(Part 2) Top products from r/CapitalismVSocialism

Jump to the top 20

We found 43 product mentions on r/CapitalismVSocialism. We ranked the 448 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the products ranked 21-40. You can also go back to the previous section.

Next page

Top comments that mention products on r/CapitalismVSocialism:

u/HippeHoppe · 3 pointsr/CapitalismVSocialism

I'm actually a minarchist who believes in a particular kind of restricted natural duty theory of social contract (Kant's justification for the state), but I was an ancap for a long time so I think I can give a good crack at an ancap answer.

>The social contract doesn't exist as a single legal document that one writes up and then signs, to be stored away for future reference.

As you say, the social contract is very clearly not a single historical event which establishes consent. However, this is one very common way of arguing for a particular kind of social contract (in particular, it's a common libertarian way of arguing for a social contract), so it's not as if ancaps are just strawmanning the position.

The general problem seems to be establishing:

(1) what the contract actually is

(2) how it's established

If the social contract is supposed to operate like any other contract, so that you 'consent' to the terms of the contract by an actual act of consent, then there are some pretty clear problems. For one thing, it's hard to identify what specific actions constitute consent - and, if you didn't perform those actions, would that constitute non-consent? For instance, if using government roads means that you consent to the government, then does not using those roads mean you don't consent? Second, it seems like the only way that a lot of these conditions for consent can "get going" in the first place is through something you did not consent to - for instance, in order for the government to begin to provide services for the "first citizens" who benefited from those services, the government probably coerced those citizens to make that provision possible (for example, by taxing them, or by preventing competing organizations from providing the same services). This is most clearly the case with law/security/defense.

For example, if the US government commanded the obedience of native Americans because they were "residing on US government land", this wouldn't be legitimate, because the only reason the US government "owns" that land is by conquering and subjugating the non-consenting Indians; so the conditions for consent depend on a coercive act, which invalidates the state's claim to those conditions.

This general approach to social contract theory, which establishes some way of providing actual consent, is called a transactional consent theory - the idea is that people have certain moral rights in a vacuum, but that that transact or transfer those rights to the state by an act of consent. There are other credible approaches to justification of a social contract, but I think it's pretty clear that the transactional model (which most libertarians criticize) is not one of them. It ends up boiling down to "you relate to the government by X, which means you consent", and libertarians saying (probably correctly) that "the only reason X exists is because the government coerced me prior to establishing X!"

> It exists as a state of relationships between people, communities and societies. We observe it's natural convention at work when we interact with our friends as opposed to strangers, family members as opposed to foreigners, and as one nation in contrast with other nations.

This is a more 'associative' theory of political obligation - the idea is that, because you exist in some unchosen association with other people, this establishes some sort of collective obligation for people due to this association. But it seems like the problem with this theory is that, absent some more ethical work to flesh it out, it's only begging the question: we have a political obligation to people based on X association (family, clan, race, nation, humanity, etc.) because... why, exactly? It seems like the answer is just "because of the association" (we can talk about all the details of that association - the fact that you share certain characteristics or have a shared history, or because you tend to cooperate together, or something else), but, again, it seems like it builds the conclusion ("unchosen associations imply obligations") into the premise.

I don't think it's quite as simple as that, because I think it is possible to mount a compelling defense of an associative theory of political obligation (it's actually a theory associated more strongly with conservative political philosophy - although your flair says you're a socialist, the best sources for this sort of theory are, imo, Aristotle and Edmund Burke). But it's not very compelling for most people today, because people today generally think that consent is a morally important factor for the sort of stuff that the state does, and the social contract is supposed to show us that consent actually exists. This associative theory might establish that we have a duty to obey the law and the state has a right to command us, but it doesn't establish that this relationship is consensual (for the theorists I have in mind who advocate this theory, however, consent simply isn't important for establishing political authority or obligation).

>In any country you live in, certain rights are accorded to you as a citizen that aren't available to other people who aren't.

First, ancaps will disagree with this characterization of rights. Ancaps think (and I do too, even though I'm not an ancap) that rights are logically and historically prior to the state: even if there exists no state, you have certain rights, and these rights don't depend on their being secured to be morally important (for instance, even if you have no way of defending yourself and you live in a stateless island, it would still be a violation of your rights for someone else to kill you).

