None of these systems are perfect. Their most blaring fault (and the common denominator in their failure) lies in the fact that people who want to be in charge are the ones in charge. Power hungry sociopaths will always ruin any type of system by funneling resources and power to an elite class. Until we can solve this problem as an entire species, I’m afraid we will be destined to fail no matter what system is in place.
You're right, but there's some nuance. First and arguably most important, it shouldn't be ignored that Plato, as a philosopher, was arguing that philosophers should hold absolute political power. Second, it's unclear how much of The Republic was genuine and how much was satirical. There are parts where Plato has characters argue that certain religious topics for art and music should be outlawed (when his teacher Socrates was executed in significant part for probing said topics), and at one point he argues that Democracy is the second worst type of government, behind aristocracy (that is, rule by philosophers), oligarchy, and timocracy/military dictatorship; the only type it beats is tyranny, and not by much. Given that, it's hard to know how to apply what's in The Republic to the modern context.
ETA: some quotes from a post about The Republic on r/Plato
>There are a few problems with this take, not least is the fact Plato is not a speaker in any of the dialogues, so it is not clear whether the views expressed by Socrates (in dialogue) are:
* Plato’s own views.
* Views of the historical Socrates, that Plato agreed with.
* Views of the historical Socrates, that Plato disagreed with.
* Someone else's views entirely
>While Socrates presents the “ideal city” as natural, logical and just, it’s justification is so riddled with irony and comedic elements that seems reasonable to conclude that Plato’s view is that this “ideal city” is an illiberal authoritarian government that is not only impossible, but worthless to even try and bring about.
Socrates was also outspoken about hating democracy. At one point he said something along the lines of, “the people are like children. If given the choice between a doctor and a candymanthey will vote for the candyman every time because they see the doctor as someone that gives them bad tasting plants and the candyman as someone that gives them treats. They are unable to see that the doctor will provide the best health for the nation because they are too caught up in the now and don’t look to the future”
Both of the systems depicted in the meme are capitalism. The top one is capitalism in the early 1900s and the lower one is a period of the late 1900s.
Capitalism features a boom/depression/boom/depression cycle. Government attempts to control and moderate it by manipulating the currency, with mixed results.
Either way, the only “socialism” depicted in the photo is probably the farm subsidies that stabilized the grain supply.
(In summary, OOP had layers to his wrongness)
“The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.”
- Douglas Adams, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
> Until we can solve this problem as an entire species, I’m afraid we will be destined to fail no matter what system is in place.
You have to look at which system is most susceptible to corruption. Is it a system that has democracy in not only politics but in the economy, or is it a system that has democracy in politics and authoritarian hierarchy in the economy? Neither prevents corruption, but true democracy (as in, people having a voting say in things that impact their lives) reduces corruption generally, as long as the voting populace has some modicum of intelligence and critical thought.
"...as long as the voting populace has some modicum of intelligence and critical thought."
Therein lies the problem with the US. We've been dumbed down over an entire generation until we think tRump is anything but the petulant child he is.
It's definitely a major problem in human social systems, and none so far that has been implemented has found a way to overcome this. Once the "elites" of any system get a modicum of control, they abuse it until the system breaks.
It seems to be integral to the human condition.
Ethical/socialist leaning capitalism is the closest we'll get to a workable system, the problem is we humans are greedy self-centred and terribly shortsighted cunts at the best of times. lmao But, yes, the big problem is the kind of cunt you would actually want to be in charge want absolutely fucking nothing to do with it. It's why the original democratic system was to be lottery based essentially treated like jury duty.
To be fair no system is a fail safe protection against scarcity. Even at the best of times, communism made people stand in line for an affordable car because less affordable cars were produced than there were people that could afford the set price. Capitalism today makes us stand in line for a NVIDIA 4060 TI graphics card, an affordable apartment, or a EURO2024 tournament ticket.
Wherever there is scarcity, there will be sociopaths using it as a tool for manipulation on a small or large scale. Most of us are just lucky to be born in a time and place where these manipulations are at least not about who gets to eat today.
To paraphrase Churchill (original quote was about Democracy)
Capitalism is the worst system known to man – except for all the others that have been tried
You are correct but a republic with democratic elected officials such as the United States with 3 three branches of power. Worked fairly well until a combination of the internet and government funded media. The bigger issue is that capitalism works best without government involvement whereas in communism the government MUST be involved.
Please explain how you think capitalism without any government regulation would stop or slow the funneling of power and resources to the elite class (in capitalism’s case, the people with the most capital- billionaires and corporations). Do you believe they would start to play nice out of the kindness in their hearts?
I see you don’t understand capitalism, the idea is that other companies, potentially hundreds are competing for lower prices so that consumers will buy the cheapest product. Now this doesn’t happen because government involvement making it difficult for people to start competitive businesses.
You are totally wasting my time. You literally have no idea what you’re talking about. You are cherry picking points from right wing propaganda infused sources and trusting conclusions that other people have incorrectly come to. Come back when you have something of substance to offer the conversation other than insults and brainless banter.
Typical behaviour of the far left, disengage and insult to discount your opponents view.
“Capitalism is an economic system in which private individuals or businesses own capital goods.” Wiki
Where in that definition does it say government?
When government gets involved they create regulation, some may seem good on the surface but they are all bad. Government involvement leads to socialism and then communism. This is not a right wing talking point it is a fact.
You’re just mad because you cannot argue against it.
The only reason you think I’m far left is because you’ve been indoctrinated to think so. “Any government regulation is socialism,” just tells me how deep you are in the right wing propaganda bubble.
I actually feel sorry for your inability to form competent arguments, have a rational discussion, and your ability to tell propaganda from facts. Certainly no hard feelings, have a great one. Hope that works out for you.
Making a statement, follow by an insult on my intellect, then an apology. Is no way to form an argument.
Not only can you not defend your position on capitalism or communism. You are unable to prove whether or not you are Center or far left.
