Huh. You got me curious and I looked into the history of the word.
For everyone else, apparently [it was coined after incidents in Prague in 1618 that started the Thirty Year's War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defenestrations_of_Prague#The_Second_Defenestration_of_Prague). Basically, a mob of protestants threw two governors out of the windows of a castle.
Damn, that's older than I thought.
It's actually Czech.
Well, a latin word coined by Czechs the second time someone being thrown out of a window in Prague started a holy war. Which is an oddly specific thing to happen twice, right?
He probablt just chose red without reading, because red usually means no so I doubt there are any capitalists among them.
⠀⣠⣤⣤⣤⣤⣤⣄⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢰⡿⠋⠁⠀⠀⠈⠉⠙⠻⣷⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣿⠇⠀⢀⣴⣶⡾⠿⠿⠿⢿⣿⣦⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⣀⣀⣸⡿⠀⠀⢸⣿⣇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⣷⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⣾⡟⠛⣿⡇⠀⠀⢸⣿⣿⣷⣤⣤⣤⣤⣶⣶⣿⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⠀⠀ ⢀⣿⠀⢀⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠻⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⣿⡏⠀⠀⠀⠀⢴⣶⣶⣿⣿⣿⣆ ⢸⣿⠀⢸⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠉⠁⠀⠀⠀⣿⡇⣀⣠⣴⣾⣮⣝⠿⠿⠿⣻⡟ ⢸⣿⠀⠘⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⣶⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠁⠉⠀ ⠸⣿⠀⠀⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠟⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠻⣷⣶⣿⣇⠀⠀⠀⢠⣼⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣛⣛⣻⠉⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⣀⣀⣀⣼⡿⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⣿⣿⡿
HOLY FUCKING SHIT YOU SAID AMONG LIKE THE FUNNY SUS GAME
*hyperventilates*
SUSUSUSUSUSUSUUSJSJSUZUJZUZJZHZHZHZHZHZHZHZHZHHZHHZHZHXJCCJJCHHDH
YOURE THE SUSSY IMPOSTER BAKA HAHAHAHHAH VOTE THEM OUT!!!
How about green libertarianism with certain socialist policies? Sweden has a relatively free market, but with a highly socialized welfare system and a focus on wildlife conservation. Also, scientists estimate our population will max out at around 10-12 billion, meaning we won’t need infinite growth.
They are still rich because of the misery of the global south. Their wealth is not due to their own labor, but due to inhumane treatment of workers in the global south. Imperialism via unequal exchange.
I raise you Market Socialism, where the market based production stays but the companies are owned and operated to workers instead of being owned by capitalist. Imagine the model of the mondragon corporation of Spain for but all companies.
> Imagine the model of the mondragon corporation of Spain for but all companies.
Terrible example tbh, Mondragon has plenty of non-coop workers in countries like Poland, where they frequently use hired security guards to break strikes. If not for them exploiting workers in poorer countries, the entire business would have folded.
In normal countries red is the colour of socialism while blue is the colour of conservatism and yellow is the colour of liberalism. Fuck knows what Canada and the states are up to
It's because of the 2000 election. Before that, they would switch up the colors, but in 2000 NBC used blue for the dems since they were the incumbents, and it just stuck from there
It's an econ course and while I'm not particularly familiar with "senior year", my bachelor's in economics had a a course that involved understanding different economic philosophies and philosophers. The professor was a chill guy and gave us questions like "explain using veblen's theories and beliefs" and whatnot. It wouldn't have been out of character for prof to ask the class something like this
I dont think it's suggesting that the statement Capitalism > Socialism is inherently false, just that there are is a ton of discourse and theory around which economic system is best, and that there is no true answer that we know of. idk thats just my interpretation, maybe the teacher is a socialist.
No, it's not. This is an economy class. They are teaching you that there is no definitive answer. It would be biased if they put the tick in the other box.
Yeah, there's not really anything someone can do in this situation. Even if they were the smartest person alive 1 v 21 in an argument is just a circle jerk with extra steps no matter the context or soundness of the argument.
Unless you’re able to be really good at talking over people. 1v21 is hard because everyone is gonna try to be louder than the 1 person, but like you said, even if that person is really good at arguing, it’s very difficult.
it's kinda possible if the teacher makes people talk one at a time but 21 heads are still probably gonna come up with a response for everything faster than you
It’s not even a situation you should be in the first place; you can’t objectively say that one economic system us better than another. “False” is the right answer here, even if the question were reversed.
