What Is Socialism?
An Overloaded Term
Recently, since the election of a 'socialist' representative, there have been a series of pseudo debates on 'socialism'. The most obvious take away is that the meaning of the word 'socialism' is all over the map. This is nothing new. Here are some of the facets of a socio-economic/political system that people call 'socialism':
- Redistribution of wealth
- Public services
- Welfare programs
- Safety nets
- Command economy (vs. market economy)
- Authoritarian rule
- State run businesses
- Egalitarian society (equal results)
- Expropriation of private property (e.g. taking over private sector businesses)
- Social democracy (using capitalist engine to drive public services)
None of the above distinguish socialism from capitalism. Socialism is an economic system that (in theory) decentralizes control over the productive resources of a nation. Its objective is to have the people (as a whole) control how natural resources and labor are used in their civil society . Capitalism, in contrast, consolidates (as a by-product) control over the productive resources into the hands of a small minority.
Capitalism is the economic system in every significant nation. Regardless of the labels chosen, no significant nation exists wherein the people democratically control their productive resources . Socialism has never evolved in any nation - but the label 'socialism' has been used as a cover for some of the worst authoritarian States in history. In every extant nation, the control is by the State (i.e. politicians and government officials running the show) and/or by private enterprise (business leaders and aristocracy calling the shots). It is always a minority that controls productive resources. This is true in the USA as well - we have a fully functioning plutarchy where money rules and politicians comply.
Socialism, in contrast, is a theoretical approach wherein the individual contributor (typically called 'worker') has substantially more direct control over their economic opportunities. This is so different from how things work today and how people think, it is not likely to happen in any of our lifetimes (if at all). But it is likely that we will see some migration towards socialism or possibly a new variant of capitalism.
The point of this article is to just get people to break free of slogans and labels about 'socialism' and understand (at least superficially) what socialism actually is trying to accomplish. This is not about agreement (I personally have plenty of things to say in disagreement) but rather about being properly informed.
Economic Democracy
Here is a very simple (and good) introduction to one theoretical model called 'Economic Democracy'. Here is a link to a more detailed description and there is plenty more information out there for those who are interested.
Socialism, if it ever happens, will necessarily be the product of gradual evolution. If the people of a nation are not engaged and do not seek democratic control over their productive resources then it seems impossible for socialism to ever function. And the notion of forcing socialism is absurd on its face since it, in essence, would be forcing the people to cooperate .
Based on the history of human nature, we may be a species that will always rely upon select leaders to do our thinking for us. If so, some variant of capitalism will likely be the economic system of the future. But for now, we can at least discard slogans and labels and understand what a system that is arguably (and intentionally) the opposite of capitalism might look like.
Tags
Who is online
32 visitors
One need not embrace the underlying theories of socialism to understand it. Let's at least try to stop labeling every aspect of a socio-economic/political system we dislike as 'socialism'.
Thank-you for the economics/political/social lesson. I hope people read your article and pay attention
Me too. I doubt it, but I certainly hold out hope that some will opt to learn a little about this subject - to not rely upon labels and slogans as their knowledge of socialism.
We will when you stop reinventing the definition of socialism
the Socialist International disagrees with you
Marx disagrees with you
Marxist Youth (communist organization disagrees with you)
Democratic Socialists USA disagrees with you
Bob Avakian head of the Revolutionary Communist Party disagrees with you
Bob Avakian head of Revolutionary Communist Party
“Some Further Thinking on: The Socialist State as a New Kind of State
I want to talk a little more about the question of democracy and dictatorship in socialist society and about the socialist state, the dictatorship of the proletariat, as a radically different kind of state. Proletarian democracy – as given expression as democracy for the masses of people in socialist society – should contain some secondary and "external" features, if you will, in common with bourgeois democracy, including Constitutional provisions for the protection of the rights of masses of people, and of individuals; but in essence it is a radically different kind of democracy, fundamentally because it is an expression of a radically different kind of class rule – rule by the proletariat, led by its vanguard, openly exercising dictatorship over the overthrown bourgeoisie and other proven counter-revolutionary elements – and it has radically different objectives, above all the advance to communism, and the "withering away of the state" – and of democracy.”
