Before participating, consider taking a glance at [our rules page](/r/CapitalismvSocialism/wiki/rules) if you haven't before.
We don't allow **violent or dehumanizing rhetoric**. The subreddit is for discussing what ideas are best for society, not for telling the other side you think you could beat them in a fight. That doesn't do anything to forward a productive dialogue.
Please report comments that violent our rules, but don't report people just for disagreeing with you or for being wrong about stuff.
Tired of arguing on reddit? Consider [joining us on Discord.](http://discord.com/invite/politicscafe)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We can look to history for this answer. What's the difference between a monarchy and a (bourgeois) liberal democracy? At what point does the monarchy lose enough power and privileged to not become considered a monarchy anymore? At what point did the American colonies stopped acting under the influence of the British monarchy?
There is a transition, but it's not immediate. It lasts for centuries and is filled with revolution.
As such, it's folly to look at just one society and say "this is socialist". Societies don't exist in a vacuum, and has always affected each-other. Instead, we need to look at the global system as a whole and how it's progressing.
Note that this isn't validation of Trotsky. Socialism in one country can influence other countries to have revolutions.
Don’t tell Neco-Arc that the United Kingdom was Constitutional Monarchy in the 18th century when the American Colonies had their radical liberal revolution.
Emphasis on the monarchy. The monarch still held and executed power and it wasn't until the 1800's that the power started to dwindle. The last use of monarchical power in England was in 1839.
We still had monarchs in power and influence into the 1900's, even though capitalism was well established at that point.
Something something the new modes of the production will contain the elements of the old.
The point is democracy and liberalism from Monarch wasn’t a clear demarcation neither. The USA’s Bill of Rights were named based upon the [English Bill of Rights from Englands parliament of 1689.](https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/parliamentaryauthority/revolution/collections1/collections-glorious-revolution/billofrights/)
>We can look to history for this answer
We can't, I don't think socialism has been tried.
>It lasts for centuries and is filled with revolution.
And it really doesn't.
>At what point does the monarchy lose enough power and privileged to not become considered a monarchy anymore? At what point did the American colonies stopped acting under the influence of the British monarchy?
Once people stop obeying it. When they obey something else, that becomes the norm.
>it's folly to look at just one society and say "this is socialist".
But it has to be something you look at and say "sure that is socialism" or "sure, that's no longer capitalism". Feels like you are evading the socialist part of my question.
Socialism has obviously been tried. No matter what you think of the actual results, socialists have taken Control of State and have attempted to bring about socialism
The US just sentenced someone (a guy from Binance I think) to jail for tax evasion for something that happened 3 years after the dude rejected the US citizenship.
So, US is socialist now?
I mean, you claimed first that they do, and haven't explained yourself either. Why don't you do that first so I can explain to you how they don't.
You give me a short answer with no explanation, you get a short answer with no explanation.
TL;DR states are organs of class rule. They are the means by which a certain class practices its dominance over another economic class. As a result, state policy is informed or cannot occur without the consent of the economy
>They are the means by which a certain class practices its dominance over another economic class
I thought you were socialist. Socialists don't think ending the state will end the dominance of one class over another, but according to what you've written, dominance is done through the state, no state no dominance.
>state policy is informed or cannot occur without the consent of the economy
This reminded of Hayek's criticism of the state, that the worst always comes to power, thus politicians will always sell themselves to those with power. Is that what you are saying? That the individuals within the government use their power and influence to ally with other powerful individual so they are better off, instead of representing the people.
Because, even according to yourself, if state representatives were actually good people, they wouldn't sell themselves to capitalists and do their bidding.
It feels awfully similar to Hayek's critique, kinda weird coming from a socialist. But you are already different from others by believing that class dominance happens through the state.
> Socialists don't think ending the state will end the dominance of one class over another, but according to what you've written, dominance is done through the state, no state no dominance.
Have you ever heard of a book called state and revolution
> But you are already different from others by believing that class dominance happens through the state.
This is quite literally the core principle behind Leninist theory of the state
>Have you ever heard of a book called state and revolution
Lenin, yes.
But socialists refuse to crush the state in order to end class dominance. Rather they believe that in the absence of a state, dominance would run rampant, with capitalists enslaving everyone.
And I see you didn't comment about my comparison of your view and Hayek's.
Each worker is the shareholder. They all have equal voting rights. One man, one vote. Their vote is their power to have a certain percentage of control over how the entire business operates. No one worker's vote will count for more.
