The fundamental problem is scarcity. If someone has to choose between themselves experiencing scarcity or someone else, people will almost always choose someone else. In that sense profit will always exist.
Personally I see capitalism and socialism as tools which can each be used when appropriate. Capitalism is great for getting 30 flavors of breakfast cereal (innovation with failure being acceptable). Socialism is great for things like healthcare or firefighting (failure is not acceptable, innovation not essential).
That isn’t capitalism or socialism. Both are modes of production dependent on which aspect of the economy is principal, ie rising and dominant, and which class controls the state. You’re horribly mixing up welfare for socialism.
Both are modes of production dependent on which aspect of the economy is principal,
which class controls the state
This is an interesting element. The USSR under Stalin was controlled by a few elites. That doesn’t make it capitalist. The US is a democracy, so it is controlled by the people . That doesn’t make it socialist. An economic system is not a political system and vice versa.
Welfare can be a part of a capitalist or socialist system, but is not those systems itself. You are trying to slice up parts of a cohesive system and treat those constituent parts as though they form an independent system themselves, but this is incorrect. The consequences of this error result in confused understandings of bodies like the US military as “socialism,” despite being a tool of monopoly finance capital. This is why the identity of an overall system is in its principal aspect, as this principal aspect determines how the rest of the system functions.
As for the USSR, it was run by the working classes. Classes are relations to ownership of production and distribution, not simply income levels or levels of administrative authority. You are referring to workers in the central committee and CPSU as “elites,” yet they were paid wages and did not own any capital. Just like a principal is the same class as a teacher, so too are administrators in socialist economies the same class as factory workers. The USSR had a form of democracy that began at the local level, and laddered upwards through councils called Soviets.
The US Empire is not democratic. The only viable political parties are those run and owned by capitalists, so candidates are representatives of that class. The media is owned by the capitalist class as well. The majority does not run society, they pick between outcomes already decided as okay by the capitalist class.
In trying to slice up systems and pretend there is no meaningful interaction between these, and that instead these systems are functionally independent, you are making metaphysical errors in analysis.
You are trying to slice up parts of a cohesive system and treat those constituent parts as though they form an independent system themselves, but this is incorrect.
Ah, I see the issue here. I am not arguing that the system is entirely capitalist or socialist. I am arguing that a system can contain sectors that operate under one system while other sectors operate under the other. The “principal aspect” certainly applies as a general description of the whole, but that doesn’t change the nature of individual elements.
Classes are relations to ownership of production and distribution, not simply income levels or levels of administrative authority
I would argue classes are determined by power. In the USSR, the power was held by the government and organized crime, not workers.
The US is a democratic republic. No matter how much capital you have, you can’t gain power without convincing people to vote for you. Granted money makes this easier, but it is not sure thing. Look at Elon Musk. He tried to use his money to force his way into government with that DOGE thing, but it failed miserably and he was pushed back.
The majority does not run society, they pick between outcomes already decided as okay by the capitalist class.
Was it any different in the USSR with the party making all the choices? Power always sets up the game board we all play on.
With the fire department , the government owns the means of production (fire houses, trucks, etc) and sets the prices instead of the free market (paid for by taxes). That is socialism. Public healthcare may or may not be depending on what system it is.
Because this isn’t what socialism is. State ownership/price regulation by itself isn’t necessarily socialist or capitalist. It can be used to expand/reinforce market freedom or to undermine it.
The dictionary can be wrong about what a concept is (see: God). Regardless of any formal definition (and there isn’t just one formal definition of socialism), capitalism (capital-ism) requires state ownership and market administration to some degree in order to be what it is.
The problem is you are thinking of capitalism and socialism as a binary. An economy can incorporate elements of both (and usually does). Most capitalist economies incorporate some amount of socialism with utilities and essential services. Most socialist economies incorporate some amount of capitalism with entertainment.
The fundamental problem is scarcity. If someone has to choose between themselves experiencing scarcity or someone else, people will almost always choose someone else. In that sense profit will always exist.
Personally I see capitalism and socialism as tools which can each be used when appropriate. Capitalism is great for getting 30 flavors of breakfast cereal (innovation with failure being acceptable). Socialism is great for things like healthcare or firefighting (failure is not acceptable, innovation not essential).
That isn’t capitalism or socialism. Both are modes of production dependent on which aspect of the economy is principal, ie rising and dominant, and which class controls the state. You’re horribly mixing up welfare for socialism.
Welfare can be and often is socialism.
This is an interesting element. The USSR under Stalin was controlled by a few elites. That doesn’t make it capitalist. The US is a democracy, so it is controlled by the people . That doesn’t make it socialist. An economic system is not a political system and vice versa.
Welfare can be a part of a capitalist or socialist system, but is not those systems itself. You are trying to slice up parts of a cohesive system and treat those constituent parts as though they form an independent system themselves, but this is incorrect. The consequences of this error result in confused understandings of bodies like the US military as “socialism,” despite being a tool of monopoly finance capital. This is why the identity of an overall system is in its principal aspect, as this principal aspect determines how the rest of the system functions.
As for the USSR, it was run by the working classes. Classes are relations to ownership of production and distribution, not simply income levels or levels of administrative authority. You are referring to workers in the central committee and CPSU as “elites,” yet they were paid wages and did not own any capital. Just like a principal is the same class as a teacher, so too are administrators in socialist economies the same class as factory workers. The USSR had a form of democracy that began at the local level, and laddered upwards through councils called Soviets.
The US Empire is not democratic. The only viable political parties are those run and owned by capitalists, so candidates are representatives of that class. The media is owned by the capitalist class as well. The majority does not run society, they pick between outcomes already decided as okay by the capitalist class.
In trying to slice up systems and pretend there is no meaningful interaction between these, and that instead these systems are functionally independent, you are making metaphysical errors in analysis.
Ah, I see the issue here. I am not arguing that the system is entirely capitalist or socialist. I am arguing that a system can contain sectors that operate under one system while other sectors operate under the other. The “principal aspect” certainly applies as a general description of the whole, but that doesn’t change the nature of individual elements.
I would argue classes are determined by power. In the USSR, the power was held by the government and organized crime, not workers.
The US is a democratic republic. No matter how much capital you have, you can’t gain power without convincing people to vote for you. Granted money makes this easier, but it is not sure thing. Look at Elon Musk. He tried to use his money to force his way into government with that DOGE thing, but it failed miserably and he was pushed back.
Was it any different in the USSR with the party making all the choices? Power always sets up the game board we all play on.
Socialism is not when the state owns or regulates some things. There is nothing inherently socialist about public healthcare or firefighters.
With the fire department , the government owns the means of production (fire houses, trucks, etc) and sets the prices instead of the free market (paid for by taxes). That is socialism. Public healthcare may or may not be depending on what system it is.
No, it isn’t.
Why?
Because this isn’t what socialism is. State ownership/price regulation by itself isn’t necessarily socialist or capitalist. It can be used to expand/reinforce market freedom or to undermine it.
The definition of socialism is literally state ownership of means of production and state administration of the market.
Are you saying this is capitalist state ownership and market administration?
The dictionary can be wrong about what a concept is (see: God). Regardless of any formal definition (and there isn’t just one formal definition of socialism), capitalism (capital-ism) requires state ownership and market administration to some degree in order to be what it is.
The problem is you are thinking of capitalism and socialism as a binary. An economy can incorporate elements of both (and usually does). Most capitalist economies incorporate some amount of socialism with utilities and essential services. Most socialist economies incorporate some amount of capitalism with entertainment.
Screwing your fellow person isn’t what profit is.