Everyone understands that Socialism is not Communism, right?

[zymurgy]

Capitalists in the 19th century were fantastically wealthy. That did not translate to a humane form of capitalism. That's why we call them Robber Barons. They were so wealthy their names still pepper the pages of history books: Rockefeller, J P Morgan, Andrew Carnegie. These men had very little intention to boost wages, benefits, and substantially improve the conditions of labor.

The social progress in the economy and labor in the early 20th century came almost exclusively from pressure from socialism, labor unions, working class activists.

“Robber Barons” is not the anti-capitalist dunk people think it is.

those fortunes were built in bed with government: railroad land grants, tariffs, subsidies, banking deals, special privileges, and political protection.

That is not capitalism. That is what happens when business figures out that lobbying government is easier than competing honestly.

So yes, attack the Robber Barons. Fine. But attack them for what they were: politically connected industrialists using state-backed advantages.

Do not blame voluntary exchange for corruption created by government favoritism.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

And your point is???

Surely not that Byrd was not a staunch American conservative during almost the entire of his life...right?

Byrd was little more than a party apparatchik. He voted the way the party wanted and got plenty of swag for W. Virginia where there is shit everywhere named after him.

 

[Jarod]

Capitalists in the 19th century were fantastically wealthy. That did not translate to a humane form of capitalism. That's why we call them Robber Barons. They were so wealthy their names still pepper the pages of history books: Rockefeller, J P Morgan, Andrew Carnegie. These men had very little intention to boost wages, benefits, and substantially improve the conditions of labor.

The social progress in the economy and labor in the early 20th century came almost exclusively from pressure from socialism, labor unions, working class activists.

This is the classic example of how the struggle America has had with balancing elements of Capitalism and Socialism. Pure Capitalism results in slavery of the lower class, while Pure Socialism results in stagnation and a lack of advancement in technology.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

“Robber Barons” is not the anti-capitalist dunk people think it is.

those fortunes were built in bed with government: railroad land grants, tariffs, subsidies, banking deals, special privileges, and political protection.

No, they weren't. And when government did try to step in and control things, the Robber Barons tried--unsuccessfully--to buy the government.

That is not capitalism. That is what happens when business figures out that lobbying government is easier than competing honestly.

No, that is Statist Capitalism.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Your eight hour working day, 40 hour work week, paid vacation, pension and retirement benefits did not come from the goodness and kind heart of capitalism. Left unfettered to it's own devices, capitalism generally will pay only a subsistence wage with no generous benefits.

Improvements to the conditions of labor and the evolution of a humane form of capitalism came from competition and pressure from socialism and the industrial working class.

It's a balance. Yin-Yang. When one is too powerful and dominates the other, Lord Acton's famous quote inevitably comes into play.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Byrd was little more than a party apparatchik. He voted the way the party wanted and got plenty of swag for W. Virginia where there is shit everywhere named after him.

Sen. Byrd, for most of his time in office, was VERY, VERY conservative. He came to regret, publicly, his stances that were the result of a segregationist mentality. He became more moderate in his later years.

He was NEVER a party apparatchik...and was, in fact, a leader. No person has served in congress for a longer time than Byrd...and he also is the longest serving senator.

If it makes you feel better about yourself to drag him through the mud...fine with me. I certainly differed with his stances often during the years, but I am confident enough in myself not to have to do that kind of shit.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Sen. Byrd, for most of his time in office, was VERY, VERY conservative. He came to regret, publicly, his stances that were the result of a segregationist mentality. He became more moderate in his later years.

He was NEVER a party apparatchik...and was, in fact, a leader. No person has served in congress for a longer time than Byrd...and he also is the longest serving senator.

If it makes you feel better about yourself to drag him through the mud...fine with me. I certainly differed with his stances often during the years, but I am confident enough in myself not to have to do that kind of shit.

MAGA morons are to far gone to admit that, in today's world, racists like Byrd would have been a MAGAt. In the 50s and early 60s, people like Terry would have been a rebel-flag waving Democrat.

 

[zymurgy]

No, they weren't. And when government did try to step in and control things, the Robber Barons tried--unsuccessfully--to buy the government.

“When government tried to step in and control things…”

There it is.

Why is government trying to “control things” treated as the adult in the room instead of the beginning of the problem?

