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.*
OP, please keep in mind that the question you are asking is promoting a rigidly dogmatic mindset. Figure out your core set of beliefs and principles regarding the way society should be organized, then start backing them up with literature on the subject, and use that to find your ideal sets of public policies.
Leaving an "ism" for another "ism" is just trading in a mental cage for a different one.
>Figure out your core set of beliefs and principles regarding the way society **should** be organized, **then** start backing them up with literature on the subject
I think I get your intent, but I've emphasized the words that give me some pause here. I feel like this is the natural way we form, *then* justify beliefs. We'll never fully break this pattern of course, but I think it's worth at least striving against it.
We all have opinions about how something *should* be done, before we even really understand how it *is* done, or *was* done. Then everything we do learn about that just proves to ourselves and others how right we are.
Venezuela is a Left leaning social democracy. I mean Hugo Chavez was elected and so was Maduro, multiple times.
Sure some of those elections may have not been legitimate, which just shows that Socialism by any other name is still socialism.
Calling it “ Democratic Socialism “ is just an attempt to reframe it. It’s like calling it Socialism Lite to make it more agreeable to the general public.
Socialist candidates like Bernie Sanders uses Scandinavian Countries as working example of Socialism for the same reasons.
He also uses those Countries to push is policies and agenda, but all anyone has to do is look into his agenda and they’ll find it has far more in common with South American Socialism or “ Chavism “ than the Nordic Model
It was happening so much that in 2015 while speaking at Harvards Kennedy School of Law, the Danish PM felt the need to set him and everyone else straight.
I guess he got sick and tired of people insulting his Country by calling it Socialist.
[Danish PM: Denmark is not Socialist](https://www.thelocal.dk/20151101/danish-pm-in-us-denmark-is-not-socialist)
You mean "*the elite's whore*"? The ones bailing out banks, fomenting monopolies and subsidies to already wealth institutions and corporations? The one causing the war on Ukraine and giving money to Israel so they can kill young palestinians.
Social democrats, the ones dangling on WEF, UN and OTAN's balls to protect the wealthy and make the bourgeois state just a tiny bit more tolerable so that people won't revolte. Giving us crumbs enough to not be a threat to their status.
I said *left leaning* for a reason. You can be a leftist social democrat. Not *as* left as a socialist, but at least the correct next step toward democratic socialism.
Right wing sucdems are the worst, though, agreed there
> The ones bailing out banks, fomenting monopolies and subsidies to already wealth institutions and corporations? The one causing the war on Ukraine and giving money to Israel so they can kill young palestinians.
That's Neoliberalism, not socdem
I’m also not a huge fan of welfare statism because it just encourages lumpenproles and even further offloads the burden of things like low wages or poor engagement onto the working class. I feel like socdem is primarily an r/antiwork framework since it largely benefits the people who are barely or not working and doesn’t really benefit the core of the working class who were already earning enough to not be on welfare, but still not enough to live a good life, not to mention the inherent lack of engagement with or control over capital.
It’s a placation model designed to stifle unrest not genuinely solve problems.
But having non-workers resort to theft, loitering, and just being uncomfortable to be around is something workers are willing to pay to prevent, so your argument doesn't make sense
Or you are an authoritarian who thinks it's okay to ban homelessness, use preemptive policing, and practice physical separation through isolation.
Do you recognize there are downsides to not providing welfare to people who refuse to work?
What if the cost of welfare is less than incarceration?
The idea would be that those issues would continue to be exasperated by the increasingly brutal disparity caused by neoliberal capitalism, which would eventually breed class consciousness and the desire to actually improve the entire system.
Unfortunately you're basically right in that the working class would rather instead just sacrifice more control over what little money they're paid by way of taxation to placate the unruly underclass instead of genuinely solving the problem. Probably because there's a balance point between placation vs unrest and socdem countries have found the perfect middle ground where the working class is annoyed but not ready to revolt or do anything drastic.
Alright I'm about to nit-pick. Focusing on your lack of understanding surrounding the UN, bear with me: Mofo the soviet Union was part of the UN. The former YUGOSLAVIA was a member of the UN. CUBA is part of the UN. NORTH-MOTHER-FREAKING-KOREA IS AN OFF AND ON PART OF THE UN. The UN is just an international forum for countries to explain their grievances to each other without NUKING EACH OTHER. (And for the record, PALESTINE is a participant in the UN)
The UN has next to no economic or political stipulations in order to join. It also doesnt really regulate the flow of money, but I will agree that individual countries involved in the UN may do so. It also does indeed allow the global elite to make connections more easily... Connections they would still be making without the UN. But if you think they regulate trade or defend the elite you are hilariously deluded. They dont really do more to defend anyone than write strongly worded letters in protest (this is both a good and bad thing). Also I'd like to point out that if you are a Russian bot, RUSSIA has a permanent spot on the UN but they are currently throwing a hissy fit and not participating, because "muh Ukraine". That's completely and utterly THEIR OWN fault. They were not barred from the UN, they were not banned, they just refuse... tho they were voted off the UN security council and Human rights board due to... recent mass graves.
You have a small point with NATO, and an actual point with the WEF, but the UN? Try again.
You are asking the wrong question. You don’t have to join some ideological team. You should be asking what your base principles are for how you think humans should behave and interact. Once you have answered that question, you just expand logically until you come to policy positions on specific issues. These may or may not align with various “isms” but who cares?
in two words: touch grass.
in more words: connect to reality. look in to your city's politics, how that is influenced by the larger governmental politics, how *that* is influenced by the national politics, and how that is influenced by global politics.
Then try and build community in your city - see how community is influenced by history and cultural politics: see how insecure people are, how untrusting they are of strangers. See how people are invested in a hierarchy of who has had it worst.
All of the obstacles to actually developing a community - including the obstacles inside yourself - should form the basis of whatever ideology you subscribe to.
honestly this.
research and see what works for you and your country. a lot of people get too obsessed with the ideology side of politics that they forget that there’s supposed to be pragmatic at the end of the day.
Scandinavian model, capitalism with a strong social safety net. Plus it’s empirically the best system in the world. The people in Scandinavia are happy, healthy, wealthy, highly educated, and have healthy functioning democracies.
I agree that the Scandinavian model is the best example of a well functioning government we have at present. The key phrase is "at present." From what I have read the capitalists are making inroads against Scandinavian social democracy and transforming it into something more like American neoliberalism. They will, if allowed to continue unchecked turn the Scandinavian countries into neoliberal hell holes. Take it from someone living in the neoliberal hell hole at present.
The nordic model has never passed the sniff test for me, anyway. I don't see how welfare statism can genuinely substitute for proper worker engagement, fulfilment, ownership, good wages, etc. The social safety net aspect is okay for if/when people run into unexpected trouble but, beyond that it just seems like an inherently exploitative system where the working class not only works for the profitability of the capitalists, but also works to pay into the public support systems which can easily be exploited/overloaded if people stop contributing to it and start sponging off it. Traditional leftists were never a big fan of welfare or lumpenprole behaviour and I don't see how socdem promotes anything but that in the long run.
Passing the sniff test or not, the Nordic model has worked better than anything else for regular citizens, and still works better than any other governmental models. Maybe the Scandinavian countries will be able to fight back and get the neoliberals and conservatives completely out of power. But that is not the way things have run in the rest of Europe. I'm hoping that Scandinavian voters will look at what has happened to England under neoliberal guidance and change their voting patterns before it's too late. The thing is, capitalist attacks at regulation of commerce (including all social safety nets) are relentless. So long as a government is capitalist, it's at risk.
What was your main problem with socialism? If you were anything like me your actual problems with socialism were culture war idpol shit and not necessarily leftist theory or goals in and of itself. There’s a subset of the left that’s essentially leftist economically and socially conservative, and basically wants to detach themselves from culture war and identity politics. I find they’re way more agreeable and also way more willing to break bread over core issues. A lot of leftist goals can easily be rebranded with a right-leaning slant anyway.
It’s not pro “working-class”, it’s pro salt of the earth blue collar workers. It’s not anti-capitalist, it’s anti-global megacorps. It’s not anti-bourgeoise, it’s anti-coastal elitism. It’s not anti-racist it’s pro-community building, etc.
Very easy ways to reframe and rebrand leftism to be appealing to moderates or conservatives but the current left refuses to do so because they’re steadfast adherent to pseudo-intellectualism, identity politics, academic elitism, and other anti-working class tendencies.
