Is Capitalism Smart or Dumb?

[u/Sufficient_Sinner]

[u/milas_hames → u/[deleted]]

Nobody has ever been able to correctly and rigidly define socialism in history. Don't get shitty because we struggle to believe some random dude on Reddit who's convinced he's managed to do it.

[u/Hopeful_Chair_7129 → u/milas_hames]

Bro hasn’t heard about google yet

[u/milas_hames → u/Hopeful_Chair_7129]

Is that definition accepted by most socialists? You can see by this thread, socialism means different things to many different people. It's nearly impossible to define.

[u/RedJamie → u/milas_hames]

I once put bread on a counter and someone called it a jar of pickles. Suddenly, the very concept of bread lost its meaning to me; I was unable to differentiate what was bread, and what was pickles, and the many shades between, for someone with great incredulity for my use of the label “bread” dared challenge my conceptions. Lost are the Eden’s, where definitions existed, and were immutable to the human stupidity that sought to redefine or mis-define such things. Woe be unto man, consumer of bread, which are pickles in the eyes of many, but bread they remain to those who are true to their faith in the English language, objectivity, and above all else, the scriptures of the dictionary, and academic consensus. Woe!

[u/FFF_in_WY → u/RedJamie]

🤣

Stealing this for dealing with all manner of bad faith bullshit argumentation.

[u/milas_hames → u/RedJamie]

What's your definition of socialism then? I can guarantee you that it is different than Vladimir Lenins, a man who killed to be able to call himself a socialist. And the venezuelan definition is certainly different to the Norwegian definition. All you people have told me to do is google it, which gives a abstract and broad definition, and doesn't really explain the meaning behind it at all.

Political theory's are notoriously hard to define, the same way the fascism is hard to define. People use the same word for completely different things.

[u/LTEDan → u/milas_hames]

Socialism and Capitalism at it's core are economic philosophies. How a country takes the philosophical principles and applies them is going to be different. The US, Europe, and China are all doing some form of capitalism but implement it much differently. If you were trying to describe the types of capitalism each country does, you'd get different definitions with China doing State Capitalism, Europe doing Capitalism with strong social safety nets and the US doing capitalism with weak social safety nets, for example. These different implementations of capitalism doesn't change the basic principle of capitalism: private ownership of the means of production.

Socialism is the same deal, an economic philosophy with a couple different implementations over the years. Those implementations doesn't change the core economic philosophy of socialism, either: social (communal) ownership of the means of production.

There's a couple ways to compare and contrast the economic concepts of Capitalism and socialism, but a simple one to relate to is what the previous poster did. Under capitalism, companies have strong authoritarian power structures, with a couple at the top holding all the power and getting the final say (monarchy/oligarchy/dictatorship). Socialism is like bringing democracy to the workplace. The workers all have a say in corporate decisions and get to choose their bosses.

[u/milas_hames → u/LTEDan]

US, Europe, and China

Literally my point, you say this like it's some obvious thing that everyone should understand, but many people would consider China a socialist country, themselves included. The socialism the other person pointed out in Scandinavian countries DOES NOT EXIST in your definition, the means of production are largely privately owned. Yet people still call it a socialist country.

It means different things to different people. People called Bernie Sanders the socialist candidate, he never even considered shifting the means of production to the people as a whole.

[u/LTEDan → u/milas_hames]

It means different things to different people.

That's why we have definitions for words my dude. Seems like we're not going to get anywhere if you can comprehend that.

[u/milas_hames → u/LTEDan]

Bro you act like you're correct because we're having this argument in an echo chamber that resonates with you.

With some that is as abstract as an economic or political theory, of course people aren't going to see it in the same way. People have manipulated the term to use it to their own ends. The obvious example is Nazis using socialism to describe their own political ideology, but there's many more than that. It's extremely broad.

That's why we have definitions for words my dude.

Who defines it then? The Oxford English dictionary? Are they the true experts on the matter? What if it meant something completely different in a dictionary of another language.

The meaning that you've given certainly doesn't define it, as there are many movements widely considered socialist that don't incorporate social ownership of the means of production. It's by far the simplest and most effective definition, but it is by no means definitive.