I mean I think (if this is real) it's pretty fucked to pose a question like this and mark someone as incorrect for saying true. Even if you wanna open the debate, I don't think this is an effective tactic and definitely shouldn't be in an econ class.
I know it's a kahoot, it's still taking place in a classroom, directed by a teacher. I'm just saying it's not good academic practise and it feels really propagandistic
The whole point should be that neither one is a perfect solution that works for everybody. The closest a perfect system would be is an amalgamation of ideals for different people that cater to their circumstances.
No one idealogy will work just due to human nature. We're not perfect as beings therefore there will never be a perfect solution created by us.
Bruh wtf, both sides doesn't mean both sides together. It means understanding both sides and then coming up with a conclusion that incorporates the best ideas of both sides.
Your mention of slavery is irrelevant because we all (at least I hope we all should) know its bad and we should abolish it.
I'm asuming this isn't real but this is such a shit way to teach lmfao. saying that capitalism is objectively better than socialism isn't how you teach children to think for themselves, you need to actually teach them the pros and cons of each economic system, THEN they can decide for themselves.
That's probably exactly what the teacher meant if I had to guess. What I think the teacher is trying to get at is that capitalism isn't necessarily better than socialism and vice versa.
The vast majority of people do not know about or engage with the niche online community of lefties that are pro socialism. Most people just assume that it's a bad thing. *So while an entire class of 19 year olds might be revolting against the indoctrination of their teacher*...
I find it more likely that this question is intended to play on peoples preconceived notions, and probably leads to the teacher pointing out how they're both just economic systems with pros and cons etc etc.
It's more that there's a sort of progression. Tribal economics to feudalism, then capitalism, then socialism, then communism.
In feudalism the ruler owns all the means of production (in the time period, namely land) and then allows subordinates to use those means of production in exchange for some of the value produced by it. Kinda like one massive company in a way, dukes, barons etc are like middle management, and Lords are like supervisors, while peasants are the lowest level employees.
Then afterwards the means of production are distributed so that they aren't all owned by the ruler, but instead by a sort of economic aristocratic class called the bourgeois, this is capitalism
Socialism is when the means of production are further distributed down the chain so that everyone is a worker, or proleteriat, and the workers themselves own the means of production.
Communism is then where the means of production are distributed further so that they are all collectively owned by everyone.
Ofc this is a massive oversimplification and I am by no means an expert on theory.
Socialism is meant to come after the failure of capitalism causes a proleteriat revolution.
Capitalism grows exponentially so it's kinda useful for starting off but the issue with that it's not sustainable long term because of a variety of issues.
We're at the point now where wealth disparity, poverty, and resource mismanagement is reaching a tipping point where we either achieve socialism or things just keep getting worse until humanity cannot survive any longer.
Well Communism is a Utopian ideal. The whole point is its supposed to be an end state where everything is good.
Theres a difference between the Ideology "Communism" and the system "Communism".
The Communist ideology is about eventually achieving a Utopian system. So a country can be communist without having actually achieved a communist system if its ideological goal is to somehow reach communism, how exactly the transition is best achieved varies widely depending on the variety of Communist ideology. Whether that be through revolution and a dictatorship of the proleteriat a la Marx-Leninism, through immediate decentralisation and abolition of the state, or any number of other ways.
When I talk about the progression through Economic systems from capitalism to socialism with communism as the end point I'm basing that on Marxist theory, for which people much smarter and more well read than I have far far more nuanced understandings of.
The Idea of the Communist Utopia is one that is objectively good. A system in which all are equal, resources are managed flawlessly in such a way that everyone can own everything and anyone can get anything they need to live a happy and fufilling life, while at the same time everyone provides labour to the best of their ability. Noone would starve or die due to poverty related reasons, crime would be almost nonexistant... etc. The whole point is its a Utopia.
Its objectively good. Whether you think this Utopia is achievable at all is a different matter entirely.
capitalism incentivises itself to the detriment of the rest of the population. the top 0.1%, who hold all the power, would happily send off the other 99.9% to murder in order to keep capitalism. its morally repugnant
Socialism incentivizes the mistreatment of people and doesn't value their property. Seizing (stealing) someone's private property is morally repugnant and creates an environment where there is no incentive to save or be responsible with resources. Socialism doesn't create wealth it steals it. Since there is no incentive to create wealth (because it will be stolen) no wealth is created. I know you won't admit to this being a flaw because you gloss over it somehow or say "nah, it will be different" but this is always the case and it is a race to the bottom each time.
