Not realy.
That’s capitalism being managed by neoliberal economic philosophy.
It really has more in common with feudalism, than capitalism.
Capitalism by definition requires fair transparent markets, with no dominant players able to unfairly manipulate the market.
Capitalism as managed by democratic socialist philosophy (not sure if there’s an official term it) is closer to the actual definition of capitalism.
Yes I did!
Neither socialism, communism, capitalism, feudalism, or any other economic system, can yield the best result in every situation. There is no one answer for everything. No economy in the world is all one thing or another. It’s only by blending the strengths of each, using what works best where it works best, can we find greatest benefit for everyone.
So yes, a socialist minded form of capitalism, improving on the post depression US, is probably the best default baseline. Then in certain specific naturally monopolistic markets, a more communistic model would fit better.
You are not using those words in a coherent or meaningful way at all. You can’t have a socialist and capitalist mixed system. You either have bourgeois or proletarian ownership not both.
Get your nose out of your schoolbooks, and look around you, there is a socialism mixed with capitalism everywhere you look, over the entire planet.
The Fire Department is a perfect example of a capitalist concept (buying fire protection from a company), that was replaced by a socialist concept (pooling the community’s funds to pay for a municipal fire department that benefits all citizens), and exists within a capitalist system. Same with public schools, public libraries, parks, law enforcement (in concept, anyway), and more.
No political system could survive in its purest form. Any successful government is going to have to mix the best of all political systems, and reject the worst parts of them. That means lots of grey areas, which are hard for many people to accept. Many people need clearly delineated lines, and that’s not possible when your government is a Frankenstein’s monster, so they want a pure system, even if it doesn’t work as well.
It’s not blatantly wrong, you just can’t understand nuance, which is common for people who trust definitions over actual life. Fire departments were the earliest versions of insurance companies, who morphed into that business when their firefighting responsibilities were taken away by local fire departments. The original fire brigades would definitely have been considered a socialist concept, if the word had existed at that point. Eventually, as governments evolved, they took over fire brigades, and became fire departments.
Just because the government is the vehicle for offering the service to the citizens, doesn’t mean it isn’t made possible by the support and cooperation of the citizens, which is the basic concept of socialism - the people supporting a concept that benefits all.
And MAGA recognizes this, which is why they want to destroy anything that has socialist roots, like all those things I mentioned - libraries, museums, parks, schools, etc. The entire reason that MAGA is constantly trying to kill those things is precisely because they consider them Socialist influences on their obsessive objective of a purely Capitalist society that benefits only the wealthy, rather than a successful one that benefits all of its citizens.
There is no reason that both Socialism and Capitalism can’t co-exist successfully, as the Scandinavian nations have been demonstrating for decades.
Again you don’t understand those words at all the Scandinavian countries are in no way socialist. Socialism isn’t just a public service it means workers ownership of the means of production. Capitalism is incompatible with this meaning private ownership of the means of production for profit, you can’t nationalize some industries then call that a mix of socialism and capitalism you either have one or the other.
Great lets try that out; how much ownership do you think a worker has over the means of production, without the ability to choose a union not pre-appointed by the state?
There is a difference between theory in a book, and the way it operates in the actual world. There isn’t a single nation, government, or political system that exists by following textbook theory alone. So are we talking about Philosophical Political Theory, or are we talking Real World Politics?
A socialist and capitalist mixed system is what most countries already have. The social democracy serves people their rights and essential services and the capitalist market drives the “optional” part of the economy. You can, and should, argue that we leave too much up to the private sector, but don’t pretend that hybrid system is impossible. We already built it.
Why not?
Company ownership is already broken into shares. There’s no law of nature or logic that dictates how those shares are distributed. There are all sorts of ways to divide them between capital investors, labor investors, even outside stake holders like customers, suppliers, even simple neighbors. Any individual may be a labor investor in one company, and a capital investor in others. That one person would embody both your bourgeois and proletarian classes.
Again large economies are too complex for simple, clean, universal solutions. Their complexity necessitates more complex thinking.
Not realy.
That’s capitalism being managed by neoliberal economic philosophy.
It really has more in common with feudalism, than capitalism.
