It is common when debating with liberals or capitalists and they use the argument that capitalism leads to "freedom",but this is a total lie,capitalism was never about "freedom",it was always about dominance, manipulation, social control and alienation. The recent ban of tik tok in the USA and the growing far right populism only proves it,same thing with Milei using the state police to break down opposition protests. History proves that capitalism, especially capitalism in crisis always leads towards authoritarianism, fascism and reactionarism,the ruling capitalist class allies with the military and reactionaries to protect themselves and the system,the argument that liberals say about capitalism giving freedom is totally false. Now we need to discuss the concept of "freedom",that in my view is very arbitrary,most capitalists defend the americanized concept of freedom ,that in my opinion is extremely senseless, the same US that claims to "defend freedom", brings down pro-Palestinian protests, while doing nothing to bring down pro Nazi or white supremacist protests , supports fascist dictatorships, etc.

I'm just curious if anyone can refute the following claims:

1. Capitalism is the private (non-state) ownership of means of production, while socialism is the state ownership of means of production.

2. State ownership can be democratic or authoritarian; the state can reflect class (Marxism), race (Nazism), or Fascism (nationality), among anything else.

3. China and Russia were therefore socialist because they had state ownership of the means of production in 20th century; moreover, Marx's dictatorship of the proletariat allows for them to be classified as flawed transition states (if any imperfections are found, like not 100% socialized).

4. The above does not necessarily condemn even Marxist socialism, because there could still be a democratic Marxist socialist state, achieved through democratic means and upheld accordingly (which we've actually never seen).

5. Market socialism is not socialism because the state does not own the means of production.

6. For fun: the state 'withering away' just leads to anarchocapitalism, thus completing a clown loop.

Specifically, I'm looking for clear quotes or evidence that would undermine any of this...as opposed to mere assertions that I'm wrong, which will be ignored cuz boring

Marx wasnt actually wrong when it came to the existence of some "colbfict" between different classes. However, the mechanics of it are much different than Marx described. Here is an alternate theory.

There are 2 classes. The productive class and the nonproductive political class. The productive class is composed of 2 subclasses: the owners and the workers. Both of these classes play a role in creating wealth and building the economy.

The political class is a class that can use legislation and force to get what they want. This alternate theory also explains a lot of wars between nations (Russia and Ukraine being one example). The russian elite is using force in order to steam resources form the productive class in Ukraine.

If a buisness owner wanted to lower wages or pay people less than what they would agree with without losing them to competition, they COULD go to a corrupt politician and go "hey, I will pay you if you regulate away my competition in some way". The politician will then pass legislation that would put the buisness owners competition out of buisness in some way (like banning an ingredient in their product). After the buisness owner has a monopoly though this method, they will then be able to lower wages.

The conclusion isnt necessary that all politicians/government should go, but that corrupt individuals within the political class can be used by the buisness owners to get a monopoly. This is why we need a smaller government and a robust legal system so that corrupt people dont have a lot of legislative power and those that try are prosecuted.

I come to you today to bury not a body, but an ideology – capitalism. This supposedly self-regulating system, this engine of progress, has sputtered into a gilded jalopy, leaving millions in the exhaust fumes of inequality.

We are sold a fairy tale: the invisible hand guides the market, competition breeds innovation, and everyone benefits. But scratch that shiny veneer and what do you find? A rigged game where the house always wins. The concentration of wealth in the hands of a privileged few is not some unfortunate hiccup, it's a built-in feature.

Think of it! We celebrate billionaires while teachers moonlight as Uber drivers to make ends meet. The very notion of "trickle-down economics" is a cynical joke. Wealth doesn't trickle, it gushes upwards, enriching the already obscenely rich while basic needs like healthcare become commodities for the privileged.

And innovation? Don't make me laugh. The free market, bless its invisible heart, seems far more interested in churning out the next Kardashian phone case than curing cancer. Progress for the sake of profit, that's the capitalist mantra.

Now, some of you will bleat about freedom. Capitalism, they claim, is the guarantor of liberty. But freedom for whom? Freedom to exploit? Freedom to be crushed by medical debt? Freedom is a hollow promise when basic necessities become a luxury.

The true scandal of capitalism isn't just the grotesque inequality, it's the moral deadening it fosters. Greed is no longer a vice, it's a virtue on the stock exchange. Compassion is a quaint relic, empathy a burden on the bottom line.

This, my friends, is not progress. This is barbarism in a Savile Row suit. We deserve better. We deserve a system that values human life over profit margins, a system that rewards hard work, not inheritance.

They'll tell you there's no alternative. Hogwash! History is littered with the corpses of failed ideologies. Capitalism, for all its bluster, is showing its age. It's time for a new conversation, a new vision for a society that doesn't leave half its citizens behind in the dust.

So, let's raise a glass, not to the invisible hand, but to the very visible fist of collective action. Let's demand a system that serves the people, not the privileged few. Let's bury capitalism once and for all, and build something better from its ashes. The time for skepticism is over. The time for action is now.

This text is based on the position that the main purpose of every society must be the well-being and prosperity of all its members.

