Does capitalism lead to socialism

[Texashiker]

Just an idea I have, once wealth is collected by a select few, the many will vote to redistribute that wealth, thus socialism.

Not a matter of whether capitalism works or fails, or whether socialism works or fails; under a democracy the many can take from the few. Once political parties play groups against each other, the group with the most votes wins.

One thing I see a lot of, is people saying it is not fair that certain people are wealthy such as Bezos and Gates. Even though we have all bought products those two own does not matter. A lot of us helped those two become wealthy, but that is ignored by the masses.

I wonder how many people complain about capitalism use a free version of Linux, as compared to buying a PC with windows? How many people enjoy amazon Prime while complaining about capitalism?

Jealously is an inherent human nature. So maybe we should ask if jealously leads to socialism?

I see a cause and effect. People do not know how to make money off the free market, so they become jealous. Perhaps we shoud teach high school students how to pick stocks and start theor own business? Everyone had the same opportnity to buy Google or Amazon stock when their stock went public. Yet so many people passed up a wonderful opportunity.

Voting for socialism is much easier than doing their homework, buying stock, starting a business... etc. So should we reward the lazy with "free stuff?" I do not think so. However, if someone was never taught how to make money, can we really blame them for wanting socialism?

 

[IronWing]

"Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it is the other way around."

Capitalism does lead to socialism. The capitalists buy politicians who give the capitalists access to the public cookie jar.

We should also not indulge weak trolls. Put some effort into your work; show some pride.

 

[DarthKyrie]

To humor the OP I will leave this little nugget: Your first line is basically a direct quote from Marx, just an FYI.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Capitalism has lifeted more people out of poverty than any other system. There will still be poor people within it, yes, but society overall is better off. I don’t necessarily think it leads to socialism but I kind of think socialism needs capitalism first to create the means of production for it to take over.

 

[DarthKyrie]

Capitalism has lifeted more people out of poverty than any other system. There will still be poor people within it, yes, but society overall is better off. I don’t necessarily think it leads to socialism but I kind of think socialism needs capitalism first to create the means of production for it to take over.

Socialism tempers the more horrible aspects of what we call "Capitalism" today. One cannot truly exist without the other, because Capitalism needs regulating as has been proven time and time again. This is in order to preserve a fair and equal system, without it we get situations like the majority of the former Republics of the USSR where the rich rule over the people all the while robbing the nation of the majority of its wealth.

 

[Moonbeam]

I would like to suggest a different story that I’m thinking might change the dynamics in which you ask your question. I want to tell a story about life awakening to an awareness of its living self.

In the beginning some molecules somewhere somehow coalesced and organized in such a way as to be able to divide and reproduce. Those cells had the property we call life.

They evolved over great spans of time and learned a new trick, how to be alive in a collection of many cells. With the passing of eons more time and reproducing under survival of the fittest, the nervous system and then brains started to appear.

The evolution of the brain opened a new evolutionary niche, survival by actual wit and intelligence. Thus, along this path and in this way, a very unimposing social animal learned to make tools and use social cohesion to survive. It invented language and for the first time life became self aware. Life’s love of its self survival became aware of itself.

To be self conscious is to be conscious of self consciousness in others and thus, for the first time an organism appeared capable of being aware of the love of life itself.

So here we are, selfish brutish animal in origin, with a potential vision of God presenting our frontal lobes, capitalist pigs with the potential to feel transcendent joy in the presence of life in all things. Let us manifest on earth the love of all being that flows from awakening.

If that’s socialism then, we’ll, you bet.

 

[pmv]

You seem quite confused to me. Though the odd thing is you seem to be confused about the same things that confuse me, but you seem to be coming at them from a very different direction.

Interesting you chose Amazon Prime as an example.

I don't use Amazon Prime because it's crap. It means Amazon will send stuff to you using their exploitative, zero-hours-contract, low-paid, casually-employed courier system, which is both morally-distasteful to me but also very inefficient. That sort of private courier service means you have different (short term casually employed) people frantically rushing around delivering to scattered addresses, instead of one person doing every delivery in a neighbourhood. Having lots of private courier companies is a wasteful duplication of effort.

