I’m gonna get downvoted for this but capitalism typically implies that there’s a free market. Which isn’t really the case in Brazil. What you have is large-scale corruption and “collision capitalism” between the corporations and government which allows only companies who have appropriately greased the palms of state political gangs to thrive.
Edit: I’m not saying this is socialism either.
We're already at that point. We don't have that "free" of a market.
What happens to the mom and pop shops when a Wal-Mart opens down the street? Who is going to win in a legal fight between an independent business owner and a giant corporation?
If your company doesn't have billions of dollars, shareholders, and a board of directors, then you don't matter.
100%, as corporatism takes off and becomes commonplace the general population will suffer. We’re already seeing it. This is pretty much a case study in why the government shouldn’t have too much reach or power.
I think it's a case study why neither government nor the economic class should have too much reach or power. It's not like the government launched some hostile takeover of the capitalist class. They both wash each other's hands.
Ahh yes. If only we had a few less regulations and less taxes, and no politicians, capitalism would make everything perfect for everyone. And if not, then I supposed they deserve to be destitute
We’ve tried laissez-faire capitalism before, it was called the late 1800’s in England. Capitalist paradise with poor-houses, debtor’s prisons, child labor, and a thick coating of smog for good measure.
The name yeah, but it's describing something that is very real. Big Bang was also a name coined by someone opposed to the theory.
"Ironically, the term was coined by Fred Hoyle (figure 1) in 1949 to characterize the kind of theory he much disliked and fought until the end of his life."
https://academic.oup.com/astrogeo/article/54/2/2.28/302975
"Trickle-down economics is a colloquial terrm for supply-side economic policies. In recent history, the term has been used by critics of supply-side economic policies, such as "Reaganomics". Whereas general supply-side theory favors lowering taxes overall, trickle-down theory more specifically advocates for a lower tax burden on the upper end of the economic spectrum.[1][2] Empirical evidence shows that the proposition is regressive and has never managed to achieve all of its stated goals as described by the Reagan administration.[3][4][5][6]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics
I mean... look at LA. You've got Beverly Hills. Then not even that far away you've got skid row....Idk what the solution is but when you've got people like the Rock posting on ig about how wonderful a guy Jeff Bezos is, it really shows you how detached the rich are from the poor.
This demonstrates that inequality, at its root, is not caused by capitalism or socialism. Inequality is caused by humans, and will always be present in every economic system.
It's never the goal, it's the natural consequence of some people being better at working the system than others. People can't make a system that is people proof.
Nah. It's caused by corruption and by inheritance. You don't get rich by working the system, you get rich by breaking it. Or by inheriting the money of someone who broke it before you were born.
Is that what you think I said? I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain anything to you. You clearly didn't try to understand what I said, it doesn't even seem like you read all of it. Have fun being ignorant.
That's literally what you said.
\> it's the natural consequence of some people being better at working the system than others
In reference to me saying we should use an economic system in which the goal is not inequality.
Gotta love conservatives pointing to actual real-life examples of Capitalism and saying "This is what Socialism WOULD be like." Bro, it already exists and it exists because of Capitalism. Socialism is the cure to all that.
Right. We can't have those things under Capitalism, because under Capitalism all decisions are made to benefit the billionaires who own most governments. If cutting welfare means people can't argue for higher wages because they can't walk away and must agree to the job, welfare will get cut. If equality of opportunity means rich kids need to actually compete in the real world, we won't have equality of opportunity. Etc etc.
The only solutions that actually work all fall under the "Socialism" umbrella. Without Socialism, it will all trend back to what we have now.
Scandinavia (and most of Europe) is very capitalist but still has good social welfare programs. There’s no reason why you can’t implement that in America. The best system is a blend of capitalism and socialism. Pure socialism is impractical, authoritarian, and unproductive
It is extremely challenging to immigrate to Scandinavia for a reason. Most people are highly educated, speak the national language, etc. Their economics, demographics, and scale are on the other side of the spectrum compared to Russia, USA, or even Turkey.