This is based on freedom and social justice. Freedom is understood as both negative freedom (ie freedom to do things) and positive freedom (ie freedom from forces such as poverty, ill health, pollution etc). These two types of freedom are considered equally important. Therefore it is considered that freedom must be free from all forms of domination instead of only freedom from the state and therefore freedom and social justice are interrelated.

During the second half of the 20th century, in post-war Western Europe, the social democratic welfare states following these principles of social justice and freedom achieved a very high degree of prosperity for their citizens by lifting large sections of the population out of poverty.

The old social democratic model was based on a mixed economy, with strong unions, significant progressive taxation, social benefits, free healthcare, education and both state and private ownership of the means of production.

Our goal must be this return to societies based on welfare states, but through different economic mixes with a greater emphasis on economic and social freedom while limiting the negative effects of statism.

Some key points below

UBI

While we should keep universal free education, healthcare and a public pension system, an innovation in the modern welfare state would be a universal basic income that would cover citizens' basic needs (food, electricity and basic decent housing) giving them greater economic freedom than old welfare models while limiting the bureaucracy.

Introduction of Land Value Tax (LVT) and natural resources funds

Another tax system could also be introduced. Instead of heavy taxation on businesses and citizens' income, taxes of this type could be significantly reduced by land value tax, environmental taxes as well as the creation of funds containing income from natural sources based on the principle of common property. The aim will be to eliminate non-Pigcouvian taxes, but this could be done gradually. This will enhance the free market and trade and thus improve economic conditions by favoring a stronger welfare state.

Different forms of ownership

The creation of cooperatives could be encouraged through incentives. This could replace to some extent the old-style state ownership of important sectors of the economy thus strengthening the free market but also the individual freedom of workers.

Civil libertarianism

The state could be more decentralized by devolving power to local councils whose members would be drawn and replaced at regular intervals, making decisions on local issues and checking whether the laws were followed

Laws should respect everyone's personal liberties (e.g., same-sex mariage, free drug use, separation of church and state, euthanasia etc)

I thought I'd share some of perspective and experiences growing up in Mauritius as the tiny island nation struggled with capitalism and socialism.

Mauritius is a former British colony. And was a French colony before that. And a Dutch colony before that. After independence, once the British left, everyone on the island were workers (mostly farmers from India). The country's single export was sugar cane. The people were very much against everything even remotely resembling french or british way of life, including capitalism. Hence, the first political parties to be created were all socialist. (The current ruling party is still called Militant Socialist Movement).

In the beginning workers in the sugar cane industry were also owners and bargained as a collective. Factory workers in the growing textile industry were also owner-workers. The socialist government at the time, although democratically elected, was very intolerant of dissidents. Anyone trying to organize or protest against low quality of life was met with brutality. Anyone mention of capitalism was outlawed as it was viewed as attempts to overthrow the government. The economy was stagnant. Workers worked but without real incentive to develop the industry to modernize the economy. Most workers in farms and factories were afraid of automation and since they owned their factories, none of those every saw any efficiency improvements.

Then came a new era. The government decided to allow limited and regulated foreign private investment to build the tourist industry (which is nowadays one of the largest sources of revenue and employment on the island). This also allowed the socialist government to establish better relationship with capitalism countries such as France (and the neighboring Reunion island). The private sector boomed. Workers were paid better and enjoyed more freedom. This started an inner social war between conservative "socialist" learning folks (led by Paul Beranger, a die-hard Marxist) and progressive "capitalist" folks who wanted more privatization of industries.

The next election saw a pro-capitalist government elected and a nation further divided. Soon more industries were privatized by existing ones were allowed to stay as worker co-ops with full government support. One of the new players was the fishing industry. New private factories hired as few workers as possible and automated everything else. They were efficient and their products cost very little compared to the traditional worker owned businesses. More outrage followed. The Marxists on the island attempted a coup, but failed (Operation Lal Dora**,** 1983).

Fast forward to present day, the country is still shifting more and more towards capitalism, improving quality life. We have universal healthcare but it's a tragedy compared to the private healthcare sector for example. People also now have now have more freedom to pursue entrepreneurship and private endeavors.

When Marx and Engels were writing their works they spoke about a world with two levels; famously the "bourgeois" and the "proletariat." In early 1800s Europe, at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, this was probably very much the case. There was a clearer distinction between the haves and have-nots. So, in the context of that time, their theories made more sense.

However, that was close to a century and a half ago. The binary world of the Capitalist and the Worker no longer exists.

The economy of today is still far from equal, but is far more broad than what existed in the time of Marx and Engels. We have a middle class now. There ways, albeit precarious, for people to move from the lower economic classes to the middle or upper classes. I will stipulate that these paths are fraught, and that obstacles are frequently thrown in people's ways for stupid reasons like their race, gender, and orientation. However, there is slow progress being made to remove those obstacles.

In the modern economy who exactly the "Capitalists" and the "workers" are gets very blurry. With the rise of white-collar middle class office workers, and the post industrial economy that relies on information skills rather than pure physical labor, Marxist ideas about the means of production start to fall apart. I've seen videos and read discussions where Socialists tie themselves in knots trying to address the "petty bourgeois, a pretentious eye roll inducing term that is ironically petty, that basically lumps them in with Capitalists. However, that just doesn't fit.

