Pledging allegiance every day?
And I thought singing our national anthem once a week at school assembly was a bit too much.
Dystopian.
Well, that’s what you call propaganda: whitewashing designed to distract from the reality people live in.
Here are a few other examples that are characteristic of U.S. ideology:
- The narrative that the society produced by U.S. capitalism is a meritocracy in which achievement is rewarded (the American Dream)
- The narrative that the immeasurable wealth of private individuals can be justified on the grounds that it benefits society (trickle-down economics)
- The narrative that compassion and empathy are weaknesses that must be eradicated (this idea is propagated, for example, through the emphasis on meritocracy in sports)
- The narrative that socialism is incompatible with capitalism
- The narrative that the free market can regulate society fairly, rather than always leading to monopolies
- The narrative that the U.S. is a model democracy that brings peace and prosperity to the world
- The narrative that the U.S. is a country worth living in—even one that surpasses all others in every way
This list could go on forever. The U.S. is simply what it is: the land of false promises.
The narrative that socialism is incompatible with capitalism
That one’s actually true. You’re likely making the common mistake of thinking markets/free trade and saying capitalism.
While markets and trade are necessary for capitalism to exist, the opposite isn’t the case.
Capitalism is an economic ideology where accumulation of capital is the ultimate goal and highest virtue.
Socialism is an economic ideology where the ultimate goal and highest virtue is for wealth to be distributed in such a way as to create the most social good for everyone, especially those that need it the most. That’s by definition incompatible with capitalism. Its entire POINT is in fact to replace capitalism.
- The narrative that the free market can regulate society fairly, rather than always leading to monopolies
Yeah, no such thing as a completely “free market” is possible.
An unregulated market will inevitably encroach of the freedom of those with the least wealth and power, and regulating it is by definition making those with the MOST wealth and power less free to oppress the rest, for example via monopolization as you point out.
It is true that, in their purest forms, the two approaches are mutually exclusive, since socialism is essentially based on public ownership, while capitalism, in its most extreme form, is based exclusively on private ownership.
However, it is entirely possible to implement elements of socialism within a capitalist market economy, whereby key parts of socially important institutions remain under state control while others are organized privately.
One example of such an approach is the social market economy, which plays a role in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland.
It was developed among others by the economist Alfred Müller-Armack and seeks to “combine the principle of freedom in the market with that of social balance.” This approach, in turn, bears a certain resemblance to ordoliberalism (as advocated by Walter Eucken, among others), which had a formative influence on German-speaking countries in Europe after World War II.
Unfortunately, however, this approach—which I consider sensible—is not immune to U.S.-style neoliberal capitalism (Chicago school of economics and others), which has, regrettably, also taken a firm hold in Germany today and whose effects are, among other things, significantly evident in the fact that the wealthiest segments of the population are becoming ever richer, while social benefits that benefit the general public are being cut back further and further.
In my view, however, this is less a problem with the approach itself and more—as with all theories—due to the fact that any system can be corrupted by unscrupulous people.
it is entirely possible to implement elements of socialism within a
capitalistmarket economyFixed it for you. Market economy ≠ capitalism.
You can have a market economy with social elements, but those elements are by definition not part of the ideology of capitalism and in fact in opposition to the goals and ideals of it.
whereby key parts of socially important institutions remain under state control while others are organized privately.
Yeah, that’s the classic social democratic model. It’s a compromise between the opposite ideologies socialism and capitalism rather than socialism mixed with capitalism.
One example of such an approach is the social market economy, which plays a role in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland.
It was developed among others by the economist Alfred Müller-Armack and seeks to “combine the principle of freedom in the market with that of social balance.” This approach, in turn, bears a certain resemblance to ordoliberalism (as advocated by Walter Eucken, among others), which had a formative influence on German-speaking countries in Europe after World War II.
Both of which arguably are forms of social democracy.
Unfortunately, however, this approach—which I consider sensible—is not immune to U.S.-style neoliberal capitalism (Chicago school of economics and others), which has, regrettably, also taken a firm hold in Germany today and whose effects are, among other things, significantly evident in the fact that the wealthiest segments of the population are becoming ever richer, while social benefits that benefit the general public are being cut back further and further.
That’s EXACTLY the problem with social democracy in general, and also Neoliberalism in the US as opposition to downright fascism:
when you START from a position of compromise and the people on the opposite side of the table are people of wealth and power with no interest in compromising, you inevitably end up making unacceptable concessions.
ESPECIALLY when spin doctors and profit driven media get involved on the side of capital, which is the case in all countries that allow such antidemocratic practices.
