Just curious, what is the alternative you propose? We have seen communism, that doesn’t work either.
In my country we also have capatalism but we still have workers rights and all of that. It is just in America that employers managed to get everything their way. Other countries have free markets without abusing their workers.
“Communism” the economic system has not been realized. Communist parties have led socialist countries, but communism as a mode of production is a product of the future.
Socialism works, the largest economy on the planet is the PRC, which is seeing rapid and comprehensive improvements in the living standards of its people. Even the USSR, now no longer here, achieved impressive economic growth, provided free healthcare and education, and much more.
Capitalism, by definition, requires that the capitalists be in charge and the workers exploited. It isn’t just the US.
Basically democracy with robust safety nets, strong regulation on business, strong labor unions, and socialized healthcare and higher education OPTIONS.
Capitalism is good for competition and innovation so we can’t really ditch it completely, but we live in society, not the jungle, so we should have safety nets and socialized options for poor people to gain independence and social mobility.
Social Democracy is just capitalism with welfare, and as such either funds itself via imperialism like the Nordic Countries, or is ultimately going to see capital use its political power to erase the gains of workers. Markets can play a useful role in spurring development of small and medium firms, but the larger firms and key industries should be publicly owned and planned, as market mechanics begin to lose all benefit towards higher development.
The problem with outright socialism is it always gets toppled, because your success is a threat to the entire world order, and foreign governments can make offensive decisions at a faster rate than you can make defensive ones, since your big decisions have to filter through more eyes and hands in the name of fairness.
When we’re talking about entire countries, we have to be more pragmatic than idealistic, or our plans just don’t work sadly.
China is still here, and still socialist, and it isn’t leaving. This is because of Democratic Centralism, a fast and cohesive way to adapt to changing conditions while retaining democratic input. For less urgent decisions, the PRC has slower, more comprehensive, bottom-up systems, while it focuses more on a top-down approach for system-wide changes and direction. It’s kinda like “top down, from the bottom up.”
I agree with pragmatism over idealism, that’s why I’m a communist and push for socialism. Socialism is immensely practical.
The people don’t generally have much of a say in what headlines the media runs with. I fully support more social programs but there’s underlying issues that prevent good faith discussions.
We have seen authoritarian communism that regressed into autocratic nationalist imperialist communism. We have also seen authoritarian communism that has shifted into state capitalism. Just like there are many variations of capitalism that we have and have not seen, there are likewise many of socialism and even communism that we have and have not seen.
Not sure what you mean by “authoritarian,” all governments are instruments of class oppression and socialist states oppress the bourgeoisie, but no socialist state has been imperialist before. Further, “state capitalism” refers to a system of heavily planned but ultimately dominated by private property, such as Singapore, South Korea, and Bismark’s Germany, and as such I’m not sure what you’re referencing here either.
My girlfriend thinks capitalism is fine and doesn’t care about billionaires existing.
She’s never had a minimum wage job or worked in the service industry 🙄
Don’t you mean ex-girlfriend?
Ex-GirlfriendSugar Momma is what I think you meant.The best kind of capitalism 😅
Every citizen should have to do a year waiting tables just to know not to be a dick.
Just curious, what is the alternative you propose? We have seen communism, that doesn’t work either.
In my country we also have capatalism but we still have workers rights and all of that. It is just in America that employers managed to get everything their way. Other countries have free markets without abusing their workers.
This is wrong on several accounts.
“Communism” the economic system has not been realized. Communist parties have led socialist countries, but communism as a mode of production is a product of the future.
Socialism works, the largest economy on the planet is the PRC, which is seeing rapid and comprehensive improvements in the living standards of its people. Even the USSR, now no longer here, achieved impressive economic growth, provided free healthcare and education, and much more.
Capitalism, by definition, requires that the capitalists be in charge and the workers exploited. It isn’t just the US.
Socialized Democracy.
Basically democracy with robust safety nets, strong regulation on business, strong labor unions, and socialized healthcare and higher education OPTIONS.
Capitalism is good for competition and innovation so we can’t really ditch it completely, but we live in society, not the jungle, so we should have safety nets and socialized options for poor people to gain independence and social mobility.
Social Democracy is just capitalism with welfare, and as such either funds itself via imperialism like the Nordic Countries, or is ultimately going to see capital use its political power to erase the gains of workers. Markets can play a useful role in spurring development of small and medium firms, but the larger firms and key industries should be publicly owned and planned, as market mechanics begin to lose all benefit towards higher development.
Really, it sounds like you just want Socialism with Chinese Characteristics.
I want democracy that works for the people and not just the people with the most money.
Gotcha, so some form of socialism at minimum. You should check out the link to how the PRC functions.
The problem with outright socialism is it always gets toppled, because your success is a threat to the entire world order, and foreign governments can make offensive decisions at a faster rate than you can make defensive ones, since your big decisions have to filter through more eyes and hands in the name of fairness.
When we’re talking about entire countries, we have to be more pragmatic than idealistic, or our plans just don’t work sadly.
China is still here, and still socialist, and it isn’t leaving. This is because of Democratic Centralism, a fast and cohesive way to adapt to changing conditions while retaining democratic input. For less urgent decisions, the PRC has slower, more comprehensive, bottom-up systems, while it focuses more on a top-down approach for system-wide changes and direction. It’s kinda like “top down, from the bottom up.”
I agree with pragmatism over idealism, that’s why I’m a communist and push for socialism. Socialism is immensely practical.
Touché stranger.
Looks like I have some research to do 🙂
Look at you, making sense and coming to a logical conclusion. Doesn’t sound good in headlines though, so it’ll never fly.
let the people decide that, please. it’s worth a try.
The people don’t generally have much of a say in what headlines the media runs with. I fully support more social programs but there’s underlying issues that prevent good faith discussions.
Pro-tip: Channel your frustration into positivity for better reception.
Nothing you said was unreasonable per se. It was just how you said it that’s getting you flak.
You may not give a shit, but if you do… I’m just sayin’
I hear what you’re saying.
We have seen authoritarian communism that regressed into autocratic nationalist imperialist communism. We have also seen authoritarian communism that has shifted into state capitalism. Just like there are many variations of capitalism that we have and have not seen, there are likewise many of socialism and even communism that we have and have not seen.
Not sure what you mean by “authoritarian,” all governments are instruments of class oppression and socialist states oppress the bourgeoisie, but no socialist state has been imperialist before. Further, “state capitalism” refers to a system of heavily planned but ultimately dominated by private property, such as Singapore, South Korea, and Bismark’s Germany, and as such I’m not sure what you’re referencing here either.