Capitalism by definition requires fair transparent markets, with no dominant players able to unfairly manipulate the market.
Capitalism as managed by democratic socialist philosophy (not sure if there’s an official term it) is closer to the actual definition of capitalism.
No form of universal selfishness will provide an equitable existence for all
True. The government is supposed to manage that. It’s one of the lies of neoliberalism, that “Greed is Good”.
Did you really just say “socialist capitalism.” You really have zero idea what you are talking about.
Yes I did!
Neither socialism, communism, capitalism, feudalism, or any other economic system, can yield the best result in every situation. There is no one answer for everything. No economy in the world is all one thing or another. It’s only by blending the strengths of each, using what works best where it works best, can we find greatest benefit for everyone.
So yes, a socialist minded form of capitalism, improving on the post depression US, is probably the best default baseline. Then in certain specific naturally monopolistic markets, a more communistic model would fit better.
You are not using those words in a coherent or meaningful way at all. You can’t have a socialist and capitalist mixed system. You either have bourgeois or proletarian ownership not both.
Get your nose out of your schoolbooks, and look around you, there is a socialism mixed with capitalism everywhere you look, over the entire planet.
The Fire Department is a perfect example of a capitalist concept (buying fire protection from a company), that was replaced by a socialist concept (pooling the community’s funds to pay for a municipal fire department that benefits all citizens), and exists within a capitalist system. Same with public schools, public libraries, parks, law enforcement (in concept, anyway), and more.
No political system could survive in its purest form. Any successful government is going to have to mix the best of all political systems, and reject the worst parts of them. That means lots of grey areas, which are hard for many people to accept. Many people need clearly delineated lines, and that’s not possible when your government is a Frankenstein’s monster, so they want a pure system, even if it doesn’t work as well.
No goverment services aren’t socialism do basic research before confidently stating blatantly wrong opinions.
It’s not blatantly wrong, you just can’t understand nuance, which is common for people who trust definitions over actual life. Fire departments were the earliest versions of insurance companies, who morphed into that business when their firefighting responsibilities were taken away by local fire departments. The original fire brigades would definitely have been considered a socialist concept, if the word had existed at that point. Eventually, as governments evolved, they took over fire brigades, and became fire departments.
Just because the government is the vehicle for offering the service to the citizens, doesn’t mean it isn’t made possible by the support and cooperation of the citizens, which is the basic concept of socialism - the people supporting a concept that benefits all.
And MAGA recognizes this, which is why they want to destroy anything that has socialist roots, like all those things I mentioned - libraries, museums, parks, schools, etc. The entire reason that MAGA is constantly trying to kill those things is precisely because they consider them Socialist influences on their obsessive objective of a purely Capitalist society that benefits only the wealthy, rather than a successful one that benefits all of its citizens.
There is no reason that both Socialism and Capitalism can’t co-exist successfully, as the Scandinavian nations have been demonstrating for decades.
Again you don’t understand those words at all the Scandinavian countries are in no way socialist. Socialism isn’t just a public service it means workers ownership of the means of production. Capitalism is incompatible with this meaning private ownership of the means of production for profit, you can’t nationalize some industries then call that a mix of socialism and capitalism you either have one or the other.
Great lets try that out; how much ownership do you think a worker has over the means of production, without the ability to choose a union not pre-appointed by the state?
There is a difference between theory in a book, and the way it operates in the actual world. There isn’t a single nation, government, or political system that exists by following textbook theory alone. So are we talking about Philosophical Political Theory, or are we talking Real World Politics?
A socialist and capitalist mixed system is what most countries already have. The social democracy serves people their rights and essential services and the capitalist market drives the “optional” part of the economy. You can, and should, argue that we leave too much up to the private sector, but don’t pretend that hybrid system is impossible. We already built it.
Why not?
Company ownership is already broken into shares. There’s no law of nature or logic that dictates how those shares are distributed. There are all sorts of ways to divide them between capital investors, labor investors, even outside stake holders like customers, suppliers, even simple neighbors. Any individual may be a labor investor in one company, and a capital investor in others. That one person would embody both your bourgeois and proletarian classes.
Again large economies are too complex for simple, clean, universal solutions. Their complexity necessitates more complex thinking.