NationStates

The New California Republic wrote:

Duvniask wrote:I was referring more to the nonsensical idea that you can "combine" elements socialism and capitalism, as if these are not comprehensive modes of production, but just as assortment of different parts you can switch out at a whim.

Just putting it out there that it would be possible to have major industries under state/cooperative control, and leave the petit bourgeois shopkeepers and artisans to their own devices, as a form of socialism.

That's more or less what most distributists advocate for. I'd personally support such a system.

Greater Victora wrote:

Wink Wonk We Like Stonks wrote:confused by people who think capitalism should be gotten rid of but not now

Because they can't actually think of anything better. If they do, it's painfully idealistic and doomed to fail.

As of right now, Capitalism (not Crony Capitalism or Total Laissez-Faires) is the best we've got.

Looking at how poverty levels have hardly moved (if you exclude China), lowering standards of living, increasing inequality and wealth concentration, lack of social mobility, people dying from curable diseases, a large portion of the world's population malnourished or undernourished, I somehow doubt that.

Old Tyrannia wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:Just putting it out there that it would be possible to have major industries under state/cooperative control, and leave the petit bourgeois shopkeepers and artisans to their own devices, as a form of socialism.

That's more or less what most distributists advocate for. I'd personally support such a system.

It's certainly better than what exists today, but I don't think that's far enough.

We already tried that during the 20th century.

Sanghyeok wrote:

Old Tyrannia wrote:That's more or less what most distributists advocate for. I'd personally support such a system.

It's certainly better than what exists today, but I don't think that's far enough.

Are you one of those leftists who objects to the existence of markets themselves?

I'm not sure it's time to get rid of it, rather we need to adapt it to serve us and not the other way around. Capitalism & Socialism both have wonderful elements that MUST be put to work together for our benefit. This all or nothing mentality dooms us to repeat mistakes of the past.

Routcher wrote:I'm not sure it's time to get rid of it, rather we need to adapt it to serve us and not the other way around. Capitalism & Socialism both have wonderful elements that MUST be put to work together for our benefit. This all or nothing mentality dooms us to repeat mistakes of the past.

Except they are exclusionary by definition.

Old Tyrannia wrote:

Sanghyeok wrote:
It's certainly better than what exists today, but I don't think that's far enough.

Are you one of those leftists who objects to the existence of markets themselves?

I'm not sure how I feel about market socialism, to be honest. My main objection was how the system you and NCR proposed still has private ownership.

The New California Republic wrote:

Duvniask wrote:No. You're talking out your ass and have probably never read any work seriously engaging with the nature of capitalism and its negation, socialism.

Except I very much have.

A bit less of the snideness please.

It seems to have gone in one ear and out the other, considering your "socialism" as described is just public ownership of big industry. Funny how people think capital stops being capital as soon as it is placed in the hands of someone other than your stereotypical owner-boss.

Duvniask wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:Except I very much have.

A bit less of the snideness please.

It seems to have gone in one ear and out the other, considering your "socialism" as described is just public ownership of big industry. Funny how people think capital stops being capital as soon as it is placed in the hands of someone other than your stereotypical owner-boss.

Nationalisation isn't socialism, but I think we can agree it's still marginally better than leaving key sectors under private control.

Sanghyeok wrote:

Routcher wrote:I'm not sure it's time to get rid of it, rather we need to adapt it to serve us and not the other way around. Capitalism & Socialism both have wonderful elements that MUST be put to work together for our benefit. This all or nothing mentality dooms us to repeat mistakes of the past.

Except they are exclusionary by definition.

Yes, if you have a Capitalist system, it cannot be socialist, and vice versa. I'm saying to take aspects from a Capitalist system and aspects from a Socialist system and create something new. Well, new-ish. It's not a very new idea.

Old Tyrannia wrote:

Sanghyeok wrote:
It's certainly better than what exists today, but I don't think that's far enough.

Are you one of those leftists who objects to the existence of markets themselves?

markets are indeed, institutions which are detrimental to the flourishing of humanity in the long run
should be abolished too

Some changes could certainly be made to capitalism, but that doesn't necessarily mean it should be gotten rid of. Things like schools, sanitation, and healthcare should be free and owned by the government, and stricter regulations on wages and pollution should be made, but going as far as abolishing it seems rather extreme.

Cisairse wrote:

Catsfern wrote:Its time to get rid of big business not capitalism. Tell me this what's so wrong with people being able to freely exchange goods and services with each other for a fair agreed upon price? I don't think there's anything wrong with that. The only reason people have a problem with capitalism is because big business ruins it. If we get rid of big business but allow for an otherwise free market Capitalism is great.

Freedom is a myth, it only exists on paper

Material conditions present coercive factors which prevent true freedom in class-based societies

Incorrect.

