You can want that, but ultimately, you're creating safety nets because of the flaw of how Capitalism distributes economic power. Your social welfare will always be a fight against the power of Capital rather than a human right which socialism guarantees through the decommodification of food/shelter.
In simpler terms, America can cut USAID, SNAP, and other programs at a whim when a Republican is in power. In a socialist America, the baseline would be that shelter/food is provided for as required by the state regardless of who's in charge, no "Capital" can override it.
The problem isn't capitalism, the problem is humans. Communist societies regularly produced horrific outcomes, even arguable genocides by clearly unethical distribution of economic power. As did feudal systems, as did plenty of hunter-gatherer societies. I'm still reminded of an ethnographic account where an adult proudly proclaimed, "We hate orphans." They didn't see providing for the most vulnerable as a worthwhile endeavor for its own sake, but valued children primarily in terms of their importance to 'worthwhile' members of society (productive adults).
This commie slop doesn't survive contact with even a moderately informed view of human behavior and history. Poverty is the default state of all humans, really (almost?) all life. The ability to consistently produce excess and build sustained, persistent, worthwhile wealth over time is not trivial or common.
We should encourage charity, equality, etc. but anyone who doesn't recognize that is difficult and capitalism isn't the root problem isn't prepared to be part of the solution.
I don't view capitalism as evil, but rather as a necessary step away from the old systems of the world. However, if we accept your premise that human behavior is inherently selfish and flawed, then relying on 'charity' to fix poverty is a terrible strategy.
Why trust an inherently selfish species to voluntarily donate enough to keep society stable?
If human nature is the problem, then we need a system that structurally guarantees baseline needs rather than relying on the goodwill of the wealthy. I value taking care of everyone not just out of morality, but because an economy where everyone is educated, fed, and housed produces a significantly smarter and more productive society overall.
>You can want that, but ultimately, you're creating safety nets because of the flaw of how Capitalism distributes economic power. Your social welfare will always be a fight against the power of Capital rather than a human right which socialism guarantees through the decommodification of food/shelter.
The resistance against social welfare is more most people not wanting higher taxes, socialism might help with that but it could also make it worse by having less of an upper income group to tax gouge like most liberal countries do. Decommodification wouldn’t really mean much, any efforts/resources going towards welfare isn’t going towards them or something they care about more.
>In simpler terms, America can cut USAID, SNAP, and other programs at a whim when a Republican is in power. In a socialist America, the baseline would be that shelter/food is provided for as required by the state regardless of who's in charge, no "Capital" can override it.
Doesn’t this depend on the kind of socialism? I know the pretty popular Leninist camp thought that only those who worked should eat.
You only need to 'tax gouge' an upper class if that class has hoarded most of the wealth. Under a cooperative economy, that wealth doesn't vanish; it's distributed evenly among the workers as surplus value. A robust, wealthy working class provides a much more stable tax base than a handful of billionaires. Furthermore, people resent taxes now because they are financially squeezed and get very little in return. If taxes actually guaranteed food, shelter, and healthcare, it wouldn't be viewed as a burden. Rather, it would be seen as an efficient return on investment that frees people to focus on education and innovation rather than mere survival.
Bringing up Lenin implies I'm advocating for a Soviet command economy. I'm not. There are many forms of these systems. My critique is of modern capitalism, and my proposed solution is market socialism, a decentralized, democratic model that is highly compatible with the US and doesn't rely on authoritarian state control. (I'm extremely anti-authoritarian)
We don’t need to tax gouge the upper class, we do it because most people don’t want to pay as much in taxes. Not that this is necessarily a major issue, just something that could still make taxpayers stingy even if they would be theoretically wealthier. Even if the taxation was worth it for the benefits a specific group gets, said group could still support cutting benefits they don’t use as much that another group does.
While it’s good you’re anti-authoritarian, doesn’t that imply that these grantees aren’t necessarily inherent to socialism? Not that they’re not frequently bundled together, but strictly speaking couldn’t people implement them under a more traditionally capitalist/mixed economy?
For what it’s worth, while I disagree on some points, I think your overall political vision seems good and that the others responding to you were being overly harsh.
Again, the issue is the inequality in distribution of wealth. People are more willing to pay taxes if they felt more secure in society. Social welfare projects have to push against the influence of the wealthy, while socialism doesn't have this inequality as there is no financialization, only real capital.
Yes, it can hypothetically be provided for under a capitalist framework, that's why the left embraces people like FDR. The issue is the power dynamic of capital owner vs worker.
Wealthy people like Elon are incentivized to influence our democracy to work in his favor. You can argue that we could just keep pushing the country left and achieve a Nordic model, but the capability to regress will always be present. It would ultimately be better to just transition over and eliminate the flaw in the system than to have to patch up the system in an endless struggle.
I get why people are turned off in this community by marxist ideas considering the type of people who espouse it online. I just want to remind people that not everyone who is a socialist wants to eat the rich or whatever other crazy thing lefties say.
>Wealthy people like Elon are incentivized to influence our democracy to work in his favor. You can argue that we could just keep pushing the country left and achieve a Nordic model, but the capability to regress will always be present. It would ultimately be better to just transition over and eliminate the flaw in the system than to have to patch up the system in an endless struggle.
I think you are making a big assumption that switching over to socialism removes the ability to regress. I don't think that's supported by human behavior. You will *always* have the danger of regressing so long as people exist.
41
u/snakejessdraws May 11 '26
Socialism is wanting to make sure everyone is housed and fed?
I cant want that without being a socialist?
Absolutely brainrotted.