O my God. I cannot even begin to tell you how truly stupid this meme is!
Building collective power and protecting the vulnerable.
Show me one example of a socialist or communist country that has actually accomplished what this meme is describing. And no, don’t just say China. China is a hybrid economy that has incorporated extensive markets and private enterprise alongside substantial state ownership and control. It isn’t some straightforward example of the socialism this meme is talking about.
More importantly, socialism and communism were never originally designed around “protecting the vulnerable” in the first place. The central issue was economic power and ownership.
The fundamental socialist argument was that the people who collectively produce wealth should have collective ownership and control over the means of production, rather than allowing those means of production to be concentrated in the hands of a relatively small class of private owners.
And ironically, wealth concentration is exactly the problem we’re dealing with today. You don’t need to invent a “parasitic pedophile class” or some grand conspiracy to make that argument. Concentration of wealth inevitably creates concentration of political and economic power, and that is a legitimate problem that deserves serious discussion.
You can absolutely argue that collective economic power would provide greater protection for vulnerable people. But that’s an argument for socialism. It isn’t the original definition or purpose of socialism.
If you’re going to defend socialism, at least defend what socialism actually is rather than turning it into a generic synonym for “things that help vulnerable people.”
And can we please stop attributing every good thing a government does to socialism? Socialism is an economic system. Programs designed to help people are social programs run by the government, and they are not inherently socialist or communist. Providing public services and social programs is simply one of the basic functions of a governing system.
Providing public services and social programs is simply one of the basic functions of a governing system.
A governing system can be merely tax collection under the threat of violence and nothing else. The government doesn’t have to provide any services. Governments tend to provide public services (socialism) because a government with a 0% mix of socialism simply doesn’t work.
Once a village grows past a certain size, you need some kind of firefighting service. That can be a bucket brigade where neighbours all go out and assist in putting out a fire with whatever they have on hand that can help. Or, it can be private for-profit fire companies that are paid for by insurance or subscriptions (the capitalist way) or it can be firefighting gear collectively owned by the people via the government and be a government-owned fire department. All those ways have been tried in the past. But, even in the most hardcore capitalist-loving places, the socialist answer for this part of the economy is the one that makes sense.
If the means of production (land, labour, capital) are owned by the government when they could instead be owned by a private entity, and the people can use the product of those means (roads, firefighting services, etc.) without a fee that’s socialism. Even the most brutal, corrupt, self-serving dictatorship tend to have socialist elements, if only because that allows the government to collect more taxes.
A government providing public services actually has nothing to do with the definition of socialism, which is worker ownership over the means of production.
You are once again conflating social programs with socialism.
Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are publicly or collectively owned and controlled by the people who work within them. It is not synonymous with social welfare programs.
I made this distinction explicitly in my original comment, so perhaps you simply didn’t read it.
Socialism is a theory of economics. Things such as public healthcare, welfare, food assistance, libraries, public education, fire departments, and other government-funded services are social programs. A government providing those services does not, by itself, make the economy socialist. Capitalist countries can, and routinely do, have extensive social programs.
Likewise, socialism does not inherently mean that the government owns every business, every piece of land, or every productive asset. That’s a common misconception. The central question is who owns and controls the means of production. Under a socialist model, ownership can take various collective forms, including worker cooperatives, public ownership, or other forms of social ownership.
The fundamental difference from capitalism is that productive enterprises are not primarily owned by a small class of private shareholders whose ownership entitles them to the profits generated by the workers. Instead, the workers themselves have collective ownership and control over the enterprise and therefore participate in determining how its economic output is distributed.
And socialism does not dictate a particular form of government. A socialist economic system and a communist political system are not synonymous. You can have socialism under different political structures.
So I cannot stress this enough: socialism and social programs are two entirely different concepts. One is an economic system; the other refers to programs and services provided or funded by a government. Conflating the two is simply a category error.
(If you continue to argue something other than what I’ve stated above I will continue to repeat over and over what socialism is and the differences between social programs and socialism either concede this point or don’t reply further)
As for your other points, you also argued that a government has no obligation to do anything for the people it governs.
If that’s your position, then we have to ask a rather obvious question: what exactly is the purpose of government?
If a government exists merely to collect taxes, what are those taxes actually supposed to accomplish? Governments collect revenue so they can perform the functions of governance and provide the services their societies have determined should be provided collectively. Those services can, and very often do, take the form of social programs.
And yes, you were absolutely correct about one thing: fire departments, libraries, healthcare providers, and countless other services can exist as private, for-profit entities. There is nothing inherently preventing a fire department from being privately operated, for example.
But that’s completely beside the point. The fact that something can be provided privately does not somehow make a government providing it “socialism.” That’s a non sequitur.
The question is not whether a service could be provided by a private company. The question is whether society has decided that a particular service should be provided collectively through government and funded through taxation.
Governments exist to perform functions and provide services that their citizens have collectively decided should be governed at the public level. Exactly what those functions are varies enormously from one government to another. But if your argument is that government has no obligation whatsoever to provide anything for the people it governs, then you’re essentially left with a government that collects money without providing a corresponding public function.
And again, none of this has anything to do with socialism as an economic system.
A capitalist country can have extensive social programs. A socialist economy can have relatively limited ones. The existence of social programs does not determine the underlying economic system any more than the existence of a military, police department, or public library does.
You’re conflating the economic system with the services provided by the government, and those are fundamentally different concepts.
You are once again failing to understand that in a mixed economy, like the US economy, Canada’s economy, the British economy, the Chinese economy, Cuba’s economy, or virtually any other economy in the world, there is a mix of capitalism and socialism.
A mixed economy is an economic system that includes both elements associated with capitalism, such as private businesses, and ones associated with socialism, such as nationalized government services.
Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are publicly or collectively owned and controlled by the people who work within them
Yes, for example, the people of the UK collectively own and control the health care system of the state, therefore it is a socialist element within their mixed capitalist / socialist economy.
Capitalist countries can, and routinely do, have extensive social programs.
There’s no such thing as a “capitalist country”. Virtually every country has a mixed socialist / capitalist system where certain elements of the economy are capitalist, and other elements are socialist.
Things such as public healthcare, welfare, food assistance, libraries, public education, fire departments, and other government-funded services are social programs
They are social programs which are provided via socialist elements of their mixed economy. Public healthcare in the UK is part of the socialist side of the economy, whereas pharmacies are part of the capitalist side of the economy. Fire departments are socialist elements of the economy, whereas fire insurance is capitalist.