If businessmen are greedy, politicians are not magically exempt. Bureaucrats are not a different species. Voters are not angels. Lobbyists do not disappear because you gave the state more authority.

The more government controls, the more valuable government becomes to buy.

Then when the rich buy influence, the same people say, “See? Capitalism failed.”

 

[Cypress]

“Robber Barons” is not the anti-capitalist dunk people think it is.

those fortunes were built in bed with government: railroad land grants, tariffs, subsidies, banking deals, special privileges, and political protection.

That is not capitalism. That is what happens when business figures out that lobbying government is easier than competing honestly.

So yes, attack the Robber Barons. Fine. But attack them for what they were: politically connected industrialists using state-backed advantages.

Do not blame voluntary exchange for corruption created by government favoritism.

Capitalism did not just decide out of the goodness and kindness of it's heart to institute the eight hour work day, prohibit child labor, establish generous retirement benefits, and paid vacation.

Andrew Carnegie, Morgan, and Rockefeller could have done that in 19th century because they had mountains of cash and lived in castles. It was clear to them that capitalism, for laborers, just meant subsistence wages.

 

[martin]

In 1910, it took about $7.50 per person to fund the federal government.

In 2026, it is about $21,000 per person.

And somehow the story is still “capitalism failed”?

No. Voluntary exchange did not create this monster. Political promises did. Debt did. Central banking did. Permanent emergency government did. Buying votes with future taxpayers’ money did.

At some point, “being humane” with money you do not have is not compassion.

you socialists are morons

What story? I doubt there is a liberal on this board who thinks "capitalism failed", unless you mean failed to be perfect. Liberals who call for more socialist programs want them added to the capitalist system, not put in place of it.

 

[Sailor]

Sen. Byrd, for most of his time in office, was VERY, VERY conservative. He came to regret, publicly, his stances that were the result of a segregationist mentality. He became more moderate in his later years.

He was NEVER a party apparatchik...and was, in fact, a leader. No person has served in congress for a longer time than Byrd...and he also is the longest serving senator.

If it makes you feel better about yourself to drag him through the mud...fine with me. I certainly differed with his stances often during the years, but I am confident enough in myself not to have to do that kind of shit.

You seem proud as a democrat that Byrd was a racist. Remember how he filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for example? A true racist democrat which over hundreds of years has not changed.

 

[martin]

Doesn't change that most, almost all, KKK members that have been elected to office were Democrats.

Correct; it's consistent with that fact.

 

[Cypress]

It's a balance. Yin-Yang. When one is too powerful and dominates the other, Lord Acton's famous quote inevitably comes into play.

Agreed. You can't let either capitalism or socialism go to one extreme or the other

 

[zymurgy]

What story? I doubt there is a liberal on this board who thinks "capitalism failed", unless you mean failed to be perfect. Liberals who call for more socialist programs want them added to the capitalist system, not put in place of it.

So where is the balance?

That is not a carefully balanced system. That is a century-long ratchet toward more federal spending, more federal control, more debt, more redistribution, more regulation, and more dependence.

And now the interest alone on the debt is becoming one of the largest federal expenses.

” what you really need to explain is how the brake works. What stops the “social” side from expanding forever? What stops politicians from buying votes with future taxpayers’ money? What stops every new problem from becoming another federal program, another subsidy, another mandate, another emergency, another debt-financed promise?

Is collapse the brake? seems to be

 

[Ross Dolan]

What story? I doubt there is a liberal on this board who thinks "capitalism failed", unless you mean failed to be perfect. Liberals who call for more socialist programs want them added to the capitalist system, not put in place of it.

Just want to give this a loud AMEN...although I doubt you will ever get through the concrete in that guy's head.

 

[zymurgy]

Capitalism did not just decide out of the goodness and kindness of it's heart to institute the eight hour work day, prohibit child labor, establish generous retirement benefits, and paid vacation.

Andrew Carnegie, Morgan, and Rockefeller could have done that in 19th century because they had mountains of cash and lived in castles. It was clear to them that capitalism, for laborers, just meant subsistence wages.

Capitalism did not need to “decide out of kindness” to improve labor conditions. That is not how markets work. the invisible hand did this.

The market pressure comes from productivity, competition, capital accumulation, and rising alternatives for workers.