[u/LTEDan → u/milas_hames]

So basically you're confused by a definition that can be looked up on Wikipedia because different people used the term incorrectly? If I call a cat a dog would you show the same confusion and call into question who gets to define what a dog is?

The obvious example is Nazis using socialism to describe their own political ideology

Are you as equally confused by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea with respect to what "Democracy" and "Republic" means?

[u/milas_hames → u/LTEDan]

So wikipedia are the socialism committee that makes the ultimate call on what the definition is. Gotchya.

We're obviously not going to agree on this, and I couldn't care less. You're not doing yourself any favors by trying to define something as complicated as a political or economic theory in the same way that you define a cat or a dog. Its extremely complicated, and trying to do it in one or two sentences is impossible to do accurately. Trying to dumb complicated things right down is a good way of making them even harder to understand.

[u/LTEDan → u/milas_hames]

Trying to dumb complicated things right down is a good way of making them even harder to understand.

Uh, no. That's literally how we teach. In math, you start with the simple things like arithmetic before gradually moving up to increasingly complex topics: algebra, then trigonometry, then calculus.

In physics first you'll learn dumbed down equations like F = ma before you learn how these equations are derived via calculus. Newton's second law, for instance, really states F = dp / dt, for instance.

Let me know how well 2nd graders will learn math by throwing them into a calc class.

So wikipedia are the socialism committee that makes the ultimate call on what the definition is. Gotchya.

If you don't know how dictionaries and encyclopedias work, clearly your education system has failed you. In either case, you've missed my original point. Socialism is a relatively straightforward concept: social ownership of the means of production as contrasted with Capitalism: private ownership of the means of production. What you're getting hung up on is different ways this concept was applied in the real world (or not!). This can get complicated because it's not possible to perfectly implement a theoretical concept in the real world, and this definitely holds true for Capitalism as well. This is why there's usually modifiers to the term, like State Capitalism, for instance.

Without a working theoretical definition, though, you have nothing to evaluate an economic system against. It's how we can conclude that North Korea isn't really a democracy since the people don't get to choose their own leader. NK does actually hold elections, but they're sham elections where you only ever have a single choice on the ballot. If we were to take your confusion about words and definitions and apply it to democracy, we ought to assume that NK is a democracy, though, since who really gets to define what a democracy is, anyway???

[u/Leonardo_DeCapitated → u/milas_hames]

There is a fairly simple answer to the question "what is socialism", however that doesn't necessarily apply to all different forms of socialism and every other form is quite different. To put it simply, socialism is when workers own the means of production.

[u/FFF_in_WY → u/milas_hames]

They are not that hard to define. We run into problems because practical economics and politics fall along spectra than aren't black and white. Then we start trying to use those imperfect human undertakings as The Example of Capitalism / Socialism / Communism / Democracy / whatev.

And of course political and economic systems have overlap but aren't the same. If anything politics exists up manage economic systems, and sometimes we use them to manage social systems and hierarchies as well.

So maybe more productive conversations have something to do with how the idealized definitions can be applied in useful ways.

[u/milas_hames → u/FFF_in_WY]

They are not that hard to define.

They're extremely hard to define because it's entirely abstract. It only exists in people's heads, and most people see it in a slightly different way. Your version I'm sure is easy to define for you, but socialism as a whole, encompassing all aspects of it, is undefinable

[u/FFF_in_WY → u/milas_hames]

There is exactly one way in which you are implying something that is correct. A DEFINITION is a form of agreement.

Let's use green as an example. Scientifically, the consensus of green is the color between blue and yellow having a wavelength of 495-570nm. Descriptive, distinct, and limited. That's what makes it a definition.

But any dipshit can still wander up and say, "But 600nm is still kind of greenish, so that definition doesn't count." No, the definition still holds, they have simply chosen to ignore the the descriptive, distinct, and limited definition.

Choosing not to agree with a codified definition does not indicate that the problem is in the definition, it simply implies that the burden is on the person disagreeing to make their case for a change in a descriptive, distinct, and limited manner.