• sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 hours ago

        Capitalism, if I remember from my econ classes decades ago, as described by Adam Smith, is supposed to have a strong gov’t regulatory component. Not work hand in hand with capital. The inverse of your argument is used all the time to ask why communism ends up in dictatorship or oligarchy every time. It’s a tangential strawman argument. We see stronger social democracies doing better, for now, using a bit of this and that. We’ll see how long that works well and then, when humans invariably fuck it up we can get on our soapbox and say, “See! Scandinavian social democracy is a flawed approach! Checkmate <socialist, capitalist, whatever>!”

        • Socialism_Everyday@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          4 hours ago

          The inverse of your argument is used all the time to ask why communism ends up in dictatorship or oligarchy every time

          Yes, that is indeed something people do say, but it is false though, so it’s useless.

          We see stronger social democracies doing better

          Again, that’s your opinion. “Stronger social democracies” have homelessness and unemployment rates astronomically higher than in some Actually Existing Socialist states such as Cuba or the USSR.

      • dreadbeef@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        20 hours ago

        I think they just obvserved reality and then their answers to “well so what next?” is where people disagree with marx