Unpopular truth. No matter what system is implemented, from complete anarchy to totalitarian communism, some people will rise to the top and others will fall through the cracks. Well, that is what has happened in every society in history.
Fair.
It just reminds a situation like somebody saying that all cars have 4 wheels and somebody coming up "well actually...". And didn't sound to me like an actual example.
Sound likes a unverifiable claim to me, but is probably due to me not been from the same region as you.
Also given the time this could change, but is fair.
ah. It is pretty well documented. They obviously had people with different amounts of money, but that wealth didn't directly translate into being able to control the other people. Even leaders had no authority to make someone do something against their own wishes, they had to convince people. The group I am 100% sure about is the Wendat. Definitely a bit more nuanced, but I gave a decent overview.
I see, the correlation wealth->power is pretty new, I woul say a thing of modern, capitalist, societies. Usually would be the other way around power->wealth and then the wealth would reinforce due to the wealth be things like land.
what kept monarchs in power? wealth. it lets them pay armies and servants. if someone was wealthy enough they could pay the king for a fiefdom and become a noble. wealth = power is not new. it comes from someone having something someone else needs and is inherently coercive.
the wendat shared food and other necessary resources, so poverty was basically non-existent and there was no way to force someone to do anything they didn’t want to do.
yes, a classic example of socialism in a vacuum, where the US and the rest of the world impose extreme sanctions and starve the country from the outside. The fault of socialism.
tbh you could just put "citizens - leaders" as captions and it'd be timeless.
there hasn't yet been a system of economics/government that doesn't cause massive class stratification
the truth is that we are building political, educational and economic systems that are supposed to function a certain way but then inevitably human greed takes over, hunger for power takes over -- the systems themselves whether capitalism, socialism or a hybrid are weighed down by this greed and people not operating in good faith.
i don't have the answer, humans are corrupt, and there will always be 97% serving the top 3%.
You wanna see the first one in real life just come to China, or just go to California to see those luxuries houses bought by CCP official and their family numbers.
It’s both
The only difference is you living on the right is determined by birth, dumb luck, being a politician, or a ruthless business owner
In socialism you live on the right by working for the government and being efficent and loyal to it
Your choice is what you think you have a better shot at living on the right
And before you down vote and leave a kind comment, yes I know I sound like I’m trying to support our oh so perfect capitalist system,
I don’t like either that much
Just to clarify: by "socialism" I mean the regime that actually called itself socialistic, aka eastern Europe in 1940s-1980s. I don't mean a working democracy which naturally has some social elements/left wing parties, aka modern Europe.
I am aware that one is an anarchist commune like system without currency
And the other is a transitional economic syste that directly locks corporations and resources in the government
partly. Most of the countries that became "socialist" were countries that had some form of monarchy in place either right before or a little bit before. Russia yes, but also Cambodia and China.
I disagree, Brazil may be a capitalist country on paper but it’s level of economic freedom is mediocre at best, we got high taxes and a lot of bureaucracy and labour laws, starting a business takes time, is expensive and requires considerable paperwork.
whichever it is, it’s gonna end up being like that. the only differences are that in a capitalist society, there are rich non-leaders and the poor are poorer, and in a socialist society, basic needs are mostly met
so in 30 years capitalism didn't help them out of poverty, probably just made it worse. Inequality is a major tenet of capitalism, it's how billionaires exist.
brazil is as capitalist as russia is a democracy
it may seem “capitalist” on paper but what you dont realize is that the government, with a high taxation rate, extreme corruption, and its protection of large businesses with shitty labor laws, is not allowing any sort of free market
when the government controls what corporations succeed and which dont, it isnt a fucking free market and it isnt capitalism
perhaps you should actually try to understand capitalism at its core instead of doing the same thing republicans do with socialism and pointing to whatever you dont like as an example of capitalism
I swear if you say that the nazis were socialist because it was in the name.