The employees of a company can now easily purchase stock in the companies they work for. Owning stock means you effective own a piece of the company. Your effort in that company impacts the stock price, which incentivizes you to do a good job. A person taping up boxes in an Amazon fulfillment center can own stock in the company, meaning the workers do own some of the business.

We also don't live in a world anymore where only the rich start businesses. Old aristocracy ran most businesses in the 1800s because they had the funds to do it. How many businesses today are run by low or middle class people that started them? A lot. While I have no love for people like Mark Zuckerberg or Jeff Bezos, they are CEOs of the companies they started, companies that were based on an idea and not just resources. They are workers in the companies that employ them. They also are absurdly rich. Are they capitalists or workers? Just because someone has a lot of money, does that mean they are no longer "workers?"

I don't disagree with some of Marx's criticisms of Capitalism. It is a system that will consume itself if left to its own devices, and it preys on people's worst instincts. I see it happening today. However, I feel like the binary view that Marx had of things simply doesn't work in today's world. Trying to apply Marxism to the modern world is simply a bad fit. If someone wanted to build off his work and devise a more up-to-date form of Socialist thinking, I'd be all for it. If someone already has acknowledged the short comings of Marx, and the failings of people that tried to implement Marxist theories like Mao and Lenin, I would honestly like to read them.

There has been a continuing parade of post claiming that central planning can't work and any number of capitalist ideologues are regularly quoted to "prove" their biases are "correct". How about an excellent and thorough article on how central planning CAN and DOES work from an advocate of socialism?

https://www.socialistalternative.org/2020/08/13/socialism-how-would-a-planned-economy-work/

​

The term wicked problem has become a standard way for policy analysts to describe a social issue whose solution is inherently elusive. Wicked problems have many causal factors, complex interdependencies, and no ability to test all of the possible combinations of plausible interventions. Often, the problem itself cannot be articulated in a straightforward, agreed-upon way. Classic examples of wicked problems include climate change, substance abuse, international relations, health care systems, education systems, and economic performance. No matter how far computer science advances, some social problems will remain wicked.

The latest developments in artificial intelligence represent an enormous advance in computer science. Could that technological advance give bureaucrats the tool they have been missing to allow them to plan a more efficient economy? Many advocates of central planning seem to think so. Their line of thinking appears to be:

• Chatbots have absorbed an enormous amount of data.
• Large amounts of data produce knowledge.
• Knowledge will enable computers to plan the economy.

These assumptions are wrong. Chatbots have been trained to speak using large volumes of text, but they have not absorbed the knowledge contained in the text. Even if they had, there is knowledge that is critical for economic operations that is not available to a central planner or a computer.

Economic organization is a wicked problem. Your intuition might be that the best approach would be for a department of experts to determine what goods and services get produced and how they are distributed. This is known as central planning, and it has not worked well in reality. The Soviet Union fell in part because its centrally planned economy could not keep up with the West.

Some advocates of central planning have claimed that computers could provide the solution. In a 2017 Financial Times article headlined "The Big Data revolution can revive the planned economy," columnist John Thornhill cited entrepreneur Jack Ma, among others, claiming that eventually a planned economy will be possible. Those with this viewpoint see central planning as an information-processing problem, and computers are now capable of handling much more information than are individual human beings. Might they have a point?

F.A. Hayek made a compelling counterargument. In a famous paper called "The Use of Knowledge in Society," first published in 1945, Hayek argued that some information is tacit, meaning that it will never be articulated in a form that can be input to a computer. He also argued that some information is dispersed, meaning that it is known only in small part to any one person. Given the decentralized character of information, a market system generates prices, which in turn generate the knowledge necessary to efficiently organize an economy.

A central computer is not going to know how you as an individual would trade off between two goods. You may not be able to articulate your preferences yourself, until you are confronted with a choice at market prices. The computer is not going to know how consumers will respond to a new product or service, and it is not going to know how a new invention might change production patterns. The trial-and-error process of markets, using prices, profits, and losses, addresses these challenges.

Economists have a saying that "all costs are opportunity costs." That is, the cost of any good is the cost of what you have to forgo in order to obtain it. In other words, cost is not inherent in the nature of the good itself or how it is produced. It is impossible to know the cost of a good until it is traded in the market. If central planners do away with the market, then they will not have the information needed to calculate costs and make good decisions. Forced to use guesswork, planners will inevitably misallocate resources.

In a market system, bad decisions result in losses for firms, forcing them to adapt. Without the signals provided by prices, profits, and losses, a central planner's computer will not even be aware of the mistakes that it makes.

The problem of organizing an economy is too wicked to be solved by computers, whether they use pattern matching or other methods. But that does not mean that advances in computer science will be of no help in improving economic policy.

New software tools can be used to create complex simulations. The tools that gave us chatbots could be used to create thousands of synthetic economic "characters." We could have them interact according to rules and heuristics designed to mimic various economic policies and institutions, and we could compare how different economic policies affect the outcomes of these simulations.