It’s all down to what your definition for these terms are. That’s how you know.
The dictionary says socialism is when the means of production, distribution and exchange are owned by the community. It says nothing about healthcare or free education or welfare, therefore these are not factors to consider in the determination.
Quite simply, the day a law is passed that makes it illegal for any individual to own anything that can be considered to be the means of production distribution or exchange is the day that you can say a society has become socialist.
>How do we know identify the ""system"" of a given society?
If you are talking economics then it is how resources are allocated, institutions around these resources, and what the incentive structures. The problem is most all scholar endeavors in the social sciences don't bifurcate into socialist vs capitalist. There are exceptions when that bifurcation makes sense like the [Cold War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War). You then will see this ideological battle taking place and then it makes sense for scholars of the social sciences to label countries like the USA as "capitalist" and the Soviet Union as "socialist".
Drop that ideological battle and your questions become a quagmire of pure shit as we see on this sub. Because what one person thinks the line between socialist and capitalist another thinks is too far left and another thinks is to far right. It is totally arbitrary on a person's own personal political preferences and that is simply why the social sciences ditches this bifurcation.
So the answers to your body comment questions are ~~purely~~ (largely) "opinion" (when it comes to everyday questions about reality) (edited for greater accuracy rather than purely).
If you want social science and what and how political science views these topics then you need to do research in "comparative governments and comparative politics" in the field of political science. I have never seen that field other than what mentioned above use the term "capitalist". I then hardly ever see that field use the term "socialist". But it will a little more so because there are countries in modern times like today who identify as socialist like the PRC, Vietnam, Cuba, and so on.
However, most comparative governments is about authoritative, authoritarian, democratic and these forms of "rule" government styles.
I have found ChatGPT seems to be fairly aware of "Comparative Governments" literature and you can ask it:
>In the political science field of comparative governments what type of government is \_\_\_\_\_\_\_?
And ask away with inserting various different countries to your heart's content.
>So the answers to your body comment questions are ~~purely~~ (largely) "opinion" (when it comes to everyday questions about reality) (edited for greater accuracy rather than purely).
When applied in reality yes, I agree it's just opinion, since it's impossible to fully grasp the entirety of an economy and the people on it to truthfully judge one way or another.
But both words capitalism and socialism have very well defined meanings, based entirely on the idea of both, what is described in each economic models, how do we know if a society entered one or another? And how about the tipping point of no longer being one or another according to the defined economic theories of each?
>But both words capitalism and socialism have very well defined meanings,
Hardly, lol. The following is my most succinct c/p for socialism and capitalism. I will do capitalim in a following reply:
[Link to 'Definition Problems'](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sozialismus#Definitionsproblematik) in German's Wikipedia for "Socialism" and for people’s convenience a [translated image of the link](https://ibb.co/gWH2WRN)
>
>What is meant by socialism has long been controversial. As early as the 1920s, the sociologist Werner Sombart collected 260 definitions of socialism. \[11\]
>
>A generally accepted, scientifically valid definition does not exist. Rather, the use of the word is characterized by a great wealth of meaning and conceptual blurring and is subject to a constant change in meaning. For this reason, the term is often preceded by adjectives (proletarian, scientific, democratic, Christian, cooperative, conservative, utopian) for further clarification. Other examples of such specifications include agrarian socialism, state socialism or reform socialism. \[12\]
>
>A lowest common denominator of the term can be given by the following definitions:
>
>"Socialism refers to a wide range of economic theories of social organization that have set themselves the goal of collective ownership and political administration for the goal of creating an egalitarian society." \[13\]
>
>"Socialism refers to ideologies that propagate the overthrow of capitalism and the liberation of the working class from poverty and oppression (social question) in favor of a social order oriented towards equality, solidarity and emancipation." \[14\]
>
>"It defines the political doctrine developed as a counter-model to capitalism, which seeks to change existing social conditions with the aim of social equality and justice, and a social order organized according to these principles, as well as a political movement that strives for this social order." \[15\]
>
>The diversity of meaning is further increased by the fact that the term socialism can refer to methods and objectives, socio-political movements as well as historical-social phases and existing social systems:
>
>a socio-economic, political, philosophical, pedagogical or ethical teaching aimed at the interpretation, analysis, critique, ideal conception or practical design of certain social conditions; a political movement that seeks to put into practice the demands and goals of socialism; the state of society or the social order that embodies socialism in economic modes of production and forms of life; within the framework of Marxism-Leninism, a phase of world-historical development in the transition from capitalist to communist social formation. \[16\] the term "real socialism", which refers to those states that have been governed by a Communist Party since 1917, usually in a one-party system. According to the political scientist Günter Rieger, socialist ideologies can be distinguished on the one hand according to their attitude to the state (state socialism versus anarchism), on the other hand according to the way in which the desired transformation of society is to be achieved (revolution versus reform), and thirdly according to the importance given to different social and economic interests of the participants (class antagonism). versus pluralism). \[17\]
“Capitalism” origins as we know it is [from socialists.](https://www.etymonline.com/word/capitalism) Capitalism originated originally as a disparaging term.
