Posted by giuliomagnifico 1 day ago
> capitalism is much more likely than free enterprise to be associated with unequal distribution of wealth.
This is why the terms "capitalism" and "socialism" are largely useless in political debates, and people are mostly talking past each other.
When you look specifically at what Americans like about socialism, it's health care, education, welfare, and equality. I don't think many people want central planning of the entire economy, which is why critics of socialism raising the bogeyman of the USSR are missing the point.
However, the terms should also be clearly defined in such poll because indeed the average person may have their own understanding, not least in the US. Judging by the comments even people on HN have no understanding of "socialism" and are trying to shoehorn an idealist view of "a better society" into the term, or they cannot accept that "socialism" does not work.
We could do - have done - much worse than implementing some good sense social safety net measures. Especially as people advocate for AI and using it to replace/disempower employees.
That's irrelevant to the point.
The 1980s did settle the capitalism vs. socialism debate. The USSR and, perhaps more consequentially, China effectively abandonned socialism because it failed and acknowledged that capitalism, free enterprise, and the free market was what worked.
The "end of history" is the belief (proved wrong if not naively wrong from the start) that this would lead to everyone being "friends" under a Western-style liberal democracy.
> We could do - have done - much worse than implementing some good sense social safety net measures.
I don't understand what you are getting at unless you consider that socialism = "social safety net measures", which it isn't but, as mentioned, it seems that many in the US think it is...
Reading the comments it does seem that many don't understand the meaning of "socialism" (or seem to think that the passing of time somehow changes things) even on HN so polls to the general public are completely meaningless. But ask people if the prefer to live in North America or Western Europe vs Eastern Europe/China pre-80s and you'll get a much clearer picture of what the real sentiment is... East Germany had to build a wall to keep people IN, after all.
https://sccei.fsi.stanford.edu/china-briefs/reassessing-role...
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/arc-of-the-chinese-...
Public welfare isn't technically part of it, but it's hard to imagine a state where we don't have it if power is at all evenly distributed.
Central planning is orthogonal to the whole thing... credit institutions and corporations do a hell of a lot of centralized planning.
China has state capitalism and private capitalist enterprises, and free enterprise with robust free markets overall. These are the main reforms that allowed it to thrive after the catastrophe of socialism under Mao. Even basic stuff like farmers being allowed to sell surplus freely for profit and at market prices only became allowed in 1978.
China now has the second largest number of millionaires in USD after the US.
> a theory or system of social organization that advocates the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, capital, land, etc., by the community as a whole, usually through a centralized government.
There are state-owned companies in all Western countries, by the way.
I don't think that you are familiar with the history and economy of China.
>But obviously this isn't how China is now and even state-owned companies in China generally operate in a market and can be in competition with private companies and other state-owned companies.
"Compete's in a market" is irrelevant to socialism. Again, basic poli sci, socialism encompasses both free market and captured market. What makes it socialism is government ownership of the means of production, with redistribution to the general populace.
>There are state-owned companies in all Western countries, by the way.
Right, and which western "capitalist" society has state ownerhsip of 70%+ of the "private" companies that make up its economy? Correct, 0. Socialism has never required the state to own all business in a given economy anymore than capitalism has required 0 ownership.
> because socialism has never required COMPLETE ownership by the state
Sure, it's only complete ownership by the workers.
> What makes it socialism is government ownership of the means of production, with redistribution to the general populace.
Well, then China is not socialist. QED. (and again, owenership by the workers, not necessarily thet state)
I would advise you, in good faith and friendship, to visit China one day. It's a free market capitalist dream in day to day life.
I agree with you that socialism, properly understood, ought to mean something much broader than a social safety net. But not everyone sees it this way.
In my experience, a lot of Americans really do equate social security and welfare as socialism. Or even public education, never mind anything remotely resembling universal healthcare. These people believe that taxation is theft and they're vocal about expressing it. This used to be fringe, but it's a major political movement.
Young Americans have grown up in an environment where anything publicly beneficial is painted as "socialist" by one of the major political parties. Many of them have taken the message to heart.
They think "Social Democracy", not pure "Socialism".
But the Right will equate one with the other to pretend the left are communists.
> capitalism vs. socialism
I learned that when an American talks about socialism, they usually mean communism and often the accompanying dictatorships that enable this oppressive system. Meanwhile, the social-democratic countries score high on measures of democracy, rule of law, human rights, regulation contra anti-competitive practices, consumer protection, environment protection, etc.
It is also important to understand what capitalism means. The theory assumes free markets, but that requires an enforcer that breaks up monopolies and upholds rules for competition. Lots of cognitive dissonance there for people calling themselves capitalists while at the same time screaming against intervention, but those rather should call themselves libertarians.
Which don't have anything in common with socialist countries.
https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/denmark-tells-...
Lots of social democratic parties are united in the Socialist International.
Yes, it's literally the result of decades of CIA Cold War propaganda, often using conservative Christianity and preachers like Billy Graham (who was funded by the CIA) to scare people into believing communism was literally satanic in nature. Most of American pop culture, media culture and even most subcultures from the 1950s onward were funded by the CIA, if not outright psyops. Americans are more controlled than North Koreans and they don't even realize it.
> believing communism was literally satanic in nature.
> Americans are more controlled than North Koreans and they don't even realize it.
50 years before the 1980s, during the Great Depression, the narrative was the opposite. The Soviet Union was invincible with a growing economy while every capitalist country on earth had been plunged into a devastating depression. Adopting social programs was the only way capitalism survived that decade at all.
In the 1930s, "socialism" won. In the 1980s, "capitalism" won. Scare quotes because neither was really the thing. Something else is going to win in the 2030s. The story is never over, despite what Francis Fukuyama would have you believe.
capitalism and artificial intelligence are the same thing
majority of the public can't differentiate between commerce & capitalism. nor socialism vs 'free markets'.
the non-gullible people know it's not just about this vs that - but ultimately who controls what. ideally you want a system where no individual player or a few players can tip the system.
the Chinese system is probably the closest to that - but then the CCP exists :( . a large player that can tip the scales. but for the rest of the businesses - it's dog eat dog - the better ones that survive are suited to serve the population while aligned to the goals of the population for a good part.
The reason the Chinese system works the way it does is precisely because the CPC exists.
forgive me for asking but even if I accept China is a real democracy, how is that meaningfully different from "no individual player or a few players can tip the system". isn't Xi and the other party members capable of doing exactly this?
i can even agree that Xi was voted in by the people but that doesn't change the point.
In the west - you've to be 'blessed' to become an economic player - there's the myth of competition (but someone has to bless that competition) - whereas in the Chinese economy there's no favored party - BYD isn't favored more by the gvt because it's large anymore than the small upstart that's making electric cars.
> isn't Xi and the other party members capable of doing exactly this? - hence I said the CPC can tip the scales once in a while but in terms of free market competition the Chinese economy is more 'free'
No one has done anything for poor people since Jesus of Nazareth, probably.