Among economists, this technique is known as "agent-based modeling." So far, it has been of only limited value, because it is difficult to create agents that vary along multiple dimensions. But it may be improved if we can use the latest tools to create a richer set of economic characters than what modelers have used in the past. Still, this improvement would be incremental, not revolutionary. They will not permit us to hand off the resource allocation problem to a central computer.

The latest techniques for using large datasets and pattern matching offer new and exciting capabilities. But these techniques alone will not enable us to solve society's wicked problems.

to own is to control. this principle suggests that individuals, as the rightful owners of their lives, are the sole decision-makers shaping their future. they bear the responsibility for their choices which means they are both entitled to the profits thereof, and should individually suffer the repercussions of these decisions. it is obvious when you understand that if you are controlled by some other entity, you are owned by that entity to the degree that you are controlled.

the state, through mechanisms like taxation and regulation, can influence individuals’ control over their lives and possessions and ultimately relieve them of their control in part or completely by aggressive force. this acquisition and intervention blurs the lines of ownership. to the degree (and in which aspects) the government exercises control over you and your property, they also effectively own you and your property.

if control is contingent on state assistance, even if it’s merely a threat, then the questions arise: does/should one truly own what they cannot independently control? moreover, if the state possesses enough power to enforce threats of violence on behalf of the owner, how long will it take the state to develop its own will to use that power and violence to take ownership?

capitalists, whom we assume own the means of production, often find themselves relying on the state to safeguard their property and in some extremes also exert control over their workforce. in fact this reliance is contradictory to the principles of capitalism, and yet it is a common practice among many whom we identify as capitalists. every instance of state intervention to maintain ownership is also a threat to the capitalist’s control and ownership, thereby undermining the very essence, benefit and purpose of capitalism.

this predicament isn’t exclusive to capitalism; it is far more prevalent in socialism. proponents of marxist communism envision a society devoid of rulers, where ownership is collective. however, the centralized power necessary to implement socialism always leads to authoritarianism, contradicting the envisioned ideal. this flaw mirrors that in purportedly capitalist-friendly systems that depend on the state to uphold property rights.

capitalists have often resorted to using the state as a tool of violence, or at least a threat thereof, to leverage ownership far beyond their individual ability to own/control. this practice, while seemingly beneficial in the short term, contributes to the erosion of their ownership at any level in the long run. this erosion parallels the inevitable rise of an authoritarian state in socialist societies due to the prerequisite centralization of power necessary for the universal implementation of socialist policies.

this, to me, is in no place or time more obviously true than in the united states today. even with a constitution replete with amendments designed to protect the individuals ownership over themselves, we have an enormous state that constantly violates the fundamental tenants of individual ownership from regulating what we can consume to who we are allowed to trade with and what we must fund to what tools we can use to defend ourselves and our property, to how we can build our homes. in this state we have the words of the constitution either ignored or twisted in such a manner to mean the opposite of what they say they mean. in this supposed representative democracy the representatives do not listen to the people and the government serves only themselves insofar as they can get away with it, skillfully always just short of mass rebellion.

while i maintain that raw ownership certainly does not inherently depend on the state, the reality is that capitalists, just like socialists, have leaned on state intervention. while the solution to this problem may not be obvious, in this moment i am satisfied if i can simply bring this into the light.

Hello. My name is Agile-Caterpillar. You may remember me from highly praised submissions such as "Let's talk about genocide - Why the revolutionary left wants you dead", "Dont trust a communist, ever. A letter to my son" and "I am a real Marxist - Interview with a grave robber." or from my alt account Gu_sa_no_420.

Today I want to talk about how marxist policies have caused countless famines around the world. The latest example of this is Venezuela. Many socialists want to distance themselves from Venezuela and claim it is a capitalist country that has nothing to do with socialism. This is not true as the policies that led to starvation were socialist, created by self-proclaimed marxists.

Therefore it is correct to say socialist policies were responsible for starvation.

How you might ask?

Venezuela has a lot of fertile soil and should be easily sustain itself without having to rely on food imports.

Hugo Chavez, a self-proclaimed marxist wants to eliminate hunger among poor people, a noble and well intentioned goal. Unfortunately he wanted to do it the marxist way.

That meant to confiscation of farm land from private owners.

Chavez also nationalized private food producers leaving them in the hands of inept government officials

The redistribution of land to locals with no experience in farming led to a productivity decrease. Investment in farming and food production stopped as no one wanted to take a risk investing in something that could be taken away at any time.

Chavez also implemented price controls. Economics 101 will tell you that price controls lead to shortages. Unfortunately Chavez only studied marxist economics.

The result of the policies was a decrease in food production.

Instead of recognizing the problem Chavez does what many socialists before him did, live off borrowed time and money delaying the inevitable.

Venezuela borrows and prints money to buy expensive food abroad. As the nation is now highly dependent on (solvent) government to feed itself, a single mistake could have devastating consequences.

It doesn't take long for the catastrophe to happen. As oil prices drop the marxist government is unprepared, overspending and government debt have spiraled out of control, an entire nation relies on a bankrupt government to put food on the table.

Mass starvation begins that even affects the middle class.

Instead of accepting that they made a mistake, socialist leadership rejects help from humanitarian organizations denying that there even is a problem. They would rather have their people die from starvation than let "evil" capitalists help them.

