this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2023
28 points (78.0% liked)

Memes

45719 readers
1057 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] dartos@reddthat.com 0 points 1 year ago (18 children)

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@hexbear.net 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (13 children)

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 0 points 1 year ago (11 children)

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@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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@hexbear.net 3 points 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.

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (14 replies)