The irony is actually funny. Here I have seeded one of the more popular contemporary theories of socialism while you routinely produce slogans and labels and offer sources that also rely upon slogans and labels.
Worse, you come onto this article and simply proclaim that Marx, et. al. disagree with 'me'. What, specifically, are you referring to? Anyone can make grand claims. The trick is to actually back up your claim with facts.
So back up your words.
I’ve been driving since I posted. Three central points I see missing from your presentation
most of socialism sees social equality as just as important as the economic equality which you ignore
socialist ecomic principles are varied among groups ranging from employee ownership to nationalization
Marx saw the dictatorship of the Proletariat as the type of socialism necessary to destroy capitalism
Social equality is the wrong way to envision that. It is more to not have a class system - a perpetual aristocracy. Rather to have opportunities for everyone (regardless of birth conditions) to advance (or not) based on individual initiative.
There are always extremes (funny thing for me to say while responding to you) in anything. If you study the material you will find that socialist systems focus on exactly what I have stated: democratic control over the productive resources of the economy. That is, after all, the point - have the people (themselves) actively engaged and controlling their economic destiny.
Marx had many notions on what might happen. He was wrong many times. Now, do you think that 'dictatorship of the proletariat' meant that the system would involve a dictator? Literally? Tell me what you actually think that means. Also, Marx also believed that capitalism would burn itself out and that the worldwide proletariat would step in and transform the shambles of worldwide capitalism into communism via socialism. Not so sure that he will be proved right on that either.
I watched your ridiculous movie. I noticed on the top of the written list was "Wealth distribution" as well. This is Stealing Plain and simple. A boon for the lazy and incompetent in the unlikely event it doesn't get stolen by the "government".
From the movie:
"first step is to get the companies under democratic control." In other words steal them and put them under government control like Hugo Chavez did.
"The companies pay profits to the government" Just like in Venezuela
"then the Democratic government decides who gets the capitol" Just like in Venezuela AND Brazil... because Socialism breeds corruption and politicians always lie. the democratically elected socialist gives the money to his friends and relatives and people who bribed him the most instead of doing what he promised with it just like Chavez did. The same thing happened in Brazil (and every other Socialist country) but Fortunately for Brazil they started kicking them out before the country was completely destroyed and are reversing the damage caused by Socialism by electing Capitalists.
Your model is little different than the basic model of socialism that has always failed and is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions of people other than it is even more wishful. No thank you.
Chavez expropriated companies. Another method of having companies be under democratic control is to evolve to that condition over time and according to the wishes of the people. The exact opposite of what Chavez did.
They pay a tax. They do not give their profits to the government. Funny misread on your part. Now do you really object to the idea of businesses paying taxes to fund a capitalization fund used to enable the growth of businesses?
I guess you missed the fact that in Venezuela the State ran things. The people had no say in these decisions. Do you really think that in Venezuela the people had democratic control over the productive resources of the nation?
First, it is not ' my ' model. Second, from your post it is obvious that you are mapping all new information into your same preconceived notion. You just saw an introduction to Economic Democracy and somehow you mapped all of it into the authoritarian, expropriation, redistribution of wealth, etc. fiasco of Venezuela. The two are so dramatically different it really is staggering to read your post.
Like TG said!!!!!!
Did you read the article?
All socialist governments are a type of totalitarian dictatorship. Whether it’s one leader or many, systems that require coercion and forced collectivism are totalitarian
Just like all democrats are fascists?
This is a bit funny to watch. No matter what information is offered, the same, cliche responses return.
What is your idea of collectivism? You are part of a very interdependent society and we must work together for survival and the social good, if you like it or not. We all have individual rights but you don't get to say that you refuse to cooperate with others for the social good.
What is your idea of collectivism? You are part of a very interdependent society and we must work together for survival and the social good, if you like it or not. We all have individual rights but you don't get to say that you refuse to cooperate with others for the social good.
