• The_Terrible_Humbaba
    91·
    17 days ago

    Maybe keep reading:

    By the post-World War II period and its economic consensus and expansion, most social democrats in Europe had abandoned their ideological connection to orthodox Marxism. They shifted their emphasis toward social policy reform as a compromise between capitalism to socialism.[108]

    In Britain, the social democratic Gaitskellites emphasized the goals of personal liberty, social welfare, and social equality.[111] The Gaitskellites were part of a political consensus between the Labour and Conservative parties, famously dubbed Butskellism.

    You can also look at European countries which are social democracies, and you will see they are all capitalist countries. Here, also from wiki. I can tell you here in Portugal we have 2 parties which, according to the wiki, are also Social Democratic parties, and they are also the only two parties who have ever been in power. I can tell you first hand, I live in a capitalist system. According to the wiki, the UK’s Labour Party “is a political party in the United Kingdom that has been described as being an alliance of social democrats, democratic socialists and trade unionists”, do they seem socialist to you? And before you claim that they are because “they also have democratic socialists”, that would mean that by transitive property, USA’s Dem party is a socialist party. I guess the USA is socialist after all!

    • Dasus@lemmy.world
      16·
      17 days ago

      Maybe actually try to understand what you’re reading?

      You have this idiotic notion that all socialism is somehow government-planned economies and that all market economies are automatically capitalist.

      I honestly can’t express my sincere disappointment at how common that shit is.

      You can also look at European countries which are social democracies, and you will see they are all capitalist countries.

      I’m Finnish, and we are a socialist country, by definition. This isn’t even a remotely controversial thing to say in Finland, but weirdly when one engages people on mainly American forums, the black-and-white “no that’s communism, you’re capitalist countries” red-scare garbage comes out. And yes, I understand you’re Portuguese, but that doesn’t prevent you from having these asinine notions.

      You’re literally arguing that the very first sentence on the Wikipedia article on this exact subject, “social democracy”, is not only wrong, but in fact the truth is actually the polar opposite of what it says. I… I just fucking can’t with you people.

      Here are literary references to back up the statement in economical theory literature that social democracy is indeed a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism:

      Eatwell & Wright 1999, pp. 80–103; Newman 2005, p. 5; Heywood 2007, pp. 101, 134–136, 139; Ypi 2018; Watson 2019.

      Now I’ll wait for you to source your “social democracy is capitalism” bullshit, which you won’t, because there are no sources for anything remotely confirming that.

      • The_Terrible_Humbaba
        31·
        17 days ago

        ou have this idiotic notion that all socialism is somehow government-planned economies

        Imagine saying I don’t understand what I’m reading, and then accusing me of having “this idiotic notion that all socialism is somehow government-planned economies” when I never came close to saying that. I’m a Libertarian Socialist, jackass. Please go be disappointed at yourself.

        Sounds like you don’t even know the basics of what capitalism and socialism are. Do people in your country work for private companies? Do the people who own them make all executive decisions, reap profits, and pay (as little as they can) for other people to actually work? Are people able to use capital to buy into those companies and be in charge and reap the profits? Then that isn’t a socialist country. Having social welfare and regulations doesn’t make it a socialist country.

        You are arguing that “socialism”- something that has always stood in opposition to everything I just mentioned - can be used to describe a country that operates like a capitalist country because an article on Wikipedia has one sentence that says so.

        Here are literary references to back up the statement in economical theory literature that social democracy is indeed a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism:

        Eatwell & Wright 1999, pp. 80–103; Newman 2005, p. 5; Heywood 2007, pp. 101, 134–136, 139; Ypi 2018; Watson 2019.

        You literally just copied those from the previously linked Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is your source, I don’t believe you’ve read a single word from any of those works - nay, from any of those people. My sources: Das Kapital, The Communist Manifesto, The Conquest of Bread, and others, but above all, the real fucking world I live in. Edit: oh, and I guess I’ll also add the others parts from that same Wikipedia article, the ones I quoted previously and you ignored.

        • Dasus@lemmy.world
          12·
          17 days ago

          “I never came close to saying that”

          The fact that you don’t understand your own implications is pretty much the problem here. Whether consciously or not, you conflate the terms “market economy” and “capitalism”, which is quite as silly as thinking cell growth = cancer.

          I’ve read actual literature on this, and I’ve this exact “discussion” literally hundreds of times. Stomp your foot and cry all you want, that’s not going to change the actual literature of economic theory.

          Are people able to use capital to buy into those companies and be in charge and reap the profits?

          See, this is exactly the implication that all socialism is somehow some authoritarian communism. You just can’t understand how poorly you’ve perceived this. So you write things which argue that using currency makes a place capitalist in some way? That’s the real name for what people used to buy things; currency. Not capital, as when you’re living from paycheck to paycheck, you don’t have capital.

          “My source, Communist Manifesto”

          Your source for what? The modern definition of social democracy? You’ve never even held a copy of Das Kapital let alone have read it. I can assure you, Marx does not write “oh and social democracies are forms of capitalism, bruv”.