Likewise, socialism does not inherently mean that the government owns every business
Right, socialism can consist of community ownership of an asset, employee ownership, cooperative ownership, but of course it also includes state ownership of an asset.
So I cannot stress this enough: socialism and social programs are two entirely different concepts
Fine, but I cannot stress enough that virtually every economy in the world is a mix of capitalism and socialism, where some assets are privately owned and used to generate profits for those private owners, and others are state owned and used to provide, among other things, social programs.
If you continue to argue something other than what I’ve stated above I will continue to repeat over and over what socialism is
Don’t you think you should actually read about mixed economies first? I assume you’re living in one now, so it would be good for you to be aware of that.
what exactly is the purpose of government?
It’s up to the government. If the government is a strong man and his henchmen, it’s a thing that exists so that they can collect taxes. If it’s a modern western democracy, it’s at least in theory something to provide for the common defence of the country, to meet the basic needs of the people, to provide a social safety net, to provide a legal framework and protections, to allow the citizens and residents to be their best selves, etc.
But that’s completely beside the point. The fact that something can be provided privately does not somehow make a government providing it “socialism.”
Of course it does. Socialism is when the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned or regulated by the public or the community as a whole. That ticks all the boxes. A fire department is a socialism. A library is one of them socialisms.
A capitalist country can have extensive social programs
There you are, thinking there’s such a thing as a “capitalist country” again. Every country that has capitalism also has socialist elements.
If you think such a thing as a purely capitalist country exists, how about a list of names of countries that are capitalist and not mixed economies. I’m guessing an economist would say there are zero purely capitalist countries, but maybe you can find an example they didn’t.
There is no such thing as a mixed economy, either the principal mode of production benefits the working class or the bourgeois. It’s impossible to have a 50/50 and any other mix inevitably collapses towards one or the other.
It’s a concept, that makes no sense and deludes the meaning of the term socialism and capitalism so much that they become meaningless. It’s propagandistic newspeak.
At the end of the day according to marxist political theory (AKA the guy who established the meaning of the term capitalism, so this carries some important weight), that doesn’t make sense, either the principal owner of the means of production is the working class, or not.
Anything inbetween? completely capitalist, according to any socialist who has ever read theory.
it does exist but all the concept does is sully discussions, make terms meaningless, and make you feel like a superior centrist.
Socialism is simply democratization/worker ownership over the means of production. Mixed economies pretend that socialism is when the government does stuff, which is wildly inaccurate.
here’s a cambridge PhD discussion saying what I said is a major problem with the notion. economics professors don’t actually agree with you.
the impossibility of the mixed economy is itself an actual position within professional economics.
So, why do you disagree with me?
Economics professors don’t actually unanimously agree with you. So why are you presenting your position as though it is simply what “the profession of economics” believes?
I also want to point out the smug boldness on display here. You read a wikipedia page and think you know more than someone who disagrees with you. This is why communists find liberals embarrassing to argue with.
edit: even more embarrassing, you didn’t even read the wikipedia
“Numerous economists have questioned the validity of the entire concept of a mixed economy when understood to be a mixture of capitalism and socialism. Critics who argue that capitalism and socialism cannot coexist believe either market logic or economic planning must be prevalent within an economy” is written there.
You’re going to make me repeat myself. So you’ll just get my regular disclaimer:
Socialism refers to collective or social ownership of the means of production. Social democracy refers to a capitalist market economy supplemented by welfare programs, labor protections, and public services. Democratic socialism generally refers to pursuing socialist ownership through democratic means. These terms are related but are not interchangeable: a capitalist welfare state is not a socialist economy simply because it provides extensive social programs. This disclaimer is intended as a quick reference, not an exhaustive explanation of socialism or every political and economic system that uses the word “socialist.”
Your consistent yet erroneous assertions will not make you correct.
The countries you mentioned are not mixed economies. Libraries, fire departments, healthcare subsidized by the state are not socialist programs. They are social/welfare programs instituted by the state through tax collection.
You are unable to understand these simple concepts which is quite sad.
I have provided you with some links to you so that can educate yourself on what socialism is and its various iterations.
Public welfare programs are not socialist.
This will be my last reply to you as I will not waste my time repeating the same thing over and over. You may choose to accept the correct definitions of the terms you are using or you may continue to delude yourself with your self-proclaimed bullshit.
And make no mistake you are literally just making shit up to suit the conclusion you want. Nothing you said is based on reality.
The link you sent me proves absolutely nothing other than the fact that mixed economies exist.
If that is your only supporting evidence, then you have literally nothing demonstrating that a capitalist country with social programs is therefore socialist.
A government providing welfare, public services, infrastructure, healthcare subsidies, education, fire departments, police, libraries, or other services to the people it governs has nothing inherently to do with socialism as an economic model. Those are functions of government, not definitions of an economic system.
Socialism refers to a system in which the means of production are socially or collectively owned or controlled. That is fundamentally different from a capitalist economy in which the means of production are predominantly privately owned, even if the government taxes that economy and uses the revenue to provide extensive social programs.
And yes, technically you can describe the United States, Germany, Norway, Sweden, or virtually any modern economy as a “mixed economy” because virtually every real-world economy contains some combination of private markets, public institutions, regulation, taxation, and government ownership. That isn’t particularly controversial.
But calling something a “mixed economy” does not tell us which economic system is predominant. It is a descriptive category, not an argument that capitalism and socialism are somehow interchangeable.
By that logic, a car is an automobile and a gorilla is a great ape. Both statements are technically true, but neither tells you anything particularly useful about what distinguishes one thing from another.
The United States is fundamentally a capitalist economy with a substantial welfare state and significant government regulation. Norway is fundamentally a capitalist economy with a much larger welfare state. Neither becomes socialist simply because its government provides social programs.
This is the distinction that keeps getting lost: social programs are not socialism, and a welfare state is not the same thing as a socialist economy.
If your argument is that the United States is a “mixed economy” in the broad academic sense, fine. I will happily concede that point.
If your argument is that the existence of social programs means the United States is therefore socialist, you still have not established that argument. You have simply changed the definition of socialism.
you’re this confident and didn’t even read the article???
