Merge between socialism and capitalism?

Watch
Cod3tte
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#1
Both have their ups, both have their downs. Both work in theory, but in real life it's quite different, depending on what kind of person you are.

So why not just eliminate the downs from both, and merge the positives together?

Just an idea.
0
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#2
Report 2 years ago
#2
(Original post by Cod3tte)
Both have their ups, both have their downs. Both work in theory, but in real life it's quite different, depending on what kind of person you are.

So why not just eliminate the downs from both, and merge the positives together?

Just an idea.
This has been done to varying degrees and is basically statism which every western state endorses.

You also get different blends such as fascism and social democracy.

Although I would consider myself an economic centrist there are also drawbacks with this state of affairs as there are with every economic system- for instance you may end up with bailing out essential public services or subsidising wealthy elites or become utterly stagnant and institutionalised.
0
reply
huncho4jack
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#3
Report 2 years ago
#3
(Original post by Cod3tte)
Both have their ups, both have their downs. Both work in theory, but in real life it's quite different, depending on what kind of person you are.

So why not just eliminate the downs from both, and merge the positives together?

Just an idea.
Google "third way". You'll find a lot of the neoliberals are like that.
0
reply
FakeNewsEditor
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 2 years ago
#4
It's basically what every single western country has been doing, including the US which a lot of people falsely label as "pure" capitalism (whatever that even means), since at least the end of WWII if not before that.
1
reply
shawn_o1
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#5
Report 2 years ago
#5
Seems as though the UK and US both have more capitalism than is healthy. And yes, socialism is more than just free healthcare
0
reply
DrMikeHuntHertz
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#6
Report 2 years ago
#6
People think socialism works but it doesn't, it just piggy backs off of the wealth that capitalism creates and once that wealth is gone, you end up like Venuezuela or worse.
1
reply
Jingo7
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#7
Report 2 years ago
#7
You can't eliminate the 'downsides' without also at the same time eliminating the 'upsides'. What you are saying is basically that you can have capitalism without capitalism, that you can have the 'good' of capitalism (economic growth) without it's shadows, extreme poverty, inequality etc.

It is a very basic dialectical point: you cannot have your cake and eat it too. You can't have capitalism without the 'shadows' that are constitutive of its basic functioning, it's inherent logic. Capitalism requires these shadows in order for its continued reproduction, its continued existence.

It generates these shadows in spite of what individuals, even individual capitalists, actually desire, because these shadows are not 'aberrations' or 'perversions' of a system which would (if perfected) provide amply for everyone on Earth, not just materially but also spiritually, these aberrations are fully a part of the logical and necessary functioning of capitalism.

A 'mixture of socialism and capitalism' only makes sense if you conceive of socialism as being reducible to Keynesian economic theory, which it is not, it is far, far more than that. But if that were true, we obviously already have a mixture of neoclassical and Keynesian economic theory in practise, because a pure free market economy is an utter fantasy, the state must regularly step in to break up monopolies, to raise or lower the interest rate, to enact minimum wage laws etc. etc.

Socialism is much more than this. I advise listening to some Richard Wolff lectures on Youtube, he has a simple way of explaining economic theory which I like.
1
reply
DrMikeHuntHertz
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#8
Report 2 years ago
#8
(Original post by Jingo7)
You can't eliminate the 'downsides' without also at the same time eliminating the 'upsides'. What you are saying is basically that you can have capitalism without capitalism, that you can have the 'good' of capitalism (economic growth) without it's shadows, extreme poverty, inequality etc.

It is a very basic dialectical point: you cannot have your cake and eat it too. You can't have capitalism without the 'shadows' that are constitutive of its basic functioning, it's inherent logic. Capitalism requires these shadows in order for its continued reproduction, its continued existence.

It generates these shadows in spite of what individuals, even individual capitalists, actually desire, because these shadows are not 'aberrations' or 'perversions' of a system which would (if perfected) provide amply for everyone on Earth, not just materially but also spiritually, these aberrations are fully a part of the logical and necessary functioning of capitalism.

