The Stagnant Working Class

[Fallawful]

People in this thread need to understand the difference between the colloquial term for socialism and actual marxist/socialist theories.

"Marxism" is an economic system, referring to the macro-economy, in which - put simply - the means of production is held by the community - or state. However, welfare states and Keynesian economics - which are now colloquially termed as "socialist," refers to a system of institutions within the capitalist system. The Keynesian argument is that the market is volatile and should kept in check through institutions. Imagine public schooling is left to market dynamics - you would have people who then will not be able to become educated because they are outcompeted. Large uneducated sections of the population does not bode well for a society. So countries like the U.S. - bastions of capitalism - have public school systems because such things should obviously not be left for market dynamics to decide. Therefore, a state institution, by virtue of being owned by the public does not automatically make it "socialist" in the marxist sense. This includes schools, and so on. The fact that the United States has public elementary education does not make it a marxist country, does it?

When someone says that a certain institution and provision of goods should be provided by the state, as in education and health, they are not saying that "capitalism sucks" or that we need to have communism again. No, they are saying that a certain good should be left for community/state to provide rather than market dynamics. This is why healthcare is provided by the state and not left for market dynamics in all developed countries of the world.

It boggles me that the U.S. is left behind on such things. They were the ones who LITERALLY implemented "socialist" welfare nets into the capitalism system first. They provided universal schooling over a hundred years ago, during a time where this was unheard of in the world.

What happened now is that people have confused a pragmatic way to run markets into ideology. Get this - the guy who is regarded as the father of capitalism, Adam Smith, said HIMSELF that certain goods should not be left to market dynamics. These are health and education. He was proposing a pragmatic economic model, not an ideology. Capitalism is not an ideology. If one wants to have ways to manage it, to use it as the tool that it is, this does not make one a communist. Most importantly - it does not mean that they hate capitalism.

Take my computer. Let's say I want to change my graphics card because it is now not running optimally. My roommate, seeing this, is completely outraged and says that I hate computers. According to him, the internal components of the computer are designed the way that they are supposed to be, and that I am now a normie for wanting to interfere with them. What he does not understand, is that this computer is merely a tool for me to carry on with my life.

This video is stupid, and most discussions in this thread were cringe.