Comment by hypertele-Xii | Hacker News Reader

Comment by hypertele-Xii | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Which might be measured as the proportion of wealth owned by the wealthiest few, and the rest of the peoples. It's like a majority attack, on one side of wealth, on another of votes.

While the combined wealth of all voters exceeds that of the few lobbyists, in theory votes should win.

It's good to recall that democracy didn't come about in a vaccuum; It came about to displace monarchy. Because democracy is "fair", the aristocrats are among us with at least as much power as any of the rest of us.

The greater the wealth disparity, however, the more power they can purchase by bribing the poor politicians. Which in turn begs the masses to pay politicians well enough that corruption becomes at best unnecessary. The only remaining cure for greed is transparency, accountability, and journalism.

Therefore it is in the wealthy elite's interest to lobby for laws that erode any established amounts of the aforementioned qualities, steadily inching the power structures towards secrecy, carte blanche, and censorship.

Can you think of any government agency that has such powers? I'm thinking of several, and most of them are in the US. Capitalism is allergic to wealth redistribution, which is the true name for the action that begins to solve the issue. The only question is: How much?

One practical example is speeding tickets. AFAIK in the US speeding tickets are flat fees. So a wealthy person barely cares about speeding in traffic. In Finland, a more socialist republic, speeding tickets are proportional to income. So a wealthy person speeding will feel the hurt. Every so often some asshole with a Ferrari gets a million dollar speeding ticket. (possibly exaggerated, don't recall exact amounts)

Calling Finland socialist invalidates your whole post.

It hardly invalidates it, but it does point out how weird US political labelling is. The widespread use of "socialist" and "communist" for bits of extremely mild social democrat public policy.

No wonder there are so many twitter tankies when the right has been spending years saying that communism == free healthcare.

Parent didn't call Finland socialist, just said "more socialist".

If one considers "Capitalism" and "Socialism" as the two extremes of an economic organization continuum (which is reasonable), Finland is indeed "more socialist" (or better yet, less capitalist) than the US.

Europeans often follow the classical definition of socialism: non private ownership of means if production. Things like so socialist market economies without state regulation thereof, for example, are theoretically conceivable.

However, no European country is socialist in that sense. They have a lot of state involvement, or other public institutions, but they do have private property especially for means of production. That’s all there is to it, and calling Finland socialist seems rather inappropriate to Europeans. Indeed, to describe these different systems, other names are used, for example social democracy, or social market system etc.

For Americans, socialism is just the opposite of capitalism in every particular dimension, not just means of producing. So you can be more socialist in healthcare and so forth, even by having just more state control of things that are still privately owned.

Neither is wrong. It is a semantic misunderstanding.

Americans convey a lot of meaning by using single words. For example, just yelling socialism can now bring forth associations of all kinds, from Sweden to Stalin. Political discourse seems highly polysemic.

Europeans here are to some degree confused. It is not easy to keep up with the context of what socialism all means in the US, and how that meaning constantly shifts and gets new nuances.

But the vividness of it all is linguistically rather interesting.

Anyhow, no one is inherently wrong here.

I would however mention that we converse in English, on a US website. So there is that.

I think it’s Americans that are confused. They don’t allow any subtlety but scream “socialism” as soon as something deviates the slightest bit from their current system. This is probably by design to suppress meaningful discussion of a system that benefits the people on the top.

Americans being confused is hardly something one can avoid.

It's a false dichotomy. Both can coexist.

Both can coexist, but you can do it in a more capitalism or more socialist way.

Take e.g. healthcare. You can have all private healthcare (capitalist), a public and private sector coexisting (mixed), or exclusively public provider (socialist).

And that's just a sector. You can have socialist healthcare but capitalist manufacturing. Every economy is mixed, but it can balance to one side or the other.

(btw, all modern economies tend to be capitalist, but social democracies in Europe are definitely less capitalist than the US)

A big chunk of European systems are neither of those three, there are three axes, one is regulation, another the practice, and the final one is funding.

