Do you think the USA was more socialist because they passed the Smoot Hawley bill? Because that’s what your post suggests, and it’s dumb.
Socialism isn’t “interfering” with the economy. It requires control of the means and distribution of production. Used to be only right wing nut jobs termed basic economic regulations as socialism
As always, however, “socialism vs capitalism” is usually ill-defined in these disputes. On some definitions of socialism, I am a socialist. On other definitions, I am as anti-socialist as they come.
On non-marxist conceptions of socialism, I don’t really even regard socialism vs capitalism as a contrast. Capitalism is just the free exchange of goods and services, which happens everywhere unless it’s made illegal. I would consider myself a socialist because I think there should be a lot of government involvement with things like health, safety, and consumer regulation, and believe there should be a safety net provided by the government for those unable to participate in such a system.
However, even maximal capitalists believe there should be some regulation and some things should be illegal–the point at which one more regulation becomes “socialism” instead of capitalism is just rhetoric meant to call to mind things like the USSR or China under Mao. Instead, my preferred troll is to regard societies like France and Denmark as fundamentally capitalist, because they don’t involve some wacky theory about ownership of the means of production and how utopia is just around the corner.
https://x.com/POTUS/status/1765361689262760441?s=20
Not posting this for relevance but just because it’s a new tweet where the big man weighs in.
No socialist society could ever have developed Philly cheeseteak-flavored Pringles, that is something only the creative energy of capitalism could produce.
Capitalists definitely don’t want to start talking potato chips. Apparently Canada absolutely destroys the US in variety of flavors AINEC.
Socialism means what we all agree that it means. Language evolves.
In the context of ‘where is something on the spectrum of socialism vs. capitalism’, I think it’s pretty ok to say that more government interference in trade means more socialistic.
Sure, but I don’t expect leftists and RWNJs to use the same definition of socialism because it’s convenient for both
The means of production include land, labor, and capital. The less ability that private ownership has to unilaterally control such things, the less capitalist a system is and, arguably, the more socialist it is, even if doesn’t involve full non-private ownership of the means of production. Restricting land use, having labor laws, and taxing capital so you can redistribute it are all things that move a state towards socialism on a socialist-capitalist continuum, especially if those actions are seen as impediments to profit motive, another key characteristic of capitalism.
add “and civic regulation” in there and it becomes very sensible.
ok, without going back to which korea was worse off post-war, i’m going to blow my own previous point on it. right now, SK has more capitalism than NK, and also more socialism (because we change what socialism means). a strong public safety net and more liberal and equal system of justice is in effect socialism, because it works for society. the fact that SK political power changes regularly and peacefully makes them more prosperous. while NK’s inability to move on from a dynastic clan means they are still stuck in a society that’s deeply repressed and prone to famines.
CAPITALISM
Pro: Helldivers 2
Con: For real, the whole planet is fucked, ecologically
SOCIALISM
Pro: Dmitri Shostakovich
Con: They shot a dog into space and let it burn on re-entry, what the hell man
This is where I find these conversations to be useless. I think a reasonable argument could be made that the air pollution I. Beijing is a direct result of capitalisms expansion throughout the world. It seems to me that the pro capitalism side is trying to have their cake and eat it too by claiming that it crushes socialism I. Technological innovation but also trying to blame socialism when capitalists export production into other, non capitalist places.
Humans in the future had this argument, they are watching our simulation and millions others now and they will know the true answer soon enough.
You guys can troll about this all you want but modern supermarkets are absolutely one of humanity’s greatest achievements. The richest aristocrats from just a couple hundred years would have their minds blown if they walked into a Kroger, and even 50 years ago in much of the world the options for bread was “there is bread” and “there’s no bread.”
These are the gems that keep me from muting this thread. Bravo
This x1000.
Imagine teleporting an American from 100 years ago to now: “What do you mean the government should provide healthcare to the poor, regulate public safety, and pay people in their retirement? That’s not what government does. And what’s this about a 40-hour work week and Coca-Cola without real cocaine? The Communists must have won!”
On my was out of Nicaragua I picked up a couple stranded backpackers - one from Denmark and one from Switzerland. After a few beers, the two of them started debating whether government should let its citizens make their own mistakes or try to coerce them into making better decisions. Naturally the Swiss guy thought people should be allowed to fall on their faces, whereas the Dane thought people need to be nudged in the right direction.
The revelatory part to me was that they were engaged in the exact same argument you hear between two Americans, except with all the underlying positions shifted an octave to the left. Of course you should have some form of universal healthcare and a social safety net. Of course guns should be regulated in a sensible way. This is just common sense in Euro-land.
They were having an argument about political philosophy and the fundamental purpose of government. Where the actual policy lines were drawn on any given issue wasn’t particularly important to the discussion.
A broader point? This is such an easy game. Just pull a shithole country out of your ass.
From Astral Codex Ten links for Feb.
5: Yawboadu on the Ethiopian economic miracle. Ethiopia's Economy in the Modern Day (2000-Present) In 2002, Ethiopia was the poorest country in Africa, but since then it’s grown at 9%/year for twenty years, even as the rest of the continent languishes. Yaw tells a familiar story; Ethiopia was taken over by communists in the 70s, they caused mass starvation, but after they were overthrown the country shot up the development ladder. We can add them to the list of other successful ex-communist or liberalized-communist countries like Poland, China, and Vietnam. What’s the common factor? Plausibly land reform. The communists redistributed the land, this didn’t help when the country was still under communism, but liberalized economy + land reform is the secret combination. In support of this, Yaw says that “Ethiopia’s rapid growth in comparison to many African nations is attributed to a significant increase in agricultural productivity”. Ethiopia did other things right, but the land reform seems like the one that separates it from every other lower-income country trying to get on the development ladder.
My new utopia. Capitalism but all property is confiscated and equally redistributed every 10 years.
Land reform was a major factor in Japan and many other Asian economies. Capitalism is an engine that drives individual actions toward the common good (minus externalities), and land reform gives actual people (as opposed to people who say they are the People) the ability to generate income and investment.
Capitalism is like gravity–it’s a force of nature that the state has to accommodate, but not out of a divine right of ownership or natural law. Hell, the homestead acts and land grants helped drive the growth of the US. We don’t need to get freaky with land reform but the right amount is clearly significantly more than zero. I think that’s part of the idea behind Georgism.