Mix Capitalism and Socialism

This liberal believes that capitalism and socialism can be mixed.

youtube.com/watch?v=NS2rgyFTixA

There are literally 100s of youtube videos of liberals misunderstanding socialism and saying retarded shit like this.

Who gives a fuck? Why would you post this?

I know people who still think Socialism = government regulation, high taxes and everyone being paid equal wages by their boss. They don't even know it doesn't mean equal pay necessarily or the fact the wage system would be abolished and there wouldn't be beurcratic bosses as in Capitalism.

Can someone actually explain why socialism can't be practiced in states with private property laws?

It can, but the property is collectively owned. Private property just means the state's laws permit people to have legal holdings of property in their name. Instead of like one individual owning a whole damn factory it would be split in ownership between everyone involved with the factory and democratically operated. Communism requires the abolition of private property.

Because the more people they convince the less people will agree with us

Am I missing something? it seems socialism and capitalism can co-exist.

wew lad

The means of production are either controlled by the workers or they are not. The economy is either democratically organized or it is not. You either have production for exchange or production for use. There is no mixing, and no reason why you would want to mix them to begin with.

Capitalism and socialism cannot be mixed, but markets and socialism can.

Are you saying that socialism is an all or nothing proposition? It doesn't seem like it has to be, why wouldn't an factory controlled equally by the workers in the United States not be real socialism just because next door the factory has one owner?


Isn't this 'state capitalism' and how failed states like Venezuela are? How does the worker own the means of production when the state has the final say on what and how it is to be used. Seems contradictory.


What does this mean?


Unless Socialism means state run centrally planned economies which have empirically proven to be a failure and which nobody can or should argue for. I don't see how Socialism doesn't exist, at least paper, along side capitalism in societies with private property.

They can.

I unironically believe anyone who has ever owned one of those YouTube "subscribe button" pillows should be publicly executed.

that's like asking if dictatorship can be practiced in a democracy

This tbh fam.

A commodity (a good or service) has a use-value, tied to it's properties and inherently incomparable to other commodities use-values, and a exchange-value, ie. the rate at which it exchanges for other commodities (eg. 3 bars of chocolate for 1 bottle of milk).

Production for exchange is one of the central features of capitalism, and it means that things are produced to be exchanged, that means it's value in realized and profit is made. This means that resources will effectively be used and allocated in such a way to gain the greatest profit, or alternatively that those things which don't produce a profit won't be made.

Production for use, is literally the opposite, meaning that resources and allocated in such a way to fulfill actual demand and needs (in comparison to demand backed by money).

See Kapitalism 101's videos for a more thorough explanation, or maybe someone will post the cropped WebMs in this thread.

Playing devil's advocate, the law of value can still operate within society as long as use value is the dominant economic force and we could call it socialism.

I understand that there are some things that are produced not for profit, usually by governments, like the space program or national parks etc.

But how does producing for use differ functionally than producing for exchange?

How does a worker build something and sell it and not have a profit?

How does he reinvest into the means of production?

I wholeheartedly agree

Just because a government does it, doesn't mean it has to be for use. And because we're talking about Socialism/Communism (ie. system with for use production), there is no money, so things aren't sold, so there is no profit. Are you starting to get the difficulty about having socialism and capitalism side by side?

Maybe, but I genuinely don't understand your argument or your semantics. It sounds like the workers don't actually own the means of production individually, the public does and the actual condition of the worker doesn't change, he's not getting the full product of his labor.

I'm having a hard time because that seems like it completely contradicts the main critique of capitalism: workers are being exploited. In fact it seems worse, because they would have to negotiate the price of their labor with the armed state and the public at large.

You also mentioned 'actual' demand, I'm not really sure what that means, demand is demand regardless of its fulfilled or not. Are you trying to say that demand is fulfilled regardless i.e. the public will get goods and services regardless of what the worker demands in compensation?

I guess with that interpretation it makes sense that capitalism and socialism couldn't coexist. But I can't imagine an actual worker wanting to transition to, or anybody who isn't retarded actually believing this would realistically work.

So I guess I don't get it, if socialism is so hard to explain, it must be impossible to implement.