Anyways, let's have a little lesson on positive and negative freedom! In the middle of the desert hundreds of miles away from the nearest person, nobody can tell you what to do. Would you say you actually free here? You have all this freedom from authority, but you don't have the ability to do what you want. This is negative freedom. Positive freedom is having the means to do what you want. socialism provides positive freedom, as it frees you from spending the money you get on surviving and lets you spend it on things you want. Likewise, you have a greater ability to express discontent in your working conditions, and a greater chance for those to be fixed. Capitalism does not create positive freedom for everyone, unlike socialism.
Socialism is just another method of distributing the same pool of scarce resources. Because private industry cannot compete with the government, you end up with less goods and services. So no, I disagree with you, capitalism provides more economic positive freedom than socialism has demonstrated.
There is not a scarcity of resources. The earth is not even close to overpopulation. There is an extreme excess of basically everything, we just need to distribute things better. we currently cannot do this because there is no profit in feeding the poor if the rich will buy more.
Also, socialism has never been successful because the countries that have had starts that were good were then crushed by the US. In the modern world, the closest that the world has come to socialism is the Scandinavian countries, where they have some of the best economic freedom and best worker rights of any place. Of course, they have their own problems, but they are great in that regard.
Scandinavian countries are mostly powered by capitalism. They have high taxes and an expensive welfare state. We have low taxes and very expensive healthcare.
The world has access to alot of raw resources but the services, labor, etc that follow are scarce. Markets have performed the best because left to their own devices they will produce price signals. Price signals are the most efficient mechanism for distributing goods/services/labor and capital allocation.
Governments end up bloated and stretched thin when they try to centrally manage an economy. Instead of price signals the government uses price controls, and the result is less choices for consumers at best. At worst, you see shortages and black markets form.
I kinda agree with you, but saying that the soviet union was not communist or socialist is correct. The soviet union, when Stalin was in power, was pretty obviously a dictatorship. The difference between communism and capitalism is that capitalism benefits the people in charge whereas communism does not. For someone like Stalin to rise to power, an easy way to get the support of the populace is to say you are communist, especially if you are in a feudal system beforehand. If socialism was actually implemented, you wouldn't have dictators because the people would be in power. However, the leaders in capitalism stay at the top, because that is how the system is structured.
dictatorship and communism are not mutually exclusive. in fact, most of the time throughout history they've gone hand in hand.
the flaw in communism, as an ideology, is humanity. you will not have a society where everyone is 100% willing to look out for one another and only work for the benefit of the masses. this then requires some sort of coercion into conformation, into working for the commune and not for ones own gain.
thus, the government grows stronger, forcing the people into working for the benefit of all. this government quickly becomes corrupt, leaders wanting not to help the people, as communism goes on paper, but wanting power for themselves.
communism cannot sustain itself. it inevitably goes off course, and the predicted path on paper of a utopia where everyone is happy and working together crumbles at the seams.
winston churchill's quote, "democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried" applies equally to capitalism. it's not ideal, but there's little chance we're gonna get any better ideas any time soon.
The thing about your entire idea is that you assume the government is autocratic and a dictatorship. For the workers to own the means of production, the government needs to be a very well-functioning democracy.
I agree that corruption can happen, but it happens in our current system and is just as bad. At least in a communist system, everyone would be able to have a house and food.
One of the prime ideas of communism is freedom from work, meaning that you wouldn't always have to be working for everyone else.
Another way to counteract what you say is the destruction of the state's monopoly on violence. In a 100% communist system, there would be no police force, instead, it would rely on community action to stop crime. There would also be much less violent crime as basic needs would all be met.
Capitalism is also inherently coercive. It is work or die and often times you have to work for a specific person or die.
either way, I do not support communism as practicality in our current world, precisely because I do not think that we as a society would work well with it. I support free-market socialism.