Second, it's unclear what the sort of positive rights you're talking about have to do with the social contract without at least some further explanation. The mere fact that you are given special privileges doesn't seem to imply that your relationship with the person who grants those privileges is consensual - for instance, you might be accorded rights to water use against your neighbors (so that your neighbors can't use some water, but you can) because of a local warlord who prefers you to your neighbors. But this doesn't mean that everything else the warlord does to you is consensual; all it means is that he's nicer to you than everyone else.

>When someone talks about the social contract, this is simply what they're referring to (1).

Yes, yes, we all know who John Rawls is. However, the defense of social contract theory which you've provided is actually not much like John Rawls's theory of justice at all. If you're going to condescendingly posture yourself as better educated than we stupid libertarians, at least be better educated.

>Claiming that you're not part of a larger social system because nobody presented you with a piece of paper is just a straw man argument, you understand it in your public and private behavior every day.

See: all above.

u/Anenome5 · 3 pointsr/CapitalismVSocialism

>It's also very different from laissez-faire capitalism as I understand it.

I don't see how. It's like the difference between having a team of accountants upstairs doing your actuarial and accounting work for a bank in the 1800's versus having a computer that does all of that automatically in the 2000's.

It's something we always could've done, but now it's automated in such a way as to be possible in the regular course of business, making our existing capital systems more efficient, productive, and cost-effective.

> Note you don't say that such a thing wouldn't be possible, just that it's not a planned economy. Well, maybe not like a 20th century one.

A planned economy always means planned from the center by government, so the term is being misused by you and Ma.

>Lurkers might like this journal article from some Chinese economists including the Marxist economist Binbin Wang on the possibilities of using big data for 21st century planning.

The Chinese think they've discovered some new way of running a country that's better than how the West does it, because they've experienced 7%+ growth rates for a few decades now.

But they are fooling themselves, and it's easy to be thus fooled when you produce a track record like that. What's actually occurred, without them being honest enough to admit it to themselves and to the world, is that China was very backwards economically and began developing quickly only once communist central-planning was ended with the death of Mao and the communist leaders opening up to free market reforms through the reunification with Hong Kong and copying the HK societal model by creating dozens of special economic zones all over China. 40% of Chinese live in these SEZs, and they are what has created the 'Chinese economic miracle', actually a miracle of free market capitalism produced by the Chinese deciding to give limited economic freedom where before there was none. They restrained themselves, and then imagined themselves to be geniuses at running a country.

Their ideas are also based in part on Cheng Enfu who is the head of the Academy of Marxism at the Shanghai University of Finance and Economics. This is how Cheng describes the Chinese economy:

That's a nice quote, it nicely captures the way in which the socialist economists of China have rationalized their integrating relatively free markets into socialism, while creating a justification for the continued central control and priority of the socialist party above it all.

In actual fact, the only thing the Chinese have actually done is reinvent a new form of socialist-style economic fascism that was introduced by the Italian fascists and also utilized by Nazi Germany, of limited private ownership combined with primary control of all capital by the singular state central party, exactly as the fascists in Italy and Germany did.

Nothing new, and it was not some miracle economy. The same kinds of stories that happen in Italy and Germany at that time have trickled out of China, that you must know somebody and have party connections in order to do business in China on any kind of scale, otherwise you're screwed and it's impossible. This is exactly what it was like in Germany. See, "The Vampire Economy" by Reismann.

They have done this while borrowing $20 trillion, and now that their economy is slowing down and increasingly refusing to grow as fast as before, they are becoming concerned, as they should be, because the same thing happened to soviet Russia.

The reason the Chinese have been able to grow so fast is because their country was so very economically backwards for so very long, they rejected all the free market changes that have accumulated in the US and Europe over the 500 years, and were essentially an agrarian / feudal economy well past the 1950's, of poor farmers primarily.

And because the country is so huge and has so many people, turning that around became a massive undertaking. They began experiencing massive gains because they were so very backwards. And they imported all of the ways and techniques and tech that the modern world spent centuries developing several iterations of, they were able to bring in the latest iteration without paying the cost of its modern development. Which is pretty awesome for them. They cherry picked gains for decades that way, running electrical lines throughout the country, sewer, medical, etc., etc., etc.