You can’t just change the definition of something like socialism to “rebrand it”. Socialism is when it is illegal for individuals to own the means of production distribution or exchange. If you want to do something else other than that then it’s not socialism anymore,
so call it something else.
Rebranding is about optics, not about fundamental principles. Most people don’t know jack shit about how the economy is run anyway, you think the average working class person even understands how trading shares or starting a business works? Selling the economic aspect comes after making the ideology palatable and not exclusively associated with shitlib freaks.
It’s about optics??? So you basically wanna lie to people and when they are sucked in good and proper you’ll only then break the truth to them that it’s actually it’s not what you told them it was???
When did I say I'd lie? Optics is about presentation. It's all still socialism, it's just not hammer and sickle neckbeard shit. Socialism didn't always have the optics it currently has either. Used to be venerated by well dressed working class people and even some professionals (Think MLK Jr, he was a well dressed Christian, and a socialist).
Leftism has a serious problem being exclusively associated with radlib weirdos, commie fetishists, and people who don't even work. That needs to change.
OK so when people ask you’ll tell them the truth… that socialism is when society makes it illegal for any individual to own anything that can be considered to be the means of production, distribution or exchange?
Sure, but I wouldn't intentionally phrase it to sound bad like that, I'd say, "socialism is when the worker's own the means of production collectively instead of a tiny minority of ultra rich business owners". See, optics. Same principle, more palatable.
And that’s how you end up with a following of people who have no idea what they actually are supporting in reality.
You would’ve done great as a tobacco lobbyist telling big tobacco that it’s just an optics problem they have with their product that can be solved with better positioning. I think Hitler had a chap called Goebbels doing exactly this for him.
Everybody has people doing that for them, including current neoliberals. I care about results. If I could use propaganda to make the world a better place I'd do it.
If it had true merit and you believe its what people really wanted… then you wouldn’t be afraid to just go with the dictionary definition without sugar coating it.
Socialists have people doing it for them too.... They're just shit at it. I swear it's almost like there's not a single prominent socialist who's ever taken a basic comms class. They redefine important words and speak in ways that intentionally mislead the average person who hasn't read 10 thousand pages of badly written theory.
Lmao “rebranding” socialism to be more “agreeable” with people who, mind you are also engaging in “culture war idpol shit”, is exactly how you end up with Nazism, Fascism, etc.
That last paragraph screams of elitism and looking down on the working class. The whole comment is anti-worker.
I'm not saying be more agreeable with rightoid idpol. Leftists and shitlibs always forget that there are millions of moderates and mildly socially conservative people out there that simply don't want to be inundated with idpol or marxist terminology or whatever. And how is calling out the left's ivory tower elitism ackshually me being classist and anti-worker? I grew up in a pro-union blue collar city that revolved around steelwork, these people are not fuckin idpol shitlibs who sit around on reddit or in universities jerking each other off about how smart and tolerant they are, and it's palpable how many of them have drifted from left wing or left leaning politics because right wing populism that pays lip service to class issues, as vapid as they may be, are more appealing to average joes than woke bullshit.
But people like you are steadfast adherent to ideology over outcomes so neolibs will continue gaining and consolidating even more power and resources while we splinter off ad infinitum trying to appease every special interest group and paying zero mind to class interests as a whole.
Reject modern liberal identity politics. No inundation with LGBTQ+ in media and education, no replacing every character in every show with a non-white, no obvious agenda when it comes to plastering homosexual or mixed race romances everywhere and minimizing or entirely excluding “traditional” ones (Baldur’s Gate 3 prime example, all female romance options are non-human and or weird except one who is still technically only half human and blue balls you the whole game, all males are attractive humans that go straight to gay sex if you say hi to them), no intersectionality, no rad feminism, etc.
Basically go back to like idk, maybe 10-15 years ago? Gay marriage freshly legalized, gay people were acting normal, no SJWs, no trans anything, basically just normal, stable society that can focus on uniting the working class.
Even if you disagree on all of that from a moral standpoint we could easily pivot back to these issues once class/material issues are solved. There’s no point in focusing on special interests individually when everyone is affected across the board by class issues.
Georgism is the best and always has been. It's like socialism without the stupid. Or anarcho-capitalism without the stupid. It's pretty much just economics without the stupid.
Okay so first up Capitalists dont tend to THINK of themselves as capitalists. Capitalism is technically speaking just the economic system. For those who could reasonably be called Capitalists, they usually keep Political Ideology and Economic policy separate (Anarcho caps are a notable exception in that there is no political ideology) which may not be an option for a socialist depending on the faction. As such, you could honestly keep much of the political ideals you had as a socialist, just while being a capitalist.
If you are still open to socialism I would suggest Georgism. Otherwise maybe some form of fair trade + social Democrat? If you wanted a little less political oversight you could some sort of a libertarian.
You can't keep political ideology and economic policy separate under capitalism. Capitalists work incessantly to make more money. They eventually succeed. And when they have made enough money they buy the government and it becomes an oligarchy not a democracy. As is the case in the US right now.
If that were ACTUALLY the case in the US, then a lot of things would be very different. Capitalists are aligned inasmuch as they are making money with each other, unfortunately to your argument, pretty much every "Corporation" in the US has a "government agency" designed to annoy that corporation, and these corporations annoy each other. OSHA, IRS, FBI. America has the beginnings of oligarchy with groups such as BlackRock, but that's about it. Even BlackRock gets sued AND SUPBEONAD from time to time. That doesn't typically happen in an oligarchy.
And yes, political ideology and economic systems dont need to be linked. I mean do you need to be capitalist in order to use an American library book? No. Do you need to pay a subscription fee to be a raging racist? No. Must you be capitalist to have an education system? No. I will admit theres more nuance to this but political ideology is not blanket statement joined to economic policies. They are moreso linked on a case by case basis.
i’m pretty sure people who believe in a capitalist system typically refer themselves as an ideology that’s associated with capitalism. like, more people would identify as a liberal, socdem, conservative, before calling themselves a capitalist
Social Democracy is probably your best bet though frankly I think the U.S. becoming a social democracy is less likely than a revolution occurring in the near future. Failing that you can always go full nihilist.
>Social Democracy is probably your best bet
You mean "*the elite's whore*"? The ones bailing out banks, fomenting monopolies and subsidies to already wealth institutions and corporations? The one causing the war on Ukraine and giving money to Israel so they can kill young palestinians.
Social democrats, the ones dangling on WEF, UN and OTAN's balls to protect the wealthy and make the bourgeois state just a tiny bit more tolerable so that people won't revolte. Giving us crumbs enough to not be a threat to their status.
Why would a communist even consider allying to the worst type of capitalist there is. Don't you have morals?
>You mean "*the elite's (sic) whore*"?
Is this a reference to something? Also what do you mean to imply by using a singular possessive instead of a plural possessive?
>The one bailing out banks, fomenting (sic) monopolies and subsidies to already wealth (sic) institutions and corporations? The one causing the war on (sic) Ukraine and giving money to Israel so they can kill young Palestinians.
>Social democrats (sic), the ones dangling on WEF, UNN and OTAN's balls to protect the wealthy and make the bourgeois state just a tiny bit more tolerable so that people won't revolte (sic). Giving us crumbs enough to not be a threat to their status.
What the fuck are you even talking about dumbass? There are no social democratic political parties in the U.S.A. and even if there were they wouldn't have supported bailouts or monopolies or subsidies to the already rich. No Social-Democrats anywhere caused the war in Ukraine and you're literally insane for thinking they did.
>Why would a communist even consider allying to the worst type of capitalist there is. Don't you have morals?
Social Democrats are not capitalists, they're working class reformists. Don't you have any brain cells?
Because, dumbass, social democracy is a capitalist ideology. You really need to learn the difference between adjectives and nouns (and between singular and plural).
Lo que sí sé es que eres un idiota esquizofrénico. Que não sabe nem metade das coisas que eu sei, et n'a même pas lu la moitié des livres que j'ai lus.