>[Capitalism](http://webhome.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/capitalism.phtml)
>
>A form of economic order characterized by private ownership of the means of production and the freedom of private owners to use, buy and sell their property or services on the market at voluntarily agreed prices and terms, with only minimal interference with such transactions by the state or other authoritative third parties.
>[Markets](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/markets/)
>
>The concept of “capitalism” includes a reference to markets, but as a socio-economic system, it is broader; its defining feature is the private ownership of capital (see e.g., Scott 2011). This typically leads to pressures to find profitable investment opportunities and to asymmetries between owners and non-owners of capital. Markets are a core element of capitalism, but in principle they can also exist in societies in which the ownership of capital is organized differently
And from Heywoowd's "Political Ideologies":
>[Capitalism]( https://ibb.co/SJnXjTx) is an economic system as well as a form of property ownership. It has a number of key features. First, it is based on generalized commodity production, a ‘commodity’ being a good or service produced for exchange – it has market value rather than use value. Second, productive wealth in a capitalist economy is predominantly held in private hands. Third, economic life is organized according to impersonal market forces, in particular the forces of demand (what consumers are willing and able to consume) and supply (what producers are willing and able to produce). Fourth, in a capitalist economy, material self-interest and maximization provide the main motivations for enterprise and hard work. Some degree of state regulation is nevertheless found in all capitalist systems.
Heywood, Andrew. Political Ideologies (p. 97). Macmillan Education UK. Kindle Edition.
From wikipedia sources:
>Pure capitalism is defined as a system wherein all of the means of production (physical capital) are privately owned and run by the capitalist class for a profit, while most other people are workers who work for a salary or wage (and who do not own the capital or the product).
Zimbalist, Sherman and Brown, Andrew, Howard J. and Stuart (October 1988). Comparing Economic Systems: A Political-Economic Approach. Harcourt College Pub. pp. 6–7
>Capitalism, as a mode of production, is an economic system of manufacture and exchange which is geared toward the production and sale of commodities within a market for profit, where the manufacture of commodities consists of the use of the formally free labor of workers in exchange for a wage to create commodities in which the manufacturer extracts surplus value from the labor of the workers in terms of the difference between the wages paid to the worker and the value of the commodity produced by him/her to generate that profit.
London; Thousand Oaks, CA; New Delhi. Sage. p. 383. (according to Wikipedia however a direct quote found and secondary source [found here.]( https://www.longdom.org/open-access/capitalism-and-capitalist-state-2332-0761-1000218.pdf))
>Capitalism An economic principle based on leaving as many decisions as possible on production, distribution, and prices to the free market.
McCormick, John; Rod Hague; Martin Harrop. Comparative Government and Politics (p. 345). Macmillan Education UK. Kindle Edition.
Then for a brief history, [here is Chapter 1](http://assets.press.princeton.edu/chapters/s10563.pdf) of the book "[Capitalism: A short History](https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9781400873418/html)". It's basically all about "class struggle".
>[Capitalism](https://www.hbs.edu/ris/Publication%20Files/07-037.pdf) is often defined as an economic system where private actors are allowed to own and control the use of property in accord with their own interests, and where the invisible hand of the pricing mechanism coordinates supply and demand in markets in a way that is automatically in the best interests of society. Government, in this perspective, is often described as responsible for peace, justice, and tolerable taxes.
>[Capitalism](https://capitalism.sites.clemson.edu/Misc/Capitalism-Defined-and-Defended.pdf) is the socio-economic system where all property is privately owned, where freely formed contracts form the basis of economic interaction, and where the government does not engage in regulation, supervision, or direction of market processes. In short, it is a government policy of non-interference with the economic lives of its citizens; it is the system of laissez-faire. The proper implementation of a program of laissezfaire capitalism, however, requires an appropriate political system at its base.