When labor is poor and productivity is low, work is brutal because life is brutal. As productivity rises, workers have more bargaining power, employers must compete for better labor, families can afford to keep children out of factories, and society can afford shorter hours, safer conditions, schooling, retirement, and leisure.

You are acting like the eight-hour day, retirement benefits, and paid vacation were conjured into existence by socialist compassion. They were made affordable by an economy productive enough to support them.

A poor society cannot vote itself rich. It cannot mandate prosperity into existence. It can write labor laws, but if productivity is not there, the result is unemployment, black markets, stagnation, or poverty with paperwork.

The Industrial Revolution was ugly, but it also created the escape hatch from permanent agrarian poverty. Entire industries could collapse, prices could fall, new industries could rise, and labor could move. That market pressure is the relief valve.

The modern managed economy breaks that relief valve. Government props up failing industries, inflates asset prices, subsidizes costs, blocks price correction, protects incumbents, mandates benefits, socializes losses, and then wonders why everything gets more expensive.

So no, I do not credit socialism with making capitalism humane. I credit productivity, competition, capital accumulation, falling costs, and market alternatives. Socialists showed up after the engine was running and claimed they invented motion.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Doesn't change that most, almost all, KKK members that have been elected to office were Democrats.

Correct. And that was mostly prior to the Democrats passing the Civil Rights legislation...when most of the KKK morons left the party and became Republicans.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Capitalism did not need to “decide out of kindness” to improve labor conditions. That is not how markets work.

The market pressure comes from productivity, competition, capital accumulation, and rising alternatives for workers.

When labor is poor and productivity is low, work is brutal because life is brutal. As productivity rises, workers have more bargaining power, employers must compete for better labor, families can afford to keep children out of factories, and society can afford shorter hours, safer conditions, schooling, retirement, and leisure.

You are acting like the eight-hour day, retirement benefits, and paid vacation were conjured into existence by socialist compassion. They were made affordable by an economy productive enough to support them.

A poor society cannot vote itself rich. It cannot mandate prosperity into existence. It can write labor laws, but if productivity is not there, the result is unemployment, black markets, stagnation, or poverty with paperwork.

The Industrial Revolution was ugly, but it also created the escape hatch from permanent agrarian poverty. Entire industries could collapse, prices could fall, new industries could rise, and labor could move. That market pressure is the relief valve.

The modern managed economy breaks that relief valve. Government props up failing industries, inflates asset prices, subsidizes costs, blocks price correction, protects incumbents, mandates benefits, socializes losses, and then wonders why everything gets more expensive.

So no, I do not credit socialism with making capitalism humane. I credit productivity, competition, capital accumulation, falling costs, and market alternatives. Socialists showed up after the engine was running and claimed they invented motion.

Of course you do. But...what the fuck do you know?

 

[zymurgy]

Agreed. You can't let either capitalism or socialism go to one extreme or the other

derp derp

you have no check and blanace against the extreme form of socialism that is hapeninng today

you need to extract over $20k per person to fund this bullshit social program.

 

[Damocles]

For days now, The Sleepy PP, has tried to equate the two, you do know they are not the same thing, right?

Actually, according to Marx and the broader Marxist tradition, socialism is the first step toward communism.

In the Critique of the Gotha Programme, Marx outlined the lower phase of communist society (what later Marxists explicitly called socialism): the transitional stage with the "dictatorship of the proletariat," state control of the means of production, and distribution "to each according to his contribution." Only after that does the higher phase, aka full communism, emerge: stateless, classless, moneyless utopia where the state withers away and it's "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."


Lenin and company were even more blunt: socialism is the vehicle; communism is the destination. That's why regimes called themselves "socialist" (USSR = Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) while promising communism someday.


So no, they're not identical, but one is explicitly designed to lead to the other. Why do so many modern leftists insist on treating them as completely unrelated, or claim "real socialism has never been tried"?


It's either historical illiteracy or deliberate marketing. I propose that it is deliberately misleading people, a very deliberate gaslighting... Selling of a governmental Ponzi scheme, the modern leftist understands that "free healthcare and student debt forgiveness" polls better than "transitional phase to the abolition of private property and the state as we know it." The Manifesto isn't exactly hidden behind a paywall. People can read it for themselves.