          Because they aren’t. And you’re arguing that modern actual literature on the subject, which is quoted on the very first sentence on the article about social democracy actually don’t matter, but your haphazard pretentious Lemmy comments should be taken as fact?

          Thanks for the laughs, big guy. :D

          • The_Terrible_Humbaba
            21·
            17 days ago

            I’ve read actual literature on this

            Sure, yet all you could do was copy past the wiki sources. You sound very well read!

            I’ll make simpler so you can understand - hell, I’ll even play the wiki game with you!

            Socialism :

            Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems[1] characterised by social ownership of the means of production,[2] as opposed to private ownership.

            Here are all the sources for that according to the wiki:

            spoiler

            Busky (2000), p. 2: “Socialism may be defined as movements for social ownership and control of the economy. It is this idea that is the common element found in the many forms of socialism.”

            Arnold (1994), pp. 7–8: “What else does a socialist economic system involve? Those who favor socialism generally speak of social ownership, social control, or socialization of the means of production as the distinctive positive feature of a socialist economic system.”

            Horvat (2000), pp. 1515–1516: “Just as private ownership defines capitalism, social ownership defines socialism. The essential characteristic of socialism in theory is that it destroys social hierarchies, and therefore leads to a politically and economically egalitarian society. Two closely related consequences follow. First, every individual is entitled to an equal ownership share that earns an aliquot part of the total social dividend… Second, in order to eliminate social hierarchy in the workplace, enterprises are run by those employed, and not by the representatives of private or state capital. Thus, the well-known historical tendency of the divorce between ownership and management is brought to an end. The society—i.e. every individual equally—owns capital and those who work are entitled to manage their own economic affairs.”

            Rosser & Barkley (2003), p. 53: “Socialism is an economic system characterised by state or collective ownership of the means of production, land, and capital.”;

            Badie, Berg-Schlosser & Morlino (2011), p. 2456: “Socialist systems are those regimes based on the economic and political theory of socialism, which advocates public ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.”

            Zimbalist, Sherman & Brown (1988), p. 7: “Pure socialism is defined as a system wherein all of the means of production are owned and run by the government and/or cooperative, nonprofit groups.”

            Brus (2015), p. 87: “This alteration in the relationship between economy and politics is evident in the very definition of a socialist economic system. The basic characteristic of such a system is generally reckoned to be the predominance of the social ownership of the means of production.”

            Hastings, Adrian; Mason, Alistair; Pyper, Hugh (2000). The Oxford Companion to Christian Thought. Oxford University Press. p. 677. ISBN 978-0198600244. “Socialists have always recognized that there are many possible forms of social ownership of which co-operative ownership is one…Nevertheless, socialism has throughout its history been inseparable from some form of common ownership. By its very nature it involves the abolition of private ownership of capital; bringing the means of production, distribution, and exchange into public ownership and control is central to its philosophy. It is difficult to see how it can survive, in theory or practice, without this central idea.”

            Interesting, uh?

            Wiki says Soc-Dem = Socialism

            Wiki says all parties that have governed my country are Soc-Dems

            Wiki says Socialism = socialy owning the means of production, opposed to private ownership

            In my countrie most companies are privatly owned, and the government has actually privatized previous national companies

            MFW the Wiki just contradicted it self

            It’s almost like you have to use critical thinking and can’t just take things you read on Wikipedia at face value!

            I’d say thanks for the laughs as well, but arguing with extremely ignorant but simultaneously extremely arrogant people is anything but fun.

            Now, quit acting like you’ve ever read anything other than the Wiki, and go to your local library to pick up a book. I’ma ignore you from now on, because there’s clearly nothing left to be gained for this conversation.

            • Dasus@lemmy.world
              11·
              17 days ago

              When you won’t agree with the most basic of definitions by going “no, not true, I know better but I don’t have cite anyone just trust me bruv”, then me citing who thinks that the very basic definition is actually the very basic definition, but you then continuing to disagree with it without being able to provide any sources at all… what use is trying to have a discussion? You’re not ready for one. You’ve made up your mind and you just haphazardly try to equivocate. Like I said, I’ve had this exact same conversation hundreds of times.

              So, to address your link… “maybe keep reading”?

              Types of socialism vary based on the role of markets and planning in resource allocation, and the structure of management in organizations. Socialist systems divide into non-market and market forms.

              Almost as if market economies weren’t all capitalist. Almost as if equating market economies to capitalism was as silly as equating cell growth to cancer. As established by me earlier, and the link you provided, modern socialism includes market socialism. Of course you might be oblivious to something like that if say, you were just pretending to understand the subject.

              So now that you realise that you can’t possibly back up your “social democracy is actually capitalism” garbage, you start shifting the goalposts, trying to equivocate on what socialism is in general. (Again, been here, done this, 2000000x)

              You’re now making the exact argument that I said you were, the entire time. You’re directly saying that there is no private ownership under socialism.

              Do us a service. Go to Google and type in “define socialism”.

              a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned OR REGULATED by the community as a whole.

              Again, thanks for the laughs.

              Edit, oh right, please do cite a source or any support for this “social democracy is capitalism” bullshit, why don’t you? I’ll wait here. :)