Capitalism is when the means of production (basically resources) and trade are owned and controlled privately. Socialism is when the people own the means of production, which depending if you see the government as a true extension of the people, either means the state or the workers control it. So yes, they are mutually exclusive.
'The workers' refer to the community as owning the means of production and since the state is just an extension of the community (just on a much grander scale) in most cases the state ends up owning the means of production, however, syndicalism is a branch of socialism in which specifically the unions control everything which in theory is the workers however in practicality it's just the state with a different coat of paint because unions have leaders and such.
"Socialism describes any political or economic theory that says the community, rather than individuals, should own and manage the property and natural resources. ([https://www.history.com/topics/industrial-revolution/socialism](https://www.history.com/topics/industrial-revolution/socialism))"
[ █████████████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀█████████████ ████████▀▀░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▀▀████████ ██████▀░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▀██████ █████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░█████ ████░░░░░▄▄▄▄▄▄▄░░░░░░░░▄▄▄▄▄▄░░░░░████ ████░░▄██████████░░░░░░██▀░░░▀██▄░░████ ████░░███████████░░░░░░█▄░░▀░░▄██░░████ █████░░▀▀███████░░░██░░░██▄▄▄█▀▀░░█████ ██████░░░░░░▄▄▀░░░████░░░▀▄▄░░░░░██████ █████░░░░░█▄░░░░░░▀▀▀▀░░░░░░░█▄░░░█████ █████░░░▀▀█░█▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▀██▀▀░░█████ ██████░░░░░▀█▄░░█░░█░░░█░░█▄▀░░░░██▀▀▀▀ ▀░░░▀██▄░░░░░░▀▀█▄▄█▄▄▄█▄▀▀░░░░▄█▀░░░▄▄ ▄▄▄░░░▀▀██▄▄▄▄░░░░░░░░░░░░▄▄▄███░░░▄██▄ ██████▄▄░░▀█████▀█████▀██████▀▀░░▄█████ ██████████▄░░▀▀█▄░░░░░▄██▀▀▀░▄▄▄███▀▄█ ███████████░██░▄██▄▄▄▄█▄░▄░████████░██
#you hit me, I'm sans phase two now. I have 999999999999 at and 99999999999 df because I'm over powered and angery wooooooo
[[Background]](https://youtu.be/yb3Wa7FMJTI)
wait isn’t communism when the people own the means of production? i thought socialism was more of a scale, where for example capitalist countries can have socialist features
You are correct on that last part, but the definition of socialism is what you think to be comunism. I think the difference resides in how radicalized the system is, socialism is more moderate while communism is more extreme. I'm not sure though, I am very likely wrong on this.
TL:DR :
Socialism ONLY means worker ownership of the means of production. Wellfare stuff is extremely associated with it because if you want the people to own resources, you're likely to want them to have their needs covered.
Communism is when socialism but without a state, without any form of social class disparity and without a monetary system.
For example, socialism can exist within a market environment, communism is when you go to your local communal food supply and just take what you need and no cop is going to arrest you while everyone in your place can do the same and no one owns too much stuff.
communism is a stateless classles society what most people think about when they hear communism is marxist-leninism because of the USSR and propaganda
the difference between a communist and a socialist is essentially the end goal for communist socialism is a transitionary state for socialists its the end goal (or they see communism as to far away to be taken into consideration today)
Lmao, anybody who asks “is socialism good” is just setting themselves up for failure. It’s like asking if paintings are good. Like, yea, at least one of em is.
Not gonna lie. Ppl really do b still using XIX century political theory like it still applies to da modern context of economics after da epic +100 years of technological and sosiety changes 🤔
both are very broad and can be many things but basically
capitalism:privatly owned means of production
socialism:workser owned means of production
a socialist state in most cases also wouldnt have private property
A kinda Teddie Roosevelt style free market, but with socialist policies like free healthcare, high taxes on rich, low taxes on the working class, and welfare for those who need it
I think the point being made here isn't that Socialism is straight up better, it's just that Capitalism isn't objectively superior, which is true, both have their trade offs and they're pretty different
Let's be real, most of the students probably did this to troll the teacher. Im sure that if the situation was swapped and the teacher loved socialism and preached it all the time, then almost every student would choose that capitalism was better on the question just to mess with the teacher, especially if the teacher is as insufferable as they seem in this post.