A 'mixture of socialism and capitalism' only makes sense if you conceive of socialism as being reducible to Keynesian economic theory, which it is not, it is far, far more than that. But if that were true, we obviously already have a mixture of neoclassical and Keynesian economic theory in practise, because a pure free market economy is an utter fantasy, the state must regularly step in to break up monopolies, to raise or lower the interest rate, to enact minimum wage laws etc. etc.

Socialism is much more than this. I advise listening to some Richard Wolff lectures on Youtube, he has a simple way of explaining economic theory which I like.
The problem with Richard Wolff is that he doesn't really seem to understand what capitalism is, he attributes problems caused by socialism to it.
0
reply
Jingo7
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#9
Report 2 years ago
#9
(Original post by DrMikeHuntHertz)
The problem with Richard Wolff is that he doesn't really seem to understand what capitalism is, he attributes problems caused by socialism to it.
The problems caused by socialism? In our era, where socialism has been dead for at least 30 years, can you please elaborate what you mean by this? If you are making an equivalence between socialism, the complicated theoretical body of work and practical struggle that began even before Marx and found its strength in Marxism and the proletarian movement, and the body of theory known as Keyensian economic theory, then you are making a false equivalence. Keynes was specifically concerned with stabilising capitalism so as to avoid what he considered an inevitable communist future IF unrestrained capitalism continued, like in the 30s, to impoverish vast sections of the working class and drive them into the arms of the communists. Thus he advocated strong central banks, state investment etc. as the basis for AVOIDING socialism! Hardly a top socialist!

Howevet if this is not what you meant, please tell me.
0
reply
DrMikeHuntHertz
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#10
Report 2 years ago
#10
(Original post by Jingo7)
The problems caused by socialism? In our era, where socialism has been dead for at least 30 years, can you please elaborate what you mean by this? If you are making an equivalence between socialism, the complicated theoretical body of work and practical struggle that began even before Marx and found its strength in Marxism and the proletarian movement, and the body of theory known as Keyensian economic theory, then you are making a false equivalence. Keynes was specifically concerned with stabilising capitalism so as to avoid what he considered an inevitable communist future IF unrestrained capitalism continued, like in the 30s, to impoverish vast sections of the working class and drive them into the arms of the communists. Thus he advocated strong central banks, state investment etc. as the basis for AVOIDING socialism! Hardly a top socialist!

Howevet if this is not what you meant, please tell me.
It depends on what definition of capitalism/socialism you are using, I am going by the dictionary definition.
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#11
Report 2 years ago
#11
(Original post by Cod3tte)
Both have their ups, both have their downs. Both work in theory, but in real life it's quite different, depending on what kind of person you are.

So why not just eliminate the downs from both, and merge the positives together?

Just an idea.
This already exists, it is called social democracy and is the norm for most of the western world.
0
reply
username3672344
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#12
Report 2 years ago
#12
(Original post by Rakas21)
This already exists, it is called social democracy and is the norm for most of the western world.
Used to be. Social democracy seems to be on its death bed. In the early 2000s pretty much the whole of Europe had centre left or third way governments. Now it is only a handful.
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#13
Report 2 years ago
#13
(Original post by DeBruyne18)
Used to be. Social democracy seems to be on its death bed. In the early 2000s pretty much the whole of Europe had centre left or third way governments. Now it is only a handful.
Populism at the moment mainly relates to social policy. There are not many radical economic governments.
0
reply
Retired_Messiah
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#14
Report 2 years ago
#14
Pretty much every western nation already does some version of this.
0
reply
mojojojo101
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#15
Report 2 years ago
#15
(Original post by Rakas21)
This already exists, it is called social democracy and is the norm for most of the western world.
Social Democracy really isn't a blend of socialism and capitalism, it's just capitalism with lots of State spending.

Socialism and Capitalism are fundamentally incompatible with one another because the means of production cannot simultaneously be owned both privately and collectively at the same time.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Are you travelling in the Uni student travel window (3-9 Dec) to go home for Christmas?

Yes (58)
29.15%
No - I have already returned home (24)
12.06%
No - I plan on travelling outside these dates (45)
22.61%
No - I'm staying at my term time address over Christmas (19)
9.55%
No - I live at home during term anyway (53)
26.63%

Watched Threads

View All