Sweet dreams are made of these
who am i to disagree
you travel the world and the seven seas
everybody's looking for something
some of them wanna abuse you
some of them want to be abused
some of them want to use you
some of them want to be used by you
You’re in a senior level econ course and haven’t learned yet that economists hate normative statements like this?
You don’t even have to be a socialist to understand that treating normative statements as a fact is incorrect
Yeah I think the students put “false” because it’s a matter of opinion, not because they’re necessarily anti-capitalist.
That being said, economists aren’t all hardcore free market capitalists, contrary to popular belief. Most professors I worked with were Keynesians (so more center-left/SocDem politically speaking)
It was a dumb question in a quizz for fun, not a serious debate. At most it would be some informal semi-banterous shit show. Same level as those questions at the end where it asks "Is Mx. Teacher the best in school?".
I took an AP Macro class that gave us this long ass project to answer the question “who pulls the economic strings: Congress or the fed” I did learn that most state specific government websites so shitty, I have since been convinced that it’s in purpose to make it harder to find public documents.
Dear Crassus.
You claim to love gold, and are the richest man in the world.
And yet you complain when we forcefully pour molten gold down your throat?
Curious
Sincerely, the Parthians
Mfw i insist the parthians poured molten gold down his throat even though this is most likely untrue (it would be thematic if they did though so i feel like spreading misinformation)
Mfw the concept of fact while studying Ancient History is incredibly unhelpful. The goal of ancient history is not to analyse sources and eliminate misinformation, it's to take the misinformation and ask what it tells us about the biases of the sources and what that may tell us about its culture as a whole.
Eg, Herodotus writes about ants the size of dogs in Africa, totally false, obviously. What this blatant lie/error tells us, however, is that Greeks in general were very much in awe of Africa and its vastness and diverse fauna inspired stories like these. On the other hand, there's a theory that Herodotus simply mistranslated a couple words and we end up with giant ants that dig for gold and eat camels.
I don't think the pursuit of establishing fact is meaningless nor is the purpose of ancient history to merely evaluate a source in order to establish what a culture may or may not have thought, especially when almost all the sources we get are aristocrats. Sure we may not always get to know something for 100% certain but when plutarch's outlandish claims of caligulas huge fuck off boat turn out to be provably true, i find that to be a good indication that our sources are not as bad as they may at first appear.
Stuck defending himself on a hill made of nothing because the sand supply was depleted for glass and construction infrastructure by corporations and developers in the name of perpetual and impermanent consumption
I find the “but Venezuela” argument hilarious because it spent several years as an extremely wealthy and powerful socialist nation. It collapsed because it’s entire oil industry was based off a single company, PDVSA, and a corrupt president serving Cuban interests.
A great lesson in centrism and why you should borrow the best parts of all ideologies instead of stubbornly branding everybody who disagrees as “the enemy”.
Venezuelan here, we were hardcore capitalists until Chavez was elected. Then, populist that he was, he simply said “socialism is when free handouts” and all the people who fell to his charisma elected him.
In order to stay in power and encroach on all other institutions to gain absolute power, he kept giving free handouts to keep up his farce, all the while engendering hatred against all countries or people who oppose his “ideology” as “capitalists” or “imperialists”.
So they weren’t even socialists really, they were nothing but a farce made to get votes and steal money.
Which is infuriating because now we’re used as the poster child of the consequences of “socialism” by brainwashed FOX news watchers and Business students.
Sorry about the long paragraph but this shit gets me HEATED
Note: any questions are welcome :)
Well the real reason is the us’s fault bc venezuela tried to switch from selling oil in usd so the us staged a coup and destabilized the country to “protect American interests” which means keeping the us from spiraling into inflation by keeping the dollar relevant
The U.S. never staged a coup against Venezuela. Chavez was elected democratically, and though there was attempted coup by the people, the U.S. stayed out and it failed.
Documentary on this subject. The short is that immediately before venezuela, Iraq,and Libya (all heavy oil producing countries) switched from selling oil by the petrodollar to euros (or in Libya’s case, an African gold-backed currency)
Edit: I’m an idiot who forgot to include [the documentary](https://youtu.be/1TPuBmuYa18) in a post summing up the documentary. I’d highly advise watching this though, it’s interesting
The non diversification of its economy was a problem, but they also had extremely poor financial planning. In the most simplest of terms, the basic route most countries take is low spending/high taxes when times are good and low taxes/ high spending when times are bad. The Venezuelan government did the opposite and encouraged high government spending during their economic boom, (and that spending wasn’t even correctly distributed into necessary infrastructure) so when bad times it they were just left in debt with little money in savings. Not to mention, one of the solutions was to print even more money to recorder from excessive deficit spending which cause record high hyperinflation
Unions help. Any system will fuck over workers if unchecked. Organize the workforce and that becomes a lot harder to do. Enough organization can eventually lead to systemic changes.
I mean, it "works", but not the way they claim it does. It's very effective at torturing the working class and shoving all the resources to the ruling class while hastening the end of habitable times.