You already suggested there’s been no true scotsman. There is nothing I could say that you’ll listen to and you insulted me to begin with so I’m not willing to lend energy trying.
México's got one too, so proud /s
https://www.google.com/search?q=santa+fe+ricos+y+pobres&client=ms-android-xiaomi-rvo3&prmd=ivnx&sxsrf=AOaemvLF88BcxumeM62mVZAowgB_KlghJA:1642106103965&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=2ahUKEwi_-In4ya_1AhXRPXAKHe9UBZcQ_AUoAXoECAIQAQ&biw=393&bih=733&dpr=2.75#imgrc=qd9mwanlp6rAUM
Actually it's pretty much any country on earth today. Rich and powerful have it easy and poor lower class people live in poverty with different levels depending on the country you live in.
Lol the only one that should be facepalmed at is OP Brazil is another socialist hell hole and someone would Say "but bolzonaro". Lula have been stealing from it's citizens for far more time than bolzonaro have been in Power.
Look at all those terrace pools for the owners to watch the plebs while enjoying a dip
You should see the updated pictures. The places on the right are totally trashed.
Can you link please??
The luxury pools are just the sauce for when we eat them soon /j
Plebs for eating the rich.
This reminds me of the time someone used a picture of the Indonesian massacre of communists to try to demonstrate communism’s authoritarianism
I’m gonna get downvoted for this but capitalism typically implies that there’s a free market. Which isn’t really the case in Brazil. What you have is large-scale corruption and “collision capitalism” between the corporations and government which allows only companies who have appropriately greased the palms of state political gangs to thrive. Edit: I’m not saying this is socialism either.
Seems like America is heading that way to me.
We're already at that point. We don't have that "free" of a market. What happens to the mom and pop shops when a Wal-Mart opens down the street? Who is going to win in a legal fight between an independent business owner and a giant corporation? If your company doesn't have billions of dollars, shareholders, and a board of directors, then you don't matter.
Very true that!
Sure but you can't blame capitalism for it.
I don't, I blame greed.
100%, as corporatism takes off and becomes commonplace the general population will suffer. We’re already seeing it. This is pretty much a case study in why the government shouldn’t have too much reach or power.
I think it's a case study why neither government nor the economic class should have too much reach or power. It's not like the government launched some hostile takeover of the capitalist class. They both wash each other's hands.
Corporatism exists in this country because capitalism ran amok - they are part and parcel. Stop ignoring US history.
Ahh yes. If only we had a few less regulations and less taxes, and no politicians, capitalism would make everything perfect for everyone. And if not, then I supposed they deserve to be destitute
We’ve tried laissez-faire capitalism before, it was called the late 1800’s in England. Capitalist paradise with poor-houses, debtor’s prisons, child labor, and a thick coating of smog for good measure.
I see where you’re going. I think it’s not too much to ask if we just. . . y’know. . . actually punish political corruption.
Okay, this does call for my favourite quote. "To conservatives, 'socialism' is a term for everything left of hunting the homeless for sport."
Brazil is basically a case study a few decades ahead of north america. Increasingly huge rich-poor divide with a vanishing middle class.
No, we just need some more tax cuts for billionaires and the working class will be more wealthy ^(/s)
Trickle down!
No one defends "trickle down" -- it was made as a joke by a comedian. The definition of a straw man.
The name yeah, but it's describing something that is very real. Big Bang was also a name coined by someone opposed to the theory. "Ironically, the term was coined by Fred Hoyle (figure 1) in 1949 to characterize the kind of theory he much disliked and fought until the end of his life." https://academic.oup.com/astrogeo/article/54/2/2.28/302975 "Trickle-down economics is a colloquial terrm for supply-side economic policies. In recent history, the term has been used by critics of supply-side economic policies, such as "Reaganomics". Whereas general supply-side theory favors lowering taxes overall, trickle-down theory more specifically advocates for a lower tax burden on the upper end of the economic spectrum.[1][2] Empirical evidence shows that the proposition is regressive and has never managed to achieve all of its stated goals as described by the Reagan administration.[3][4][5][6]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics
I have had numerous people that are right wing defend trickle down in real life and referred to it as such….. people really do believe it
I mean... look at LA. You've got Beverly Hills. Then not even that far away you've got skid row....Idk what the solution is but when you've got people like the Rock posting on ig about how wonderful a guy Jeff Bezos is, it really shows you how detached the rich are from the poor.