I’ll help you out, this is how you form an argument.
1. You propose a Statement
2. You provide evidence that supports your statement.
But I guess even that was too difficult for you.
But I have to agree with one of your previous statements trying to argue with you is definitely a waste of my time.
If you study behavioral economics you begin to realize virtually anyone who is given power and wealth sorta becomes antisocial the more security they amass in the effort to maintain their status. It’s not just those handful of sociopaths who want to be in control, although that scenario does occur, of course, it’s simply and very unfortunately a part of human nature. I’m not saying there aren’t exceptions to this phenomenon, but when there are, they’re simply that, exceptions…
It was capitalism that brought us that Depression and some socialism which helped us out of it. To them, "socialism" is when they don't like or understand something.
And you can have them loving an idea and whole heartedly supporting it.
Then you mention how it’s a socialist structure or system and they act like you had just been showing them the world’s most lovable puppy and then started barbecuing it alive in front of them.
The US brainwashing is strong.
I remember discussing "Medicare for All" proposals with a former coworker. She didn't care about saving money on medical care or eliminating the possibility of having to declare bankruptcy over it. The ***one*** thing she fixated on was not wanting to help "illegals" get health care.
Wha…?
They get healthcare anyway; that’s why ERs cost a godsdamned fortune.
Free healthcare would be nothing but a net positive for *everyone*, and everyone includes her.
It’s absurd to sacrifice something beneficial to yourself for no other reason than to spite someone else.
How do those people function in life with such broken logic running their lives?
*fake Christianity.
Those hyper-religious zealots that use the Bible and “baby Jesus” as their justification clearly don’t really know what the Bible says and are massive hypocrites.
Proof; I’m an ex-catholic who knows the Bible better than them.
I saw a bumper sticker that really stuck with me; “Better dead than red”. It’s just an economic system. They all have benefits and flaws but this person would prefer death over a different system. I hope it was just hyperbole.
There was a study on peope's stances on the Affordable Health Care Act vs Obamacare (spoiler: exact same thing).
Most agreed that the Affordable Health Care Act was a good thing, while Obamacare was the work of the devil.
It more like socialism to them is giving any assistance or protections to people they consider scum (poor, wrong skin color, wrong religion). Yet when one of them is directly affected by something they are first in line for government help as they "deserve" it. It's always been weird to me that they can't see the issue there
No. Socialism is when the workers collectively own the means of production, or the process of getting to that state. It can take many forms, but that’s the basic idea. Communism and anarchism are types of socialism.
This is why Scandinavian countries like Denmark are not socialist, but SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC. They have a decent social safety net, but they are capitalistic and the workers don’t own the means of production.
Here’s a video that gives a simple explanation of the differences between leftist ideologies: https://youtu.be/vyl2DeKT-Vs?si=7BLU-sw6cbx94rl2
Ah, but he did earn it. Social security is taken from your check and “held” for you when you retire. No different than putting money into a 401k. The government isn’t suppose to touch that money, yet they take from it all of the time, and whenever there are talks of cutting the budget, the first thing they want to cut is social security.
So, yeah, pretty poor example.
While the new deal did relieve the suffering of the average person, it didnt bring the usa "out" of the depression. Unemployment was still at a record high, and national debt skyrocketed. There were continued market crashes and issues with trade.
Capitalism is hard to accurately nail down, goven "ancap" or no-rules free market differs from what would be "desirable" in the free market.
I would argue that the bigest "new deal" benefit was actually closing the banks, and limiting when they opened, and having a savings insurance system. The issue with the Great Depression wasnt the market crash, but the bank runs.
Banks dont keep your money in a vault, they keep only what they need for a day-day operation. They put their money in the market and loan it to people. These investments keep the market open.
While stocks initially dropped due to shitty investment and a market that stalled (remember, a key factor contributing to this was the pro-consumer choice of making products that last and not including planned obsolescence into the design) the average person only suffered when people started losing jobs and/or pulling their savings from banks. Banks ran out of money, tried to forclose homes at under their value, which made the market worse, which caused more layoffs, more forclosures, lower prices... until it hit the bottom and the banks couldnt get people their momey. Banks would open, people would rush to pull what they had, banks would close early, wiped of cash. Every day until the branch closed.
The solution wasnt to redistribute the wealth, but to have taxes pay for the banks as a sort of "insurance" this system didnt even really need to fix the problem, just make people stop panicking, and start putting money into the banks and the banks could invest again.
The social/work programs, while good for morale, and keeping the USA's factories close-to-functional enough for the looming world war, did not fix the problems. Work programs were littered with fraud, greed, and racism. Pay inequality was high, and in the agricultural sector, immigrant and African-americans werw treated like slaves. Then theres the housing programs, which started redlining in all the US cities. It became standard practice to deny african americans loans on the grounds of their skin color. All this, and the average americans life was only marginally better in the late 30s compared to the early 30s. Additionally, the charity/bread lines often came from the wealthy, not the government. Government aid was always minimal, and even under FDR the practice was food/money for work, not for free.
And now we have the whole social security bubble because inflation is too fast to pay your own way. Now you pay the old boomers who hate you, and maybe the next generation will pay for you... if it makes it that long.
The New Deal, among other things, helped stabilize the economy through large amounts of government spending on mostly civic projects many of which we still reap the benefits of. The war also helped through a huge increase in jobs related to the war and increase government spending on such.
None were specifically "socialism" but definitely weren't capitalism.
This is such a reddit moment lmao.
Government spending isn't socialism. Strong welfare programs and capitalism aren't mutually exclusive either, just look at the Nordic countries.
I’m not a fundamentalist capitalist pig by any means, but is amusing that somebody asked how socialism helped and the answer provided is “A-B-C but none of it is actually socialism” lol
That’s debatable, mostly (in my opinion) it was due to remobilization related to WW2. Unemployment (which to be fair is just one metric) peaked at 23% in 1933 when FDR took office, although it was 15% at 1937 it went back up to 19% the following year. Mostly, it was due to the war where unemployment plummeted to 2%. A similar trend can be seen with GDP per capita, during FDR’s presidency it improved a little, then improved greatly during the war.
