For someone who is apparently so keen on being specific about economic vs political philosophies you're very loose when it comes to equating class (an ultimately economic distinction) and race (an ultimately political distinction).

After catching up on the thread and extensive deliberation, I think I figured it out...

Capitalism: stuff OP likes
Socialism: stuff OP doesn't like

That's always the way, isn't it ?

Sure, it happens quite easily when a communist revolution happens and the people starve for four decades until they decide - hey let's try that capitalism thing!

The idea that Adolf Hitler ever looked forward to 'the end of race distinction' is... somewhat novel. And the idea that he had any sympathy with Marxism, which he despised as a 'Jewish' creed, is again adventurous to the point of foolishness.

People in America are using socialism and capitalism as identities because they don't have a lot of exposure to economic theory so they just made broad assumptions what it means, but even people who supposedly have exposure to economic theory make wild assumptions about what socialism and capitalism are to fit their identities.

Socialism vs capitalism can vary along a wide variety of axes and counties have some, none, or all of those axes. You can have various configurations of those things.

So is unionization socialism? Co-ops? wage boards? wage compression? Soverign wealth funds, etc

Each of them handle different aspects of society from intrafirm representation to interfirm representation, capital rent payments vs labor payments, etc

The irony of OP arguing in the style of Snowball and Napoleon in one thread, and then citing Orwell in this thread, should not be lost on anyone.

I would agree that this is the most useful way of using these terms these days. There isn't a single developed nation that isn't using at least some principles / policies derived from socialism and capitalism.

Still, a discussion (especially in an historic context) on the split between social democrats and socialists is interesting, since this split originated in the socialist movements themselves. Still, even in that context we have terms like "communists" or "Marxist" which are more specific and probably better.

It should also be noted that the socialist movements are part of the puzzle, they do have a very noticeable tendency to split, break up or morph into offshoots. One Scandinavian country at one point had: "The Socialist Left", "Red Electoral Alliance", "The Worker's Communist Party" and "The Communist Party". The first was a described socialist party without support for armed revolution (pacifists), the second was a communist party with support for political revolution based on Marxist ideals and and the third was a communist party with support for armed revolution based on Maoist ideals and the last was a communist party with support for armed revolution based on Leninist ideals.

Until he wants to drive to the store later

the usual suspects, like a dull knife, just ain't cuttin'

Without getting bogged down by labels, it seems Orwell's main point is that power corrupts, and he witnessed this with governments with right and left wing oriented political philosophies.

And in our present time we see plenty of corruption and dysfunction in the suppressive authoritarian left social movements and the cynical thieving right wing government.

the Lebanese Prime Minister and his cabinet just resigned. I expect great things from their successors or something

Points for style itt.........

Probably because he believes Social Democracy is a transitional step leading to Democratic Socialism and doesn't want to scare people but maybe because he thinks there's some merit with maintaining a market economy and doesn't want to alienate the purists.

As to Democratic Socialism, what it means and entails:

https://jacobinmag.com/2020/07/what-...alism-politics

in 20 years, you guys will still be defining terms

Harsh, but probably true.

I think one problem is people use terms as pejoratives so they lose meaning and seriousness. There are ideologues who make points that fall into straight marxist/neo-marxist ideology but those who defend that ideology almost always deflect as if you are using the term as a pejorative.

An example:


Also, when I use the term socialism, I think of an economic system. Knowing Bernie Sanders history, I think it's clear he is trying to obfuscate the term to make socialism palatable to the electorate, which is pretty much the goal of DS'ers. The reason I think this is, every socialist decries capitalism, and never defends it, including the most well known socialist. Also, Democratic Socialist are for a socialist economic system.

Interestingly, here is a goal of Democratic Socialism:

All DSers are, are pragmatic socialist.

A tenant of socialism is public interest.
Some socialists may actually want full blown communism just as some conservatives actually want a theocracy. That doesn't mean socialism = communism any more than conservatism = theocracy.

You think tank scholars always spend more time defining what you want others to believe than stating your own goals and preferences. It's why you always end up going round in circles. You don't have much to say in the end but you like to say it often and loudly.

That being said, do you have any opinion on worker owned coops ?
Does worker owned = private in your mind ?
How about stronger labor participation in public companies like in Germany ?

Is every idea a socialist has bad a priori ?

If a group of workers want to start a business, I'm not against it despite the fact I would never invest, or be part of one.



It does not work. If you want to call that "bad", go for it.

For example:

Lets work with your worker owned coop....


First you have to have capital to start that business. There are loans available, there are investors, and savings a group can use. Having investors kinda defeats the purpose, though, as in giving up ownership in the company for cash.

Second, and likely the most important, would you invest your labor and money with a group of workers who likely have no skills running a business? If you had the cash and business acumen, why wouldn't you just start a business yourself? That does not discount the fact you might have some workers who can run a business, but I don't think that's common. They might know how to run the labor part of the business, but will they be skilled in things such as marketing, accounting, etc. Further, would you trust your capital and labor to a board made up of workers, who might have their own short-term self-interest in mind while voting on what direction to take the company (i.e. pay raises instead of putting money into marketing).

That worker owned coops does not work seems to be falsified by the working worker owned coops.

I did not say they can't be successful from time to time, and I was talking about socialism does not work. I do wonder where are the founders of these successful coops? Probably sitting at home paying others to work for them, and collecting a check. Worker owned coops are not socialist.

Worker owned cooperatives are typically regarded as socialist.

They are from Bakunin's brand of socialism however, not Marx of whom Bakunin was a vocal critic.

Of course, collectives have been a human tradition for millennia for this, and for most of human existence was how we operated. So this is more a comment aimed at the more specific worker's collective / cooperative.

I wasn't asking you if they work. They do.

I was asking you if you consider them private ownership of the means of production and how you feel about them regarding your views on capitalism vs socialism.

As TD points out, they're considered a socialist way of doing business but the workers who own the company are private citizens. What does that mean to you, if anything ?

Again, socialism is an economic system, not a business plan.

No, it's just a group of investors who also work for the company they own.