The Soviet Union did a similar things under the socialists after the revolution because the Czar before them had kept the country so backwards, so feudal, he did not allow any economic liberalization in, and he hated the idea of capitalism. So the Soviets inherited this economically backwards country, and they too made rapid gains for a time, even using their central planning. They too thought they'd discovered an economic system that would defeat capitalism.

But they were wrong, and China is wrong. Once the Russians caught up to the modern standard and all the cherry-picked gains were gone, they began to languish and starve.

China too will experience falling growth as they are now catching up to the modern standard and those cherry-picked gains are gone, but they are trying to extend the trend through massive, massive amounts of borrowing.

It won't work. You cannot print wealth from thin air through borrowing.

AI will only make the economy more efficient and productive, it is not a fundamental change to how the economy works. AI will one day do our capitalism for us and allow us a lot more free time and easier work. But that doesn't mean capitalism isn't being done just because it is our machines doing the buying and selling for us instead of a human being.

u/cledamy · 1 pointr/CapitalismVSocialism

> How would this work on any sort of large scale? e.g. a city. Most people are strangers, so are they just going to be gifting strangers etc?

Give away shops. Gift exchanges.

> These vague, evidence less assertions is exactly why i'm not impressed by leftists.

Carrot and stick theories of human motivation have been disproven

> Leftists make the argument that humans are going to drastically change their behavior from what it is now all the time, and they do it without evidence or any good arguments.


Ancient societies centered around gift-giving and social debt practices rather than the common myth of barter. There have been plenty of scientific arguments in favor of communism.

> Well trade secrets. If you come up with a way to make some process 10% cheaper, and you keep it a secret, you can undercut all the competition and get more sales. It could take them a long time to get hold of this secret.

Depending on what the trade secret is they could just as easily make innovations and increase the price of their good because of the scarcity of the trade secret. This introduces an inefficiency that wouldn’t exist without a market economy. Why should we prefer the efficiency of markets over the efficiencies that can be had without them in this case?

> Is the answer not obvious? People who want the research done will fund it voluntarily.

I don’t think gift economies can be effective for work that requires one's full attention like scientific research without people having their basic needs guaranteed outside the market mechanism (like through gift economy).

> I see indie game makers making games all the time when there's not much chance they'll turn a profit. They do it because they love the idea of making the game, and the money is a bonus (or something that lets them do their hobby full time).

So you understand how people can be motivated in a gift economy. If gift economies can work for these things, why not at least try to get them to work for other sorts of relatively abundant goods?

> Right, but is it more or less efficient than having IP?

It is less efficient because while functionally the innovator gets to keep a monopoly on the knowledge in both cases at least with IP they share their knowledge with others even if those others would have to pay royalties to use that is still better than not having that knowledge not shared at all.

> One big issue here too is that IP laws by their nature violate physical property rights, and I view that as immoral. I mean if you want a great absurd example, it's John Deere claiming people who buy their tractors can't service them themself or with 3rd parties because it'd violate the copyright they have on the software in the tractor, and that John Deere is only licencing the tractors due to this. It's absurd, and a huge violation of property exchange principles (I can't imagine people agreed to this in writing when they bought the tractor).

This is largely a result of regulatory capture. It isn't hard to imagine a much more reasonable form of IP.

> IP laws are as much a moral issues as an issue of efficiency, and I think IP law fails on both fronts.

I agree with you that IP (all forms) is immoral, but I disagree that a reasonable form of IP would be inefficient if one is searching for the same sort of efficiencies that market economies offer for human capital.

> Did you forget competition exists for a sentence there?

Fair enough.

> I'm not sure you know what rivalrous means. It simply means two people can't use the same thing at the same time for different purposes. This absolutely applies to absentee ownership.

Absentee ownership means that the individual that owns it isn't using it, so how is it rivalrous?

> Is that research really that valuable though?

Extending human knowledge of the universe is a worthwhile pursuit in and of itself. Even without that motivation, this research could lead to technological advances down the line.


> Wait, are you saying you disagree with the division of labour?

