General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNewspapers are owned by the wealthy and powerful and you think they will allow an opposing view of capitalism?
Capitalism leaves of pattern of recessions in cycles. Why does the average working person not question this? I guess it is because the wealthy and powerful do not want you to know that fact as it might knowing the pattern just might lead to another healthier system and destroy excessive wealth and power
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
brush
(61,033 posts)
leftstreet
(41,245 posts)Do you avoid telling your Dr the Rx you're taking is making your fingers fall off, unless you have a suggestion for a replacement?
brush
(61,033 posts)leftstreet
(41,245 posts)
yardwork
(69,639 posts)The BBC is owned by the British people. It's no coincidence that Trump just defunded PBS and NPR. And Voice of America.
If we don't have a shared news media we will have a for-profit media and we see where that has gotten us.
brush
(61,033 posts)whiich are capitallst systems with robust social networks for their citizens that include free health care systems, free college if desired, childcare/enerous parental leave, annual vacations etc.
We, the US would be much better off with such a system.
Do your research then tell me of a successful democratlc socialist society. Socialism...from each accordng to his ability to each according to his needs —Karl Marx.
It still has yet to be proven as a viable economic system.
yardwork
(69,639 posts)It's not the same as communism.
From the internet, AI summary:
Many examples of democratic socialist policies and programs can be observed in various countries, with a notable concentration in the Nordic region, according to nordics.info.
Examples of democratic socialist policies and programs
Universal Healthcare: Countries like Canada and the Nordic nations provide healthcare as a fundamental right, funded through taxation.
Strong Social Safety Nets: This includes robust unemployment benefits, sickness insurance, and paid parental leave, as seen in Sweden.
Progressive Taxation: Higher earners contribute a greater percentage of their income to fund social programs.
High Levels of Public Support: The population generally supports government intervention in the economy and the provision of social services.
Worker Protections and Unionization: Democratic socialists advocate for strong labor unions and collective bargaining rights.
Examples of Democratic Socialism in practice
Nordic Model: Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Finland are often cited as prime examples of social democratic welfare states. They combine capitalist economies with universal welfare benefits and relatively high levels of taxation, according to nordics.info.
Canada: Canada offers a free national healthcare system, a hallmark of democratic socialist principles.
United States: While not explicitly a democratic socialist nation, the U.S. has adopted some socialistic policies like Medicare, Social Security, public schools and universities, and even municipal infrastructure like water supplies and sewers.
Chile under Salvador Allende: The Allende government in the early 1970s pursued a democratic transition to socialism, involving nationalization of industries, land reform, and redistributive programs. However, the government was eventually overthrown by a military coup.
Important considerations
It's important to distinguish between democratic socialism and other forms of socialism, such as communism. Democratic socialists aim to achieve their goals through democratic processes and within a capitalist system.
There's ongoing debate regarding the extent to which some of the examples cited truly embody democratic socialist ideals versus a more market-driven approach to social welfare.
brush
(61,033 posts)Learn the difference then get back to me.
yardwork
(69,639 posts)You go do some reading.
brush
(61,033 posts)Check Celerity's post. He/she lives there in a social democracy and responded to my post with a +1000.
Gimpyknee
(1,025 posts)brush
(61,033 posts)Last edited Fri Aug 8, 2025, 03:08 PM - Edit history (1)
but free unversal healthcare, free college, free chlldcare/parental leave, generous holjday time.
Wish we had such a system as one doesn't come out of pocket for so much.
vanessa_ca
(947 posts)Piqued my interest because I never gave it any thought before. Love DU for that.
Google gave me a good start point which sounds good, but would you guys agree with their summary before they lead my off track?
Democratic socialism and social democracy are related political ideologies that advocate for a more equitable society, but they differ in their approaches to achieving that goal. Democratic socialism seeks to transform the capitalist economy towards socialism through democratic means, often involving collective ownership of key industries, according to Wikipedia. Social democracy, on the other hand, aims to create a more just society within a capitalist framework, primarily through a strong welfare state and regulations to mitigate capitalism's negative effects, says Wikipedia.
yardwork
(69,639 posts)There are grey areas in between.
Smokster
(65 posts)TRIMMING THE POODLE
--Daniel DeLeon
(Snip)
As a poodle may have his hair cut long or his hair cut short, as he may be trimmed with pink ribbons or with blue ribbons, yet he remains the same old poodle, so capitalism may be trimmed with factory laws, tenement laws, divorce laws and gambling laws, but it remains the same old capitalism. These “humanitarian parts” are only trimming the poodle. Socialism, one and inseparable with its “antirent and anticapital parts,” means to get rid of the poodle.
