What Do Socialism and Capitalism Mean to You

[AthenaAwakened]

What do socialism and capitalism mean to you and has your understanding of these words changed since you first encountered them?

 

[Derec]

Socialism: system where means of production are mostly publicly owned, even if it allows some limited private ownership. That includes government-mandated workers' co-ops as in Titoist Yugoslavia.

Capitalism: system where means of production are mostly privately owned, even if it has some limited public ownership, such as transportation systems, schools, hospitals etc.

 

[TomC]

What do socialism and capitalism mean to you and has your understanding of these words changed since you first encountered them?

Capitalism is the Law of the Jungle as adopted by modern humans.
A few constraints, as forced upon the rich and powerful, under circumstances that they haven't yet evaded.

Socialism is the rest of us deciding how society and the economy will operate.
Tom

ETA ~My opinions have changed a great deal in the last 30-40 years. I grew up in an upper middle class family, a white male with lots of education, it took some time and effort to realize that Ronald Reagan wasn't a prophet or even correct.~

 

[bilby]

Socialism - an economic system wherein decisions about what ought to be done, where, for whom, and to what extent, is determined by a authoritarian process, usually predicated on minimisation of inequalities, and ideally managed by democracy or representative democracy.

Capitalism - an economic system wherein decisions about what ought to be done, where, for whom, and to what extent, is determined by the holders of large numbers of transferable tokens, usually predicated on the maximisation of inequalities in the distribution of those tokens (and therefore the power that they grant), and managed by the wealthiest individuals (ie those holding the most tokens) in society at any given time.

A well ordered and effective community will use a combination of these systems, as socialism is far superior to capitalism in decisions about infrastructure (in its broadest sense) and the distribution of resources that tend towards natural monopolies; While capitalism is far superior in decisions about consumable and luxury goods.

Socialism in the provision of such things as electricity, education, healthcare, water, and transportation infrastructure (roads, railways, ports, airports, etc.), coupled with capitalism in the provision of pretty much everything else, seems to be the best option.

Wherever capitalism is applied to infrastructure or natural monopolies, people suffer; Likewise whenever socialism is applied to consumables and luxuries.

Having capitalist healthcare, roads or utilities sucks.

Having socialist food, clothing, and entertainment also sucks.

There are always people who want to push their preferred system into areas where it's not appropriate. Usually they're folks who have benefited greatly from one of the two systems, and leapt to the conclusion that it's therefore got to be the best possible strategy in absolutely all circumstances.

In the modern world, socialists making this error are generally shouted down by capitalists making this error, because society in the OECD currently gives a lot of power to capitalists - particularly those in the branch of the entertainment industry that is pretending to provide information infrastructure, and that has largely overwhelmed the socialist information infrastructure that used to be in place.

There's a reason why the BBC and PBS are more respectable and trustworthy than MSNBC or CNN, and it's simply that actual news is more respectable and trustworthy than entertainment pretending to be news can ever be. It's not as much fun, though.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

A little something I wrote a while back

SOUTHERN SOCIALIST
I like pressed cracklins.
I like sports where I can touch the ball with my hands.
I believe I should have a gun as long as the Klan can.
I believe children should say please and thank you and excuse me as applicable, and I don't take offense at Ma'am and Sir
I respect a person's choice to be vegan, but if you try to take my Big Mac away, it won't be me with a cold, dead hand.
I cook with butter and sugar and salt.
I thank goodness for cans of Manwich sauce and boxes of Stove Top Stuffing.
I like wrestling from the eighties and muscle cars from the seventies.
I love old time gospel music and I always wish police officers an uneventful watch.
I was raised southern and that is not a bad thing.
I always speak when I enter a room, wave at people sitting on porches, and take time with old people because they deserve it.
I am a leftist, a socialist on most days, because I don't think that sharing is a radical concept, nor that rich people should determine the value of other people's labor, nor that testaments of faith are the end of history.
oh and one more thing
I'm definitely gonna make potato salad and there won't be a fkkn raisin is sight
Peace

I asked the question in the opening post because I think too often we decide that a thing is wrong and once we do, we spend the rest of our lives seeking out and pronouncing to the world just how eternally and despicably wrong our wrong thing is. We never look for what might be just a little bit right about it, and we damn sure to look for what might be just a tiny bit wrong with what we KNOW ir RIGHT.