Criticism
Numerous economists have questioned the validity of the entire concept of a mixed economy when understood to be a mixture of capitalism and socialism. Critics who argue that capitalism and socialism cannot coexist believe either market logic or economic planning must be prevalent within an economy.[73]
In Human Action, Ludwig von Mises argued that there can be no mixture of capitalism and socialism.[74] Mises elaborated on this point by contending that even if a market economy contained numerous state-run or nationalized enterprises, this would not make the economy mixed because the existence of such organizations does not alter the fundamental characteristics of the market economy. These publicly owned enterprises would still be subject to market sovereignty as they would have to acquire capital goods through markets, strive to maximize profits, or at the least try to minimize costs, and utilize monetary accounting for economic calculation.[75] Friedrich von Hayek and Mises argued that there can be no lasting middle ground between economic planning and a market economy, and any move in the direction of socialist planning is an unintentional move toward what Hilaire Belloc called “the servile state”.[76]
Classical and orthodox Marxist theorists also dispute the viability of a mixed economy as a middle ground between socialism and capitalism. Irrespective of enterprise ownership, either the capitalist law of value and accumulation of capital drive the economy or conscious planning and non-monetary forms of valuation, such as calculation in kind, ultimately drive the economy. From the Great Depression onward, extant mixed economies in the Western world are still functionally capitalist because the economic system remains based on competition and profit production.[77]
You don’t need to invent a “parasitic pedophile class” or some grand conspiracy to make that argument.
How on earth is it a “grand conspiracy” to label the class known for extracting wealth from workers to fund child sex parties ‘the parasitic pedophile class?’ That’s just a straightforward description of the group of people who in practice have concentrations of wealth.
I genuinely don’t even know what part of this is supposed to be conspiratorial. Are they not parasitic? Are they not pedophiles? Are they not a class?
You can absolutely argue that collective economic power would provide greater protection for vulnerable people. But that’s an argument for socialism. It isn’t the original definition or purpose of socialism.
Hard disagree. Workers are vulnerable people, who, without organization, are taken advantage of by the ruling class. “What force on earth is weaker than the feeble strength of one? But the union makes us strong!” And vulnerable people are workers, many of them anyway. Socialism is not and never has been just about some stereotypical image of an able-bodied white guy in a hardhat and fuck everybody else. In order to achieve working class solidarity, especially on an international scale, it is absolutely 100% necessary to overcome barriers such as race, gender etc, which means supporting and accommodating all sorts of vulnerable people.
I’m going to say something that will probably be unpopular and will likely get downvoted, but that’s okay. The truth doesn’t become less true because people don’t like hearing it.
I believe there is a serious possibility that child abuse and exploitation exist within some of the highest levels of American society, including among politicians and the ultra-wealthy. There are enough allegations, documented cases, associations, and circumstantial evidence surrounding various individuals and networks that I believe these matters warrant serious investigation. If evidence establishes that crimes were committed, I have no problem whatsoever with arrests, prosecutions, and convictions, regardless of how wealthy or politically powerful the people involved are.
But there is an important distinction between saying something deserves investigation and saying that something has been proven.
At this point, there is an enormous amount of speculation, conjecture, allegations, and circumstantial evidence surrounding this subject. What we do not have is sufficient publicly established evidence to definitively claim that there is some organized “pedophilic class” controlling or operating within the upper echelons of American society. People have absolutely committed horrific crimes against children. Criminal networks can and have existed. Powerful people can and have abused their positions. None of that, however, automatically proves the much broader claim.
And that’s an uncomfortable distinction, but it matters. If someone has committed a crime, investigate them, charge them when the evidence supports it, put them on trial, and let the evidence be tested in court. A person’s wealth, political affiliation, social connections, or position should not place them above the law. But neither should suspicion, association, or circumstantial evidence be treated as a substitute for proof beyond what the evidence can actually establish.
So I’m deliberately trying to be precise here. I am not defending anyone accused of child abuse. I am not minimizing the existence of child abuse. I am not making excuses for politicians, billionaires, conservatives, liberals, MAGA supporters, or anyone else. I condemn child abuse regardless of who commits it, and I believe anyone who commits these crimes should be prosecuted and punished under the law.
I also don’t support right-wing conservatism or MAGA, but that is beside the point. Please don’t twist my position into something I didn’t say simply because my position doesn’t fit neatly into a particular political narrative. I am saying that allegations should be investigated, credible evidence should be pursued, and proven crimes should be prosecuted. At the same time, I am not going to turn allegations and circumstantial evidence into established facts simply because they support a conclusion I already find plausible.
As for the second part of your statement, I’ll give you the same answer I give everyone else: socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are socially or collectively owned, with worker ownership or control being one important form of socialist organization. It is not synonymous with social programs.
A government providing public healthcare, libraries, police, fire departments, public education, social insurance, or other services does not automatically make those programs “socialist.” Governments of many different economic systems provide public programs. The fact that something benefits society does not make it socialism.
Socialism also isn’t simply a philosophy about “protecting workers.” Worker protection can exist under capitalism, socialism, mixed economies, and other systems. The defining question is fundamentally about ownership and control of productive assets.
You can hard disagree with whatever you want it doesn’t make it any less true.
But there is an important distinction between saying something deserves investigation and saying that something has been proven.
There is also an important distinction between what can be proven in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt (against the best lawyers money can buy), and what is likely to be true. There’s absolutely no reason why we have to hold all criticism to the former standard, and it’s completely unreasonable to do so.
It is not synonymous with social programs.
The fact that something benefits society does not make it socialism.
100% agreed, I never said anything remotely like that.
Socialism also isn’t simply a philosophy about “protecting workers.”
Agreed, however, protecting workers is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition of socialism. The goal of worker ownership is fundamentally driven by a desire to advance the interests of workers, which includes worker protection.
You can hard disagree with whatever you want it doesn’t make it any less true.
Yeah, it’s not the fact that I disagree, but the arguments I made to support that disagreement that show your position is wrong.
I think we’re actually closer to agreement than you seem to realize, but you’re making one important logical leap that I don’t think your argument establishes.
I agree that there’s a distinction between something being proven beyond a reasonable doubt and something being sufficiently supported by evidence to conclude that it is likely true. I’ve never argued otherwise. In fact, that’s precisely why I keep appealing to historical evidence and academic definitions rather than pretending every conclusion requires courtroom-level proof.
Where I disagree is your claim that protecting workers is a necessary condition of socialism. Worker ownership of the means of production is central to the definition of socialism. But you’ve moved from that definition to an asserted purpose: that worker ownership is fundamentally driven by the desire to protect workers. Those aren’t the same proposition.
Socialism seeks to alter the ownership and control of the means of production and, consequently, the distribution of economic power. That can absolutely benefit workers and historically has often been justified in terms of improving workers’ material conditions. But “worker protection” is not what makes an economic system socialist. A system could theoretically have worker ownership while providing extremely poor working conditions, and it would still be socialist in the relevant economic sense. Conversely, a capitalist economy can provide extraordinarily strong worker protections without becoming socialist.
