[rjtavares]

Parent didn't call Finland socialist, just said "more socialist".

If one considers "Capitalism" and "Socialism" as the two extremes of an economic organization continuum (which is reasonable), Finland is indeed "more socialist" (or better yet, less capitalist) than the US.

[zwaps]

Europeans often follow the classical definition of socialism: non private ownership of means if production. Things like so socialist market economies without state regulation thereof, for example, are theoretically conceivable.

However, no European country is socialist in that sense. They have a lot of state involvement, or other public institutions, but they do have private property especially for means of production. That’s all there is to it, and calling Finland socialist seems rather inappropriate to Europeans. Indeed, to describe these different systems, other names are used, for example social democracy, or social market system etc.

For Americans, socialism is just the opposite of capitalism in every particular dimension, not just means of producing. So you can be more socialist in healthcare and so forth, even by having just more state control of things that are still privately owned.

Neither is wrong. It is a semantic misunderstanding.

Americans convey a lot of meaning by using single words. For example, just yelling socialism can now bring forth associations of all kinds, from Sweden to Stalin. Political discourse seems highly polysemic.

Europeans here are to some degree confused. It is not easy to keep up with the context of what socialism all means in the US, and how that meaning constantly shifts and gets new nuances.

But the vividness of it all is linguistically rather interesting.

Anyhow, no one is inherently wrong here.

I would however mention that we converse in English, on a US website. So there is that.

[spaetzleesser]

I think it’s Americans that are confused. They don’t allow any subtlety but scream “socialism” as soon as something deviates the slightest bit from their current system. This is probably by design to suppress meaningful discussion of a system that benefits the people on the top.

[monadic3]

Americans being confused is hardly something one can avoid.

[emteycz]

It's a false dichotomy. Both can coexist.

[rjtavares]

Both can coexist, but you can do it in a more capitalism or more socialist way.

Take e.g. healthcare. You can have all private healthcare (capitalist), a public and private sector coexisting (mixed), or exclusively public provider (socialist).

And that's just a sector. You can have socialist healthcare but capitalist manufacturing. Every economy is mixed, but it can balance to one side or the other.

(btw, all modern economies tend to be capitalist, but social democracies in Europe are definitely less capitalist than the US)

[Uberphallus]

A big chunk of European systems are neither of those three, there are three axes, one is regulation, another the practice, and the final one is funding.

France for example, has mostly public funding, relatively heavy regulation (prices are fixed), but practice remains mostly private (though mixed in hospitals).

Switzerland has mostly private funding, even heavier regulation (insurance is mandatory and you can't be refused for pre-existing conditions, for example), and most practice is private (some public hospitals).

The big elephant in the room in US healthcare is that funding is 50/50, yet you can only benefit from the public part by being old or extremely poor.

[hef19898]

That is an oversimplification. There is more defining Socialism than just healthcare. And having a solid social system in place is hardly a socialist thing.

[ryanbrunner]

I think their overall point is that it's possible to have sectors of the economy non-privately owned. Healthcare is a common one, but there's others - power generation, transit, education, etc.

If your definition of socialism is that absolutely all sectors of the economy are non-privately owned, then even places like Cuba don't qualify.

If your definition of capitalism is that absolutely all sectors of the economy ARE privately owned, the U.S. isn't a capitalist country.

[rjtavares]

Thank you, that was exactly my point.

[cies]

nope, they cannot. in the real meaning of the words: capitalism protects unlimited capital accumulation and socialism forbids it.

they are at odds.

currently most nations have capitalism, often with some social policies in place (mainly to prevent uprisings).

[nimbleal]

I see this “mainly to prevent uprisings” idea asserted in lots of places but it strikes me as highly cynical. What’s the evidence this is the case? Even if a social policy was first introduced in response to uprisings, that doesn’t demonstrate that simply quelling the uprising was its sole purpose then, and it certainly doesn’t mean that’s the reason for its continued existence now

[cies]

Most social policies where the results of strikes and demonstrations. See the Haymarket massacre, for instance.

[rjtavares]

That's a rather simplistic view of the matter.

