What is "socialism"? - An attempt to clear up myths/misconceptions

[vivster]

sc94597 said:

vivster said:

Semantics. Why can't this be considered modern socialism? It's social enough to care for the poorest and capitalist enough to be stable and competitive. Seems like an awesome system to me, considering how it works so well for so many people.

Sorry, but I do not feel exploited in the least and I'm sure none of my countrymen do unless they're hardcore neoliberals. I'm absolutely fine with the tax system, though they could actually raise them some more, especially on the wealthy. And capitalists exploiting workers in Germany? Where did you get that crazy idea from? Germany has some of the if not the strongest laws of worker protection in the world. Our minimum wages, paid leaves and legal power over employers are the envy of most nations. If you add to that the extreme consumer protection and privacy laws I fail to see how you could talk about exploitation here.

I feel very much enabled and supported by the state and I am gladly paying my high taxes for it. I have zero fear to ever end up in a position where I will not be able to live my life to the fullest because I know my state has my back at all times.

Because its capitalism, and does not systematically oppose absolutist institutions in the economy. Socialism isn't merely about being "social" it's about having full compensation for all workers for the work they've completed. It's about destroying fundamental inequalities built into the norms of the system which make people dependent on welfare and the capitalist state in the first place. It's about obtaining as much autonomy, power, and control over your work-life and conditions as is possible. It's always been about these things. Capitalism =|= competition nor does it equal stability. It is a system based on monopoly, hierarchy, and power. Some forms of capitalism are more stable than others, but at the end of the day there is still tons of instability. 

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/exploited

to utilize, especially for profit; turn to practical account:

One does not have to feel exploited to be exploited. The existence of exploitation is an objective observation, not a whim. Your employer reaps profits off your work which could've gone to you and your peers instead. The only thing your employer brings into the equation which can't be brought by you and your peers is capital, and the employer earns disproportionate profits because of it. Do you deny that capitalists make profits off their laborers? Exploitation isn't the same thing as being an asshole. Perfectly good people exploit others. 

Your trust in the finality of the state seems like a misplaced fixed idea. How spooky. States can change very rapidly as sociopolitical conditions change, and when they do, they likely won't have your "back at all times." The world isn't some static entity with fixed social dynamics, and there are strong pressures on the stability of states. For example, demographic problems are hitting Europe and Asia pretty hard, and we're only now seeing how flexible the social institutions found in these countries are to these pressures. All states eventually come to an end, and when they do who is going to foot the costs? Definitely not those at the top of the hierarchy. 

I know that capitalism is not about competition. Pure capitalism seeks to dominate everything. The competition and stability is made by the regulation of the state.

My employer does make a profit from me. For that I do get compensated in a fair enough way. You say it yourself, exploitation doesn't have to be evil and is done by good people, sometimes with the best intentions. So why are you talking about it as if it was evil? Maybe it's a necessary evil to keep things going?

I had a very similar discussion with a hardcore neoliberal who would love nothing more than pure capitalism in all sectors. The truth is, you cannot slap a perfect system onto inherently flawed individuals. It doesn't work and will become unstable very quickly. You will have to have compromises to appease the most amount of people in the most moderate way. I think Germany found a very stable compromise. A compromise not everyone will agree with, but a compromise that will keep things running with a maximum amount of stability.

Changing sociopolitical conditions are not an argument for anything. Every single social and economic system is vulnerable to changing situations. It's about to be as robust as possible. And neither full capitalism nor full socialism are as robust as the compromise we have here.