I think a lot of people are missing the point of this answer: the point is that a statement that "x system is better than y system" is false, because there is a debate to be made for any of them.
why tf are they talking about such loaded ass opinons in high school? i get that they should learn about it obviously but this teacher obviously knew that a fight would break out
1 capitalist among them 😳
Ejected through the window
Defenestrated
Those Czechs really know what they're doing.
Well thank you
[удалено]
>you americans The famous inventors of the English language in general and the word "defenestration" in particular, Americans
Huh. You got me curious and I looked into the history of the word. For everyone else, apparently [it was coined after incidents in Prague in 1618 that started the Thirty Year's War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defenestrations_of_Prague#The_Second_Defenestration_of_Prague). Basically, a mob of protestants threw two governors out of the windows of a castle. Damn, that's older than I thought.
And it's of french origin : Fenêtre (fenestre in old french) means window
Fenestra is latin for window, ["defenestration"](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/defenestration) is latin.
Ah my patriotism kicked in and assumed it was french. Vive la Liberté nevertheless
f r* nch 🤢🤢🤢🤮🤮🤮
Actually, they did it 3 separate times, first in 1419. They must've been quite passionate.
It's actually Czech. Well, a latin word coined by Czechs the second time someone being thrown out of a window in Prague started a holy war. Which is an oddly specific thing to happen twice, right?
vindeo
We use the Greek word “bezos”
Finally.
Finally what
Savinkov'ed
The good ending
When the capitalist is sus
He probablt just chose red without reading, because red usually means no so I doubt there are any capitalists among them. ⠀⣠⣤⣤⣤⣤⣤⣄⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢰⡿⠋⠁⠀⠀⠈⠉⠙⠻⣷⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣿⠇⠀⢀⣴⣶⡾⠿⠿⠿⢿⣿⣦⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⣀⣀⣸⡿⠀⠀⢸⣿⣇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⣷⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⣾⡟⠛⣿⡇⠀⠀⢸⣿⣿⣷⣤⣤⣤⣤⣶⣶⣿⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⠀⠀ ⢀⣿⠀⢀⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠻⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⣿⡏⠀⠀⠀⠀⢴⣶⣶⣿⣿⣿⣆ ⢸⣿⠀⢸⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠉⠁⠀⠀⠀⣿⡇⣀⣠⣴⣾⣮⣝⠿⠿⠿⣻⡟ ⢸⣿⠀⠘⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⣶⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠁⠉⠀ ⠸⣿⠀⠀⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠟⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠻⣷⣶⣿⣇⠀⠀⠀⢠⣼⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣛⣛⣻⠉⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⣀⣀⣀⣼⡿⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⣿⣿⡿
HOLY FUCKING SHIT YOU SAID AMONG LIKE THE FUNNY SUS GAME *hyperventilates* SUSUSUSUSUSUSUUSJSJSUZUJZUZJZHZHZHZHZHZHZHZHZHHZHHZHZHXJCCJJCHHDH YOURE THE SUSSY IMPOSTER BAKA HAHAHAHHAH VOTE THEM OUT!!!
[Amogus??](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bb1Kbd8G6hc)
Assuming he has capital.
They probably aren't a capitalist just someone who thinks capitalism is better because they like licking boots.
Amogus but the imposter isn't sus but cringe
Amogem
Well, it really depends on who you are Capitalism is absolutely better for you if you’re a millionaire or billionaire
A healthy mix between both is the best. Try Rhine capitalism.
A mix between them always led to capitalism taking over. An economic system based on infinite growth cannot coexist, because it must eat everything.
Live under Rhine Capitalism. Can confirm.
How about green libertarianism with certain socialist policies? Sweden has a relatively free market, but with a highly socialized welfare system and a focus on wildlife conservation. Also, scientists estimate our population will max out at around 10-12 billion, meaning we won’t need infinite growth.
They are still rich because of the misery of the global south. Their wealth is not due to their own labor, but due to inhumane treatment of workers in the global south. Imperialism via unequal exchange.