To make things even worse, the socialist government realized that they can use food as a control mechanism. The weakened and starving masses are promised food rations if they vote for the socialism that caused them to starve in the first place.

And as always problems are of course blamed on the capitalist boogeyman and sanctions even though starvation had already happened before sanctions were implemented.

None of this is too surprising. Richard Wolff, one of the leading marxist scholars can't even explain how socialism could produce a PS5, applying the same approach to food doesn't seem to be too promising.

Or do you want to have a democratic debate every time you need eggs or meat?

Someday soon a generation will arrive and end the free market and capitalism within the space of a few years. Bloodlessly, peacefully, and without any government help whatsoever. The Machiavellian, narcissistic psychopaths who think capitalism equals reason and rationality and sharing equals delusion — they will be rejected and marginalized and boycotted. On the shoulders of thousands of generations who toiled and strove, a human family of Earth will rise.

It's been bugging me for awhile but one of the many issues I have with socialists is that logically they are incredibly anti worker in their arguments.

Like for example, earlier was talking to a socialist and pointed out the fact that two consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want as long as it's between them and they essentially said no, the workers are too dumb to know what's good for them and they cannot consent to anything.

Or whenever normal people say that you can open a worker co-op if you want. The typical response is that workers are too poor and stupid to understand how to finance a worker co-op so they should just be given businesses that other people built since it's okay to steal from workers when their work was creating a business. Still don't really understand why socialists say it's okay to steal from some workers and not others but whatever.

It really just keeps going, mention that workers can form a union if they want more control over a business and the responsibilities that entails? Nope turns out the workers are too meek and powerless, they just can't build anything according to socialists.

Like every time you point out that socialism has always been allowed under capitalism, you just can't force it on people, the arguments always end up being that workers are too dumb to know what's good for them and only socialists should have power over what the workers can agree to. Who cares if they are adults that all have their own individual wants and desires, they don't know any better and should be thankful that socialists are there to lead them.

It's honestly kinda funny how much you have to loathe workers to be a socialist.

First and foremost I am a gamer. I love video games, been playing them since the original NES. For decades I thought innovation under capitalism in regards to video games was never going to peak. You had Mario, Pac-Man to Zelda and Pokemon to Starcraft, Diablo 2, and Age of Empires.

However the industry seems to have stagnated. Just like any new technology, whether it be a car, mobile phone, video game, TV etc... Their are endless possibilities for innovation starting out. As new tech becomes more and more focused upon by the masses, more and more innovation occurs. Eventually it plateaus.

Now with many products, especially video games, we see, like in movies, rehashed ideas and tons of remakes. It seems the only things that are innovated are the marketing ploys. Instead of the companies play testers hammering out bugs before release it went to betas you could be selected for to play test. Now you have to preorder to be part of an "exclusive club". Companies went from paying employees to play test to charging players to do it instead.

People here may not know, but recently a game came under fire for it's prereleased beta shenanigans. Escape from Tarkov has been in beta for years. It essentially released Pay to Win bonuses and another play mode to test for a total of $300. ~$50 for the base game and $250 for the "expansion".

At what point do we realize that Capitalism may grant great resources and opportunity for innovation, but eventually becomes a stagnant recycling monster of advertisement and money siphoning for the same things we had before but with prettier textures?

​

Deets On The Fair Deal

Welcome to "The Fair Deal" blog series, where we delve into a visionary set of legislative proposals aimed at strengthening America and preparing it for the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century. Inspired by the bold and transformative policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, "The Fair Deal" offers a modern-day blueprint for addressing the pressing issues facing our nation while advancing principles of fairness, equity, and opportunity for all.

In an era marked by rapid technological advancements, globalization, and shifting demographics, it is essential that we reimagine and reinvigorate our approach to governance and policymaking. "The Fair Deal" seeks to do just that by offering a comprehensive set of legislative templates designed to tackle the most critical issues facing our society today, from economic inequality and healthcare access to climate change and education reform.

Drawing on the spirit of innovation and collective action that defined the New Deal era, "The Fair Deal" proposes bold and forward-thinking solutions that prioritize the needs of working families, marginalized communities, and future generations. From infrastructure investments and job creation initiatives to social safety net expansions and environmental protections, these proposals offer a holistic approach to building a stronger, fairer, and more resilient America.

Throughout this blog series, we will explore each component of "The Fair Deal" in detail, providing insights into the rationale behind each proposal and offering practical guidance for policymakers, activists, and concerned citizens alike. Whether you're a seasoned policymaker or a concerned citizen looking to make a difference, "The Fair Deal" offers a roadmap for advancing progressive change and building a brighter future for all Americans.

Join us as we embark on this journey to reimagine America's future and champion a new era of fairness, opportunity, and prosperity for all. Together, we can turn the vision of "The Fair Deal" into a reality and ensure that America remains a beacon of hope and opportunity for generations to come.

Deets On The Fair Deal

Marx and Engels called their approach to politics 'scientific socialism', and contrasted it to 'utopian socialism'. They think of utopian socialism as drawing up detailed plans for future society, without any analysis of existing societies or the political forces that might get us there. I think of Robert Owen and Charles Fourier as exemplars.

