I don’t think it’s capitalism anymore, it’s a mess. It’s an oligarchy going towards monopolies that will own the government. Skynet from terminator 2 is where I’m eventually seeing this go
I dont think those things are acceptable regardless of the doctrine your country follows.
It's also more of a dictatorship vs functioning democracy distinction than a capitalism vs socialism distinction
The soviet union had most of the things on the list, but that's because it was a dictatorship, it was never run by the proletariat, it still had an elite and that elite was particularly nasty.
From what I gather, Cuba, while not perfect, is in a much better place in terms of human rights, and has to feed its people despite sanctions. And we have several nations still practicing capitalism that aren't dictatorships.
Of course the US conservatives have done a lot to make people conflate socialism with authoritarianism and lukewarm liberals with socialists.
Cuba is still pretty crap I'm afraid. Like with the USSR, you're not exactly fairly electing your foreman or your governor. Emma Goldman would call it state-capitalist.
The reason the old Marxist parties called themselves social-democrats, before they sold themselves out so bad that the name changed meaning, was because it was conceived that socialism would involve democracy in every facet of social life rather than just electing a parliament.
The Leninists and reformists have failed to bring about this dream, but it is a fair dream to strive towards. Class society and the state (including alleged democracies) restrain people's control over their own lives and turn us into mere order-takers content with scraps. The struggle for more than mere scraps and the struggle for self-management and autonomy are in truth the same struggle, which is the struggle for that dream.
several nations still practicing capitalism that aren't dictatorships
Most of them are 'social democracies' that are a mix of socialism and capitalism. It doesnt always have to be left vs right.
Most of them also slowly follow the US, e.g. Germany. In Germany we had like 3-4 decades after WWII, where i would say capitalism was bearable. Meaning realtively high median income, people could actually afford houses, some kind of wealth distribution (high taxes on high incomes, at least some kind of wealth tax, but on the other hand free, decent education and full subsidy students life, when you go to university and you or your parents can't( afford to support you in this time).
Then neoliberalism hit in the 90s... And we really started to fuck every social thing in Germany to become "Exportweltmeister" in the early 2000s.
The point is that people will pretend that socialism = authoritarianism, just because there were a bunch of countries claiming to be socialist in history, despite being incredibly undemocratic.
Socialism is the workers controlling society. So by definition (or at least my interpretation), none of those countries were/are socialist anyway.
It's almost like the problem is authoritarianism, not the economic system
Extremism is also the problem, because it allows economic systems to be taken to extremes, which become unbalanced and that then unbalances other systems, like the political systems, which when given the right push by a particular aspiring authoritarian can easily end up landing on authoritarianism.
The middle ground is usually the safest place to be. Socialism and capitalism are economic tools, they both have their place, for certain purpose. Extremists would tell you one is strictly, absolutely, and universally better than the other and imply that thus we should only ever use one system for everything (usually without strictly, absolutely, or universally defining what "better" actually means, because it's usually a pretty self-serving form of "better"). That is an extremist position that many capitalists take, and most of western society spent the last oh, hundred years or so believing to various degrees.
Socialized medicine is perfectly sensible, for example, and that's a hill I'm perfectly willing to die on (but because I have access to socialized medicine I probably won't have to die, and I won't be bankrupted either, hooray :P)
Socialism is not perfect, but neither is capitalism, neither is democracy, neither is pretty much anything. Perfection is a myth. There is no perfect tool, not in a workshop and not in a civilization. Some are more powerful than others. Some are more dangerous. Often the most powerful ones are the most dangerous. That doesn't mean they are bad, but it does mean we must respect them and use them with care and attention, and only when appropriate. We don't have perfect tools, and we probably never will but we can have a large and growing collection of tools we can use to manage our lives, our society, and our civilization. The more tools we know how to use safely the better. Only using one tool for everything is a stupid way of doing things, and it can be dangerous in its own way.
Our economic system has spawned a new type of player, the Sociopathic Oligarch, who has embraced authoritarianism to protect their fortunes.
It would be really nice if folks understood that authoritarianism will always ultimately oppress them, regardless of which ideology it serves.
And it would be doubly awesome if we could deconstruct those ideologies, take from each what works for the betterment of humanity, and build a way out of this ass backwards dystopia instead of shrieking "TankiE!" "FaCisT!!" "WoKE!" at each other.
But that might be a little too much to expect from a world full of hairless apes.
Politics is far too much like team sports for a lot of people.
People on Lemmy act like criticizing the misdeeds of the USSR is an attack on all of socialism's principles.
Add private property seizure to the list. They're using eminent domain to take homes to build for AI infrastructure.
Really, the thing that people fear is authoritarianism. And it can happen in any government so long as power is consolidated. If structures remain broad and flat with many checks and balances it prevents corruption more readily.
