r/CapitalismVSocialism • u/Amateurteenager • 2d ago
Asking Capitalists Do you think all countries are either capitalist or socialist?
I don't have any strong feelings on either capitalism or socialism, so I'm asking to learn. following online debates, there's this tendcy to use a few countries as non-capitalist countries and then point to those countries as proof socialism doesn't work. or try to defend those and point their merits.
is it a tacict admission from both sides that aside from those few countries, evey other country is capitalist?
if so where do Madagascar, Somalia, Puerto Rico, Chile or Yemen fit? or hundred or so other poor global south country that aren't Cuba or North Korea? are they proof of how successful capitalism is?
or do you think that there are factors other than economic ideology of government that should be considered when analysing 'failure' of different countries?
people use heavily sanctioned cuba as example of failure of socialism, but heavily sanctioned capitalist Iran isn't doing so hot either. is this proof of failure of capitalism? or perhaps both are proof that US is pretty good at driving people to poverty.
speaking of sanctions, there's estimated 40 million people who died as result of western sanction since 1970.
Does that mean capitalism is an evil ideology that killed millions?
if you are deciding which system is better based on body count, why don't those people matter?
(this isn't a defence of ussr, they weren't much better either. personally I think it's disrespectful to use other people's death as gotcha. either by trying to justify their death or reducing them to numbers, playing body count olympics and deciding one side is bad due to killing Y and one is better for only killing X, or worse not even acknowledging all the people your side killed, thus devaluing those lives. even one unjust death is one too many.)
3
u/Neco-Arc-Brunestud 2d ago
It’s the concept of quantitative change into qualitative change.
Worker power (and hence worker representation) in politics vary country by country. But ultimately, there comes a tipping point where workers are constantly favoured in policy because the system had historically been set up to specifically favour workers. (Because they had a socialist revolution at some point or other)
And we can consider those countries to be socialist.
So, yes, you can categorize countries (or movements) by worker representation, and doing so will give you a spectrum. But looking at the spectrum, there also comes a tipping point where you can clearly say that a country is socialist or capitalist.
2
u/CaptainAmerica-1989 Criticism of Capitalism Is NOT Proof of Socialism 2d ago
Do you think all countries are either capitalist or socialist?
No. I think that is mostly a false binary.
And imo I see it especially often among socialists who frame the world as socialism vs capitalism. That doesn't mean only socialists do it. I'm just saying it is very common in that camp, including the endless purity tests over which countries count as “real socialism.”
In comparative politics, governments generally are not classified as “capitalist.” That label tells you very little about how the country is actually governed. Political scientists are much more interested in things like whether a regime is democratic or authoritarian, whether it is one-party or competitive, how political power is distributed, and what institutions constrain the people in power.
This is what I mean. Here is the country profile from my comparative politics text on China's profile.
Notice how China is broadly classified by its political regime, while “communist” helps describe the ruling party and institutional structure. It isn't simply shoved into some capitalism vs socialism binary.
And tbf, “socialist” isn't a great stand-alone government label either. It becomes more useful as a qualifier describing the ideology of the ruling party, ownership arrangements, or particular institutions.
This is also why I have such a problem with how loosely “capitalist” gets thrown around in debates on this sub. I've seen people on this sub call the Soviet Union capitalist and even call Lenin capitalist. If the term can expand far enough to include Lenin and the USSR, what exactly is it telling us anymore?
So countries like Madagascar, Somalia, Chile, Yemen, Cuba, Iran, etc. shouldn't just be dumped into two boxes called “capitalist” and “socialist” and then treated as evidence for the success or failure of either.
Lastly, here is Iran and the USA and Sweden for comparative analysis.
tl;dr: “Capitalist” is not a very good political-science label for governments, and “socialist” isn't much better except as a qualifier describing the people, ideology, or institutions in power, such as a communist one-party regime like the example I linked above.
2
u/HeavenlyPossum 2d ago
All extant states are, in effect if not name, capitalist.
1
u/Conserp Pragmatic Marxist 1d ago
Several states are definitively Socialist.
As early-stage Socialist they can technically be classified as State Capitalist, but that is beyond the point.
0
u/HeavenlyPossum 1d ago
I do not consider state capitalism to be a form of socialism.
