Socialism or Capatilism? Are They Currently the Same?

Didn't the pinnacle of Trotsky's argument essentially boil down to a socialist society couldn't work by developing itself, that only through the pinnacle of a capitalist society can you achieve a truly working socialist society?

The problem is, he never explained how that works (because he didn't know), or suggest the mechanism needed for the pinnacle of a capitalist society to transition to a socialist society.

When we look at the problem from "inside" a capitalist society we can't imagine a socialist society ever working... all we see is our capitalist future projections either peaking out, dropping off or generally not working.

The pressure valve for these impossible projections traditionally has been war. A war flattens all of the economic and social curves, but also generates predictable growth projections after the war (war in itself is a somewhat predictable decline), meaning the capitalist system can continue to function without having to face the unknown state of exponential projections (both social and economic).

War has got harder to do in an ever increasing global world... it's had to justify attacking a country when your nephew's wife comes from that country, etc.

So war has largely become economic, ie. trade wars... but even with the controlled market approach to balancing the global spreadsheet (been happening for a century), all the curves continue to grow to an unmanageable point.

Its a whole other topic, but this relates to the amount of "resource" in the world, vs. the amount of cash in the world... hint; with inflation, there will always be more cash than resource. In a sense, it's that, that is the core to the capitalist system... it's all about predicting how much money there will be and making money off that prediction... a pandemic shows the fatal flaw in this system because it halts the link between actual resource and future projections... causing everything to seemingly "stop working", even though technically everything is still in place.

It is only the perceived value of resource that has been effected, not the resource itself... that "perception of value" just has a carry on effect, all the way down to people buying food.

Which put us where we are.

Funnily enough, we think we are living in a capitalist society, yet the world is beholden to global and central banks, which are private organizations. We are living in a "hidden in plain daylight" socialist society anyway.

The only problem is the perception, or rather the interpretation of two seemingly conflicting systems. Socialism and capitalism...

The trick at the moment is, due to the exponential growth of capitalism, as a theoretical system (a controlled system that at it's pinnacle looks like socialism) is that both systems, when interpreted through their seeming contradictions, actually almost exactly mimic each other when applied to the globe at this precise point in time.

So what does that mean?

Due to current social and economic pressures, capitalism is socialism.

The transition to a better system (more a socialist/capitalist hybrid) can be achieved right now if we visualise capitalism as a landscape of pyramids, where the peaks represent nodes or the "tops" of money and power (governments, banks, organizations, wealthy individuals, etc.), and the pyramids beneath represents society (businesses, people, trade, media, etc). In this mental model, currently any "transaction" (transaction being any task or activity between entites) has to travel down the side of one pyramid and up the side of another to happen, with the risk at every level of travel up and down the pyramid allows for potential interference of the direct transaction.

A transition from the pyramid structural model of society (capitalism), can be enacted using a networked approach, or a "flat" model (socialism) if visualised in relation to our pyramid analogy. By flattening the pyramid structural landscape, to a "flatland" style of model, where the peaks of the pyramids of the capitalist system represent the nodes in a flat networked system.

Our current technology levels could allow for the organizational challenges to achieve this.

This is where our "leaders" see the place for a cashless society, removing physical cash... I argue that we need both... we need the fluidity of a cashless society, mixed with the redundancy afforded by physical cash. We can also use technology to bring back direct trade in this system (not having to travel up and down the pyramids) , so the "cash" or middle man can be cut out in many places.

Now, can we realise this as a globe and allow the transition to happen without it slipping into an authoritarian nightmare?

Just my 2 cents.

a reply to: puzzlesphere


“Now, can we realise this as a globe and allow the transition to happen without it slipping into an authoritarian nightmare?”

Unfortunately I think the Narcissistic nature of man stops any real progress towards this type of system without it being an authoritarian nightmare.

Something that many of the best economic philosophers failed to come to terms with. Which is why their system are always imposed by Narcissistic Sociopaths and Psychopaths who think they are doing what’s best for society, when in reality they are only doing what is best for themselves.

Your entire OP assumes people WANT to transition to your new system. As long as there is an opt-out then I suppose I don’t care what you do...otherwise leave me and mine out of your schemes.

In some space age, it would be, but youd have to have robots building robots. As great an self reliant capitalism can be for the individual, it is still an economic system like the others. Problem is as innovations get better, other ones become obsolete, all the while lacking cohesion that communism, an socialism could attain, which is what make them so dangerous since it more like a unit.

Facism is basically Capitalisms evil twin.

Too think though, Capitalism would of worked if everyone just bought everything an payed their credit cards.

a reply to: puzzlesphere

ANY system regardless of it's founding ethos - if it even had one - is destined to fall to tyranny.

It is a sad truth that power attracts the corrupt, the corrupt want more power and greed and power trump morality in there eye's.

