others.
You can't accept life without being owned.
Wrong. I'm no owned.
...and you're delusioned.
What happened in the Soviet Union is more complex than that. I want to emphasize that I don't support the majority of actions of the Soviet government and virtually none of the Stalin government in particular, but it is important to understand how society got where they were.
First and foremost, it is wrong to think that absolute power in a few people is absolutely necessary in this system to work. The reason that the Soviet Union fell into an authoritarian dictatorship is a result of their attempt at rectifying the old system. A strong believe specifically in Marxist-Leninism is that the only way society can move onto true and free socialism is if first, the bourgeoisie is completely and utterly removed from existence. They believe that if anyone still has a semblance of capital based superiority, that capitalism will always have a ground on which it will rise again, no matter how good their society might become. This lead to the believe that, "for now", society needs to be led with an iron fist by idealists who know what's good for it. This obviously fails once anyone with the will to abuse this system gets into a position of such power. There was no plan to get rid of them, no clear mechanism that would enforce their path towards the dissolution of this authoritarian state as was promised and finally no way out of it.
Socialism doesn't need to mean that an authoritarian government owns everything forever. If that were the case, you'd effectively be no better than under capitalism, as all that has happened is that an elite above the worker class has taken control and the worker class is forced to accept it's role in their plan. Even in the Soviet Union, one of the most famous planned economies in history, it was meant to be a temporary state just to set up a stable system and then transfer it into local worker ownership.
What has been shown to work well is at the very least the concept of a cooperative ownership where the workers own companies collectively and benefit from the profits together. While they aren't incredibly widespread, they exist even in countries like the US. Most of them are found in the agricultural sector, but you even have examples of more widespread application of the concept in companies like Mondragon in the Basque region of Spain.
The specifics of where these should ultimately go would completely blow up this conversation and there are better people you can talk about it with than me (just don't try it on hexbear), but the point, in short, is that no, Socialism doesn't imply any of those points you mentioned, but yes, attempts and supposed attempts to instate it have ended in system supporting these things. That doesn't mean that they are intrinsic to Socialism though. There are many factors that play into why it has historically failed and it serves to note that a major part that has made the development of a socialist society near-impossible, even in a good willed system, is the extreme pushback this has received from countries that were capitalist and where the elite was afraid of losing their advantage.