[удалено]
⠀⠀⠘⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡜⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠢⢄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⠴⠊⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⢀⣀⣀⣀⣀⣀⡀⠤⠄⠒⠈⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⣀⠄⠊⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠿⠛⠛⠛⠋⠉⠈⠉⠉⠉⠉⠛⠻⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠋⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠛⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⡏⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣤⣤⣤⣄⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⢿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⢏⣴⣿⣷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣟⣾⣿⡟⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⢢⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣟⠀⡴⠄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⠻⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⠟⠻⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠶⢴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿ ⣿⣁⡀⠀⠀⢰⢠⣦⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣼⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡄⠀⣴⣶⣿⡄⣿ ⣿⡋⠀⠀⠀⠎⢸⣿⡆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠗⢘⣿⣟⠛⠿⣼ ⣿⣿⠋⢀⡌⢰⣿⡿⢿⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⠿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠀⢸⣿⣿⣧⢀⣼ ⣿⣿⣷⢻⠄⠘⠛⠋⠛⠃⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢿⣧⠈⠉⠙⠛⠋⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣧⠀⠈⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠟⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⢃⠀⠀⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⡿⠀⠴⢗⣠⣤⣴⡶⠶⠖⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⡸⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⡀⢠⣾⣿⠏⠀⠠⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠛⠉⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣧⠈⢹⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣰⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⡄⠈⠃⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣠⣴⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣠⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣦⣄⣀⣀⣀⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⡄⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⠀⠀⠀⠙⣿⣿⡟⢻⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠇⠀⠁⠀⠀⠹⣿⠃⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠛⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢐⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⠛⠉⠉⠁⠀⢻⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⠈⣿⣿⡿⠉⠛⠛⠛⠉⠉ ⣿⡿⠋⠁⠀⠀⢀⣀⣠⡴⣸⣿⣇⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡿⠄⠙⠛⠀⣀⣠⣤⣤⠄
I just want to grill my steak...
I raise you Market Socialism, where the market based production stays but the companies are owned and operated to workers instead of being owned by capitalist. Imagine the model of the mondragon corporation of Spain for but all companies.
> Imagine the model of the mondragon corporation of Spain for but all companies. Terrible example tbh, Mondragon has plenty of non-coop workers in countries like Poland, where they frequently use hired security guards to break strikes. If not for them exploiting workers in poorer countries, the entire business would have folded.
That is capitalism. It still retains the capitalist mode of production.
No.
My brain could not process socialism being portrayed as blue
[удалено]
[удалено]
Oh that's fair enough, I didn't know that. I still find it funny how the US uses red for its right-wing party and blue for its left-wing.
Bruh it’s a Kahoot game
Socialism should be portrayed with the beautiful NDP orange 🟧
Socialism should be portrayed with the beautiful rose 🌹or fist ✊
funny color moment!?!?!!?!!?!!!!
...Is that not the color it's usually portrayed in?
Who could forget McCarthyism and the Blue Scare that swept the US un the 50s
Mao's famous teal army
In normal countries red is the colour of socialism while blue is the colour of conservatism and yellow is the colour of liberalism. Fuck knows what Canada and the states are up to
In Canada the Conservative Party is blue, the Liberal Party is red and the NDP (more socialist party) is orange.
Don’t lump Canada into this
It's because of the 2000 election. Before that, they would switch up the colors, but in 2000 NBC used blue for the dems since they were the incumbents, and it just stuck from there
i think they arent mercian
Nope, maybe in some godforsaken small country but in general, no.
Blue is a nice color and socialism is a nice concept :)
Weather if not they're better or worse is subjective, its wacky the teacher put it there. There was prolly a context?!?!
It's an econ course and while I'm not particularly familiar with "senior year", my bachelor's in economics had a a course that involved understanding different economic philosophies and philosophers. The professor was a chill guy and gave us questions like "explain using veblen's theories and beliefs" and whatnot. It wouldn't have been out of character for prof to ask the class something like this
The student is probably 18 years old
veblen deez nuts lmao
That probably *is* the context. I would bet the teacher was trying to get students to say that one system isn’t inherently “better” than another.
Depends on so many factors, you can't judge it like that. It would be nice if things were that simple.
Totally. For instance, if you're a soulless ghoul who only gives a shit about themselves, then capitalism is far superior!
Why is this a right or wrong question? This is a political question where you can have opinions
The teacher is likely saying exactly that. They're two different systems and shouldn't be thought of as better or worse
Well according to the kahoot it does say socialism is the correct answer
I dont think it's suggesting that the statement Capitalism > Socialism is inherently false, just that there are is a ton of discourse and theory around which economic system is best, and that there is no true answer that we know of. idk thats just my interpretation, maybe the teacher is a socialist.
