Socialism is defined as the government owning or regulating the means of production.
When there’s an actually well regulated market, like say, we have here in the Nordics, you’ll tend to see other socialism alongside it. We have good social security and labour laws. Exactly because it’s regulated market economy we utilise.
Capitalism does not have aa monopoly on market economies.
Capitalism is to market economy what cancer is to cell growth.
Even the US employs socialist policies. As in the policies themselves are socialist in nature. Antitrust laws. Because without them, capitalism would fuck over the economy in a heartbeat.
If something has been shown to not work it’s capitalism.
Capitalism is the antithesis of a well regulated market and will always fight regulation in any form, because it’s harder to make profits if you can’t sell unsafe garbage and exploit workers to their death.
Maybe actually try to understand what you’re reading?
You have this idiotic notion that all socialism is somehow government-planned economies and that all market economies are automatically capitalist.
I honestly can’t express my sincere disappointment at how common that shit is.
You can also look at European countries which are social democracies, and you will see they are all capitalist countries.
I’m Finnish, and we are a socialist country, by definition. This isn’t even a remotely controversial thing to say in Finland, but weirdly when one engages people on mainly American forums, the black-and-white “no that’s communism, you’re capitalist countries” red-scare garbage comes out. And yes, I understand you’re Portuguese, but that doesn’t prevent you from having these asinine notions.
You’re literally arguing that the very first sentence on the Wikipedia article on this exact subject, “social democracy”, is not only wrong, but in fact the truth is actually the polar opposite of what it says. I… I just fucking can’t with you people.
Here are literary references to back up the statement in economical theory literature that social democracy is indeed a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism:
Eatwell & Wright 1999, pp. 80–103; Newman 2005, p. 5; Heywood 2007, pp. 101, 134–136, 139; Ypi 2018; Watson 2019.
Now I’ll wait for you to source your “social democracy is capitalism” bullshit, which you won’t, because there are no sources for anything remotely confirming that.
The fact that you don’t understand your own implications is pretty much the problem here. Whether consciously or not, you conflate the terms “market economy” and “capitalism”, which is quite as silly as thinking cell growth = cancer.
I’ve read actual literature on this, and I’ve this exact “discussion” literally hundreds of times. Stomp your foot and cry all you want, that’s not going to change the actual literature of economic theory.
Are people able to use capital to buy into those companies and be in charge and reap the profits?
See, this is exactly the implication that all socialism is somehow some authoritarian communism. You just can’t understand how poorly you’ve perceived this. So you write things which argue that using currency makes a place capitalist in some way? That’s the real name for what people used to buy things; currency. Not capital, as when you’re living from paycheck to paycheck, you don’t have capital.
“My source, Communist Manifesto”
Your source for what? The modern definition of social democracy? You’ve never even held a copy of Das Kapital let alone have read it. I can assure you, Marx does not write “oh and social democracies are forms of capitalism, bruv”.
Because they aren’t. And you’re arguing that modern actual literature on the subject, which is quoted on the very first sentence on the article about social democracy actually don’t matter, but your haphazard pretentious Lemmy comments should be taken as fact?
When you won’t agree with the most basic of definitions by going “no, not true, I know better but I don’t have cite anyone just trust me bruv”, then me citing who thinks that the very basic definition is actually the very basic definition, but you then continuing to disagree with it without being able to provide any sources at all… what use is trying to have a discussion? You’re not ready for one. You’ve made up your mind and you just haphazardly try to equivocate. Like I said, I’ve had this exact same conversation hundreds of times.
So, to address your link… “maybe keep reading”?
Types of socialism vary based on the role of markets and planning in resource allocation, and the structure of management in organizations. Socialist systems divide into non-market and market forms.
Almost as if market economies weren’t all capitalist. Almost as if equating market economies to capitalism was as silly as equating cell growth to cancer. As established by me earlier, and the link you provided, modern socialism includes market socialism. Of course you might be oblivious to something like that if say, you were just pretending to understand the subject.
So now that you realise that you can’t possibly back up your “social democracy is actually capitalism” garbage, you start shifting the goalposts, trying to equivocate on what socialism is in general. (Again, been here, done this, 2000000x)
You’re now making the exact argument that I said you were, the entire time. You’re directly saying that there is no private ownership under socialism.
Do us a service. Go to Google and type in “define socialism”.
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned OR REGULATED by the community as a whole.
Again, thanks for the laughs.
Edit, oh right, please do cite a source or any support for this “social democracy is capitalism” bullshit, why don’t you? I’ll wait here. :)
A company that breeds animals for medical testing has been fined a record $35m (£27m) after 4,000 beagles were rescued from its facility in Virginia in 2022....
The whole episodic vs serialised thing was pretty much during that time.
It’s pretty obvious from the shows of the era.
House, for one. Earlier seasons being rather strictly episodic, and last season being a serialised joke about how ridiculous the rigid episodic nature of the earlier seasons were. Not ecactly, but…
Carts lasted ages longer than discs. Sure for some actually responsible adult player discs would probably have been better but for preteens fighting with their siblings on who’s turn it is and what will be played…?
