Definitions matter. If you mean individual ownership and decision making vs. group ownership and decision making, then socialist policies are a byproduct of each society’s prerogatives.
I’ve got 600 zaps left of nostr:nprofile1qqsp4lsvwn3aw7zwh2f6tcl6249xa6cpj2x3yuu6azaysvncdqywxmgprpmhxue69uhhqun9d45h2mfwwpexjmtpdshxuet5qyxhwumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmv6rkvel sats that he gave me. Whoever can come up with cogent arguments for “If #capitalism works, why is there a need for socialist policies?” can get some. Line them up and let em run!!! I’m taking shots all day again.
#bitcoin
Discussion
So capitalism and socialism are the same?
You aren’t stupid, are you? They aren’t.
The definition of “socialist policies” matters. If you are saying socialist policies is use of government force to enforce benefits for subsets of society and is exclusive to Socialism, it’s not. Both regimes have the same problem—socialism is just more overt about it.
No not exclusive, capitalism needs social policies to exist. I stated that already, therefore it can’t be exclusive to just Socialism.
I don’t know about your first sentence, but we agree on the second sentence. Both regimes are equally applying force to compel citizens, only one is more lenient to individual action.
Let’s frame it in another way: under which regime is the ability for an individual to not participate in anything most free? The freedom to be left alone. Specifically, the ability for an individual to farm land for food to exclusively consume, build shelter without external man-made regulations for oneself, find warmth, and engage in transactions?
I would say that kind of society did exist in America prior to European settlement. When tribes operated under more of a democratic socialist governing system.