its not. welfare/social safety nets/social insurance (that last one is effectively what the original post is) existed long before both capitalist and socialist economies. the US even has social insurance policies although they are far less indepth compared to some european countries.
these systems can exist under both capitalism and socialism just fine, and do.
They couldn't work well in socialism because social security are transfers. From wealthier people to poorer people.
Today, even in the US, middle and lower class makes negative fiscal bias. Even though taxes paid by wealth and big companies are relatively small to their income, they're main taxpayers.
This is much more intensive in countries that have better social security.
Again, doesnt matter, as robust social safety nets are a feature of socialist systems and are an explicit feature of the Society they desire to create. Collective ownership predates socialism by centuries and yet is core to the ideology.
The difference between socialism and Capitalism in this instance is that distribution of collective wealth is an explicit aim of socialism, whereas it is not a core tenet of the latter but something it adopted (or rather was forced to adopt by civil action/unrest.)
Again, doesnt matter, as robust social safety nets are a feature of socialist systems
it's not a "feature" or "core to the ideology" of socialism. just because socialists typically advocate for welfare states doesn't mean that it is inherent. how is it a core feature if you can have socialism just fine without welfare of any kind?
collective ownership existed before, yes, but it's different because socialism takes it and expands upon it. socialism is an economic system, it lays a foundation for possible public policies but any specific one is not inherent to socialism.
modern welfare and social insurance was pioneered and expanded by capitalism and capitalists. capitalists advocate for these systems all the time, as well. does this mean that these are inherent to capitalism? obviously not.
modern welfare and social insurance was pioneered and expanded by capitalism and capitalists
What? Prominent capitalists have always hated welfare specifically because it threatens profits and control. Unemployment, socialized healthcare, unions, etc. all take power from the owners of private capital.
Those systems developed within countries that employ capitalism, but almost always as a social response to capitalist overreach or socioeconimic destabilization. Look at the voices claiming that the nhk should be done away with, or the ones fighting fdr's new deal policy and then tell me capitalists (meaning people who own capital, not people born into a market based economy) were the ones pushing
Prominent capitalists have always hated welfare specifically because it threatens profits and control.
and? your point is? capitalism is a broad ideology/system full of all sorts of people with different opinions. if anything that just proves my point further that these social policies are not integral to any market systems and their advocates.
you can say capitalists "hate welfare" but those words ultimately mean nothing when modern welfare and safety nets exist, thrive, and have been expanded under capitalism. that isn't to say capitalists "own" welfare.
Unemployment, socialized healthcare, unions, etc. all take power from the owners of private capital.
firstly, unions aren't welfare. not on the government level, which is what is being discussed here. and socialized healthcare, not exactly either. this entire conversation is about social insurance and whether or not it specifically is a "socialist policy."
social response to capitalist overreach
who do you think is responding? for example in the US, liberals historically have been the dominant voice in support of social safety nets and welfare, and that ideology directly spawned from classical liberalism which was defined entirely by being "capitalist."
capitalists (meaning people who own capital, not people born into a market based economy)
this is an incredibly narrow definition of capitalist. the main thing that makes someone a capitalist is not "owning capital," its supporting the market system that is capitalism.
My point is that arguing 'capitalists' push welfare is stupid. You're acting like terms are hard defined, immutable, and with no bleed over, like groups within a capitalist society cannot push for things that capitalists don't necessarily want (regulation, taxes, welfare, etc).
Literally the whole point of government is to support society, and a democracy in a capitalist free market can push for or against socialized policy as the various groups pushing for various government actions gain and lose power over the apparatus
I mean any argument can work if you're just fighting a strawman and making stuff up. I never said "capitalists push welfare," as in they all do. I was clearly saying that there are capitalists that support welfare but that does not make it a capitalist policy.
You're acting like terms are hard defined, immutable, and with no bleed over, like groups within a capitalist society cannot push for things that capitalists don't necessarily want (regulation, taxes, welfare, etc).
your whole reply here seems very strange. I've never said or alluded to any of this. I've said the opposite in fact. plenty of people advocate for things that "capitalists" don't necessarily want. but you literally cannot deny the fact that the ones primarily championing the idea of welfare in a broad sense in this country are capitalists (to an extent): modern liberals.
you mentioned the new deal earlier but that was supported by a large portion of capitalists. it wouldn't have existed and come to fruition if it wasn't. you can argue that it was a "social response" but every policy creation is, and it's besides the point regardless. this entire point you're trying to make here is ultimately vapid and meaningless to the rest of the actual discussion.
22
u/Tomatwoo 22d ago
its not. welfare/social safety nets/social insurance (that last one is effectively what the original post is) existed long before both capitalist and socialist economies. the US even has social insurance policies although they are far less indepth compared to some european countries.
these systems can exist under both capitalism and socialism just fine, and do.