>According to Sternberg, [true capitalism]( https://business.wfu.edu/newsroom/defining-capitalism/) can be defined as “an economic system characterized by comprehensive private property, free-market pricing, and the absence of coercion.” Her definition attempts to set true capitalism apart from forms of political capitalism, including crony capitalism and welfare capitalism, which rely on coercive government action to operate successfully.
I know this sounds goofy, but if you were to listen to the Ancaps, Ancoms, Tankies, and AutCaps and you will realize that according to them nothing is real capitalism or socialism since they have such a narrow word view that their own ideology might not fit into their view of Capitalism or Socialism.
So if you can't base it off the extremes, you have to base it off of the individual. Each system and each person define them both differently.
Like I know, this is a novel concept to some. Like capitalists, very much are proud to be capitalists, and socialists are proud to be socialists.
If you listen to either camp on what is or isn't socialism or capitalism, then the only thing you can conclude from idealistic utopian thought is there is no system on earth, which is Capitalism nor Socialism.
It depends on how you define capitalism and socialism. A simple definition is that socialism is the public ownership of the means of production whilst capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production. However, clearly you can have the means of production partially owned by both and so usually you identify the system on what is greater of the two.
how do you know when you are cold? is there a tipping point? there are objective standards and subjective standards for comparison but even objective standards are somewhat arbitrary.
your problem is that you perceive nations as coherent organized systems which isn't often reality. in fact it is well known that most nations are called mixed economies, while that is also not exactly definable it is at least an indicator that a nation can have both socialism and capitalism to varying degrees and thus is neither exclusively.
instead i like to think of nations as collectivist or individualist as compared to a supposed median value. as socialism is a collectivist system i could say that a nation is socialist if its culture is more collectivist than some median standard. that too would be false but maybe generally useful in conversation.
most economies are described as mixed economies with elements of Socialism and capitalism. American government spends about 35% of GDP while European government spends about 55%. Thus Europe has about 60% of our per capita income because government spending leads to a poverty. it is not important to label a country as a Capitalist or Socialist but to know where on the spectrum they are.
From what I've seen every person who likes socialism and who hates socialism has their own definition of socialism There are specific schools of Socialism such as social democracy, democratic socialism, utopian socialism, etc. You might want to look at the list on Wikipedia. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types\_of\_socialism#Socialist\_ideologies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_socialism#Socialist_ideologies) It is pretty long.
In addition Social Security and Medicare are not free. You pay for them while you are working.
Are you going to consider the fact that you can drive on public roads without tolls "socialist". (Yes, there are some toll roads, but the vast bulk of roads between cities used to have tolls. If a road near you has the word "pike" in its name, it used to be a toll road.) There is a stronger case for saying that free public roads are socialist than there is for Medicare and Social Security.
socialism is when the government gives a favored constituency free stuff usually in return for votes taken at gunpoint from a non-favored constituency. It usually starts with healthcare and education and if allowed to metastasize ends with giving them the means of production. Socialism just killed 120 million people because everyone was looking for free stuff and no one was working. 1+1 = 2
>socialism is when the government gives a favored constituency
For example?
>free stuff
For example?
> in return for votes taken at gunpoint
For example?
You can either give concrete examples of what you mean.... or admit that you can't think of any.
I can understand how thinking of specific examples can be cognitively challenging for you. But try.
Before participating, consider taking a glance at [our rules page](/r/CapitalismvSocialism/wiki/rules) if you haven't before. We don't allow **violent or dehumanizing rhetoric**. The subreddit is for discussing what ideas are best for society, not for telling the other side you think you could beat them in a fight. That doesn't do anything to forward a productive dialogue. Please report comments that violent our rules, but don't report people just for disagreeing with you or for being wrong about stuff. Tired of arguing on reddit? Consider [joining us on Discord.](http://discord.com/invite/politicscafe) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We can look to history for this answer. What's the difference between a monarchy and a (bourgeois) liberal democracy? At what point does the monarchy lose enough power and privileged to not become considered a monarchy anymore? At what point did the American colonies stopped acting under the influence of the British monarchy? There is a transition, but it's not immediate. It lasts for centuries and is filled with revolution. As such, it's folly to look at just one society and say "this is socialist". Societies don't exist in a vacuum, and has always affected each-other. Instead, we need to look at the global system as a whole and how it's progressing. Note that this isn't validation of Trotsky. Socialism in one country can influence other countries to have revolutions.