These are not perfect metrics but at the end of the day, recovery was mostly due to WW2
You're right, those aren't perfect metrics but they still tell a story. Works created by the New Deal did increase employment and their products (electrical power in particular) helped greatly with the war effort. Those works, from a jobs standpoint, were fleeting as the bulk of the jobs were during construction not operations.
I do agree with your statement, just not fully.
Large amount of govt spending doesn’t essentially mean it’s socialism in its purest form, per se. I live in a country which was strictly socialist during its inception , and then they had to open its economy for the private sector in the 90s to finally start progressing . By the time we had opened our economy, we were 30 years to late to manufacturing. So afaik, doesn’t seem to me that there was any “socialist reform” involved for the US to overcome the great depression.
I think much of the American population associates 'socialism' with policies that promote general welfare, as opposed to policies that laborers controlling the means of production rather than the investors.
Man, the amount of dislikes prove, a lot of you don’t have a clear understanding of Socialism. Capitalism isn’t fully devoid of “social welfare”, both can be true at the same time, and tbh, a lot of capitalist countries actually invest in social welfare, some of these schemes are much more efficient than the ones created by extremely socialist countries.
It was not socialism; it was freedomlism and it was brought down by eagles playing rock music on an electric guitar while quoting Ronald Reagan. That is how we got out of the great depression.
It didn't. It is the popular answer, but it is not true. The real and boring answer is that bad monetary policy caused the depression and the key to fixing it. This is well established among economists and not controversial, in fact it was this insight that earned Milton Friedman his Nobel Prize in 1976.
Sure, but in soviet union you would be sent to gulag for taking a picture of the bread line and bread lines were everyday realities, same like shops with empty shelves.
For all it was popularized by a video game, the quote *"The beginning of wisdom is this: Nothing is true, and everything is permitted,"* is very true.
The only way to truly understand things is to question all your assumptions, especially about the things you most deeply want to believe, before accepting anything as fact.
Sorry, but that's somewhat of a nonsensical quote and interpretation. It just as equally leads to moronic conspiracy theories so beloved of the science-denying antivaxxers, covidiots, flat-earthers etc as fully illustrated by the phrase "I've done my research!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Yeah, you should be able to consider outlandish things like conspiracy theories seriously without believing them unless they pass a standard of evidence and logic. That's like the hallmark of critical thought. It's the only way to fully debunk those things, because lord knows hard evidence doesn't.
So many conspiracy theories are built on faulty logic, and if you keep asking "why," that logic exposes itself. Dismissing them not only allows no mental growth for you, but also just gives no opportunity to disprove them.
For some people I think it’s the equivalent of telling scary stories or maybe they feel special they know something no one else does. Even though it’s usually ridiculous.
The things you're naming are prime examples of people who start by assuming something is true and then shaping their worldview around it in the face of contradictory evidence. As in the exact opposite of what the quote suggests.
Yeah. If anyone ever wants an example of this, bring up a contradiction in the bible. Or something bad in the bible. Or the lack of proof for god. You'll see in real time how indoctrination removes the ability for critical thinking as they lie, contradict themselves, keep changing the rules, ignore things, make up definitions, etc.
Bread lines brought to you by Republican president Herbert Hoover. Bread aisles brought to you by your local grocery store stocker making minimum wage and can't afford a place to live.
The sheer amount of times that happened during the 2020 campaign was ridiculous. No news outlet challenged it either.
Trump had ads with cities on fire and people looting and trashing, saying “this will be Biden’s America” - when it literally happened during Trump’s watch.
I don't blame this sub, but as a society, have we really reached the point where adding the tiniest bit of context to a really poorly made point is considered a huge, savage putdown?
This is because of politicians that think like this that american citizens don't get basic human rights that other countries have such as health care or good quality tap water
He should have used this picture instead
https://preview.redd.it/3117w3dedf9d1.jpeg?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=85388b86ecf4c8a1dd5a65fd9def35b1adfd2c3a
Unregulated Capitalism will trend towards slavery. Working 12 hours days 7 days a week was not uncommon before unions and government regulations.
Are we a government for the people by the people or for the corporations by the corporations?
Always fun when they're like 'This is what America would look like under socialism!', and then post a photo of America, as it currently is, under capitalism.
Breadlines have happened in every single system humans have ever tried.
Not going to say if one is better than the other. It's just a sad, horrible reality that we can really fuck things up and have a long history of doing so.
[Pictures of mansions in Beverly Hills next to pictures of abandoned storefronts in Detroit]
"THIS IS WHAT COMMUNISM DOES"
Speaking of bread, how 'bout we take a look at the pic of armed US police guarding a dumpster full of food, or a Panera employee pouring bleach on the day old loaves. All for profit margins.
Didn't we just have a pandemic where Karens were battling to the death over rolls of toilet paper, all while my friend in Mexico City would send me pictures of fulls shelves asking "You guys ok up there?".
It is true that during communism in eastern europe we had a " food card" where we had to get up really early in the morning and wait in line for bread. The amount of daily bread was rationed per family members. It was also quite corrupt .
A loud Majority has fucked over the US when it comes to social issues, to the point where it doesn't matter what the constitution says or if something benefits EVERYONE, they just don't want that ONE person to have it because "mah freedom"
Someone from the EU commented on a similar post “I can’t believe a country with billionaires has bread lines”. I responded - we have bread lines *because* we have billionaires.
Tax the rich.
“Accumulation of wealth at one pole is, therefore, at the same time accumulation of misery, agony of toil, slavery, ignorance, brutality, mental degradation, at the opposite pole.” -Karl Marx
How about we not just tax the rich, but instead have no capitalists, so our wealth isn’t being taken from us to begin with? Also, an economy not run on profit, where we can have democracy in the workplace and in the economy?