That’s the distinction I’m making: worker protection can be a motivation, objective, or consequence associated with socialism without being a necessary defining condition of socialism itself.
And regarding your final point, saying that your arguments demonstrate that my position is wrong is not itself an argument. You still have to establish the premises and show that the conclusion follows from them. That’s exactly what I’m challenging.
If your position is that socialism necessarily entails worker protection, then demonstrate that from the definition or from the academic literature. If your position is instead that socialist movements have historically pursued worker protection as one of their objectives, I have no substantial disagreement with that. Those are two very different claims.
You still have to establish the premises and show that the conclusion follows from them. That’s exactly what I’m challenging.
If your position is that socialism necessarily entails worker protection, then demonstrate that from the definition or from the academic literature.
I feel like already explained this but I’ll spell it out very neatly for you:
Premise A: Socialism means worker control of the means of production (MoP).
Premise B: A class that has control of the MoP will use that power to advance their own interests.
Premise C: Worker protections are in the interests of the working class.
Conclusion 1: Therefore, in a socialist system, worker protections will be implemented.
Conclusion 2: Therefore, if a system does not have worker protections, workers are not in control of the MoP, and it is not a socialist system.
Conclusion 3: Therefore, worker protections are a necessary condition of socialism.
A system could theoretically have worker ownership while providing extremely poor working conditions, and it would still be socialist in the relevant economic sense.
This could only be true if either B or C are false. If one of those premises is wrong, then it’s you that needs to provide an argument or justification about why it is false.
I understand the syllogism. The problem is that your conclusion does not actually follow from your premises, and you still haven’t addressed the distinction I’ve been making.
Premise A is broadly consistent with the economic definition of socialism: workers collectively control or own the means of production.
Premise C is also uncontroversial: worker protections can be in the interests of the working class.
The problem is Premise B. You are assuming that a class possessing control over the means of production will necessarily use that control to advance all of its perceived interests, and then treating that assumption as sufficient to establish a necessary institutional feature of socialism. That does not follow.
Even if workers collectively control the means of production, they still have competing interests and preferences. Collective ownership does not magically produce unanimous preferences about wages, hours, workplace safety, benefits, working conditions, or how resources should be allocated. Workers can collectively choose policies that benefit them in some respects while sacrificing other interests.
More importantly, you’re confusing an expected consequence or political objective with a necessary definitional condition.
Your argument could establish something like:
“If workers control the means of production, they have the ability and potentially the incentive to implement worker protections.”
It does not establish:
“Any system in which workers control the means of production must necessarily have worker protections, and therefore worker protections are a defining condition of socialism.”
That’s the gap I’ve been pointing out.
And the fact that you can construct a syllogism doesn’t make the conclusion established. You have to demonstrate that the premises are sufficiently strong to entail the conclusion you’re drawing from them. Premise B is doing almost all of the work here, and it contains the exact assumption under dispute.
You also keep saying that I’m claiming socialism inherently doesn’t protect workers. That’s not my position either. Obviously socialist movements have historically advocated worker protections, and obviously worker ownership can be used to pursue them. I’m saying something much narrower: worker protection is not what defines socialism, and the absence of a particular set of worker protections does not logically establish the absence of worker ownership of the means of production.
Your Conclusion 2 is particularly problematic. “Workers are not receiving protections, therefore workers do not control the means of production” is simply affirming what you are trying to prove. You would need an independent argument establishing that worker control necessarily produces those protections. You can’t use the conclusion as evidence for one of its own premises.
So no, I haven’t failed to address your argument. I’m addressing the precise point on which your argument depends: you have demonstrated that worker protection can be an interest of workers. You have not demonstrated that it is a necessary institutional consequence of worker ownership, nor that its absence logically proves that workers don’t control the means of production.
Those are three different claims, and you’re treating them as though they’re interchangeable.
You’re just nitpicking and splitting hairs. You opened with “O my God. I cannot even begin to tell you how truly stupid this meme is!” Now it’s just that I haven’t sufficiently proven my premise. We’re back to the standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt,” where you’re rejecting the whole argument based on a sliver of a technicality. I’m not really interested in playing that game.
I’ve established a clear and reasonable argument for why worker protections should be considered a necessary component of socialism. Your counterargument is that, just because workers have a clear means and motives to protect themselves, they might randomly decide not to. That’s hypothetically true, but only hypothetically. In practice, it’s pretty much always going to happen, and if it doesn’t happen, like I said, it’s a good reason to look very carefully about why it isn’t happening.
Also, for the record, the meme doesn’t even say that worker protections are a necessary component of socialism, only that socialism “protects the most vulnerable!” You literally said, multiple times including right here:
Obviously socialist movements have historically advocated worker protections
…that that’s correct! The only issue you have which it, that you’ve chosen to hyper-focus on, is that you’re claiming it’s not definitionally correct (and I disagree with even that) but the meme never even claimed that it was part of the definition! Only that it was an ideology that did promote worker protections, which you just said is true! So on what basis was this reaction of “I cannot even begin to tell you how truly stupid this meme is!” at all called for?
You’re just wrong. Regardless of whether you can carve out this technicality or not on this point, you’re still generally wrong on the main point.
So, in your previous comment you said I wasn’t addressing your point. I did exactly that, in detail. Now you’re telling me I’m splitting hairs.
I explained why your syllogism doesn’t establish the conclusion you’re trying to draw from it, and rather than address that response, you’ve simply moved on to another objection. So I’ll restate my original argument one more time.
Socialism is an economic system. It does not inherently, nor was it specifically designed, to protect workers. Its fundamental purpose was to address the concentration of wealth and economic power associated with capitalism by changing the ownership and control of the means of production. It isn’t a magical philosophy for solving every social problem.
Socialism has also never historically produced the utopian outcomes people often attribute to it. In many cases, socialist systems produced enormous concentrations of political power and inflicted serious harm on the very people they were supposedly intended to liberate. You can’t simply look at the intended goal and pretend the historical outcomes don’t matter.
My argument has never been that worker protections are bad, nor that socialist movements have never advocated for them. I’ve said the exact opposite: if socialism results in better protections for workers, I’m perfectly fine with that. My argument is that the fact that workers can use collective control of the means of production to protect their own interests does not mean that socialism inherently will do so. There is nothing in the economic structure of socialism that magically guarantees that outcome.
You were making that guarantee. I was pointing out that it was an assertion based on what you believe socialism should accomplish, rather than something inherent to socialism itself.
And, frankly, I’ve never encountered this particular argument before. I’ve never had someone construct a syllogism specifically to argue that worker protection is a necessary consequence of socialism. It was actually an interesting argument to respond to, and I appreciate the different way of approaching the issue.