You can see this contrast as put forward in Engels' pamphlet, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific. This began as three chapters in Engels' book, Anti-Duhring. If I have my history correct, Marx reviewed these chapters and gave Engels comments. I gather Duhring was a German academic only known today for being Engels' target.

Marx noted that his masterpiece does not put forward plans for future societies:

Thus the Paris Revue Positiviste reproaches me in that, on the one hand, I treat economics metaphysically, and on the other hand — imagine! — confine myself to the mere critical analysis of actual facts, instead of writing receipts (Comtist ones?) for the cook-shops of the future. -- Marx, Afterword to the 2nd German Edition of Capital

Of course, in all their thousands of pages, Marx and Engels did say something about plans for the future. The Communist Manifesto contains a 10-point plan for immediate implementation, quickly made obsolete by the force of events. The Civil War in France was Marx's contemporary reaction to the Paris communes. The Critique of the Gotha Program was a private letter from Marx, for circulation among a few comrades, reacting to the unity program of the German social democratic party. Mostly, he was disowning it. I think he was sometimes wrong about what parts of the platform were concessions to LaSalle and his followers and what were not.

But I want to turn to a completely different tradition also against drawing up blueprints for societies of the future. Karl Popper wrote The Open Society and Its Enemies as his war work during World War II. It is a statement of liberal political philosophy, extending his ideas on scientific method. He thinks humans make mistakes, and we need institutions that assist humans in learning from their mistakes. Science is one such. Because we are stubborn about admitting our mistakes, it helps to have another political party that can be voted in when the ruling party mucks up. A political party might have some overall direction, but they should proceed by trying to correct current problems.

Popper writes about 'piecemeal social engineering'. It is not our job to figure out an ideal system to make people happy. Popper severely criticized Plato, as well as Hegel and Marx's pretensions to treat history as a science. (A lot of literature questions Popper's readings of others, of course.) In politics, we should try to prevent unnecessary suffering. No final system can be expected.

In keeping with these ideas, drawn from both Marxism and a leading liberal critic, maybe one should think about some immediate goals. Some read Popper as putting forth a political philosophy for social democracy.

It seems to me a current program could include Universal Basic Income, card check and other policies to simplify labor organizing, subsidies for starting co-operatives and other forms of worker-owned firms, sovereign wealth funds, mandating that publicly traded firms above a certain size have co-determination, municipal and state ownership of various utilities and transport infrastructure, the restructuring of infrastructure to address global warming, de-emphasis on military spending, and increased aid for less developed countries. I am not trying to be comprehensive, but that seems like a radical program for the USA today that might help more people have more control over their lives and freedom to live as they choose.

What we should do next, after achieving the above, say, is a question for another day. One could argue about whether each or all of these are good ideas in a specific time and setting. I am writing from the USA. How much any of these fall under a label of 'socialism' is independent and less interesting than whether they are good ideas, it seems to me.

I see a lot of suggestions that there are all kinds of causes for high housing prices - greedy landlords, corporate landlords buying the housing supply, conversion of residential units to short term rentals, etc. None of these explanations seem comprehensive to explain the sustained rise in housing prices. Short term rentals and corporate landlords are relatively recent, and landlords have always been greedy.

Instead I would suggest the following:

• There is a politically influential group of individuals who are hostile to development for a variety of reasons - primarily homeowners who don't want their neighborhoods to change, older people who generally don't like change at all, and environmentalists who are hostile to development.
• All of these groups have political clout and will vote for policies which are hostile to development, and use existing laws to fight development.
• These (democratically supported) restrictions alone are sufficient to explain the sustained rise in housing prices we have seen over the past 30-50 years.
• These restrictions are a democratically supported restriction on property rights (i.e. capitalism), so voter error is to blame for high housing prices, not capitalism.

A few articles which are relevant:

• NYT article saying 40% of Manhattan could not be built as it is today 40 Percent of the Buildings in Manhattan Could Not Be Built Today - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
• 2023 Report from HUD saying "Local land use regulations and zoning rules contribute to the national housing supply crisis by artificially limiting housing construction and increasing costs. " https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/policy-and-practice-publication-2023-april.pdf
• 2019 Hseih and Moretti paper saying "In the 1960s, developers found it easy to do business in much of the country. In the past 25 years, construction has come to face enormous challenges from any local opposition. In some areas it feels as if every neighbor has veto rights over every project" and that US economic growth was 36% lower over the past 4 decades due to housing restrictions in SF and NY ALONE hsieh-moretti-2019-housing-constraints-and-spatial-misallocation.pdf (aeaweb.org)
• 2004 NBER paper saying "Home building is a highly competitive industry with almost no natural barriers to entry, and yet prices in Manhattan currently appear to be more than twice their supply costs. We argue that land use restrictions are the natural explanation for this gap."why_is_manhattan_so_expensive_regulation_and_the_rise_in_house_prices.pdf (harvard.edu)

Disclaimer: I am not strawmanning or trying to start an argument. I am just curious. I am new to learning economics, finance, sociology, etc., so this question has popped up in my mind. I wanted to check if this has been answered before, but did not find any thread that answers my question. That's why I am asking, and I have no ill-intention.