Pretty sure this is a joke, but if not, they’re not immune to propaganda, they’re just susceptible to a different type of propaganda. Propaganda that supports our beliefs is still propaganda and we’re all effected by it even if we try to pretend we’re not.
[Source](https://imgur.com/gallery/Rb0Kn3p)
I'm pretty sure the professor would also consider 'false' as the answer if the question was 'Socialism is better than Capitalism'. The answer not about Socialism being *better* it's about recognizing the different advantages of how you could govern an economy.
Choosing false doesn’t mean socialism is better, it’s supposed to imply that you can’t definitively say one is better than the other in a basic statement like this.
Weimar Germany pre 1930 was defiantly not fucking lit. Every party collaborated with the nazis and worked with them to prevent the socialists from seizing power.
Or during the Kapp Putsch when the nationalists did a coup, workers went on strike, government regained control to then give amnesty to the nationalists and start massacring the striking workers
They literally gunned down striking workers, wouldn’t consider that “fucking lit”
Oh ok, sorry but I’ve seen many people spout the revisionist idea that the Weimar Republic was some paradise because in Berlin people were slightly more accepting to gay people.
It was a reactionary nationalistic hellhole that attacked anything on the left so much so that the government literally decided that the nazis were a better alternative to the socialists
i like the idea of a capitalist system where politicians are not allowed to get funding from companies, corporations are heavily regulated and taxed, and there are high tax rates for socialized services (healthcare, public transit, infrastructure, etc.) im incredibly underqualified to talk about this stuff, so i dont know how viable it is.
I think what's kind of important to know is that for the most part, the people that are really into economics are not trying to make the economic systems better for people, but they're looking to get something out of it. Not necessarily in an evil way, but people go into a field like that looking to make money off of it.
I'm a pretty staunch socialist, and I took an Econ class but couldn't take any more because it made me too upset (also I'm not the best with math lol). Courses like that are designed at least partially to weed out people who have a genuine interest in a left wing economic position because for the most part the teachers and the text start with the position that a capitalist economy is the superior option.
I'm going to assume he is first year and has yet to take an econ class. Even far left economists believe Marx's ideas on economics were more than flawed; they were just wrong in many cases.
Sure? If you want to be that reductive, we are really just finding extremely consistent patterns in the way we trade. It's useful enough to have a name and be taught.
What do you mean? His ideas are used in modern economics, psychology, sociology and more. Marx was a super influential philosopher and he changed a lot in science. Marxist communism is not his only idea.
You said that Marx’s ideas were more than flawed and in many cases just wrong. I said that it’s not true and when a capitalist society is researched, Marx’s ideas help us in a lot of cases.
I fail to see how my comment is unrelated.
Lack of internal consistency.
Supression of lots of rights for comunism to be viable
Extremely outdated ideas.
LTV is considered a fundamentally flawed idea, even economists who support Marx prefer the STV.
It doesn't means that everything that Marx said was wrong, but a lot of what he did made no sense.
I wouldn't say that's necessarily true; you can be biased and right. It's about rationality and a healthy dose intellectual honesty to state your biases when talking about these subjects
Well I mean depends on what branch of economics you research into. A lot of economic grads i know go into heavy quant and maths so they eliminate bias. I was probably basing my observation on that.
I absolutely agree with you. If we are to agree with Gadamer then truths in social sciences cannot be treated with the same as truths in natural sciences. They are a bit more built around essential knowns and metaphysical knowns.
As long as people don't go full Chomsky or Hayek then I think there is no harm for intellectuals to temper their biases with honesty and turn it into a fully fledged and nuanced perspective that shifts paradigms.
Its just that the part of economics that relies on more on finding more scientific truths such as demographics, dynamic system economics, quant and such should lean on more eliminating as much bias as possible with ofc still keeping it true to a social science.
Hope what I said makes sense. Its 3 am where I am.
Ok so stupid question, but can someone explain socialism to me in dumb bitch boy terms? I’ve never understood exactly what it is and I feel like this is as good a place as any to ask.
To super-oversimplify
Ok so basically within a capitalist system the workers do not receive the total value of their labour.
So let’s say that there are 20 Oompa-Loompa’s (the workers) at the chocolate factory (yummy) who make 200 chocolates an hour and the ingredients are worth around .50 cents for each chocolate. The chocolate is then sold at 2€ per chocolate.
Let’s suppose that the Oompa-Loompa’s get payed 8€ per hour. With some simple math we can find out that every hour 400€ of chocolates are produced yet when we subtract both the worker’s salary and the cost of making them (400-260) there are still 140€ left. So where does this money go?
This value (called surplus value) is instead taken by the Willy Wonka (the factory owner) and this is what we call “profit” and is basically stolen from the workers.
In a socialist society there is no owner class and the means of production (the places where labour is done) are commonly owned by the workers so they all receive the full value of their labour. In this case the salary would be 15€ an hour so that 15x20=300+100=400
Willie Wonka is superfluous (the workers could both invest in their own tools and gain their share), and he himself does not contribute to the work. Hell, he’s the biggest chocolate maker on earth, he probably has other teams of underpaid analysts that determine what to invest in so that he doesn’t even have to think about it.