They do coexist is most countries, just in different sectors. When a country collectively owns most of the healthcare means of production and protects it by law (e.g. by requiring emergency ambulances to go to public hospitals), how is that capitalism?

[cies]

They are merely social policies, not socialism. Capitalism is the unlimited protection of personal wealth, thereby for instance allowing billionaires to exist.

[emteycz]

That would make China not capitalistic, which is obviously wrong.

[hypertele-Xii]

The central philosophy in capitalism is competition. The world is currently very acutely seeing the second and third order effects of such "winner takes all" philosophy, ranging from consumer-harming monopolies to environment-destroying profit-seeking. If we set socialism as an opposition to capitalism, it rises naturally to represent cooperation; The idea that everyone is entitled to a base level of creature comfort regardless of accumulated capital, and that in coming together to solve problems, rather than trying to one-up each other, problems can be solved more effectively and with less harm.

[bregma]

Competition is the hallmark of liberalism, or a free-market economy. Capitalism and a free market are pretty much orthogonally related (consider, if you will, the ideal capitalist state in which a single capitalist controls 100% of the market).

The central philosophy is capitalism sure isn't competition. It's the accumulation of wealth. It's usually accomplished by taking it from those who create it. Reducing competition enhances that accumulation, so effectively competition is the enemy of capitalism.

[cies]

> The central philosophy is capitalism sure isn't competition. It's the accumulation of wealth.

Exactly. And I believe that the fact i have to explain this constantly is due to the very good PR of capitalism. "Capitalism is just free markets". No, it is not. Markets are not free, and capitalism needs more than "reasonably free markets", they need protection of wealth, no matter how much.

[hypertele-Xii]

Now you've got my brain in a twist.

What about the other extreme (apparently equally ideal) case of a capitalist state in which every single person controls an equal share of the market? Doesn't that sound the least bit socialist to you?

[bregma]

Not really. Everyone having an equal ownership of capital is not the same as a central representative authority holding all capital. Democaratically syndicated ownership of capital is closer to (true) communism and the complete opposite of socialism.

[sbuttgereit]

No, you've described the caricature of capitalism that those opposed to it repeat to themselves to help justify their opposition. The central philosophy of capitalism is that voluntary trade leads, ultimately, to greater and more efficient production. That's not to say it's necessarily a straight line walk or that what is produced is necessarily pretty. Competition is a side effect that comes into play once you are producing something valuable to someone else willing to buy that something. It is a mechanism that keeps check on the bounds of prices and efficiency.

The real difference between capitalism and socialism is that capitalism requires voluntary action whereas socialism embraces compelled action. Socialist "cooperation" and "coming together to solve problems" are euphemisms for a politically powerful group to harness the productive output of the governed for its own purposes, without regard to if the perceived problems or the perceived solutions are real or not. Unless, of course, true socialist policy allows dissenters to opt-out of participation, in which case I withdraw my characterization. Assuming I'm right, I find the notion of "cooperate or else" far less appealing or moral than capitalism with all of the competition that comes with it.

Finally socialism doesn't eliminate competition... it only moves it from the marketplace to the seat of government. There is no grand collective, there is no "public good": there are individuals with differing beliefs, interests, and objectives. Once you put sufficient power in the government: the most ambitious individuals will compete for privileged positions within political movements rather than businesses, political movements will compete with alternative political movements for the reigns of government. Socialism doesn't remove fundamental human desires for prestige and power, it only redirects the energy into the mechanisms of state; and no that's not necessarily a benefit to the poor, or the underprivileged, or any other banner of victimization that you might fly to justify that state. The inability of a government program to fail means that the real world effectiveness any given government program (assuming that it's even a "right program") is secondary to its ability to attract political support. In capitalism, the voluntary aspect allows for failure if the business isn't producing the product efficiently or it isn't producing something that someone else actually wants or needs.