I personally think it makes a lot more sense to have mail delivery all performed by a single, state-owned, organisation, that delivers to every address in the country, and employs people on decent pay and working conditions, with reasonably secure employment, who take pride in their work and who know the area and their 'customers' and all the idiocyncracies of the addresses they deliver to (in particular, know how to get into the block I live in, unlike those private couriers, who are always in a crazed rush due to their unrealistic delivery targets and never leave a 'while you were out' card because they can't figure out how to get in to the building, because they cover too wide an area and don't stay in the job long enough to get to know the area). That's the system we used to have, before neo-liberalism destroyed it.

Companies like Amazon also benefit from the fact that road-use isn't correctly priced. They have an unfair advantage over bricks-and-mortar stores, because they don't pay the real cost of their deliveries, because we have 'socialism' for private motorised-vehicle users. As long as not everything is 'capitalist' the bits that are are going to exploit the system. And we'll never get to a point where everything is capitalist, no matter what pipe dreams toy-town libertarians have about privatising the air we breathe.

Postal delivery is one of those things where both capitalists and socialists have a point - there are drawbacks to both systems. Ditto the road and rail systems, ditto health care.

I get that socialism has a fundamental problem, but its not 'human nature', or 'jealousy', but the sheer difficulty of organising things efficiently in the absence of market signals. The greatest single argument against it is Mises' calculation argument. That one is a bastard. It's why we can't have nice things.

But capitalism has its own problems, ones generally identified by the left. Its wastefulness, its inability to consider anything that doesn't directly affect profits, its duplication of effort, its creation of inequality (which produces both political instability and economic inefficiency) its destructive effect on any sense of community or solidarity, and its tendency to corrupt the political system.

And it has a self-destructive logic, it creates rich people who in turn get to manipulate the system. We have moved towards an economy of spivs and chancers, of casual, insecure employment and get-rich-quick schemes. That in turn, in reaction, gave us Trump and the multiple other 'strongman' figures we see all over the world. Putin is a product of exactly that.

Socialism in Russia led to economic failure and hence to capitalism, capitalism in Russia led to Putin.

Capitalism doesn't necessarily lead to 'socialism', but my fear is it can lead either to fascism or stalinism. It has a logic of it's own, which makes it _profoundly_ unstable.

In a world of contracts and out-sourcing and bottom-line-is-king there's no room for pride in one's work or in serving a community. It's now all about chasing profit signals and getting as much as you can for yourself, by any means necessary. That's the logic of capitalism, and yet, ironically, conservatives start complaining when that logic spreads to the whole of life.

And I really don't accept at all this argument that people can't have issues with capitalism if they use products that are created under that system. That argument makes no sense to me. Did all those living in the USSR have no right to dislike socialism because they used 'socialist' products and services? We live in a capitalist society and a capitalist world, of course everything we use is going to be associated with it.

And it's not 'capitalists' who create those products, it's the workers they employ who do that.

 

[alcoholbob]

Yep, that's why I stopped using Amazon. Not only is their shipping service exploitative, but it also sucks and you can't choose to pay more for UPS or USPS. I bought a bunch of computer parts for a build last summer, around 20 components for a couple of HTPCs. Some Amazon Logistics contractor just decided to bail during a bad weather/storm, and instead of delivering, decided to leave it at the sorting center. Eventually all those parts got sent back to Amazon and Amazon sends me a robo email warning me about too many returns and possibly banning me. What the f---? I didn't even return anything on Amazon for years.

Since quitting Amazon It's been so much better. Although I'll miss the Prime Video service...

 

[DarthKyrie]

You seem quite confused to me. Though the odd thing is you seem to be confused about the same things that confuse me, but you seem to be coming at them from a very different direction.

Interesting you chose Amazon Prime as an example.

I don't use Amazon Prime because it's crap. It means Amazon will send stuff to you using their exploitative, zero-hours-contract, low-paid, casually-employed courier system, which is both morally-distasteful to me but also very inefficient. That sort of private courier service means you have different (short term casually employed) people frantically rushing around delivering to scattered addresses, instead of one person doing every delivery in a neighbourhood. Having lots of private courier companies is a wasteful duplication of effort.

