Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

1.1K

(post is archived)

[–] [deleted] • 4 pts (edited )

Socialism has no businesses that exist to make a profit. So, no one really cares how well they do. In the real world, there are always small business's that are set up by savvy people so they can actually make some money on their own. They probably have to bribe local officials to stay in business.

[–] • 4 pts

What's the difference between Pepsi and Coke?

Similar recipes, different branding.

[–] [deleted] • 3 pts

The US doesn't employ capitalism anymore.

[–] • 2 pts

Only to the extent that any capitalism occurring is subject to a man in the middle exploit.

[–] • 1 pt

Surely you mean (((man))) in the middle?

[–] • 2 pts

Under Socialism (both Soviet and National Socialist kinds) able bodied people had to work or be sent to a Gulag (or KZ).

Under Socialism, the workers would be paid more and slackers less.

The money spent by the United States on an average welfare recipient is greater than the median wages. It's that generous. .

[–] • 1 pt

It's not the what, it's the why. They are both political philosophies and so both are routed in the way people think about things.

Under capitalism the belief is that people do own property and it is actually theirs. To the extent a government takes any of it, it is an exception to the rule and unfortunate.

Under socialist philosophy nobody has a right to anything. To the extent that anyone retains any good it is only a matter of practicality rather than any rights that person holds.

It is assumed that two very different philosophies would produce very different systems of government if everyone adopted the concepts and a government was built on those concepts. But all the possible governments that could forms from the first philosophy and all the governments that could form from the second philosophy do have some overlap.

[–] • 1 pt

If you're referring to the US, we really don't have a pure capitalist system, but one with plenty of (too much) mercantilism and socialism added in. While the Federal government doesn't own the means of production of any business it over-regulates nearly everything one does in business. Sometimes the intent of the regulation is good, but almost always the execution is bad.

I'd liken pure capitalism to pure democracy; it is unworkable above a certain size in population. Honestly, that's one serious problem with socialism, although not the worst one.

[–] • 1 pt

Socialism isn't just about services paid by tax money. It's also about private property and how many businesses are privately owned and operated. You can have a large welfare system and still have, private enterprise, private property and few regulations on commerce.

[–] • 1 pt

Under socialism you would be prosecuted for asking.

[–] • 1 pt

A more privatized variety of industry versus sliding down the slope to the "people's toilet paper". The welfare system is bloated and broken. When they actually "seize the means of production" the govt. ultimately fails b/c competition finds ways to do things cheaper. It also leads to over dependence on individual resources.

[–] • 2 pts

I thought communism was seizing the means of production.

[–] • 0 pt

Venezuela, oil, all just a matter of degrees.

[–] • 0 pt

Ok, I've learned under both socialism and communism the government owns the means of production. As far as I have read, the difference between them apparently is that under communism the government also controls the planning and distribution of resources.

[–] • 1 pt

I see it as a series of increments. Bloated welfare system, uncontrolled immigration, attracts people likely to be socialists, when system fails, new population votes for more and more govt control. Interestingly socialism is reversible as it starts to fail provided the mass immigration isn't there. Most the "nordic countries" politicians love to call "socialist" or "democratic socialist" reversed many of those policies 2 decades ago. It's why Denmark will be alright for the foreseeable future but Sweden is just fucked and destined to implode.

[–] • 1 pt

I wonder if anyone has studied the relationship between the expansion of mass immigration policies and the expansion of welfare policies. My guess would be they grow together and feed each other.