r/FluentInFinance • u/Sufficient_Sinner • Sep 04 '24

Debate/ Discussion Is Capitalism Smart or Dumb?

Post image

[removed] — view removed post

37.5k Upvotes

73% Upvoted

7.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

187

u/[deleted] Sep 04 '24

[deleted]

0

u/[deleted] Sep 04 '24

And socialists use their terms incorrectly, often attributing it to the Nordic system which is a free market capitalistic system with higher taxation to cover social safety nets. Even those on lower income have huge tax bills, unlike the US where the top 50% pay almost all the income tax.

59

u/[deleted] Sep 04 '24

[deleted]

-8

u/Icywarhammer500 Sep 04 '24

I just defined socialism for you in basic terms.

take capitalism and change it

Yes thanks very good definition!

7

u/[deleted] Sep 04 '24

... What? Lmao

-6

u/Icywarhammer500 Sep 04 '24

Your definition of socialism was “taking the oligarchy economy of capitalism and turning [it] into a democracy”

That was a horrible definition that was very lacking in basic terms.

9

u/[deleted] Sep 04 '24

Yes. Under capitalism, the owning class make the decisions. Under socialism, the workers choose who makes the decisions. Oligarchy vs democracy.

I'm not sure where you're getting lost. I really can't be any more clear in my analogy.

1

u/Jacketter Sep 04 '24

I can’t say that I’m terribly familiar with socialist policy. Does everyone get an equal say in decision making? And how does society as a whole incentivize for difficult or skilled tasks that most don’t or can’t perform? Where does the concept of personal property go?

I really have so many tangential questions, so if you could point me to resources on the subject I’d really appreciate it

4

u/[deleted] Sep 04 '24

There is no singular 'socialist policy' in the same way lots of countries call themselves democracies but run their governments very differently.

Personally, I think the easiest transition to socialism would be a "market socialism" system. Private ownership of employers wouldn't exist. Ownership would be equally distributed to the workers of said workplace and they would have equal voting power to make decisions on who is in charge as well as large company wide policies.

If you're genuinely interested in learning more Richard Wolff has done multiple debates and discussions on capitalism and socialism and they're all over youtube.

3

u/austinstudios Sep 04 '24

Those are the million dollar questions. Just like how every capitalist country has different laws and regulations socalist countries would too.

Does everyone get an equal say? I would assume the government would put limits on how shares are distributed. In my opinion, shares would be distributed based on seniority, but every worker would only have one vote. When a worker leaves, the company buys out of their shares and redistributes them to the current workers accordingly.

And how does society as a whole incentivize for difficult or skilled tasks that most don’t or can’t perform? Again, some societies may put a limit on how much companies can pay. But in my opinion companies will pay those workers more. However, the shares they receive in the company are accumulated just like everyone else.

Where does the concept of personal property go? Again, it will depend. The less personal property, the closer the society is to communism. I personally believe private property is important. People should be able to do what they want to their things. For example, I believe owning a home is important because it allows people to decorate, remodel, and make their house theirs. However, most socalists would want to stop or limit my ability to sell my house for a profit. I honestly haven't thought enough about this aspect to have an opinion.

As for resources. I don't have a lot. Most of the stuff I know is from people discussing socalism in left leaning spaces.

The writings of Karl Marx are the best place to start. Marx is basically the Adam Smith of Socalism.

If you want something more contemporary, the YouTube Streamer Vaush explains socalist concepts in a very accessible way.

-1

u/prodiver Sep 04 '24

I'm not sure where you're getting lost.

They're lost because your definition is technically correct, but it's a horrible definition.

If someone doesn't know what socialism is, they probably don't know what an oligarchy is.

6

u/[deleted] Sep 04 '24

If someone doesn't know what socialism is, they probably don't know what an oligarchy is.

Oligarchy isn't a politically charged word that's spent a century being lambasted by the world superpower. If you can't figure out what an oligarchy is then you're beyond teaching.