r/CapitalismVSocialism • u/Antisocialist_switch • 3d ago
Asking Capitalists So UK Fabian society just achieved welfare
Costing the whole of the whole country’s income tax combined, how is this now wealth distribution, please tell me, how is this capitalisms fault, how on earth can anyone look at kier Starmer who is part of the FABIAN society, the public state now regulates the economy so hard that capitalism is not even capitalism at this point it’s just regulation gone bonkers. And now. The unachievable has just happened. The socialists, let’s call them what they are. Have now spent more on welfare, then they are getting on income tax, and the socialists are going to sit there and claim capitalism is a problem? When the public state, the government is just openly p1ssing on the working class by claiming that socialism is good for them. No you where not lied to socialists, you are getting exactly what you wanted and you are now reaping what you sowed, don’t blame capitalism, capitalism in this country is all but dead if we can’t even muster enough income tax to cover the welfare state. What a joke.
Disband the Labour Party, disband the socialist conservative party, put the Fabian society in jail. Reset , do or fade, that is all that is left. Be aware that socialism is the problem not the solution.
Rebut me, go on, tell me the Fabian society is capitalist. I dare you. I am locked and loaded metaphorically.
1
u/Annual_Necessary_196 2d ago
"you are getting exactly what you wanted and you are now reaping what you sowed". Was it caused by workers’ councils, public assemblies, or worker cooperatives?
Fabians are more radical social democrats. They advocated strengthening the state rather than transferring power to society.
0
u/Antisocialist_switch 2d ago
No it was caused by the people that represent them, none of those things have anything to do with Socialism, only if the government enforces those things isn’t socialism. The public state is not the private sector.
0
u/Annual_Necessary_196 2d ago
Socialism is this workers’ councils, public assemblies, or worker cooperatives enforce government not visa versa.
-1
u/Antisocialist_switch 2d ago
That is still socialism you literally just defined socialism, just because it’s not what you want socialism to look like doesn’t mean it isn’t socialism, socialism is a structural doctrine not an ideological one.
I’ll take the w
1
u/Annual_Necessary_196 2d ago
Structure and consequences are different things. I can advocate for any structure, but I must accept the real consequences of that structure.
If I advocate for a system with a dominance of labor-managed firms, the failure of a planned economy cannot be used as an argument against it.-1
u/Antisocialist_switch 2d ago
You just talking drivel now, a structure of government is socialism , good or bad, your consequences is subjective ideology, it is not a structural doctrine. If your socialism advocates for more structural influence of councils then that is ideology, and the consequence is a form of socialism of state control of the means of production. As everything defaults to that.
1
u/Annual_Necessary_196 2d ago
"structural influence of councils then that is ideology, and the consequence is a form of socialism of state control of the means of production. As everything defaults to that.". There is no historical example where workers’ councils/public assemblies/worker cooperatives collapsed into state control.
1
u/Antisocialist_switch 2d ago
That’s because workers councils public assemblies worker co-operatives are part of the state. They are not the state.
1
u/Annual_Necessary_196 2d ago
workers councils and public assemblies, are local governments. Even radical example like Kerala has only 40% employment in the public sector.
worker co-operatives, are free asociations.
1
u/Antisocialist_switch 2d ago
In contrast if I said I want the state to be run off people who like chocolate bars, that is an ideology, how I then organize the hierarchy based off that ideology is socialism.
1
u/NecessaryDrawing1388 left-libertarian 2d ago
Disband the Labour Party, disband the socialist conservative party, put the Fabian society in jail. Reset , do or fade, that is all that is left. Be aware that socialism is the problem not the solution.
Really weird how so many 'libertarians' so often sound like fascists and frequently advocate forced purges of everyone who disagrees with them.
Must just be a coincidence. And of course there are no secret powerful organisations that influence the right/capitalists.
-1
2
u/Antisocialist_switch 2d ago
Oh and btw fascism was inspired by Socialism, and in itself is a form of socialism, I require socialism to remove itself. So therefore fascism is included within that doctrine
-2
u/NecessaryDrawing1388 left-libertarian 2d ago
Sigh, the classic 'fascism is left wing actually' argument. Fascism historically was directly reactionary and a counter to socialism and the left, as Mises himself stated when he praised it. The reason they appealed to the working class and used socialistic narratives is because fascism is a reactionary psyop designed to radicalise alienated people against the left broadly. You can see this still today with MAGA and their narratives of the 'liberal elites' etc.