I personally think it makes a lot more sense to have mail delivery all performed by a single, state-owned, organisation, that delivers to every address in the country, and employs people on decent pay and working conditions, with reasonably secure employment, who take pride in their work and who know the area and their 'customers' and all the idiocyncracies of the addresses they deliver to (in particular, know how to get into the block I live in, unlike those private couriers, who are always in a crazed rush due to their unrealistic delivery targets and never leave a 'while you were out' card because they can't figure out how to get in to the building, because they cover too wide an area and don't stay in the job long enough to get to know the area). That's the system we used to have, before neo-liberalism destroyed it.

Companies like Amazon also benefit from the fact that road-use isn't correctly priced. They have an unfair advantage over bricks-and-mortar stores, because they don't pay the real cost of their deliveries, because we have 'socialism' for private motorised-vehicle users. As long as not everything is 'capitalist' the bits that are are going to exploit the system. And we'll never get to a point where everything is capitalist, no matter what pipe dreams toy-town libertarians have about privatising the air we breathe.

Postal delivery is one of those things where both capitalists and socialists have a point - there are drawbacks to both systems. Ditto the road and rail systems, ditto health care.

I get that socialism has a fundamental problem, but its not 'human nature', or 'jealousy', but the sheer difficulty of organising things efficiently in the absence of market signals. The greatest single argument against it is Mises' calculation argument. That one is a bastard. It's why we can't have nice things.

But capitalism has its own problems, ones generally identified by the left. Its wastefulness, its inability to consider anything that doesn't directly affect profits, its duplication of effort, its creation of inequality (which produces both political instability and economic inefficiency) its destructive effect on any sense of community or solidarity, and its tendency to corrupt the political system.

And it has a self-destructive logic, it creates rich people who in turn get to manipulate the system. We have moved towards an economy of spivs and chancers, of casual, insecure employment and get-rich-quick schemes. That in turn, in reaction, gave us Trump and the multiple other 'strongman' figures we see all over the world. Putin is a product of exactly that.

Socialism in Russia led to economic failure and hence to capitalism, capitalism in Russia led to Putin.

Capitalism doesn't necessarily lead to 'socialism', but my fear is it can lead either to fascism or stalinism. It has a logic of it's own, which makes it _profoundly_ unstable.

In a world of contracts and out-sourcing and bottom-line-is-king there's no room for pride in one's work or in serving a community. It's now all about chasing profit signals and getting as much as you can for yourself, by any means necessary. That's the logic of capitalism, and yet, ironically, conservatives start complaining when that logic spreads to the whole of life.

And I really don't accept at all this argument that people can't have issues with capitalism if they use products that are created under that system. That argument makes no sense to me. Did all those living in the USSR have no right to dislike socialism because they used 'socialist' products and services? We live in a capitalist society and a capitalist world, of course everything we use is going to be associated with it.

And it's not 'capitalists' who create those products, it's the workers they employ who do that.

Man, I wish the Founders had thought of such a delivery service. What do you mean they did and it's in the US Constitution while at the same time mandating that the government is responsible for all Postal Roads and delivering to all addresses?

Sarcasm off now.

The United States Postal Service is the most efficient not-for-profit organization in the world. I wish that the Republicans hadn't mandated that they fund retirement plans for 75 years into the future. It's almost like they are trying to drive them into the ground to try to privatize it, this would be UnConstitutional BTW. Doing this would require a Constitutional Amendment striking the language from validity within the document and good luck with that. Even if this happened the rural parts of the country would be pissed without their daily mail delivery. We all know why this is right? Because of For-Maximum-Profit delivery services, they will wait till it's profitable to deliver the mail to rural America. Alaska should be ok most stuff is flown in and out or on land to cities that are connected via decent roads.

This guy understands the consequences of unbridled greed, parts of my family fell victim to the guillotine in France due to their greed. Come to think of it there are only a few of my relatives left on the thrones of Europe due to their greed and desire for regional or world domination most were murdered or went into exile in friendly countries.

Yep, that's why I stopped using Amazon. Not only is their shipping service exploitative, but it also sucks and you can't choose to pay more for UPS or USPS. I bought a bunch of computer parts for a build last summer, around 20 components for a couple of HTPCs. Some Amazon Logistics contractor just decided to bail during a bad weather/storm, and instead of delivering, decided to leave it at the sorting center. Eventually all those parts got sent back to Amazon and Amazon sends me a robo email warning me about too many returns and possibly banning me. What the f---? I didn't even return anything on Amazon for years.