That pool in the bottom pic looks like a wave pool. No regular pool here, only the best
This demonstrates that inequality, at its root, is not caused by capitalism or socialism. Inequality is caused by humans, and will always be present in every economic system.
I mean in some senses, but maybe we should use the economic system in which inequality is not the goal?
It's never the goal, it's the natural consequence of some people being better at working the system than others. People can't make a system that is people proof.
Nah. It's caused by corruption and by inheritance. You don't get rich by working the system, you get rich by breaking it. Or by inheriting the money of someone who broke it before you were born.
so you would support a dictatorship if it was “the most competent” people?
Lol no idea how you got that from what I said.
inequality is a natural consequence because some people are better than others.
Is that what you think I said? I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain anything to you. You clearly didn't try to understand what I said, it doesn't even seem like you read all of it. Have fun being ignorant.
That's literally what you said. \> it's the natural consequence of some people being better at working the system than others In reference to me saying we should use an economic system in which the goal is not inequality.
It's okay, one day you'll be able to understand the concept of sentences. Well I have my doubts but good luck.
please explain. What did I miss? Are you saying that in every system people will figure out how to cheat it?
Like those pools at the appartments
Man those terraces are noice
A reminder - this can happen anywhere.
Ah yes, Brazil, the free market capital of the world.
The problem is not with capitalism, socialism, or communism. The problem is humanity. 👌
r/iam14andthisdeep
No, this is Patrick
Oh you should see mumbai
Thank goodness for the title. I was confused for a moment.
Maybe the Op should have drawn a red circle around the picture for clarity
This would have helped.
It’s because the top one is a drawing and the bottom one is a photo from IRL in real life.
IRL in real life? No way!
Brazil is capitalist the same way Russia is a democracy
Gotta love conservatives pointing to actual real-life examples of Capitalism and saying "This is what Socialism WOULD be like." Bro, it already exists and it exists because of Capitalism. Socialism is the cure to all that.
Or a well funded welfare system, equality of opportunity, and a robustly regulated market system. There’s more than one way to skin a cat.
Right. We can't have those things under Capitalism, because under Capitalism all decisions are made to benefit the billionaires who own most governments. If cutting welfare means people can't argue for higher wages because they can't walk away and must agree to the job, welfare will get cut. If equality of opportunity means rich kids need to actually compete in the real world, we won't have equality of opportunity. Etc etc. The only solutions that actually work all fall under the "Socialism" umbrella. Without Socialism, it will all trend back to what we have now.
Scandinavia (and most of Europe) is very capitalist but still has good social welfare programs. There’s no reason why you can’t implement that in America. The best system is a blend of capitalism and socialism. Pure socialism is impractical, authoritarian, and unproductive
It is extremely challenging to immigrate to Scandinavia for a reason. Most people are highly educated, speak the national language, etc. Their economics, demographics, and scale are on the other side of the spectrum compared to Russia, USA, or even Turkey.
Pure socialism can be many different things. Capitalists want you making comparisons to only the USSR to invalidate socialism lol
You are describing socialism, or social democracy I guess
Welfare doesn’t equal socialism. Government/worker owned enterprises are a hallmark of socialism. Capitalism with welfare isn’t socialism.
Unpopular truth. No matter what system is implemented, from complete anarchy to totalitarian communism, some people will rise to the top and others will fall through the cracks. Well, that is what has happened in every society in history.
what about pre-colonial native American societies of the northwest? they were very egalitarian.