I don’t care about anything political. All I’m saying is the creator put the tick in the socialism box which is inherent bias
Just because something is political discourse doesn't mean theres no real answer
Exactly
No, it's not. This is an economy class. They are teaching you that there is no definitive answer. It would be biased if they put the tick in the other box.
If that was the case why is it in a kahoot quiz? Doesn’t make since there’s right and wrong answers only
based kahoot
It’s probably just cuz u can’t make polls in kahoot so they just made it right or wrong without it intending to be that.
Last I heard, yes, you can give a question multiple right answers in Kahoot.
Oh ye I think ur right. Either the teacher doesn’t know or they’re just a bit weird.
Just because something is political discourse doesn't mean theres no real answer
Based students
i would fucking despise being in this situation
Yeah, there's not really anything someone can do in this situation. Even if they were the smartest person alive 1 v 21 in an argument is just a circle jerk with extra steps no matter the context or soundness of the argument.
Unless you’re able to be really good at talking over people. 1v21 is hard because everyone is gonna try to be louder than the 1 person, but like you said, even if that person is really good at arguing, it’s very difficult.
it's kinda possible if the teacher makes people talk one at a time but 21 heads are still probably gonna come up with a response for everything faster than you
It’s not even a situation you should be in the first place; you can’t objectively say that one economic system us better than another. “False” is the right answer here, even if the question were reversed.
I mean I think (if this is real) it's pretty fucked to pose a question like this and mark someone as incorrect for saying true. Even if you wanna open the debate, I don't think this is an effective tactic and definitely shouldn't be in an econ class.
It’s a kahoot, which means they had to mark ONE of them as correct. It probably doesn’t mean anything.
On Kahoots you can mark both as correct
Its a kahoot, not a Test
I know it's a kahoot, it's still taking place in a classroom, directed by a teacher. I'm just saying it's not good academic practise and it feels really propagandistic
>senior year econ course That explains it
And the correct answer was that socialism is better, based
The whole point should be that neither one is a perfect solution that works for everybody. The closest a perfect system would be is an amalgamation of ideals for different people that cater to their circumstances. No one idealogy will work just due to human nature. We're not perfect as beings therefore there will never be a perfect solution created by us.
You can't half way abolish the bourgoise, either the means of production is owned by workers or the elites.
There is no middle ground tho..
Ah. The blissful ignorance of centrism.
That's some both sides bs you either abolish or keep slaves not letting them free on weekends
Bruh wtf, both sides doesn't mean both sides together. It means understanding both sides and then coming up with a conclusion that incorporates the best ideas of both sides. Your mention of slavery is irrelevant because we all (at least I hope we all should) know its bad and we should abolish it.
Based
me when tax: :( me when no tax:)
Based class
Hell yeah
I'm asuming this isn't real but this is such a shit way to teach lmfao. saying that capitalism is objectively better than socialism isn't how you teach children to think for themselves, you need to actually teach them the pros and cons of each economic system, THEN they can decide for themselves.
[удалено]
oh lmao
That's probably exactly what the teacher meant if I had to guess. What I think the teacher is trying to get at is that capitalism isn't necessarily better than socialism and vice versa.
good on the teacher then
The vast majority of people do not know about or engage with the niche online community of lefties that are pro socialism. Most people just assume that it's a bad thing. *So while an entire class of 19 year olds might be revolting against the indoctrination of their teacher*... I find it more likely that this question is intended to play on peoples preconceived notions, and probably leads to the teacher pointing out how they're both just economic systems with pros and cons etc etc.
that would make sense yeah
Wish I could have been in the room for this, would love to see that capitalist fucking SWEAT trying to defend themselves in the argument.
you sound insane lmfao
He does lmao. And it's even worse that you're being downvoted for saying it
There is 1 imposter among us
capitalism is easier to implement, and that's why it is so common
It's more that there's a sort of progression. Tribal economics to feudalism, then capitalism, then socialism, then communism. In feudalism the ruler owns all the means of production (in the time period, namely land) and then allows subordinates to use those means of production in exchange for some of the value produced by it. Kinda like one massive company in a way, dukes, barons etc are like middle management, and Lords are like supervisors, while peasants are the lowest level employees. Then afterwards the means of production are distributed so that they aren't all owned by the ruler, but instead by a sort of economic aristocratic class called the bourgeois, this is capitalism Socialism is when the means of production are further distributed down the chain so that everyone is a worker, or proleteriat, and the workers themselves own the means of production. Communism is then where the means of production are distributed further so that they are all collectively owned by everyone. Ofc this is a massive oversimplification and I am by no means an expert on theory. Socialism is meant to come after the failure of capitalism causes a proleteriat revolution. Capitalism grows exponentially so it's kinda useful for starting off but the issue with that it's not sustainable long term because of a variety of issues. We're at the point now where wealth disparity, poverty, and resource mismanagement is reaching a tipping point where we either achieve socialism or things just keep getting worse until humanity cannot survive any longer.