France for example, has mostly public funding, relatively heavy regulation (prices are fixed), but practice remains mostly private (though mixed in hospitals).

Switzerland has mostly private funding, even heavier regulation (insurance is mandatory and you can't be refused for pre-existing conditions, for example), and most practice is private (some public hospitals).

The big elephant in the room in US healthcare is that funding is 50/50, yet you can only benefit from the public part by being old or extremely poor.

That is an oversimplification. There is more defining Socialism than just healthcare. And having a solid social system in place is hardly a socialist thing.

I think their overall point is that it's possible to have sectors of the economy non-privately owned. Healthcare is a common one, but there's others - power generation, transit, education, etc.

If your definition of socialism is that absolutely all sectors of the economy are non-privately owned, then even places like Cuba don't qualify.

If your definition of capitalism is that absolutely all sectors of the economy ARE privately owned, the U.S. isn't a capitalist country.

Thank you, that was exactly my point.

nope, they cannot. in the real meaning of the words: capitalism protects unlimited capital accumulation and socialism forbids it.

they are at odds.

currently most nations have capitalism, often with some social policies in place (mainly to prevent uprisings).

I see this “mainly to prevent uprisings” idea asserted in lots of places but it strikes me as highly cynical. What’s the evidence this is the case? Even if a social policy was first introduced in response to uprisings, that doesn’t demonstrate that simply quelling the uprising was its sole purpose then, and it certainly doesn’t mean that’s the reason for its continued existence now

Most social policies where the results of strikes and demonstrations. See the Haymarket massacre, for instance.

That's a rather simplistic view of the matter.

They do coexist is most countries, just in different sectors. When a country collectively owns most of the healthcare means of production and protects it by law (e.g. by requiring emergency ambulances to go to public hospitals), how is that capitalism?

They are merely social policies, not socialism. Capitalism is the unlimited protection of personal wealth, thereby for instance allowing billionaires to exist.

That would make China not capitalistic, which is obviously wrong.

The central philosophy in capitalism is competition. The world is currently very acutely seeing the second and third order effects of such "winner takes all" philosophy, ranging from consumer-harming monopolies to environment-destroying profit-seeking. If we set socialism as an opposition to capitalism, it rises naturally to represent cooperation; The idea that everyone is entitled to a base level of creature comfort regardless of accumulated capital, and that in coming together to solve problems, rather than trying to one-up each other, problems can be solved more effectively and with less harm.

Competition is the hallmark of liberalism, or a free-market economy. Capitalism and a free market are pretty much orthogonally related (consider, if you will, the ideal capitalist state in which a single capitalist controls 100% of the market).

The central philosophy is capitalism sure isn't competition. It's the accumulation of wealth. It's usually accomplished by taking it from those who create it. Reducing competition enhances that accumulation, so effectively competition is the enemy of capitalism.

> The central philosophy is capitalism sure isn't competition. It's the accumulation of wealth.

Exactly. And I believe that the fact i have to explain this constantly is due to the very good PR of capitalism. "Capitalism is just free markets". No, it is not. Markets are not free, and capitalism needs more than "reasonably free markets", they need protection of wealth, no matter how much.

Now you've got my brain in a twist.

What about the other extreme (apparently equally ideal) case of a capitalist state in which every single person controls an equal share of the market? Doesn't that sound the least bit socialist to you?

Not really. Everyone having an equal ownership of capital is not the same as a central representative authority holding all capital. Democaratically syndicated ownership of capital is closer to (true) communism and the complete opposite of socialism.

No, you've described the caricature of capitalism that those opposed to it repeat to themselves to help justify their opposition. The central philosophy of capitalism is that voluntary trade leads, ultimately, to greater and more efficient production. That's not to say it's necessarily a straight line walk or that what is produced is necessarily pretty. Competition is a side effect that comes into play once you are producing something valuable to someone else willing to buy that something. It is a mechanism that keeps check on the bounds of prices and efficiency.