When I left socialism, I didn’t go towards anything. And this is what I would recommend. Stop reading theory or interpretation of the world by others. Just go out and live. Experience. Witness. Make your own observations and judgments using critical thinking and what you see in the world, without any narrative bias. You need to just understand the world for what it is, the pragmatic and realistic. Anything ideological or hypothetical or philosophical is pointless without incorporating and understanding the real world as it is. After you have a firm understanding of the world, then look at ideologies and see which one fits best with what you discovered on your own. That is how I found capitalism, but that doesn’t mean you will find the same. My journey to capitalism started with a simple decision that I was no longer going to blame where I was in life and what happened to me on anyone else but me. It was a decision to take full control of my life, full responsibility, and to act like I have the power to make choices and create dynamic change by will and action. A choice to make goals and actually do the things required to get to those goals as opposed to hoping someone else would hand them to me. As I set on that path, a journey of trial and error with self observations and harsh critical thinking of myself and the world led me to my own ideology, and then I found capitalism which was essentially my ideology already fleshed out by others.
Taxing land ownership is ok, but it's never implemented anywhere *close* to the levels that George espoused, and his followers have turned the "don't tax improvements" part into a religious crusade against high taxes when the LVT is *supposed* to be pretty damn high.
This makes me not trust georgists in the least. Far better to be a social democrat who might be interested in a well implemented LVT but doesn't think it's the only tool in the toolbox.
I mean I’m not a Georgist, but sure any LVT seems like the best compromise
I still see any system of private control as inherently authoritarian and believe it will inevitably result in plutocracy
> A 100% estate tax is a necessity
While I in principle would like a 100% estate tax, I believe the distortions introduced in practice makes a lower percentage (and some level of bottom subtraction) a better policy.
More critical than increasing estate taxes directly is getting rid of step-up, which essentially is *negative* estate tax. It makes the estate more than it was when the person died.
A necessity if you want people to waste all their savings before they die despite not knowing exactly when they're going to die. That sounds like a massive perverse incentive, doesn't it?
A necessity to reduce wealth inequality, which is a *bad thing*.
With a properly structured welfare system, savings to give your descendants a leg up isn’t important
Well, I suggest ditching the view there are “capitalist ideologies” first. That’s an out-group label by socialists.
Next, the big three from the French Revolution were socialism, liberalism and conservatism. Let’s keep it simple and focus on those three.
Socialism, or at least the far left version of this sub, seems to be off the table.
Conservatism you need to ask yourself what is your current institutions where you live and you want to preserve them and not change? It is a little more complicated than that but that is the gist. We can discuss more but I find it the most difficult and complex of the political ideologies to study because it is so culturally (and even ethnic) dependent.
I then will post about social democracy and liberalism.
To me, socialism democracy in its effective form is liberal. Think of the Nordic countries. [Here is an excerpt defining it from my poli sci textbook by Heywood.](https://ibb.co/tsVLXNX). To me the success of the Nordic countries is the anchoring of their humanity ethos to the liberal constitution.
Then here is Heywood’s intro on Liberalism. Modern Liberalism is progressive with government programs to assist with “freedom”.
>[The central theme of liberal ideology](https://imgur.com/gallery/cUKpwEb) is a commitment to the individual and the desire to construct a society in which people can satisfy their interests and achieve fulfilment. Liberals believe that human beings are, first and foremost, individuals, endowed with reason. This implies that each individual should enjoy the maximum possible freedom consistent with a like freedom for all. However, although individuals are entitled to equal legal and political rights, they should be rewarded in line with their talents and their willingness to work. Liberal societies are organized politically around the twin principles of constitutionalism and consent, designed to protect citizens from the danger of government tyranny. Nevertheless, there are significant differences between classical liberalism and modern liberalism. Classical liberalism is characterized by a belief in a ‘minimal’ state, whose function is limited to the maintenance of domestic order and personal security. Modern liberalism, in contrast, accepts that the state should help people to help themselves. (Heywood, 20017)
My preference is "Don't have an ideology, instead investigate what works for your goals and argue for that, if necessary grudgingly accepting a label for what people think you are."
For me, that ends up fitting with the label "social democrat" - but I didn't have that label until I first had opinions about what I wanted in society and then learning about economics and how to best achieve the things I wanted. And my beliefs about what to do with society will shift based on shifting knowledge about how to achieve my goals, not by shifting something about "What is social democracy".
Look at Sweden and Finland. A lot of Socialist Democrats like to point to them as examples of good Socialism, but in reality they are very capitalist with strong social programs. And it isn't Democratic Socialism. They don't take the rich or businesses and they have low regulations on businesses. They do tax the middle class and poor since they are the ones that use the social safety nets. And the use private businesses to make many things including Healthcare work. And they have school choice.
[You can look into market socialist economic models like this one proposed by Yanis Varoufakis.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNfvR0lwP4Q&ab_channel=AfterTheOligarchy%28BrightAgeBeyond%29)
I would approach the matter of political philosophy from a different starting point: what elements of your current life make you dissatisfied with your life? And how are these elements connected to the larger political economic system that you live in?
social democracy and/or social liberalism
social liberalism is just welfare capitalism, social democracy is more of an emphasis on the social aspect of capitalism.
these are typically seen as “left wing” by righties but “right wing” by lefties. but honestly, those terms are irrelevant when those systems are helping people and promoting GDP growth
Look I share your disappointment in socialism. It’s a lovely idea but when you dig into the actual meat of it you eventually see that it can’t function unless it is rigidly authoritarian and dictates everything people can and can’t do.
Equally I am not blind to problems with unbridled capitalism with no regulation or restraint. But the biggest problem I see is how you end up with such immense wealth concentrated in the hands of a tiny few that several generations would not run out of money. And an even bigger problem is how wealth of the really rich can be protected by things like tax shelters and trusts and various mechanisms that politicians never do away with because it benefits them and their donors.
I personally think if I were to fix things it would be to let the most talented among us continue to build businesses and create wealth as much as possible while they are alive… and then take it from them after they and their spouse are dead. Allow a million or two to be passed to the kids because they have earned that right but don’t allow billions to be passed on. Do away with trusts and other such shelters that can outlive people and avoid taxation.
I will leave everything I have to my kids and give them as much of a head-start as I can and I want them to do well… but ultimately they should be able to stand in their own feet and nobody should be entitled to anything because of who they were born. I have other ideas but that’s a good place to start.
Check out the history of the Mondragon Cooperative Company. Making of Mondragon & Myths of Mondragon. There’s also a bunch of docs.
The Union Co op movement is getting stronger, and is accomplishing some real stuff. It’s worth checking out.
Market-socialism. There’s a million different kinds, but I like the people owning and directing key players in various essential industries like transportation, healthcare, communications, agriculture, housing, energy, etc. They don’t run these industries completely, but rather operate a nationalized corporation within each industry which fosters competition and progress among others in the market, giving consumers choice and control over the product ms they choose. The really fun version involves multiple State-subsidized corporation per industry that compete amongst each other for grant awards. Like two or three NASAs, duping it out for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place.
You probably institute a wealth cap on individuals too, something fun, but not obscenely high/unlimited like we have today. Also, this only works if you can wrestle power from the plutocrats and regain control of the government and the somehow maintain the power of the people against corporatist substrate. Otherwise we’re just gonna keep going until we get the worst version of dystopian capitalism you can imagine.
Capitalism isnt ideology. Its just a single rule of private ownership of MoP. You can follow any ideology or religion as long as said rule is respected (which is kinda any except of socialism or other totalitarian ideologies), though the most compatible would be either classical liberalism (equality under the law) or christianity (catholic best one here) as religion (sometimes both).
Your ideological label should be a general summary of your beliefs, not a boundary for them. Form axioms first. Decide what arbitrary, purely subjective opinions you have on things in a metaethical sense.
I believe that maximizing the happiness of as many people as possible is a good thing. That's my core axiom and everything else I believe comes from that. Secondarily, I believe that happiness is best affirmed through positive freedom. Thirdly, I believe that positive freedom can only be gained through equality.
All three of these are entirely arbitrary beliefs. I choose to believe them and they aren't able to be falsified in an objective way.
You've now got the ends, now decide on the means. I think that equality is impossible under capitalism, thus threatening the pursuit of positive freedom, thus harming the potential for happiness.
**Long story short, decide what your principles are and how YOU would best like to achieve them. Don't associate your identity with an ideology in a way that limits you.**
If I believed that capitalism maximizes happiness, I'd be a staunch capitalist. I don't, and so I'm a socialist.
Definitely social democracy.
Not only is it close to socialism in terms of philosophy, but you can look at real-life examples of it working very well. It's not a purely theoretical concept.
It very much is theoretical, the theory in this case is the belief that it is sustainable despite evidence that capitalists will every single time use their vast amounts of unelected power to subvert democracy and tear down social democracy. They've done this time and time again, it is the logical result of giving unelected, unchecked power to people whose interests are completely opposed to this system.
