Look, I'm talking about economic theory, not how people committed atrocities for their centrally planned governments and 5 year plans which all started out as promises of better things, but ended up instilling fascist economies through the power-hungry nature of the respective countries' ruling parties. Those economies were not doing well before the Soviets. It's just very easy to seize power when your people are hungry and have just been through war. Either way, it going bad once or twice doesn't mean it will go bad every single time or that that's how it's supposed to even happen... whatever. You're not teaching me new things with this history lesson is my point.
I know about the atrocities committed and I think communism is a red herring, pun intended. We could have prevented Vietnam from becoming Communist and could have got a good footing in the Pacific Theater had we not been getting a healthy dose of that Red Scare from Joe McCarthy, but also if FDR hadn't have kept that secret operation hidden from Truman.... Like.. I get it. Authoritarian states are horrible and so are authoritarian economies. What part of the Manifesto, LaSallean economics or Das Kapital is concerned with such ideas of central planning and overarching governance? Like, the best criticism you can have for Communism is that it is too disorganized and needs to compromise itself and coexist with another economic system, much in the same way that capitalism and socialism already do.
But you guys spend time talking about war history in an economics discussion... and act like it's the first fucking time any of us have heard about world history. I mean, fuck dude.
You're conflating way too many things, which is why it's confusing. Socialism and capitalism can never coexist because one is the negation of the other. Nation states tend to always be authoritarian. It's just in their nature to do if they want any sort of life. To me, it's why the phrase "liberal democracy" makes no sense.
You're wrong and right at the same time. Capitalism can never exist if we adhere to the notion that any regulations on an economy hinders the free market. By that merit, people need to give up the idea that they've ever seen a capitalist economy in their life. This is hyperbole, don't worry. Socialism as it is seems to be poorly understood is using a part of the collected generated wealth/income in the country to place market floors into the S/D curve and so forth and are only issues when they start becoming about unessential goods. I consider health care and education to be essential goods, much in the same way that I consider clean water and running electricity and well kept roads to be things. None of these ideas are somehow foreign to "capitalism", as they shouldn't be.
You're right that they can't coexist under those names, but you're wrong about them being unable to coexist. Mixed economies are a thing. These notions of pure economies are laughable. Like the US is some laissez-faire masterpiece.
That's just state capitalism with a dash of neoliberal frame working. That has nothing to do with socialism. If you're actually looking for a type of "market socialism", you should look into mutualism. ---
The French know how to revolt like a mother fucker.
They got jealous when everyone talked about that amazing American Revolution and said "WE CAN DO BETTER!" then started decapitating people left and right. ---
Assuming this is the National Police, if they walk off, the most likely thing I see happening is France calls in the Gendarmerie to pick up the slack. And before you say "Well they're both cops! They'll strike too!" Take note that a Gendarmerie is a military police unit with civil policing duties. And in the case of the French, they're a branch of the armed forces. You don't simply go "fuck you, I'm not doing it" in the military. ---
Man, Macron really is the worst world leader, huh?
No, American leaders were/are much worse. The French just don't have a settler colonialist mindset like Americans. They're still plagued by imperialism but this rebellion seems to highlight those issues. For example, you'll prob never see Americans have a mass movement that has any detail on settler colonialism in the near future. ---
Man, Macron really is the worst world leader, huh?
No, American leaders were/are much worse. The French just don't have a settler colonialist mindset like Americans. They're still plagued by imperialism but this rebellion seems to highlight those issues. For example, you'll prob never see Americans have a mass movement that has any detail on settler colonialism in the near future.
Man, Macron really is the worst world leader, huh?
No, American leaders were/are much worse. The French just don't have a settler colonialist mindset like Americans. They're still plagued by imperialism but this rebellion seems to highlight those issues. For example, you'll prob never see Americans have a mass movement that has any detail on settler colonialism in the near future.
Probably because most Americans have a job.
That doesn't stop protests that are already going on at the moment so that point is bunk. :/ If you want to lick boots this bad, at least try harder. ---
Look, I'm talking about economic theory, not how people committed atrocities for their centrally planned governments and 5 year plans which all started out as promises of better things, but ended up instilling fascist economies through the power-hungry nature of the respective countries' ruling parties. Those economies were not doing well before the Soviets. It's just very easy to seize power when your people are hungry and have just been through war. Either way, it going bad once or twice doesn't mean it will go bad every single time or that that's how it's supposed to even happen... whatever. You're not teaching me new things with this history lesson is my point.
I know about the atrocities committed and I think communism is a red herring, pun intended. We could have prevented Vietnam from becoming Communist and could have got a good footing in the Pacific Theater had we not been getting a healthy dose of that Red Scare from Joe McCarthy, but also if FDR hadn't have kept that secret operation hidden from Truman.... Like.. I get it. Authoritarian states are horrible and so are authoritarian economies. What part of the Manifesto, LaSallean economics or Das Kapital is concerned with such ideas of central planning and overarching governance? Like, the best criticism you can have for Communism is that it is too disorganized and needs to compromise itself and coexist with another economic system, much in the same way that capitalism and socialism already do.
But you guys spend time talking about war history in an economics discussion... and act like it's the first fucking time any of us have heard about world history. I mean, fuck dude.
You're conflating way too many things, which is why it's confusing. Socialism and capitalism can never coexist because one is the negation of the other. Nation states tend to always be authoritarian. It's just in their nature to do if they want any sort of life. To me, it's why the phrase "liberal democracy" makes no sense.