[claudiawerner]

>are euphemisms for a politically powerful group to harness the productive output of the governed for its own purposes, without regard to if the perceived problems or the perceived solutions are real or not

This is unsubstantiated in that it posits the "politically powerful" as having nothing but their own interests in mind. Ignoring the possible retort I could make that then interests of the politically powerful can not only coincide with the will of the people but also be the will of the people - reformation would remove a significant monetary interest which is exposed time and time again behind the politically powerful. The drive to be politically powerful is thereby lessened, or at least changed.

>The real difference between capitalism and socialism is that capitalism requires voluntary action whereas socialism embraces compelled action.

There's plenty of scholarly work both from libertarian socialism, anarchism and defences of socialism from liberal principles; I'd recommend G.A. Cohen on this point.

> Socialism doesn't remove fundamental human desires for prestige and power, it only redirects the energy into the mechanisms of state

It's worth questioning to what extent fundamental human desires really are so fundamental, isn't it? I'm also not convinced prestige and power are bad things; arguably, that drive is how we have democracy in the first place, never mind the American revolution.

>and no that's not necessarily a benefit to the poor, or the underprivileged, or any other banner of victimization that you might fly to justify that state

There's a whole area of philosophical and economic research dedicated to what extent this is a good question - distributive justice and the theory of exploitation. If the only argument is that it's "not necessarily" the case, we'd have just as much of a case against some forms of markets in that they may satisfy consumer preferences as they create those preferences, not to other advantages.

> In capitalism, the voluntary aspect allows for failure

Democracy also allows for failure if the people do not see their will adequately reflected.

[throwaway_6142]

> the possible retort I could make that then interests of the politically powerful can not only coincide with the will of the people but also be the will of the people

The good old 'those noble and good hearted revolutionaries get to be the politically powerful and the "will" of the plebs better align with theirs, or else...'

In the end, there is only IngSoc!

[cies]

With enough distribution of power, true, un-hijacked-by-lobby, democracy is possible and this will not happen.

[hypertele-Xii]

> The central philosophy of capitalism is that voluntary trade leads, ultimately, to greater and more efficient production.

But only those who have capital get to participate (and even then the system is antagonistic between traders. everyone is trying to extract maximum value). Everyone else is forced into slavery (in everything but name) or left to die on the streets. Your value, as a person, is literally defined by the amount of money you have. If you have none, you are none.

> capitalism requires voluntary action whereas socialism embraces compelled action

This is an illusion. Under capitalism, you can choose to starve, sure. But what choice is that? When your value as a human being is tied to a monetary competition, you are either rich and alive or poor and struggling to survive.

Maybe people should be compelled? Any and all forms of government are essentially that, a force that compels people to behave in certain ways (under democracy, it's people compelling each other). Usually to do no harm as a baseline for civil society. Is that not a desirable quality of human civilization - people compelling each other to do good, or at least do no harm?

> euphemisms for a politically powerful group to harness the productive output of the governed for its own purposes, without regard to if the perceived problems or the perceived solutions are real or not.

Funny, because that's how I see capitalism. The capital elite (who own most capital) force those who don't to work for them (because their value as people is tied to their wealth which they can't survive without) and then barrage them with endless advertisements for consumer products scientifically engineered to be as addicting and rapidly obsolete as possible while offering little actual utility.

> Socialism doesn't remove fundamental human desires for prestige and power, it only redirects the energy into the mechanisms of state

Neither does capitalism. There the energy is directed into profit maximization at all cost and with limited liability for the consequences. And when costs are considered, a money-less person has zero value and is completely ignored.

------------

It's an interesting discussion. Yes I'm caricaturizing. I'm not a communist, nor completely opposed to capitalism. There's merit in what you say. But just like with communism, we can't look at the idealized version. Capitalism has given us a lot. But it's also destroying the planet, which we didn't know about until fairly recently in civilized history.

Ideally we'd move competition up to a planetary level where we all work together to colonize space. There it probably causes the least harm.

[cies]

> The central philosophy of capitalism is that voluntary trade leads, ultimately, to greater and more efficient production.

That's also what "market socialists" believe, but still they are very different.

The central underpinning of capitalism is the protection of personal wealth, ad infinitum. Thereby allowing capitalists a.k.a. billionaires to exist.