But ultimately, I still don’t think it establishes your conclusion.
There is no economic system that comes with a magical guarantee that its participants will use it in the way we think they should. And socialism certainly isn’t a universal philosophy for resolving every problem in society. It’s an economic model concerning ownership and control of the means of production.
I don’t understand why people keep treating socialism as though it is somehow inherently going to resolve inequality, protect every vulnerable group, empower workers, and solve all of society’s other problems. We have an enormous historical record to examine. At some point, you have to actually look at what these systems have done rather than what you believe they were supposed to do.
O my God. I cannot even begin to tell you how truly stupid this meme is!
Show me one example of a socialist or communist country that has actually accomplished what this meme is describing. And no, don’t just say China. China is a hybrid economy that has incorporated extensive markets and private enterprise alongside substantial state ownership and control. It isn’t some straightforward example of the socialism this meme is talking about.
More importantly, socialism and communism were never originally designed around “protecting the vulnerable” in the first place. The central issue was economic power and ownership.
The fundamental socialist argument was that the people who collectively produce wealth should have collective ownership and control over the means of production, rather than allowing those means of production to be concentrated in the hands of a relatively small class of private owners.
And ironically, wealth concentration is exactly the problem we’re dealing with today. You don’t need to invent a “parasitic pedophile class” or some grand conspiracy to make that argument. Concentration of wealth inevitably creates concentration of political and economic power, and that is a legitimate problem that deserves serious discussion.
You can absolutely argue that collective economic power would provide greater protection for vulnerable people. But that’s an argument for socialism. It isn’t the original definition or purpose of socialism.
If you’re going to defend socialism, at least defend what socialism actually is rather than turning it into a generic synonym for “things that help vulnerable people.”
And can we please stop attributing every good thing a government does to socialism? Socialism is an economic system. Programs designed to help people are social programs run by the government, and they are not inherently socialist or communist. Providing public services and social programs is simply one of the basic functions of a governing system.
I was with you until this bit:
A governing system can be merely tax collection under the threat of violence and nothing else. The government doesn’t have to provide any services. Governments tend to provide public services (socialism) because a government with a 0% mix of socialism simply doesn’t work.
Once a village grows past a certain size, you need some kind of firefighting service. That can be a bucket brigade where neighbours all go out and assist in putting out a fire with whatever they have on hand that can help. Or, it can be private for-profit fire companies that are paid for by insurance or subscriptions (the capitalist way) or it can be firefighting gear collectively owned by the people via the government and be a government-owned fire department. All those ways have been tried in the past. But, even in the most hardcore capitalist-loving places, the socialist answer for this part of the economy is the one that makes sense.
If the means of production (land, labour, capital) are owned by the government when they could instead be owned by a private entity, and the people can use the product of those means (roads, firefighting services, etc.) without a fee that’s socialism. Even the most brutal, corrupt, self-serving dictatorship tend to have socialist elements, if only because that allows the government to collect more taxes.
A government providing public services actually has nothing to do with the definition of socialism, which is worker ownership over the means of production.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism
how does this work in your framework?
You are once again conflating social programs with socialism.
Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are publicly or collectively owned and controlled by the people who work within them. It is not synonymous with social welfare programs.
I made this distinction explicitly in my original comment, so perhaps you simply didn’t read it.
Socialism is a theory of economics. Things such as public healthcare, welfare, food assistance, libraries, public education, fire departments, and other government-funded services are social programs. A government providing those services does not, by itself, make the economy socialist. Capitalist countries can, and routinely do, have extensive social programs.
Likewise, socialism does not inherently mean that the government owns every business, every piece of land, or every productive asset. That’s a common misconception. The central question is who owns and controls the means of production. Under a socialist model, ownership can take various collective forms, including worker cooperatives, public ownership, or other forms of social ownership.
The fundamental difference from capitalism is that productive enterprises are not primarily owned by a small class of private shareholders whose ownership entitles them to the profits generated by the workers. Instead, the workers themselves have collective ownership and control over the enterprise and therefore participate in determining how its economic output is distributed.
And socialism does not dictate a particular form of government. A socialist economic system and a communist political system are not synonymous. You can have socialism under different political structures.
So I cannot stress this enough: socialism and social programs are two entirely different concepts. One is an economic system; the other refers to programs and services provided or funded by a government. Conflating the two is simply a category error.
(If you continue to argue something other than what I’ve stated above I will continue to repeat over and over what socialism is and the differences between social programs and socialism either concede this point or don’t reply further)
As for your other points, you also argued that a government has no obligation to do anything for the people it governs.
If that’s your position, then we have to ask a rather obvious question: what exactly is the purpose of government?
If a government exists merely to collect taxes, what are those taxes actually supposed to accomplish? Governments collect revenue so they can perform the functions of governance and provide the services their societies have determined should be provided collectively. Those services can, and very often do, take the form of social programs.
And yes, you were absolutely correct about one thing: fire departments, libraries, healthcare providers, and countless other services can exist as private, for-profit entities. There is nothing inherently preventing a fire department from being privately operated, for example.
But that’s completely beside the point. The fact that something can be provided privately does not somehow make a government providing it “socialism.” That’s a non sequitur.
The question is not whether a service could be provided by a private company. The question is whether society has decided that a particular service should be provided collectively through government and funded through taxation.
Governments exist to perform functions and provide services that their citizens have collectively decided should be governed at the public level. Exactly what those functions are varies enormously from one government to another. But if your argument is that government has no obligation whatsoever to provide anything for the people it governs, then you’re essentially left with a government that collects money without providing a corresponding public function.
And again, none of this has anything to do with socialism as an economic system.
A capitalist country can have extensive social programs. A socialist economy can have relatively limited ones. The existence of social programs does not determine the underlying economic system any more than the existence of a military, police department, or public library does.
You’re conflating the economic system with the services provided by the government, and those are fundamentally different concepts.
You are once again failing to understand that in a mixed economy, like the US economy, Canada’s economy, the British economy, the Chinese economy, Cuba’s economy, or virtually any other economy in the world, there is a mix of capitalism and socialism.
Yes, for example, the people of the UK collectively own and control the health care system of the state, therefore it is a socialist element within their mixed capitalist / socialist economy.
There’s no such thing as a “capitalist country”. Virtually every country has a mixed socialist / capitalist system where certain elements of the economy are capitalist, and other elements are socialist.