The division of labour is obviously a great thing as it enables the complexities of modern society, but it isn't a goal unto itself. In the narrow scenario I was discussing, the specialization of the janitor doesn’t buy us much in the way of efficiency. It forces an individual to work a bullshit monotonous job when everyone in the organization can do their share of work towards it, so everyone can do fulfilling and valuable intellectual work. It also defeats the common argument used against communism about who will do the shitty jobs. If there is a job that no one wants to do but has to be done, the group can democratically decide on such a solution rather than just forcing the impoverished to have unfulfilling work.

> I agree market socialism wouldn't suffer from this kind.

Then, what is your objection to market socialism?

> Post-scarcity is utopian and never going to happen

Post-scarcity is only utopian if you define the term in a manner, which makes it not useful. Post-scarcity can refer to an economy where goods can be produced in relative abundance compared to their demand to the point where trading in that good becomes unprofitable. This has actually already occurred in agriculture causing the EU to buy up the surplus to increase the prices back to profitable levels. Production for use, while creating some inefficiencies, can lead to efficiencies like total distribution.

> (just like communism)

How would your view change if it were established that communism is feasible?

u/metalliska · 1 pointr/CapitalismVSocialism

> Wrong. Technically, the bond supplier (fund demander) is losing a bond in the sense that interest that, at the time of the bonds maturity (whenever the funds must be repaid with interest) the bond supplier loses the Face value of the bond plus the interest (which is essentially a loss of a bond in the future).

wrong. There is no guarantee of interest of "other things the bond purchaser could have otherwise bought". It's simply a promise.

The "supplier" doesn't lose them because it implies they were "found" from the start as an asset. It's only an asset once it transfers from promiser to promisee.

The bond supplier doesn't "lose the face value" because it's the one who chose what that 'face value' was to begin with. Otherwise the bond supplier could just assign any "face value" any other amount of promises with no consequence.

Want me to send you an IOU for $57T ? Same principle. I don't "lose the face value" for anything. Like promises are exiting my warehouse.

>The suggestion here would be that lines themselves make graphs invalid so long as the grapher is an idiot.

or that imaginary goods and widgets are unscientific and shouldn't be taken seriously.

>The validity of the graphs?

Correct. When are the graphs you're showing me "Invalid"? Upon what criteria makes for an invalid orientation? Another question is "Why are supply and demand graphs always located in Cartesian Quadrant I when we see negative interest rates"? If "price" is "kinda like an interest rate" per your other posting.

>Yes, you could, but it would be an invalid argument as it is a logical fallacy to base an idea off of an individuals work.

which logical fallacy is it to "base an idea off of a scientific work"? Where is the invalidation logical deduction which says "yep, you just can't look to the moon on May 29th, 1919 to find Beads Einstein predicted"? Which logical fallacy is that?

>To be clear I do not mean to say that the work regarding the idea itself cannot be utilized, only that concurrent works not regarding the idea are insufficient evidence.

right; absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This has nothing to do with logical fallacies or invalid arguments.

> Einstein's work on reativity can be assessed utilizing the information Einstein has provided regarding relativity

No, Einstein's work resulted in a Scientific Formula, properly balancing relative speeds and gravitational effects. One which will be retestable forever and based on disprovable demarcation boundaries. Universal such that anyone on planet earth can reconstruct this equation devoid of introduction to social concepts (such as value, property, taxes, marginal utility) to predict light refraction from a gravitational body.

>believe the model was logical

no, I don't use "logical" models in my vernacular at all.

>The default risk that a bank faces when loaning funds is based solely on the ifnormation granted to them by the bond-supplier's financial standings and financial history.

and the information about what zip code the loan is going to. Oh and the tax rate of that zip code. Oh and the Transunion FICO credit score metrics. oh and the number of children. oh and the last 3 places of employment. oh and the up-to-date utility bills with an electric company. And that electric company's bond rating and street address.

>You continuously make claims without backing them up.

I'm making claims based on the documentation I had to sign in June to buy a house. It takes about 2 hours in a lawyer office where these exact financial history documents are reviewed. For a mortgage loan.

Conversely, you seem to just link to the first google result with as many pop-up ads as possible.

