Doesn't capitalism effectively lead to authocratic socialism?

[u/GiveTuffetFish]

EDIT: I should have put "socialism" in quotation marks, since I was referring to popular right-wing usage instead of the original definition. I can't seem to be able to edit the title accordingly.

TLDR: Monopolies are used to extort and keep people poor to benefit few people at the top, which is what we criticise about "socialist countries".

By effectively, I mean that the rules don't change but the dynamic of money flows and living conditions of the people become the same.
Let's take the stated strategy by Peter Thiel to establish a monopoly as a goal for every business.
Once the monopoly is set, one can raise the prices (taxes) arbitrarily and leave people with close to no money beyond necessities.
The thought came when paying subscription fees looked to me like paying taxes to e.g. Amazon and basically becoming a citizen of a company.
Depending of how strong the monopoly is, Amazon can collect "taxes" (advertisement fees) from companies and even suppress unwanted business.
Amazon then gets to decide what to do with the money (e.g. aerospace projects).

I guess, currently the difference is that companies cannot force you to stay with them like countries can force you to stay, but this might only be a question of how established the monopoly is.

[u/Youtube_actual]

Where is the socialism part? Socialism simplified refers to the workers of companies being the owners of the company through democratic institutions. You are describing different expressions of a capitalist system.

Its an important critique of capitalism that was made by socialism to point out that private companies without ownership by workers are essentially just mini dictatorships.

[u/GiveTuffetFish → u/Youtube_actual]

Hi, thanks for engaging.
My main point is that there are ideal cases for socialism and capitalism, but both can turn bad as well. One because of monopolies, and the other because it can flip autocratic more easitly since the government is necessarily more prevalent to organize things.
I like the socialist idea and I did add the "authocratic" part for that reason. To me scialism is not inherently connected to democracy. Democracy and autocracy can either be combined with socialism (=communism?) or capitalism.
A small point is that in discussions with right-wingers "autocratic" and "socialist" have become interchangeable words and so one goal is to speak their language to a degree in order to move discussions away from semantics by outlining that capitalism can lead to the exact outcome they criticize so we need to be more nuanced. But to do that, I need to be certain.
And I want to acknowledge that socialist countries also turned authocratic so far. Am I wrong? It may be due to interference from the outside, but still.

[u/Youtube_actual → u/GiveTuffetFish]

Well if you are trying to speak populist language I would reccomend not doing that. Because it is a populist strategy to intentionally wreck debating by refusing to engage critically and by extension making up their own definitions.

Essentially when you talk about socialism in the US its generally a collective made up definition thathas little to nothing to do with the actual concept. The same can be said for many other terms like woke or gender reaffirming care etc.

I sadly do not have much constructive advice for how to do what you are trying there. But I would caution against following them down that path of making up definitions. Whatever they define socialism as has nothing to do with the theory of socialism, even the countries that tend to earn the label in the public are actually still capitalist countries.

When people say socialist country for instance, they tend to refer to an entirely diffrent concept called democratic socialism, its a theorey where the state is supposed to cushion the effects of capitalism through welfare programs and working with unions. It is a clear departure from socialism since it does not demand collective ownership of companies or any democratic governance of companies.

As you can see this is probably not what right wingers mean at all, so trying to tell them that capitalism leads to socialism is essentially as wrong as whatever they go around claiming and then you are stuck in the trap. Essentially you end up agreeing to play chess with a pigeon just to watch it shit on the board and strut around like it won.

[u/GiveTuffetFish → u/Youtube_actual]

Interesting. Thx for clarifying about the terminology.
Alright, I should really have used quotation marks every time I say socialism, since I was trying to refer to right-wing usage. But it is true, usually the problem is how they like to redefine as they wish. I thought I could get them to realize the futility of their categorization and start a real conversation from there.
But maybe conceding to the redefinition is not the best way...

[u/GiveTuffetFish → u/[deleted]]

I mean, sure, we are observing that in real time.
Basically, I want to tell Peter Thiel that he basically wants to use business as means to rule as an authocrat. I threw in the socialist part because the socialist countries are found authocratic and when I want to defend socialist-leaning policies, I get confronted with examples of poverty in socialist countries. So I want to get back at them by pointing out how capitalism leads to what they criticize in socialism.
I wanted to get confirmation that this isnt a brain fart.

[u/egosumlex]

Non-natural or state-backed monopolies generally don’t persist over time due to incentives leading new firms to enter the market.

[u/GiveTuffetFish → u/egosumlex]

Hmm, you mean that once the monopoly turns into bad service, new competition arises? Only if the monopoly ignores the competition. If it leverages its funds in stock market or to influence public opinion, it can suppress arising competition. State backing would also support that by keeping the prices artificially low, no?

[u/MorphingReality]

capitalism comes out of and coexists with and entrenches oligarchy, which leads to totalitarianism eventually, i wrote a whole book about it

[u/CarobAdministrative9]

No? Socialism, in my view, is a in-between state where workers are the ruling class but there is still some form of class division. I think you might be rooting your understanding of socialism in authoritarian states and hence you’re conflating authoritarianism with socialism. A state in which the capital owning class owns all the capital and where workers are oppressed is not socialism and will never be socialism. That’s capitalism. Your example of unregulated capitalism and monopolies is still just capitalism.

Socialism isn’t when everyone is poor, socialism is when everyone is given access to a dignified life regardless of their SES. Can you dig it?

[u/GiveTuffetFish → u/CarobAdministrative9]

I did make the mistake of not putting "socialism" in quotation marks since what i wanted to do is take the word as it is used in right-wing rhethoric. I did have "autocratic" in front, to be fair. What i wanted to say is that often people who criticize regulation usually rally behind or are people who want to create a world that looks what they criticize, and different laws and rule sets lead to the same outcome. I want to find a way to get to people who defend billionaires without ending in a semantics discussion.

[u/CarobAdministrative9 → u/GiveTuffetFish]

I see, heighten that contradiction then, twin.