Question:

I often hear this argument that business owners get to keep major chunk of revenues or value generated by the company because they are the ones bearing the risk of business failing. If what you are paid or your worth is valued by your risk, then don't people who risk their lives for their jobs need to get paid the most? Like people who work in coal mines, those who work with harmful substances, firefighters, etc., are usually not only taking huge risk for their lives, but are also very low paid. But the logic that risk equals reward does not work here. Why is that the case? The risk a business owner takes is usually monetary which can be earned back. But the risk others take is death and you can't even become alive again. So isn't that a greater risk?

​

Constantly debating on ‘what’s minimum wage ‘ the Eurozone has stablished a directive.

The directive’s objectives to ensure adequate minimum wages that provide for a decent standard of living and to strengthen collective bargaining represents a paradigm shift in the European institutions’ view of wages and collective bargaining, compared with the policies pursued in the eurozone crisis.

But it also offers indicative reference values:

                   60 per cent of the gross median wage (which half of wage-earners fall below) and 50 per cent of the gross average wage. 

These effectively establish a ‘double decency threshold’ for a national minimum wage—not legally binding but a strong normative benchmark even ahead of formal transposition of the directive.

Even before its formal transposition into national law, the directive has influenced minimum-wage setting and collective bargaining in various countries. The double decency threshold contributed significantly to the substantial minimum-wage increases applying this year.

In Germany, for instance, the extraordinary increase in the minimum wage in October 2022—justified by reference to the then draft directive—enhanced the political debate about inserting the reference value of 60 per cent of the gross median wage into the minimum-wage law.

https://www.socialeurope.eu/not-done-yet-applying-the-minimum-wages-directive

Given the rising costs of living and average working class people struggling to pay for affordable housing, (among other things) I’ve thought about what the inevitable outcome would be if society were to stay on this trajectory indefinitely. To say it isn’t a nice thought would be an understatement.

I thought of ways the ruling class could try to keep the citizenry inline without resulting in mass homelessness, genocide or any other crime against humanity. Something like UBI could be a start, but finding the balance between providing enough to support those that are struggling but not too much that people stop working altogether.

And then it hit me. What if it’s okay that some people stop working altogether.

Imagine you are given an opportunity that would grant you an income that provides for all your basic needs. You can choose to work on top of it if you desire, and there is no amount of income from working that would negate this sort of income.

The catch? You have to undergo elective surgery that will prevent you from having kids. And if you already have kids, sorry but you don’t qualify. If you do decide to go through with it, it would not show up on a background check, so no one would know unless you told them (or if they had nothing better to do than to watch you).

My question for Capitalists:

Do you think not having to work is a bigger incentive than wanting kids? You would still have a population that will want to work so they can have kids. And of the population that doesn’t want kids, even if they are lazy stains you don’t have to worry about them reproducing.

What I’m not asking is if you think this is moral. But rather if you think society would still function. If not what, why?

Before money was thing the world was more peaceful, less violent and it was debtless.

The people were more united, less competitive and not classist at all (since there was no poverty).

After money became a thing, things got worse and now we live in a egocentric society.

Why we can't have a bartering system?

I think things will turn out ok after all. If you play video games all day the only thing you are good at is make believe violence, eating hot pocket and drinking Mountain Dew. Discuss .

Seriously — Do you think the slew of socialists on this subreddit are willing and able to lead a revolution to overthrow states and establish their collectivist paradise where their video gaming and porn habits are subsidized by loot seized from people who actually produced something ? Are we really in danger of having our assets seized by people who are too lazy to even go grocery shopping ?

OK so hear me out, for capitalism to work, we have unions and shareholders. And all managerial or administrative roles are elected by the workers they oversee, but nominated by the capitalists or managers above. DOES THIS NOT FUCKING WORK? Is my brain not functioning? Whoever can critique this better than me pick it apart 😁

More thoughts to support from a comment of mine

Corruption in society stems from downward spread of moral corruption, all originating from the rich with their excess greed, with no ability for us to hold them accountable, or communicate effectively the degree to which they add stress, in the forms of fear, guilt, and shame, through the actions and thoughts we instinctively carry out to manage that stress. That's the problem with society in a mental sense. We can't take out problems our problems on the ones who are the ACTUAL cause, and they're safe behind their mansions without a care in the world.

Becuase we value property and privacy as a society, out of fear of: fear, guilt and shame, and we base our laws and rules on these principles which allow perpetuated recycling of corruption via negative emotion, into money on the top for the rich to fuel their greed. Greed is good, the corruption it causes is not. Because they are unjust and corrupt and not natural leaders. But they function AS leaders. This is our issue.

Fix the rich, fix the poor, proven by the falsehood of the "myth of evil". All through mental health, confrontation, and the end of the outlaw of rational communication on the basis of property or privacy rights. If they harm us by hoarding property, it is our right to damage and take theirs, or to inflict guilt and shame on the basis of appeal to compassion, since evil is a myth. It is only their privacy of their homes and minds that protects them from these negative emotions. Perhaps fear in the form of a general strike is needed

Communication of one's poorly state, expression of anger, with no violence, as a true leader would respect and encourage, ought to be a right. Because they're true leaders and need to be held accountable for their direction and conduct toward us and our planet but there not.