>What do you mean by "when assets take down"

"Toxic Assets and Systematic Leverage". heres an abstract for you I googled note the thing about "far from being competitive". another way to think of it is a "Troubled Assets and Relief Program" where the "Buyer of Last Resort" liquidates these assets.

>t seems to have nothing to do with banking.

this book shows how Barclays, Vanguard, State Street, and other firms' collusion of asset-trading is the norm, and that the "individual firms are gonna compete" is largely a myth at the rich-end of the economic sectors.

>they paid the price as well as the banks they worked with.

yet none of them missed a vacation and will still be able to retire. I'm sure they really learned their lesson and have been forever humbled. Not serious.

>You do understand that delving into personal experiences and history is the opposite of logical assessment.

wasn't for George Boole.

>If you are not willing to believe in studies or data then I suggest you concede.

dude I spiritually conceded like 9 posts ago. You can "win" the internet argument. I'm after knowledge.

>s. You want your theory to be right so bad that you make it right.

What's my theory?

>When an item is cheap, more people buy it. When an item is expensive fewer people buy it.

My shopping experience is similar. The "number of people" is also part of clientele. In retail, clothing that doesn't sell doesn't get burned for the most part, it's offloaded to other vendors.

> I have done the math a million times in undergrad.

I don't doubt it. It seems second nature to you.

>The idea that people only buy based on their "budget room" and do not consider the price of the item itself aside from their ability to purchase is a fairly rudimentary view.

It's more that people are going to get what they need to survive whether or not that plays nice with "supply-and-demand". There is no "rudimentary view" here. Because there is no "forward-thinking" contrary position. People still, in the USA in 2019, are pressured to "live within their means" else they gotta show up in court.

>However, stemming from that, there the calculation of utility and opportunity cost for every individual for every product.

what about economics textbooks marked down on the ? I got a used Economics Statistics book once for $1.25. Clearly I missed out on the difference my money could have made me had I invested that $1.25 in a top performing blue-chip firm.

>Businesses need only calculate this for their own product, but it is good brain-exercise to understand how it works in consumers' minds as well.

again with the mind control. Like we need to keep tabs on habits and use targeted demographic advertising (and coupons!) otherwise it might be (gasp) BAD FOR BUSINESS!!!!! The fucking horror.

> Based on this consumer demand curve, businesses determine their own demand curve for the product derived from wholesale companies who are attempting to maximize their profits from business purchases.

which demand curve puts as many large firms (>8000 people) out of business as fast as possible? asking for a friend. Maybe we can shift and slide this curve to find an optimal price to give the shareholders as convincing as a false-flag as possible, then BAM! the managers go right back to the unemployment line.

u/satanic_hamster · 1 pointr/CapitalismVSocialism

> I suspect this is why the left calls all IQ discussions 'racist'.

It was even called racist back in the day. In the 20's and 30's most everybody was fine with the concept and had no issue with it, despite the fact that the science of IQ was in its infancy compared to today. After WW2 though, I suppose on some level, its understandable why the topic became too hot to touch, but in academia from that point, its still been very difficult for the issue to make a comeback. And it's especially a bitter pill to swallow for public consumption.

Charles Murray though is the case in point that everyone likes to point to. He was crucified by (mostly) liberal academics in his line of research. In particular, Stephen Jay Gould who wrote the Mismeasure of Man (which was a direct response to the Bell Curve), which most psychologists and virtually all psychometricians today dismiss. But I don't know enough about the science as a whole to know if what Murray's talking about is true. I'll take it at face value that it is on some level.

> Hierarchy exists as a part of nature.

I agree entirely with this but it is important to remember nevertheless, when more sophisticated people on the left (and I'd like to include myself here just a bit) criticize hierarchy and inequality, we're not talking about natural inequalities for the most part.

> The funny thing is, no one bats an eye that black people make up most of the NBA and the NFL, not to mention are at the elite top of pretty much every track and field event (sans shot put maybe). Apparently in the context of sports it is just fine to discuss, but actually want to talk about things that affect success at life outcomes? How dare you!

True, unfortunately.

> I think you are an example that the overton window is shifting on this. It may not be mainstream, but the data is certainly on the side of those who think IQ is important. I can't wait until it does go mainstream - maybe then we can actually start having conversations about what we (as society) are going to do about all the low IQ people who just had their jobs automated.