The real difference between capitalism and socialism is that capitalism requires voluntary action whereas socialism embraces compelled action. Socialist "cooperation" and "coming together to solve problems" are euphemisms for a politically powerful group to harness the productive output of the governed for its own purposes, without regard to if the perceived problems or the perceived solutions are real or not. Unless, of course, true socialist policy allows dissenters to opt-out of participation, in which case I withdraw my characterization. Assuming I'm right, I find the notion of "cooperate or else" far less appealing or moral than capitalism with all of the competition that comes with it.

Finally socialism doesn't eliminate competition... it only moves it from the marketplace to the seat of government. There is no grand collective, there is no "public good": there are individuals with differing beliefs, interests, and objectives. Once you put sufficient power in the government: the most ambitious individuals will compete for privileged positions within political movements rather than businesses, political movements will compete with alternative political movements for the reigns of government. Socialism doesn't remove fundamental human desires for prestige and power, it only redirects the energy into the mechanisms of state; and no that's not necessarily a benefit to the poor, or the underprivileged, or any other banner of victimization that you might fly to justify that state. The inability of a government program to fail means that the real world effectiveness any given government program (assuming that it's even a "right program") is secondary to its ability to attract political support. In capitalism, the voluntary aspect allows for failure if the business isn't producing the product efficiently or it isn't producing something that someone else actually wants or needs.

>are euphemisms for a politically powerful group to harness the productive output of the governed for its own purposes, without regard to if the perceived problems or the perceived solutions are real or not

This is unsubstantiated in that it posits the "politically powerful" as having nothing but their own interests in mind. Ignoring the possible retort I could make that then interests of the politically powerful can not only coincide with the will of the people but also be the will of the people - reformation would remove a significant monetary interest which is exposed time and time again behind the politically powerful. The drive to be politically powerful is thereby lessened, or at least changed.

>The real difference between capitalism and socialism is that capitalism requires voluntary action whereas socialism embraces compelled action.

There's plenty of scholarly work both from libertarian socialism, anarchism and defences of socialism from liberal principles; I'd recommend G.A. Cohen on this point.

> Socialism doesn't remove fundamental human desires for prestige and power, it only redirects the energy into the mechanisms of state

It's worth questioning to what extent fundamental human desires really are so fundamental, isn't it? I'm also not convinced prestige and power are bad things; arguably, that drive is how we have democracy in the first place, never mind the American revolution.

>and no that's not necessarily a benefit to the poor, or the underprivileged, or any other banner of victimization that you might fly to justify that state

There's a whole area of philosophical and economic research dedicated to what extent this is a good question - distributive justice and the theory of exploitation. If the only argument is that it's "not necessarily" the case, we'd have just as much of a case against some forms of markets in that they may satisfy consumer preferences as they create those preferences, not to other advantages.

> In capitalism, the voluntary aspect allows for failure

Democracy also allows for failure if the people do not see their will adequately reflected.

> the possible retort I could make that then interests of the politically powerful can not only coincide with the will of the people but also be the will of the people

The good old 'those noble and good hearted revolutionaries get to be the politically powerful and the "will" of the plebs better align with theirs, or else...'

In the end, there is only IngSoc!

With enough distribution of power, true, un-hijacked-by-lobby, democracy is possible and this will not happen.

> The central philosophy of capitalism is that voluntary trade leads, ultimately, to greater and more efficient production.

But only those who have capital get to participate (and even then the system is antagonistic between traders. everyone is trying to extract maximum value). Everyone else is forced into slavery (in everything but name) or left to die on the streets. Your value, as a person, is literally defined by the amount of money you have. If you have none, you are none.

> capitalism requires voluntary action whereas socialism embraces compelled action

This is an illusion. Under capitalism, you can choose to starve, sure. But what choice is that? When your value as a human being is tied to a monetary competition, you are either rich and alive or poor and struggling to survive.