Collectivism that is localized small group, localized and purely voluntary is fine. Forced collectivism is not
i disagree with your interdependent categorization. We are a nation established on individualism.
in a nation that values liberty we indeed should have a right not to be forced to cooperate
Yes
Hell yes I have a problem with paying into a fund that I have no say in. If I am not using profits to pay the "tax " how does it get paid? Please don't try to tell me that because we have a vote and can choose someone who CLAIMS they will give us our say that we actually have one. The DNC rigging of the primary is a perfect example of why that is laughable.
You are insinuating that if I vote for one of the crooks I am allowed to choose from they will have my best interest at heart? LMAO!!! That's Exactly what folks thought about Chavez. Didn't you hear Penn and Glover AND MOORE say so?
That's where you are wrong. Both models rely on people being honest about wealth distribution in order for it to work and that is why it always fails. Socialism breeds corruption because it is simply too easy to abuse a Socialist system. The other problem with it is all the people who make the money leave. (IKEA) It is why people fled Detroit and it is now trying to make a "Comeback". Taxes went up and up and because of corruption services declined despite the higher taxes, until those paying them left and the house of cards fell. Socialism always works for a little while, until the people funding it get tired of being stolen from.
Then you disagree with taxation in general because we rarely have a say there.
They ' use the profits'. You wrote:
They do not pay their profits to the government - they pay taxes . The companies control their profits but they have costs of doing business and this is one of them. Having dealt with cynical questions on this topic for years others have presumed that under socialism the State owns all the profits. If that is not what you meant then good for you. Others actually think profits go to the State.
Nope, I would never make that claim. Representative democracy in the USA has -in our long experiment- exposed a number of flaws. One of the flaws is the difficulty in removing a representative who is not doing the job for their constituents. But worse, sadly, is that the constituents DO NOT PAY ATTENTION and DO NOT ACT. The apathy and ignorance of the constituents enables representatives to act as they do.
Not even close. What I was referring to is the fact that you deem Venezuela socialism yet this is a system where the State took control of the economy, expropriated private property and then irresponsibly placated the demos with redistribution of wealth. The people of Venezuela never had control over the productive resources of their economy - the State did. And, by the way, I do not think the people of Venezuela were even remotely close to the level of sophistication necessary for them to take such democratic control. In short, Venezuela society was far too immature and naive to even think about socialism and indeed they never had socialism - they had an irresponsible authoritarian fledgling command economy State that blew through the nation's economic prowess.
That is vague equivocation. Comparing Economic Democracy to the system of Venezuela is like comparing baseball to golf. Yeah 'ball' is common, and 'game' is common and 'player' is common but the systems are entirely different. Comparing top down authoritarian control to decentralized, democratic control is comparing polar opposites. There is no hope to deem these the same. Best I can tell you still have not read the article. I see no evidence you understand even the basics of Economic Democracy.
First of all, it is not 'me' doing anything. I am explaining that which you have chosen to not research on your own. Second, looks like you have resorted to cheap semantics. This is a very simple concept. The capitalization fund - that which is used to support businesses - would be funded (per this model) by taxes from those very businesses. If you are against businesses paying taxes then you will pretty much be against any system - including capitalism.
Go right to a slogan and, in so doing, prove that you have not attempted to understand any of the material provided in this article.
I think you might be reversing the ontology. Socialism --> Democratic Socialism --> Economic Democracy. I just (for brevity in text) depicted one branch down the tree of socialism. One form of socialism is 'Democratic Socialism'. One specific theoretical model of Democratic Socialism is Economic Democracy. I put forth Economic Democracy as the subject in this article because it is a well-known, contemporary, market-based approach to socialism. It serves as a good example of socialism and it is not beyond the ability of people to comprehend.
From what I have seen the problem is not a lack of information or explanation, the problem is that you refuse to accept any information that goes against your preconceived notions. I may be wrong in my assessment but from what you are writing, I doubt it.