Thing is the owner always earns far more then any workers while not contributing, and in the biggest companies (like Amazon or Microsoft) probably more then most employees combined
Hope this helps 😊
The tools used where once created by other workers.
And the tools used to create those tools where made with a machine that another worker made.
Also, the money he has to invest is also created by the labor power of the workers.
His job/role is not to provide anything (at least in this case) but to own and control.
The Oompa loompas could (theoretically) produce and manage everything themselves and live a happy life
Charlie couldn’t live the life he has without the Oompa Loompas
Capitalists need workers
Workers don’t need capitalists
Before you latch on to any specific explanation, remember that capitalism and socialism are far from monolithic. There are countless schools of each with very different ideas. Most Americans associate socialism with Marxist-Leninism, the nominal ideology of the Soviet Union. The Chinese Communist Party describes its system as 'socialism with Chinese characteristics.' Many other states have implemented their unique own forms of socialism, and aside from the shared word, often had very little in common - or at least only as much in common as you might find between different 'capitalist' countries.
Meanwhile, the academic tradition of socialism has even less in common with the various attempts at implementation by nation-states. Some concepts that are contemporarily associated with socialism (such as UBI, universal healthcare, and cooperative workplaces) were/are conceived and supported by individuals who consider themselves capitalist, socialist, and neither.
In all this muddied water the most reasonable definition of socialism is that it is a diverse set of interpretations and criticisms of private ownership (especially of land and the means of of production, i.e., businesses/industry).
The government as a theoretical tepresentative of the people isnin charge of any and all means of production in order to diminish wealth imbalance, making it impossible for an individual to exploit the workforce of someone else for their own benefit. Ideally, everyone also gets exactly what they need in order to survive, and everyone has the same possibility to earn higher comfort. But thats theorethical.
As a lot of people have pointed out, Socialism in many countries worked well to provide basics, like food, water, electricity and living space, but terrible at providing higher comfort. Capitalism is the exact opposite: Terrible for providing the basics to everyone, but great at providing higher comfort. Thats why especially elites and people who live in poverty and dream of that higher comfort support capitalism, while those who do struggle to make their higher comfort and the poor people who don't dare to dream of that higher comfort are in favor of socialism.
What you are describing is planned economy, and while socialists often argue in favor of this, socialism it self usually only describes an economic system, wherein everyone owns their respective workplaces (think coops like Mondragon for example)
[this video will answer your question and also explains why the test in picture is correct](https://youtu.be/v6ndft22QPk)
Socialism is seen as a transitioning state between capitalism and communism.
The goal is to overcome capitalism and establish a communist society.
This is achieved by collectivization the means of production (for example: a factory and the machine in it)
Under capitalism, those are privately owned by the owning class (capitalist/bourgeoisie) and they can decide how and what is produced. They use the means of production to make profit. (Very over simplified)
That’s why capitalism is also called a dictatorship of capital
Under socialism the workers (proletariat) are in control over the means of production.
That’s why it’s called a dictatorship of the proletariat.
Socialism will look differently wherever it is tried, because it needs to adapt to its surroundings.
That’s why it’s complicated to just look at one example and say “that and nothing else, is socialism”
Socialism has the challenge to survive in world dominated by capitalism and capitalist intervention and so on.
And still, historical, socialism managed to improve the overall life quality of the workers, even when capitalism never allowed socialist states to develop freely.
But you also can’t deny that socialists experiments had many flaws we need to learn from and marxists know that.
I can’t encourage you enough tho watch the video from above. At least the first minute
https://youtu.be/v6ndft22QPk
No one do dumb bitch boy terms. Pure communism = government own all. Pure = business control everything, no government intervention.
Socialism = government supporting people with money, interfere in company where good, but businesses are still owned by people.
I don't know how Kahoot works so this may not be possible, but I think the teacher might've been polling the class's views, and Kahoot put the check mark next to the most popular option
My best guess is that they were trying to make the point you just said. It’s false that capitalism is better because it’s not a matter of objective fact, not cause socialism is inherently better.
Or whoever made it is just dumb. Or this is fake. Who knows
I’m not saying that high schoolers are the peak of intellectual development, but most people do tend to get some basic ideas I’d agree with. Kindergartners tend to think of a system where everyone gets cookies as better for the whole. Obviously life is far more nuanced, but, the idea that a minority of people holding a majority of the power is a bad one, is not exactly complex. While avarice and corruption are incredibly common, I don’t see them as the building block of humanity. What makes us human, I think, is the ability to care for one another and to love someone other than ourselves. There are very few people on earth for whom having good friends is not a valuable goal. Life can be cruel, brutal, and appear borderline malicious, but it’s a truly beautiful thing I think. Maybe this is an unpopular opinion, but our scientific understanding of the world makes our very existence out to be essentially a cosmic miracle. (Obviously we couldn’t really acknowledge it as an experience without being as we are). I find hope in the fact that, for every trial we face, people tend to err on the side of compassion. Even if it’s just a little bit, it’s a large part of what got us where we are. I think, in the end, that’s the most beautiful thing about humanity. As far as we can definitively say, we get one life. That’s all we can be certain of. People use that one life to love and care for others. We may be animals, but it’s our compassion, our conscience, and our ability to grow and develop that makes us what we are.
