this post was submitted on 23 Jan 2024
1092 points (96.3% liked)
Greentext
4409 readers
1392 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Einstein was a fan of socialism, but he was also very critical of Lenin saying he and the Bolsheviks had established a "regime of terror." So it's unclear what system he'd actually be in favor of, since socialism tends toward authoritarianism.
MLK was more of a democratic socialist (e.g. someone like Bernie Sanders), and he was staunchly anti-communist.
So each of those three are very different from each other.
No, Nazis hate capitalism and liberalism, by definition.
Fascism is wholly against international free market capitalism, and against any form of capitalism within the state that does not directly benefit the state. Fascist regimes consistently interfere in capitalist mechanisms.
They hate liberalism because the needs of the state supercede that rights, wants, and needs of the individual. Fascism is actually defined as being anti-liberalism, so they're pretty much diametrically opposed.
So either you don't understand fascism, or you're applying the term to something completely different.
I don't know for certain that fascists love capitalism, but capitalists sure love fascism. Most of the Uber wealthy in the mid 20th century were more than happy to work with the Nazis. And the Nazis certainly were not opposed to working with those capitalists. The two ideologies are very similar: both steadily constrict the power of the government into fewer and fewer hands, until you get situations like Nazi Germany or present day USA, where one group of a few thousand has near complete control over the country.
I was using socialism as a blanket term for "the left" there (do you know a better one?). All 3 of them were further left than Bernie Sanders, which I'd argue makes them socialists (the blanket term)
Not sure where you're getting the idea socialism tends towards authoritarianism, it has more defenses to it than capitalism. Capitalism literally demands that a company do everything it can to co-opt the government, because if you don't, your competitors will. By contrast, socialism is commonly referred to as "workplace democracy". It has distributing power as widely as possible as its central tenet, IE workers owning the means of production.
I would hazard to say those wealthy people aren't capitalists (ideologically at least). Yes, they have a lot of capital, but they would rather pull the ladder up behind them than support open economic policy. They're crony capitalists at best because they preserve their wealth not by continuing to produce value, but by regulating competition out of the market.
If you look at it from that perspective, it makes a lot more sense. They like the idea of government that's very involved in the economy because that means they can cement their power, and perhaps get more by turning their economic position into a political one.
And it's not just people from the right, people on the left do it as well. Look at the big tech firms, they tend to support candidates on the left because they pass the kinds of policy that cement their position. It's cronyism all the way down.
And it's not unique to capitalism, influential people have been trading favors since the dawn of time. The more opaque the system, the more corruption there is.
I would say "progressivism."
Socialism is collective ownership of the means of production, so something like the USSR, Vietnam, or China. And that government system absolutely lends itself to authoritarianism. Look at any socialist country, and you'll either see authoritarianism or collapse.
A lot of people mean "democratic socialism," which isn't socialism at all, but capitalism with a lot of social programs (universal healthcare, free college, etc). Another term for this is "welfare state," which is just a term for a state that provides a lot of services. It's still not socialism, just redistribution of wealth within a capitalist system.
Lenin absolutely was a socialist, MLK Jr. certainly wasn't, and Einstein seemed like he was just reacting to fascism in his home country and thought socialism was the solution. If Einstein were alive today, I think he'd reconsider that point. What Einstein seemed to want as less income gap and more equality, so more similar to democratic socialists than socialists.
How often do political tenets hold up in reality? The more power you give to politicians, the more corruption you get.
Small scale socialism can certainly work (e.g. co-ops), but once it reaches a certain scale, it's just the same cronyism you'll get with any political structure where power is involved. Those with power will take for themselves at the expense of those without.
The problems with socialism and fascism are the same, but coming from different directions: centralization of power. Einstein seemed to think "the right people" could make things better and that Lenin and Stalin were "the wrong people," but that's just it, "the wrong people" are attracted to power, so you'll trend toward getting "the wrong people" in any governmental system you pick.
My opinion is that we need more capitalism, not less, and add some wealth redistribution on top. Take a look at georgism, which proposes distilling taxes to a land value tax, which means you own the value you produce (buildings you build, products you make, etc), but you get taxed on the land you occupy and the public owns the resources on the land itself. It's not a far stretch to require assets to be turned over to the public upon death as well (the pubic has a greater claim to your assets than your children). This preserves the best parts of capitalism (incentive to provide value to the public), while eliminating many of the worst parts (monopolization of public resources, squatting on unimproved land, generational wealth, etc). With socialism, you eliminate that incentive to produce value, which is why socialist regimes often resort to authoritarianism to get things moving (5 year plans, etc).
I think workers having shared ownership of a private business is a good idea, but only if it's within a capitalist context, otherwise the incentives just aren't there.
Crony capitalism IS capitalism, in its purest form. The system incentives doing it, so it will ALWAYS happen. Tech firms aren't left at all, theyr all capitalists solely out for their own gain.