Maybe people should be compelled? Any and all forms of government are essentially that, a force that compels people to behave in certain ways (under democracy, it's people compelling each other). Usually to do no harm as a baseline for civil society. Is that not a desirable quality of human civilization - people compelling each other to do good, or at least do no harm?

> euphemisms for a politically powerful group to harness the productive output of the governed for its own purposes, without regard to if the perceived problems or the perceived solutions are real or not.

Funny, because that's how I see capitalism. The capital elite (who own most capital) force those who don't to work for them (because their value as people is tied to their wealth which they can't survive without) and then barrage them with endless advertisements for consumer products scientifically engineered to be as addicting and rapidly obsolete as possible while offering little actual utility.

> Socialism doesn't remove fundamental human desires for prestige and power, it only redirects the energy into the mechanisms of state

Neither does capitalism. There the energy is directed into profit maximization at all cost and with limited liability for the consequences. And when costs are considered, a money-less person has zero value and is completely ignored.

------------

It's an interesting discussion. Yes I'm caricaturizing. I'm not a communist, nor completely opposed to capitalism. There's merit in what you say. But just like with communism, we can't look at the idealized version. Capitalism has given us a lot. But it's also destroying the planet, which we didn't know about until fairly recently in civilized history.

Ideally we'd move competition up to a planetary level where we all work together to colonize space. There it probably causes the least harm.

> The central philosophy of capitalism is that voluntary trade leads, ultimately, to greater and more efficient production.

That's also what "market socialists" believe, but still they are very different.

The central underpinning of capitalism is the protection of personal wealth, ad infinitum. Thereby allowing capitalists a.k.a. billionaires to exist.

Finland maintains a healthy distance to the west's extreme capitalism. Healthcare is free. Education is free (and mandatory). Housing is free. Water is free. Electricity is free. Internet is free. The government owns the only railroad. Many governments, including the current one, consist of majority Social Democratic Party. Convicted criminals can still vote. All males are drafted into the army. Newborns receive a free package of baby products. Taxes are among the highest in the world (wealth redistribution). There is a sizable political national-socialist sentiment (a little worrying even).

I'll grant you, the communist-leaning powers did lose the civil war in 1918 though.

> Education is free (and mandatory).

Yes.

> Healthcare is free.

Not quite, but close. There's a token payment for using the services. Prescription meds are covered when they go over ~€500/year. Social services will cover for you if you can't pay.

> Housing is free. Water is free. Electricity is free. Internet is free.

No, unless you have no property (you need to sell or lose everything first) and no income, in which case the social services covers the basic necessities for you: housing, water, electricity, even internet access are considered basic necessities.

> Convicted criminals can still vote. All males are drafted into the army.

I don't see what either of these has to do with capitalist/socialist.

None of those are policies exclusive to a socialist system. But what do i know about Social Democracy, im just Swedish.

But you do know that historically, 'Social Democratic' is just a name chosen by European socialist parties for themselves? The membership list[1] of the Party of European Socialists (known as Europeiska socialdemokratiska partiet in Swedish) reflects this to this day.

It is of course true that a Social Democracy is not a fully socialist society, but that discussion was already had last century during the Revisionismusdebatt kicked off by Eduard Bernstein in 1896.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_of_European_Socialists#M...

Yes, but these parties use 'social democratic' after a split of socialist parties in 1920s into social democratic parties and communist parties. So no need to use 'socialist' instead of 'social democratic' unless you want to dogwhistle to communist supporters.

Also note that this meaning of term 'socialist' is rather archaic (and not in opposition to term 'capitalist'). The modern meaning of 'socialism' is to describe economic system in countries of soviet communist bloc.

> Yes, but these parties use 'social democratic' after a split of socialist parties in 1920s

Depends on the country: The parties are still called 'socialist' to this day in Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal, Spain.

> The modern meaning of 'socialism' is to describe economic system in countries of soviet communist bloc.