Don’t tell Neco-Arc that the United Kingdom was Constitutional Monarchy in the 18th century when the American Colonies had their radical liberal revolution.
Emphasis on the monarchy. The monarch still held and executed power and it wasn't until the 1800's that the power started to dwindle. The last use of monarchical power in England was in 1839. We still had monarchs in power and influence into the 1900's, even though capitalism was well established at that point. Something something the new modes of the production will contain the elements of the old.
The point is democracy and liberalism from Monarch wasn’t a clear demarcation neither. The USA’s Bill of Rights were named based upon the [English Bill of Rights from Englands parliament of 1689.](https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/parliamentaryauthority/revolution/collections1/collections-glorious-revolution/billofrights/)
Yea, pretty much, so there's not really any point to your critique.
“Pretty much” and “not really any point” are interesting contradictions.
Your two brain cells are interesting contradictions
You can do better
You can't
Par
>We can look to history for this answer We can't, I don't think socialism has been tried. >It lasts for centuries and is filled with revolution. And it really doesn't. >At what point does the monarchy lose enough power and privileged to not become considered a monarchy anymore? At what point did the American colonies stopped acting under the influence of the British monarchy? Once people stop obeying it. When they obey something else, that becomes the norm. >it's folly to look at just one society and say "this is socialist". But it has to be something you look at and say "sure that is socialism" or "sure, that's no longer capitalism". Feels like you are evading the socialist part of my question.
Oh man, you think that socialists won’t keep trying? Also, you answered your own question; once the people stop obeying it.
Socialism has obviously been tried. No matter what you think of the actual results, socialists have taken Control of State and have attempted to bring about socialism
The country that bans people from leaving it is the socialist one. Simple as.
The US just sentenced someone (a guy from Binance I think) to jail for tax evasion for something that happened 3 years after the dude rejected the US citizenship. So, US is socialist now?
Sure, maybe it is a little. (I don't know anything about this particular case)
What if all companies are private and there is a free market?
Example?
Look at the relations of production in that society
Why relations of production? Why not relations of government, or of power? Maybe relations of consumption?
Because the latter depend on the former
It really doesn't.
why not?
I mean, you claimed first that they do, and haven't explained yourself either. Why don't you do that first so I can explain to you how they don't. You give me a short answer with no explanation, you get a short answer with no explanation.
TL;DR states are organs of class rule. They are the means by which a certain class practices its dominance over another economic class. As a result, state policy is informed or cannot occur without the consent of the economy
>They are the means by which a certain class practices its dominance over another economic class I thought you were socialist. Socialists don't think ending the state will end the dominance of one class over another, but according to what you've written, dominance is done through the state, no state no dominance. >state policy is informed or cannot occur without the consent of the economy This reminded of Hayek's criticism of the state, that the worst always comes to power, thus politicians will always sell themselves to those with power. Is that what you are saying? That the individuals within the government use their power and influence to ally with other powerful individual so they are better off, instead of representing the people. Because, even according to yourself, if state representatives were actually good people, they wouldn't sell themselves to capitalists and do their bidding. It feels awfully similar to Hayek's critique, kinda weird coming from a socialist. But you are already different from others by believing that class dominance happens through the state.
> Socialists don't think ending the state will end the dominance of one class over another, but according to what you've written, dominance is done through the state, no state no dominance. Have you ever heard of a book called state and revolution > But you are already different from others by believing that class dominance happens through the state. This is quite literally the core principle behind Leninist theory of the state
>Have you ever heard of a book called state and revolution Lenin, yes. But socialists refuse to crush the state in order to end class dominance. Rather they believe that in the absence of a state, dominance would run rampant, with capitalists enslaving everyone. And I see you didn't comment about my comparison of your view and Hayek's.
When the economy is predominantly being run by the workers.
Tbf, how do you actually know how much the workers themselves own/control if this ownership is via the state?
Because the ownership wouldn't be via the state. It would be via the workers.
But how do you actually 'prove' empirically that the workers own something as a collective? It is a legitimate question, as a leftist myself.
Each worker is the shareholder. They all have equal voting rights. One man, one vote. Their vote is their power to have a certain percentage of control over how the entire business operates. No one worker's vote will count for more.
How does that answer anything I asked? Wtf ...