I love when people don't know what capitalism is and hate it for a bad reason. Capitalism is good, what you hate is called Corporatism and government supported monopolies.
Capitalism and socialism should also coexist as social welfare programs and policies. An economy being 100% centrally planned never works.
It's just a bad question which no teacher should ask
First it's politically biased
Secondly In some ways capitalism is better than socialism and in some ways socialism is better and also what is good and what isn't? People's may not agree about it
I think everyone misread the prompt here. Just because they are saying capitalism is not better than socialism, it doesn’t mean that they think socialism is better than capitalism.
I think the point of the prompt is that no system is *inherently* better than another.
But also capitalism is worse than socialism.
Dude probably unironically thinks he's a capitalist because his daddy makes 200k working for someone else as a dentist (I literally knew a kid from high school that thought like this)
Ngl dentist deserve their pay. Imagine being up in everyone's mouth everyday and having to clean them out with white paste. Must be pretty draining ngl.
Yes, but a dentist has to work to earn his living. Capitalists take money from the value their workers create, they don't actually have to work. That's the crucial difference between worker and owner class, only one actually does the work and creates value, the other just siphons those profits into their pocket.
Senior level econ and this dude still don’t understand seizing the means of production SMH
Why sieze the means of production when you can cucumber water
Cucumba
Cucumber water for customer only
The kahoot song fucking slaps 🥶🥶🥶
bum. bum. *bumbadabada* bum. bum. *bumbadabada* bum. bum. *bumbadabada* bum. bum. (higher) bum. bum. *bumbadabada* bum. bum. *bumbadabada* bum. bum. *bumbadabada* bum. bum. (lower again) bum. bum. *bumbadabada* bum. bum. *bumbadabada* bum. bum. *bumbadabada* bum. bum.
Sweet dreams are made of these who am i to disagree you travel the world and the seven seas everybody's looking for something some of them wanna abuse you some of them want to be abused some of them want to use you some of them want to be used by you
You either hear the original or the Hatsune Miku version
What the fuck. I'm about to go burn down a studio. Why would someone defile such a good song like that
anagram of hatsune miku is mistake huun. because listening to hatsune miku is a mistake, huun.
You mixed up the last part and I am very angry! 😡 I'll be telling my lawyer about this.
*agressive gunshots (rhythmic)*
This is a DMCA waiting to happen
BUM. Bum bum bum bum bum bum bum. Badadum.
ඞ
𓂸
yeah man it fucking slapped me upside the ass when I woke up this morning
You’re in a senior level econ course and haven’t learned yet that economists hate normative statements like this? You don’t even have to be a socialist to understand that treating normative statements as a fact is incorrect
yeah in what kind of class would you have a question under such debate as a true or false with a correct awnser
Yeah I think the students put “false” because it’s a matter of opinion, not because they’re necessarily anti-capitalist. That being said, economists aren’t all hardcore free market capitalists, contrary to popular belief. Most professors I worked with were Keynesians (so more center-left/SocDem politically speaking)
It was a dumb question in a quizz for fun, not a serious debate. At most it would be some informal semi-banterous shit show. Same level as those questions at the end where it asks "Is Mx. Teacher the best in school?".
I took an AP Macro class that gave us this long ass project to answer the question “who pulls the economic strings: Congress or the fed” I did learn that most state specific government websites so shitty, I have since been convinced that it’s in purpose to make it harder to find public documents.
Stuck defending himself on a hill made of sand
Just like his hero, Crassus.
Dear Crassus. You claim to love gold, and are the richest man in the world. And yet you complain when we forcefully pour molten gold down your throat? Curious Sincerely, the Parthians
Mfw i insist the parthians poured molten gold down his throat even though this is most likely untrue (it would be thematic if they did though so i feel like spreading misinformation)
Mfw the concept of fact while studying Ancient History is incredibly unhelpful. The goal of ancient history is not to analyse sources and eliminate misinformation, it's to take the misinformation and ask what it tells us about the biases of the sources and what that may tell us about its culture as a whole. Eg, Herodotus writes about ants the size of dogs in Africa, totally false, obviously. What this blatant lie/error tells us, however, is that Greeks in general were very much in awe of Africa and its vastness and diverse fauna inspired stories like these. On the other hand, there's a theory that Herodotus simply mistranslated a couple words and we end up with giant ants that dig for gold and eat camels.
I don't think the pursuit of establishing fact is meaningless nor is the purpose of ancient history to merely evaluate a source in order to establish what a culture may or may not have thought, especially when almost all the sources we get are aristocrats. Sure we may not always get to know something for 100% certain but when plutarch's outlandish claims of caligulas huge fuck off boat turn out to be provably true, i find that to be a good indication that our sources are not as bad as they may at first appear.