Quote German Wikipedia on Sozialismus[1], which views Sozialdemokratie as one of its branches:

> Demzufolge wird auch grob zwischen den Ausrichtungen von Kommunismus, Sozialdemokratie oder Anarchismus differenziert.

> Hence one differentiates roughly between the strains of Communism, Social Democracy or Anarchism.

Quote Wikipedia on Sozialdemokratie[2]:

> Sozialdemokratie ist eine politische Bewegung und politische Ideologie der Linken, die sich selbst – mal mehr, mal weniger stark ausgeprägt – als Form eines reformistischen demokratischen Sozialismus betrachtet.

> Social Democracy is a political movement and political ideology of the left, which views itself - sometimes to a greater, sometimes to a lesser extent - as a form of reformist democratic socialism.

Quote Hamburger Programm, the German SPD's party platform[3]:

> The end of the soviet type state socialism did not disprove the idea of democratic socialism but it clearly confirmed the orientation of social democracy towards core values. In our understanding democratic socialism remains the vision of a free and fair society in solidarity. Its realization is a permanent task for us. The principle for our actions is social democracy.

[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sozialismus

[2] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sozialdemokratie

[3] https://www.spd.de/fileadmin/Dokumente/Beschluesse/Grundsatz...

Please indicate which of these policies are presented by the extremely capitalist US, which I compared Finland to.

> Electricity is free

That's hard to believe. Can I just go there (as an EU citizen) and mine bitcoins for free?

Free to a point. The government has a (supposedly) reasonable ceiling for electricity consumption. I actually hit that ceiling a while back, but got the decision overturned by complaining about it. I'm running a fair bit of tech 24/7 including electric heating (given Finland winters), no bitcoins though.

I've yet to study the exact nature of the EU with regards to social support, so I don't know if you could just come here and collect welfare.

I don't understand your last sentence. Is electricity free only for those who collect social welfare?

Yes. You have to be a Finnish citizen with no income to qualify.

Everyone not participating in the capitalist economy (by owning business or being employed at one) is essentially a government/military reserve employee on indefinite paid leave receiving a budget that covers virtually all living expenses to quite a reasonable standard. And it's baseline, every citizen eligible, other obligations withstanding. You'd have to really make a mess of your life to not live comfortably.

The only downside is, if there's war, I have to give my life for the country. Which, given Finland's history (defensiveness and neutrality), seems like a good deal to me. Most men get actively recalled to military trainings; I've personally been exempt during peacetime.

I could indeed mine bitcoins for free. But that'd be a gross misuse of my time and resources. I'd rather create something meaningful than literally waste electricity just to prove that I have it (the idiotic quality of proof-of-work cryptocurrency).

>not participating in the capitalist economy

Does this definition include people who actively refusing to be employed, or is there any kind of law obligations to work?

Including active refusal, yes. It's baseline.

The "catches" to everything being free: - Cannot save any money whatsoever. As with all government budgets, what you don't spend is deducted from the next check. - Can receive a maximum of around $50/month from anywhere else. Anything above that is deducted from the next check. - Cannot own much property. They want you to sell everything and live off that first. - Have to report all your assets and provide bank statements to all accounts. - Have to be prepared to fight the bureaucracy. They make mistakes, and usually against your interest (we won't pay because X). Complaining has always solved all issues for me, but it takes two weeks minimum to get an answer. If you didn't file everything correctly two weeks before you needed it, you might go half a month with no money until it resolves. Unless you show up at the office crying. Then they'll help you on the spot. Information doesn't flow between departments; You have to provide everything any department asks regardless if they have your info elsewhere in the system. Often they require you apply for a different benefit first, even if everybody knows you don't qualify; They require the rejection to proceed. Add another two weeks.

And the real bummer: - If you work, everything stops. So you can't work part-time. You have to earn at least as much as the welfare for working to make any economic sense. It's annoying. I'd like to work occasionally, but there's no point. The choice is between doing nothing and getting X, or spending all your time and energy working 8 hours a day, five days a week and getting X+1. Some people go crazy without jobs; I'm creative and self-driven so I make all kinds of stuff by myself. It's pretty neat.