But they are not leaders, they are loners with cash, who we all feed. We should force them to behave like leaders, or remove them from leadership.

I just want some clarification, because apparently the Global south would be richer than "the west" if it wasn't for the exploitation of the west trading with them, but at the same time Socialist countries have failed because of sanctions that prevented them from trading with the West. These are two contradicting views that Socialists hold at the same time and I want to know how you can resolve that trade makes countries poorer but lack of trade makes countries poorer.

Ahh, choices. There's something very insincere about leftism. It claims to care about workers, but is ready to destroy their lives at the drop of a hat, which for some reason it has the power to do. If you have the power to fire workers for social media posts, you're the ruling class.

It begs the question why bother punishing people who oppose you if you're already secure in your power? This is called "leftist fragility", to borrow their terminology. In everyday speak it would just be called neuroticism. They are in power, but their grip is tenuous. They know we know. It's not just about firing workers now. It's about turning off their bank accounts. It doesn't matter how long you serve the system. The moment you stop is the moment you are dropped. Makes you envy the freedom of a leash.

This phrase is often ridiculed, but I haven't seen a valid argument against it. From my perspective, it's clear that the "communist" countries of the Cold War were neither implementing a communist system or trying to implement it. They were totalitarian and authoritarian, and were about a small group of people with absolute power exploiting the workers. This, in my opinion, is the antithesis of socialism. Could you explain to me why you think this argument is wrong?

Most people don't need much—just enough to comfortably sustain themselves and their dependents throughout their lifetime. Unfortunately, the economy is structured in a way where the majority of the population can barely sustain themselves, always being a layoff or misfortune away from poverty. This has left the majority of humanity stuck in an endless cycle of work just to survive, while only a few thrive. The irony of it all is that the world economy is big enough to sustain a slowdown that would accommodate shorter work weeks and a more humane lifestyle. Sure, production would slow, but it's already at overcapacity, generating so much waste that the planet itself is in danger of becoming inhospitable to most life.

It's about time that the world begins to recognize that current industrial practices are unsustainable, and certain industries are not actually critical. As such, investments need to be diverted appropriately. I believe the world needs fewer cars maybe they even need to be completely phased out and more focus placed on mass transportation, such as trains, which can be built electric, durable, and even underground, leaving more land for nature. We also don't need processed foods, most of which are expensive, unhealthy, and go to waste anyway. It's better to put more investment into increasing arable land around the world so that produce is closer, healthier, and more abundant. We already have the technology to grow food in deserts, so why not focus on this and improving such tech?

We also need fewer tech devices, much of which becomes scrap in less than half a decade. Tech devices need to be made durable, renewable, and communally shared. One internet-capable device per household is enough, maybe with a data center per community to manage data and act as a public library. After all, we need humanity to engage less with devices and more with each other. We also need much simpler housing, spread out in mostly self-sustaining, interconnected communities with shared amenities. People should either work from home or be within a working distance away from their place of work. The vain structure of our noisy, chaotic, polluted cities today, with towering empty steel skyscrapers, huge highways, and cramped housing units, should never be emulated. I would rather humanity lived in moderate but spacious houses built with renewable materials. Also, nobody really needs to own huge tracts of land that could otherwise be put to good use, or build huge mansions they could never fully utilize. This is just a waste of already limited resources. Recreational amenities, such as swimming pools, should be publicly owned to stop the wastage of water and to encourage interaction.

The apparel industry is another wasteful industry that produces more than we need, with tons of clothes being thrown away each year. This industry needs to be made renewable, and maybe it's time we seek a more durable and dynamic alternative for apparel.

In short, humanity needs to move its economy away from a culture of individualism, needless consumerism, profiteering, and waste, which does nothing but destroy the environment, drive the majority of humanity to poverty, take away quality human time, and reduce humanity to pointless machines working to gather more and more stuff it doesn't ever need, all while destroying the planet it resides on. Instead, humanity should focus on sharing resources equitably, reducing wastage, building communal ties, and actually living.

How do we know when a society has become socialist? What would be the tipping point, the thing that turns any society into socialism?

Likewise, how do we know if a society is capitalist? What would be the turning point to become capitalism and to longer be considered capitalism?

In all of those examples the capitalist country had a better human rights record and better prosperity for its citizens. However before they were divided by civil war and foreign occupation by America/Soviet Union, they had the same culture and similar economic status. In my opinion this is proof that capitalism is generally a superior system then communism because it takes away the fact that some countries are just historically wealthier or poorer. Like Russia has always been a lot poorer then USA for instance so you have an excuse, but South and North Korea were once the same country yet one is starving and one is a foodie destination.

In all of those examples the capitalist country had a better human rights record and better prosperity for its citizens. However before they were divided by civil war and foreign occupation by America/Soviet Union, they had the same culture and similar economic status. In my opinion this is proof that capitalism is generally a superior system then communism because it takes away the fact that some countries are just historically wealthier or poorer. Like Russia has always been a lot poorer then USA for instance so you have an excuse, but South and North Korea were once the same country yet one is starving and one is a foodie destination.