Since quitting Amazon It's been so much better. Although I'll miss the Prime Video service...

That is the only thing worth a damn over at Amazon anymore for a hundred or so dollars a year you get access to a lot of movies and tv shows for streaming. I wish I could teach my girlfriend to use my PS4 so I could cancel our TV service and get the 600MB service from my local fiber to home service it would save me 100 or so a month. I already have Hulu and would add Prime again in a heartbeat, and then there is YouTube TV for my local sports and news which are all on there in the Bostom DMA. Doing that would save me 1200 a year which is enough to build myself a new PC.

Edit 1: Forgot to respond to the first person I quoted.

Edit 2: Forgot to add then I could justify a Disney+ subscription to watch The Mandalorian.

 

[soulcougher73]

Unregulated and under taxes greed, err I mean capitalism, can push people towards more socialistic ideas.

 

[Jaskalas]

The word Socialism is used in two cases.

1. Seizing control of private business, opposing Capitalism.
2. Taxing and providing a safety net, saving Capitalism.

Those are NOT the same things. I adhere to #2.

 

[Indus]

I agree with Jaskalas.

#2 is not #1 but ofcourse billionaires don't like it so we have to deal with corrupt politicians paid off by billionaires acting as their wealth's bodyguards.

 

[UglyCasanova]

The word Socialism is used in two cases.

1. Seizing control of private business, opposing Capitalism.
2. Taxing and providing a safety net, saving Capitalism.

Those are NOT the same things. I adhere to #2.

I do agree with this and I’m all for safety nets. But they should be nets for when you fall though. For instance social security should collected from everyone but the distribution upon retirement should be means tested though so that itsmtruly ansafety net not a retirement plan. It’s not going to be popular because everyone will say "well I paid it I should get it back" but if they are wealthy I disagree. It should be an insurance plan not a retirement plan. And that should apply to other safety net programs too.

 

[Texashiker]

Too many posts to reply to, so I am going to post this without quoting any certain person.

Human society was based off a form of socialism. Archeological evidence goes back tens of thousands of years showing hunter-gatherer tribes took care of their sick and old. In modern hunter-gatherer tribes, everyone shares from a hunt. The person who brought meat into the village may get first choice, or select choices of the best cuts, but everyone shares.

This means capitalism is an artificial social construct. Nowhere in nature does capitalism exist - bees, ants, termites... all contribute to the community.

However, socialism only works when greed is removed. What is greed? Something inherent to humans? I may be wrong on this, but I can not think of a social animal who hordes wealth. Squirrels bury and colelct nuts, but squirrels do not live in communities like bees, ants and humans.

 

[Indus]

Capitalism/ Billionaire abuse is sorta explained like this in the video:

Not sharing and being greedy!

Socialism as a response is natural.. give the dog part of the cookie!

 

[soulcougher73]

Too many posts to reply to, so I am going to post this without quoting any certain person.

Human society was based off a form of socialism. Archeological evidence goes back tens of thousands of years showing hunter-gatherer tribes took care of their sick and old. In modern hunter-gatherer tribes, everyone shares from a hunt. The person who brought meat into the village may get first choice, or select choices of the best cuts, but everyone shares.

This means capitalism is an artificial social construct. Nowhere in nature does capitalism exist - bees, ants, termites... all contribute to the community.

However, socialism only works when greed is removed. What is greed? Something inherent to humans? I may be wrong on this, but I can not think of a social animal who hordes wealth. Squirrels bury and colelct nuts, but squirrels do not live in communities like bees, ants and humans.

But we as humans are smart enough to know that greed exists and ways to regulate it. So we must do those things to curb stomp greed in the face.

 

[Texashiker]

But we as humans are smart enough to know that greed exists and ways to regulate it. So we must do those things to curb stomp greed in the face.

Regulate it to what end? Like Bezos and Gates hording hundreds of millions of dollars?

Like the housing crash of 2008?

Enron crash?

Tech bubble crash?

