I disagree. I think neither capitalism or any other system is really good as one catch all way of running society. I think capitalism has it's place, but only with tight regulation by the citizenry and when socialism is a strong base of the civilization.
It's frustrating to see people who think like this especially when the end results of their beliefs is still just capitalism
It's frustrating, but Marxism/communism are forbidden topics in American culture. This is how I used to think till I realized that socialists were already having the discussions that I wanted to be happening (cause discussions about topics like "wtf are we supposed to do when 80+% of the jobs needed to feed/house/clothe people are automated?" are completely inadequate within the bounds of liberalism ["people will simply find new jobs that they will work at for ~40 hours a week"]). Hopefully this person is on the right track.
We rightly dunk on soc-dems and the like all the time, but we need to remember that many (though probably not a majority) manage to educate themselves over time (Peter Daou has obviously been doing this, for instance), but as they move left, there are people filling in right behind them. Sometimes it appears that succ-dems constantly succ (once again, a ton of them do), but a lot of them only succ temporarily.
Markets make absolutly no sense without privat property and commodity production. Market economies are capitalist economies it's literally the same thing.
Markets make only sense if money exists and then obviously the goal of every rational individuum is to maximise profits, increase surplus value production, crush the competition and so on...., because that gives you the most money and money gives you all the things including human labour you can use to make more surplus value (thats capitalism).
A socialist economy is an economy were production isn't mediated by markets but already part of a societal plan of prodution and consumption.
I typed out a longer reply, but my point was that markets have existed much longer than capitalism and does not necessarily equate to a market economy.
I used an example of people advising planners whether they wanted saris or tshirts with votes on their personal preferences (up to an predetermined limit based on the appropriate resource use) and said that this was essentially a market in a broad sense.
I would appreciate any insight you have on what better phrasing would be.
Right, it took me several years to understand what socialism and Marxism are and are not. Some things go hand-in-hand (markets and capitalism, wealth redistribution and socialism), but that does not make them the same thing.
Wealth distribution is a socdem thing, it's only a meaningful concept to any significant extent as a band-aid applied to an exploitative system. A socialist/communist economy has a fundamentally different management of resources and production (democratic control, central planning, production-for-use) in the first places; instead of letting commodity production and free-markets have control and using taxation/spending policy to affect outcomes by tweaking parameters and plugging holes.
Yeah I guess it's more accurate to say that under socialism the wealth is already distributed in an equitable manner, so it doesn't need to be redistributed. Nonetheless, most socialists will advocate for redistribution under capitalism unless you're going for the accelerationist angle. That's why I'd say they go hand-in-hand (maybe there's a bit more distance than that), but they are definitely not synonymous, like you said.
It's frustrating to see people who think like this especially when the end results of their beliefs is still just capitalism
It's frustrating, but Marxism/communism are forbidden topics in American culture. This is how I used to think till I realized that socialists were already having the discussions that I wanted to be happening (cause discussions about topics like "wtf are we supposed to do when 80+% of the jobs needed to feed/house/clothe people are automated?" are completely inadequate within the bounds of liberalism ["people will simply find new jobs that they will work at for ~40 hours a week"]). Hopefully this person is on the right track.
We rightly dunk on soc-dems and the like all the time, but we need to remember that many (though probably not a majority) manage to educate themselves over time (Peter Daou has obviously been doing this, for instance), but as they move left, there are people filling in right behind them. Sometimes it appears that succ-dems constantly succ (once again, a ton of them do), but a lot of them only succ temporarily.
It's also because people don't understand that personal property, markets, trading etc. are not necessarily capitalist
Markets make absolutly no sense without privat property and commodity production. Market economies are capitalist economies it's literally the same thing. Markets make only sense if money exists and then obviously the goal of every rational individuum is to maximise profits, increase surplus value production, crush the competition and so on...., because that gives you the most money and money gives you all the things including human labour you can use to make more surplus value (thats capitalism). A socialist economy is an economy were production isn't mediated by markets but already part of a societal plan of prodution and consumption.
I typed out a longer reply, but my point was that markets have existed much longer than capitalism and does not necessarily equate to a market economy.
I used an example of people advising planners whether they wanted saris or tshirts with votes on their personal preferences (up to an predetermined limit based on the appropriate resource use) and said that this was essentially a market in a broad sense.
I would appreciate any insight you have on what better phrasing would be.
Right, it took me several years to understand what socialism and Marxism are and are not. Some things go hand-in-hand (markets and capitalism, wealth redistribution and socialism), but that does not make them the same thing.
Wealth distribution is a socdem thing, it's only a meaningful concept to any significant extent as a band-aid applied to an exploitative system. A socialist/communist economy has a fundamentally different management of resources and production (democratic control, central planning, production-for-use) in the first places; instead of letting commodity production and free-markets have control and using taxation/spending policy to affect outcomes by tweaking parameters and plugging holes.
Yeah I guess it's more accurate to say that under socialism the wealth is already distributed in an equitable manner, so it doesn't need to be redistributed. Nonetheless, most socialists will advocate for redistribution under capitalism unless you're going for the accelerationist angle. That's why I'd say they go hand-in-hand (maybe there's a bit more distance than that), but they are definitely not synonymous, like you said.
they just need to succ up all the communsim
Yeah, that was actually my comment they were replying to with that (but don’t tell).