There’s a paraphrased quote by John Steinbeck that I’ve frequently seen that comes to mind
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
Socialism never took root in America because people who tried to organize got shot.
Hum I would disagree.
First of all worker coops are pretty much everywhere. I could go to college for free and have healthcare because socialists who organized large scale strikes (they sometime then proceed to get shot by operation gladio). And then, quite a lot of country still pretend to be socialists. Oftentime with very real mutualities who actually helps people.
Humans could never support actual real socialism. We are corrupt dicks and would always figure out a way to exploit it for personal gain. Some form of hybrid system involving some degree of greed(capitalism) will probably always be required.
I hate homework too, but the post and title really got me amped to say:
Think back to what your teachers taught. Maybe not 100% universal, but teachers #1 job is to get you to question. Why do most people end up reading Steinbeck? Mice and men, Huck Finn, Gatsby maybe. Frigging to kill a mocking bird pushed on them by a high school teacher. They got yelled at for letting kids read Harry Potter.
The good ones pushed you to be better and realize self worth. Hell, in the US, teachers for a decade have been putting up with parents that are so. pissed. off. because your math is too hard for them (math is math!!). And the bullshit “all I learned was mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell!” Science is blasphemy at its finest. You weren’t supposed to memorize content, nobody remembers the content from middle school. You remember the processes. Here’s how to explore the unknown.
If this wasn’t your experience, I’m sorry. There’s more but this is too long now
Schooling in the 80s was still very much training us to sit still and follow the routine. Because we were all going to be happy worker bees for a living. And our classes had 30+ kids and one teacher for most of elementary school.
I’m not sure it has really changed much in most of America, especially since standardized testing became the norm and led to “teaching to the test” in many classroooms. I have since realized I had a couple teachers along the way who encouraged questioning your preconceived notions, 7 and 8 grade jr high science teachers specifically, and a metal shop teacher who they eliminated the year I would have taken it in exchange for a computer based “synergy” class.
This was pretty much my answer to a German expat who candidly asked: “WTF is up with the schools here?” I angrily answered in line with the above.
GP is correct in that school should be about learning how to learn and think critically. And there are elements of that still in play, but it’s not the focus, and it’s not evenly distributed.
Teachers are still in and ruled over by the system. Still waiting for a better way to feed information to (now 40 per teacher) middle school kids. I dunno if you’ve asked any teachers, but they DESPISE standardized testing and having 40 kids and zero parent support. They don’t control any of that.
Lots of bad takes in this thread.
Most people don’t even understand capitalism or socialism or even communism.
For a surface level understanding of capitalism, this video does a good job. https://youtu.be/C1Gs0uqqggc?si=EHli6_sWDCroIKpE
Good video. People get caught up in words and ideas without realizing most of us want the same goals. Instead of demonizing the “other” for some emotional validation, we should strive to listen and learn. Educate the hate away.
we should strive to listen and learn. Educate the hate away.
I see your point, but let me offer a counter point:
Fuck You
There is no hate in saying this is r-worded good old trickle down theory that have been disproved times and times again. Basic economics is like basic biology. Simplistic.
Seriously, I spent 15 minutes watching this crap. I’ll never get them back. This is just cruel.
EDIT: the best part is when it stops.
Capitalism dominates the world because it trades tomorrow for today in an attempt for exponential growth without regard for the future. Anyone doing less is dominated and exploited by the resource imbalance. Capitalism isn’t winning bc its good, its winning bc its not playing to win, its playing to die.
Hey man, I’d you work real hard or are born to rich parents you too might get an invisible handjob too.
Simple son. Capitalism grew with us - the generation that has the most bodies. Over time we distorted it to fit our needs as we aged. We postdated checks and took credit. You have our capitalism because this isn’t your government- it’s ours. Don’t worry though you can have it when we’re done.
… Son…? You’re shaking…
Our capatilism worked post WWII. Then the gaps grew. If ownership still took modest gains and were closer to the workers, it would work. Now the gap is so great, they won’t change until there is a revolution. Either in government, or the standard kind in history.
Gaps grew (in part) because of capitalism. Back when the previous generations were working- people were compensated fairly and given regular raises… it wasn’t uncommon to work for the same company until you retired. What changed? Line goes up above all else. Cut raises, mandatory pay cuts, layoffs etc. Line went up. But that has an effect that amplifies over time.
