I don't understand why capitalists are afraid of socialism...

[Augiedog]

Capitalists are maximalist socialists….they count on the beneficence of the Federal government, State governments and local governments every time they do their “thing”.

Every tax break they demand and get is An admission that they need socialist aid. That their fancy business plans require that less affluent tax payers must financially support their businesses is an admisssion that they are not true capitalists.

If you think of tax breaks like a normal person you probably don’t think you are a socialist. EVERY tax break is a socialist story. What story is your billionaire selling you that says he/she/it can’t pay for the business plan or idea they want to foist upon you.

It’s not always easy to clearly understand the extreme depth that Capitalist socialism has burrowed itself into our society and disguised itself as something you can’t or aren’t allowed to question let alone understand.

Take sports stadiums for professional athletics. Billionaire owners, millionaire athletes….but everyday common tax payers are required to cough up their hard earned cash to pay for these entitled folk to enjoy their gladiatorial events. All the while charging ticket fees you can’t afford. This is the easiest example to understand and is simply what all these business folk are doing to us.

Then when you complain they say you’re unamerican for not supporting their businesses and the great American (insert sport) they need you to pay for.

Letting capitalism run our country is every bit a bad idea as letting religion run our nation. The self interest of these groups are almost always against the wellbeing of the majority of the people.

[leftstreet]

1. They're only afraid of it for the rest of us

[NewHendoLib]

2. Greed

[Autumn]

3. They don't mind it for themselves. They just don't want us to have it.

It's Socialism for the rich and Capitalism for the poor. Politicians are going to make sure it stays that way. The wealth disparity between the politicians we elect and the people that vote for them is almost obscene.

[patphil]

4. Capitalism and Socialism have existed side by side in the US for quite a long time.

Socialism puts limits on Capitalism that are actually very good for Capitalism. It's good for the businessmen and the consumers. But it's always been a balancing act.
Play by the rules, and you'll do quite well. Unfortunately, the government is susceptible to changing the rules to favor business when there is a lot of money flowing into the right pockets.
Business will always try to get the upper hand; money talks to anyone who listens.

[Ping Tung]

5. "The comfort of the rich depends upon an abundant supply of the poor." ― Voltaire

No matter what label is attached to it.

[peggysue2]

6. Because enough is never enough

The richy-rich and corporations don't care about what 'breaks' they get. They want everything on the table because they believe they're entitled and brilliant, that their money gives them superpowers over the rest of us, aka the rabble.

Read an article yesterday suggesting the elites are getting very squirmy because the fracturing inside Republican circles is exposing too many dark corners of grift and corruption, too many people asking questions, demanding answers, using that terrible word: accountability.

Poor babies.

Bring on the light!

[choie]

7. Spot on!

[Ferrets are Cool]

8. It's a convenient boogieman, nothing more.

[SSJVegeta]

9. To be a capitalsit often requires an extreme level of myopia to see the world.

[hvn_nbr_2]

10. "Government ... for the people" equals evil socialism

Anything that government does for the people is evil socialism to these nuts because, in their view, the purpose of government is to give money and power to the rich.

They actually despise the idea of "government for the people."

[uponit7771]

11. They love socialism for the mega rich, that's MAGAs focus

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. Full-bore socialism is ownership of the vital industries by the people or workers, not by those with capital

Government policies that benefit corporations or rich individuals aren't socialism - socialism is not just "anything that's not total free-market economics". There are other economic systems than capitalism and socialism - mercantilism, for instance (which can often involve subsidies or state-granted monopolies to private companies - think of the East India Company and tea imports to the Thirteen Colonies).

There are some things in the USA that are socialist - a water company owned by an elected authority, for example (in England, these got sold off to capitalists, and what a disaster it's been). Widespread socialism would mean the conversion of companies into worker-owned, or state-owned, enterprises, by law - with or without compensation, depending on the politics of the government. The chances of this happening in the USA are miniscule, but capitalists find it worth stirring up fear of it anyway.

Mamdani's idea of city-owned stores is a form of socialism, but it's not like he'd force an owner to sell their store to the city; this would just be another competitor, which may turn out to be able to offer better service and/or cheaper prices.

[Xolodno]

13. Socialism is defined as....

...Government control or ownership of the factors of production (depending on who you ask). What that means, well, ask a 100 economists and you will get at least 300 different answers. Karl Marx never actually gave any blueprint for Socialism and even less so for Communism. It was philosophical, people forget or don't know he was also a philosopher.

There is the Nordic Model, but as the old joke goes:

Person A: Socialism doesn't work
Person B: The Nordic nations are socialist and are doing fine.
Person A: They are not socialist, they are capitalist with strong social welfare programs.
Person B: Then lets adopt those programs.
Person A: No! That's Socialism!

China and Vietnam have walked away from Communism and have embraced the theory of Market Socialism. And a couple of countries in Europe are starting to slowly adopt it as well. Ultimately, it works and that's what the elite wealthy class fears.

We treat economic systems as some sort of religious dogma, when in actuality, it's an evolution. Society and its values evolve, thus economic systems must evolve with them.

For the Billionaire class, they just accumulate wealth for the sake of accumulating wealth. And they are afraid of change that will stop them in that endeavor. The idea of "I can get rich" no longer resonates as many in lower classes have realized, its impossible to get that rich no matter what they do. So now the focus is on a better and equitable society. But that means the Billionaire class will have to lose a chunk of its wealth and they don't want that.

There is this always prevailing myth that there is this infinite amount money, when in reality, it is finite.

As to why the wealthy fear it, ultimately, its a change and no one likes a change in the rules.