You asked when do we when know a society becomes socialist. I gave an answer to that.
[удалено]
How do you know when it's actually socialism instead of capitalism? Gradient of what?
This is the sort of absurd knot you tie yourself in if you start to think of political movements as systems
It’s all down to what your definition for these terms are. That’s how you know. The dictionary says socialism is when the means of production, distribution and exchange are owned by the community. It says nothing about healthcare or free education or welfare, therefore these are not factors to consider in the determination. Quite simply, the day a law is passed that makes it illegal for any individual to own anything that can be considered to be the means of production distribution or exchange is the day that you can say a society has become socialist.
for example belarus or saudi arabia
>How do we know identify the ""system"" of a given society? If you are talking economics then it is how resources are allocated, institutions around these resources, and what the incentive structures. The problem is most all scholar endeavors in the social sciences don't bifurcate into socialist vs capitalist. There are exceptions when that bifurcation makes sense like the [Cold War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War). You then will see this ideological battle taking place and then it makes sense for scholars of the social sciences to label countries like the USA as "capitalist" and the Soviet Union as "socialist". Drop that ideological battle and your questions become a quagmire of pure shit as we see on this sub. Because what one person thinks the line between socialist and capitalist another thinks is too far left and another thinks is to far right. It is totally arbitrary on a person's own personal political preferences and that is simply why the social sciences ditches this bifurcation. So the answers to your body comment questions are ~~purely~~ (largely) "opinion" (when it comes to everyday questions about reality) (edited for greater accuracy rather than purely). If you want social science and what and how political science views these topics then you need to do research in "comparative governments and comparative politics" in the field of political science. I have never seen that field other than what mentioned above use the term "capitalist". I then hardly ever see that field use the term "socialist". But it will a little more so because there are countries in modern times like today who identify as socialist like the PRC, Vietnam, Cuba, and so on. However, most comparative governments is about authoritative, authoritarian, democratic and these forms of "rule" government styles. I have found ChatGPT seems to be fairly aware of "Comparative Governments" literature and you can ask it: >In the political science field of comparative governments what type of government is \_\_\_\_\_\_\_? And ask away with inserting various different countries to your heart's content.
>So the answers to your body comment questions are ~~purely~~ (largely) "opinion" (when it comes to everyday questions about reality) (edited for greater accuracy rather than purely). When applied in reality yes, I agree it's just opinion, since it's impossible to fully grasp the entirety of an economy and the people on it to truthfully judge one way or another. But both words capitalism and socialism have very well defined meanings, based entirely on the idea of both, what is described in each economic models, how do we know if a society entered one or another? And how about the tipping point of no longer being one or another according to the defined economic theories of each?
>But both words capitalism and socialism have very well defined meanings, Hardly, lol. The following is my most succinct c/p for socialism and capitalism. I will do capitalim in a following reply: [Link to 'Definition Problems'](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sozialismus#Definitionsproblematik) in German's Wikipedia for "Socialism" and for people’s convenience a [translated image of the link](https://ibb.co/gWH2WRN) > >What is meant by socialism has long been controversial. As early as the 1920s, the sociologist Werner Sombart collected 260 definitions of socialism. \[11\] > >A generally accepted, scientifically valid definition does not exist. Rather, the use of the word is characterized by a great wealth of meaning and conceptual blurring and is subject to a constant change in meaning. For this reason, the term is often preceded by adjectives (proletarian, scientific, democratic, Christian, cooperative, conservative, utopian) for further clarification. Other examples of such specifications include agrarian socialism, state socialism or reform socialism. \[12\] > >A lowest common denominator of the term can be given by the following definitions: > >"Socialism refers to a wide range of economic theories of social organization that have set themselves the goal of collective ownership and political administration for the goal of creating an egalitarian society." \[13\] > >"Socialism refers to ideologies that propagate the overthrow of capitalism and the liberation of the working class from poverty and oppression (social question) in favor of a social order oriented towards equality, solidarity and emancipation." \[14\] > >"It defines the political doctrine developed as a counter-model to capitalism, which seeks to change existing social conditions with the aim of social equality and justice, and a social order organized according to these principles, as well as a political movement that strives for this social order." \[15\] > >The diversity of meaning is further increased by the fact that the term socialism can refer to methods and objectives, socio-political movements as well as historical-social phases and existing social systems: > >a socio-economic, political, philosophical, pedagogical or ethical teaching aimed at the interpretation, analysis, critique, ideal conception or practical design of certain social conditions; a political movement that seeks to put into practice the demands and goals of socialism; the state of society or the social order that embodies socialism in economic modes of production and forms of life; within the framework of Marxism-Leninism, a phase of world-historical development in the transition from capitalist to communist social formation. \[16\] the term "real socialism", which refers to those states that have been governed by a Communist Party since 1917, usually in a one-party system. According to the political scientist Günter Rieger, socialist ideologies can be distinguished on the one hand according to their attitude to the state (state socialism versus anarchism), on the other hand according to the way in which the desired transformation of society is to be achieved (revolution versus reform), and thirdly according to the importance given to different social and economic interests of the participants (class antagonism). versus pluralism). \[17\]