Okay, so now that you have identified a few objectives and offered general summary attributes (e.g. 'a dream') coupled with vague commentary (e.g. builds on FDR's work) what specifically is Democratic Socialism as you see it? Actually offer the definition . What are its objectives? How are the objectives achieved? Who is in control of the productive resources of the nation? How is that control administered? That kind of stuff.
If you need help, you can get plenty of ideas from this article.
Thank you for clarifying that it is a BS DREAM and NOTHING MORE.
Okay by me if you realize that socialism is a theoretical system. But I am confident you still do not even understand the basics and likely never will.
actually... yes we do.
How is market socialism forcing you to do anything?
because I am funny that way...
I am just assuming my corporation is not exempt from the tax which funds market socialism.
can I get a waiver of some sort? a opt out? so I do not have to play any socialist games?
can I simply refuse to pay like I did with the obamacare tax?
How do you feel about the U.S. Social Security System?
Similarly, let's at least stop trying to label every aspect of a socio-economic system we do like as "socialism". Public schools, libraries, roads and other facilities are NOT socialism in action.
Agreed.
Damn, Jack! When you're right, you're right!
Thank you for the article.
It would seem that the biggest problem with socialism is the word itself means so many different things to different people. The trick then to a substantive discussion would be to agree on what we mean when we use the word, if only from the discussions standpoint.
The way rightwingers determine what's "socialism" is largely patterned on how they determine what's "constitutional" (or not), which is based on what they believe to be the case rather what the reality is.
Most people (seems to me) using the label 'socialism' to refer to any element of a socio-economic/political system they dislike. It is as though the label 'socialism' simply means 'that which I dislike'. Similarly, the label 'capitalism' to most seems to equate to opportunity, free-market competition, innovation, etc. It is extremely difficult for most to even imagine that socialism (at least most modern forms) is focused on those very qualities.
As Kevin Williamson succinctly states, "Socialism is defined by central planning, which subordinates the economy to the political discipline." A socialist system puts the rights of the collective over the individual.
No it is not. There are a few (minority) theories of socialism that propose a command economy and maybe sometime in the future we might be smart enough (as a society) to make that work effectively. I would need to be convinced of that though.
But, no, socialism is NOT defined as 'central planning' and 'central planning' is not a prerequisite in any way for socialism.
The seeded article illustrates this. Economic Democracy is one example of market-based socialism.
Of course it is. It's a defining component. Economies that protect free enterprise and private property are not socialist.
Protecting private property is indeed capitalism and is not socialism.
Protecting free enterprise is not a function of capitalism or socialism. Did you read the article? Did you investigate Economic Democracy? I put forth this theory of socialism for a reason.
Ooops, by those criteria you will have to stop referring to France as "socialist," and that would really put a crimp in your ideologic imperative.
I did read the article. My definitions are, however, ground in the reality of the world and human nature, not in a religious belief in some never to be found utopia, that (somehow!) never comes to fruition here on earth. It's almost as if the principle of socialism are incompatible with human nature! It's no coincidence socialist regimes require violence and repression to maintain power.
You can play the no true Scotsman game all you want, but the last 100 years have provided plenty of data of how socialism operates in the real world and it ends with people eating garbage.
Translation: "I just make shit up as needed to fit my ideology."
And that is a very good thing. But calling this 'socialism' is the problem addressed by this article.
Call command economy 'command economy'. Defining socialism as necessarily a command economy basically discards the substantial content of this subject area and reduces it to a feature that, by itself, contradicts the objectives of socialism.
Read up on the subject matter.
Maybe you should stop making things up.
Considering that source the best response is
followed by 
Yeah, when did the No True Scotsman fallacy get introduced (except ex nihilo by that one)?
You can lead a rightwinger to facts but you can't make him think.