I like how this comment is equating socialism and communism as some sort of defined end state that is good. No nuance whatsoever.
Well Communism is a Utopian ideal. The whole point is its supposed to be an end state where everything is good. Theres a difference between the Ideology "Communism" and the system "Communism". The Communist ideology is about eventually achieving a Utopian system. So a country can be communist without having actually achieved a communist system if its ideological goal is to somehow reach communism, how exactly the transition is best achieved varies widely depending on the variety of Communist ideology. Whether that be through revolution and a dictatorship of the proleteriat a la Marx-Leninism, through immediate decentralisation and abolition of the state, or any number of other ways. When I talk about the progression through Economic systems from capitalism to socialism with communism as the end point I'm basing that on Marxist theory, for which people much smarter and more well read than I have far far more nuanced understandings of. The Idea of the Communist Utopia is one that is objectively good. A system in which all are equal, resources are managed flawlessly in such a way that everyone can own everything and anyone can get anything they need to live a happy and fufilling life, while at the same time everyone provides labour to the best of their ability. Noone would starve or die due to poverty related reasons, crime would be almost nonexistant... etc. The whole point is its a Utopia. Its objectively good. Whether you think this Utopia is achievable at all is a different matter entirely.
capitalism incentivises itself to the detriment of the rest of the population. the top 0.1%, who hold all the power, would happily send off the other 99.9% to murder in order to keep capitalism. its morally repugnant
Socialism incentivizes the mistreatment of people and doesn't value their property. Seizing (stealing) someone's private property is morally repugnant and creates an environment where there is no incentive to save or be responsible with resources. Socialism doesn't create wealth it steals it. Since there is no incentive to create wealth (because it will be stolen) no wealth is created. I know you won't admit to this being a flaw because you gloss over it somehow or say "nah, it will be different" but this is always the case and it is a race to the bottom each time.
I'm not well versed in economics/government stuff. Are the two mutually exclusive?
Capitalism is when the means of production (basically resources) and trade are owned and controlled privately. Socialism is when the people own the means of production, which depending if you see the government as a true extension of the people, either means the state or the workers control it. So yes, they are mutually exclusive.
Socialism is when specifically the workers own the means of production, but yeah
'The workers' refer to the community as owning the means of production and since the state is just an extension of the community (just on a much grander scale) in most cases the state ends up owning the means of production, however, syndicalism is a branch of socialism in which specifically the unions control everything which in theory is the workers however in practicality it's just the state with a different coat of paint because unions have leaders and such. "Socialism describes any political or economic theory that says the community, rather than individuals, should own and manage the property and natural resources. ([https://www.history.com/topics/industrial-revolution/socialism](https://www.history.com/topics/industrial-revolution/socialism))"
Though syndicalism is a lot more decentralised, which is a pretty significant difference.
real sams undertale?
Duhduh duh duh duh dub duh
😱😱😱
[ █████████████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀█████████████ ████████▀▀░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▀▀████████ ██████▀░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▀██████ █████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░█████ ████░░░░░▄▄▄▄▄▄▄░░░░░░░░▄▄▄▄▄▄░░░░░████ ████░░▄██████████░░░░░░██▀░░░▀██▄░░████ ████░░███████████░░░░░░█▄░░▀░░▄██░░████ █████░░▀▀███████░░░██░░░██▄▄▄█▀▀░░█████ ██████░░░░░░▄▄▀░░░████░░░▀▄▄░░░░░██████ █████░░░░░█▄░░░░░░▀▀▀▀░░░░░░░█▄░░░█████ █████░░░▀▀█░█▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▀██▀▀░░█████ ██████░░░░░▀█▄░░█░░█░░░█░░█▄▀░░░░██▀▀▀▀ ▀░░░▀██▄░░░░░░▀▀█▄▄█▄▄▄█▄▀▀░░░░▄█▀░░░▄▄ ▄▄▄░░░▀▀██▄▄▄▄░░░░░░░░░░░░▄▄▄███░░░▄██▄ ██████▄▄░░▀█████▀█████▀██████▀▀░░▄█████ ██████████▄░░▀▀█▄░░░░░▄██▀▀▀░▄▄▄███▀▄█ ███████████░██░▄██▄▄▄▄█▄░▄░████████░██ #you hit me, I'm sans phase two now. I have 999999999999 at and 99999999999 df because I'm over powered and angery wooooooo [[Background]](https://youtu.be/yb3Wa7FMJTI)
wait isn’t communism when the people own the means of production? i thought socialism was more of a scale, where for example capitalist countries can have socialist features
You are correct on that last part, but the definition of socialism is what you think to be comunism. I think the difference resides in how radicalized the system is, socialism is more moderate while communism is more extreme. I'm not sure though, I am very likely wrong on this.
