"Democratic socialism" vs. Capitalism

The idea is per se utopian. And just how it worked in practice. So then the structures talk about 200 to 300 years living in the dictatorship of the proletariat, so once an ideal will come. Those who are not patient awaiting an ideal are public enemies and must be isolated because of dumping the system from the inside. Inner and outer enemies and similar phrases. Nothing must surprise us. In the tunnel in the middle of the dark shines the five-pointed red star. Lol!

In addition, and while it’s unpopular to say so, most people are idiots. I’d rather have a system that lets me isolate my production and reward dynamic from the rest of the pack as much as possible.

I think you are referring to state run social means of production. That is not necessarily what social democrats want. To them it is more about the rights if workers. Think family run business… but scaled up to the size of corporations. Seems to me (and this is my question/ argument, not theirs) that this system would still allow for the checks and balances of competition thereby equalizing supply and demand.

Im currently reading “The Virtue of Selfishness” and will then be moving onto “The Fountainhead” shortly. So yes, my current perspective is already coming from an anti altruistic place.

Socialism is morally wrong.

Actually one of the main objectives stated by democratic socialists is decentralization of economic structure. Sounds pretty consistent with Libertarians to me! Remember, socially owned means of production is potentially a very Libertarian point of view when the ownership is local collective rather than the state.

Taking a cue from N. Taleb, the current system of capitalism allows for an unethical exploitation of who takes the risk, who avoids risk, and who rewards most for it. He is critical of the corporate system and I would have to agree. A collective ownership, NOT state run (as suggested by Democratic Socialists) would create a more “skin in the game” scenario (excuse the buzz word)

That being said, Im not sure an upheaval of society or revolt would be worth the prize. I’m ok will the system as it is knowing what I know today, but as I learn more that could change. My main objective here is to understand what modern socialist want and gain an informed personal opinion on it.

isn’t this just unionism though, which we currently have? if its about rights, that what unions fight for. if its about outright ownership, unions have used their power to gain corporate ownership/control in the past.

from my searchings, it appears that the main point of democratic socialism is the social ownership of the means of production. whether that social ownership is by trade or by society as a whole doesn’t really matter. it is still social ownership and in the end will likely result in de facto state ownership as trades/guilds unite to become the most powerful trade/guild. this has been seen in unionism today. only a handful of unions effectively control all unionized employees today, down from hundreds a few short decades ago. remember that we all belong to the state so if the state = one giant union, its the same result.

once you switch from a profit motive to a labour motive, the supply/demand imblance gets thrown out of whack. yes, capitalism today has its moments where supply and demand get dislodged but it is all about how quickly the balance is re-established. a capitalist society guarantees the fastest and most accurate supply/demand response and reduces suffering the fastest.

Image result for social democracy

^^Social democracy does not equal democratic socialist

No, no, no…there’s nothing anti-altruistic about being selfish. In fact, I’d argue most people’s altruism comes from a selfish place, and that’s fine. If being charitable makes you happy, it’s right in line with libertarianism, and to a lesser extent Randism.

This thread is a mess. Being that’s it’s Friday and I’m on a crapton of painkillers (broke a rib, but now feeling awesome) I don’t have the energy to straighten you all out.

i always thought libertarians were anarchists. laissez faire economics with no rules like menage a trois relations!

state enterprise typically limit supply because there is no profit incentive to motivate capitalists to enter the arena!

if you are a worker, you are being exploited. unless you are overpaid, and the only way you are overpaid is if you are unprofitable. and if you are unprofitable, your prices are way too high, you need to cut it!!! or get fired :slight_smile:

i really meant democratic socialist the whole time. its just easier to type lol social democrat. lol

Image result for democratic socialism simple politics

Image result for democratic socialism simple politics

great response. In my imagining what collective ownership meant, I stopped at the idealistic phase.

Well, the way Rand explains it is that the idea of “altruism” is borderline evil because it exploits the highest value there is, an individuals life. To her, giving/ contribution is to be done when the price of doing so is worth what the giver gives up. Altruism assumes “sacrifice”, meaning your give more than what the return is worth to you. To her that mentaility creates a society of resentment, mutual enslavement and neediness. So, she is saying what you are saying, but using “altruism” is a very specific way.

I think what you’re describing is “Libertarian Socialism”. From what I can tell, it’s where all 400 million people in America get together and decide that “we the people” should collectively own all the capital for the common good. The government is a Libertarian one that apparently freely allows this to happen, and nobody (government officials nor the citizenry) attempt to exploit any weaknesses to their own advantage.

This is distinctively different from “Democratic Socialism”, where the democratic government owns all the capital.

This is my understanding, anyway.

Image result for ayn rand funny

^5/7. Perfect.