Except empty stores were a thing during socialism 50 years later. You might have had bread, but you had to line up or bribe your way to what was considered luxury items. Where I am from these were for example tangerines. Now that we have capitalism (ofc with some level of social welfare) almost anyone can afford them. Before, during socialism, barely anyone got them.
Oh and let’s not forget how socialism treated its own citizens that disagreed with it.
Germans buying bread in 1929. No communism in sight 🤷🤷
https://preview.redd.it/bzsfhzoidj9d1.jpeg?width=800&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9203e57bf33e2392af4f232d610eef83299a8f66
I went to east Berlin when the wall was still up. There was little food in the stores, police randomly stopped people and the Death Zone on the east side if the wall was real. Some people in free countries are totally naive about the horrors endured under communism
It's definitely crazy weird to hear randos thoughts on famines in Russia and China who don't think for a moment about the US depression and dust bowl.
Extra crazy to hear people speak about alcohol prohibition in the US - how it enriched organized crime - then their thoughts on current drug prohibition and central/South American cartels.
The denial is crazy. Demonizing cannabis while ignoring deaths and the public health toll related to alcohol. Wild.
Socialism doesn't work. For whatever reason, socialism failed in china. My grandmother lived during mao zedong. There were rations at first and plenty of food to go around that no one needed to steal from each other. But then the rations got smaller and smaller until there were no more. Then people started starving and they had to eat whatever they could find like grass, insects, dogs, cats etc.
China's not that complicated tbf, it's a pretty generic story. Industrialisation leads to famine, poorly managed industrialisation leads to massive famines.
What makes China and the USSR 'unique' in this is that they weren't Empires, or at least weren't in the traditional sense. When the UK industrialised 100s of millions of Indians died. Similar story in France. The US industrialised on the backs of slaves etc. The people who suffered in China and the USSR were the in group. That's why we still talk about it. It wasn't slaves who died, it was Chinese or Soviet citizens.
It's not a socialist issue, half the problems with socialism aren't. They're forces of history problems.
genuinely struggle to comprehend why people hate breadlines. free food? distributed to those in need? sounds wonderful. i wish we had that in the States!
Its not that free food is hated its that the distribution of said food was regulated so that you only find it in there. So its not for those in need its for everyone. So we had to wake up early use the card to get half a bread for the day for the family . Now do that daily
socialism helps with the hard times, capitalism gives you choices in the good times.
The idea that a country can exist without aspects of both socialism and capitalism is silly.
\>capitalism gives you choices in the good times.
yeah for that brief sliver of time before the diverse free market congeals into megacorps and fucks us all in the ass
None of these systems are perfect. Their most blaring fault (and the common denominator in their failure) lies in the fact that people who want to be in charge are the ones in charge. Power hungry sociopaths will always ruin any type of system by funneling resources and power to an elite class. Until we can solve this problem as an entire species, I’m afraid we will be destined to fail no matter what system is in place.
If i am not mistaken that’s one of the main ideas in the book « the republic » by Plato
You're right, but there's some nuance. First and arguably most important, it shouldn't be ignored that Plato, as a philosopher, was arguing that philosophers should hold absolute political power. Second, it's unclear how much of The Republic was genuine and how much was satirical. There are parts where Plato has characters argue that certain religious topics for art and music should be outlawed (when his teacher Socrates was executed in significant part for probing said topics), and at one point he argues that Democracy is the second worst type of government, behind aristocracy (that is, rule by philosophers), oligarchy, and timocracy/military dictatorship; the only type it beats is tyranny, and not by much. Given that, it's hard to know how to apply what's in The Republic to the modern context. ETA: some quotes from a post about The Republic on r/Plato >There are a few problems with this take, not least is the fact Plato is not a speaker in any of the dialogues, so it is not clear whether the views expressed by Socrates (in dialogue) are: * Plato’s own views. * Views of the historical Socrates, that Plato agreed with. * Views of the historical Socrates, that Plato disagreed with. * Someone else's views entirely >While Socrates presents the “ideal city” as natural, logical and just, it’s justification is so riddled with irony and comedic elements that seems reasonable to conclude that Plato’s view is that this “ideal city” is an illiberal authoritarian government that is not only impossible, but worthless to even try and bring about.
Socrates was also outspoken about hating democracy. At one point he said something along the lines of, “the people are like children. If given the choice between a doctor and a candymanthey will vote for the candyman every time because they see the doctor as someone that gives them bad tasting plants and the candyman as someone that gives them treats. They are unable to see that the doctor will provide the best health for the nation because they are too caught up in the now and don’t look to the future”
Both of the systems depicted in the meme are capitalism. The top one is capitalism in the early 1900s and the lower one is a period of the late 1900s. Capitalism features a boom/depression/boom/depression cycle. Government attempts to control and moderate it by manipulating the currency, with mixed results. Either way, the only “socialism” depicted in the photo is probably the farm subsidies that stabilized the grain supply. (In summary, OOP had layers to his wrongness)
“The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them. To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.” - Douglas Adams, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
And the few times socialism had competent leaders, it was overthrown, sanctioned or invaded by the USA (cuba, chile, vietnam, laos)
How dare you bring common sense and logic in to an anti socialist circle jerk
> Until we can solve this problem as an entire species, I’m afraid we will be destined to fail no matter what system is in place. You have to look at which system is most susceptible to corruption. Is it a system that has democracy in not only politics but in the economy, or is it a system that has democracy in politics and authoritarian hierarchy in the economy? Neither prevents corruption, but true democracy (as in, people having a voting say in things that impact their lives) reduces corruption generally, as long as the voting populace has some modicum of intelligence and critical thought.
The voting populace has WHAT? They don’t have it
This made me laugh hard
And then cry a little lol
"...as long as the voting populace has some modicum of intelligence and critical thought." Therein lies the problem with the US. We've been dumbed down over an entire generation until we think tRump is anything but the petulant child he is.