That's what having a society means, creating a system of governmental control to administer laws and a stable social environment for individuals and businesses to flourish. Without the backbone that the mix of socialism creates in America, we would have no relatively stable capitalism. We have collectively agreed to build a transportation infrastructure that not all people use, but all people pay for. We have collectively agreed to build a power/water & sewer infrastructure so individuals don't have to use outhouses, drink dirty water or peddle a bike to keep their refrigerator running. We have collectively agreed to fund police departments, fire departments and our military to keep us safe.
If you're angry and upset over society being there for nearly every American, by all means, move into the mountains and live off the grid, but even then your little neck of the woods is still being protected by fire departments and the military.
We have an incredible, awesome mix of socialism and capitalism that has made us the envy of the world, yet some who apparently can't understand simple facts want to claim if we add any new socialist programs for the benefit of all Americans we're going to magically turn into Stalinist Russia or Venezuela, which is one of the most ignorant things I've ever heard of. It just means they are know nothings who don't understand basic civics or economics.
You seem to be mistaking government and collective action of any kind for socialism. Feudal governments engaged in all sorts of collective actives. Louis XIV built roads used by everyone. I guess he was a socialist.
You are conflating social programs with socialism. The names have a common root but the concepts are fundamentally different.
Since the goal is to pervert language to ideology meanings of words must be obliterated.
No, Disamyed Patriot is. He's the one arguing that road building constitutes socialism, not me.
Seems you are too by your comment.
But if you do not equate social programs with socialism then good for you.
I don't. I assumed the absurdity of referring to the Sun King as a socialist was obvious.
My comment simply points out the implications of D.P.'s statement.
Typical leftist nonsense. You don’t need government coercion and forced collectivism to advance society
Frederic Bastiat correctly refuted this false accusation by you Socialists in his famous Treatise, The Law in 1850
“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain"
He also established the postal system so it's more like even an all-powerful despot who considered himself chosen by God to rule had at least more of a sense of social consciousness than rightwingers in the US today.
Indeed. Seems to me that to advance society the people need to want to do the right thing. Forcing people to act a certain way (other than boundaries on civil society via the rule of law) produces automatons who cannot survive without others telling them what to do and think.
Brute force is not the answer.
Socialism: noun - a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Government and collective action where the citizens agree to and pay for the means of production (building roads) distribution (social security) and exchange (regulating health care costs for recipients aka Medicare).
Pure socialism is where the government is regulating all of the countries production, distribution and setting prices for goods (exchange), and is extremely flawed and as many have pointed out never works as it quashes innovation and removes incentives for entrepreneurs. The mix of socialism and capitalism is very different where we only agree on specific necessities being met as a collective, the rest of commerce being governed by supply and demand.
The things we have decided socialism works best for:
Police, Fire departments, roads/highways, utilities, health care for the elderly, social security, basic education and our military.
The things progressives have suggested we add to that list:
Health care for all and 2 years of Junior college.
Will agreeing to accept those last two turn us into Venezuela or Stalinist Russia? Of course not, the very idea is idiotic on the face of it. But sadly, that's some people excuse for attacking liberals and progressives who like our mixed socialism/capitalism system.
Building roads, social security, healthcare, etc. are NOT the means of production or distribution
That would be an authoritarian state with a command economy (e.g. the former USSR). What you described does not define socialism.
Those are public services, not socialism. One does not need socialism to provide public services.
Could it be that what you want in effect is to make a mockery of democracy?
The fact is some loss of self-reliance is necessary in urban societies. It is delusional to think you can live decently in close knit communities, working off the same services and opportunities, and be one-hundred percent detached from people at the same time.
How do you plan to address the effective education of people to be intelligent and productive members of society in a way that works for all people? Charter schools have been a failure, so what is your solution?
From the above seeded article:
"Socialism is an economic system that (in theory) decentralizes control over the productive resources of a nation. Its objective is to have the people (as a whole) control how natural resources and labor are used in their civil society. Capitalism, in contrast, consolidates (as a by-product) control over the productive resources into the hands of a small minority."
Socialism: noun - a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
While I used the basic definition of socialism, the seed above does define it more completely but isn't really any different.
GNP or Gross National Product is the total market value of all final goods and services produced by the factors of production of a country or other polity during a given time period, minus depreciation.