“Capitalism” origins as we know it is [from socialists.](https://www.etymonline.com/word/capitalism) Capitalism originated originally as a disparaging term. >[Capitalism](http://webhome.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/capitalism.phtml) > >A form of economic order characterized by private ownership of the means of production and the freedom of private owners to use, buy and sell their property or services on the market at voluntarily agreed prices and terms, with only minimal interference with such transactions by the state or other authoritative third parties. >[Markets](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/markets/) > >The concept of “capitalism” includes a reference to markets, but as a socio-economic system, it is broader; its defining feature is the private ownership of capital (see e.g., Scott 2011). This typically leads to pressures to find profitable investment opportunities and to asymmetries between owners and non-owners of capital. Markets are a core element of capitalism, but in principle they can also exist in societies in which the ownership of capital is organized differently And from Heywoowd's "Political Ideologies": >[Capitalism]( https://ibb.co/SJnXjTx) is an economic system as well as a form of property ownership. It has a number of key features. First, it is based on generalized commodity production, a ‘commodity’ being a good or service produced for exchange – it has market value rather than use value. Second, productive wealth in a capitalist economy is predominantly held in private hands. Third, economic life is organized according to impersonal market forces, in particular the forces of demand (what consumers are willing and able to consume) and supply (what producers are willing and able to produce). Fourth, in a capitalist economy, material self-interest and maximization provide the main motivations for enterprise and hard work. Some degree of state regulation is nevertheless found in all capitalist systems. Heywood, Andrew. Political Ideologies (p. 97). Macmillan Education UK. Kindle Edition. From wikipedia sources: >Pure capitalism is defined as a system wherein all of the means of production (physical capital) are privately owned and run by the capitalist class for a profit, while most other people are workers who work for a salary or wage (and who do not own the capital or the product). Zimbalist, Sherman and Brown, Andrew, Howard J. and Stuart (October 1988). Comparing Economic Systems: A Political-Economic Approach. Harcourt College Pub. pp. 6–7 >Capitalism, as a mode of production, is an economic system of manufacture and exchange which is geared toward the production and sale of commodities within a market for profit, where the manufacture of commodities consists of the use of the formally free labor of workers in exchange for a wage to create commodities in which the manufacturer extracts surplus value from the labor of the workers in terms of the difference between the wages paid to the worker and the value of the commodity produced by him/her to generate that profit. London; Thousand Oaks, CA; New Delhi. Sage. p. 383. (according to Wikipedia however a direct quote found and secondary source [found here.]( https://www.longdom.org/open-access/capitalism-and-capitalist-state-2332-0761-1000218.pdf)) >Capitalism An economic principle based on leaving as many decisions as possible on production, distribution, and prices to the free market. McCormick, John; Rod Hague; Martin Harrop. Comparative Government and Politics (p. 345). Macmillan Education UK. Kindle Edition. Then for a brief history, [here is Chapter 1](http://assets.press.princeton.edu/chapters/s10563.pdf) of the book "[Capitalism: A short History](https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9781400873418/html)". It's basically all about "class struggle". >[Capitalism](https://www.hbs.edu/ris/Publication%20Files/07-037.pdf) is often defined as an economic system where private actors are allowed to own and control the use of property in accord with their own interests, and where the invisible hand of the pricing mechanism coordinates supply and demand in markets in a way that is automatically in the best interests of society. Government, in this perspective, is often described as responsible for peace, justice, and tolerable taxes. >[Capitalism](https://capitalism.sites.clemson.edu/Misc/Capitalism-Defined-and-Defended.pdf) is the socio-economic system where all property is privately owned, where freely formed contracts form the basis of economic interaction, and where the government does not engage in regulation, supervision, or direction of market processes. In short, it is a government policy of non-interference with the economic lives of its citizens; it is the system of laissez-faire. The proper implementation of a program of laissezfaire capitalism, however, requires an appropriate political system at its base. >According to Sternberg, [true capitalism]( https://business.wfu.edu/newsroom/defining-capitalism/) can be defined as “an economic system characterized by comprehensive private property, free-market pricing, and the absence of coercion.” Her definition attempts to set true capitalism apart from forms of political capitalism, including crony capitalism and welfare capitalism, which rely on coercive government action to operate successfully.
