[GalacticDomin8r]

> It's totally possible for a capitalist society to prioritize things like human rights, etc. over profits through political and social means.

I believe that is what most people would call socialism. When taken at its root idea anyway.

[tehjoker]

Sort of. Socialists contend that the mechanical logic of the system makes that impossible, so the economic system must be refounded on the material basis of the political power of the majority - worker control of the economy / democratic control of the economy. Those two ideas go hand in hand.

[msla]

Socialism is all about worker ownership of business, often mediated through the state. Morality doesn't enter into it.

[krapp]

You're confusing socialism with communism. Socialism is a political philosophy, whereas communism is one specific (but not the only possible) implementation of that philosophy. Socialism is also intended to be a criticism of and attempt to redress the immorality of capitalism, so morality does enter into it, at least in theory.

[msla]

Socialism as it's understood now is a specific plan for replacing Capitalism, tied to a specific theory of history, not just a philosophy. At the level of implementation, it isn't morality, it's economics and politics. There might be morality behind it, but there's morality behind all actions, to some extent.

[krapp]

Many modern capitalist governments, including the US, employ socialist programs with no intention of overturning capitalism itself.

And the entire thesis behind socialism is that it's morally superior to capitalism, in a similar way that free software is argued as being morally superior to proprietary software.

[msla]

The entire thesis behind Socialism is that it's inevitable.

That's the entire point of Historical Materialism.

[swebs]

>I believe that is what most people would call socialism.

Like China?

[all2]

Do you mean China is socialist? Or that the Communist party is calling the US socialist? Or something else?

[swebs]

The first one, obviously.

https://i.imgur.com/g3hv45O.png

[CharlesColeman]

> I believe that is what most people would call socialism. When taken at its root idea anyway.

No, it could also be the society's moral system. For instance, take a hypothetical capitalist society where the shame and stigma of violating human rights is very strong. A business owner there would likely refuse to violate them even if it's very profitable, because doing so would make him a pariah, no "socialism" required.

[chillacy]

It only takes one person desperate enough or psychopathic enough to do it.

[shijie]

I doubt one person’s negative actions could destroy an entire society’s moral foundations wholesale. Not even Hitler or Jesus did that.

[GalacticDomin8r]

It's quite clear Hitler and Jesus's followers changed the course of world events at a very large scale.

[IX-103]

> A business owner there would likely refuse to violate them even if it's very profitable, because doing so would make him a pariah, no "socialism" required.

So in other words it would not be profitable, no?