CBS Documentary Takes On Capitalism vs. Socialism

I think that in the US we need to find a "best of both worlds" , where you have the incentives of material success through entrepreneurial efforts, but you also have a robust social safety net which would include free education and a health care system where everyone gets a baseline of care paid for through a graduated tax. There should also be affordable housing for everyone. 

I don't mind people getting rich through their own efforts, but by the same token we should have "socialism" providing for those who cannot "succeed".  

I think eventually we will achieve these results in a uniquely American way. 

Just imagine for a minute if the ACA had been labeled "Romney Care" instead of "ObamaCare"  

"I think that in the US we need to find a "best of both worlds" , where you have the incentives of material success through entrepreneurial efforts, but you also have a robust social safety net which would include free education and a health care system where everyone gets a baseline of care paid for through a graduated tax."

That sounds like Canada.

Add affordable housing for everyone, and it sounds like where I am now.

Add affordable housing for everyone, and it sounds like where I am now.

China is sort of the opposite of the US in that it is slowly but surely integrating some ideas from capitalism into communism, whereas the US has over the last hundred years injected some ideas from socialism into what was pure capitalism. They started to do this primarily after the great depression and the era of robber baron industrialists.

Pure capitalism sucks.

Pure communism or socialism suck.

If you take a few ideas from one and mix them with the other you really do get something new, something unprecedented. But the poorly educated and fearful will only see it as one or the other, so when we push for some social programs that benefit everyone the capitalists scream that the whole nation is in danger of going full on socialist when nothing could be further from the truth.

Lately it feels more like half the nation want to experiment with mixing capitalism and democracy with fascism or authoritarianism. Those supporting the whiny wannabe dictator who is currently throwing a tantrum and refusing to accept his democratic defeat seem to prefer fascism over socialism. Personally, I'd much rather have a country of mixed capitalism and socialism, that allows business and free enterprise to thrive while also having a social safety net to make sure our elderly, infirm, disabled and starving citizens aren't simply kicked out in the cold to die as a warning to workers and consumers of what could happen to them if they don't work harder for less pay.

Well, that video was hugely disappointing. It's just more confirmation that the word socialism is functionally useless. It always means different things to different people.

Only one person got the definition basically correct. The guy at about the 5:42 mark who refers to it as an economy wherein workers own and control their business ventures themselves, democratically, as something like a group of partners and co-board members, so to speak.

Everyone else in the video, for and against, seemed to think it simply means some version of taxing private producers (capitalists) to pay for a boatload of public services -- free food, housing, education, healthcare, etc.

Way to go CBS, that really helped clear things up for people... not.

I completely disagree. I think the video is very useful. 

The argument that the US is having is not if we want to all learn and debate the academic definitions and implementation of socialism, the argument is will we have a society that permits one percent and so forth to acquire a limitless percentage of the fruits of the people of this nation's labor. How will we hinder the plutocracy?  Is health care a human right?  Is housing a human right?  

In the documentary those who advocating for capitalism ALL misrepresent what the Sanders-AOC "socialists" are advocating. Every one of the people in the film who defend capitalism misrepresent socialism. You don't think seeing that is useful in the debate?

Who cares if people present "socialism" in a pure sense?   Do you think we will be voting on pure socialist proposals any time soon ? 

Every one of the people in the film who defend capitalism misrepresent socialism.

Most of the people advocating for socialism do to, except for that one guy.

It's not Robin Hood economics (steal from the rich and give to the poor). It's a completely different socioeconomic form.

Who cares if people present "socialism" in a pure sense?   

I'd be happy with just reasonably accurate. Taxing capitalism to pay for public services (per the DSA people in the video) is not socialism. The most brutally authoritarian and hierarchical society could do that.

Do you think we will be voting on pure socialist proposals any time soon ? 

Of course not. And that's a good thing. Socialism isn't something that can be handed down to the peons by government from on high. If history has shown us anything, it's that.

Who cares if people present "socialism" in a pure sense?

'Pure' is not the adjective I would use; I would use 'accurate' or even 'in the ballpark'.   The understanding of socialism by most in the USA seems to be flat out wrong.   It is typically a fantastic concept (many different and incompatible forms of same no less) driven by slogans and labels adopted by dictators throughout history.

'Most of the people advocating for socialism do to, except for that one guy.'

And even there, as in the rest of the flick, there was not one solitary reference to social class or to class struggles.

As I see it, the DSA and Socialist Alternative are traps set to capture and redirect back into the Capitalist system whose who are near ready to escape the orbit of the Democrat Party. A number of such organizations orbit the Democrat Party. And candidates such as like Kucinich or Sanders or Warren or AOC, et. al. are given platforms from which to spout proletarian sounding rhetoric and to promote the illusion that the party can be shifted to the 'left' if only people put it across the election line first. Of course these are demoted post elections, so that the proffered 'hope' becomes one that is perpetually deferred -- ever just round the corner of the NEXT election cycle. In reality, neither Capitalist party has any intention of promoting a genuinely progressive platform oriented to an independent, socialist perspective.