They are social programs which are provided via socialist elements of their mixed economy. Public healthcare in the UK is part of the socialist side of the economy, whereas pharmacies are part of the capitalist side of the economy. Fire departments are socialist elements of the economy, whereas fire insurance is capitalist.
Right, socialism can consist of community ownership of an asset, employee ownership, cooperative ownership, but of course it also includes state ownership of an asset.
Fine, but I cannot stress enough that virtually every economy in the world is a mix of capitalism and socialism, where some assets are privately owned and used to generate profits for those private owners, and others are state owned and used to provide, among other things, social programs.
Don’t you think you should actually read about mixed economies first? I assume you’re living in one now, so it would be good for you to be aware of that.
It’s up to the government. If the government is a strong man and his henchmen, it’s a thing that exists so that they can collect taxes. If it’s a modern western democracy, it’s at least in theory something to provide for the common defence of the country, to meet the basic needs of the people, to provide a social safety net, to provide a legal framework and protections, to allow the citizens and residents to be their best selves, etc.
Of course it does. Socialism is when the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned or regulated by the public or the community as a whole. That ticks all the boxes. A fire department is a socialism. A library is one of them socialisms.
There you are, thinking there’s such a thing as a “capitalist country” again. Every country that has capitalism also has socialist elements.
If you think such a thing as a purely capitalist country exists, how about a list of names of countries that are capitalist and not mixed economies. I’m guessing an economist would say there are zero purely capitalist countries, but maybe you can find an example they didn’t.
There is no such thing as a mixed economy, either the principal mode of production benefits the working class or the bourgeois. It’s impossible to have a 50/50 and any other mix inevitably collapses towards one or the other.
Of course there’s such a thing as a mixed economy. They made a whole Wikipedia article about it.
It’s a concept, that makes no sense and deludes the meaning of the term socialism and capitalism so much that they become meaningless. It’s propagandistic newspeak.
At the end of the day according to marxist political theory (AKA the guy who established the meaning of the term capitalism, so this carries some important weight), that doesn’t make sense, either the principal owner of the means of production is the working class, or not.
Anything inbetween? completely capitalist, according to any socialist who has ever read theory.
it does exist but all the concept does is sully discussions, make terms meaningless, and make you feel like a superior centrist.
Socialism is simply democratization/worker ownership over the means of production. Mixed economies pretend that socialism is when the government does stuff, which is wildly inaccurate.
Take it up with the profession of economics. They think it makes sense. I think it makes sense. You’re the only one confused by it.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/modern-intellectual-history/article/architects-of-the-mixed-economy-assar-lindbeck-ingemar-stahl-and-gosta-rehn/33574238F379F23C0C35B3F24D2A43F1
here’s a cambridge PhD discussion saying what I said is a major problem with the notion. economics professors don’t actually agree with you.
the impossibility of the mixed economy is itself an actual position within professional economics.
So, why do you disagree with me?
Economics professors don’t actually unanimously agree with you. So why are you presenting your position as though it is simply what “the profession of economics” believes?
I also want to point out the smug boldness on display here. You read a wikipedia page and think you know more than someone who disagrees with you. This is why communists find liberals embarrassing to argue with.
edit: even more embarrassing, you didn’t even read the wikipedia
“Numerous economists have questioned the validity of the entire concept of a mixed economy when understood to be a mixture of capitalism and socialism. Critics who argue that capitalism and socialism cannot coexist believe either market logic or economic planning must be prevalent within an economy” is written there.
You’re going to make me repeat myself. So you’ll just get my regular disclaimer:
Your consistent yet erroneous assertions will not make you correct.
The countries you mentioned are not mixed economies. Libraries, fire departments, healthcare subsidized by the state are not socialist programs. They are social/welfare programs instituted by the state through tax collection.
You are unable to understand these simple concepts which is quite sad.
https://share.google/UwkbI8StvcTnotfL9
https://share.google/yAO1HkNJznbQeo0iv
https://share.google/lVx33U2pRt7rMnOgn
I have provided you with some links to you so that can educate yourself on what socialism is and its various iterations.
Public welfare programs are not socialist.
This will be my last reply to you as I will not waste my time repeating the same thing over and over. You may choose to accept the correct definitions of the terms you are using or you may continue to delude yourself with your self-proclaimed bullshit.
And make no mistake you are literally just making shit up to suit the conclusion you want. Nothing you said is based on reality.
Good day.
You should read the link I sent you first.
The link you sent me proves absolutely nothing other than the fact that mixed economies exist.
If that is your only supporting evidence, then you have literally nothing demonstrating that a capitalist country with social programs is therefore socialist.
A government providing welfare, public services, infrastructure, healthcare subsidies, education, fire departments, police, libraries, or other services to the people it governs has nothing inherently to do with socialism as an economic model. Those are functions of government, not definitions of an economic system.
Socialism refers to a system in which the means of production are socially or collectively owned or controlled. That is fundamentally different from a capitalist economy in which the means of production are predominantly privately owned, even if the government taxes that economy and uses the revenue to provide extensive social programs.
And yes, technically you can describe the United States, Germany, Norway, Sweden, or virtually any modern economy as a “mixed economy” because virtually every real-world economy contains some combination of private markets, public institutions, regulation, taxation, and government ownership. That isn’t particularly controversial.
But calling something a “mixed economy” does not tell us which economic system is predominant. It is a descriptive category, not an argument that capitalism and socialism are somehow interchangeable.
By that logic, a car is an automobile and a gorilla is a great ape. Both statements are technically true, but neither tells you anything particularly useful about what distinguishes one thing from another.
The United States is fundamentally a capitalist economy with a substantial welfare state and significant government regulation. Norway is fundamentally a capitalist economy with a much larger welfare state. Neither becomes socialist simply because its government provides social programs.
This is the distinction that keeps getting lost: social programs are not socialism, and a welfare state is not the same thing as a socialist economy.
If your argument is that the United States is a “mixed economy” in the broad academic sense, fine. I will happily concede that point.
If your argument is that the existence of social programs means the United States is therefore socialist, you still have not established that argument. You have simply changed the definition of socialism.
Good, you read some of it. If you read more you’ll find out that every economy in the modern world is a mixed economy.
you’re this confident and didn’t even read the article???