 

[Politesse]

What do socialism and capitalism mean to you and has your understanding of these words changed since you first encountered them?

Different flavors of spin, on economic realities that are in truth too complex to be controlled by any intentional policy-making. I used to believe they existed as observable social structures of some kind, rather than symbolic lodestones.

 

[rousseau]

To truly understand either takes a lot (a lot) of reading that most aren't willing to do. Those who do read about either are usually just trying to confirm the beliefs they already have. That's when you realize that most arguments about either idea are politically motivated, not at all about understanding or truth.

But I also think that the texts that would allow a person to actually understand these topics aren't really accessible to the public unless you have cash to burn, and are willing to commit a lot of time to your self-education. There's a kind of academic tier of writing that actually gets to the heart of both, but almost no one ever finds this writing for one reason or another.

 

[Elixir]

The words mean to me whatever the current spin on them really is.

I do see the underlying premise of capitalism as “if we let human greed be the reliable, if reckless driver of economic growth, the greediest people will grow the economy, but won’t necessarily end up oppressing everyone else for their insatiable greed.“
That’s just NOT what’s happening in the great Capitol of Capitalism-the USA. Capitalists are buying and selling legislators and judges - even SCOTUS justices - like the rest of us buy scones, with obvious intent to impose their religious and ideological will upon the rest of us.
Socialism is also built on the faulty assumption that you can find a whole lot of people who will responsibly and equitably allocate the resources of the commons, if only “the commons” included virtually everything. Basically, it is conflated with Communism in the current hive mind.
We seem to be having both problems.

 

[Bomb#20]

Socialism: system where means of production are mostly publicly owned, even if it allows some limited private ownership. That includes government-mandated workers' co-ops as in Titoist Yugoslavia.

Capitalism: system where means of production are mostly privately owned, even if it has some limited public ownership, such as transportation systems, schools, hospitals etc.

That pretty much defines capitalism as everything that isn't socialism, as though there were only two distinct systems. There are other systems that aren't socialism or capitalism or even half-and-half, but are off the axis in some other direction -- notably, mercantilism and, for want of a better word, Falangism. A definition of capitalism needs to include the free market -- who you trade with and at what exchange rate is negotiated by the parties trading, rather than being decided by government.

 

[southernhybrid]

I think the terms are close to meaningless these days, as people seem to determine their definition to fit their personal ideology.

For example, the far right defines most anything those to the left of them supports as socialism or communism, even when the moderates and left are simply supporting well regulated capitalism along with popular and much needed entitlements like SS, M'care, SNAP, school lunch programs, etc. To the far right, these programs are all defined as socialism, when in reality they have nothing to do with actual socialism. They are simply programs that help the citizens of a democracy in a wealthy county maintain the basics like food, shelter and medical care. This has nothing to do with the government controlling the means of production as socialism has been traditionally defined.

Well regulated capitalism allows the individual and/or corporate ownership to be required to maintain worker safety, food safety, adequate working conditions, etc. Unregulated or regulations that are poorly enforced in relationship to capitalism are usually based on greed and profit, via the exploitation of workers, which usually includes a lack of safety requirements that both support the worker, as well as help maintain the quality and safety of the products. For example, think of all the food products that have been recalled for having dangerous bacteria in them, or eye drops that cause infections, or products for infants that have the potential to cause harm or even death. These things rarely if ever happen when capitalism includes enough safety regulations that are adequately enforced.

In other words, it's complicated, and most wealthy or democratic countries have a mix of different ideologies that aren't easily defined. I think and he can correct me if I'm wrong, that seems sort of like what Bomb was pointing out in the post before mine.

