• dartos@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I may be wrong, but I don’t see socialism and capitalism as hard opposites.

      I see capitalism and communism are like hard opposites with socialism somewhere in between.

      • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Capitalism is the state controlled by the capital owners with the workers repressed.

        Socialism is the state controlled by the workers with the capital owners repressed.

        They are literally hard opposites. One is a bourgeoise-state and the other is a proletarian-state.

        • dartos@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          I learned that “capitalism” is an economic system, not a system of government.

          So you could have a socialist state that funds essentials like healthcare and transportation through taxes with a market (capitalist) economy.

          • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            That’s not a socialist state. It’s a capitalist state with welfare. If the political structure of the state itself has not been reworked to put the workers in power what you’re describing is just a state where the bourgeoisie (who control power) have decided to do welfare, usually for their own benefit such as reducing revolutionary energy by providing the workers with concessions (the welfare state). That is social democracy.

            You do not have socialism without overthrowing the hierarchy that places the bourgeoisie as the ruling class:

            Capitalism = Capitalists in power. Proles repressed.

            Socialism = Proletariat in power. Capitalists repressed.

            Communism = No more classes, only 1 class because the bourgeoisie have been completely phased out.

            • wewbull@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              All of this sounds at odds with representative democracy. What political system would you see working with socialism as you describe it?

              • very_poggers_gay [they/them]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                What about the absolute lack of “representative democracy” we experience under capitalism?

                I’d argue that the capitalist system is more at odds with representative democracy than other systems mentioned. Most workers have no say in what is produced, who produces it, how they are paid, how much products are sold for, etc. Instead, we end up with figurehead CEO’s and nameless investors making all of those decisions, and of course they do everything to minimize costs, maximize profits, and disempower workers so that they can collect billions of dollars at the expense of the workers who actually make their companies run. If we had representative democracy do you think we’d have billionaires?

                • wewbull@feddit.uk
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Literally “whataboutism”.

                  I’m not interested in how the current system is broken. That’s obvious. What do you have in it’s place?

                  • quarrk [he/him]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Whataboutism is a meaningless brainworm which the user invokes in order to ignore their own cognitive dissonance and inconsistent standards. You cry “whataboutism” when @very_poggers_gay@hexbear.net was correct to point out your own double standard. “All of this sounds at odds with representative democracy” implies that you believe genuine democracy is something we currently stand to lose.

                    What you need to understand is that Marxists are not interested in imposing utopian futures on the world. “What do you have in its place?” is the wrong question. Better questions: What currently prevents genuine democracy? What are the material conditions which both produce and maintain it? Then you get to work on changing those material conditions and removing the real basis which produces the problems.

              • quarrk [he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Representative “democracy” alienates the common man from the political process while maintaining a semblance of democracy. For this reason it is the ideal political form for capitalism, an economic system which alienates power from the masses and concentrates it in the hands of a few.

                Class interests are the primary axis on which all political activity turns. Getting the working class to vote does not help them, it helps those in power.

                • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Representation is necessary as a matter of scale, though. There are other issues with small r republicanism that are more specifically nefarious, like the legalization of bribery, the tilting of power towards land owners via the senate, etc.

                  • quarrk [he/him]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    With modern technology I wonder how necessary representative style governments really are. Electronic voting already exists and works quite well, and is probably the most secure form of voting as long as it can be audited. Of course, at some point administration has to come down to individuals, but as long as those individuals are held accountable in some way then it seems that the actual democratic step (i.e. voting on policy) need not be mediated through representatives as is oft repeated to justify the status quo.

                    You might have been referring to this with republicanism, but there are different types of representation, too. Parliamentary democracies are not obligated to obey the wishes of their subjects, whereas soviet (council) democracies are a form of direct democracy, where representatives are merely delegates and are obligated to obey/communicate the wishes of their subjects. In my comment above I had in mind the parliamentary type, since that is the kind in which there is a buffer between citizens and political institutions which is used by the bourgeoisie to suppress changes which would undermine capital.