It's increasingly getting a lot more steam and mainstream attraction. What I worry about however are the political/economic and social implications of this. People should be free to make of their life whatever they will, but the extent to which our choices and abilities to do what we want to are constrained by our IQ and other factors, makes this very difficult. And will always cause conflict unless its directly addressed. And this is the scary part, because its where you get into subjects about dysgenics and other things.

> This is a huge problem coming up. I don't think either side has particularly good solutions.

Indeed.

u/FankFlank · 1 pointr/CapitalismVSocialism

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Cybersyn


https://www.amazon.com/Peoples-Republic-Walmart-Corporations-Foundation/dp/178663516X


Don’t buy the book from Bezos.

libgen.is is a really good ebook pirating site. If the site is blocked, consult the comrades at r/piracy

I just checked, libgen have the book in .epub format.

I’m telling you this because fuck Bezos.

P.S.

ePub works best with iBooks (iOS and Mac), but on windows, it’s better to have a ebook reader software.

I use Calibre, which can be found along with many other free and open source softwares on github. These are written by volunteers, so they’re a nice break from all the ad infested or overpriced software shit from tech corporations.

Most of these softwares don’t have installers, the short cut would be to use a power-shell (similar but distinct from the command prompt) app called chocolatey. They’re a small but nonetheless for profit business, but don’t give them your money, because the free service already covers installation and uninstallation of packages.

I’m writing all this because fuck intellectual property.

u/unconformable · 1 pointr/CapitalismVSocialism

> But while it has some importance is't not at the core of our very society, like were obsessed with it or something, not at all.

I disagree. Profit takes priority over anything. If the capitalist can't get enough they will not invest, no matter how beneficial the product is.


>Oh yes the labour theory of value, 'exploitation' and other laughable long refuted nonsense.

I wasn't even referring to those, but you show how manipulated you are.


>Its still highly state regulated and controlled, and most of its problems are actually due to over-regulation/intervention.

Of the plutocracy. This is capitalism. The capitalists own everything, even the political system. Those "problems" are vehicles to profit for the capitalists.


>You said it didn't have [externalities] and now you say its not perfect, which is it?


Umm, both. Even without externalities, we still live in reality, people with emotions, the rules of science, etc.


>So like modern western liberal society then!

Now this is just stupid. What fantasyland do you dream of?

>You don't realize that you are displaying all your flawed assumptions here.

Reality is real. Read this if your ego can handle it.

You can't be pro-capitalist and an honest empathetic person.



>The leftist understandings of this system which call it capitalism are completely flawed so it doesn't really make sense to even use their term to refer to it, that just plays into their narrative.

Capitalism has a definition and this fits it.

The only "free" market is a socialist, worker owned and run market. Otherwise the most profitable will inevitably create a state to protect their interests.

u/Asvesniis · 2 pointsr/CapitalismVSocialism

>at the heart of this, is that loans are merely promises. So any "supply" isn't based on material goods, but a reserve requirement.

Yes, but there is more to the story. The Reserve Requirement Ratio and the actual supply off funds from investors/savers has a direct effect on the loanable rate. I am not sure what you mean by a "promise". All currency is based on a "promise" by the government.

>More sway does not mean sufficient sway.
>
>it kinda does

I mean, if you'd like to contest that rich people have influence over the economy as a whole that is fine, but we are discussing the influence of hefty shareholders over loanable rates.

>If any bank makes a "health inquiry" on its assets' likelihood of default, they can raise rates or lower them based on that inquiry. Or sell them to a "poor sucker" bank if they're likely to go under.

I believe you have this backwards. The raising ad lowering of rates necessarily has effects on available capital and future available capital which can make them appear artificially strong or weak.

>The scandal arose when it was discovered that banks were falsely inflating or deflating their rates so as to profit from trades, or to give the impression that they were more creditworthy than they were

You are right and I missed a key aspect of the scandal regarding the alteration of the Libor metric itself to improve creditworthiness. But regardless, the Libor scandal seems to include rates only "altered" not drastically increased. Thus, the profit comes from the facade given by rates, not by the rates themselves.

u/Linearts · 1 pointr/CapitalismVSocialism

The Undercover Economist might be one of the most enlightening books I've ever read, and it's what got me interested in economics in the first place. It's got pretty good explanations for the advantages and disadvantages of markets, and talks about when they cause good outcomes or bad outcomes.