Criticism
Numerous economists have questioned the validity of the entire concept of a mixed economy when understood to be a mixture of capitalism and socialism. Critics who argue that capitalism and socialism cannot coexist believe either market logic or economic planning must be prevalent within an economy.[73]
In Human Action, Ludwig von Mises argued that there can be no mixture of capitalism and socialism.[74] Mises elaborated on this point by contending that even if a market economy contained numerous state-run or nationalized enterprises, this would not make the economy mixed because the existence of such organizations does not alter the fundamental characteristics of the market economy. These publicly owned enterprises would still be subject to market sovereignty as they would have to acquire capital goods through markets, strive to maximize profits, or at the least try to minimize costs, and utilize monetary accounting for economic calculation.[75] Friedrich von Hayek and Mises argued that there can be no lasting middle ground between economic planning and a market economy, and any move in the direction of socialist planning is an unintentional move toward what Hilaire Belloc called “the servile state”.[76]
Classical and orthodox Marxist theorists also dispute the viability of a mixed economy as a middle ground between socialism and capitalism. Irrespective of enterprise ownership, either the capitalist law of value and accumulation of capital drive the economy or conscious planning and non-monetary forms of valuation, such as calculation in kind, ultimately drive the economy. From the Great Depression onward, extant mixed economies in the Western world are still functionally capitalist because the economic system remains based on competition and profit production.[77]
Sir. You’re displaying elements of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Your confidence is disproportionate to how incorrect you are.
But since you’re not willing to agree with me as to what socialism even is I’ll once again simply say good day to you.
How on earth is it a “grand conspiracy” to label the class known for extracting wealth from workers to fund child sex parties ‘the parasitic pedophile class?’ That’s just a straightforward description of the group of people who in practice have concentrations of wealth.
I genuinely don’t even know what part of this is supposed to be conspiratorial. Are they not parasitic? Are they not pedophiles? Are they not a class?
Hard disagree. Workers are vulnerable people, who, without organization, are taken advantage of by the ruling class. “What force on earth is weaker than the feeble strength of one? But the union makes us strong!” And vulnerable people are workers, many of them anyway. Socialism is not and never has been just about some stereotypical image of an able-bodied white guy in a hardhat and fuck everybody else. In order to achieve working class solidarity, especially on an international scale, it is absolutely 100% necessary to overcome barriers such as race, gender etc, which means supporting and accommodating all sorts of vulnerable people.
I’m going to say something that will probably be unpopular and will likely get downvoted, but that’s okay. The truth doesn’t become less true because people don’t like hearing it.
I believe there is a serious possibility that child abuse and exploitation exist within some of the highest levels of American society, including among politicians and the ultra-wealthy. There are enough allegations, documented cases, associations, and circumstantial evidence surrounding various individuals and networks that I believe these matters warrant serious investigation. If evidence establishes that crimes were committed, I have no problem whatsoever with arrests, prosecutions, and convictions, regardless of how wealthy or politically powerful the people involved are.
But there is an important distinction between saying something deserves investigation and saying that something has been proven.
At this point, there is an enormous amount of speculation, conjecture, allegations, and circumstantial evidence surrounding this subject. What we do not have is sufficient publicly established evidence to definitively claim that there is some organized “pedophilic class” controlling or operating within the upper echelons of American society. People have absolutely committed horrific crimes against children. Criminal networks can and have existed. Powerful people can and have abused their positions. None of that, however, automatically proves the much broader claim.
And that’s an uncomfortable distinction, but it matters. If someone has committed a crime, investigate them, charge them when the evidence supports it, put them on trial, and let the evidence be tested in court. A person’s wealth, political affiliation, social connections, or position should not place them above the law. But neither should suspicion, association, or circumstantial evidence be treated as a substitute for proof beyond what the evidence can actually establish.
So I’m deliberately trying to be precise here. I am not defending anyone accused of child abuse. I am not minimizing the existence of child abuse. I am not making excuses for politicians, billionaires, conservatives, liberals, MAGA supporters, or anyone else. I condemn child abuse regardless of who commits it, and I believe anyone who commits these crimes should be prosecuted and punished under the law.
I also don’t support right-wing conservatism or MAGA, but that is beside the point. Please don’t twist my position into something I didn’t say simply because my position doesn’t fit neatly into a particular political narrative. I am saying that allegations should be investigated, credible evidence should be pursued, and proven crimes should be prosecuted. At the same time, I am not going to turn allegations and circumstantial evidence into established facts simply because they support a conclusion I already find plausible.
As for the second part of your statement, I’ll give you the same answer I give everyone else: socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are socially or collectively owned, with worker ownership or control being one important form of socialist organization. It is not synonymous with social programs.
A government providing public healthcare, libraries, police, fire departments, public education, social insurance, or other services does not automatically make those programs “socialist.” Governments of many different economic systems provide public programs. The fact that something benefits society does not make it socialism.
Socialism also isn’t simply a philosophy about “protecting workers.” Worker protection can exist under capitalism, socialism, mixed economies, and other systems. The defining question is fundamentally about ownership and control of productive assets.
You can hard disagree with whatever you want it doesn’t make it any less true.
There is also an important distinction between what can be proven in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt (against the best lawyers money can buy), and what is likely to be true. There’s absolutely no reason why we have to hold all criticism to the former standard, and it’s completely unreasonable to do so.
100% agreed, I never said anything remotely like that.
Agreed, however, protecting workers is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition of socialism. The goal of worker ownership is fundamentally driven by a desire to advance the interests of workers, which includes worker protection.
Yeah, it’s not the fact that I disagree, but the arguments I made to support that disagreement that show your position is wrong.
I think we’re actually closer to agreement than you seem to realize, but you’re making one important logical leap that I don’t think your argument establishes.
I agree that there’s a distinction between something being proven beyond a reasonable doubt and something being sufficiently supported by evidence to conclude that it is likely true. I’ve never argued otherwise. In fact, that’s precisely why I keep appealing to historical evidence and academic definitions rather than pretending every conclusion requires courtroom-level proof.
Where I disagree is your claim that protecting workers is a necessary condition of socialism. Worker ownership of the means of production is central to the definition of socialism. But you’ve moved from that definition to an asserted purpose: that worker ownership is fundamentally driven by the desire to protect workers. Those aren’t the same proposition.
Socialism seeks to alter the ownership and control of the means of production and, consequently, the distribution of economic power. That can absolutely benefit workers and historically has often been justified in terms of improving workers’ material conditions. But “worker protection” is not what makes an economic system socialist. A system could theoretically have worker ownership while providing extremely poor working conditions, and it would still be socialist in the relevant economic sense. Conversely, a capitalist economy can provide extraordinarily strong worker protections without becoming socialist.
That’s the distinction I’m making: worker protection can be a motivation, objective, or consequence associated with socialism without being a necessary defining condition of socialism itself.
And regarding your final point, saying that your arguments demonstrate that my position is wrong is not itself an argument. You still have to establish the premises and show that the conclusion follows from them. That’s exactly what I’m challenging.