But yeah, if you somehow believe that the government can defend this system against capitalist influences, corruption and propaganda from privately owned media, then it's the least bad form capitalism. Certainly vastly superior to what we have now.
The real answer is that OP probably should look into anarchism and libertarian socialism.
>OP probably should look into anarchism and libertarian socialism.
Anarchists crumble when you simply ask them how complex supply chains would work under anarchism.
How does that require an authoritarian economic structure? You can have co-ops making them work just as well as they do under capitalism, if not better. I don't see how democratization of the workplace make these not work. You can have managers and other jobs like that if they're necessary, they'll just be democratically elected, subject to scrutiny, but ultimately just another job instead of an unelected position of power that is prone to abuse.
Anarchists and libertarian socialists usually want a society without money. How we're supposed to organize complex supply chains without money (or, alternatively, without a central authority) is anyone's guess.
They also typically want a society in which everyone works for free and their needs are taken care of. Again, this makes complex supply chains difficult because it's hard to imagine a lot of people producing microprocessors for anything else than financial rewards.
Finally, anarchists are against the police and state monopoly on the use of violence. Explain to me how we're supposed to defend and secure our supply chains without a police force and state monopoly on violence.
It literally is the natural state of human organization. You can argue that it wouldn't scale, which I disagree with (take a look at Rojava) but I'm not interested in having a long fucking debate. You certainly can't argue that "human nature" liberal crap.
You mean the real life examples where they bailed out banks, fomented monopolies and provided subsidies to already wealth institutions and corporations? The ones causing the war on Ukraine and giving money to Israel so they can kill young palestinians.
Social democrats, the ones dangling on WEF, UN and OTAN's balls to protect the wealthy and make the bourgeois state just a tiny bit more tolerable so that people won't revolte. Giving us crumbs enough to not be a threat to their status.
>they bailed out banks
The "bailouts" were actually loans on which the government made money. It was a net gain for the taxpayer.
>The ones causing the war on Ukraine
Russia is the one who caused the war on Ukraine.
Get the fuck out, you fascist scum.
>Get the fuck out, you fascist scum
I'm not the one defending goverment control of the economy, investment on military complex to fight alongside Neonazi in Ukraine and Israel. Not even asking for partnership of the government and capitalists/banks for profit.
What neonazis in Ukraine? They're like less than 1% of the electorate.
Meanwhile in Russia, the state is committing ethnic cleansing on the Ukrainian population. Remember Bucha? Remember Mariupol? Remember the kidnapped children?
Putin is already on an international court of justice warrant for war crimes. If you're on his side, you're a fascist scum, and I take pride in having nothing to do with you.
Look dude Russia is the one that rolled tanks into Ukraine. That is undeniable. It was an unprovoked war of aggression by Russia against Ukraine, and it is every bit as much of a crime against humanity as the US invasion of Iraq. Putin belongs in a cell in The Hague next to George W Bush awaiting his trial for crimes against humanity.
>but you can look at real-life examples of it working very well.
Social democracy is downright awful. The state confiscates 50% of what you earn and gives you back a few crumbs. Social democracy is based on trickle-down theory, where you give the state a huge amount of revenue and hope that some of it trickles down back to the people.
I partly agree, but keep in mind that OP is an ex-socialist. I don't think the idea of high taxes to fund public services bothers them too much.
Living in a social democracy, I get more than a few breadcrumbs. I get almost free education and healthcare (high quality as well), nice public transport, defense, security, parks, subsidies for culture, etc...
But I agree that too much public money is wasted. I pay ~40% in income taxes, but if you add VAT, and other taxes, it climbs to around 70%. And the government is still running out of money. It's too much. They have to learn to manage the taxpayers money more wisely.
Only people who misunderstand what capitalism actually is think that it requires an all-powerful monopolistic government to rule over and restrain people.
The best form of capitalism is anarcho-capitalism, as popularised by Murray Rothbard (of the Austrian school)
You might be surprised how much we agree on in regards to the evil of the modern US military state and starting wars overseas in order to make money for corrupt officials and military contractors.
Ancap is neither left nor right.
What do u mean by "*capitalist ideology*"? Capitalism is just private property, there is nothing else to it. I think you are mistaking "*government doing stuff*" with capitalism.
Different from it is socialism, which is a goal to achieve, therefore there are plenty of ways to do it. Hence why so many types of socialism.
>"capitalism, but restrained" ideology
I don't even know what that is supposed to mean. You mean statism with private property permitted, restrained and controlled by the centralized democratic authority?
Like the Nazi? When the state takes over capitalism to defend it?
Or state capitalism like the USSR, which many say would be socialism, which defeats the purpose of your post, so I guess you just mean Nazi.
Not interested in nazism or nationalism. More in terms of soviet state capitalism.
But I thought socialists say state capitalistic countries were fake socialists?
Anarcho-capitalism is the only rational choice here. Not too far from socialism to be honest, we care for the poor, for the workers especially (hence free market aspect of it). It also has constraints of private property as in, authocrats aren't allowed to rule without consent of an individual. So basically majority won't be able to vote your rights away. They are inalienable and inherent in every human being.
So yeah, join us. New members get free ticket to anarcapulco.
There is no Best Capitalism ideology. Capitalism is simply freedom. Everything is done freely by mutual agreement. Capitalism is free trade whether it is trade with someone across the street or across the world. The left is stupid and always imagines they can interfere with free trade and get a better outcome when it is impossible
when business and government are combined you have Socialism or fascism or crony capitalism or corporatism or state capitalism, but not a capitslism. What we have in the future depends on what economic system people believe in in the future. if the left prevails we will have some version of Socialist fascism. if the intellectuals prevail we will have freedom and capitolism. Do you understand now?
Please don't be stupid. If it is on real you have to think of a reason to say it is unreal and then try to present the reason here in writing. Do you understand that a reason is necessary?
I do not wish to engage with you. You call all of your ideological opponents "stupid." With the implied claim that you are not stupid. An intelligent person engaging in intellectual discourse does not call his opponents "stupid" because that only makes them angry, ESPECIALLY if they ARE stupid. Which very few, if any, of your opponents are. However, you be you. Call me stupid and ignore me. I'm fine with that.
Do you notice that the left has 1 million excuses to run from the debate? Do you ever see a conservative libertarian have to run from a debate? What does that teach you?
also if the left is not stupid it should be very easy for them to give us a leftist position that is not stupid but how
odd they can't do that. what does that teach you???
You might like distributism, which is basically "market socialism" that accepts some private ownership will always exist.
Or if you want to go a little further right, but not full libertarian, you could be a social democrat, which is basically capitalism with welfare.
I gotta say, I'm a decent fan of distributism.
I don't think it's a fully baked ideology, but I do agree wholeheartedly that if you must have private ownership, that ownership should be as widely distributed (and thus not *concentrated*) as possible.
Welfare capitalism with strong borders. You deal with the wealth disparities through taxes. Strong borders prevent welfare abuse from foreign nationals.
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.*
Definitely an unusual post. It's not every day that we see a "please sell me an ideology " request
OP, please keep in mind that the question you are asking is promoting a rigidly dogmatic mindset. Figure out your core set of beliefs and principles regarding the way society should be organized, then start backing them up with literature on the subject, and use that to find your ideal sets of public policies. Leaving an "ism" for another "ism" is just trading in a mental cage for a different one.
This is probably the best advice we as a sub can give to OP
>Figure out your core set of beliefs and principles regarding the way society **should** be organized, **then** start backing them up with literature on the subject I think I get your intent, but I've emphasized the words that give me some pause here. I feel like this is the natural way we form, *then* justify beliefs. We'll never fully break this pattern of course, but I think it's worth at least striving against it. We all have opinions about how something *should* be done, before we even really understand how it *is* done, or *was* done. Then everything we do learn about that just proves to ourselves and others how right we are.