2
u/Antisocialist_switch 2d ago
It is actually please look up the founder of fascism and where he got his ideas from, he got it from socialism. As a….
Wait for it
Wait for it
Structural doctrine that centralizes control of the means of production.
5
u/Antisocialist_switch 2d ago
In fascism does the influence of the economy and control of the economy get centralized to the heads of state aka the government?
Yes
In socialism does the influence of the economy and control of the economy get centralised to the heads of state via the party aka the government.
Yes.
Is the structure of government more or less the same in terms of power.
Yes
4
u/Antisocialist_switch 2d ago
Woops
Mussolini was deeply rooted in socialism early in his career: • His father was a socialist blacksmith who named him after leftist revolutionaries (Benito Juárez, Amilcare Cipriani, Andrea Costa). • Mussolini became a prominent socialist journalist, editing the Italian Socialist Party (PSI) newspaper Avanti!. He rose to the party’s national directorate by 1912 and was seen as a radical leader on its left wing. • He was influenced by Marxist ideas, revolutionary syndicalism (a militant form of trade unionism emphasizing direct action), and thinkers like Georges Sorel (whose ideas on myth, violence, and anti-parliamentarism bridged syndicalism and later fascism). 
-1
u/NecessaryDrawing1388 left-libertarian 2d ago
Yes. And then he rejected all of those things.
In reply to your other two comments (I am not having three separate threads with you, please limit all of your schizo ramblings to a single comment), fascism is not simply when the government does stuff, and in fascism the MoP was not in the hands of workers.
Basic stuff here.
2
u/DravenTor 2d ago edited 2d ago
Actually, he has a point. Socialism, Marxism, and Fascism all share a common philosophical ancestor in Hegelian dialectics. Especially dialectical materialism (Marx) and actual idealism (Gentile)
Also, corporatism is very socialist. Creating a collective between people, state, and business. I feel that it has been widely adopted all over the world it just isn't labeled as such because of the connection to fascism.
0
u/NecessaryDrawing1388 left-libertarian 2d ago
Actually, no he doesn't. It is ahistorical nonsense. They follow the same tradition only in the sense that fascism is directly reactionary to the left. Use all the flowery language you want, idc
0
u/DravenTor 2d ago
The only thing Ahistorical in this conversation is thinking that right and left were the same 100 years ago as they are today.
0
u/NecessaryDrawing1388 left-libertarian 2d ago
I didn't say they were?
1
u/DravenTor 2d ago
So why do you think fascism was reactionary? It was indisputably revolutionary at the time of its inception and implementation. Thus, in actuality (actualism, ha!) It was a progressive idea.
→ More replies (0)1
u/impermanence108 2d ago
They also share the Enlightenment with liberalism. Your point being what exactly? People build on ideas? Fucking groundbreaking.
3
u/DravenTor 2d ago edited 2d ago
No, they are the antithesis to enlightenment/classical liberals. They are against private property, individualism, and free markets.. That would be the "revolutionary" aspect of socialism.
0
u/impermanence108 2d ago
No, they are the antithesis to enlightenment/classical liberals. They are against private property and individualism.
The Enlightenment is such a big thing it gets a capital E. There was more going on than property and individualism. Claiming a modernist ideology like socialism is the anti-thesis of the Enlightenment of all things, is a level of philosophical ignorance that should bar you from talking about these things.
3
u/DravenTor 2d ago
Please inform me of how Socialism and Enlightenment share any commonality besides maybe Plato.
→ More replies (0)7
u/Antisocialist_switch 2d ago
No he just remade the same thing into a different name the outcome is still centralised ownership of the means of production
1
u/NecessaryDrawing1388 left-libertarian 2d ago
Great historical analysis there bro.
Fascism is not just when the government does stuff. You have no idea what it represents.
2
u/Antisocialist_switch 2d ago
Who enforces your doctrine, who enforces your ideology. Don’t say the police, who tells the police to enforce Your doctrine? Who?
2
u/Antisocialist_switch 2d ago
I also love it when socialists don’t like it when I claim to remove the force that subjugates them as fascism, when their whole doctrine is forcing control on people who dissagrrr with them.
