by A Lily Bit
December 03, 2023
from ALilyBit Website

recovered through WayBackMachine Website

The standard left-wing assertion about "advanced capitalism" is that it results in 'socialism for the rich' and 'capitalism for the poor'."

Like most leftist ideas, this notion almost represents the exact opposite of the truth.

 

The system they refer to is anything but socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor.

 

Capitalists don't desire socialism for themselves and capitalism for the rest.

 

Capitalists seek profit, which can only exist in a capitalist system.

The phrase "socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor" is based on the deeply flawed leftist belief that socialism is obviously beneficial for those living within it, a veritable paradise, while capitalism is seen as a ruthless, dog-eat-dog "anarchy" where individuals battle over scraps, leading many to inevitable starvation.

This view suggests that socialism is to be aspired to and capitalism avoided at all costs.

However, the truth is that capitalism is the productive system that generates and rightfully distributes wealth, whereas socialism is seen as the consumptive system that limits wealth creation and unjustly consumes it.

Why is this the case?

Socialism, by socializing the means of production, discourages personal, private investment in capital formation, including self-investment. In socialism, private investments in capital resources and self-development are discouraged (or prohibited).

 

Thus, socialism favors the non-investor, the non-producer, and the non-user of production means, while disadvantaging (or prohibiting) the private investor, producer, and user of these means.

 

Consequently, fewer people will take on these roles, leading to a decline in capital formation; there will be less appropriation of natural resources, reduced development of new production factors, and less maintenance of existing production factors.

As socialism discourages (or prohibits) investments in productive factors, it also discourages saving and encourages consumption.

Since one cannot become a capitalist, there is less reason to save and more incentive to consume. The result is a lower production of consumer goods, leading to a decreased standard of living for everyone.

Furthermore, socialism leads to inefficient use of production means, as it does not respond to changes in demand.

Without entrepreneurs to adjust capital resources to changing demands and improved methods, socialist planning cannot adapt to changes in demand and production.

This means that at least the production of less desired goods and services, and possibly even the non-production of needed goods and services, will occur.

It may seem almost unnecessary to point out how socialism alters the character of society and even the personalities of the people living under it.

Under socialism, people become less capable of producing, innovating, and responding to the changing needs of their peers.

 

They become less adaptable.

 

With the prolonged duration of socialism, they become more oriented towards the present and less forward-thinking.

Contrary to the claims of its proponents, it is socialist - not capitalist - production that is irrational. This irrationality is due to the elimination of essential indicators for determining rational production and distribution, namely, prices.

Ludwig von Mises demonstrated that prices represent the incredibly complex and crucial data sets necessary for allocating resources for production and aligning them with demand.

Socialism is irrational because, without prices for production factors, no rational criteria can emerge for allocating resources to specific production processes.

Without prices, the socialist economy cannot provide the feedback loops required to decide what, how much, and how to produce.

This leads to cancerous, oversized production capacities in one sector while another sector may suffer from relatively weak production capabilities, and so on.

This means that socialism fails not only in resource allocation but also in economically representing the people it claims to advocate for.

In the absence of price mechanisms, the economic "voters" or consumers have no way to express their needs and desires. Production and distribution must rely on the undemocratic decisions of centralized authorities.

Without the means to influence production based on their needs, socialism is far from being an "economic democracy."

Those who truly care about the working masses must reject socialism because it fails to create an economic democracy, which is its most essential justification.

Capitalism is,

the ethical system that respects property rights, starting with the ownership of people's bodies, while socialism is the unethical aggression against property rights, including aggression against ownership of people's bodies.

Without ownership of one's own body, one is a slave.

Capitalism, based on the "private ownership of the means of production," entails the following principles:

1. Individuals own their own bodies and can do as they please with their bodies, provided they do not violate the physical or other property of another person.
    

2. Whatever individuals create with unclaimed resources or resources for which they have contracted becomes their property, as long as such action does not involve aggression against the property of another person.
    

3. The protection of property rights and unfettered exchange lead to increased specialization of labor, rising production of wealth, and an overall improvement in social welfare.

In summary,

much of what is taught about capitalism and socialism, like many commonly taught concepts, is often the opposite of the truth...

However, for political capitalists - that is, those who curry favor with the state - their aim is to seek profit while favoring the reduction or elimination of risk with state support.

But make no mistake:

capitalists of any stripe are in pursuit of profit.

So,

why would political capitalists want socialism for themselves and capitalism for others...?

The short answer is,

they don't...!

They want capitalism for themselves and socialism for the others.

This means they seek to monopolize profit-oriented production by eliminating the property rights of others while simultaneously reducing or eliminating their own risk. (Consider the example of China.)

Indeed, the entire goal of what is known as the Great Reset is the exact reversal of the,

"socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor" formula.

The Great Reset represents an attempt by a protected class of elite capitalists to form cartels and seek state favoritism, establishing capitalism for themselves while effectively subjecting the vast majority to socialism.

This explains why capitalist corporations, in conjunction with propagandists from the World Economic Forum (WEF), are disseminating social democratic socialist rhetoric and ideology, and promoting a social democratic socialist agenda.