Freakonomics isn't really about capitalism vs socialism, but it is a fun book written by economists.

u/chewingofthecud · 1 pointr/CapitalismVSocialism

What do corporations have to do with fascism? Fascism is something like palingenetic ultranationalism, and that has nothing whatsoever to do with corporations.

If by "corporate fascism" you mean something like corporatism then that could very well be right or left. If by "corporate fascism" you mean something like corporatocracy then that's a symptom and not an ideology, and could be countered by either left means (worker solidarity) or by right (nationalism).

u/RoMSie · 6 pointsr/CapitalismVSocialism

Anecdotal evidence: here

Small explanation: here

Press overview: here

if you want to learn from a more academic book: here, here

And otherwise just taking classes in economics, building a company and looking at real life example.

The best examples of coo-ops nowadays are start-ups before their first round of investment (A, B, C, etc.) and other outsider capital increases.

u/zethien · 3 pointsr/CapitalismVSocialism

The period between the Civil War and WW1 was not at all laissez-faire. There were extremely high protectionist tariffs, as well as the whole Reconstruction and Transcontinental Railroad being both huge government funded projects. The Heritage Foundation and everything they come up with is a load of crap if you think about it for longer than half a second.

There's an excellent book by Ha-joon Chan (yes he is a capitalist) called 23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism, chapter 7 is specifically about the so called "laissez-faire markets".

> Ulysses Grant, the Civil War hero-turned president in defiance of the British pressure on the USA to adopt free trade, remarked that "within 200 years, when America has gotten out of protection all that it can offer, it too will adopt free trade".

If you don't like reading, there is a lecture on the book he gives at the London School of Economics here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56RndDFRnH4

u/ABillionYearsOld · 1 pointr/CapitalismVSocialism

> https://www.amazon.com/Salt-Sugar-Fat-Giants-Hooked/dp/0812982193
> There are plenty of cites in this book.

A journalist's pop book is not demonstration of a conspiracy by every corner of the food industry to get people addicted to anything.

> You're mirroring. Reread your mistakes and let me know when you correct them.

Mmmmm yeah I kind of figured it was going to go this way eventually. A lazy attempt to source something you said and then running away.

AH well, maybe the 5th time I try to get you to clearly state what you're trying to say will be the charm.

u/Malthus0 · 1 pointr/CapitalismVSocialism

Get some context first from an introductory text like Marx: A Very Short Introduction

The three paradigms that he drew to make is work: Classical economics, French socialist political philosophy, and Hegelianism are all antiquated in the sense that in general we don't think in those terms any more. Reading Marx and understanding everything you read is not always the same thing.

u/Continuity_organizer · 1 pointr/CapitalismVSocialism

If you want to know more about the effect of IQ on various social and economic metrics, do check out Charles Murray's The Bell Curve.

It holds up as well today as it did when it was first published 22 years ago.

u/Leche_Hombre2828 · 14 pointsr/CapitalismVSocialism

Your point isn't even based in reality

Men's Hanes 7 pack of regular undies, $30

Women's Hanes 10 pack of regular undies, $26

Even if they were priced differently, the two kinds of underwear are totally different materials, sizes, shapes, and are sold to two completely different markets.. So why wouldn't they be priced differently?

u/Alfred_Marshall · 3 pointsr/CapitalismVSocialism

The Fourth Revolution, by John Micklethwait and Adrian Woolridge.

In Defense of Global Capitalism, by Johan Norberg.

The Rise and Fall of American Growth by Robert Gordon.

The Road to Serfdom by F A Hayek.

Asquith, by Roy Jenkins.

This is a weird one, but Woodrow Wilson by John Milton Cooper Jr. This influenced me a lot, but it obviously won't have the same effect on everyone.

u/And-R-Pov · 1 pointr/CapitalismVSocialism

Well that is a very good question. I don't really know but I think about this all the time. First I think we should look at China. Here you have the world's second-largest economy where all the land is state owned, all the banks are state owned so the state is what's in the driver's seat in terms of investment on a macro scale. The officials in the Politburo still read Marx. Some of the things they have accomplished were laid out by Marx and Engels in the 1940s, particularly state control of finance.