PS...DeLeon should have referred to the poodle as its, rather than his and he, so as not to enrage the radical feminist socialists and anti-capitalists. lol
brush
(61,033 posts)
snot
(11,848 posts)prior to which there were effective restrictions against the consolidation of media ownership, and break up Big Media. Sure, there will still be some outlet ownership by megacorps; but hundreds or thousands of outlets owned by smaller operations – with fewer conflicts of interest – might also exist.
brush
(61,033 posts)
LiberalArkie
(19,916 posts)international telephone and built and installed the telecom equipment?
That was busted up.
There are two ways to protect consumers w.r.t. monopolies: either break them up, or if you're not going to do that, you've got to regulate the h*ll out of them – require them to meet certain quantity/quality standards, maintain funding for an enforcement agency that can audit compliance regularly, require them to get permission for rate/price hikes, etc.
Right now we have the worst of all possible worlds w/ respect to traditional media; and the internet is at least 85% of the way to the same fate.
Another argument I think should be made is that we have (poorly-enforced) antitrust laws that would at present probably have to be the main basis for breaking up Big Media, and that might possibly be somewhat helpful; but a problem with it is that, as I understand, those laws generally require proof of a quantifiable amount of financial ($) loss to consumers as a result of the monopoly. You have to prove, e.g., that the price for a product was at least approxmately X $amount higher because of the lack of significant competition. This can be tricky even with material products such as chicken breasts. Did the price go up in the wake of consolidation because of monopolization, or was it because the prices of supplies, labor, etc. went up, or maybe because middlemen took advantage somehow? Etc.
Media monopolies may cause some financial losses; but they may not, or such losses might easily be even more difficult to quantify.
And in any case, the real, most important result from an absence of significant competition in the sphere of media outlets is not so much financial loss as informational – we are deprived of the complete and accurate information we should have in order for us to make good decisions about the things we care about. How do you quantify that in dollars?
So imho, not only do we need to roll back the deregulation of media that took place under Reagan and Clinton, but maybe we also need to enact an antitrust law of information that focusses on that rather than on economic loss.
Cirsium
(4,106 posts)Abolitionists were asked that question. What was the alternative to slavery? You didn't need an "alternative" in order to oppose the system of slavery, and you don't need an "alternative" to oppose the system of Capitalism.
One need not have an alternative that meets with your unspoken expectations before they can criticize the current system.
Political systems are historical phenomena, not user guides or a set of rules. Political systems evolve over time in response to changing conditions and changes in productive forces. Critiques of the existing conditions are an important part of that evolution.
So what is the alternative to profits over people? Can you think of no alternatives? Maggie Thatcher famously said that there is no alternative. Do you agree with that?
brush
(61,033 posts)Last edited Sat Aug 9, 2025, 12:11 AM - Edit history (1)
See post 11. The social democracies of the Nordic countries work better for their people than out system which requires so much out of pocket expenses all the time for just about everything.
Cirsium
(4,106 posts)The success of the Nordic countries is dependent upon exploitation of the global South.
brush
(61,033 posts)And btw, our history includes not just the exploitation of stolen, unpaid labor of hundreds of years of enslaved people, but also the whole western hemisphere/banana/sugarcane/pineapple republic exploitation of, a la the Monroe Doctrine. Not to mention 'manifest destiny' and what was/is still being done to Native Americans.
A tad bit worse I'd say than whatever you're contending the Nordic countries allegedly did.
And what's your preference btw since we're discussing economic systems? You've never said.
I didn't say that the Nordic countries did anything in particular. I said they are not a good model.
All of Europe is complicit in and benefits from the exploitation of the global South, not just the US.
I don't see economic systems as something we choose. More like economic systems choose us. Ergo, the notion of having a personal "preference" is absurd, it is delusional.
For decades we have been told that nations should aspire to develop towards the Nordic countries. But in an era of ecological breakdown, this no longer makes sense. If everyone in the world consumed like Scandinavians, we would need nearly five Earths to sustain us.
This kind of over-consumption is driving a global crisis of habitat destruction, species extinction and climate change. You will not see much evidence of this in Norway or Finland, but that is because, as with most rich nations, the bulk of their ecological impact has been outsourced to the global South. That is where most of the resource extraction happens, and where global warming bites hardest. The violence hits elsewhere.
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2019/12/6/the-dark-side-of-the-nordic-model/
A tradition of double standards from historical colonialism to current environmental injustice
excerpt:
Swedish colonialism in the ‘great olden days’ and today
Sweden’s ‘free lane’ into business profit in formerly colonized areas depends on the common perception that Scandinavian colonial violations were marginal, if they occurred at all. But however negligible the Swedish exercise of power has been, it is paradoxically depicted with great glamour. A telling example is the Swedish national anthem from 1844, including the patriotic stanza which begins ‘Du tronar på minnen från fornstora dar, då ärat ditt namn flög över jorden’ (‘You are enthroned on memories of great olden days, when honoured your name flew across the Earth’).