Okay but what they are really asking for is new ideas for ways capitalism can run restrained and a little more ethically than it currently is
Left leaning Social Democracy
Venezuela is a Left leaning social democracy. I mean Hugo Chavez was elected and so was Maduro, multiple times. Sure some of those elections may have not been legitimate, which just shows that Socialism by any other name is still socialism. Calling it “ Democratic Socialism “ is just an attempt to reframe it. It’s like calling it Socialism Lite to make it more agreeable to the general public. Socialist candidates like Bernie Sanders uses Scandinavian Countries as working example of Socialism for the same reasons. He also uses those Countries to push is policies and agenda, but all anyone has to do is look into his agenda and they’ll find it has far more in common with South American Socialism or “ Chavism “ than the Nordic Model It was happening so much that in 2015 while speaking at Harvards Kennedy School of Law, the Danish PM felt the need to set him and everyone else straight. I guess he got sick and tired of people insulting his Country by calling it Socialist. [Danish PM: Denmark is not Socialist](https://www.thelocal.dk/20151101/danish-pm-in-us-denmark-is-not-socialist)
You mean "*the elite's whore*"? The ones bailing out banks, fomenting monopolies and subsidies to already wealth institutions and corporations? The one causing the war on Ukraine and giving money to Israel so they can kill young palestinians. Social democrats, the ones dangling on WEF, UN and OTAN's balls to protect the wealthy and make the bourgeois state just a tiny bit more tolerable so that people won't revolte. Giving us crumbs enough to not be a threat to their status.
I said *left leaning* for a reason. You can be a leftist social democrat. Not *as* left as a socialist, but at least the correct next step toward democratic socialism. Right wing sucdems are the worst, though, agreed there
Causing the War in Ukraine? Are you one of those tankies who still pretends Russia is anything but itself imperialist?
Of course he is. What else would he be?
Tankies = red fascists
I know. And he's defending Putin, a very tankie thing to do.
> The ones bailing out banks, fomenting monopolies and subsidies to already wealth institutions and corporations? The one causing the war on Ukraine and giving money to Israel so they can kill young palestinians. That's Neoliberalism, not socdem
Socdem are neoliberals.
No https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy
I’m also not a huge fan of welfare statism because it just encourages lumpenproles and even further offloads the burden of things like low wages or poor engagement onto the working class. I feel like socdem is primarily an r/antiwork framework since it largely benefits the people who are barely or not working and doesn’t really benefit the core of the working class who were already earning enough to not be on welfare, but still not enough to live a good life, not to mention the inherent lack of engagement with or control over capital. It’s a placation model designed to stifle unrest not genuinely solve problems.
But having non-workers resort to theft, loitering, and just being uncomfortable to be around is something workers are willing to pay to prevent, so your argument doesn't make sense Or you are an authoritarian who thinks it's okay to ban homelessness, use preemptive policing, and practice physical separation through isolation. Do you recognize there are downsides to not providing welfare to people who refuse to work? What if the cost of welfare is less than incarceration?
The idea would be that those issues would continue to be exasperated by the increasingly brutal disparity caused by neoliberal capitalism, which would eventually breed class consciousness and the desire to actually improve the entire system. Unfortunately you're basically right in that the working class would rather instead just sacrifice more control over what little money they're paid by way of taxation to placate the unruly underclass instead of genuinely solving the problem. Probably because there's a balance point between placation vs unrest and socdem countries have found the perfect middle ground where the working class is annoyed but not ready to revolt or do anything drastic.
Alright I'm about to nit-pick. Focusing on your lack of understanding surrounding the UN, bear with me: Mofo the soviet Union was part of the UN. The former YUGOSLAVIA was a member of the UN. CUBA is part of the UN. NORTH-MOTHER-FREAKING-KOREA IS AN OFF AND ON PART OF THE UN. The UN is just an international forum for countries to explain their grievances to each other without NUKING EACH OTHER. (And for the record, PALESTINE is a participant in the UN) The UN has next to no economic or political stipulations in order to join. It also doesnt really regulate the flow of money, but I will agree that individual countries involved in the UN may do so. It also does indeed allow the global elite to make connections more easily... Connections they would still be making without the UN. But if you think they regulate trade or defend the elite you are hilariously deluded. They dont really do more to defend anyone than write strongly worded letters in protest (this is both a good and bad thing). Also I'd like to point out that if you are a Russian bot, RUSSIA has a permanent spot on the UN but they are currently throwing a hissy fit and not participating, because "muh Ukraine". That's completely and utterly THEIR OWN fault. They were not barred from the UN, they were not banned, they just refuse... tho they were voted off the UN security council and Human rights board due to... recent mass graves. You have a small point with NATO, and an actual point with the WEF, but the UN? Try again.
You are asking the wrong question. You don’t have to join some ideological team. You should be asking what your base principles are for how you think humans should behave and interact. Once you have answered that question, you just expand logically until you come to policy positions on specific issues. These may or may not align with various “isms” but who cares?
Absolutely. An economic theory doesnt need to dictate political beliefs.
in two words: touch grass. in more words: connect to reality. look in to your city's politics, how that is influenced by the larger governmental politics, how *that* is influenced by the national politics, and how that is influenced by global politics. Then try and build community in your city - see how community is influenced by history and cultural politics: see how insecure people are, how untrusting they are of strangers. See how people are invested in a hierarchy of who has had it worst. All of the obstacles to actually developing a community - including the obstacles inside yourself - should form the basis of whatever ideology you subscribe to.
honestly this. research and see what works for you and your country. a lot of people get too obsessed with the ideology side of politics that they forget that there’s supposed to be pragmatic at the end of the day.
Scandinavian model, capitalism with a strong social safety net. Plus it’s empirically the best system in the world. The people in Scandinavia are happy, healthy, wealthy, highly educated, and have healthy functioning democracies.
I agree that the Scandinavian model is the best example of a well functioning government we have at present. The key phrase is "at present." From what I have read the capitalists are making inroads against Scandinavian social democracy and transforming it into something more like American neoliberalism. They will, if allowed to continue unchecked turn the Scandinavian countries into neoliberal hell holes. Take it from someone living in the neoliberal hell hole at present.
The nordic model has never passed the sniff test for me, anyway. I don't see how welfare statism can genuinely substitute for proper worker engagement, fulfilment, ownership, good wages, etc. The social safety net aspect is okay for if/when people run into unexpected trouble but, beyond that it just seems like an inherently exploitative system where the working class not only works for the profitability of the capitalists, but also works to pay into the public support systems which can easily be exploited/overloaded if people stop contributing to it and start sponging off it. Traditional leftists were never a big fan of welfare or lumpenprole behaviour and I don't see how socdem promotes anything but that in the long run.
Passing the sniff test or not, the Nordic model has worked better than anything else for regular citizens, and still works better than any other governmental models. Maybe the Scandinavian countries will be able to fight back and get the neoliberals and conservatives completely out of power. But that is not the way things have run in the rest of Europe. I'm hoping that Scandinavian voters will look at what has happened to England under neoliberal guidance and change their voting patterns before it's too late. The thing is, capitalist attacks at regulation of commerce (including all social safety nets) are relentless. So long as a government is capitalist, it's at risk.
What was your main problem with socialism? If you were anything like me your actual problems with socialism were culture war idpol shit and not necessarily leftist theory or goals in and of itself. There’s a subset of the left that’s essentially leftist economically and socially conservative, and basically wants to detach themselves from culture war and identity politics. I find they’re way more agreeable and also way more willing to break bread over core issues. A lot of leftist goals can easily be rebranded with a right-leaning slant anyway. It’s not pro “working-class”, it’s pro salt of the earth blue collar workers. It’s not anti-capitalist, it’s anti-global megacorps. It’s not anti-bourgeoise, it’s anti-coastal elitism. It’s not anti-racist it’s pro-community building, etc. Very easy ways to reframe and rebrand leftism to be appealing to moderates or conservatives but the current left refuses to do so because they’re steadfast adherent to pseudo-intellectualism, identity politics, academic elitism, and other anti-working class tendencies.
You can’t just change the definition of something like socialism to “rebrand it”. Socialism is when it is illegal for individuals to own the means of production distribution or exchange. If you want to do something else other than that then it’s not socialism anymore, so call it something else.
Rebranding is about optics, not about fundamental principles. Most people don’t know jack shit about how the economy is run anyway, you think the average working class person even understands how trading shares or starting a business works? Selling the economic aspect comes after making the ideology palatable and not exclusively associated with shitlib freaks.
It’s about optics??? So you basically wanna lie to people and when they are sucked in good and proper you’ll only then break the truth to them that it’s actually it’s not what you told them it was???
When did I say I'd lie? Optics is about presentation. It's all still socialism, it's just not hammer and sickle neckbeard shit. Socialism didn't always have the optics it currently has either. Used to be venerated by well dressed working class people and even some professionals (Think MLK Jr, he was a well dressed Christian, and a socialist). Leftism has a serious problem being exclusively associated with radlib weirdos, commie fetishists, and people who don't even work. That needs to change.