We have all kinds of people who have not read Marx, or Engels, or Plekhanov, or Lenin, or Debs, or Trotsky, or Cannon or North -- but they are ever ready to offer expert opinions on what socialism is. Everything they THINK they know about 'socialism' is by definition, hearsay. Half these people, they've never heard of them. But unless or until the three, social classes upon which Marxian analysis is based have at least BEGUN to form in our brains, it is not possible to discuss 'socialism' on anything other than a 'sharing of ignorance' basis.

These so-called 'failed' socialist experiments were not socialist countries at all. The name notwithstanding, even the USSR, although a genuine worker republic [admittedly grossly distorted under the monster Stalin], made only the first step toward transition to socialism. The presentation of 'failed' experiments under these conditions is an act of blatant, historical falsification.

In reality, neither Capitalist party has any intention of promoting a genuinely progressive platform oriented to an independent, socialist perspective.

You have to dance with the ones who brought you. The parties have to respond to their bases. Contrary to what Republican propaganda would have everyone think, people with genuinely socialistic interests are only a miniscule percentage of the Democratic base.

Gotta say, I'm 100% fine with the Democrats not trying to become a far left party. That would be the surest way of guaranteeing Republican victories for a long time to come, and with creeping fascism growing in their ranks, I'll take the D's over the R's any day of the week.

Besides, I'm not a believer in the idea that socialism can come from governments anyway. You can't create a new economic culture by executive order. From a pragmatic standpoint, a reasonably sane party with a progressive wing like the Dems is the best option for our actually-existing government, IMHO of course. People like myself, who lean more libertarian socialist/anarcho syndicalist don't actually want anything from the existing government when it comes to socialism, other than a guarantee of the freedom for workers to organize enterprises into genuine worker cooperatives. As long as they don't mess with that, and continue to defend progressive reforms from the past century like social security, medicare, medicaid, OSHA, the minimum wage, and public education (and also give a damn about the environment), then they can have my vote. There are too many people on the R side who actually want to abolish that stuff. Again, from a pragmatic standpoint, the D's are preferable to the R's any day of the week.

Everything they THINK they know about 'socialism' is by definition, hearsay.

Or intentionally manufactured bullshit from shady actors in the right wing propaganda media sphere.

These so-called 'failed' socialist experiments were not socialist countries at all. The name notwithstanding, even the USSR, although a genuine worker republic [admittedly grossly distorted under the monster Stalin], made only the first step toward transition to socialism. The presentation of 'failed' experiments under these conditions is an act of blatant, historical falsification.

I can't tell you how nice it is to hear someone other than myself or TiG point that out.

By the way, can I ask what the third class you refer to in your post is? Rentiers?

'The parties have to respond to their bases.'

This is where a basic grasp of class theory is paramount. The respective 'bases' of these 'parties' include ... well ... those who own and those who invest.

Under the Capitalist system, society is organized into an ownership class, an investment class, and a proletarian [working] class. The owners [of factories, fields, forests, mines, corporations [logistics, energy, communications, etc.] comprise 1% of the population. This class is represented by the Republican Party. This is the bourgeoisie. The investors [banks, finance companies, market investors, hedge funds, etc.] comprise the Next 9% of the population. This class is represented by the Democrat Party. This is the petty bourgeoisie. The proletarian class does not 'own,' and it lacks the discretionary income to invest. It has no option but to present on the market daily to peddle labour power on whatever terms market conditions plus the avarice of the possessing classes will allow. This is the 90% and it is called the proletariat.

So under Capital, everyone is [primarily] an owner, an investor [in the businesses/enterprises, etc. that owners own], or a worker of the machines/resources in this process. Thus, social class is based on one's relationship to the system of production and distribution of goods and services -- owner, investor, or worker. This also defines the interests and consequently the programme of each social class. Now this is where things become interesting...

The 1% plus the Next 9% TOGETHER form the ruling class. Both CLAIM to 'represent' the interests of the proletariat. Neither does. The 1% and Next 9% compete with each other to divide the spoils ['profit'] created by and garnered from the 90%. The 1% plus Next the 9% make 100% of the decisions. Policies which the 1% or Next 9% support are not offered under Capitalism.

ONLY the proletarian class can represent its interests. Socialism entails the direct involvement of the whole working class DIRECTLY into the stream of political events WITH its OWN programmic demands. The proletarian class has zero OFFICIAL political representation, but it is finding a voice in the Socialist Equality Party. You may read its programme here .

I'm glad you're here also, Dig. If you, TiG and yours truly can work together on a principled, socialist basis, we should consider forming a Safehouse Group for Socialists

What are your thoughts about socialism vs. capitalism in the United States ? 