So "goods and services" are "production".
Distribution: the action or process of supplying goods to stores and other businesses that sell to consumers.
Exchange: an act of giving one thing and receiving another (especially of the same type or value) in return. Synonyms: interchange, trade, trading.
This really is not something one can legitimately reason out since the meaning of 'means of production and distribution' is well known. Goods and services are the result of production in the sense that they are produced, but they are not the means of production. The means of production are: land, factories, equipment, capital, natural resources.
Socialism can only operate through coercion and forced collectivism
you cant possibly believe that everyone will want to live under that kind of system
i guarantee there will be a second civil war should anyone try to do so
You need to actually read the article. See what you are doing is plugging in your USSR-based notion of 'socialism'. You are not even acknowledging the possibility that socialism is not a system of authoritarian, single-party rule implementing a command economy. So with what you have in your mind I would agree. What you call 'socialism' is necessarily a function of State force. And I cannot imagine anyone wanting such a system.
In this article, I have provided an introduction to a single theory of democratic socialism called 'Economic Democracy'. This is a well known theory, plenty of material available. And if you were to investigate you would recognize that this is based on a demos who want cooperative control over their productive resources.
In other words, it makes no sense to think of this as 'force'. How do you 'force' people to take cooperative control over their economy? You are truly missing the entire point.
Pretty sure there will not be any one who tries to do this. If we ever get to a system like the one described in this article, it will be a result of evolution. It will be because the people have evolved to a higher level of societal engagement. This is a demos that is informed and engaged. Such a demos (if even possible) would likely seek to have this level of control over their economy rather than have economic decisions be made for them by a minority.
Private schools and home schooling cost less and have better outcomes
So as long as it is not "forced" or "coerced" by government, which it could not be in a democratic republic such as the U.S. where these programs (as you describe them) would have been repugnant to them and the people would have used the democratic process to have them abolished. After all, there's no shortage (of a minority it must be noted) of politicians who strongly advocate for just that and don't seem to either get elected or be able to accomplish that goal even when in office. Ever ask yourself why that might be?
That guy is a pure moron. I just read his rebuttal to David Glosser's editorial excoriating his nephew (Stephen Miller) for the latter's views on immigration (namely that Miller's ancestors would have been denied entry into this country if Miller's views had been the law in those days). Williamson actually tried to compare immigration, a relatively modern concept, to the migration of early humans before there was even a concept of national borders. That kind of ideologic idiocy needs to be recognized by the DSM.
Now you did it. Heh Heh
In theory, I think I pretty much under stand it.
What keeps coming to mind is something like a co-op.
In our economic times I just see greed and control being to much of deciding factors.
Coops (workplace democracy) are somewhat of a transitional mechanism. Workplace democracy can work under capitalism too (since all coops are currently working in capitalistic systems). But they do start the process of getting the people actively engaged and thinking the way they would need to if they ever did participate in a fully cooperative society of the future.
Agreed. Laziness and apathy too.
The main complaint of those gnashing their teeth over the mix of socialism and capitalism we have are those who are vehemently against any person they can't relate to (minorities, liberals, progressives, gays, Jews, Muslims, etc.) benefiting from the socialist programs we have like Social security, Medicare and Medicaid. That's their real complaint, they despise having to pay taxes that go to help inner city black kids because they don't see themselves in them, their bigotry and hate block any sort of compassion or empathy. They want to be able to slap the soup kitchen spoon out of the mouths of those they can't relate to, those who aren't straight white Christians. That's what the real fight against supposed "socialism" is in America. We have ZERO chance of being the Stalinist socialist State they constantly use as a straw man to attack and fight against, but that's just it, they aren't really concerned about that happening, they're just angry over having any of their taxes go to support people they disagree with because they're selfish, self centered and monumentally prejudiced.
Public services do not define socialism. Socialism is an economic system at its core (as is capitalism). Every socio-economic/political system on the planet has some element of public services. That is not socialism, just public services.
