NationStates

Manokan Republic wrote:

Aillyria wrote:There can be no hybridization between socialism and capitalism, they are mutually exclusive concepts. Socialism and Capitalism aren't on a spectrum, there's no "more or less" of either. A system is either one or the other, full stop.

Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, basically all of Europe and even the U.S... no hybrids you say? xP

The Nordic Model and Social Democracy are capitalist...there's literally nothing socialist about them....and no universal healthcare and welfare aren't socialism.

Aillyria wrote:

Manokan Republic wrote:Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, basically all of Europe and even the U.S... no hybrids you say? xP

The Nordic Model and Social Democracy are capitalist...there's literally nothing socialist about them....and no universal healthcare and welfare aren't socialism.

Lots of Social Democratic party's have the long term aim of transitioning to a Socialist state.

Irona wrote:

Aillyria wrote:The Nordic Model and Social Democracy are capitalist...there's literally nothing socialist about them....and no universal healthcare and welfare aren't socialism.

Lots of Social Democratic party's have the long term aim of transitioning to a Socialist state.

"long term aims"

hmmm

Bakery Hill wrote:

Irona wrote:Lots of Social Democratic party's have the long term aim of transitioning to a Socialist state.

"long term aims"

hmmm

It’s still part of the ideology. They just accept that it’s not desirable to do it right now.

Irona wrote:

Bakery Hill wrote:"long term aims"

hmmm

It’s still part of the ideology. They just accept that it’s not desirable to do it right now.

Every major social democratic party I know, excepting recently the UK, is now neoliberal, many to the point that they've consciously expunged references to socialism from their party documents. The few that keep them out of habit or inertia show no sign of wanting to move towards socialism, their leading figures often consciously denouncing socialism when the question arises.

Bakery Hill wrote:

Irona wrote:It’s still part of the ideology. They just accept that it’s not desirable to do it right now.

Every major social democratic party I know, excepting recently the UK, is now neoliberal, many to the point that they've consciously expunged references to socialism from their party documents. The few that keep them out of habit or inertia show no sign of wanting to move towards socialism, their leading figures often consciously denouncing socialism when the question arises.

That might have been true in the 90’s or early 2000’s but there’s been a pretty big shift post-great recession. Neo-liberalism has basically collapsed as the dominating force of Social Democratic party’s. Maybe it’s just because UK Labour is the largest English speaking party, but a similar thing has/is happening across the world.

Irona wrote:

Bakery Hill wrote:Every major social democratic party I know, excepting recently the UK, is now neoliberal, many to the point that they've consciously expunged references to socialism from their party documents. The few that keep them out of habit or inertia show no sign of wanting to move towards socialism, their leading figures often consciously denouncing socialism when the question arises.

That might have been true in the 90’s or early 2000’s but there’s been a pretty big shift post-great recession. Neo-liberalism has basically collapsed as the dominating force of Social Democratic party’s. Maybe it’s just because UK Labour is the largest English speaking party, but a similar thing has/is happening across the world.

It's hold is loosening, but that's not remotely true. Insurgencies inside soc dem parties have yielded limited results, they're far more likely to collapse or slowly fall into irrelevance than have a Road to Damascus reconversion. You can see this trend in the French PS, PASOK in Greece, the Italian PD, PSOE in Spain, the German SPD and Austrian SPO, the Belgian and Dutch social democratic parties even the old Scandinavian bastions and not too mention every social democratic party in the old Eastern bloc.

Not sure if it's been brought up before, but, on the topic of parties, what about the idea of a powerful vanguard party or unit that could rally and organize Socialist/Communist workers, and work as representatives and leaders of the people?

Aillyria wrote:There's nothing to compromise, by submitting to "bipartisanship" with capitalists, you've already lost.

This.

The goal of any true Communist movement, IMO, should be in the total destruction of Capitalism through revolution, and nothing less. That's just me though.

Lagomorph Supreme wrote:I don't understand why you're opposed to Capitalism.

It's oppressive, exploitative, and harmful to everyone but the 1%?

Torrocca wrote:

Lagomorph Supreme wrote:I don't understand why you're opposed to Capitalism.

It's oppressive, exploitative, and harmful to everyone but the 1%?

t. Socialist

Lagomorph Supreme wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
It's oppressive, exploitative, and harmful to everyone but the 1%?

I'll debate you on that after i get back from work. Because i actually have a job.

>At work
>Posting on NS

You're serving your capitalist master well I see. :^)

I put several other things as well as other, since I am partial to guild socialism.

Lagomorph Supreme wrote:Okay, so why is Capitalism bad again?

Have to get up at 6 in the morning instead of sleeping in.

T. First world capitalism

The Liberated Territories wrote:

Lagomorph Supreme wrote:Okay, so why is Capitalism bad again?

Have to get up at 6 in the morning instead of sleeping in.

T. First world capitalism

Absolutely exploitative.

Lagomorph Supreme, here's the definitions of communism and socialism
https://www.britannica.com/topic/communism
https://www.britannica.com/topic/socialism

Lagomorph Supreme wrote:Okay, so why is Capitalism bad again?

In order of importance:
The necessity of capital to circulate and expand demands ever increasing exploitation of human and natural resources.
This means the destruction of the biosphere, and ultimately the destruction of human civilization itself.
In our day to day life, it means that wages will trend towards subsistence
It also means that capitalism will always produce crisis, and that crisis causes immense human suffering

Lagomorph Supreme wrote:

Trotskylvania wrote:In order of importance:
The necessity of capital to circulate and expand demands ever increasing exploitation of human and natural resources.
This means the destruction of the biosphere, and ultimately the destruction of human civilization itself.
In our day to day life, it means that wages will trend towards subsistence
It also means that capitalism will always produce crisis, and that crisis causes immense human suffering

That's the modern state of things, mobster Capitalism. Can't we just have small businesses take over the market?