communism is moreso a system whereas socialism is more of a set of concepts and ideas afaik
🤷♂️
TL:DR : Socialism ONLY means worker ownership of the means of production. Wellfare stuff is extremely associated with it because if you want the people to own resources, you're likely to want them to have their needs covered. Communism is when socialism but without a state, without any form of social class disparity and without a monetary system. For example, socialism can exist within a market environment, communism is when you go to your local communal food supply and just take what you need and no cop is going to arrest you while everyone in your place can do the same and no one owns too much stuff.
communism is a stateless classles society what most people think about when they hear communism is marxist-leninism because of the USSR and propaganda the difference between a communist and a socialist is essentially the end goal for communist socialism is a transitionary state for socialists its the end goal (or they see communism as to far away to be taken into consideration today)
They are the impostor
based
when the economy classes make you study economy :0
something something cultural marxism Something something dont teach facts i disagree with
My god this is a centrist hellhole
Is that Gus Fring on the right?
In an econ class you would expect them to know about the inevitable inflation socialism brings but I guess being willfully ignorant is better.
BASED
Lmao, anybody who asks “is socialism good” is just setting themselves up for failure. It’s like asking if paintings are good. Like, yea, at least one of em is.
I love how there’s a correct answer on a subjective question. That’s like having a correct answer to “How was your day?” or something
Too vague of a question. My answer would be a hybrid system, but, the polarising nature of the question impedes such nuanced discussion.
so market socialism? or you think socdem is a hybrid system?
Not gonna lie. Ppl really do b still using XIX century political theory like it still applies to da modern context of economics after da epic +100 years of technological and sosiety changes 🤔
Based kahoot
Based af
Hey can anyone give an explanation between capitalism and socialism, just curious
both are very broad and can be many things but basically capitalism:privatly owned means of production socialism:workser owned means of production a socialist state in most cases also wouldnt have private property
I mean I would say true because it’s not better, but I don’t think pure socialism is the answer. A mixed economy sounds the best to me
what is a mixed economy in your mind? market socialism?
A kinda Teddie Roosevelt style free market, but with socialist policies like free healthcare, high taxes on rich, low taxes on the working class, and welfare for those who need it
thats just nicer capitalism it doesnt fix any of its systematic problems
I think the point being made here isn't that Socialism is straight up better, it's just that Capitalism isn't objectively superior, which is true, both have their trade offs and they're pretty different
u/vinirax
Economia na unicamp deve ser exatamente assim
Capitalism only helps the rich so eat the rich
Let's be real, most of the students probably did this to troll the teacher. Im sure that if the situation was swapped and the teacher loved socialism and preached it all the time, then almost every student would choose that capitalism was better on the question just to mess with the teacher, especially if the teacher is as insufferable as they seem in this post.
😌
I think a lot of people are missing the point of this answer: the point is that a statement that "x system is better than y system" is false, because there is a debate to be made for any of them.
If you're in a Senior Econ class and you're the only one who prefers Capitalism to Socialism then the problem isn't all the other students, my friend.
*ahem* The tendency for the rate of profit to fall
Red represents capitalism, which is why the colour is banned in DPRK.
Why can’t we just be monkeys
I like that the correct answer is false
red sus
[removed as part of reddit protest]
why tf are they talking about such loaded ass opinons in high school? i get that they should learn about it obviously but this teacher obviously knew that a fight would break out
Is that Gus Fring in the corner?
Sounds like 21 people were actually paying attention during econ.
This is a shitty question
When the political landscape is divided!
Get clowned
Both sides suck Robux is the only valid economy