There comes a point when corruption becomes so wide spread it is impossible to stop. Not that Bezos and Gates are corrupt. There were so many hands in the 2008 crash it would be impossible to even start to bring those responsible to justice. Same with Enron.

 

[alcoholbob]

Too many posts to reply to, so I am going to post this without quoting any certain person.

Human society was based off a form of socialism. Archeological evidence goes back tens of thousands of years showing hunter-gatherer tribes took care of their sick and old. In modern hunter-gatherer tribes, everyone shares from a hunt. The person who brought meat into the village may get first choice, or select choices of the best cuts, but everyone shares.

This means capitalism is an artificial social construct. Nowhere in nature does capitalism exist - bees, ants, termites... all contribute to the community.

However, socialism only works when greed is removed. What is greed? Something inherent to humans? I may be wrong on this, but I can not think of a social animal who hordes wealth. Squirrels bury and colelct nuts, but squirrels do not live in communities like bees, ants and humans.

I don't think anyone running is claiming for full socialism. The "far left" in America would be considered moderates in most of the West. Mostly what they are arguing for is strengthening the social safety nets.

I also disagree with the greed thing. Humans are far more afraid of loss rather than pursuing profit. And the biggest thing people are afraid to lose is not money, but social bonds. This is why 50% of former soldiers report PTSD even though less than 10% have seen combat--they miss the brotherhood and modern capitalist society is too individualist. Socialism works on small scales because that's where it's been deployed for the entirety of human civilization--once humans became agrarian, we lived in socialist village-level societies where people didn't use money for transactions but largely extended credit and chipped in because everyone was part of the same community. Socialism has proven not to work on large scales largely because the human bonds that allow socialism to work on a small scale can't be centralized and bureaucratized--i.e., a villager in Village A doesn't give two hoots about someone they've never seen in Village B. That's why every advanced country in the world today is some mixed economy of capitalism and socialism.

 

[Thebobo]

Why does the system we have need to be named? I prefer critical services should be in the public domain.

Example of Gov solely controlled

Government
Military
Jails
Police
Heal care
Education

 

[Texashiker]

I don't think anyone running is claiming for full socialism. .

I feel you are correct. Having watched a recent episode of FoxNews I feel their throwing around the word "socialism" was nothing more than fearmongering.

There is a big difference in democracies or republics implementing social programs (healthcare, social security... etc), and full blown socialsm / communism such as USSR, Cuba, Venezuela... etc.

The far right plays on the fears of full blown communism, while people such as Bernie just want strong social programs.

One thing that helps the right promote their viewpoint of socialism is the lefts stance on gun control. The right plays on this through memes of stalin, hitler, pol pot, lenin.... etc. Socialism / communism has a history rich in taking guns away, then sending people to death camps. Bernie standing up on a podium talking about gun control this, gun control that... does not help his platform.

I would say the weak minded think the first thing socialist promise is equality, then they outlaw guns, then send people to work camps. However, we have numerous examples of that all over the world, and even right here in the United States. FDR rounded up certain groups and sent them to camps, and the Supreme Court upheld that decision.

Perhaps Bernie should chance his stance on gun control? That would collect votes from the right, but would lose votes from the left.

On thing is for sure, people are tired of the creed that comes with capitalism.

 

[Amused]

I'll just leave this right here to deconstruct this strawman of a thread:

 

[Jhhnn]

I feel you are correct. Having watched a recent episode of FoxNews I feel their throwing around the word "socialism" was nothing more than fearmongering.

There is a big difference in democracies or republics implementing social programs (healthcare, social security... etc), and full blown socialsm / communism such as USSR, Cuba, Venezuela... etc.

The far right plays on the fears of full blown communism, while people such as Bernie just want strong social programs.

One thing that helps the right promote their viewpoint of socialism is the lefts stance on gun control. The right plays on this through memes of stalin, hitler, pol pot, lenin.... etc. Socialism / communism has a history rich in taking guns away, then sending people to death camps. Bernie standing up on a podium talking about gun control this, gun control that... does not help his platform.

I would say the weak minded think the first thing socialist promise is equality, then they outlaw guns, then send people to work camps. However, we have numerous examples of that all over the world, and even right here in the United States. FDR rounded up certain groups and sent them to camps, and the Supreme Court upheld that decision.