You're wrong and right at the same time. Capitalism can never exist if we adhere to the notion that any regulations on an economy hinders the free market. By that merit, people need to give up the idea that they've ever seen a capitalist economy in their life. This is hyperbole, don't worry. Socialism as it is seems to be poorly understood is using a part of the collected generated wealth/income in the country to place market floors into the S/D curve and so forth and are only issues when they start becoming about unessential goods. I consider health care and education to be essential goods, much in the same way that I consider clean water and running electricity and well kept roads to be things. None of these ideas are somehow foreign to "capitalism", as they shouldn't be.
You're right that they can't coexist under those names, but you're wrong about them being unable to coexist. Mixed economies are a thing. These notions of pure economies are laughable. Like the US is some laissez-faire masterpiece.
That's just state capitalism with a dash of neoliberal frame working. That has nothing to do with socialism. If you're actually looking for a type of "market socialism", you should look into mutualism.
What is "that" in each of your first 2 sentences? The rest of your post simply suggests that you realize there are intersections between the various systems. Truly though, it's about how it's implemented. ---
"I don't think anyone seriously thinks that Trump supporters orgasm when they see racism in the news." - Me, reassuring Ammonitida
Look, I'm talking about economic theory, not how people committed atrocities for their centrally planned governments and 5 year plans which all started out as promises of better things, but ended up instilling fascist economies through the power-hungry nature of the respective countries' ruling parties. Those economies were not doing well before the Soviets. It's just very easy to seize power when your people are hungry and have just been through war. Either way, it going bad once or twice doesn't mean it will go bad every single time or that that's how it's supposed to even happen... whatever. You're not teaching me new things with this history lesson is my point.
I know about the atrocities committed and I think communism is a red herring, pun intended. We could have prevented Vietnam from becoming Communist and could have got a good footing in the Pacific Theater had we not been getting a healthy dose of that Red Scare from Joe McCarthy, but also if FDR hadn't have kept that secret operation hidden from Truman.... Like.. I get it. Authoritarian states are horrible and so are authoritarian economies. What part of the Manifesto, LaSallean economics or Das Kapital is concerned with such ideas of central planning and overarching governance? Like, the best criticism you can have for Communism is that it is too disorganized and needs to compromise itself and coexist with another economic system, much in the same way that capitalism and socialism already do.
But you guys spend time talking about war history in an economics discussion... and act like it's the first fucking time any of us have heard about world history. I mean, fuck dude.
You're conflating way too many things, which is why it's confusing. Socialism and capitalism can never coexist because one is the negation of the other. Nation states tend to always be authoritarian. It's just in their nature to do if they want any sort of life. To me, it's why the phrase "liberal democracy" makes no sense.
You're wrong and right at the same time. Capitalism can never exist if we adhere to the notion that any regulations on an economy hinders the free market. By that merit, people need to give up the idea that they've ever seen a capitalist economy in their life. This is hyperbole, don't worry. Socialism as it is seems to be poorly understood is using a part of the collected generated wealth/income in the country to place market floors into the S/D curve and so forth and are only issues when they start becoming about unessential goods. I consider health care and education to be essential goods, much in the same way that I consider clean water and running electricity and well kept roads to be things. None of these ideas are somehow foreign to "capitalism", as they shouldn't be.
You're right that they can't coexist under those names, but you're wrong about them being unable to coexist. Mixed economies are a thing. These notions of pure economies are laughable. Like the US is some laissez-faire masterpiece.
That's just state capitalism with a dash of neoliberal frame working. That has nothing to do with socialism. If you're actually looking for a type of "market socialism", you should look into mutualism.
What is "that" in each of your first 2 sentences? The rest of your post simply suggests that you realize there are intersections between the various systems. Truly though, it's about how it's implemented.
Some people call it a kind of market socialism. Socialism doesn't require states or markets(in the sense you're using). ---
It doesn't, but it can coexist with them. Still, what is the "that" in those 2 sentences, you were being too general there.
What you described was state capitalism. The state provides some services to the population but actual power and resources are generated concentrated in the hands of small elite class. They call it a mixed economy but I believe that's an unecsessary term. Just call it state capitalism. ---
It doesn't, but it can coexist with them. Still, what is the "that" in those 2 sentences, you were being too general there.
What you described was state capitalism. The state provides some services to the population but actual power and resources are generated concentrated in the hands of small elite class. They call it a mixed economy but I believe that's an unecsessary term. Just call it state capitalism.
I'm legit not sure if you're trolling me or not. ---
"I don't think anyone seriously thinks that Trump supporters orgasm when they see racism in the news." - Me, reassuring Ammonitida
It doesn't, but it can coexist with them. Still, what is the "that" in those 2 sentences, you were being too general there.
What you described was state capitalism. The state provides some services to the population but actual power and resources are generated concentrated in the hands of small elite class. They call it a mixed economy but I believe that's an unecsessary term. Just call it state capitalism.
I'm legit not sure if you're trolling me or not.
On a global scale, socialist states and capitalist states can exist simultaneously, so technically you're not entirely wrong. I'm guessing that's not what you meant by "coexist" though
The presence of some public services doesn't mean the US isn't capitalist. It doesn't make it a "mixed economy" either. It's just capitalist with some public services.
Socialism and Capitalism are mutually exclusive within the same country because the latter necessitates that the means of production be privately owned and used to concetrate wealth in the hands of a small number of people, while the former requires, among other things, that that not be the case (though the specific conditions vary between different types of socialism).
socialism is also implemented with the explicit goal of an eventual transition to full communism, while capitalism is mostly concerned with preventing socialist revolution from taking place and concentration of wealth. ---
It doesn't, but it can coexist with them. Still, what is the "that" in those 2 sentences, you were being too general there.
What you described was state capitalism. The state provides some services to the population but actual power and resources are generated concentrated in the hands of small elite class. They call it a mixed economy but I believe that's an unecsessary term. Just call it state capitalism.