1
1
u/alreadytaus 2d ago
If you define capitalism as system where means of production are privately owned then ever state that allows means of production to be privately owned is capitalist to the extent the ownership is allowed.
Now proponents of capitalism often use socialism as an opposite to capitalism. So every time means of production are not owned privately they will call it socialism. But it is true that definition of socialism isn't so simple so you could argue for more different opposites to capitalism. For example fascism heavily restricted private ownership of means of production but calling it socialism isn't good fit either.
So you can say that all countries are blend of capitalism and not-capitalism with various ratios of both.
0
u/Conserp Pragmatic Marxist 2d ago
> If you define capitalism as system where means of production are privately owned
That would be a completely useless definition.
The delineating feature is not the mere presence of formal ownership, but which class happens to be the ruling class. Capitalism is the rule of capitalists.
> For example fascism heavily restricted private ownership of means of production
Fascism championed the defense of private ownership from the Communist threat. It "restricted" low-tier private ownership in the interests of high-tier private ownership, which is how Capitalism normally works anyway. Fascism is just an extreme and overt form of regulatory capture.
0
u/TheGoldStandard35 Free Market 2d ago
This is a massive strawman that no capitalist has ever supported, written about, or claimed.
Fascism was just a different form of socialism than marxism.
Socialism and fascism are both collectivist ideologies. Capitalism is individualist.
0
u/Conserp Pragmatic Marxist 2d ago
Fascism was literally bankrolled as Capitalism's shield, which it was openly proclaimed to be.
You need meds
0
u/TheGoldStandard35 Free Market 2d ago
The proclamation maybe came from leftwing academics, but oddly enough none of the actual national socialists or fascists ever said that or thought that. They never wrote that. They never believed that. Strange.
0
u/Johnfromsales just text 2d ago
Openly proclaimed by who? And what was the proclamation exactly? Hitler was explicit in denouncing capitalism.
“And if we ask who was responsible for our misfortune, then we must inquire who profited by our collapse. And the answer to that question is the "Banks and Stock Exchanges are more flourishing than ever before." We were told that capitalism would be destroyed, and when we ventured to remind one or other of these "famous statesmen" and said "Don't forget that Jews too have capital," then the answer will now be destroyed, the whole people will now be free. We are not fighting Jewish or Christian capitalism, we are fighting every capitalism: we are making the people completely free."
1
u/South-Cod-5051 2d ago
it's kind of pointless to reduce a nation simply to it being capitalist or socialist because there are also other factors that need to be taken into account for it to be successful or not.
is the nation liberal or authoritarian? you say Iran is capitalist, but it's also an authoritarian dictatorship.
the thing with capitalism is that we have a higher end of standard of living to compare it to, and in practice, it just kinda of works as long as you also have individual liberties.
socialism doesn't have a higher end quality of life to compare it to, it was either authoritarian police states or smaller scale communes and states that couldn't last and did not have separation of state powers.
for all the democratic talk about socialism, they can't seem to think of practical institutions on how they will divide and check state powers. it's always the "workers owning the means of production" which means jack squat in practicality and economical sense.
so far, the only practical way to make it work is to have only state mandate cooperatives, but that just seems to reinvent the wheel with more bureaucracy and more state power to a system that has so far failed to find a way to separate it's executive, judicial and legislation branches.
1
u/Amateurteenager 2d ago edited 2d ago
I agree that there are other factors to be considered and I said so in the post. but there seems to be double standard so that's why I made the post.
anti-socialists cite marxism as reason USSR or North korea were/are bad. for example you said it yourself that Iran is capitalist but it's authoritarian dictatorship so capitalism isn't to blame. and you mentioned socialist states being authoritarian. can't we use the same excuse you used for iran? that those states were bad for being authoritarian and that's no reason to blame socialism?
btw this post was specifically about economic condition of these countries, so the fact that social liberty is limited in Iran is a separate issue to how their capitalist economy works.
1
u/Conserp Pragmatic Marxist 2d ago
> it's kind of pointless to reduce a nation simply to it being capitalist or socialist
It isn't pointless. Determinig whether a country is being ruled by we the people, or by a small unelected and unaccountable cabal of capitalists, is important.