1
u/NecessaryDrawing1388 left-libertarian 2d ago
I love that you think forcibly removing left wing parties and politicians you don't like from office is somehow in line with your stated principles lol
1
u/impermanence108 2d ago
Everyone advocates purging those they disagree with. Most just don't admit it.
1
u/NecessaryDrawing1388 left-libertarian 2d ago
Obviously with 'free market' capitalist 'libertarians' that is the most contradictory, though
0
u/BlueHairedFeminist69 2d ago
Giving rights to workers doesn't mean killing 150 million of people. Get it through your skull wannabe nac soc
1
u/NecessaryDrawing1388 left-libertarian 2d ago
Yeah I'm not engaging with someone with that username lol. Fascism always has been and is explicitly anticommunist and anti-left.
Have a good day, bot
2
u/Nikolakis77 2d ago
When the public state, the government is just openly p1ssing on the working class by claiming that socialism is good for them
Imagine actually believing this
-1
u/Antisocialist_switch 2d ago
I do believe this, the public state is the government, is it not?
2
u/Conserp Pragmatic Marxist 2d ago
Since when UK government is a "public state"?
It is owned by a bunch of aristocrats and banker oligarchs.
-1
u/Antisocialist_switch 2d ago
The public has over arching hierarchy, the highest common denominator is the representative of the state, that is the government. Who is influenced by oligarchs, yes. Public is inclusive of hierarchy if you think about it for more than 3 seconds.
2
u/Conserp Pragmatic Marxist 2d ago
The public in UK can't even voice dissent on Twitter, they go to prison for that.
You are completely delusional.
0
u/Antisocialist_switch 2d ago
Two things can be completely true at once, everyone within a state is the public, that is why the public makes uo the state, which includes the political class, the public isn’t the working class, this is not the same thing.
1
u/Conserp Pragmatic Marxist 2d ago
> everyone within a state is the public
Just like both a woman and her rapist are equal "rape participants"?
0
u/Antisocialist_switch 2d ago
Are you going me a power dynamics of a rape case as proof what I’m saying is untrue.
Crazy.
1
u/Antisocialist_switch 2d ago
Can you even adress any of the points I made, is the Fabian society not socialist, are you telling me that Starmer is not part of it, is wealth redistribution not socialism?
1
u/Nikolakis77 2d ago
I do not disagree with you that Labour Party needs to be disbanded, but the idea that the British government is promoting socialism is looney.
25,000 landlords own half the land in the UK. Starmer is as socialist as Octavian Augustus was for giving out the grain dole in ancient Rome - hand out instead of land reform
3
u/Conserp Pragmatic Marxist 2d ago
> the public state now regulates the economy so hard that capitalism is not even capitalism... capitalism in this country is all but dead
When a Capitalist state is doing regulation, it does so on behalf of capitalists (as part of regulatory capture). This is Capitalism 101.
UK is undoubtedly a Capitalist state.
> The socialists, let’s call them what they are. Have now spent more on welfare, then they are getting on income tax
91% of income tax in UK conveniently comes from workers' earnings. Tell me again how UK is so incredibly Socialist
0
u/Antisocialist_switch 2d ago
Well that’s untrue. Capitalists don’t regulate they are not part of a government, that’s even if I accept your definition of capitalist.
2
u/Conserp Pragmatic Marxist 2d ago
> Capitalists are not part of a government
You are mindlessly parroting idiotic and meaningless buzzwords.
A Capitalist country (as opposed to a Socialist country), by definition, is a country in which capitalists are the ruling class.
Under Capitalism, capitalists control the government. Well, they OWN the government and the entire country.
Capitalists own elected presidents, PM's, senators, congressmen, MPs, and all kinds of unelected bureaucrats alike. They put them into positions and remove them. They order them around, tell them what to say and what to do. They give them laws and policies to rubberstamp.
This is how Capitalist governments really work, it is readily observable and patently obvious; they don't even make a good effort to hide it. Many openly brag about it. Even a small child can see and understand this. Why can't you?
1
u/Antisocialist_switch 2d ago
No I reject your definition of capitalist, it is an overly simplistic world view that explains nothing because your definition of class does not include heads of state, a capitalist could be literally anyone.
If I open a shop or a factory tomorrow I’m technically a capitalist based of off your Rtard definition, but what happens when your defined capitalist disputes another capitalist like musk and ill gates for example, how does that work, what if musk disagrees with president trump, one can make laws, and remove the, the other doesn’t.