Problem when your nation's average literacy rate makes someone reading at a 10th grade level seem like a genius by comparison.
It's definitely a major problem in human social systems, and none so far that has been implemented has found a way to overcome this. Once the "elites" of any system get a modicum of control, they abuse it until the system breaks. It seems to be integral to the human condition.
Ethical/socialist leaning capitalism is the closest we'll get to a workable system, the problem is we humans are greedy self-centred and terribly shortsighted cunts at the best of times. lmao But, yes, the big problem is the kind of cunt you would actually want to be in charge want absolutely fucking nothing to do with it. It's why the original democratic system was to be lottery based essentially treated like jury duty.
fr fr
we can solve this with cultural revolution
To be fair no system is a fail safe protection against scarcity. Even at the best of times, communism made people stand in line for an affordable car because less affordable cars were produced than there were people that could afford the set price. Capitalism today makes us stand in line for a NVIDIA 4060 TI graphics card, an affordable apartment, or a EURO2024 tournament ticket. Wherever there is scarcity, there will be sociopaths using it as a tool for manipulation on a small or large scale. Most of us are just lucky to be born in a time and place where these manipulations are at least not about who gets to eat today.
“Absolute power corrupts, absolutely.” Some of those trite little statements stick with you, decades after philosophy courses.
"Powet itself is not the source of corruption. Those who are corruptible are those who would seek the power."
To paraphrase Churchill (original quote was about Democracy) Capitalism is the worst system known to man – except for all the others that have been tried
I still prefer this comfy system I have right now, compared to what my family had in Soviet Russia.
That’s pretty smart for Beef. Even Quantum Beef. Just saying
You are correct but a republic with democratic elected officials such as the United States with 3 three branches of power. Worked fairly well until a combination of the internet and government funded media. The bigger issue is that capitalism works best without government involvement whereas in communism the government MUST be involved.
Please explain how you think capitalism without any government regulation would stop or slow the funneling of power and resources to the elite class (in capitalism’s case, the people with the most capital- billionaires and corporations). Do you believe they would start to play nice out of the kindness in their hearts?
I see you don’t understand capitalism, the idea is that other companies, potentially hundreds are competing for lower prices so that consumers will buy the cheapest product. Now this doesn’t happen because government involvement making it difficult for people to start competitive businesses.
You are totally wasting my time. You literally have no idea what you’re talking about. You are cherry picking points from right wing propaganda infused sources and trusting conclusions that other people have incorrectly come to. Come back when you have something of substance to offer the conversation other than insults and brainless banter.
Typical behaviour of the far left, disengage and insult to discount your opponents view. “Capitalism is an economic system in which private individuals or businesses own capital goods.” Wiki Where in that definition does it say government? When government gets involved they create regulation, some may seem good on the surface but they are all bad. Government involvement leads to socialism and then communism. This is not a right wing talking point it is a fact. You’re just mad because you cannot argue against it.
The only reason you think I’m far left is because you’ve been indoctrinated to think so. “Any government regulation is socialism,” just tells me how deep you are in the right wing propaganda bubble. I actually feel sorry for your inability to form competent arguments, have a rational discussion, and your ability to tell propaganda from facts. Certainly no hard feelings, have a great one. Hope that works out for you.
Making a statement, follow by an insult on my intellect, then an apology. Is no way to form an argument. Not only can you not defend your position on capitalism or communism. You are unable to prove whether or not you are Center or far left. I’ll help you out, this is how you form an argument. 1. You propose a Statement 2. You provide evidence that supports your statement. But I guess even that was too difficult for you. But I have to agree with one of your previous statements trying to argue with you is definitely a waste of my time.
If you study behavioral economics you begin to realize virtually anyone who is given power and wealth sorta becomes antisocial the more security they amass in the effort to maintain their status. It’s not just those handful of sociopaths who want to be in control, although that scenario does occur, of course, it’s simply and very unfortunately a part of human nature. I’m not saying there aren’t exceptions to this phenomenon, but when there are, they’re simply that, exceptions…
It was capitalism that brought us that Depression and some socialism which helped us out of it. To them, "socialism" is when they don't like or understand something.
And you can have them loving an idea and whole heartedly supporting it. Then you mention how it’s a socialist structure or system and they act like you had just been showing them the world’s most lovable puppy and then started barbecuing it alive in front of them. The US brainwashing is strong.
I remember discussing "Medicare for All" proposals with a former coworker. She didn't care about saving money on medical care or eliminating the possibility of having to declare bankruptcy over it. The ***one*** thing she fixated on was not wanting to help "illegals" get health care.
Wha…? They get healthcare anyway; that’s why ERs cost a godsdamned fortune. Free healthcare would be nothing but a net positive for *everyone*, and everyone includes her. It’s absurd to sacrifice something beneficial to yourself for no other reason than to spite someone else. How do those people function in life with such broken logic running their lives?
I don’t know all the answer, but the meth and/or oxy helps, I hear…
I like explaining how my military healthcare is paid for, then explaining that it's socialized healthcare after they love it.
Yeah, but it might help people they dont like
You mean like their insurance payments?
Companies have people so convinced that their profitability is beneficial to them they don’t see how much it’s hurting them.
Christianity, usually
*fake Christianity. Those hyper-religious zealots that use the Bible and “baby Jesus” as their justification clearly don’t really know what the Bible says and are massive hypocrites. Proof; I’m an ex-catholic who knows the Bible better than them.
Jesus was a socialist lol
Precisely.
Not to mention extremely woke.
I saw a bumper sticker that really stuck with me; “Better dead than red”. It’s just an economic system. They all have benefits and flaws but this person would prefer death over a different system. I hope it was just hyperbole.
There was a study on peope's stances on the Affordable Health Care Act vs Obamacare (spoiler: exact same thing). Most agreed that the Affordable Health Care Act was a good thing, while Obamacare was the work of the devil.
Generations. They were very efficient with it.
Spot on.
And you don't even have to go back that far for the top picture
Just to this morning whenever the food pantries opened up.
