We have a blatant politically aligned trillionaire, capitalism has now become a power structure that will devour both, not by means of authority or force, just from the attrition of allowing a trillionaire to exist and by that very existence we will be consumed via interest alone. Everything is now resource control, and capitalism is the only lever of power because we’ve allowed one singular entity to have that level of capital influence and control.
Conceptually I agree, this is how these systems would be competently applied for stable political structures, but we’re not working with stable structures anymore and in practice that’s not how it’s been working. If we had politicians who actually understood political and economic systems and structures and gave the slightest shit about stability and longevity (this isn’t just America, this is a global statement) then these logics would apply, but nigh every politician is currently trying, feverishly, to hammer the square block through the round hole and they will die before they ever stop.
This is a very typical style of response I get whenever I make statements concerning socialism and communism. The conversation immediately veers into a condemnation of capitalism without actually addressing the point that was being made.
The issue is that people constantly conflate different economic and political concepts. Criticizing problems within modern capitalism does not somehow prove that socialism or communism are the solution, nor does it address the historical record of governments that have implemented those systems. Additionally, the United States today is not a pure free-market capitalist system; it is a mixed economy with significant government involvement, and many would argue that increasing corporate influence has created elements of a corporatocracy. Critiquing that reality is a separate discussion from whether socialism or communism has historically produced the outcomes its proponents claim.
The Soviet Union under Stalin resulted in forced collectivization, political purges, labor camps, and millions of deaths. Mao’s China implemented policies like the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, which led to widespread famine, persecution, and the deaths of tens of millions. Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge attempted to create an agrarian communist society and carried out a genocide against its own population. North Korea developed into one of the most authoritarian states in modern history under a communist government. Venezuela’s economic collapse occurred under a government that described itself as socialist, though the causes and degree of responsibility are debated. Cuba’s communist government has maintained political repression and restricted political freedoms for decades.
None of this means capitalism is perfect or immune from corruption, inequality, or abuses of power. Every system requires competent institutions, accountability, and safeguards against the concentration of power. But pointing out flaws in capitalism does not erase the historical outcomes of socialist and communist governments.
The original point remains: healthcare and other public services are not inherently socialist. A government providing a service does not automatically change the underlying economic system. Socialism and capitalism primarily refer to ownership and control of economic resources, not simply whether a government funds or provides certain programs.
A capitalist democracy can have universal healthcare. A socialist state can be authoritarian. These are separate concepts, and confusing them prevents any meaningful discussion about economics or political systems.
Ok, that’s all true on a level of academia, but practiced politics and policy aren’t academia. None of that changes that the main antagonist in our current political situation is authoritarian capitalism and people who don’t understand politics nor political or economic systems. You’re acting like the everyday person and commenter not understanding these things is the problem when the politicians and world leaders in charge not understanding these things is the problem.
I’m not relying on academic jargon in my responses. I’m simply correcting statements that are objectively incorrect.
A very common trend on this platform is that people attribute everything good a government does to socialism and everything bad to capitalism. They use these terms colloquially, often repeating misconceptions they’ve picked up here or elsewhere, even when those claims are objectively wrong.
That’s where I come in. I find myself correcting the same errors over and over again.
Then someone like you comes along and immediately starts throwing around terms like authoritarianism, dictatorship, capitalism, socialism, and communism, as though they settle the issue. But that has nothing to do with the point I’m making. I’m simply saying that universal healthcare is not inherently a feature of a socialist economy. Any government, regardless of its economic system, can establish a public healthcare program. Providing public services is one of the basic functions of government.
It seems like you’re trying to have a very particular kind of conversation, one where both participants already agree about how terrible capitalism is or how much they dislike the United States, and the discussion becomes little more than mutual validation disguised as debate.
I’m doing something different. I’m telling you that you’re wrong. Even when some of the individual facts you mention are true, you’re using them sophistically to push a broader narrative. And when I say “you,” I mean that in the royal sense, not necessarily you personally, although some of what you’ve written does fit that pattern.
I don’t know if that’s simply your comfort zone or what you’re ultimately hope to achieve. The United States is objectively doing many things badly; that’s not what we’re debating. My goal isn’t to defend capitalism. It’s to inform people about what socialism actually is, rather than allowing the term to be used as a catch-all label for any government program or policy.