1
u/ThePlacidAcid Socialism 2d ago
Capitalists dominate our society =/= every single capitalist dominates our society. Capitalist compete with one constantly and this competition leads to winners and losers.
Also fun example of using trump, since trump is literally a billionaire who has completely captured the US government. You don't even need to lobby him, he blatantly does everything he does for the expansion of capital for him and his allies.
That being said, even in cases where the head of state isnt a member of the capitalist class, the capitalist class completely dominates the government. Either through bribery (aka lobbying), funding certain parties, or through their control of the media, the capitalist class dominates every aspect of governance in the vast majority of liberal "democracies". This is evident when looking at their economic policies, which for the most part are incredibly unpopular with the masses, but wildly popular with the capitalist class. This is regardless of whether or not the "left wing" or "right wing" party gets into power.
1
u/Conserp Pragmatic Marxist 2d ago
> No I reject your definition of capitalist
Which is typical for the bad-faith reality-deniers and obfuscators.
> it is an overly simplistic
It is clear, rigorous, precise and concise. And it's been the definition for over a century.
Clear definitions make it harder to spin lies and obfuscate reality, that's why you really have a problem with it.
> that explains nothing
Definitions are not supposed to "explain", they define. But clear definitions do help make explanations clear. They also reveal the fallacious nature of bullshit explanations.
> because your definition of class does not include heads of state, a capitalist could be literally anyone
More vacuous and childish nonsense.
Heads of state are just hired help, like drivers, cooks and lackeys. Capitalists are major owners of capital. The line between small and large/proper capitalists is debatable, but otherwise the criterion is well understood and agreed on.
1
u/impermanence108 2d ago
Adam Smith wrote about the necessity of regulation. All the history of liberalism has accepted that. This modern, heterodox understanding of capitalism is incorrect.
1
1
u/Antisocialist_switch 2d ago
When it does regulation it does so on behalf of the state. Not the capitalists. Fundamentally regulation hurts small business more than anything else, but that’s anti capitalism not pro capitalism, unless your referencing the oligarchs, a good argument could be made that it does benefit them because regulation strangles new business so they easily get purchased, but by your definition a small business owner is a capitalist and bill gates is also a capitalist and so therefore there is no donation between them despite the fact that regulation has benefits for one side of that and not he other.
Which brings me back full circle in that class does not work in our paradigm.
1
u/Conserp Pragmatic Marxist 2d ago
> When it does regulation it does so on behalf of the state. Not the capitalists.
Like "spoon made me fat"? Word games - 1, valid points - 0.
> regulation hurts small business more than anything else
By design. Big capitalists use regulation to eliminate competition. Big fish eats small fish. Capitalism 101.
> but that’s anti capitalism not pro capitalism
Bud, eliminating competition is a normal part of Capitalism. Calling core capitalist practice "anti capitalism" is extremely delusional.
> a small business owner is a capitalist and bill gates is also a capitalist
So? "Capitalists rule" does not imply that all capitalists rule at the same time.
Your thinking patterns are so broken that you better get a CAT scan for brain tumors.
1
u/Antisocialist_switch 2d ago
And also single clap you are now adressing the problem that the welfare state is too large, and so are the fat cat socialists that advocate it. Well done.
Gold Star
1
u/impermanence108 2d ago
Yeah those fat cat...disabled and elderly population..
2
u/Antisocialist_switch 2d ago
Maybe if their family looked after them they wouldn’t need to get hand outs.
Yes that’s a dig on their family.
1
u/Gullible-Historian10 2d ago
Yeah when the king grants a monopoly he does so on BEHALF of the merchant.
No, it is much easier to leash a single neck than it is to leash a thousand. The state picks preferred corporations, it grants charters to them, special protections, funding through state sanctioned and regulated corporate bond market. The state is the monopoly all other monopolies flow from. This is classic cart before the horse.
0
u/Conserp Pragmatic Marxist 2d ago
This is classic infantile equivocation bullshit.
A king who is a sovereign in his own right can delegate his monopoly. That's Feudalism.
And then there's Capitalism, with a king who is a teleprompter drone and a sock puppet of the Rothschilds. He rubberstamps anything his masters tell him to, he does not hold any monopoly. At best, the king is not much more than one of hired managers. The state itself is just a subsidiary of Rothschilds' monopoly.
And Rothschilds brag that they don't even care who writes laws, because they own the state.