 

[Elixir]

entitlements like SS,

I liked the post above, but wish people weren’t conditioned to call SS an “entitlement“. One is only “entitled” to what they have paid in to the SS system, and sometimes not even that. Mrs Elixir, for instance, paid FICA for a few years but came up a quarter short of being able to collect.
The fact that even a lib’rul like SH is habituated to calling it an entitlement is a testament to the effectiveness of right wing propaganda.

 

[southernhybrid]

entitlements like SS,

I liked the post above, but wish people weren’t conditioned to call SS an “entitlement“. One is only “entitled” to what they have paid in to the SS system, and sometimes not even that. Mrs Elixir, for instance, paid FICA for a few years but came up a quarter short of being able to collect.
The fact that even a lib’rul like SH is habituated to calling it an entitlement is a testament to the effectiveness of right wing propaganda.

Nope. I call it an entitlement because I paid into it for almost 50 years, therefore I am entitled to the benefit. I've never understood why so many people are bothered by the word, entitlement. Why let the crazies on the right use a word in a derogatory way. The nutty right wing woman who owned the facility where I worked prior to my retirement got all pissed off about that word too. Then I gave her my explanation and she agreed. You may disagree but I've never had a problem using that word for something that we are entitled to receive. But, unlike the right wingers, I don't have a problem with poor people, or disabled people being entitled to certain benefits either. I don't see the word as a right wing one. Welfare is more of a right wing word, imo. There's no such thing as welfare these days.

There are some very modest programs that help poor people put food on the table, help pay their rent or help with medical care etc. Imo, all of these programs are entitlements regardless of the reason the person receives them. The entitlements that I despise are the special tax breaks that corporations and ultra wealthy people get. Those are entitlements too, but most on the right are fine with such entitlements.

 

[Elixir]

One of those things is not like the others, and shows up on paystubs as its own line item; it is (should be) non-touchable by Congress.

 

[BH]

I read that conservatives resent welfare for the poor because they are supposedly lazy deadbeats but bailouts for the rich are okay because they work hard.

 

[BH]

I read over 120 books written by Karl Marx and his associates Bebel, Engels, Belford Bax, ECT and some works written by later Soviet writers.

I later worked with and went to university with people who lived under Eastern Block communist governments.

I know two things.

1. the question of wether socialism works or capitalism works is an unanswerable question
The reason why is that depends on the living standard or probable living standard under either system of the person asked. Everyone is going to define whether such a system works or not based on how well they are going to be or will be under it.

2. I have seen plenty of pictures of the apartments and homes of these coworkers and friends taken when under the eastern bloc command economies and I must say they lived a lot better than a lot, I mean a lot of people I know today who hold full time jobs.

My favorite story is from a woman I worked with at Bealls department store twenty five years ago. She was a Soviet citizen and came over here to stay close to her surgeon son. she met Stalin as a small girl. Stalin was touring the country and he stopped in her small village. She said everyone came out to meet him and had no problems telling him what was on their minds without any fear. She knew everyone in town and she vividly remembers two old women chewing him out because of some potholes in the road. Nobody got purged or felt afraid. The bodyguard kept giggling and Stalin just kept saying ,"yes ma'am, yes ma'am". She didn't believe a lot of what we were told about him was true.

I lean communist/socialist in my political leanings. But communism and socialism is supposed to be a democratic movement enacted by the vast majority of the exploited workers. Since most people including workers don't want it here in the US I have no right to want it imposed on them.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Capitalism: The problem with money and what ultimately dooms (doomed?) capitalism is that money is like cholesterol. It gathers, clumps, and inhibits money down the road from flowing in the arteries of an economy because wealth protects itself. Look at Facebook or any other conglomerate that buys up their competition before being replaced by it. It gets worse. Our 21st Century eCommerce is almost solely based on losing just the right amount of money that it is impossible for competition to exist. This all needs checks and balances. Most of which are never put into place or enforced, which is why we have the occasional breakdown economically.

Socialism: It has adapted. I mean yes, publicly owned utilities was part of the plan the whole time in the US, but socialism has adapted in the sense of being a seat at the table and recognizing that certain things are not worth competing and risking access too. Of course, it should also be noted that Fire Departments exist because of the insurance industry... not socialism.