And, well, capitalism has a head start. The foundation is making more profit. Capital will reward those who are the most unempathetic and narcissistic as they are the most ready to exploit others. And through that exploitation, they earn profit, and work to deregulate and consolidate to continue generating profit.
Capitalism is working as intended. Authoritarianism is a happy bedfellow.
The goal with the red scare then and the anti socialism crusade now is to make people scared, so they crave authoritarianism.
I've seen some numbers floating around that about 30% of people support authoritarianism. Some people literally cannot live with ambiguity and fear it. So when there is fear, societal, financial, etc, they flock to those who provide them a simple answer, even if incorrect.
In America's case, Trump correctly identified those problems while the opposition didn't address them. And those people can't live with ambiguity, it sets alarm bells off in their head (might be why they can't deal with lgbtq individuals even though it doesn't affect them at all.)
Lost your job? An immigrant took it
Lost your healthcare? An immigrant or a trans individual took it.
Inflation, tax breaks for the wealthy? Corrupt elites in washington
Tbh idk how people believed capitalism could be a good thing to begin with.
In nature, anything that grows indefinite is bound to corrupt. Even our cells. If there’s no controlled growth it turns into cancer.
Idk man. Idk.
Really, the thing that people fear is authoritarianism. And it can happen in any government so long as power is consolidated.
Power corrupts.
I like this take on it:
All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible.
-- Frank Herbert
Even socialism would still use eminent domain to take property, but itd likely be for something a bit better than that. Probably a highway, train, or building that is more for the public good (e.g airport, power plant, hospital)
Sometimes shit is just in the way and a government needs a way to be able to work around it.
I imagine the compensation would be more fair as well.
Not saying it wouldn't, but that's one of the "fears of communism." I just heard some MAGA hack using it on CNN or FOX I think trying to attack the DSA and fear monger. But it's happening right now, and has happened, under capitalism, for profit.
But yes, a socialist government wouldn't have profit as its core tenant, but people. So, ideally, eminent domain would be a last resort and plans would be made to affect minimal individuals while making sure compensation is more than fair.
In this case with the data center, I'm sure the power lines could be routed around the housing areas. But it would be more costly. Why would a private utility company spend more money when there's profit to be made?
Good ol neoliberal capitalism and its inherent contradictions. Deliver freedom, but there is freedom of capital and freedom of peoples. And neoliberalism has chosen freedom of capital over freedom of people.
Ah, gotcha. Thanks for the clarification.
This is non sequitur.
"Bad thing happens under system X, therefore system X is uniquely responsible/bad."
No. We have an entire history to refer to where these things also happen under socialism, communism, feudalism, fascism, theocratic states, monarchies, juntas, etc. It's also ballsy to try make the claim, because if there is significant relation between systemic ideologies and these symptoms, rather than a more anthropological one, then socialist or communist states are the historical leader with Stalin, Mao's China, East Germany, NK's juche, etc. But only a moron would neglect the actual causes, generally concentrated and unaccountable power(s). Socialism and capitalism are just optional toppings. It's like saying "the pizza is burned because you chose anchovies and not pineapple".
And that kind of this vs that leads into what's really going on here, one of the internet's favourite passtimes; tribalism. Pick a team, learn enough about the game to follow what's going on, go to war with whatever rivals your new peers tell you too, scream nonsensical things from the armchair. So an identity-protective cognition ends up with a post lacking comparison and history, for a conclusion OP's in-group is committed to. I e. such a post does nothing for outreach to non-socialist thinkers, even though OP thinks they're provoking thoughts. Ironically, only someone inflicted by this wouldn't be able to see it.
The OP is a counter argument to the non sequitur viewpoint. Right wingers love to say socialism is bad because it will bring these things. OP is saying, we have those anyway, so it's not a good argument against socialism.
Yeah, because its all projection from capitalist about what they would do with power.
I've seen several times where somebody posts a picture saying "Look what socialism causes," and the picture is like a tent city in modern America that was created under capitalism.
Makes sense when you think about it, wouldn't you do the same if you were intending on ruling over a group of people like despots?
The fun thing is that none of those things have ever been a symptom of communism/socialism. The authoritarian states, that refer/referred to themselves by those names despite having nothing to do with them in reality, wished to maintain unitary control of the people and implemented those things and bled the people dry in spite of the egalitarian nature of their supposed communism/socialism. But those things absolutely are symptoms of capitalism, where unitary control and draining every dime you can from anyone you can is part of the system.
From what I understand, the narrative is that these things are inevitable. Natural emergent states of the world. No point fighting it, etc etc. Even the billionaires think as much, that's why they invest in insulating themselves from it.
So it's not that these things are avoidable/preventable, so much as wouldn't you rather the GOOD guys be in charge of the fiefdoms?
A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.
Our Philosophies:
Our Goals
