u/Artistic_Click_864

Like what if both Capitalism and socialism can make up good societies if implemented correctly.

Like not even that a mix of both of them can work just that both of them actually can work if people just work together and implement it correctly.

Wouldnt it be funny if we all were just fighting all this time just to find out both sides are right😂

And im not saying both sides ARE right, im just playing with the idea.

Also i think there can be some truth to it, as we should not just blindly follow ideologies but be open to change our minds and together strive for a better future!

Thats my question, i just recently have gotten myself in arguments regarding democratic workplaces and i would like to step up my debating game. If you have tips or personal experiences on the matter please share. Any kind of research or books regarding the topic are also searched.

For insight my main problem is how to convince the other side on:

"Why people would start firms if they would lose some of their decision making power and capital when hiring"

"Why billionares owning stock is producing of the labor of the workers"

"How to fund the firms"

So thanks for everyones output in advance!

So wheter you are a socialisr or a capitalist this argument that real socialism has never been tried is not invalid as many people seem to claim. Every single coyntry that has claimed to be socialist has relied on dictatorship and centralized economy. Even countries like yugoslavia used a heavily undemocratic one party system. There has never been a single democratic and decentrelized socialist country. And as far as im concerned many socialists especially democratic socialists argue for that kind of society.

So claiming that socialism has been tried and not worked is a false statement, especially if you dont know what kind of socialism is in the discussion.

I have no problem arguing against centralized planning with the failing of the ussr or the dangers of one party system with the horrible dictatorship of china, but using these countries as examples that decentrelized democratic socialism doesnt work is not right at all.

EDIT PLEASE READ: In the original post i said real socialism has not been tried. Several discussions in the comments have made me realise that is not true. Ussr was a form of socialism, and so is Cuba.

BUT my original point i was trying to make hasnt changed. Im trying to point out that the argument "Socialism has been tried and therfore doesnt work" is invalid. Its invalid because the socialism that ussr and many other 20th century socialists countries advocated for a centerally planned economy or a one party dictatorship. There is not a single major political party in western countries that advocate for that kind of socialism. So failures of ussr cannot be used as an effective argument against a different kind of socialism that is inheritely different.

I am sorry for my misunderstandings and appologise for all the confusion i may have created. But i acknowledge my mistakes. Hope this helps.

I wish this JUST for the flavor it would add, but as a big supporter of decentrelized workplace democracy socialism it would be absolutly fire if in the base game or some mods there would be more options in the economic democracy card, for example enforcing workplace democracy or completly dissmanteling stock markets and all that.

This could also be paired with a new meter that would be wealth concentration, as of how much of the gdp is concentrated on the 1% and lowering the concentration as much as possible could be one of the late game goals.

​

​

Im asking this as a dem socialist who just wants to up his debating skills so bear that in mind.

​

​

Basicly if the stock market as it is would be abolished and the corporations would be put under workers control, how would new firms be funded if not trough private capital. Would the state be the only funder or would the workers have to purchase stocks to work in the firm. Or could people still invest in firms,they just wouldnt have decision making power in them. Or some kind of mixed model where the majority of the decision making power is in the workers hands but stock holders can hold some stock and votes?

Im asking this as a dem socialist who just wants to up his debating skills so bear that in mind.

​

Basicly if the stock market would be abolished and the corporations would be put under workers control, how would new firms be funded if not trough private capital. Would the state be the only funder or would the workers have to purchase stocks to work in the firm. Or could people still invest in firms,they just wouldnt have decision making power in them. Or some kind of mixed model where the majority of the decision making power is in the workers hands but stock holders can hold some stock and votes?

So how to debate social democrats who dont support democratic ownership of the means of production as the end goal as they see capitalism with social democracy as the ultimate end goal. For example how do i point out how the western social democratic countries relly in developping countries as if i try to point out the poor conditions due to capitalism in those places they will just play it off as how there are no social democratic policies in developping countries. Overall any kind of advice is appriciated.