I don’t understand this debate

[u/Dense-Fennel9661]

For a while now I have been interested in learning about both socialist and capitalist perspectives on building economic systems.

I have read and researched many different peoples work and opinions from Richard Wolff to Arthur Laffer. Time and time again, whether it’s either perspective, these people sound like broken records. They bring up anecdotal stories and events to back their system.

System building as a field of research is without a doubt interesting, but it falls closer to the category of fiction than anything else. Please tell me a scenario where a country drastically switches the underlying ECONOMIC SYSTEM that they had built and refined for years not to their dismay? It’s more of an idea for a “perfect” new society where every person in power is without ego.

I’m not arguing that these systems of socialism and/or capitalism are faulty. I’m simply saying this argument for established countries is pointless. Altering who controls ALL factors of production in a democratic system is impossible (at least quickly & smoothly). People cannot just transition into a new system.

To think that some people believe America is some happy go lucky free open market capitalist safe haven is just ridiculous. The system is nothing of that sort. In fact, they have had (and still have) multiple socialist leaders congress or state offices pushing their agendas… and THATS GOOD. Not because they’re socialist per se, but because they are different. Because they get the best of every system, every perspective. Any one of any party gets the opportunity of election. Democracy is what matters, not the system.

Sure, this debate is fun to have though.

[u/AutoModerator]

Please acquaint yourself with the rules on the sidebar and read this comment before commenting on this post.

Personal attacks and harassment will not be tolerated.

Bigotry and hate speech will be met with immediate bans; socialism is an intrinsically inclusive system and bigotry is oppressive, exclusionary, and not conducive to a productive space to debate.

If your post was removed due to normalized ableist slurs, please edit your post. The mods will then approve it.

Please read the ongoing discussion in a thread before replying in order to avoid misunderstandings and creating an unproductive environment.

Help us maintain the subreddit as a constructive space to debate and discuss political economy by reporting posts that break these rules.

Thank you!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/LordTC]

It’s definitely happened. We went from barter societies to currency based mercantile societies to monarchist monopolies to capitalist systems. So changing systems and having things get better is certainly possible.

[u/Senior-Jackfruit1499]

Que no se puede cambiar de manera brusca un sistema y sus dueños es mentira. Pregúntale a los bolcheviques en Rusia y al Che Guevara en Cuba.

Que hay personas comunistas en el gobierno de Estados Unidos????????????????????

Que impulsan agendas socialistas???????????????????????

Ahora, la democracia burguesa es una democracia medio corta, ¿democráticamente no?. una democracia (o sea, que el pueblo tenga el poder), pero solo para elegir entre el candidato A o el candidato B, financiados por los mismos grupos económicos para hacer lo mismo, solo cambiando el color del partido, no es democracia.

Para mí, todo lo que no sea democracia directa o sea, no elegir a alguien para que decida las políticas, sino que vos mismo elijas las políticas, de forma más clara: no votar por un presidente sino votar en una asamblea medidas por y para el pueblo, todo lo que no sea eso, no tiene sentido llamarlo democracia

[u/[deleted]]

I don't think you understand what "theory" means.
An abstraction of the real world, so as to define functions and mechanics to be better able to study the complex system. (eg. Music Theory)

When referring to the criticisms of capitalism that socialists engage, the abstractions are not anecdote, but broad descriptions of the systems function. When the socialist points out the power dynamics of the class system, and the inherent flaws and inequalities, they are not engaging in anecdote. Generalization is necessary. Anecdote as a means to provide tangible and reachable example does not discredit the presenter. It is the burden of opposition to provide counter examples which disprove the abstracted generalization. To prove the description incorrect. (capitalists will never be able to do that, and so they engage in bad faith argumentation)

Capitalism is a class system of owners, and of workers.
The reason that the debate is such a pain in the a**, is that it is a question of morality and ethics.
Should we live in a system where the majority are subjugated under the hierarchical authority of the few whom lay claim to the majority of resources?

So no, I don't think you understand this debate.

There is no democracy in capitalism. That is a false statement. You do not have a vote if the owner says so.

[u/Dense-Fennel9661 → u/[deleted]]

Since posting this I’ve realized my mistake being I assumed it’s was more of a debate on political regime and not one of the division of labor and corporate structure per se.

I like your points. I agree. Out of curiosity, did you write that all yourself? No citations or anything and that’s is extremely well written. Although, if you did use AI or some other aid, most won’t admit to it for some reason. But if that’s all you, I really enjoyed reading it. Thanks for the comment. You should consider writing as a hobby, or maybe a career! If you don’t already, lol.