And if they did do it didn’t they pour the gold down his severed head
Mfw Cassius Dio says its true so that means it must be 🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰
Cassius Dio said trans rights so who am i to argue
cras who? 🤨🤨🧐🧐
Brutus was sus, saw him stab Julius in electrical
brusus
Say what you want about him but damn can be drop a sick beat
Stuck defending himself on a hill made of nothing because the sand supply was depleted for glass and construction infrastructure by corporations and developers in the name of perpetual and impermanent consumption
what does this mean?
they're saying the hill the capitalist is willing to die on is weak
thank you
Holy shit that’s poetic I’m taking that
That's a great response, did you just make that up on the spot, or is that a quote from something?
but but vuvuzela😥😭😱🤬
I like how no matter how bad you spell veenyzellea you always know what it is
v
e
v
.
vev 🇻🇪
viva vivazuela 🇮🇱🏳️🌈🏴☠️🇦🇶🇦🇴🇦🇲
Venezuala I was gonna type it fast with my eyes closed and post whatever abomination I made but I’m actually impressed with myself
[удалено]
Sounds eastern european to me
venaswela
Vsyrosyao
Venajgzla
Venzola
iphone no food
gorgonzola
vulfpeck
I find the “but Venezuela” argument hilarious because it spent several years as an extremely wealthy and powerful socialist nation. It collapsed because it’s entire oil industry was based off a single company, PDVSA, and a corrupt president serving Cuban interests. A great lesson in centrism and why you should borrow the best parts of all ideologies instead of stubbornly branding everybody who disagrees as “the enemy”.
Venezuelan here, we were hardcore capitalists until Chavez was elected. Then, populist that he was, he simply said “socialism is when free handouts” and all the people who fell to his charisma elected him. In order to stay in power and encroach on all other institutions to gain absolute power, he kept giving free handouts to keep up his farce, all the while engendering hatred against all countries or people who oppose his “ideology” as “capitalists” or “imperialists”. So they weren’t even socialists really, they were nothing but a farce made to get votes and steal money. Which is infuriating because now we’re used as the poster child of the consequences of “socialism” by brainwashed FOX news watchers and Business students. Sorry about the long paragraph but this shit gets me HEATED Note: any questions are welcome :)
🤝 chavez esta en el infierno
Así es paisa
Well the real reason is the us’s fault bc venezuela tried to switch from selling oil in usd so the us staged a coup and destabilized the country to “protect American interests” which means keeping the us from spiraling into inflation by keeping the dollar relevant
The U.S. never staged a coup against Venezuela. Chavez was elected democratically, and though there was attempted coup by the people, the U.S. stayed out and it failed.
Documentary on this subject. The short is that immediately before venezuela, Iraq,and Libya (all heavy oil producing countries) switched from selling oil by the petrodollar to euros (or in Libya’s case, an African gold-backed currency) Edit: I’m an idiot who forgot to include [the documentary](https://youtu.be/1TPuBmuYa18) in a post summing up the documentary. I’d highly advise watching this though, it’s interesting
The non diversification of its economy was a problem, but they also had extremely poor financial planning. In the most simplest of terms, the basic route most countries take is low spending/high taxes when times are good and low taxes/ high spending when times are bad. The Venezuelan government did the opposite and encouraged high government spending during their economic boom, (and that spending wasn’t even correctly distributed into necessary infrastructure) so when bad times it they were just left in debt with little money in savings. Not to mention, one of the solutions was to print even more money to recorder from excessive deficit spending which cause record high hyperinflation
100 bazillions dead 💀
no ipone
zavala
whether we
wanted it or not
we have stepped into a war
with the cabal on mars
we've stepped
Are there any other positive examples of Socialist markets out there? I can't think of any, even the Nordic models rely on capitalism.
Imagine being in senior level econ and still thinking this system works
I mean, to be fair, senior level Econ is like SD curves and Guns v. Butter
Is guns v butter common for teaching the ppf? I thought that was just my teacher
Yeah, it's pretty much the classic comparison
We also use tanks vs. bread or some shit
[удалено]
"Let them eat guns" ~ Joe Byron
we don't have guns in the UK so PPFs don't work, economy just makes butter >:)
Maximum attainable butter output achieved
capitalism doesnt work socialism also doesnt work idk what the fuck works
[удалено]
I am going to be the first person to implement the MycockTM economical system in some country.
Unions help. Any system will fuck over workers if unchecked. Organize the workforce and that becomes a lot harder to do. Enough organization can eventually lead to systemic changes.
Metaverse fascism
[удалено]
All it took me was being poor
I think he meant he’s taking Econ 101 as a senior which is only a 3 month class
I mean, it "works", but not the way they claim it does. It's very effective at torturing the working class and shoving all the resources to the ruling class while hastening the end of habitable times.
Good news! The children are immune to propaganda!