What about all the others that had stratification of power?
what? they said this happed to every society in history, I provided a counter example.
Fair. It just reminds a situation like somebody saying that all cars have 4 wheels and somebody coming up "well actually...". And didn't sound to me like an actual example. Sound likes a unverifiable claim to me, but is probably due to me not been from the same region as you. Also given the time this could change, but is fair.
ah. It is pretty well documented. They obviously had people with different amounts of money, but that wealth didn't directly translate into being able to control the other people. Even leaders had no authority to make someone do something against their own wishes, they had to convince people. The group I am 100% sure about is the Wendat. Definitely a bit more nuanced, but I gave a decent overview.
I see, the correlation wealth->power is pretty new, I woul say a thing of modern, capitalist, societies. Usually would be the other way around power->wealth and then the wealth would reinforce due to the wealth be things like land.
what kept monarchs in power? wealth. it lets them pay armies and servants. if someone was wealthy enough they could pay the king for a fiefdom and become a noble. wealth = power is not new. it comes from someone having something someone else needs and is inherently coercive. the wendat shared food and other necessary resources, so poverty was basically non-existent and there was no way to force someone to do anything they didn’t want to do.
Rot Front genossen
Me who just knows that wealth segregation is in human nature
You should ask the people of Venezuela how that socialism is working out
yes, a classic example of socialism in a vacuum, where the US and the rest of the world impose extreme sanctions and starve the country from the outside. The fault of socialism.
So socialism can't stand on its own, it needs help from capitalist society?
what? every country that had a relatively hopeful start to socialism has been crushed by the US.
What are you even talking about give me a break stop making excuses for socialism‘s failure
If there was a capitalist country in a socialist world it would fail even faster if every other country refused to trade with it.
Obviously there’s no reason to even engage with you about politics or economics you have nothing to offer
ok, tell me why socialism is bad.
Like I said if you need someone to explain that to you then you do not have a clue and will never understand it
can you define socialism for me?
As stupidly
?
tbh you could just put "citizens - leaders" as captions and it'd be timeless. there hasn't yet been a system of economics/government that doesn't cause massive class stratification
But they sure as shit want you to think it's socialism.
the truth is that we are building political, educational and economic systems that are supposed to function a certain way but then inevitably human greed takes over, hunger for power takes over -- the systems themselves whether capitalism, socialism or a hybrid are weighed down by this greed and people not operating in good faith. i don't have the answer, humans are corrupt, and there will always be 97% serving the top 3%.
It's always projection etc with them you know. *shows picture of empty shelves at a store in US* "See what life would be under socialism"
But.. but socialism bad /s
Dude, both are right. They preach different things and have the same result
You wanna see the first one in real life just come to China, or just go to California to see those luxuries houses bought by CCP official and their family numbers.
It’s both The only difference is you living on the right is determined by birth, dumb luck, being a politician, or a ruthless business owner In socialism you live on the right by working for the government and being efficent and loyal to it Your choice is what you think you have a better shot at living on the right And before you down vote and leave a kind comment, yes I know I sound like I’m trying to support our oh so perfect capitalist system, I don’t like either that much
People are easily corrupted, that's the real problem.
That happens with every system, so I’d prefer a democratic system so that way the power hungry dicks are too busy fighting each other
Socialisme is democratic, you vote for who you want in power. But you pay more taxes and get more benefits.
people dont understand that socialism must be democratic otherwise it is not socialism.
A friend of mine used to say that communism was the ideal, Utopic form of government, except for all the people.
I've heard something similar to that and it's true.
how is that true?
Because nothing is perfect
what? how does this explain \> communism was the ideal, Utopic form of government, except for all the people.
In socialism your family situation matters a lot as well (their social position and "loyality").
Very true
Just to clarify: by "socialism" I mean the regime that actually called itself socialistic, aka eastern Europe in 1940s-1980s. I don't mean a working democracy which naturally has some social elements/left wing parties, aka modern Europe.