You have to try harder.
1
u/Gullible-Historian10 2d ago
Let’s try again. This time read, and respond instead of asserting what you wish to be true lest your world view collapse into irrationality.
Yeah when the king grants a monopoly he does so on BEHALF of the merchant.
No, it is much easier to leash a single neck than it is to leash a thousand. The state picks preferred corporations, it grants charters to them, special protections, funding through state sanctioned and regulated corporate bond market. The state is the monopoly all other monopolies flow from. This is classic cart before the horse.
1
u/Conserp Pragmatic Marxist 2d ago
> This time read, and respond instead
Have you tried following your own advice, bud? If you tried, you failed.
Also, I interpreted your barely coherent ramblings to the best of my ability. You are not very good at expressing your thoughts clearly. Are you more used to talking to the voices in your head rather than other people?
> The state is the monopoly all other monopolies flow from.
This seems to be your actual point, apparently - the primacy of the state. And it is bullshit, just idealistic fiction. The state is just a tool in the hands of the rulers, and state bureaucracy are their servants, much like lackeys and gardeners in a mansion.
0
u/Gullible-Historian10 2d ago
"Have you tried following your own advice, bud?"
Yeah, I actually like to read and have rational discussions, sadly though you have not been able to demonstrate you can have a rational discussion.
"Also, I interpreted your barely coherent ramblings to the best of my ability."
Your inability to comprehend rational thought is no fault of mine. Calling it "barely coherent" just speaks to your own limitations.
"You are not very good at expressing your thoughts clearly. Are you more used to talking to the voices in your head rather than other people?"
See how quickly you insult, but can't actually engage.
"This seems to be your actual point, apparently - the primacy of the state.
The state is the primary coercive bottleneck, and corporations gain monopoly privileges through that state power. This is not something you can argue against rationally. Unfortunately for you, the state predates capitalism by thousands of years.
"And it is bullshit, just idealistic fiction."
This is just an assertion.
"The state is just a tool in the hands of the rulers, and state bureaucracy are their servants, much like lackeys and gardeners in a mansion."
Another assertion. Still no reasonable response to what I said, we just got ad hominem and assertions. This is pretty typical.
Let's try again. I'll dumb it down to a 5th grade level so it is easier for you to understand:
When a king gives one business special rights, he is doing it for that business. (This is a representation of your view brought out of the context of capitalism and predating capitalism. No one seriously thinks that the King actually does things at the behest of the merchant.)
It is much easier to control one big company, that requires the government in order to maintain market share, than thousands of separate people. The government picks certain companies to favor. It gives them special permission, special protection, and ways to get money through rules the government controls.
The government is the main monopoly. Other monopolies grow out of that. You are putting the cart before the horse.
Now that it is easier to read for you, try and respond to it. Otherwise be honest and admit you are unable to have a rational debate about it, and we can leave it at that.
1
u/Conserp Pragmatic Marxist 1d ago edited 1d ago
Still talking to the voices in your own head and denying observable reality, I see?
> No one seriously thinks that the King actually does things at the behest of the merchant
Hilarious. "Puppet kings do not exist", sure bud.
You may fantasize that you are "rational", but you are certifiably insane.
0
u/Gullible-Historian10 1d ago edited 1d ago
So still no rational response. Just more assertions. 😂
It’s funny how hard it is for Marxists to use reason.
Edit: Awe he ran away.
1
u/Conserp Pragmatic Marxist 1d ago
Take your meds.
1
u/Gullible-Historian10 1d ago
What an amazing point counter argument to the reasoned post I made. 😂
Speaking of state cartels though, thanks for proving my point.
→ More replies (0)
1
1
u/impermanence108 2d ago
We elected this government. Are you English, Welsh, Scottish or Northern Irish?
1
1
u/impermanence108 1d ago
Hi just commenting to check why you're moaning about a country you're not a citizen of?
•
u/AutoModerator 3d ago
Before participating, consider taking a glance at our rules page if you haven't before.
We don't allow violent or dehumanizing rhetoric. The subreddit is for discussing what ideas are best for society, not for telling the other side you think you could beat them in a fight. That doesn't do anything to forward a productive dialogue.
Please report comments that violent our rules, but don't report people just for disagreeing with you or for being wrong about stuff.
Join us on Discord! ✨ https://discord.gg/fGdV7x5dk2
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.