Many Swedes probably tune into the song with a sense of pride—most commonly at sport events—and a vague notion of its references to the Swedish Era of Great Power in the years 1611-1718. Sweden was then a colonizer, although admittedly on a smaller scale than Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, Great Britain or France—and allegedly of a benevolent type.
But the Swedish Crown and power sphere were in fact heavily involved in the European colonization project with all its atrocities. This is convincingly shown in the anthology on Scandinavian colonialism from 2013 edited by Naum and Nordin. In more than a dozen close-up descriptions of colonial encounters, a continuous whitewash of Scandinavian history is revealed. The anthology displays Swedish involvement on several continents: from expansion up North to the New World, Africa, and Asia. In 2015 this book was succeeded by Våra kolonier in which popular historian Herman Lindqvist uncovers a strong Swedish ambition to develop a colonial role. Conclusions in the two books align: dreams of gold, ivory, sugar, spices, and tobacco triggered the Swedish search for and foundation of colonies from the early 17th century in North America, West Africa, and later the West Indies. Ships were built to export iron, wood, and tar, financing increasing imports.
https://unevenearth.org/2020/01/swedish-colonialist-neutrality/
Overshadowed by British and French Imperialism, the small-scale colonialism of some of the Nordic countries can all too easily be downplayed. From the 19th century, the self-image of the Nordic countries as a group of small, neutral nations has probably perpetuated this misconception. However, Denmark-Norway engaged in a variety of colonial activities throughout the world from the 17th century which still have legacies today. On a lesser scale compared to other colonial powers, its colonialism was characterised by different contexts - some of them brutal - in the Caribbean, West Africa, India and Greenland.
https://nordics.info/show/artikel/the-colonialism-of-denmark-norway-and-its-legacies
We arrive at several major conclusions. (1) We find that the labour of production in the world economy, across all skill levels and all sectors, is overwhelmingly performed in the global South (on average 90–91%), but the yields of production are disproportionately captured in the global North. (2) The North net-appropriated 826 billion hours of embodied labour from the global South in 2021 (in other words, net of trade). This net appropriation occurs across all skill categories and sectors, including a large net appropriation of high-skilled labour. (3) The wage value of net-appropriated labour was €16.9 trillion in 2021, represented in Northern wages, accounting for skill level. In wage-value terms, the drain of labour from the South has more than doubled since 1995. 4) North–South wage gaps have increased dramatically over the period, across all skill categories and sectors, despite a small improvement in the South’s relative position. Southern wages are 87–95% lower than Northern wages for work of equal skill as of 2021, and 83–98% lower for work of equal skill within the same sector. (5) Workers’ share of GDP has generally declined over the period, by 1.3 percentage points in the global North and 1.6 percentage points in the global South.
Despite contributing 90–91% of the total labour that goes into global production and the production of traded goods in 2021, including the majority of high-skilled labour, the global South received less than half (44%) of global income, and Southern workers received only 21% of global income in that year. In other words, while global production is overwhelmingly performed in the global South, the yields are disproportionately captured in the global North, indicating a disproportionate command of the global product.
...
Our analysis here focuses on flows between the core and periphery of the world system, using the country classifications set out in Supplementary Table 1. As a proxy for the core, or the global North, we used the IMF’s list of 'advanced economies' as a guide and created the closest possible approximation of this list given the countries available in EXIOBASE. The category includes USA, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Norway, Austria, Belgium, Germany, Denmark, France, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, Japan, South Korea, Estonia, Spain, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Malta, Portugal, Slovenia, Slovakia, Taiwan, Cyprus and the Czech Republic.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-49687-y
brush
(61,033 posts)Thanks for nothing.
That is completely false characterization of my post. Did you bother to read anything I linked to?
I assumed that you asked for more in good faith and took you at your word. The topic is complex and not given to cute little sound bites. I thought you were serious.
Main points:
• Northern Europe is heavily subsidized by the global South.
• That includes the Scandinavian countries.
• That phenomenon can be traced directly back to the colonial era.
• The Scandinavian countries were deeply complicit in the crimes of colonialism and slavery.
• Scandinavian "neutrality" has often meant playing both sides, as in Sweden selling steel to both sides in the World Wars.
The Scandinavian countries are able to afford a strong safety net because of exploitation of the global South and because they are defended by the "bad guys" - NATO and the US.
Ergo, the Scandinavian countries are not a good model that can be emulated.
brush
(61,033 posts)Cirsium
(4,106 posts)I don't think there is a model.
brush
(61,033 posts)The topic is "newspapers are owned by the wealthy and powerful and you think they will allow an opposing view of capitalism?"