OK so when people ask you’ll tell them the truth… that socialism is when society makes it illegal for any individual to own anything that can be considered to be the means of production, distribution or exchange?
Sure, but I wouldn't intentionally phrase it to sound bad like that, I'd say, "socialism is when the worker's own the means of production collectively instead of a tiny minority of ultra rich business owners". See, optics. Same principle, more palatable.
And that’s how you end up with a following of people who have no idea what they actually are supporting in reality. You would’ve done great as a tobacco lobbyist telling big tobacco that it’s just an optics problem they have with their product that can be solved with better positioning. I think Hitler had a chap called Goebbels doing exactly this for him.
Everybody has people doing that for them, including current neoliberals. I care about results. If I could use propaganda to make the world a better place I'd do it.
If it had true merit and you believe its what people really wanted… then you wouldn’t be afraid to just go with the dictionary definition without sugar coating it.
Socialists have people doing it for them too.... They're just shit at it. I swear it's almost like there's not a single prominent socialist who's ever taken a basic comms class. They redefine important words and speak in ways that intentionally mislead the average person who hasn't read 10 thousand pages of badly written theory.
Lmao “rebranding” socialism to be more “agreeable” with people who, mind you are also engaging in “culture war idpol shit”, is exactly how you end up with Nazism, Fascism, etc. That last paragraph screams of elitism and looking down on the working class. The whole comment is anti-worker.
I'm not saying be more agreeable with rightoid idpol. Leftists and shitlibs always forget that there are millions of moderates and mildly socially conservative people out there that simply don't want to be inundated with idpol or marxist terminology or whatever. And how is calling out the left's ivory tower elitism ackshually me being classist and anti-worker? I grew up in a pro-union blue collar city that revolved around steelwork, these people are not fuckin idpol shitlibs who sit around on reddit or in universities jerking each other off about how smart and tolerant they are, and it's palpable how many of them have drifted from left wing or left leaning politics because right wing populism that pays lip service to class issues, as vapid as they may be, are more appealing to average joes than woke bullshit. But people like you are steadfast adherent to ideology over outcomes so neolibs will continue gaining and consolidating even more power and resources while we splinter off ad infinitum trying to appease every special interest group and paying zero mind to class interests as a whole.
My question is: socially conservative in what ways?
Reject modern liberal identity politics. No inundation with LGBTQ+ in media and education, no replacing every character in every show with a non-white, no obvious agenda when it comes to plastering homosexual or mixed race romances everywhere and minimizing or entirely excluding “traditional” ones (Baldur’s Gate 3 prime example, all female romance options are non-human and or weird except one who is still technically only half human and blue balls you the whole game, all males are attractive humans that go straight to gay sex if you say hi to them), no intersectionality, no rad feminism, etc. Basically go back to like idk, maybe 10-15 years ago? Gay marriage freshly legalized, gay people were acting normal, no SJWs, no trans anything, basically just normal, stable society that can focus on uniting the working class. Even if you disagree on all of that from a moral standpoint we could easily pivot back to these issues once class/material issues are solved. There’s no point in focusing on special interests individually when everyone is affected across the board by class issues.
Based. This is exactly how to do socialism in the southeast. Only we can't call it socialism because that term has been thoroughly demonized.
Georgism is the best and always has been. It's like socialism without the stupid. Or anarcho-capitalism without the stupid. It's pretty much just economics without the stupid.
Okay so first up Capitalists dont tend to THINK of themselves as capitalists. Capitalism is technically speaking just the economic system. For those who could reasonably be called Capitalists, they usually keep Political Ideology and Economic policy separate (Anarcho caps are a notable exception in that there is no political ideology) which may not be an option for a socialist depending on the faction. As such, you could honestly keep much of the political ideals you had as a socialist, just while being a capitalist. If you are still open to socialism I would suggest Georgism. Otherwise maybe some form of fair trade + social Democrat? If you wanted a little less political oversight you could some sort of a libertarian.
You can't keep political ideology and economic policy separate under capitalism. Capitalists work incessantly to make more money. They eventually succeed. And when they have made enough money they buy the government and it becomes an oligarchy not a democracy. As is the case in the US right now.
If that were ACTUALLY the case in the US, then a lot of things would be very different. Capitalists are aligned inasmuch as they are making money with each other, unfortunately to your argument, pretty much every "Corporation" in the US has a "government agency" designed to annoy that corporation, and these corporations annoy each other. OSHA, IRS, FBI. America has the beginnings of oligarchy with groups such as BlackRock, but that's about it. Even BlackRock gets sued AND SUPBEONAD from time to time. That doesn't typically happen in an oligarchy. And yes, political ideology and economic systems dont need to be linked. I mean do you need to be capitalist in order to use an American library book? No. Do you need to pay a subscription fee to be a raging racist? No. Must you be capitalist to have an education system? No. I will admit theres more nuance to this but political ideology is not blanket statement joined to economic policies. They are moreso linked on a case by case basis.
i’m pretty sure people who believe in a capitalist system typically refer themselves as an ideology that’s associated with capitalism. like, more people would identify as a liberal, socdem, conservative, before calling themselves a capitalist
I agree wholeheartedly
Read Man, Economy, and State by Rothbard
Social Democracy
Social Democracy is probably your best bet though frankly I think the U.S. becoming a social democracy is less likely than a revolution occurring in the near future. Failing that you can always go full nihilist.
[удалено]
A neoliberal oligarchy trapped in the throes of late stage capitalism.
Liberal capitalism.
[удалено]
Yes. Even economically liberal countries can have high public spending. I mean just look at the Reagan administration.
"*liberalism is when the government do stuff*". I bet is what he will say. "*Oh it could be 60% or 80% and it would still be liberalism lul.*"
>Social Democracy is probably your best bet You mean "*the elite's whore*"? The ones bailing out banks, fomenting monopolies and subsidies to already wealth institutions and corporations? The one causing the war on Ukraine and giving money to Israel so they can kill young palestinians. Social democrats, the ones dangling on WEF, UN and OTAN's balls to protect the wealthy and make the bourgeois state just a tiny bit more tolerable so that people won't revolte. Giving us crumbs enough to not be a threat to their status. Why would a communist even consider allying to the worst type of capitalist there is. Don't you have morals?
>You mean "*the elite's (sic) whore*"? Is this a reference to something? Also what do you mean to imply by using a singular possessive instead of a plural possessive? >The one bailing out banks, fomenting (sic) monopolies and subsidies to already wealth (sic) institutions and corporations? The one causing the war on (sic) Ukraine and giving money to Israel so they can kill young Palestinians. >Social democrats (sic), the ones dangling on WEF, UNN and OTAN's balls to protect the wealthy and make the bourgeois state just a tiny bit more tolerable so that people won't revolte (sic). Giving us crumbs enough to not be a threat to their status. What the fuck are you even talking about dumbass? There are no social democratic political parties in the U.S.A. and even if there were they wouldn't have supported bailouts or monopolies or subsidies to the already rich. No Social-Democrats anywhere caused the war in Ukraine and you're literally insane for thinking they did. >Why would a communist even consider allying to the worst type of capitalist there is. Don't you have morals? Social Democrats are not capitalists, they're working class reformists. Don't you have any brain cells?
>Social Democrats are not capitalists So why the fuck are you recommend it. OP asked for capitalist ideology you dumb fuck.
Because, dumbass, social democracy is a capitalist ideology. You really need to learn the difference between adjectives and nouns (and between singular and plural).
Lo que sí sé es que eres un idiota esquizofrénico. Que não sabe nem metade das coisas que eu sei, et n'a même pas lu la moitié des livres que j'ai lus.
Keep telling yourself that you pretentious, pseudo-intellectual, moron.
That’s just liberalism, guy
Unclear antecedent. What is "that"?
“Capitalism, but restrained”
OK. Makes sense.