Raises were largely responsible for offsetting inflation - this is the gap that steadily widened. There are of course other factors but most of these are, at least in part, also effected by inflation.
Generally speaking capitalism works, sure. But this is no longer capitalism. We have too big to fail, price fixing to choke out competition, and a governing body bought and paid for by megacorp.
We did it for a hundred years without the gap being that big. I credit greed as the problem.
Or maybe because the only currently known feasible alternative always ended up being even worse.
Revolutions tends to lead to powerful people seizing the state and centralizing everything.
The usual theory they bandy about it is that they are a “vanguard” of “elites” who will prepare the ground for socialism. And when they are done they will turn the system over to the workers to control it like promised, from the bottom up.
Spoilers : They never do, so far at least.
Instead they will take over any worker-led initiative and stifle it and shoot the organizers if they don’t get the memo. You wind up with the state owning the means of production and the workers owning next to nothing and being worked as hard as under capitalism. You typically wind up with a centralized, bureaucratic dictatorship.
On top of that, because the rest of the world is in a different system and to become a socialist state one must break the other system’s rules, you’ve pissed off most of the powerful people outside your border. This leads to a besieged mentality (and assassination attempts, and coup attempts, etc.) which keeps up the pressure on that state to keep being a dictatorial, paranoid mess. Oh and it can also lead to stiffened trade as you become a pariah. And historically the USSR’s economy for instance performed worse than the US’s.
That said, other alternatives don’t have to include armed revolution. You can start a worker coop, and that is technically socialism (or anarchism? I forget), because the workers would own the means of production. You’d be able to do that within a capitalist framework without too much conflict and without pissing too many people off (really I can’t see anyone but ideological goblins and competitors bitching about this. And competitors always bitch anyways). Of course, contrary to wage labour, you have to bear the financial risks yourself.
Anarchism is always Socialist in form, co-operatives are Socialist, while anarchism is more about societal structure at large.
Either way, the issue with co-operatives is that there aren’t systems in place to make them more common, nor will that ever be the case under Capitalism.
As for whether or not other systems have “always performed worse than Capitalism,” that’s just incorrect. You compared the USSR to the US, why? Would you compare Brazil to the US today? Both appear to be Capitalist. What’s interesting is if you compare metrics of the USSR vs the Tsars and vs the Russian Federation, you’ll find that quality of life was overwhelmingly tied to development, not economic system.
It seems reasonable to me to say that if a developed country was to become Socialist, it would perform better than a developed Capitalist country, as you remove issues like rent-seeking and worker exploitation. I think that’s a reasonable conclusion, and I’m not even talking about USSR style Marxism-Leninism, it could be Democratic Socialism, Syndicalism, Anarchism, or any other form of Socialism.
Capitalism is about creating a bigger pie.
Politics is about more fairly distrubting the pie. Don’t mistake failings of politics as failings of capitalism.
America once had a income tax of 90% for the highest tax bracket. Just because it is low now isn’t due to capitalism
-
Capitalism is about individual ownership of the Means of Production. Socialism is about worker ownership of the Means of Production. Both are about production.
-
Politics is not about distribution of Production so much as it is about creating systems and networks that people can use. The failings of Capitalism are still because of Capitalism.
-
The 90% income tax being removed was because of Capitalism. Wealthy Capitalists appealed to politicians to have it removed, simple as. That is 100% a consequence of a system centered around petite-dictators.
- the first part is only true In relation to the ideals of the supports of socialism.
Socialists care about the ownership of the means of production.
Capatalism dose not even consider the term. They only care about the result to indevidual growth.
As a example that makes my point. Elon musk and space ex is about rocket science to the engineers
To musk and other who consider space colonisation the only viable future for humanity. Rocket science is just the currently most effective way of achieving the goal.
To a socialist ownership of means of production is the goal.
To a capatalist it is just the best way the currently see of achieving the goal of indevidual wealth.
You’re actually 100% incorrect here. Capitalism requires the presence of Capitalists, ie owners of Capital, to exist.
Capitalism and Socialism are both about ownership of the Means of Production, with Capitalism it’s so Capitalists can profit, whereas in Socialism it’s so the Workers can profit.
For Musk, SpaceX is a means to make profit off of government contracts and subsidies.