I have plenty to say about that. However, don't have anything to offer that would make your fishing expedition productive.
brush
(61,033 posts)Who said otherwise?
EX500rider
(12,768 posts)Cirsium
(4,106 posts)Capitalism is a social, political and economic system. Social relations and polities are completely dominated by the imperatives dictated by Capitalism. It is an all encompassing historical phenomenon, nearing its final stage.
Torchlight
(7,037 posts)in the early 1980s, his warnings were spot-on.
What was once a system of competing forces meant to hold each other accountable has devolved into an insider club—where powerful interests trade favors and protect each other instead of serving the public.
Ping Tung
(4,370 posts)
uponit7771
(93,532 posts)... disagree what mega rich and how to tax them fairly but they notice shit ain't right.
maxsolomon
(39,120 posts)doesn't read newspapers and isn't particularly educated in alternative economic systems. Capitalism is all they know, except that Communism & Socialism are evil and anti-American, but they couldn't tell you what those systems are.
Hope that helps!
brush
(61,033 posts)maxsolomon
(39,120 posts)Self-education isn't our strong suit. Unless it's sports related.
brush
(61,033 posts)the sports world, wresstling, fake sports.
Keepthesoulalive
(2,412 posts)Even with a good educational program people will not stop believing in the self made man, bootstraps, if we work harder we can be rich, I’m special you are not and if you don’t speak to my specific wants I will not support you. The arrogance and need for constant adulation is why they control us. I have no answers only more questions.
Initech
(109,260 posts)All so they can be rich. 
Bev54
(13,517 posts)so many of our major newspapers across Canada are now owned by US Post Media. They are now screwing up our citizens and it is a constant fight to tell people to research the outlet before they start spewing the nonsense they print.
reACTIONary
(7,287 posts).... and there are plenty of good alternatives.
That said, the ones that are owned by the the wealthy and powerful do tend to do tend to be more successful, financially as well as journalisticly.
twodogsbarking
(19,316 posts)Not to me, but to some.
erronis
(24,509 posts)Posted by Rhiannon12866
WaPo Is Owned by Billionaires Who Decided Going Right Wing Was Better for Them (w/ Thom Hartmann) - Malcolm Nance
https://www.democraticunderground.com/132284138
Discussion about RW billionaires buying news media around 31:45
Blue Full Moon
(3,649 posts)gfarber
(278 posts)The papers are owned by the few,
Who filter the facts that get through.
They silence dissent,
Protect every cent,
Lest truth spark a system that's new.
The rich own the press, every page,
And muzzle the voice of our rage.
They hide boom and bust,
Betraying our trust,
To keep us all locked in their cage.
live love laugh
(16,479 posts)
BlueTsunami2018
(5,072 posts)Capitalism sucks. It’s an unfair system that caters to the ruling class and the ruling class alone.
They’ll tell you “socialism or communism never worked” even though they have. They’ll tell you “we need a mix of capitalism and socialism” when that has proven to have failed because the ruling class can very easily reverse the little progress we make. As evidenced by where we are now.
Let the workers get a tiny bit of an upper hand and they’ll snatch it away immediately. See the Taft-Hartley act for the proof of that. That was 1947.
We need to at least try to get the workers to understand how badly they’re getting fucked by the capitalist system we live under. Instead of fighting the stupid, petty social issues that divide us and let the ruling class pick our pockets, we need the working class to put all that bullshit aside and unite against those bastards and take back what is ours, all of ours.
JoseBalow
(9,733 posts)
Kid Berwyn
(25,055 posts)Let alone the impact of trickle-down tax structure going back 43 frigging years.
OldBaldy1701E
(11,533 posts)The wealthy know their position in our society would disappear.
They will never cut off their own foot, either literally or figuratively.
Oh, they will allow some small upheavals here and there to keep the plebes entertained, but none of them are ever going to really use their wealth to be a savior, nor are they ever going to allow a different societal model in this country.
They will collapse it all and watch the destruction from their twelfth beach house in another country before they will do that.
gulliver
(14,072 posts)It's fine to criticize capitalism. It is resilient. It's fine to receive influence from socialism in the sense that some common elements of an economy are best done in a common way.
Criticisms of capitalism are too often rendered by fanatics of socialism. That is, the criminal minded, the morons, and the criminal minded morons. The socialism is just a gaslighting pretext used to facilitate the mugging and murder of others. Beneath the surface, that form of criticism of capitalism is merely envy and resentment and misanthropy.
Marx, by the way, was a data-less, mooching, tyrannical, pseudo-intellectual grifter. With poor hygiene and icky kinks iirc. Critics of capitalism would do well to distance themselves from his stench.