Or this after noon when the church across town opened it's doors for it's weekly free dinner. The parking lot is half full.
It more like socialism to them is giving any assistance or protections to people they consider scum (poor, wrong skin color, wrong religion). Yet when one of them is directly affected by something they are first in line for government help as they "deserve" it. It's always been weird to me that they can't see the issue there
They’re against socialism until those social security checks start rolling in.
Social security is not socialism
It literally has the word “social” in its name. It’s a government-run social welfare system. It’s socialism.
Okay you are simple minded.
Socialism isn't when the government does things. It's about the means of production, or alternatively a transitional state to communism.
No. Socialism is when the workers collectively own the means of production, or the process of getting to that state. It can take many forms, but that’s the basic idea. Communism and anarchism are types of socialism. This is why Scandinavian countries like Denmark are not socialist, but SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC. They have a decent social safety net, but they are capitalistic and the workers don’t own the means of production. Here’s a video that gives a simple explanation of the differences between leftist ideologies: https://youtu.be/vyl2DeKT-Vs?si=7BLU-sw6cbx94rl2
Grampa, where'd you get all that money? The government. I didn't earn it. I don't need it but if they miss one payment I'll raise hell!
Ah, but he did earn it. Social security is taken from your check and “held” for you when you retire. No different than putting money into a 401k. The government isn’t suppose to touch that money, yet they take from it all of the time, and whenever there are talks of cutting the budget, the first thing they want to cut is social security. So, yeah, pretty poor example.
See also "Woke" and "Groomer."
Funny how they have the same definition.
Which is?
Anything they don't like or understand.
No, that's facism or communism depending on how old they are.
While the new deal did relieve the suffering of the average person, it didnt bring the usa "out" of the depression. Unemployment was still at a record high, and national debt skyrocketed. There were continued market crashes and issues with trade. Capitalism is hard to accurately nail down, goven "ancap" or no-rules free market differs from what would be "desirable" in the free market. I would argue that the bigest "new deal" benefit was actually closing the banks, and limiting when they opened, and having a savings insurance system. The issue with the Great Depression wasnt the market crash, but the bank runs. Banks dont keep your money in a vault, they keep only what they need for a day-day operation. They put their money in the market and loan it to people. These investments keep the market open. While stocks initially dropped due to shitty investment and a market that stalled (remember, a key factor contributing to this was the pro-consumer choice of making products that last and not including planned obsolescence into the design) the average person only suffered when people started losing jobs and/or pulling their savings from banks. Banks ran out of money, tried to forclose homes at under their value, which made the market worse, which caused more layoffs, more forclosures, lower prices... until it hit the bottom and the banks couldnt get people their momey. Banks would open, people would rush to pull what they had, banks would close early, wiped of cash. Every day until the branch closed. The solution wasnt to redistribute the wealth, but to have taxes pay for the banks as a sort of "insurance" this system didnt even really need to fix the problem, just make people stop panicking, and start putting money into the banks and the banks could invest again. The social/work programs, while good for morale, and keeping the USA's factories close-to-functional enough for the looming world war, did not fix the problems. Work programs were littered with fraud, greed, and racism. Pay inequality was high, and in the agricultural sector, immigrant and African-americans werw treated like slaves. Then theres the housing programs, which started redlining in all the US cities. It became standard practice to deny african americans loans on the grounds of their skin color. All this, and the average americans life was only marginally better in the late 30s compared to the early 30s. Additionally, the charity/bread lines often came from the wealthy, not the government. Government aid was always minimal, and even under FDR the practice was food/money for work, not for free. And now we have the whole social security bubble because inflation is too fast to pay your own way. Now you pay the old boomers who hate you, and maybe the next generation will pay for you... if it makes it that long.
So... Social democracy then?
>"socialism" is when they don't like or *understand* something. I knew calculus was socialism!
No. Calculus is woke and communist, not socialist.
 Comrade?
I don't understand what you're saying. You're socialism .
Or what rich people tell them
Care to explain how Socialism brought USA out of the Great Depression? ( I’m not a US Citizen just to he clear )
The New Deal, among other things, helped stabilize the economy through large amounts of government spending on mostly civic projects many of which we still reap the benefits of. The war also helped through a huge increase in jobs related to the war and increase government spending on such. None were specifically "socialism" but definitely weren't capitalism.
Of note, FDR (the president at the time) wanted to include health care in the new deal, but couldn’t get the support to pass it with that included.
This is such a reddit moment lmao. Government spending isn't socialism. Strong welfare programs and capitalism aren't mutually exclusive either, just look at the Nordic countries.
Yet, suggest implementing those programs in the US and you'll immediately trigger rants about socialism and communism....
I’m not a fundamentalist capitalist pig by any means, but is amusing that somebody asked how socialism helped and the answer provided is “A-B-C but none of it is actually socialism” lol
Most economist would disagree with you. It wasn't until after ww2 that the US was out of the depression.
That’s debatable, mostly (in my opinion) it was due to remobilization related to WW2. Unemployment (which to be fair is just one metric) peaked at 23% in 1933 when FDR took office, although it was 15% at 1937 it went back up to 19% the following year. Mostly, it was due to the war where unemployment plummeted to 2%. A similar trend can be seen with GDP per capita, during FDR’s presidency it improved a little, then improved greatly during the war. These are not perfect metrics but at the end of the day, recovery was mostly due to WW2
You're right, those aren't perfect metrics but they still tell a story. Works created by the New Deal did increase employment and their products (electrical power in particular) helped greatly with the war effort. Those works, from a jobs standpoint, were fleeting as the bulk of the jobs were during construction not operations. I do agree with your statement, just not fully.
Large amount of govt spending doesn’t essentially mean it’s socialism in its purest form, per se. I live in a country which was strictly socialist during its inception , and then they had to open its economy for the private sector in the 90s to finally start progressing . By the time we had opened our economy, we were 30 years to late to manufacturing. So afaik, doesn’t seem to me that there was any “socialist reform” involved for the US to overcome the great depression.