(We once ruined a PS2 game because we had it upright and it fell and the disc took such a deep scratch it never worked past that point again. I still feel guilty and feel I missed out on HP2. And that was 5 years after we got a N64, so PS1 discs would’ve been even more at risk.)
The controller is weird by modern standards , yeah, but it wasn’t too weird at the time. It’s sort of like two controllers in one, a more classic form like the snes and the basic ps1 controller and a more modern one with a joystick with the middle-handle.
There was no weirdness at all using it when it came out. The “basic” model (think xbox controller) only came out a bit later.
But nowadays? Idk, I don’t have one, but we tried playing Goldeneye 64 with my brother and man the control schemes were all over the place and I couldn’t for the life of me get “in the groove” and we used to play 4 player deatmatch a ton for years and I was ace at it.
It was weird in a Nintendo way, yeah, but imo there was hardly anything illogical about it. The triple handle setup was reasoned in the way that if there was a more “classic” control scheme in the game, you might use the d-pad instead of the joystick (which was shit in the way it wore out though). Most games did use the joystick, but not all, and not all the time.
I think the reasoning was to have more adaptability in traditional Nintendo sort of way.
Also, the Dreamcast controller looks very weird as well, has less buttons and came out two years after.
Btw a USSR-style planned economy falls outside the term market economy, even thoughthey had money, right?
Uhm, yes. That’s the polar opposite of market economy; a planned economy.
One of the definitions of socialism is “the means of production are owned or regulated by the state”.
I know a lot of people vehemently disagree, but we Nordics are technically socialist countries. Social democracies which utilise market socialism, insofar that the markets are heavily regulated and products taxed, but taxes (and fines) are progressive, and the tax money gets spent on society. (Well, in the ideal case, obviously, we’re faaaaar from fucking perfect.)
Capitalism is essentially just to market economies what cancer is to cell growth. It’s not to wrong to call the former the latter, but the latter is a category. The former is usually also malignant.
Capitalism always strives for monopolies. That’s why even the US has socialist policies. That’s not to be taken as me saying they’re socialist in any way, just the nature of the policies are. It’s the state regulating the market to prevent monopolies from fucking it up. Antitrust laws.
So to answer your question of “what other options”, have a peek at market socialism.
I think we have the resources to give everyone a shitton more if the crazy wealth hoarders stop. That’s it. Get some control on the crazy addiction for money, we can still have market economies, private property, a faster developing economy, but also less crime, less inequality and less suffering overall.
Literally just take the ultra rich out of the picture. We will still have rich people and people can strive for wealth. Just as long as we meet people’s basic needs, have good labour laws and manage to take care of the planet.
And because that will jump start even more space exploration since we could actually fund NASA instead of having Elon play with his dildockets, we could actually get somewhere, and once there’s proper infra for some commerce up there, hey, go at it capitalists, the space is literally infinite. Just don’t mess up our solar system.
A global shortage of oranges that sent prices soaring has prompted some orange juice manufacturers to consider turning to alternative fruits to make the breakfast staple....
Although I don’t like cranberry. Bilberries are great though. And blackcurrant, if you ever want a boost to a shroom/lsd/ecstasy trip. Be careful with it though, it’d be actually dangerous. A cup of this with shrooms would considerably increase the effect. One of those “don’t try this at home” things. If you ever think about doing it, research it. www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/…/4949877#4…
I went a bit offtopic but eh. The answer is “none here.”
Rational beliefs should be able to withstand scrutiny and opposing arguments. The inability to do so indicates that the belief is more about personal bias and emotional investment rather than objective analysis.
This meme was inspired by the response to a meme I posted on r/worldjerking (slrpnk.net)
cross-posted from: slrpnk.net/post/10351845...
US dog breeder fined $35m after 4,000 beagles rescued (www.bbc.com)
A company that breeds animals for medical testing has been fined a record $35m (£27m) after 4,000 beagles were rescued from its facility in Virginia in 2022....
Surf Dracula® (lemmy.world)
[Monthly thread] What have you been watching? June 2024
"What do you mean genocide is always wrong!?" (lemmy.world)
Have you seen the new show? (lemmy.world)
Another one bites the cosmic dust (lemmy.world)
The N64
I am probably going to get hate for this, but I don’t think too highly of this console....
‘We refuse to disappear’: the Hong Kong 47 facing life in jail after crackdown (www.theguardian.com)
cross-posted from: lemmy.world/post/16128611...
Capitalism Can Not Solve The Climate Crisis: Here’s Why (youtube.com)
cross-posted from: lazysoci.al/post/14253829...
Orange juice makers consider using alternative fruit as prices skyrocket (www.foxbusiness.com)
A global shortage of oranges that sent prices soaring has prompted some orange juice manufacturers to consider turning to alternative fruits to make the breakfast staple....
If you can't make a single sincere counter-argument to your own belief, your stance is driven by emotion rather than logic
Rational beliefs should be able to withstand scrutiny and opposing arguments. The inability to do so indicates that the belief is more about personal bias and emotional investment rather than objective analysis.