The best we can always hope for is enlightened and altruistic leadership regardless of the system we are under, at least in democracy we have the illusion of choice while in reality the leaders are usually chosen and owned by the same hidden rulers and elite's behind the scene's so are really seldom all that much of a choice but in communist society's they have NO choice, the same level and ultimately kind of corruption end's up in charge and on top there too though as there system the party becomes a nest of snakes pretty fast even if it may not always start out that way (and in fact it usually does since most communist systems arise through violence and so from there beginning they start out corrupt even if there moral claim's if ever followed sound nice - they are never followed and indeed all so called communist governments that have existed have perverted the founding principles that they claimed to be based upon.

Both systems end up lying to the public and while this actually usually begin's at day one in newly formed communist society were propaganda is the mean's (one of them) to control the people while in the modern so called democracy's it is a similar story where we are often fed a different kind of brainwashing, media is a very powerful tool and most people do not think for themselves, we are dumbed down and controlled since our democracy's stopped working as such a long time ago now with elite, power, greed and ultimately total corruption trumping the principles of free democracy and replacing it with controlled, brainwashed media manipulated electorates and puppet corporate or even elite owned politician's often not acting in our interests but only really in the interests of the hidden elite (whom we can at least thank god are every bit as mortal as we are and will get there comeuppance before his judgement throne one day).

Both system's are bloodstained, capitalism has actually killed far more people and is still doing so today but communism managed to kill a hell of a lot of people - it's own people - in a very short space of time.

The only system that work's and it is genuinely doomed to fall to the same corruption as both of these is moderate social democracy - it never stay's moderate and is polarizing since it while often the best for the majority is not the best for either camp of extremist opinion's.

a reply to: Isurrender73

That is why the system has to accept the less "altruistic" aspects of humanity as part of the change vector of the system itself, rather than penalising or discouraging change and challenges to the system by individuals. Allowing for the balance of good and bad that emerges in any system.

In other words, the base position or "test" for a truly working, and non-authoritative socialist system is; If it doesn't work for everybody, then it doesn't work for anybody.

If that ideal is not fulfilled, then we are better off living in some pseudo capitalist illusion, essentially controlled by an invisible head. Like are are now (or pre-coronavirus)!

Part of the problem with socialism is that it creates an impossible ideal, that doesn't account for greed, passion, personal value (or wealth, if you like). On the flip-side, capitalism, in the right context can embrace and glorify the less palatable aspects of humanity (Wolf of Wallstreet comes to mind).

By trying to apply an abstract system to 100% of humanity, it is always doomed to failure, as many have rightly pointed out in this thread.

So in order to achieve a socialist system without having to grow from authoritarianism, fascism or corruption... to the point of the OP... it seems that we have reached a point where capitalism now incorporates many of the socialist ideals by it's very nature of being so intertwined with our lives, also mixed with the dual humanitarian/economic need of the pandemic, at this point in time, we are a socialists system... whether you like it or not... we just haven't accepted that fact yet.

I'm also not saying it is good or bad... just pointing out that the two systems, at this particular point in time mimic each other... the question is, where do we go from here?

a reply to: Metallicus

There is no assumption in my OP... there are some questions though.

Absolutely, choice must be paramount in any society that I want to live in. So opting out (insofar as global pressure allows for), in my opinion is a must... if that's what the individual wants.

So go for it!... but also realise, that you opting out doesn't negate the need for a broader system for those that don't want to opt out. Which is why have governments in the first place.

Currently that "broader system" will always be a challenge to your personal sovereignty... or your ability to opt out.

I want a system that starts with your desire to opt out as a basis, and moves to a systematic structure from those individual choices.

An emergent system, as opposed to a prescribed system, if you like.

The point is, as somewhat highlighted by this recent pandemic, is that leaving anyone out of any long term global scheme is essentially impossible, as long as we all live on one planet and have to share resources... too bad, in a way.

The other point of the OP, that when you reach the pinnacle of a capitalist society, the shift or transition, if imagined correctly, could potentially have zero impact on the effective daily functioning of our lives.

If capitalism is socialism currently (my question and premise of the OP), then without the need for any other major tragedies beyond the pandemic (war, disaster, etc.), that it is possible to re-contextualise the entire existing global structure to a socialist structure, without the need to travel through an authoritarian system (beyond what is already there in the current capitalist system).

I am not suggesting one word government, even if it sounds like it.

I am suggesting a top level emergent, system based on the importance of the individual decision, in other words ground up.

Funnily enough, it is exactly what representational democracy claims to be, but viewed through he lens of the socialist individual.

We haven't had true free market capitalism in the U.S. since the establishment of the Federal Reserve Bank in 1913, which is not federal & has no reserves. We have a hybrid socialist government with a private fascist debt based monetary system, owned & operated by corporate banksters. You can opt out by saving physical gold & silver instead of saving fiat currency or doing paper trades.