When I left socialism, I didn’t go towards anything. And this is what I would recommend. Stop reading theory or interpretation of the world by others. Just go out and live. Experience. Witness. Make your own observations and judgments using critical thinking and what you see in the world, without any narrative bias. You need to just understand the world for what it is, the pragmatic and realistic. Anything ideological or hypothetical or philosophical is pointless without incorporating and understanding the real world as it is. After you have a firm understanding of the world, then look at ideologies and see which one fits best with what you discovered on your own. That is how I found capitalism, but that doesn’t mean you will find the same. My journey to capitalism started with a simple decision that I was no longer going to blame where I was in life and what happened to me on anyone else but me. It was a decision to take full control of my life, full responsibility, and to act like I have the power to make choices and create dynamic change by will and action. A choice to make goals and actually do the things required to get to those goals as opposed to hoping someone else would hand them to me. As I set on that path, a journey of trial and error with self observations and harsh critical thinking of myself and the world led me to my own ideology, and then I found capitalism which was essentially my ideology already fleshed out by others.
I’m not sure why you’d want to be wrong but Georgism would probably be the closest possibility for a compromise between capitalists and socialists
Taxing land ownership is ok, but it's never implemented anywhere *close* to the levels that George espoused, and his followers have turned the "don't tax improvements" part into a religious crusade against high taxes when the LVT is *supposed* to be pretty damn high. This makes me not trust georgists in the least. Far better to be a social democrat who might be interested in a well implemented LVT but doesn't think it's the only tool in the toolbox.
I mean I’m not a Georgist, but sure any LVT seems like the best compromise I still see any system of private control as inherently authoritarian and believe it will inevitably result in plutocracy
Agreed, which is why LVT isn’t the *only* tax that should exist. A 100% estate tax is a necessity
> A 100% estate tax is a necessity While I in principle would like a 100% estate tax, I believe the distortions introduced in practice makes a lower percentage (and some level of bottom subtraction) a better policy. More critical than increasing estate taxes directly is getting rid of step-up, which essentially is *negative* estate tax. It makes the estate more than it was when the person died.
A necessity if you want people to waste all their savings before they die despite not knowing exactly when they're going to die. That sounds like a massive perverse incentive, doesn't it?
A necessity to reduce wealth inequality, which is a *bad thing*. With a properly structured welfare system, savings to give your descendants a leg up isn’t important
Yeltsinism
Maybe it's too far right to you but I am a right leaning libertarian.
Well, I suggest ditching the view there are “capitalist ideologies” first. That’s an out-group label by socialists. Next, the big three from the French Revolution were socialism, liberalism and conservatism. Let’s keep it simple and focus on those three. Socialism, or at least the far left version of this sub, seems to be off the table. Conservatism you need to ask yourself what is your current institutions where you live and you want to preserve them and not change? It is a little more complicated than that but that is the gist. We can discuss more but I find it the most difficult and complex of the political ideologies to study because it is so culturally (and even ethnic) dependent. I then will post about social democracy and liberalism. To me, socialism democracy in its effective form is liberal. Think of the Nordic countries. [Here is an excerpt defining it from my poli sci textbook by Heywood.](https://ibb.co/tsVLXNX). To me the success of the Nordic countries is the anchoring of their humanity ethos to the liberal constitution. Then here is Heywood’s intro on Liberalism. Modern Liberalism is progressive with government programs to assist with “freedom”. >[The central theme of liberal ideology](https://imgur.com/gallery/cUKpwEb) is a commitment to the individual and the desire to construct a society in which people can satisfy their interests and achieve fulfilment. Liberals believe that human beings are, first and foremost, individuals, endowed with reason. This implies that each individual should enjoy the maximum possible freedom consistent with a like freedom for all. However, although individuals are entitled to equal legal and political rights, they should be rewarded in line with their talents and their willingness to work. Liberal societies are organized politically around the twin principles of constitutionalism and consent, designed to protect citizens from the danger of government tyranny. Nevertheless, there are significant differences between classical liberalism and modern liberalism. Classical liberalism is characterized by a belief in a ‘minimal’ state, whose function is limited to the maintenance of domestic order and personal security. Modern liberalism, in contrast, accepts that the state should help people to help themselves. (Heywood, 20017)
My preference is "Don't have an ideology, instead investigate what works for your goals and argue for that, if necessary grudgingly accepting a label for what people think you are." For me, that ends up fitting with the label "social democrat" - but I didn't have that label until I first had opinions about what I wanted in society and then learning about economics and how to best achieve the things I wanted. And my beliefs about what to do with society will shift based on shifting knowledge about how to achieve my goals, not by shifting something about "What is social democracy".
Look at Sweden and Finland. A lot of Socialist Democrats like to point to them as examples of good Socialism, but in reality they are very capitalist with strong social programs. And it isn't Democratic Socialism. They don't take the rich or businesses and they have low regulations on businesses. They do tax the middle class and poor since they are the ones that use the social safety nets. And the use private businesses to make many things including Healthcare work. And they have school choice.
[You can look into market socialist economic models like this one proposed by Yanis Varoufakis.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNfvR0lwP4Q&ab_channel=AfterTheOligarchy%28BrightAgeBeyond%29)
I would approach the matter of political philosophy from a different starting point: what elements of your current life make you dissatisfied with your life? And how are these elements connected to the larger political economic system that you live in?
social democracy and/or social liberalism social liberalism is just welfare capitalism, social democracy is more of an emphasis on the social aspect of capitalism. these are typically seen as “left wing” by righties but “right wing” by lefties. but honestly, those terms are irrelevant when those systems are helping people and promoting GDP growth
Look I share your disappointment in socialism. It’s a lovely idea but when you dig into the actual meat of it you eventually see that it can’t function unless it is rigidly authoritarian and dictates everything people can and can’t do. Equally I am not blind to problems with unbridled capitalism with no regulation or restraint. But the biggest problem I see is how you end up with such immense wealth concentrated in the hands of a tiny few that several generations would not run out of money. And an even bigger problem is how wealth of the really rich can be protected by things like tax shelters and trusts and various mechanisms that politicians never do away with because it benefits them and their donors. I personally think if I were to fix things it would be to let the most talented among us continue to build businesses and create wealth as much as possible while they are alive… and then take it from them after they and their spouse are dead. Allow a million or two to be passed to the kids because they have earned that right but don’t allow billions to be passed on. Do away with trusts and other such shelters that can outlive people and avoid taxation. I will leave everything I have to my kids and give them as much of a head-start as I can and I want them to do well… but ultimately they should be able to stand in their own feet and nobody should be entitled to anything because of who they were born. I have other ideas but that’s a good place to start.
Go full Lassiez-faire
Check out the history of the Mondragon Cooperative Company. Making of Mondragon & Myths of Mondragon. There’s also a bunch of docs. The Union Co op movement is getting stronger, and is accomplishing some real stuff. It’s worth checking out.
Think for yourself. The rest falls into place.
Market-socialism. There’s a million different kinds, but I like the people owning and directing key players in various essential industries like transportation, healthcare, communications, agriculture, housing, energy, etc. They don’t run these industries completely, but rather operate a nationalized corporation within each industry which fosters competition and progress among others in the market, giving consumers choice and control over the product ms they choose. The really fun version involves multiple State-subsidized corporation per industry that compete amongst each other for grant awards. Like two or three NASAs, duping it out for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place. You probably institute a wealth cap on individuals too, something fun, but not obscenely high/unlimited like we have today. Also, this only works if you can wrestle power from the plutocrats and regain control of the government and the somehow maintain the power of the people against corporatist substrate. Otherwise we’re just gonna keep going until we get the worst version of dystopian capitalism you can imagine.
Georgism
Capitalism isnt ideology. Its just a single rule of private ownership of MoP. You can follow any ideology or religion as long as said rule is respected (which is kinda any except of socialism or other totalitarian ideologies), though the most compatible would be either classical liberalism (equality under the law) or christianity (catholic best one here) as religion (sometimes both).
Usually social democracy
Your ideological label should be a general summary of your beliefs, not a boundary for them. Form axioms first. Decide what arbitrary, purely subjective opinions you have on things in a metaethical sense. I believe that maximizing the happiness of as many people as possible is a good thing. That's my core axiom and everything else I believe comes from that. Secondarily, I believe that happiness is best affirmed through positive freedom. Thirdly, I believe that positive freedom can only be gained through equality. All three of these are entirely arbitrary beliefs. I choose to believe them and they aren't able to be falsified in an objective way. You've now got the ends, now decide on the means. I think that equality is impossible under capitalism, thus threatening the pursuit of positive freedom, thus harming the potential for happiness. **Long story short, decide what your principles are and how YOU would best like to achieve them. Don't associate your identity with an ideology in a way that limits you.** If I believed that capitalism maximizes happiness, I'd be a staunch capitalist. I don't, and so I'm a socialist.