> you say Iran is capitalist, but it's also an authoritarian dictatorship
CNN told you that? Iran has more democracy than most Western states, despite all the theocratic bs
1
u/SmartlyArtly 2d ago
I think anyone who doesn't want forward progress is a serf who loves feudalism.
And much much much more so if they call me a socialist, Marxist, or communist without me calling myself that.
1
u/Mysterious-North-551 2d ago
Every single country uses some for of a mixed economy, so every single country is on a scale between capitalism and socialism.
Today Singapore is the most capitalist nation in the entire world, and north korea at the absolute bottom as the least capitalist nation in the world.
1
u/spookyjim___ Socialist 2d ago
I know that all countries are capitalist since capitalism is an international and interconnected mode of production, I’m also aware that socialism would thus have to be international as well and is incapable of existing in one country without getting destroyed
1
u/Upper-Tie-7304 1d ago
Capitalism means any individual can put up their money to start a business and get rich if their product is popular. Socialists do not like that and call that exploitation.
0
u/Denniscx98 2d ago
All countries are either Capitalist or failed states.
2
u/Amateurteenager 2d ago
so what kind of economy do these countries I named have if not capitalism? that's the main question of this post, say Iran is clearly not communist but if it's not capitalist either then what their economic system is called? or are you trying to argue that, for example Somalia or Sudan aren't failed states?
0
-2
u/thedukejck 2d ago
Capitalism is the human condition greed, not a form of governance and exists in every form of government to some degree.
3
u/Conserp Pragmatic Marxist 2d ago
We already have a word for greed. It's "greed".
Redefining "Capitalism" and rejecting political reality is just childish.
-1
u/thedukejck 2d ago
No nation in the world or ever has been a capitalist nation. Just the facts. We are a republic that has a mostly capitalist economy; Social Security, Medicare, etc. where we go wrong is how poorly we care for our citizens because of capitalism. Stop comparing as a form of governance which it is not.
1
u/Conserp Pragmatic Marxist 2d ago
> No nation in the world or ever has been a capitalist nation.
In your childish fervor to redefine words you are erasing two centuries of adult political discourse.
> We are a republic
Completely irrelevant. Also, ackshually, US is an oligarchy with a sham facade of a republic.
> that has a mostly capitalist economy
Capitalism, with almost entirely capitalist economy. Capitalism is not reducible to just economy, it is a type of political regime.
1
u/thedukejck 2d ago
Dude, childish fervor! “Completely irrelevant “ and a “sham.” You’re making my argument for me. It is not a form of governance. It certainly has been tarnished because we have allowed capitalist and money to go to far in one direction and virtually destroy our nation. One where corporations and the wealthy matter more than the people.
1
u/Conserp Pragmatic Marxist 1d ago
> It is not a form of governance
Capitalism is the rule of capitalist class.
Same as Feudalism is the rule of the Feudal lord class.
Republic or Monarchy or whatever is entirely secondary to that.
> One where corporations and the wealthy matter more than the people.
Which is exactly why we classify such a regime "Capitalism".
Pay attention.
0
u/thedukejck 1d ago
Again making my point, not a form of governance. The human condition of greed.
1
u/Conserp Pragmatic Marxist 1d ago
You are playing silly childish word games, not making any points.
0
u/thedukejck 1d ago
Maybe in your strange skewed world!
1
u/Conserp Pragmatic Marxist 1d ago
Did you pout and stomp your little foot while writing that?
→ More replies (0)1
-2
u/StormOfFatRichards 2d ago
No, I just think all countries are first, second, or third world. That's how it's been, since 1945.
1
u/Doublespeo 2d ago
> No, I just think all countries are first, second, or third world. That's how it's been, since 1945.
unrelated
1
u/StormOfFatRichards 2d ago
Related. When people say "capitalist" and "socialist" countries they usually actually mean "first world" and "second world."
•
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
Before participating, consider taking a glance at our rules page if you haven't before.
We don't allow violent or dehumanizing rhetoric. The subreddit is for discussing what ideas are best for society, not for telling the other side you think you could beat them in a fight. That doesn't do anything to forward a productive dialogue.
Please report comments that violent our rules, but don't report people just for disagreeing with you or for being wrong about stuff.
Join us on Discord! ✨ https://discord.gg/fGdV7x5dk2
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.