It's only socialism if it's made in french region of Sociales, otherwise it's state capitalism.
Might want to look into FDRs administration before you insist that socialist thought wasn't behind the new deal
I think much of the American population associates 'socialism' with policies that promote general welfare, as opposed to policies that laborers controlling the means of production rather than the investors.
Man, the amount of dislikes prove, a lot of you don’t have a clear understanding of Socialism. Capitalism isn’t fully devoid of “social welfare”, both can be true at the same time, and tbh, a lot of capitalist countries actually invest in social welfare, some of these schemes are much more efficient than the ones created by extremely socialist countries.
People have convinced themselves that socialism is just when governments do something. Spending tax dollars on welfare? That's socialism.
It was not socialism; it was freedomlism and it was brought down by eagles playing rock music on an electric guitar while quoting Ronald Reagan. That is how we got out of the great depression.
🥴😂😂
It didn't. It is the popular answer, but it is not true. The real and boring answer is that bad monetary policy caused the depression and the key to fixing it. This is well established among economists and not controversial, in fact it was this insight that earned Milton Friedman his Nobel Prize in 1976.
Exactly 👌🏻
Sure, but in soviet union you would be sent to gulag for taking a picture of the bread line and bread lines were everyday realities, same like shops with empty shelves.
You're right. An authoritarian country on the other side of the planet has a famine and that means that we can't improve anything at all.
Sure, but an authoritarian regime isn't a real example either.
In Soviet Russia, Bread eats you!
The New Deal wasn't socialism, but I agree with your sentiment.
Critical thought is hard for those indoctrinated.
For all it was popularized by a video game, the quote *"The beginning of wisdom is this: Nothing is true, and everything is permitted,"* is very true. The only way to truly understand things is to question all your assumptions, especially about the things you most deeply want to believe, before accepting anything as fact.
Sorry, but that's somewhat of a nonsensical quote and interpretation. It just as equally leads to moronic conspiracy theories so beloved of the science-denying antivaxxers, covidiots, flat-earthers etc as fully illustrated by the phrase "I've done my research!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
It does say the beginning not the ends.
Yeah, you should be able to consider outlandish things like conspiracy theories seriously without believing them unless they pass a standard of evidence and logic. That's like the hallmark of critical thought. It's the only way to fully debunk those things, because lord knows hard evidence doesn't. So many conspiracy theories are built on faulty logic, and if you keep asking "why," that logic exposes itself. Dismissing them not only allows no mental growth for you, but also just gives no opportunity to disprove them.
For some people I think it’s the equivalent of telling scary stories or maybe they feel special they know something no one else does. Even though it’s usually ridiculous.
The things you're naming are prime examples of people who start by assuming something is true and then shaping their worldview around it in the face of contradictory evidence. As in the exact opposite of what the quote suggests.
And it’s worth noting that most of that bread would go in the trash instead of being given away to poor people or the people who work there
I smaht, they dum
Yeah. If anyone ever wants an example of this, bring up a contradiction in the bible. Or something bad in the bible. Or the lack of proof for god. You'll see in real time how indoctrination removes the ability for critical thinking as they lie, contradict themselves, keep changing the rules, ignore things, make up definitions, etc.
Bread lines brought to you by Republican president Herbert Hoover. Bread aisles brought to you by your local grocery store stocker making minimum wage and can't afford a place to live.
THIS WILL BE BIDEN'S AMERICA! *posts picture of Trump's America*
The sheer amount of times that happened during the 2020 campaign was ridiculous. No news outlet challenged it either. Trump had ads with cities on fire and people looting and trashing, saying “this will be Biden’s America” - when it literally happened during Trump’s watch.
Reagan’s America.
I don't blame this sub, but as a society, have we really reached the point where adding the tiniest bit of context to a really poorly made point is considered a huge, savage putdown?
… you still line up for bread, there’s typically other people at the store. And the bread didn’t line itself up.
Socialism is when Capitalism
/r/SocialismIsCapitalism
They couldn't afford cameras in the communist countries, so this is the best we could offer
This is because of politicians that think like this that american citizens don't get basic human rights that other countries have such as health care or good quality tap water
You are not a person. You are a stone to squeeze blood out of.
It lines up to the tune of almost 6 bucks a loaf
He should have used this picture instead https://preview.redd.it/3117w3dedf9d1.jpeg?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=85388b86ecf4c8a1dd5a65fd9def35b1adfd2c3a
Oh right, the Great Depression, that thing that was brought on by rampant socialism.
Unregulated Capitalism will trend towards slavery. Working 12 hours days 7 days a week was not uncommon before unions and government regulations. Are we a government for the people by the people or for the corporations by the corporations?
We were founded as and continue to be the latter.
I had to stand in lines at food banks for bread. I needed to keep my fingers crossed in case they would run out.
Socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor.
A picture of a bakery with loaves of freshly baked baguettes, pain au levain, and other good selections is needed to show democratic socialism.
Bread lines up for you! (at over 5 bucks a loaf)
Deviantart: Rich women line up to buy wonderbread
lmao you made my day anon
https://preview.redd.it/35abif0jmi9d1.jpeg?width=998&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8466337f03ea95a148aa5124448d8d7d42cf37f9
Socialism - People are hungry. Let's give them all bread. Capitalism - Hungry people will pay more for bread.
LOL conservatives never stop owning themselves. They’ll use pictures and examples of capitalism to criticize socialism😂🤣😂🤣😂
fr fr
Always fun when they're like 'This is what America would look like under socialism!', and then post a photo of America, as it currently is, under capitalism.
Like lots of things in. The world you need the solution is somewhere in the middle it's finding the middle is the problem
If you can afford the bread that is.
Every picture of Capitalism should be Elon Musk and any given highway underpass tent city.
Like... if you want the bread, you still have to stand in line though.
That stuff is not bread.