Ultimately, I think it is utterly ridiculous that there are arguments over capitalism v socialism. It is a political red herring. Clearly, allowing a few people to hold the reins of economic power isn't a good idea, for several reasons. And no one is really advocating nationalization of private industries there days.

 

[Bomb#20]

1. the question of wether socialism works or capitalism works is an unanswerable question

West German Embassy, Prague, Czechoslovakia, 1989

 

[Emily Lake]

entitlements like SS,

I liked the post above, but wish people weren’t conditioned to call SS an “entitlement“. One is only “entitled” to what they have paid in to the SS system, and sometimes not even that. Mrs Elixir, for instance, paid FICA for a few years but came up a quarter short of being able to collect.
The fact that even a lib’rul like SH is habituated to calling it an entitlement is a testament to the effectiveness of right wing propaganda.

Nope. I call it an entitlement because I paid into it for almost 50 years, therefore I am entitled to the benefit. I've never understood why so many people are bothered by the word, entitlement.

Social Security in the US is defined as an entitlement system. It requires contributions during your (or your spouse's) working life in order to qualify for benefits, but once that requirement is met, all people are ENTITLED to an allotment. And that allotment is not proportional to what was contributed. If someone earns more and contributes the maximum that SS takes out of your paycheck, you don't get any more in benefits than someone who contributed the bare minimum. The fact that it is an entitlement system is part of why there's a maximum contribution in the first place.

Social Security is not a pension, nor is it retirement insurance. It's not structured like either of those at all, and it doesn't follow the same rules.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

1. the question of wether socialism works or capitalism works is an unanswerable question

West German Embassy, Prague, Czechoslovakia, 1989

That isn't capitalism verses socialism. That was democracy verses authoritarianism. Western Europe adopted quite a few "socialist" aspects in their economic system, as did the US, but maybe a fewer than Western Europe.

Some people want to look at socialism and capitalism in bubbles, but the reality is that what matters nearly as much is how they are regulated. Capitalism is kind of like a car salesman. They say trust us... and we see failure after failure after failure... and then people be like *showing image above* and implying capitalism hasn't endured some historic fuck ups including the CDS related global economic implosion that only didn't end in a Great Depression because people remembered how that was fucked up. As a reminder, that failure was less than 15 years ago. It required trillions of Government money to somewhat disappear. And in a couple of years, the banks were begging the Government to trust them again!

So let's not get all silly about the greatness of capitalism post the bank panics of the 19th century, the Great Depression, the S&L failure, the Great Recession, the crypto-crisis (just wait for it).

Freedom of choice, access to goods, and flow of currency are things we strive for in an economy. Knowing when to use a light hand verses a heavy hand is an art we are still working on! In America, we can't sell ice cream or potato chips without regulations... because if you let companies abuse our trust... they'll abuse the fuck out of our trust.

 

[lostone]

entitlements like SS,

I liked the post above, but wish people weren’t conditioned to call SS an “entitlement“. One is only “entitled” to what they have paid in to the SS system, and sometimes not even that. Mrs Elixir, for instance, paid FICA for a few years but came up a quarter short of being able to collect.
The fact that even a lib’rul like SH is habituated to calling it an entitlement is a testament to the effectiveness of right wing propaganda.

Nope. I call it an entitlement because I paid into it for almost 50 years, therefore I am entitled to the benefit. I've never understood why so many people are bothered by the word, entitlement.

Social Security in the US is defined as an entitlement system. It requires contributions during your (or your spouse's) working life in order to qualify for benefits, but once that requirement is met, all people are ENTITLED to an allotment. And that allotment is not proportional to what was contributed. If someone earns more and contributes the maximum that SS takes out of your paycheck, you don't get any more in benefits than someone who contributed the bare minimum. The fact that it is an entitlement system is part of why there's a maximum contribution in the first place.

Social Security is not a pension, nor is it retirement insurance. It's not structured like either of those at all, and it doesn't follow the same rules.

The amount of your social security benefit is dependent on how much you contribute. How much you earned during your working years determines your allotment. My wife's check was different from mine. Look it up.