Xi Jinping is supposed to have an article on dialectical materialism coming out soon in Qiushi Journal, the Communist Party's theoretical journal, but I haven't found it yet. But the idea behind dialectics is that history is a struggle between opposites which are reconciled every so often in a new "synthesis." The conflict between lord and serf are reconciled by the rise of bourgeois capitalism, which in turns gives rise to a conflict between owners and workers. History does not go in a straight line but like this according to this theory. There are some heterodox Marxists (you won't find many of them here) who also claim that 21st century capitalism in the West is effectively centrally-planned now, at present. So what if the "synthesis" of the 20th century Cold War is not the overthrow of capitalism, but the transformation of capitalism through its conflict with 20th century state socialism? Capitalism "beat" socialism but was also fundamentally changed in that process.

I just think it's interesting. If you look back at France, the French overthrew the monarchy and then took over most of Europe, spreading nationalist and republican ideas. This was reversed and the House of Bourbon took over in 1815, switching to the House of Orleans in 1830 which lasted until 1848. That's 33 years of restored aristocratic rule after a bourgeois revolution. Well, we are 28 years since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Not saying Lenin is going to reawaken and punch his way out of his glass box anytime soon, but history moves in strange directions especially when you think that the Communist Party is making a comeback in Russia now. It might be the case that we only saw the first wave in the 20th century.

u/Rhianu · 1 pointr/CapitalismVSocialism

Mormon historian Paul B. Skousen uses it as an argument against socialism in his book The Naked Socialist, and I also once had it presented to me in a university philosophy course I once took.

u/MitchSnyder · 1 pointr/CapitalismVSocialism

This act feeds their greed and power. The christian hierarchy and capitalists are the same people. Learn your history: it's One Nation Under God dontcha know?

The capitalists use the pulpits to control the workers and subjugate them under the capitalists.

u/kitten888 · 1 pointr/CapitalismVSocialism

My source states that intra-species murder among animals happens much less often then we think watching Animal Planet. Animals competeting for food use violence against each other, but the fight stops as soon as one party steps back.

Konrad Lorenz On Aggression

u/Arguss · 3 pointsr/CapitalismVSocialism

In that case, I found a lot of inspiration in the book American Progressivism: A Reader. It's a sampling of formative essays and speeches during the Progressive Era talking about reforming government, reducing corruption, and building a reliable administration. Reading it helps understand how the modern US government got to be where it is, because most of their proposals were eventually adopted.

I also read Leninism by Neil Harding, which went into the detail of the initial Communist revolution in Russia and how Lenin's political theories evolved as circumstances on the ground changed. I think it was helpful both in gaining more understanding of the history of the time and in learning about what Communism came to mean in a Russian context.

I liked Predictably Irrational and Freakonomics for really highlighting 1) economics is about incentives, and 2) our incentives sometimes lead us and markets astray, sometimes even in predictably bad ways.

The Myth of the Rational Market traces a history of financial economics going back to the early 1900s and how we conceptualized the idea of the Efficient Market Hypothesis. It also ends up introducing a lot of basic financial information I had in my finance classes.

The Alchemists: Three Central Bankers and the World on Fire goes into specific detail about the financial crisis and how central banks across the world responded to it. Useful if you aren't familiar with the specifics of the crisis.

The Working Poor: Invisible in America helps explore the hopelessness and despair of the working poor, and how a poverty mindset can develop. It also shows how systems of late fees, overdraft fees, payday loans, lack of benefits for part-time workers, the cost of healthcare, etc all combine to really rig the world against the poor succeeding.

That's all I can think of for now.

u/564sdfgdfg · -3 pointsr/CapitalismVSocialism

> center-left economically?

left, very left

https://www.amazon.com/Vampire-Economy-Doing-Business-Fascism/dp/161016038X writen by a marxist, note the author is so super marxist moronic idiot at level 9000 that when nazi take over stuff means of production he still calls it capitalism simply because the past owner is a figurehead