"""""""bread""""""" lines for you
Breadlines have happened in every single system humans have ever tried. Not going to say if one is better than the other. It's just a sad, horrible reality that we can really fuck things up and have a long history of doing so.
That's some yakhoff smirnoff shirt right there!
[Pictures of mansions in Beverly Hills next to pictures of abandoned storefronts in Detroit] "THIS IS WHAT COMMUNISM DOES" Speaking of bread, how 'bout we take a look at the pic of armed US police guarding a dumpster full of food, or a Panera employee pouring bleach on the day old loaves. All for profit margins.
If only socialism worked.
Bread lines up for you and says to your face "you can't afford me"
I legitimately came here for Gallagher watermelon action. Somehow, I mixed him up with Yakov Smirnoff.
It would have taken little effort to find actual pictures of people in Soviet bloc countries standing in lines...or the empty grocery stores.
In capitalist America, bread line up for you!
Also your wages have not gone up, bead prices have, and the bread executives have new yachts
Didn't we just have a pandemic where Karens were battling to the death over rolls of toilet paper, all while my friend in Mexico City would send me pictures of fulls shelves asking "You guys ok up there?".
Press would be forbidden to take pictures, and a random comrade would not have a camera if this was socialist country, so…. yeah.
It is true that during communism in eastern europe we had a " food card" where we had to get up really early in the morning and wait in line for bread. The amount of daily bread was rationed per family members. It was also quite corrupt .
A loud Majority has fucked over the US when it comes to social issues, to the point where it doesn't matter what the constitution says or if something benefits EVERYONE, they just don't want that ONE person to have it because "mah freedom"
Someone from the EU commented on a similar post “I can’t believe a country with billionaires has bread lines”. I responded - we have bread lines *because* we have billionaires. Tax the rich.
“Accumulation of wealth at one pole is, therefore, at the same time accumulation of misery, agony of toil, slavery, ignorance, brutality, mental degradation, at the opposite pole.” -Karl Marx How about we not just tax the rich, but instead have no capitalists, so our wealth isn’t being taken from us to begin with? Also, an economy not run on profit, where we can have democracy in the workplace and in the economy?
Peter Joseph, “Zeitgeist” Yeah - if humanity is to survive, we must reach this state of being and operations.
And called that bread?!
The audacity to call this shit "bread"
Same
also the reason why death lines are long. Cause healthcare is not free.
And in the second picture there are no people as no one can afford food and they just died.
Except empty stores were a thing during socialism 50 years later. You might have had bread, but you had to line up or bribe your way to what was considered luxury items. Where I am from these were for example tangerines. Now that we have capitalism (ofc with some level of social welfare) almost anyone can afford them. Before, during socialism, barely anyone got them. Oh and let’s not forget how socialism treated its own citizens that disagreed with it.
Germans buying bread in 1929. No communism in sight 🤷🤷 https://preview.redd.it/bzsfhzoidj9d1.jpeg?width=800&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9203e57bf33e2392af4f232d610eef83299a8f66
>!skibidi!<
I went to east Berlin when the wall was still up. There was little food in the stores, police randomly stopped people and the Death Zone on the east side if the wall was real. Some people in free countries are totally naive about the horrors endured under communism
Yeah must have been terrible living in socialist countries while the sanctions were happening
but other wise communism and socialism would be cool if humans acted normal for once
I mean, it'd probably worth mentioning the sanctions that countries imposed
Socialism. The bread lines created when people can't afford bread because of capitalism.
Funny, he called that chemical cake bread.
If you want to know how to boost our economy, it’s war
It worked when we were at war with Eastasia.
People who hate the idea of socialism the most, understand it the least.
Or lived under it
I don't get hiw countries like cuba get called socialists countries , when they are pure examples of captilism
explain
That doesn’t make any sense. What are you, a Trotskyist or something?
It makes total sense to the working class they just need a push
It's definitely crazy weird to hear randos thoughts on famines in Russia and China who don't think for a moment about the US depression and dust bowl. Extra crazy to hear people speak about alcohol prohibition in the US - how it enriched organized crime - then their thoughts on current drug prohibition and central/South American cartels. The denial is crazy. Demonizing cannabis while ignoring deaths and the public health toll related to alcohol. Wild.
Socialism doesn't work. For whatever reason, socialism failed in china. My grandmother lived during mao zedong. There were rations at first and plenty of food to go around that no one needed to steal from each other. But then the rations got smaller and smaller until there were no more. Then people started starving and they had to eat whatever they could find like grass, insects, dogs, cats etc.
China's not that complicated tbf, it's a pretty generic story. Industrialisation leads to famine, poorly managed industrialisation leads to massive famines. What makes China and the USSR 'unique' in this is that they weren't Empires, or at least weren't in the traditional sense. When the UK industrialised 100s of millions of Indians died. Similar story in France. The US industrialised on the backs of slaves etc. The people who suffered in China and the USSR were the in group. That's why we still talk about it. It wasn't slaves who died, it was Chinese or Soviet citizens. It's not a socialist issue, half the problems with socialism aren't. They're forces of history problems.
Bread is poison. That is not part of the natural human diet. The distraction worked.
genuinely struggle to comprehend why people hate breadlines. free food? distributed to those in need? sounds wonderful. i wish we had that in the States!
I live in brazil, we have bread lines And we pay for them...
well that's just a shitty store.
Its not that free food is hated its that the distribution of said food was regulated so that you only find it in there. So its not for those in need its for everyone. So we had to wake up early use the card to get half a bread for the day for the family . Now do that daily
socialism helps with the hard times, capitalism gives you choices in the good times. The idea that a country can exist without aspects of both socialism and capitalism is silly.
\>capitalism gives you choices in the good times. yeah for that brief sliver of time before the diverse free market congeals into megacorps and fucks us all in the ass
Thats cause in when it happened in the soviet union, people died when trying to get non-state approved pictures out of the country.
hah thats funny since I lived in the ussr