• Dasus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    3 months ago

    Market socialism also exists, just to remind everyone.

    If you Google “define socialism”, you’ll get a sentence saying socialism is when tve means of production are owned OR regulated by the people.

    So you can still have what we have right now, no need for any sort of fundamental change, except proper regulation, meaning actually good labour laws and proper taxation for the wealthy.

    Finland and other Nordics are arguably market socialist.

    And yes, I know how many will disagree. Here in Finland, less so.

    • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      3 months ago

      Finland and other Nordics are arguably market socialist.

      Absolutely not, they are Social Democracies. They are not progressing towards more worker ownership, but less, Capitalism still drives the system and the bourgeoisie still drives the state.

    • Allero@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      By any reasonable dictionary (as well as classic definition), capitalism is defined by private property of the means of production. Socialism is defined by common/social ownership of the means of production, not “regulation”. What you call “market socialism” is just regulated capitalism.

      Nothing wrong with having any position, and we should strive for what’s best instead of trying to correspond to certain terms, but what you suggest is not socialism.

      And I kinda hate it when we move the goalposts, especially with American politician calling literally any bit of social policy “socialism”. No it’s not, and classics have outlined it very, very clearly.

      • Dasus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        3 months ago

        No it isn’t.

        Capitalism doesn’t have a monopoly on privately owned businesses.

        “By any reasonable definition” you seem to mean “this is what I think for some reason I’m not even entirely sure of, and I’m too lazy to even Google what you said”.

        Now see, which should I believe, the actual consensus of the literature on economics and political philosophy… or some random dude online who’s rhetoric of “byaah no no that’s just capitalism socialism is communism” I’ve seen literally thousands of times?

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_ownership

        However, the articulation of models of market socialism where factor markets are utilized for allocating capital goods between socially owned enterprises broadened the definition to include autonomous entities within a market economy.

        Cooperatives, while not being owned by a single private person, are still held by private people.

        You can cry all you want but capitalism isn’t synonymous with market economy.

        Well regulated capitalism is just socialism. Capitalism strives for the least regulation possible, because it enables maximising profits, which actually is the definition of it as a political ideology. Striving for more capital.

        Here’s something which will rustle your jimmies even more.

        You know we Nordics are social democracies right?

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

        Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism[1]

        Social democracy has been described as the most common form of Western or modern socialism.[11][12]

        In the 21st century, it has become commonplace to define social democracy in reference to Northern and Western European countries,[39] and their model of a welfare state with a corporatist system of collective bargaining.[40] Social democracy has also been used synonymously with the Nordic model.[

        • Allero@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          You seem to cite Wikipedia as your favorite source. How about opening articles on capitalism and socialism before you go any further?

          This should help you get up to speed before you accuse me and all others of making stuff up.

          • Dasus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            Wikipedia has sources, as you well know.

            You’re not making a point. I did. I quoted specific parts of specific articles, backed by verifiable sources.

            You can’t fight it, because you’re just a kid pretending to understand the thing you couldn’t even be bothered to Google before opening your ignorant mouth about it, and now you feel shame when someone shows you how wrong you were, by quoting specific parts which specific claims, again, backed by credible sources.

            Your reply “no but uh it’s like Wikipedia so it’s like bad and look here’s the article to capitalism. What? No I’m not gonna make an argument, I’m feeling ashamed and I’m gonna pretend saying CAPITALISM really loud will win tve argument”

            Yeah, like I said, I’ve seen that literally thousands of times.

        • Juice@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Generations of socialists have been critical of social democracy. Generations of capitalists have been saying that social democracy is the closest we will ever get to socialism. So who should I believe, the western consensus of capitalist academia, beholden to big money donors for research grants, or the most brilliant, brave and capable intellectuals of the past 200 years, such as Marx, Engels, Luxemburg, DuBois, Lenin and (for a bit of Nordic flair) Pannekoek?

          Because what is the Nordic model really? A huge part of the Nordic economy is defense contractors, which means your social democracy is paid for with mass death, imperialism and immiseration. Also, as a member of the western hegemon, Nordic countries enjoy the fruits of neocolonial exploitation of Africa, Asia, South America, etc., not very socialistic to prop up a class of war mongering rich, even if they pay marginally higher taxes than elsewhere.

          This debate has existed for a long time, but to socialists it is settled. The Wikipedia entry for the Gotha program of 1875 calls it “explicitly socialist.” And even by today’s standards, it was and would be fairly progressive; calling for workers rights, universal sufferage, etc., but to many of the members of the first socialist international it was controversial because it relied on an upper class of politicians and business men to administer the social reforms. Karl Marx wrote his “Critique of the Gotha Program” tearing apart every point of the short document as another form of class rule, and even created some problems for his socially a connected partner Friedrich Engels by calling Ferdinand Lasalle, a popular reformer, politician and architect of the Gotha program, “a petty dictator in waiting.” He could not have known that Lasalle was in fact conspiring with von Bismarck to enact a plan of social democracy that would serve as a cover for a new regime of class domination that would undercut the socialist movement with moderate reforms, while making the working class beholden to the political/economic upper class.

          These reforms can be taken away over time, which we are seeing in European social democracies over the last 40 years; leaving only the naked coercive competitive drive of capitalism to govern all social relations.

          And like, I’m an American, my country is the imperial epicenter for neocolonialism imperialist expansion, bourgeois decadence, exploitation and immiseration (for now.) My experiences with people from Nordic countries who I have met have been overwhelmingly positive. Your social democracies are superior to our laissez faire capitalism, they make more sense, are more stable and less subject to natural instability cycles inherent to the system. Nothing is cut-and-dry, there are blended forms of political and economic organization, just like there are blended classes, and new forms are always emerging as history marches. If you want to believe that your social democracies are an island within capitalism, that’s mostly true! But to a socialist, it is not socialism. Quoting a Wikipedia article at us when most of us are acutely aware of how it is used by businesses and governments to shape our remembrance of history and the ideas with which we use to shape the world, comes off as incredibly weak and unconvincing, especially when so many of us spend years studying independently, having discussions and organizing our communities. You can quote wikipedia but it will never convince a socialist. I hope you become more mindful of where you are getting your information and whom that particular interpretation of facts serves. Spoiler alert! Its the owners of private property, the means of production, which have always shaped history and defined the classes and antagonisms inherent to them.