Uhm go by what they say?
Are you pretending to be naive? Or are you actually naive?
Should we not believe Lenin?
So if I say I'm a communist, then I'm a communist?
Yep.
I know this sounds goofy, but if you were to listen to the Ancaps, Ancoms, Tankies, and AutCaps and you will realize that according to them nothing is real capitalism or socialism since they have such a narrow word view that their own ideology might not fit into their view of Capitalism or Socialism. So if you can't base it off the extremes, you have to base it off of the individual. Each system and each person define them both differently.
Ancaps prefer principles. State capitalism rules the world but it is not free market capitalism that we advocate for.
Now do the same for gender
Like I know, this is a novel concept to some. Like capitalists, very much are proud to be capitalists, and socialists are proud to be socialists. If you listen to either camp on what is or isn't socialism or capitalism, then the only thing you can conclude from idealistic utopian thought is there is no system on earth, which is Capitalism nor Socialism.
It depends on how you define capitalism and socialism. A simple definition is that socialism is the public ownership of the means of production whilst capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production. However, clearly you can have the means of production partially owned by both and so usually you identify the system on what is greater of the two.
how do you know when you are cold? is there a tipping point? there are objective standards and subjective standards for comparison but even objective standards are somewhat arbitrary. your problem is that you perceive nations as coherent organized systems which isn't often reality. in fact it is well known that most nations are called mixed economies, while that is also not exactly definable it is at least an indicator that a nation can have both socialism and capitalism to varying degrees and thus is neither exclusively. instead i like to think of nations as collectivist or individualist as compared to a supposed median value. as socialism is a collectivist system i could say that a nation is socialist if its culture is more collectivist than some median standard. that too would be false but maybe generally useful in conversation.
most economies are described as mixed economies with elements of Socialism and capitalism. American government spends about 35% of GDP while European government spends about 55%. Thus Europe has about 60% of our per capita income because government spending leads to a poverty. it is not important to label a country as a Capitalist or Socialist but to know where on the spectrum they are.
What do you mean by "*elements of socialism*" and "*elements of capitalism*"? How do you identify which is which?
socialism is giving people free stuff like Medicare Social Security etc. capitalism is supporting the free market. 1+1 = 2
From what I've seen every person who likes socialism and who hates socialism has their own definition of socialism There are specific schools of Socialism such as social democracy, democratic socialism, utopian socialism, etc. You might want to look at the list on Wikipedia. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types\_of\_socialism#Socialist\_ideologies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_socialism#Socialist_ideologies) It is pretty long. In addition Social Security and Medicare are not free. You pay for them while you are working. Are you going to consider the fact that you can drive on public roads without tolls "socialist". (Yes, there are some toll roads, but the vast bulk of roads between cities used to have tolls. If a road near you has the word "pike" in its name, it used to be a toll road.) There is a stronger case for saying that free public roads are socialist than there is for Medicare and Social Security.
if you have any idea what point you are trying to make with that meandering rant why don't you tell us?
So... soculizm iz when da gubmint gibz people free stuff and that's how it murders 120 people? Wid free stuff?
socialism is when the government gives a favored constituency free stuff usually in return for votes taken at gunpoint from a non-favored constituency. It usually starts with healthcare and education and if allowed to metastasize ends with giving them the means of production. Socialism just killed 120 million people because everyone was looking for free stuff and no one was working. 1+1 = 2
>socialism is when the government gives a favored constituency For example? >free stuff For example? > in return for votes taken at gunpoint For example?
Are you stupid? Do you need an example of what The government spends money on? Look it up for yourself
You can either give concrete examples of what you mean.... or admit that you can't think of any. I can understand how thinking of specific examples can be cognitively challenging for you. But try.
concrete examples of what ????????
Ask Venezuela. When families have to hunt down rats and zoo animals to avoid famine.