Nah, that's just regular capitalism. Competition naturally requires a winner, and capitalism is competition.

You'll just see the same cycle repeated if you broke all the big businesses.

Lagomorph Supreme wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
Nah, that's just regular capitalism. Competition naturally requires a winner, and capitalism is competition.

You'll just see the same cycle repeated if you broke all the big businesses.

Well, that's just like, your opinion dude.

Nope, it's the truth. Can't have competition without someone winning eventually, and since capitalism necessitates competition there's bound to be a winner somewhere. :^)

A major problem with capitalism is that it has too many externalities, it does not factor in the costs of pollution, environmental damage, or costs associated with crime. There are no values attached to the cost of clear cutting, mismanagement of forests, health damage caused by chemicals, and similar issues. This is a major failing of pure capitalism. Like automation, it does not factor in the human costs. It is possible to have a better place to live with lower GDP because of the problems with externalities. You could have a country with less crime, a cleaner environment, more public spaces like museums and parks, and better income distribution with a slightly lower GDP.

Aillyria wrote:

Valentine Z wrote:To be honest, I would love a hybrid between a socialist and a capitalist economy. Socialist as in maybe a high tax rate to maintain the free healthcare, public transport, and healthcare. And maybe to distribute the wealth evenly. It's totally not because I am jealous of millionaires or billionaires. I'm sure that what they did in the past earns them the cash.

But... seeing Rich Kids of Instagram/Snapchat is a totally different thing, I will say that much.

At the same time, maybe a healthy dose of capitalism; not too much, but enough to drive forward innovation.

There can be no hybridization between socialism and capitalism, they are mutually exclusive concepts. Socialism and Capitalism aren't on a spectrum, there's no "more or less" of either. A system is either one or the other, full stop.

West Leas Oros wrote:Probably because a bipartisan solution requires compromise. *shudders* The Horror!

There's nothing to compromise, by submitting to "bipartisanship" with capitalists, you've already lost.

GOD DAMMIT! I thought you wouldn't be here.

West Leas Oros wrote:

Aillyria wrote:There can be no hybridization between socialism and capitalism, they are mutually exclusive concepts. Socialism and Capitalism aren't on a spectrum, there's no "more or less" of either. A system is either one or the other, full stop.


There's nothing to compromise, by submitting to "bipartisanship" with capitalists, you've already lost.

GOD DAMMIT! I thought you wouldn't be here.

It makes sense to think a socialist wouldn't be in an anti-capitalist thread........

UniversalCommons wrote:A major problem with capitalism is that it has too many externalities, it does not factor in the costs of pollution, environmental damage, or costs associated with crime. There are no values attached to the cost of clear cutting, mismanagement of forests, health damage caused by chemicals, and similar issues. This is a major failing of pure capitalism. Like automation, it does not factor in the human costs. It is possible to have a better place to live with lower GDP because of the problems with externalities. You could have a country with less crime, a cleaner environment, more public spaces like museums and parks, and better income distribution with a slightly lower GDP.

All that you mention are failures of the court system, not "capitalism."

In fact capitalism under a strong rule of law is uniquely equipped to handle such problems. Where you see the most pollution occur, in the oceans for example, is due to the lack of property rights.

On the other hand, the Soviet Union's attempt at central planning completely dried up the Aral Sea.

The Liberated Territories wrote:

UniversalCommons wrote:A major problem with capitalism is that it has too many externalities, it does not factor in the costs of pollution, environmental damage, or costs associated with crime. There are no values attached to the cost of clear cutting, mismanagement of forests, health damage caused by chemicals, and similar issues. This is a major failing of pure capitalism. Like automation, it does not factor in the human costs. It is possible to have a better place to live with lower GDP because of the problems with externalities. You could have a country with less crime, a cleaner environment, more public spaces like museums and parks, and better income distribution with a slightly lower GDP.

All that you mention are failures of the court system, not "capitalism."

In fact capitalism under a strong rule of law is uniquely equipped to handle such problems. Where you see the most pollution occur, in the oceans for example, is due to the lack of property rights.

On the other hand, the Soviet Union's attempt at central planning completely dried up the Aral Sea.

Pollution is due to lack of property rights? That's a new one...

Aillyria wrote:

West Leas Oros wrote:GOD DAMMIT! I thought you wouldn't be here.

It makes sense to think a socialist wouldn't be in an anti-capitalist thread........

Well you aren't a real socialist. Just a sociopath disguised as one.
Not to mention that this thread split off from LWDT, so I assumed you would think this thread was a "revisionist hellhole".

The Liberated Territories wrote:

UniversalCommons wrote:A major problem with capitalism is that it has too many externalities, it does not factor in the costs of pollution, environmental damage, or costs associated with crime. There are no values attached to the cost of clear cutting, mismanagement of forests, health damage caused by chemicals, and similar issues. This is a major failing of pure capitalism. Like automation, it does not factor in the human costs. It is possible to have a better place to live with lower GDP because of the problems with externalities. You could have a country with less crime, a cleaner environment, more public spaces like museums and parks, and better income distribution with a slightly lower GDP.

In fact capitalism under a strong rule of law is uniquely equipped to handle such problems. Where you see the most pollution occur, in the oceans for example, is due to the lack of property rights.

And the lack of a thoroughly destroyed environment in the United States is because of property rights and not Teddy Roosevelt's environmental policies protecting most of the land, amirite? :^)