This has been the case just about everywhere, including in my native Denmark where spin doctors were unheard of until the 2000 parliamentary election, and have been wreaking havoc on everything good about our politics ever since.
I’m afraid you’re taking this too far. Capitalism is, first and foremost, a mode of economic organization in which:
- businesses and most means of production are privately owned;
- prices are largely shaped by supply and demand;
- pople and organizations buy and sell goods and services;
- businesses generally seek profit and compete with one another; and
- investment and economic decisions are made to a significant extent through decentralized markets.
This describes an economic system, although it is not completely value-neutral: it presupposes legal and political institutions such as private property, enforceable contracts, and market exchange. The ideology associated with capitalism depends partly on how the system is interpreted and organized. This helps explain why Germany and the United States can both be described as capitalist countries while having different economic institutions, political traditions, and social models.
Socialism can likewise take different forms and be connected to different ideologies. In Marxist theory, communism is generally understood as a later stage or goal of socialism. In political practice, however, the terms have been used in various ways. Not all socialist movements or countries are communist, while states governed by communist parties—such as China—can make extensive use of markets, private enterprise, profit, and other mechanisms commonly associated with capitalism.
In short, I think it is too simplistic to treat capitalism and socialism as completely separate and internally uniform systems. They are often used as political slogans rather than as precise descriptions. Many real-world economies combine market mechanisms with public ownership, regulation, social insurance, and collective provision. Whether such a combination produces the best results—and what “the best” should mean—is itself a normative and politically contested question. Still, maintaining an open-minded attitude seems important if we want to assess useful elements of different approaches rather than ruling them out in advance.
They’re not taking it too far, you’re doing apologia by shifting the goal posts.
Markets != Capitalism.
Heavily regulated markets != Socialism.
See your first point there?
That’s the main difference.
Everything else that follows is going to be either a description of either how regulated/redistributive a capitalist economy is, or the precise mechanism of how capital is distributed/controlled, and how its proceeds are distributed in a socialist/communist economy.
Also your point 5 is basically incorrect. ‘Significantly’ incorrect.
In capitalism, you just get a cartel of extremely influential fianceers and central bankers that direct and manage capital flows and monetary policy via complex and esoteric means, which are certainly not decentralized.
‘Retail Investors’ / ‘Dumb Money’ are very well directed and herded by the signals the capital/monetary cartel puts out.
As an example, everyone’s 401k and pension plan either already has or is going to be buying SpaceX stocks, ie, be the bagholders for when that blows up. That’s happening because of the morass of rules and some recent changes to those rules that govern how all those funds must be managed.
You did read the ToS on all your investments, right? And keep up with all the changes to them?
Well obviously not, but, legally, upfront disclosure basically just is indemnity, so, you agreed to this. If you disagree that you agreed, good luck personally suing the company that has all of your money, and hundreds of billions of other people’s money.
You are also either ignoring or perhaps ignorant of large scale worker owned co-ops such as Mondragon, that are essentially a modern evolution of anarcho-syndicalism.
The ‘company’ itself has a form of democratic representative governance, where workers have a say in who their bosses will be, what the business strategy will be, etc, as opposed to the authoritarian governance internal model of most capitalist businesses.
Technically, Mondragon exists within a grander capitalist system and framework, but chances are that a wide swath of people would describe it as an operationalized form of socialism.
Also, it is not possible to have any societal or economic system that is value neutral… any complex system governing humans is going to be ultimately be created by humans, and is either going to intentionally or unintentionally create a framework that rewards some behaviors and activities an punishes others.
Any system of rewards and punishments just literally is a value system, we’re social mammals, we learn from the environment we are in.
But you then list prerequisites for capitalism… as if they are value systems? Where 1, often 2, hell, often all 3 of those prereqs are also prereqs/components of systems that call themselves socialist or communist?
Anyway yes you are correct that both socialist systems and capitalist systems have much variability within them, but again the key distinction between the two is who actually controls the capital, and how.
In capitalism, it is literally always a cartel. A cartel that often funds a lot of propoganda devoted to convincing people they’re not a cartel and its actually all a meritocracy.
In socialism, you get a range from… the state directly controls all capital and major industry… to the anarcho-syndicalist model of worker collectives ‘owning’ and governing their own capital.
They were hoping the “under god” part would transfer loyalty to the orange god emperor when he arose from the ashes of raped children
Not even liberty and justice for the president because he’s a fucking convicted felon with pedophile rape history that’s censored by the FBI
With liberty and justice for some
FTFY