Ah yes the negotiator wrote:Some changes could certainly be made to capitalism, but that doesn't necessarily mean it should be gotten rid of. Things like schools, sanitation, and healthcare should be free and owned by the government, and stricter regulations on wages and pollution should be made, but going as far as abolishing it seems rather extreme.

Taking the "rough edges" off of capitalism is what social democracy advocates for, but even under social democracies there still exist many problems.

Sanghyeok wrote:

Ah yes the negotiator wrote:Some changes could certainly be made to capitalism, but that doesn't necessarily mean it should be gotten rid of. Things like schools, sanitation, and healthcare should be free and owned by the government, and stricter regulations on wages and pollution should be made, but going as far as abolishing it seems rather extreme.

Taking the "rough edges" off of capitalism is what social democracy advocates for, but even under social democracies there still exist many problems.

Such as?

Catsfern wrote:Its time to get rid of big business not capitalism. Tell me this what's so wrong with people being able to freely exchange goods and services with each other for a fair agreed upon price? I don't think there's anything wrong with that. The only reason people have a problem with capitalism is because big business ruins it. If we get rid of big business but allow for an otherwise free market Capitalism is great.

Aside from the problem of surplus value and being forced to work for a living, pure free market capitalism has been attempted but failed dramatically.

Sanghyeok wrote:

Duvniask wrote:It seems to have gone in one ear and out the other, considering your "socialism" as described is just public ownership of big industry. Funny how people think capital stops being capital as soon as it is placed in the hands of someone other than your stereotypical owner-boss.

Nationalisation isn't socialism, but I think we can agree it's still marginally better than leaving key sectors under private control.

I don't know why you seem to think nationalization actually means anything will be under "societal control" or whatever you want to call it. A simple look at Soviet enterprises should tell you that the reverse can be just as true.

Sanghyeok wrote:Yes, capitalism has failed in almost every country.

Communism has done the same in almost every country it's been implemented in. Capitalism isn't perfect but it's better than the state mismanaging resources and causing a famine or shortage.

Ah yes the negotiator wrote:

Sanghyeok wrote:
Taking the "rough edges" off of capitalism is what social democracy advocates for, but even under social democracies there still exist many problems.

Such as?

social democracies are the pinnacle of capitalism
they've outsourced as many of the problems inherent to it to other countries and reaped the rewards
none of the problems were solved, they were just moved across a border

Kowani wrote:

Ah yes the negotiator wrote:Such as?

social democracies are the pinnacle of capitalism
they've outsourced as many of the problems inherent to it to other countries and reaped the rewards
none of the problems were solved, they were just moved across a border

You didn't tell me any problems there.

This is a stupid question and there is only one answer: when there exists a better system. You wish to depose it for Marxism, what a solution! We will all be in trouble then. Capitalism is the best system we know, but not too much. There should be some socialist ideas in it but free market is necessary

Old Tyrannia wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:Just putting it out there that it would be possible to have major industries under state/cooperative control, and leave the petit bourgeois shopkeepers and artisans to their own devices, as a form of socialism.

That's more or less what most distributists advocate for. I'd personally support such a system.

I personally wouldn't call what I'd advocate in this case as distributism, mainly because I think that some form of central planning is possible and desirable (could call it central planning lite), and shopkeepers and artisans would act as part of a feedback mechanism to gauge supply and demand. I don't see petit bourgeois elements as a major obstacle to socialism; quite the contrary actually, they could be a major asset.

Duvniask wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:Except I very much have.

A bit less of the snideness please.

It seems to have gone in one ear and out the other, considering your "socialism" as described is just public ownership of big industry. Funny how people think capital stops being capital as soon as it is placed in the hands of someone other than your stereotypical owner-boss.

Except I only gave the most basic description possible, and you seem to be filling in the blanks yourself, which is leading you to jump to wrong conclusions about what I'm thinking.

I asked for a bit less snideness too, but that's clearly not happening.

Ah yes the negotiator wrote:

Kowani wrote:social democracies are the pinnacle of capitalism
they've outsourced as many of the problems inherent to it to other countries and reaped the rewards
none of the problems were solved, they were just moved across a border

You didn't tell me any problems there.

indeed, i did not
anyone who advocates for social democracy notes those problems themselves, because they are presumably solved by the system they are advocating for, and so there's no reason to mention them again
if they do not know what those problems are, then there's no point in advocating for social democracy to begin with
this entire exchange is disingenuous

Old Tyrannia wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:Just putting it out there that it would be possible to have major industries under state/cooperative control, and leave the petit bourgeois shopkeepers and artisans to their own devices, as a form of socialism.

That's more or less what most distributists advocate for. I'd personally support such a system.

Same here, with corporatism