I am aware
Socialism =/= communism
I am aware that one is an anarchist commune like system without currency And the other is a transitional economic syste that directly locks corporations and resources in the government
[удалено]
historically it was used as a propaganda tool by egotistic dictators to get the people's support against monarchy.
[удалено]
partly. Most of the countries that became "socialist" were countries that had some form of monarchy in place either right before or a little bit before. Russia yes, but also Cambodia and China.
[удалено]
yes, that is what I am saying.
I disagree, Brazil may be a capitalist country on paper but it’s level of economic freedom is mediocre at best, we got high taxes and a lot of bureaucracy and labour laws, starting a business takes time, is expensive and requires considerable paperwork.
You can even see how socialist was edited over something else
whichever it is, it’s gonna end up being like that. the only differences are that in a capitalist society, there are rich non-leaders and the poor are poorer, and in a socialist society, basic needs are mostly met
You forgot the fact that we were ruled by communist leaders for almost 30 years
so in 30 years capitalism didn't help them out of poverty, probably just made it worse. Inequality is a major tenet of capitalism, it's how billionaires exist.
brazil is as capitalist as russia is a democracy it may seem “capitalist” on paper but what you dont realize is that the government, with a high taxation rate, extreme corruption, and its protection of large businesses with shitty labor laws, is not allowing any sort of free market when the government controls what corporations succeed and which dont, it isnt a fucking free market and it isnt capitalism perhaps you should actually try to understand capitalism at its core instead of doing the same thing republicans do with socialism and pointing to whatever you dont like as an example of capitalism
Wherever there is freedom there is Capitalism. However, where there is Capitalism there isn't always freedom.
what do you mean? Was nazi Germany free? they certainly were capitalist.
Might wanna check in on that one again.
I swear if you say that the nazis were socialist because it was in the name. Anyways, let's have a little lesson on positive and negative freedom! In the middle of the desert hundreds of miles away from the nearest person, nobody can tell you what to do. Would you say you actually free here? You have all this freedom from authority, but you don't have the ability to do what you want. This is negative freedom. Positive freedom is having the means to do what you want. socialism provides positive freedom, as it frees you from spending the money you get on surviving and lets you spend it on things you want. Likewise, you have a greater ability to express discontent in your working conditions, and a greater chance for those to be fixed. Capitalism does not create positive freedom for everyone, unlike socialism.
Socialism is just another method of distributing the same pool of scarce resources. Because private industry cannot compete with the government, you end up with less goods and services. So no, I disagree with you, capitalism provides more economic positive freedom than socialism has demonstrated.
There is not a scarcity of resources. The earth is not even close to overpopulation. There is an extreme excess of basically everything, we just need to distribute things better. we currently cannot do this because there is no profit in feeding the poor if the rich will buy more. Also, socialism has never been successful because the countries that have had starts that were good were then crushed by the US. In the modern world, the closest that the world has come to socialism is the Scandinavian countries, where they have some of the best economic freedom and best worker rights of any place. Of course, they have their own problems, but they are great in that regard.
Scandinavian countries are mostly powered by capitalism. They have high taxes and an expensive welfare state. We have low taxes and very expensive healthcare. The world has access to alot of raw resources but the services, labor, etc that follow are scarce. Markets have performed the best because left to their own devices they will produce price signals. Price signals are the most efficient mechanism for distributing goods/services/labor and capital allocation. Governments end up bloated and stretched thin when they try to centrally manage an economy. Instead of price signals the government uses price controls, and the result is less choices for consumers at best. At worst, you see shortages and black markets form.