If your position is that socialism necessarily entails worker protection, then demonstrate that from the definition or from the academic literature. If your position is instead that socialist movements have historically pursued worker protection as one of their objectives, I have no substantial disagreement with that. Those are two very different claims.
I feel like already explained this but I’ll spell it out very neatly for you:
Premise A: Socialism means worker control of the means of production (MoP).
Premise B: A class that has control of the MoP will use that power to advance their own interests.
Premise C: Worker protections are in the interests of the working class.
Conclusion 1: Therefore, in a socialist system, worker protections will be implemented.
Conclusion 2: Therefore, if a system does not have worker protections, workers are not in control of the MoP, and it is not a socialist system.
Conclusion 3: Therefore, worker protections are a necessary condition of socialism.
This could only be true if either B or C are false. If one of those premises is wrong, then it’s you that needs to provide an argument or justification about why it is false.
I understand the syllogism. The problem is that your conclusion does not actually follow from your premises, and you still haven’t addressed the distinction I’ve been making.
Premise A is broadly consistent with the economic definition of socialism: workers collectively control or own the means of production.
Premise C is also uncontroversial: worker protections can be in the interests of the working class.
The problem is Premise B. You are assuming that a class possessing control over the means of production will necessarily use that control to advance all of its perceived interests, and then treating that assumption as sufficient to establish a necessary institutional feature of socialism. That does not follow.
Even if workers collectively control the means of production, they still have competing interests and preferences. Collective ownership does not magically produce unanimous preferences about wages, hours, workplace safety, benefits, working conditions, or how resources should be allocated. Workers can collectively choose policies that benefit them in some respects while sacrificing other interests.
More importantly, you’re confusing an expected consequence or political objective with a necessary definitional condition.
Your argument could establish something like:
“If workers control the means of production, they have the ability and potentially the incentive to implement worker protections.”
It does not establish:
“Any system in which workers control the means of production must necessarily have worker protections, and therefore worker protections are a defining condition of socialism.”
That’s the gap I’ve been pointing out.
And the fact that you can construct a syllogism doesn’t make the conclusion established. You have to demonstrate that the premises are sufficiently strong to entail the conclusion you’re drawing from them. Premise B is doing almost all of the work here, and it contains the exact assumption under dispute.
You also keep saying that I’m claiming socialism inherently doesn’t protect workers. That’s not my position either. Obviously socialist movements have historically advocated worker protections, and obviously worker ownership can be used to pursue them. I’m saying something much narrower: worker protection is not what defines socialism, and the absence of a particular set of worker protections does not logically establish the absence of worker ownership of the means of production.
Your Conclusion 2 is particularly problematic. “Workers are not receiving protections, therefore workers do not control the means of production” is simply affirming what you are trying to prove. You would need an independent argument establishing that worker control necessarily produces those protections. You can’t use the conclusion as evidence for one of its own premises.
So no, I haven’t failed to address your argument. I’m addressing the precise point on which your argument depends: you have demonstrated that worker protection can be an interest of workers. You have not demonstrated that it is a necessary institutional consequence of worker ownership, nor that its absence logically proves that workers don’t control the means of production.
Those are three different claims, and you’re treating them as though they’re interchangeable.
You’re just nitpicking and splitting hairs. You opened with “O my God. I cannot even begin to tell you how truly stupid this meme is!” Now it’s just that I haven’t sufficiently proven my premise. We’re back to the standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt,” where you’re rejecting the whole argument based on a sliver of a technicality. I’m not really interested in playing that game.
I’ve established a clear and reasonable argument for why worker protections should be considered a necessary component of socialism. Your counterargument is that, just because workers have a clear means and motives to protect themselves, they might randomly decide not to. That’s hypothetically true, but only hypothetically. In practice, it’s pretty much always going to happen, and if it doesn’t happen, like I said, it’s a good reason to look very carefully about why it isn’t happening.
Also, for the record, the meme doesn’t even say that worker protections are a necessary component of socialism, only that socialism “protects the most vulnerable!” You literally said, multiple times including right here:
…that that’s correct! The only issue you have which it, that you’ve chosen to hyper-focus on, is that you’re claiming it’s not definitionally correct (and I disagree with even that) but the meme never even claimed that it was part of the definition! Only that it was an ideology that did promote worker protections, which you just said is true! So on what basis was this reaction of “I cannot even begin to tell you how truly stupid this meme is!” at all called for?
You’re just wrong. Regardless of whether you can carve out this technicality or not on this point, you’re still generally wrong on the main point.
So, in your previous comment you said I wasn’t addressing your point. I did exactly that, in detail. Now you’re telling me I’m splitting hairs.
I explained why your syllogism doesn’t establish the conclusion you’re trying to draw from it, and rather than address that response, you’ve simply moved on to another objection. So I’ll restate my original argument one more time.
Socialism is an economic system. It does not inherently, nor was it specifically designed, to protect workers. Its fundamental purpose was to address the concentration of wealth and economic power associated with capitalism by changing the ownership and control of the means of production. It isn’t a magical philosophy for solving every social problem.
Socialism has also never historically produced the utopian outcomes people often attribute to it. In many cases, socialist systems produced enormous concentrations of political power and inflicted serious harm on the very people they were supposedly intended to liberate. You can’t simply look at the intended goal and pretend the historical outcomes don’t matter.
My argument has never been that worker protections are bad, nor that socialist movements have never advocated for them. I’ve said the exact opposite: if socialism results in better protections for workers, I’m perfectly fine with that. My argument is that the fact that workers can use collective control of the means of production to protect their own interests does not mean that socialism inherently will do so. There is nothing in the economic structure of socialism that magically guarantees that outcome.
You were making that guarantee. I was pointing out that it was an assertion based on what you believe socialism should accomplish, rather than something inherent to socialism itself.
And, frankly, I’ve never encountered this particular argument before. I’ve never had someone construct a syllogism specifically to argue that worker protection is a necessary consequence of socialism. It was actually an interesting argument to respond to, and I appreciate the different way of approaching the issue.
But ultimately, I still don’t think it establishes your conclusion.
There is no economic system that comes with a magical guarantee that its participants will use it in the way we think they should. And socialism certainly isn’t a universal philosophy for resolving every problem in society. It’s an economic model concerning ownership and control of the means of production.
I don’t understand why people keep treating socialism as though it is somehow inherently going to resolve inequality, protect every vulnerable group, empower workers, and solve all of society’s other problems. We have an enormous historical record to examine. At some point, you have to actually look at what these systems have done rather than what you believe they were supposed to do.