Perhaps Bernie should chance his stance on gun control? That would collect votes from the right, but would lose votes from the left.

On thing is for sure, people are tired of the creed that comes with capitalism.

It's the old Commie gun grabber boogieman. Nobody is coming to take your guns. Forget about it. It's bullshit. At most, at the very most, Libs will further limit the kinds of guns, parts & magazines available OTC as was done with full autos back in the 30's. We'd even offer generous buy backs. Keep what you have. Sell it or gift it as you see fit to anybody who can pass a background check.

This notion that civilians need modern military firepower for any purpose is ridiculous. It's useless when hunting or even in self defense scenarios where the first few rounds are all that count. It''s extremely dangerous in the hands of crazy people, however.

 

[cytg111]

Just an idea I have, once wealth is collected by a select few, the many will vote to redistribute that wealth, thus socialism.

Not a matter of whether capitalism works or fails, or whether socialism works or fails; under a democracy the many can take from the few. Once political parties play groups against each other, the group with the most votes wins.

One thing I see a lot of, is people saying it is not fair that certain people are wealthy such as Bezos and Gates. Even though we have all bought products those two own does not matter. A lot of us helped those two become wealthy, but that is ignored by the masses.

I wonder how many people complain about capitalism use a free version of Linux, as compared to buying a PC with windows? How many people enjoy amazon Prime while complaining about capitalism?

Jealously is an inherent human nature. So maybe we should ask if jealously leads to socialism?

I see a cause and effect. People do not know how to make money off the free market, so they become jealous. Perhaps we shoud teach high school students how to pick stocks and start theor own business? Everyone had the same opportnity to buy Google or Amazon stock when their stock went public. Yet so many people passed up a wonderful opportunity.

Voting for socialism is much easier than doing their homework, buying stock, starting a business... etc. So should we reward the lazy with "free stuff?" I do not think so. However, if someone was never taught how to make money, can we really blame them for wanting socialism?

What you need to observe here is the lengths and complexity you have to go through to rationalize your convictions in the face of facts. Sure we can produce math that shows surely that earth is the center of our solar system.. its complex as hell and the heavenly bodies are doing crazy shit, non the less, the math will check out.
Occams razor dude. Occams razor.

 

[Jaskalas]

Regulate it to what end? Like Bezos and Gates hording hundreds of millions of dollars?

My concepts, up to a 50% tax rate, to fully fund Basic Income, Medicare, Housing Loans, would leave Bezos and Gates holding many billions, just not as many as today. Although, as rich as the rich are - they are not numerous enough. I haven't seen exact figures, but my rough estimates suggest the funds for "my" programs only truly exist on a much flatter tax. As in, a lot more people would be paying that rate.

In this regard, I am unabashedly bold due to figuring out how much Personal Income there is, how much the budget is today, and what it'd look like after a fully funded safety net. It's a 76% increase in the budget. That IS asking a lot, but it's a whole new world in return. One in which people and their families are much more secure amidst an uncertain future and automation. I suppose the best way to explain it is to lay out what the return on investment is, but that's a post I've attempted before, and will return to at another time.

 

[alcoholbob]

My concepts, up to a 50% tax rate, to fully fund Basic Income, Medicare, Housing Loans, would leave Bezos and Gates holding many billions, just not as many as today. Although, as rich as the rich are - they are not numerous enough. I haven't seen exact figures, but my rough estimates suggest the funds for "my" programs only truly exist on a much flatter tax. As in, a lot more people would be paying that rate.

In this regard, I am unabashedly bold due to figuring out how much Personal Income there is, how much the budget is today, and what it'd look like after a fully funded safety net. It's a 76% increase in the budget. That IS asking a lot, but it's a whole new world in return. One in which people and their families are much more secure amidst an uncertain future and automation. I suppose the best way to explain it is to lay out what the return on investment is, but that's a post I've attempted before, and will return to at another time.

Don't you think raising capital gains tax rate makes more sense? The vast majority of people earning millions a year do not earn ordinary income, so raising the marginal tax rate to 50% is primarily just raising taxes on people earning between 200,000-750,000 who are mainly professionals living on the coasts who already bear the majority of the tax burden.

Raising income tax to 50% would have pretty much zero effect on how much money Bezos and Gates have.