Liberalism. There’s no point in capitalism without liberal democracy otherwise it’s just as horrible as socialism
Definitely social democracy. Not only is it close to socialism in terms of philosophy, but you can look at real-life examples of it working very well. It's not a purely theoretical concept.
It very much is theoretical, the theory in this case is the belief that it is sustainable despite evidence that capitalists will every single time use their vast amounts of unelected power to subvert democracy and tear down social democracy. They've done this time and time again, it is the logical result of giving unelected, unchecked power to people whose interests are completely opposed to this system. But yeah, if you somehow believe that the government can defend this system against capitalist influences, corruption and propaganda from privately owned media, then it's the least bad form capitalism. Certainly vastly superior to what we have now. The real answer is that OP probably should look into anarchism and libertarian socialism.
>OP probably should look into anarchism and libertarian socialism. Anarchists crumble when you simply ask them how complex supply chains would work under anarchism.
How does that require an authoritarian economic structure? You can have co-ops making them work just as well as they do under capitalism, if not better. I don't see how democratization of the workplace make these not work. You can have managers and other jobs like that if they're necessary, they'll just be democratically elected, subject to scrutiny, but ultimately just another job instead of an unelected position of power that is prone to abuse.
Anarchists and libertarian socialists usually want a society without money. How we're supposed to organize complex supply chains without money (or, alternatively, without a central authority) is anyone's guess. They also typically want a society in which everyone works for free and their needs are taken care of. Again, this makes complex supply chains difficult because it's hard to imagine a lot of people producing microprocessors for anything else than financial rewards. Finally, anarchists are against the police and state monopoly on the use of violence. Explain to me how we're supposed to defend and secure our supply chains without a police force and state monopoly on violence.
Anarchist and liberal ideas are both based on the notion that people will just have to stop being human. Then everything will work as they say.
It literally is the natural state of human organization. You can argue that it wouldn't scale, which I disagree with (take a look at Rojava) but I'm not interested in having a long fucking debate. You certainly can't argue that "human nature" liberal crap.
I disagree, but I agree that we have sufficiently dissimilar views of human nature that further discussion on this point would be unproductive.
You mean the real life examples where they bailed out banks, fomented monopolies and provided subsidies to already wealth institutions and corporations? The ones causing the war on Ukraine and giving money to Israel so they can kill young palestinians. Social democrats, the ones dangling on WEF, UN and OTAN's balls to protect the wealthy and make the bourgeois state just a tiny bit more tolerable so that people won't revolte. Giving us crumbs enough to not be a threat to their status.
>they bailed out banks The "bailouts" were actually loans on which the government made money. It was a net gain for the taxpayer. >The ones causing the war on Ukraine Russia is the one who caused the war on Ukraine. Get the fuck out, you fascist scum.
>Get the fuck out, you fascist scum I'm not the one defending goverment control of the economy, investment on military complex to fight alongside Neonazi in Ukraine and Israel. Not even asking for partnership of the government and capitalists/banks for profit.
What neonazis in Ukraine? They're like less than 1% of the electorate. Meanwhile in Russia, the state is committing ethnic cleansing on the Ukrainian population. Remember Bucha? Remember Mariupol? Remember the kidnapped children? Putin is already on an international court of justice warrant for war crimes. If you're on his side, you're a fascist scum, and I take pride in having nothing to do with you.
Look dude Russia is the one that rolled tanks into Ukraine. That is undeniable. It was an unprovoked war of aggression by Russia against Ukraine, and it is every bit as much of a crime against humanity as the US invasion of Iraq. Putin belongs in a cell in The Hague next to George W Bush awaiting his trial for crimes against humanity.
>but you can look at real-life examples of it working very well. Social democracy is downright awful. The state confiscates 50% of what you earn and gives you back a few crumbs. Social democracy is based on trickle-down theory, where you give the state a huge amount of revenue and hope that some of it trickles down back to the people.
Yeah under social democracy the state gives you stupid crumbs like housing medical Care food. That kind of minor garbage.
I partly agree, but keep in mind that OP is an ex-socialist. I don't think the idea of high taxes to fund public services bothers them too much. Living in a social democracy, I get more than a few breadcrumbs. I get almost free education and healthcare (high quality as well), nice public transport, defense, security, parks, subsidies for culture, etc... But I agree that too much public money is wasted. I pay ~40% in income taxes, but if you add VAT, and other taxes, it climbs to around 70%. And the government is still running out of money. It's too much. They have to learn to manage the taxpayers money more wisely.
Read Human Action
Uh oh! We have a pot smoking libertarian in da house! 😍
Nope! A non pot smoking libertarian :)
Only people who misunderstand what capitalism actually is think that it requires an all-powerful monopolistic government to rule over and restrain people. The best form of capitalism is anarcho-capitalism, as popularised by Murray Rothbard (of the Austrian school) You might be surprised how much we agree on in regards to the evil of the modern US military state and starting wars overseas in order to make money for corrupt officials and military contractors. Ancap is neither left nor right.
What do u mean by "*capitalist ideology*"? Capitalism is just private property, there is nothing else to it. I think you are mistaking "*government doing stuff*" with capitalism. Different from it is socialism, which is a goal to achieve, therefore there are plenty of ways to do it. Hence why so many types of socialism. >"capitalism, but restrained" ideology I don't even know what that is supposed to mean. You mean statism with private property permitted, restrained and controlled by the centralized democratic authority?
The State restrains capitalism. I'm actually interested in state capitalism, i've realized
Like the Nazi? When the state takes over capitalism to defend it? Or state capitalism like the USSR, which many say would be socialism, which defeats the purpose of your post, so I guess you just mean Nazi.
Not interested in nazism or nationalism. More in terms of soviet state capitalism. But I thought socialists say state capitalistic countries were fake socialists?
Socialists make you think its either one or the other. In the US you can have collectively run businesses
Anarcho-capitalism is the only rational choice here. Not too far from socialism to be honest, we care for the poor, for the workers especially (hence free market aspect of it). It also has constraints of private property as in, authocrats aren't allowed to rule without consent of an individual. So basically majority won't be able to vote your rights away. They are inalienable and inherent in every human being. So yeah, join us. New members get free ticket to anarcapulco.
I can't recognize is it sarcastic, or is it serious?
Very serious
Well, it should be sarcastic.
There is no Best Capitalism ideology. Capitalism is simply freedom. Everything is done freely by mutual agreement. Capitalism is free trade whether it is trade with someone across the street or across the world. The left is stupid and always imagines they can interfere with free trade and get a better outcome when it is impossible
And eventually under capitalism you have that ultimate free trade where the capitalists buy the government and you have an oligarchy.
when business and government are combined you have Socialism or fascism or crony capitalism or corporatism or state capitalism, but not a capitslism. What we have in the future depends on what economic system people believe in in the future. if the left prevails we will have some version of Socialist fascism. if the intellectuals prevail we will have freedom and capitolism. Do you understand now?
Yes. I fully understand that you subscribe to a view of human nature that is totally unreal.
Please don't be stupid. If it is on real you have to think of a reason to say it is unreal and then try to present the reason here in writing. Do you understand that a reason is necessary?
I do not wish to engage with you. You call all of your ideological opponents "stupid." With the implied claim that you are not stupid. An intelligent person engaging in intellectual discourse does not call his opponents "stupid" because that only makes them angry, ESPECIALLY if they ARE stupid. Which very few, if any, of your opponents are. However, you be you. Call me stupid and ignore me. I'm fine with that.
Do you notice that the left has 1 million excuses to run from the debate? Do you ever see a conservative libertarian have to run from a debate? What does that teach you?
also if the left is not stupid it should be very easy for them to give us a leftist position that is not stupid but how odd they can't do that. what does that teach you???
You might like distributism, which is basically "market socialism" that accepts some private ownership will always exist. Or if you want to go a little further right, but not full libertarian, you could be a social democrat, which is basically capitalism with welfare.
I gotta say, I'm a decent fan of distributism. I don't think it's a fully baked ideology, but I do agree wholeheartedly that if you must have private ownership, that ownership should be as widely distributed (and thus not *concentrated*) as possible.
Capitalism within the framework of regulations that account for negative externalities and ensure that trade is free from deception or coercion.
Fascism.
Welfare capitalism with strong borders. You deal with the wealth disparities through taxes. Strong borders prevent welfare abuse from foreign nationals.
Read theory. If you're 'giving up on socialism' you didn't understand it in the first place.