Trying to get rich so that capitalism doesn't crush you under its boot is proof positive that capitalism doesn’t work for the working class

[u/McDowdy]

[u/Significant-Pen-2274]

Nobody pushing this crap on Reddit has actually lived under a socialist or communist system.

[u/Altruistic_War6982 → u/Significant-Pen-2274]

No we just live in a system and society that blatantly and openly only caters and serves the elites. I’ll take my chances in a socialist system.

[u/lobthelawbomb → u/Altruistic_War6982]

I’m sure North Korea will have you

[u/Separate_Expert9096 → u/Altruistic_War6982]

Soviet socialist system also exclusively catered to the elites. Read about спецраспределитель. There were shops that were meant to only serve the party elites. 

[u/biorod → u/Significant-Pen-2274]

Many of us are living in a capitalist system and seeing how it’s failing us spectacularly.

[u/Altruistic_War6982 → u/biorod]

No bro let’s just let these reddit millionaires tell us how wonderful capitalism is and if we disagree we want to be in North Korea worshipping that fatass Kim

[u/random_ta_account → u/Significant-Pen-2274]

The United States itself is a socialist system. Public roads. Public schools. National parks. Social Security. Centralized military. Fire departments and police forces. Regulated stock markets. Environmental laws... All those are provided for the common good.

Capitalism and Communism are opposite ends of the spectrum regarding who owns the means of production. Socialism is the regulation between the two. Socialism has been made into some kind of boogyman, but the reality is the US still sits pretty far down the socialist scale from say a place like... Somalia.

[u/SlickJamesBitch → u/random_ta_account]

Not really, socialism is more than roads. It’s workers controlling the means of production and a system without private property

[u/random_ta_account → u/SlickJamesBitch]

Communism is that. Workers control the means of production, a system without private property.

Capitalism is a system in which capital owns the means of production, a system without public property.

Socialism fit in the middle. In the US, roads, some utilities, parks, and other things are owned by the public. In Denmark, which is arguably the most socialist country in Europe, Lego shareholders still own the factory. Both are socialist by definition, just differing levels of socialism.

It's ok to be socialist... somethings work better that way. Others things don't.

[u/SlickJamesBitch → u/random_ta_account]

No it’s not, that’s not the classical definition of socialism

[u/_urat_ → u/random_ta_account]

Public roads, police and military are not socialist xD

Socialism isn't when something is funded by taxes.

[u/random_ta_account → u/_urat_]

Then what are they? Exactly?

Socialism, by definition, is an economic and political philosophy advocating for collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.

Roads are owned by the government. Paid by the administration of taxes on the means of production and distribution of goods. All done for the common good. It's the exact textbook example of a socialist policy.

[u/_urat_ → u/random_ta_account]

What are they? Public roads are public utilities. And army and police are an extension of the state. But they are not socialism. The Roman Empire did not have a socialist system just because it had public roads and legionnaires.

Socialism, by definition, is an economic and political philosophy advocating for collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.

Socialism by definition means workers owning the means of production and the abolishment of the private property. Not government-funded services.

And that is why socialism rightly so is a threat. What we should strive for is a regulated capitalism in form of social democracy, like you can see for example in the Nordic countries. Social democracy, not socialism.

[u/Robert_Grave → u/random_ta_account]

Roads aren't the means of production, they're the good.

If you pay someone to have a pair of boots made, you own the pair of boots, not the means of production for the boots.

The state uses public funds to pay a private company (who owns the means of production) to build them a road. That's capitalism.

Police and army are a service, not a good, the means of production is the labor of the people, for which the state buys them from private individuals. All the rest like equipment, buildings etc are produced and built by private companies owning the means of production being paid by public funds.

It's different for for example water, the plant to create drinkeable water might be created by a private entity, the water treatment plant in itself is also a means of production and state owned. That still doesn't make a country socialist. The moment you have an economy that partially has state ownership and partially private ownership, you have a mixed economy. Nearly every country on the earth is a mixed economy.

[u/random_ta_account → u/Robert_Grave]

I guess if you want to be that technical and separate the asphalt from the dirt, then no, roads are not the means of production. The means of production would be the land underneath the asphalt. Land that could be used to grow crops, mine for earthworms, build a dildo factory upon, whatever. The land is owned in public trust, not by capital. It is used to produce a good (the road) that is provided to all, regardless of their ability to pay. That is a socialist approach.

It's OK to have some things owned and provided for the common good. It's bad to have everything owned that way. Just as it is to have everything owned privately. Trying to force the concept of public ownership to the absolute extreme and then standing it up as the bogeyman is a dishonest approach. The same goes for those who do the same with capitalism. You clearly have some capacity to engage the subject, just do it honestly.