Ok, I’m a dumbass. How is that not true? I always saw that as a decent talking point that the government actually is capable of solving problems, they just don’t want to solve the poor’s problems.
I get what you’re putting down. I used to use that line before too.
Socialism is about putting control of the means of production in the hands of the workers themselves. The “socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor” line isn’t critiquing workers’ relationship with the MoP, it’s critiquing where a capitalist govt spends resources. I’d fully support the US govt taxing wealthy people at historical levels, ending its overseas empire, and using every dime of that to increase services, but as long as there is still a wage relationship in place, it’s just a more equitable capitalism. Better? Sure, but it just obscures the contradictions, it doesn’t solve them.
And then the idiots will repeat the “socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor” nonsense
Ok, I’m a dumbass. How is that not true? I always saw that as a decent talking point that the government actually is capable of solving problems, they just don’t want to solve the poor’s problems.
It’s the whole “socialism is when the government does stuff” thing
I get what you’re putting down. I used to use that line before too.
Socialism is about putting control of the means of production in the hands of the workers themselves. The “socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor” line isn’t critiquing workers’ relationship with the MoP, it’s critiquing where a capitalist govt spends resources. I’d fully support the US govt taxing wealthy people at historical levels, ending its overseas empire, and using every dime of that to increase services, but as long as there is still a wage relationship in place, it’s just a more equitable capitalism. Better? Sure, but it just obscures the contradictions, it doesn’t solve them.