Most people think that socialism is statism (or social democracy).  That socialism means big government taxing people/businesses to provide social services.   This is profoundly confused but it seems as though there is no fixing this since the talking heads pretending to be experts clearly do not understand socialism.

Yup, everyone in there talking about the DSA seemed to want Euro-style social democracy.

What did that one guy say? Hold the rich up by their ankles and shake gold coins out of them? Paraphrasing there, but still. I'm all for progressive taxation, but sheesh. That's just populist Robin Hood stuff, and you don't need socialism, or even the DSA's warped idea of socialism to do it.

Basically it is hopeless.   Most of the USA seems entirely lost into their own pet variations on the word 'socialism'.   For most I think their level of understanding does not go any deeper than:  'socialism is what a lot of the Ds want and the Rs do not want'.  

From our experiences on social media sites, there is no explaining this concept to most people.   Those who have no real clue typically do not care to learn.   They want to stick with their slogan-level understanding of the word even if they cannot address even rudimentary challenges to their understanding.   They do not know what they are talking about yet refuse to take a single step to correct that situation.   It is stubbornly willful ignorance.  

Basically it is hopeless.

I feel that way far more often than not, which is why I hardly ever discuss it anymore. It just seems pointless most of the time.

What are you talking about?  Are you talking about reality, or are you talking about the ivory tower? 

Be specific John.   With what, specifically, are you taking issue?   And what is the issue you take?

You seem to object to people mentioning socialism using any other definition or terms other than those you approve of. 

The video discusses socialism as it is debated in the popular culture. Is that a problem to you? 

There is a professor named Richard Wolfe who travels around the country lecturing on socialism. He is a Marxist and he advocates for a socialist society based on Marxist principles. 

Richard Wolfe explain the problems quite well, and in a way anyone can understand. But he has little in the way of solutions. Because his viewpoint is textbook. 

We need the Sanders and the AOC more than we need Richard Wolfe. 

You seem to object to people mentioning socialism using any other definition or terms other than those you approve of. 

You phrase it as if I (and you might as well include Dig then) have dreamed up our own concept of socialism.   Yet this dreamed up concept matches not only the dictionary definition of the term, but the historical work of Marx (what Marx and Engels actually wrote) as well as the modern theoretical treatment of the concept.

In contrast to that, we all get to observe the myriad conflicting concepts of 'socialism' bantered about by people who can go no deeper than a slogan level explanation of what 'socialism' is.

Does it not strike you as odd that people have so many contradictory concepts of socialism?   Does this seem as though they understand the concept?

The video discusses socialism as it is debated in the popular culture. Is that a problem to you? 

Yes, the portrayal is a comic book understanding of socialism.   Why is this not a problem for you?

There is a professor named Richard Wolfe who travels around the country lecturing on socialism. He is a Marxist and he advocates for a socialist society based on Marxist principles. 

Correct.   Wolfe is a socialist who understands capitalism and socialism. 

We need the Sanders and the AOC more than we need Richard Wolfe. 

JR, Sanders and AOC are not proposing socialism.   Both are proposing social democracy.   If they were to advocate social democracy I would have no issue.   If people followed suit, I would have no issue because they are then using language properly with a term that is well defined and consistent (not overloaded).

Bottom line, JR, I would prefer that people in the USA take the initiative to understand socialism (in depth).   This would help them understand capitalism and the problems therein.   And I am not saying capitalism is some horrible system.   I am saying that capitalism is not the idealized beautiful system that people romanticize it to be.   To me, this ignorance is dangerous.   It is easily addressed if people would simply stop accepting slogan level truths and holding a comic-book understanding and instead do some real research.

We need a way to claw back at the plutocracy. Warrens wealth tax would be a good start. I dont care if it conforms to classical socialism or not. 

'...take the initiative to understand socialism (in depth).   This would help them understand capitalism...'

I suspect the reverse may also be true. Smith preceded Marx. Had Capitalism no deficiencies, Marx would never have happened.

You were asking about socialism.   Now you are speaking of statist measures.   The two are fundamentally different.

I do not care if you speak of left-wing policies but I encourage you and everyone else to use labels properly.   There is no reason to use the label 'socialism' when discussing policies for the USA.   Nobody is proposing socialism, so why confuse the issue by advocating and complaining with a term that is so overloaded that it bears no meaning to the average USA citizen?

If one is to use the label socialism how about first learn what that label actually means?   In the meantime, if one is speaking of redistribution of wealth (Warren) then you have the proper term.   Don't call that socialism;  that is ridiculous.

But he has little in the way of solutions.

Sure he does. Richard Wolff is an advocate for workplace democracy, basically as a starting point, or a stepping stone to a broader socialistic culture. 