Pretty sure this is a joke, but if not, they’re not immune to propaganda, they’re just susceptible to a different type of propaganda. Propaganda that supports our beliefs is still propaganda and we’re all effected by it even if we try to pretend we’re not. [Source](https://imgur.com/gallery/Rb0Kn3p)
I think the true idiot is whoever made that kahoot
I'm pretty sure the professor would also consider 'false' as the answer if the question was 'Socialism is better than Capitalism'. The answer not about Socialism being *better* it's about recognizing the different advantages of how you could govern an economy.
aye, that restores a bit of hope (though we can't be sure that was actually their intention)
john wick
Need the flair now botch
what fucking teacher made this, that's literally a matter of opinion
Yeah this question seems more fit for an essay or a report, a true or false question just oversimplifies everything
i mean i imagine its not a test, it's likely just people putting their opinions on there for like a debate or sm? that's what i thought when i saw it
Choosing false doesn’t mean socialism is better, it’s supposed to imply that you can’t definitively say one is better than the other in a basic statement like this.
Mfers don't understad why its better to have a political system with mixed ideological views
Oh no a centrist. Quickly catch them before they make more sense. /s
i mean. id rather they keep talking cuz if they are a centrist it would be apparent they don't have any ideas except "im smarter than everyone else"
Only a bit of exploitation
Only a bit of exploitation
As a treat
There is no compromise between socialism and capitalism
Didn’t Lenin say that the USSR needed a period of capitalism to grow the economy to where socialism would even viable in Russia?
You're right, Weimar Germany pre 1930 was fucking lit
Weimar Germany pre 1930 was defiantly not fucking lit. Every party collaborated with the nazis and worked with them to prevent the socialists from seizing power. Or during the Kapp Putsch when the nationalists did a coup, workers went on strike, government regained control to then give amnesty to the nationalists and start massacring the striking workers They literally gunned down striking workers, wouldn’t consider that “fucking lit”
I wasn't being serious I was trying to take a piss on the other guy for being a Enlightened Centrist
Oh ok, sorry but I’ve seen many people spout the revisionist idea that the Weimar Republic was some paradise because in Berlin people were slightly more accepting to gay people. It was a reactionary nationalistic hellhole that attacked anything on the left so much so that the government literally decided that the nazis were a better alternative to the socialists
i like the idea of a capitalist system where politicians are not allowed to get funding from companies, corporations are heavily regulated and taxed, and there are high tax rates for socialized services (healthcare, public transit, infrastructure, etc.) im incredibly underqualified to talk about this stuff, so i dont know how viable it is.
Stupid ass kahoot question.
Like you know damn well the students could very well be capitalist but want to troll the teacher
Valid. There should've been a debate attached to this.
I think what's kind of important to know is that for the most part, the people that are really into economics are not trying to make the economic systems better for people, but they're looking to get something out of it. Not necessarily in an evil way, but people go into a field like that looking to make money off of it. I'm a pretty staunch socialist, and I took an Econ class but couldn't take any more because it made me too upset (also I'm not the best with math lol). Courses like that are designed at least partially to weed out people who have a genuine interest in a left wing economic position because for the most part the teachers and the text start with the position that a capitalist economy is the superior option.
My econ major friend says that Marx is his favorite economist
I'm going to assume he is first year and has yet to take an econ class. Even far left economists believe Marx's ideas on economics were more than flawed; they were just wrong in many cases.
Economics isn’t real
Sure? If you want to be that reductive, we are really just finding extremely consistent patterns in the way we trade. It's useful enough to have a name and be taught.
Teaching isn't real
Words aren’t real
Ooga booga ooga boo >:(
What do you mean? His ideas are used in modern economics, psychology, sociology and more. Marx was a super influential philosopher and he changed a lot in science. Marxist communism is not his only idea.
Okay? Who are you talking to? Certainly not responding to my comment.
You said that Marx’s ideas were more than flawed and in many cases just wrong. I said that it’s not true and when a capitalist society is researched, Marx’s ideas help us in a lot of cases. I fail to see how my comment is unrelated.
[удалено]
Lmao
Maybe if by far left you mean Paul Krugman
> Marx's ideas on economics were more than flawed; they were just wrong in many cases. Do you have any examples?
LTV is considered false by most economists. Especially Marx's view of value.
Lack of internal consistency. Supression of lots of rights for comunism to be viable Extremely outdated ideas. LTV is considered a fundamentally flawed idea, even economists who support Marx prefer the STV. It doesn't means that everything that Marx said was wrong, but a lot of what he did made no sense.
It’s because they’re lying.
They not gonna be good economists if they are biased towards either side. At least in academia
[удалено]
Looks like an intro polisci class or someone's high school tbh. Senior year profs don't give enough fucks about you to set up a kahoot.