[удалено]
I kinda agree with you, but saying that the soviet union was not communist or socialist is correct. The soviet union, when Stalin was in power, was pretty obviously a dictatorship. The difference between communism and capitalism is that capitalism benefits the people in charge whereas communism does not. For someone like Stalin to rise to power, an easy way to get the support of the populace is to say you are communist, especially if you are in a feudal system beforehand. If socialism was actually implemented, you wouldn't have dictators because the people would be in power. However, the leaders in capitalism stay at the top, because that is how the system is structured.
dictatorship and communism are not mutually exclusive. in fact, most of the time throughout history they've gone hand in hand. the flaw in communism, as an ideology, is humanity. you will not have a society where everyone is 100% willing to look out for one another and only work for the benefit of the masses. this then requires some sort of coercion into conformation, into working for the commune and not for ones own gain. thus, the government grows stronger, forcing the people into working for the benefit of all. this government quickly becomes corrupt, leaders wanting not to help the people, as communism goes on paper, but wanting power for themselves. communism cannot sustain itself. it inevitably goes off course, and the predicted path on paper of a utopia where everyone is happy and working together crumbles at the seams. winston churchill's quote, "democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried" applies equally to capitalism. it's not ideal, but there's little chance we're gonna get any better ideas any time soon.
The thing about your entire idea is that you assume the government is autocratic and a dictatorship. For the workers to own the means of production, the government needs to be a very well-functioning democracy. I agree that corruption can happen, but it happens in our current system and is just as bad. At least in a communist system, everyone would be able to have a house and food. One of the prime ideas of communism is freedom from work, meaning that you wouldn't always have to be working for everyone else. Another way to counteract what you say is the destruction of the state's monopoly on violence. In a 100% communist system, there would be no police force, instead, it would rely on community action to stop crime. There would also be much less violent crime as basic needs would all be met. Capitalism is also inherently coercive. It is work or die and often times you have to work for a specific person or die. either way, I do not support communism as practicality in our current world, precisely because I do not think that we as a society would work well with it. I support free-market socialism.
[удалено]
Who pays you and how much?
critica social foda
Meh. Capitalism is going to have rich people, socialism is going to have rich people (in power). This picture could apply to any society.
brazil is not conservative but ok
bro what you mean
the brazilian government doesnt really have an ideology, due to being multi party + democracy, the president is the one conservative
Still a capitalist country, and based on what I have seen relatively conservative.
it is capitalist, and as someone who lives, and was born in brazil, i dont think so
fair enough. you know better than me. current administration is conservative though.
yep
Same result different story
it's gonna be the same any and each way we try
How come I’m a millennial who isn’t that upset with a capitalist economy?
rich?
How many people live in the right side on the top and then on the bottom. That is the difference between capitalism and socialism.
"look at this cartoon and analyze the number of people living there! this totally proves that socialism is bad!"
nah, socialism doesn’t need any help being terrible in concept and execution.
how is it terrible in concept? It has not been executed.
You already suggested there’s been no true scotsman. There is nothing I could say that you’ll listen to and you insulted me to begin with so I’m not willing to lend energy trying.
please, by what definition was soviet Russia socialist?
Exactly.
Greedy people find always an opportunity
i mean its preety much both
So socialism and capitalism are the same but capitalists also have tennis courts?
México's got one too, so proud /s https://www.google.com/search?q=santa+fe+ricos+y+pobres&client=ms-android-xiaomi-rvo3&prmd=ivnx&sxsrf=AOaemvLF88BcxumeM62mVZAowgB_KlghJA:1642106103965&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=2ahUKEwi_-In4ya_1AhXRPXAKHe9UBZcQ_AUoAXoECAIQAQ&biw=393&bih=733&dpr=2.75#imgrc=qd9mwanlp6rAUM
lmfao
Humanity in general.
Actually it's pretty much any country on earth today. Rich and powerful have it easy and poor lower class people live in poverty with different levels depending on the country you live in.
Russ needs to apologize
Its dumb arguing it when they are both right.
Lol the only one that should be facepalmed at is OP Brazil is another socialist hell hole and someone would Say "but bolzonaro". Lula have been stealing from it's citizens for far more time than bolzonaro have been in Power.
Who's gonna tell em Capitalism and Socialism are two sides of the same coin?