And there's always cash. What they can't track they can't take away... Gifts best given in cash. Unused budget best withdrawn from an ATM and stashed in the matress. God UBI would do so much good here. People stuck in this "welfare trap" could actually work a little to improve their standing.

Seems like you and everyone in the replies to your comment may have misconstrued what the parent meant; if he's from Europe, socialist isn't a dirty word like the US. In most of Europe it's quite a positive thing to say your government is more socialist, or has more socialist policies

It should be mentioned that Denmark, which has often been pointed to as an example of a successful socialist country is not socialist. The country's politicians vociferously protest against this label and going by Engels' own definition, the country is not at all socialist.

It is extremely capitalist with classical hierarchies of business ownership. High tax, free healthcare and free schooling does not make a country even remotely socialist.

So what does make a country even remotely socialist, in your opinion?

Workers owning the means of production.

That sounds a lot more socialist than just "remotely". According to Wikipedia, it's the defining characteristic of socialism.

If it doesn't meet this definition, I wouldn't call it socialist. Otherwise, the word socialism would lose its meaning. California having high taxes does not make it socialist. Austria having free education does not make it socialist.

Purple is more red than blue is red. This doesn't make the word "red" lose its meaning. In my opinion, it gives the word more meaning by defining it as a spectrum of quality. Thus we can plot colors on a spectrum of red-ness, which can be useful for certain applications.

Similarily for capitalism-socialism. It is a spectrum. The United States represents one extreme, where something like, I don't know, North Korea maybe represents the other. And Finland is somewhere in-between.

That is not a good comparison. Blue and red are well defined as high frequency and low frequency electromagnetic radiation. Capitalism and socialism, on the other hand, are very vague terms, and I think the many discussions here prove that.

Take, for example, a country where the majority of things are privately run but are heavily taxed by the government. Is that more capitalist or socialist than a country where most of the economy is run by the government, but the remaining private businesses pay little to no taxes?

Or a country where one party owns everything but pretends to act on behalf of the workers, as opposed to a country where everyone is a business owner? Or a country that has little labor regulation but a strong social safety net, versus a country with weak social welfare but strict labor regulation?

The socialst dream is the class-less, egalitarian, solidary society.

The whole point of reformist socialism is that you should not try to get there in a single giant leap, but step by step, with the fully socialist society more of a Platonic ideal: There'll likely always be a next thing to fix.

Austria having free education does not make it socialist - but it makes it more socialist.

I think we have to be careful here because none of these countries which we have thus far mentioned have any ambitions of attaining the socialist crown you speak of. They like it the way it is: capitalist with strong protections for and investments (education, healthcare) in their capital producing peoples.

Indeed. Hence, not every Social Democrat can be considered a socialist - only progressive ones that still dream of a better world instead of having made peace with the status quo.

Not having some of the largest wealth inequality in the world (look it up).

A textbook reformist democratic socialist policy would be giving employees a seat on the board of directors, or allocating some company shares of publicly traded companies to them.

If Bernie Sanders had his way[1] and this was implemented in the US, the country would become more socialist.

[1] https://berniesanders.com/issues/corporate-accountability-an...

Sanders here mentions similar policy in Germany, but forgot to mention differences between US and german corporate governance models (one board vs two boards). In Germany (and many other EU countries), companies have executive board and supervisory board, the later is mainly to provide monitoring role and that is the board where empolyees have seat on.

No, you are even more wrong. Social democracy is not socialism. The state doing stuff is not socialism. A functional health care system is not socialism. The bare minimum of being socialist is to want to transition away from a capitalist system which no country in Europe has any ambitions.

Compared to the US, in terms of the US political dictionary it prolly is.

But no: socialism by the most agreed on definitions in the rest of the world needs some sort of wealth cap that Finland has not.

I think he's Finnish himself, but "socialist" was probably a harsh word here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com