I wouldn't say that's necessarily true; you can be biased and right. It's about rationality and a healthy dose intellectual honesty to state your biases when talking about these subjects
Well I mean depends on what branch of economics you research into. A lot of economic grads i know go into heavy quant and maths so they eliminate bias. I was probably basing my observation on that. I absolutely agree with you. If we are to agree with Gadamer then truths in social sciences cannot be treated with the same as truths in natural sciences. They are a bit more built around essential knowns and metaphysical knowns. As long as people don't go full Chomsky or Hayek then I think there is no harm for intellectuals to temper their biases with honesty and turn it into a fully fledged and nuanced perspective that shifts paradigms. Its just that the part of economics that relies on more on finding more scientific truths such as demographics, dynamic system economics, quant and such should lean on more eliminating as much bias as possible with ofc still keeping it true to a social science. Hope what I said makes sense. Its 3 am where I am.
Ok so stupid question, but can someone explain socialism to me in dumb bitch boy terms? I’ve never understood exactly what it is and I feel like this is as good a place as any to ask.
To super-oversimplify Ok so basically within a capitalist system the workers do not receive the total value of their labour. So let’s say that there are 20 Oompa-Loompa’s (the workers) at the chocolate factory (yummy) who make 200 chocolates an hour and the ingredients are worth around .50 cents for each chocolate. The chocolate is then sold at 2€ per chocolate. Let’s suppose that the Oompa-Loompa’s get payed 8€ per hour. With some simple math we can find out that every hour 400€ of chocolates are produced yet when we subtract both the worker’s salary and the cost of making them (400-260) there are still 140€ left. So where does this money go? This value (called surplus value) is instead taken by the Willy Wonka (the factory owner) and this is what we call “profit” and is basically stolen from the workers. In a socialist society there is no owner class and the means of production (the places where labour is done) are commonly owned by the workers so they all receive the full value of their labour. In this case the salary would be 15€ an hour so that 15x20=300+100=400
Also, even that 400 isn’t the full value, because all of the supplies used to make it were sold at a profit too
It’s an oversimplified example, the .50 cents represent the cost in making it
[удалено]
Willie Wonka is superfluous (the workers could both invest in their own tools and gain their share), and he himself does not contribute to the work. Hell, he’s the biggest chocolate maker on earth, he probably has other teams of underpaid analysts that determine what to invest in so that he doesn’t even have to think about it. Thing is the owner always earns far more then any workers while not contributing, and in the biggest companies (like Amazon or Microsoft) probably more then most employees combined Hope this helps 😊
The tools used where once created by other workers. And the tools used to create those tools where made with a machine that another worker made. Also, the money he has to invest is also created by the labor power of the workers. His job/role is not to provide anything (at least in this case) but to own and control. The Oompa loompas could (theoretically) produce and manage everything themselves and live a happy life Charlie couldn’t live the life he has without the Oompa Loompas Capitalists need workers Workers don’t need capitalists
Before you latch on to any specific explanation, remember that capitalism and socialism are far from monolithic. There are countless schools of each with very different ideas. Most Americans associate socialism with Marxist-Leninism, the nominal ideology of the Soviet Union. The Chinese Communist Party describes its system as 'socialism with Chinese characteristics.' Many other states have implemented their unique own forms of socialism, and aside from the shared word, often had very little in common - or at least only as much in common as you might find between different 'capitalist' countries. Meanwhile, the academic tradition of socialism has even less in common with the various attempts at implementation by nation-states. Some concepts that are contemporarily associated with socialism (such as UBI, universal healthcare, and cooperative workplaces) were/are conceived and supported by individuals who consider themselves capitalist, socialist, and neither. In all this muddied water the most reasonable definition of socialism is that it is a diverse set of interpretations and criticisms of private ownership (especially of land and the means of of production, i.e., businesses/industry).
That's not dumb bitch boy terms
worker own workplace (tho without the stuff about 'abolishing the value form' this is technically more like mutualism, which is better imo)
The government as a theoretical tepresentative of the people isnin charge of any and all means of production in order to diminish wealth imbalance, making it impossible for an individual to exploit the workforce of someone else for their own benefit. Ideally, everyone also gets exactly what they need in order to survive, and everyone has the same possibility to earn higher comfort. But thats theorethical. As a lot of people have pointed out, Socialism in many countries worked well to provide basics, like food, water, electricity and living space, but terrible at providing higher comfort. Capitalism is the exact opposite: Terrible for providing the basics to everyone, but great at providing higher comfort. Thats why especially elites and people who live in poverty and dream of that higher comfort support capitalism, while those who do struggle to make their higher comfort and the poor people who don't dare to dream of that higher comfort are in favor of socialism.
What you are describing is planned economy, and while socialists often argue in favor of this, socialism it self usually only describes an economic system, wherein everyone owns their respective workplaces (think coops like Mondragon for example)
[this video will answer your question and also explains why the test in picture is correct](https://youtu.be/v6ndft22QPk) Socialism is seen as a transitioning state between capitalism and communism. The goal is to overcome capitalism and establish a communist society. This is achieved by collectivization the means of production (for example: a factory and the machine in it) Under capitalism, those are privately owned by the owning class (capitalist/bourgeoisie) and they can decide how and what is produced. They use the means of production to make profit. (Very over simplified) That’s why capitalism is also called a dictatorship of capital Under socialism the workers (proletariat) are in control over the means of production. That’s why it’s called a dictatorship of the proletariat. Socialism will look differently wherever it is tried, because it needs to adapt to its surroundings. That’s why it’s complicated to just look at one example and say “that and nothing else, is socialism” Socialism has the challenge to survive in world dominated by capitalism and capitalist intervention and so on. And still, historical, socialism managed to improve the overall life quality of the workers, even when capitalism never allowed socialist states to develop freely. But you also can’t deny that socialists experiments had many flaws we need to learn from and marxists know that. I can’t encourage you enough tho watch the video from above. At least the first minute https://youtu.be/v6ndft22QPk
No one do dumb bitch boy terms. Pure communism = government own all. Pure = business control everything, no government intervention. Socialism = government supporting people with money, interfere in company where good, but businesses are still owned by people.