Socialism is when the workers own the means of production. The collective workers in any given company own it. Not the government. That's why it's so insulated against authoritarianism, because without the unions behind it, an authoritarian govt has nothing.
The reason the results we've seen are authoritarianism and collapse is that the US military/CIA have gone out of their way to make sure the ones that aren't authoritarian will collapse. Rigging elections, assassinating elected leaders, blocking trade, etc.
It's better for your political system to have a central tenet that is good, and which it sometimes doesn't live up to, than it is for it to have one which is bad and it always lives up to. Capitalisms central tenet is to take the power that should belong to the people, and give it to clueless rich guys who don't work.
No ownership of large parts of multiple companies, no cronyism. Well, minimal cronyism. If a large shareholder of UPS cannot possibly also own large shares of an airline, then they can't possibly act in their own interest but not the company's.
Why would the incentives for workers not be there, if the system is requiring that those workers be paid 100% of profits? The only people without incentives are the rich leeches who don't want to do real work.
No, cronyism happens when you mix the government and the economy. Pure capitalism is little Timmy with the lemonade stand on the corner, cronyism is the city ordinance banning unlicensed businesses.
People like to fix problems, and the government is a convenient tool to do so. But the more laws there are, the easier it is for a lobbyist to tweak them to get an advantage.
So you're in favor of market socialism? Most people mean non-market socialism, like the USSR with planned economies and whatnot.
I've seen a few businesses make that work, but nothing widespread enough to really consider the country socialist. I'm interested in what role the government has in such a system.
But unions aren't that. Unions are collective bargaining, not collective ownership. So unions act more like governments than business owners.
Care to provide some examples?
No, capitalism's central tenet is that a free market will eventually self-regulate. A clueless rich guy would eventually fall to more motivated people who outcompete them.
The problems occur when clueless rich guys can convince lawmakers to put obstacles in the way of their competitors. Such as ISPs creating bureaucracy to stall competitors until they run out of money, or a ban on municipalities making their own (happened to my city, we're trying again now that the law changed). The government's job is to prevent that from happening, not enable it.
The motivations to consolidate power exist in any economic system be it socialist, capitalist, or fuedal. That said, despite this, western capitalist societies have done a fantastic job improving the standard of living of the average person (rising tide lifts all boats).
Are they paid equally? If so, what incentive does the average worker have to take a more risky job or one requiring more education? Surely it would be rational to do the easier job, no? Likewise, why would people innovate if the reward is just another job?
If they're not paid equally, what's to stop the founder from giving themselves an outsized portion of the profits? What exactly has been gained? What's to prevent exceptions in the law for more influential founders? What about embezzlement?
I'm not exactly sure what system you prefer, so I'm not sure how to show the potential flaws, but hopefully something there provokes thought. People with power will find a loophole to enrich themselves, and if that's too difficult, they'll bring their innovation to another country instead.
I think it's better to play off people's selfishness and pit them against each other than try to compel them to share. Otherwise selfish people will end up in control of whatever system we choose.
Why would employees ever be paid exactly the same? It's obviously paid by position and seniority.
Capitalism is not equivalent to a free market. In general, free markets are simply something people create. Capitalism is when the power resides with the capital.
Socialism means that the power resides with society. Not the government. Afaik, workers owning the means of production is the only way to do this. A true socialist state has a pretty small government, because like you've pointed out, central governments are pretty vulnerable. 50 different worker unions across 5 different industries, who do not allow outside investors, is not at all vulnerable.
Cronyism must happen in any true capitalist society for this reason:
As a business owner, you are required to do anything legal to increase shareholder value, otherwise investors will sue you.
Rewriting laws is a highly effective means of increasing your companies value.
It is legal to bribe the government for new laws.
If any large business does not do this, they will lose to their competition who does. This is why cronyism is the natural state of capitalism.
I don't see why a real founder of a company shouldn't maintain some huge amount of ownership as high as 10-15%, for life. They started it, after all. The people who are left out of the deal are the investor class, who have never done any actual work for the company.
The countries America has destabilized via the CIA is extensive. The methods range among: assassinations of elected leaders (at least 5 foreign presidents, that's what I found a couple minutes, probably closer to 15), rigging elections, arming a neighboring warlord who then slaughters hundreds of thousands (Jakarta, 1963, 1 million dead in under a week), placing trade embargos on them to prevent them getting necessary supplies, and even using our fruit companies to put their economy into a stranglehold, then demanding the laws be changed to benefit the banana companies.
Venezuela in particular has been completely ravaged by America killing their elected socialists, then installing authoritarian puppets who go on to brutalize everyone. Pretty close to every single south American country has been a victim of the CIA. Chile is another great example, CIA assassinated Allende, then installed Pinochet, one of the worst dictators in history. I suggest you look up more, I can't possibly cover even 10% of it here. The events in Jakarta, 1963 is a great place to start, along with the last 80 years in venezuala.
These events happened largely because the capitalists needed another war to profit off of. All of the atrocities the CIA has committed over the years are directly attributable to capitalism and it's need for infinite growth, forever.