He is not for trying to use existing forms of government to magically create it, though, if that's what you mean by solutions.

Have you ever heard him speak about Mondragon?

By the way, John, if what you're primarily interested in are social democratic reforms like higher minimum wages and universal healthcare, then know that I'm for things like that, too. But they'll just be reforms to our capitalist society, they won't create socialism, and they won't be socialism. They're simply progressive ideals within the framework of a capitalist society and economy. There is no need whatsoever to misuse the word socialism in advocating for those things.

Had Capitalism no deficiencies, Marx would never have happened.

Agreed.   Marx spent most of his time critiquing capitalism.  

But given the work of Marx, et. al. if someone were to take the time to understand socialism (truly) do you not agree that they would then have a much better understanding of capitalism?   

If someone asked me how to understand capitalism I would not direct them to modern economic sources.   I would direct them to the work of Marx, et. al.

'It just seems pointless most of the time.'

Which is why the study of Marxian theory, history, and worker struggles are absolutely imperative for any genuinely socialist party.

' If someone asked me how to understand capitalism ... I would direct them to the work of Marx, et. al. '

I can't disagree. That said, Marx crawled deep inside Capitalism's bowels [specifically, the exchange market] to understand it from the inside out. He understood Capital better than anyone alive, and developed his critique on that basis. Perhaps you'll find this of interest .

I should note: IMT --> International Marxist Tendency. I'm certainly no expert, but I continue working.

Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, and others, are in the national legislative body advocating for actions that could help people through government programs based on the reduction of incomer inequality. 

Richard Wolfe is an academic who mainly talks in utopian or hypothetical terms. We are not going to change from capitalism to socialism on a dime yet Wolfe acts like this great transformation is just around the corner. 

income inequality. 

MUVA, you have mentioned probably hundreds of times how you married into a rich family.  Your continuous bleating about lazy welfare queens got old a long time ago.

JR I understand that you are contrasting short-term actors with theoreticians whose work will not come to fruition (if ever) for a very long time.

Given.  

Sanders, AOC, et. al. are proposing changes to our capitalist system that would use increased taxing and spending to create social programs to redistribute wealth.    Their proposals are all based on capitalism and they are not trying to switch our economic system away from capitalism.   They are proposing what is called 'social democracy'.   This is what is in place in much of Europe and especially in the Nordic nations.

So if you seeded this article to talk about social democracy then great, but this seed then has a very misleading title and your opening videos are equally misleading.

It is your article, what is the topic?   Social democracy or socialism.   The two are entirely different.

reduction of income inequality.

The key word being 'reduction'.

For a system to be effective it cannot equalize results.   Income inequality is essential to keep motivation high.   That is, a common laborer cannot make the same as an experienced carpenter.   The job skills and the economic effectiveness of the two jobs are different (assuming the jobs are properly performed).    Ambition needs seeding.   There needs to be goals and rewards to drive most people to take on the difficult challenges (and succeed).    Further, the job of the CEO is typically very complex and requires a cocktail of sophisticated skills.   Executive management should be paid more than, say, engineers.    But, that said, the disparity needs to be rational and fair.

Thus I understand the reduction of gross disparity such as C-level executives making hundreds of multiples of the average salary or, to the extreme, individuals like Bezos, Gates, Zuckerberg whose ownership has enabled such an extreme multiplier that these men individually hold immense power through phenomenal wealth.   They certainly earned wealth through their actions but the extreme wealth is not due strictly to their actions but due to the capitalistic snowball effect of dominant ownership percentage in an extremely successful entity.    This kind of disparity, if viewed in the large, shows that wealth is concentrated in a tiny minority.   A tiny minority largely control our economy and this is not getting any better.

Forced income equality is not the answer.   Socialism is about equality of opportunity and a result that success brings wealth to a much broader share of the population (not concentrated in the tiny minority ... the bourgeoisie).   It is something that would have to evolve over time (if ever).    'Forcing socialism' is an oxymoron.

As I'm sure you know, the term "income inequality" or "income equality" does not refer to everyone being paid the same salary. It refers to the vast proportion of economic gains in recent decades going to investors, Wall St firms, investment banks, Ceo's,  who all take to one degree or another from the worker.  Wolfe mentions this explicitly near the end of the video I posted up the seed

25:00 mark or so

At the present time we cannot create socialist workplaces, but we can tax those who abuse the capitalist system. 

Which is why the study of Marxian theory, history, and worker struggles are absolutely imperative for any genuinely socialist party.

Or for general society as a whole.

My purpose was to cover the concept from the small (individual jobs) to the large (concentration of wealth with a tiny minority).   There are people who (inexplicably) think that socialism means a purely egalitarian system wherein everything (including income) is equal.   I was addressing that.

almost cut my hair

'What are your thoughts about socialism vs. capitalism in the United States?'

Easy. Our options are socialism or barbarism .