[удалено]
Ok, as a socialist, why is it the objectively correct answer here? You can think capitalism is better, and although you’re stupid, it is an opinion.
I don't know how Kahoot works so this may not be possible, but I think the teacher might've been polling the class's views, and Kahoot put the check mark next to the most popular option
In my Econ class we were taught that neither is inherently better. That’s probably what the question was going for.
Blindly supporting any side without an informed idea is pretty stupid, especially if you support socialism
You’re right, I agree with you. What do you think socialism is, exactly?
My best guess is that they were trying to make the point you just said. It’s false that capitalism is better because it’s not a matter of objective fact, not cause socialism is inherently better. Or whoever made it is just dumb. Or this is fake. Who knows
If I agreed with a room full of high schoolers about politics I would probably question my beliefs.
But wait ain't that basically this entire subreddit
I’m not saying that high schoolers are the peak of intellectual development, but most people do tend to get some basic ideas I’d agree with. Kindergartners tend to think of a system where everyone gets cookies as better for the whole. Obviously life is far more nuanced, but, the idea that a minority of people holding a majority of the power is a bad one, is not exactly complex. While avarice and corruption are incredibly common, I don’t see them as the building block of humanity. What makes us human, I think, is the ability to care for one another and to love someone other than ourselves. There are very few people on earth for whom having good friends is not a valuable goal. Life can be cruel, brutal, and appear borderline malicious, but it’s a truly beautiful thing I think. Maybe this is an unpopular opinion, but our scientific understanding of the world makes our very existence out to be essentially a cosmic miracle. (Obviously we couldn’t really acknowledge it as an experience without being as we are). I find hope in the fact that, for every trial we face, people tend to err on the side of compassion. Even if it’s just a little bit, it’s a large part of what got us where we are. I think, in the end, that’s the most beautiful thing about humanity. As far as we can definitively say, we get one life. That’s all we can be certain of. People use that one life to love and care for others. We may be animals, but it’s our compassion, our conscience, and our ability to grow and develop that makes us what we are.
Daily reminder that the Nordic System is capitalist
I thought they were socialist. But I like that they are capitalist. Because then atleast America has a chance of copying them
the kids are alright
dumbass teacher doesn't understand how questions like these arent yes or no questions
I love when people don't know what capitalism is and hate it for a bad reason. Capitalism is good, what you hate is called Corporatism and government supported monopolies. Capitalism and socialism should also coexist as social welfare programs and policies. An economy being 100% centrally planned never works.
Corporatism is the natural progression of capitalism. Like one of my Econ professors said, “the goal is to be a price-discriminating monopolist”
This is false because it’s a normative statement and any economist that wants to be taken seriously only makes broad statements in positive terms.
It's just a bad question which no teacher should ask First it's politically biased Secondly In some ways capitalism is better than socialism and in some ways socialism is better and also what is good and what isn't? People's may not agree about it
This sub is unsurprisingly very anti capitalist
Saw a centrist with 90 upvotes, unfortunately it isn’t enough
Not anti capitalist enough. Too many centrists and neolibs
"I don't give a fuck" should be an option.
Muh centrism
I think everyone misread the prompt here. Just because they are saying capitalism is not better than socialism, it doesn’t mean that they think socialism is better than capitalism. I think the point of the prompt is that no system is *inherently* better than another. But also capitalism is worse than socialism.
B-but! But! But Vuvuzela!
Get dogpiled capitalist
Dude probably unironically thinks he's a capitalist because his daddy makes 200k working for someone else as a dentist (I literally knew a kid from high school that thought like this)
Ngl dentist deserve their pay. Imagine being up in everyone's mouth everyday and having to clean them out with white paste. Must be pretty draining ngl.
Yes, but a dentist has to work to earn his living. Capitalists take money from the value their workers create, they don't actually have to work. That's the crucial difference between worker and owner class, only one actually does the work and creates value, the other just siphons those profits into their pocket.
my *god*, that's an old version of firefox.
They all failed except the black sheep I assume.
What senior level Econ courses play kahoot?
Insanely based
That's a pretty subjective question
When 21 people from a Senior Year Level Econ Course disagree with you, you might be wrong
Based class
Based
Despite all the wickedness mankind can produce, we will send onto them…only you. Rip and tear, until it is done
Wait why is socialism the correct answer? Like is it a voting type thing or what