We have a blatant politically aligned trillionaire, capitalism has now become a power structure that will devour both, not by means of authority or force, just from the attrition of allowing a trillionaire to exist and by that very existence we will be consumed via interest alone. Everything is now resource control, and capitalism is the only lever of power because we’ve allowed one singular entity to have that level of capital influence and control.
Conceptually I agree, this is how these systems would be competently applied for stable political structures, but we’re not working with stable structures anymore and in practice that’s not how it’s been working. If we had politicians who actually understood political and economic systems and structures and gave the slightest shit about stability and longevity (this isn’t just America, this is a global statement) then these logics would apply, but nigh every politician is currently trying, feverishly, to hammer the square block through the round hole and they will die before they ever stop.
This is a very typical style of response I get whenever I make statements concerning socialism and communism. The conversation immediately veers into a condemnation of capitalism without actually addressing the point that was being made.
The issue is that people constantly conflate different economic and political concepts. Criticizing problems within modern capitalism does not somehow prove that socialism or communism are the solution, nor does it address the historical record of governments that have implemented those systems. Additionally, the United States today is not a pure free-market capitalist system; it is a mixed economy with significant government involvement, and many would argue that increasing corporate influence has created elements of a corporatocracy. Critiquing that reality is a separate discussion from whether socialism or communism has historically produced the outcomes its proponents claim.
The Soviet Union under Stalin resulted in forced collectivization, political purges, labor camps, and millions of deaths. Mao’s China implemented policies like the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, which led to widespread famine, persecution, and the deaths of tens of millions. Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge attempted to create an agrarian communist society and carried out a genocide against its own population. North Korea developed into one of the most authoritarian states in modern history under a communist government. Venezuela’s economic collapse occurred under a government that described itself as socialist, though the causes and degree of responsibility are debated. Cuba’s communist government has maintained political repression and restricted political freedoms for decades.
None of this means capitalism is perfect or immune from corruption, inequality, or abuses of power. Every system requires competent institutions, accountability, and safeguards against the concentration of power. But pointing out flaws in capitalism does not erase the historical outcomes of socialist and communist governments.
The original point remains: healthcare and other public services are not inherently socialist. A government providing a service does not automatically change the underlying economic system. Socialism and capitalism primarily refer to ownership and control of economic resources, not simply whether a government funds or provides certain programs.
A capitalist democracy can have universal healthcare. A socialist state can be authoritarian. These are separate concepts, and confusing them prevents any meaningful discussion about economics or political systems.
Ok, that’s all true on a level of academia, but practiced politics and policy aren’t academia. None of that changes that the main antagonist in our current political situation is authoritarian capitalism and people who don’t understand politics nor political or economic systems. You’re acting like the everyday person and commenter not understanding these things is the problem when the politicians and world leaders in charge not understanding these things is the problem.
I’m not relying on academic jargon in my responses. I’m simply correcting statements that are objectively incorrect.
A very common trend on this platform is that people attribute everything good a government does to socialism and everything bad to capitalism. They use these terms colloquially, often repeating misconceptions they’ve picked up here or elsewhere, even when those claims are objectively wrong.
That’s where I come in. I find myself correcting the same errors over and over again.
Then someone like you comes along and immediately starts throwing around terms like authoritarianism, dictatorship, capitalism, socialism, and communism, as though they settle the issue. But that has nothing to do with the point I’m making. I’m simply saying that universal healthcare is not inherently a feature of a socialist economy. Any government, regardless of its economic system, can establish a public healthcare program. Providing public services is one of the basic functions of government.
It seems like you’re trying to have a very particular kind of conversation, one where both participants already agree about how terrible capitalism is or how much they dislike the United States, and the discussion becomes little more than mutual validation disguised as debate.
I’m doing something different. I’m telling you that you’re wrong. Even when some of the individual facts you mention are true, you’re using them sophistically to push a broader narrative. And when I say “you,” I mean that in the royal sense, not necessarily you personally, although some of what you’ve written does fit that pattern.
I don’t know if that’s simply your comfort zone or what you’re ultimately hope to achieve. The United States is objectively doing many things badly; that’s not what we’re debating. My goal isn’t to defend capitalism. It’s to inform people about what socialism actually is, rather than allowing the term to be used as a catch-all label for any government program or policy.
You’re a pedant.