It's all about ME! ME! ME!
I was listening to the Libertarian candidate for governor this morning and thought of a few things after he spoke. But that's for another seed.
I agree but what I have seen too often is the "I got mine so screw you" attitude. I will be attacked for being a "socialist" but I do believe basic health care is a human right.
Sliding scale and since everyone is already paying Medicare and Social Security taxes (if you work)...well...there ya go. Also do away with the SS/Medicare salary cap
Absolutely. That is a core principle.
Agreed.
Happens all the time and it is counterproductive under any economic system to force equal results.
That is a socio-political concern that can occur (or not occur) regardless of the underlying economic system.
The answer, as always, will be "the rich and corporations".
SS and Medicare are not sustainable as they exist today.
Raising caps means also raising benefits, since SS is based on what you have put into it, along with other factors.
Some will advocate for "need-based", which is just another excuse for the people making more to pay more for stuff they won't get or use.
I'm not a political genius so I don't have all the answers. But consider this. When the CEOs earned 23% more after the tax cut and you only earned 2% did you think that was fair?
Who makes the money for these CEOS? You do
Under socialism??
Are you going to take companies away from owners?
Do not confuse "I got mine, screw you" with "I got mine, and you are perfectly capable of getting your own, so get out there and give 'em hell".
Something another person must do for you is not a human right.
Me? This is not about me Texan. I am not advocating anything other than being informed.
But, no, Economic Democracy (the referenced system) is not some revolutionary force that expropriates private property. This would be something the people of the nation would evolve to (over a long period of time, IMO, if ever). The owners of the businesses (under socialism) are the workers. If this were to come to pass it would likely be a result of increasing numbers of new businesses being created as workplace democracies and older businesses evolving to same (more distributed ownership). This would take quite a while.
Oh, for crying out loud.
I didn't mean YOU personally, and really, I think you KNOW that.
SMMFH
What if you're not capable of doing something for yourself? Specifically the disabled. What do you propose we do about them?
Did you read the rest of my comment? I gave you a pretty healthy answer yet you respond only on the most insignificant part.
Every system of civil society necessarily has a safety net. I wonder why anyone objects to that.
I have no idea. Selfish society perhaps?
Because it is done by force under threat of fines and or imprisonment
I've asked, they say they dont want to pay for it.
I'm waiting on one particular person I know who feels that way and is heading for needing help himself. Wonder how he''ll feel about receiving the government help he railed about for years when he gets his help ?
Yep, No one I know likes to be forced to do anything, Unfortunately without penalty many would NOT do a damn thing and America would still be on the hook or we'd have vagabonds and death on every street corner.
Insignificant?
Is that why you chose to lead with that?
What?
You object to have a safety net in a civil society because ' it is done by force under threat of fines and or imprisonment'? What does that mean?
Texan if you are going to simply pepper this article with off-topic comments which at best seem to be nothing more than lame attempts to pick a fight then please leave.
If you want to participate then make a topical comment.
Yes, there are, but far fewer of them than those who are working two or more jobs but are still unable to afford health insurance and feeding their families. The most recent investigations of food stamp and welfare fraud found it's actually gone down over the last 20 years from around 4-6% back in the late 1980's to just 1.5% today.
"While critics still like to use old arguments of rampant abuse to lambast a program that feeds millions of Americans, the fraud rate has decreased from “about 4 cents on the dollar in 1993 to about 1 cent†by 2006. And this decline has only continued, with the 3.5% rate of fraud in 2012 reducing to less than 1.5% today ."
So why would you want to knock the food out of hungry children's mouths simply because 2 out of 100 are frauds?
deleted
Why do you believe that under a market socialist economy that would not be possible?
How would you plan to create a functional social safety net for all people?
You never said what would happen? Your response doesn't address what I asked you about a privately owned business in a market socialist economy.
Well, do you and if so what kind?
In other words, your "group" simply has no to limited interest in participating in urbanization and industrial-sector disciplines, no?
It's certainly a fair question.
It is vitally important to differentiate between "what we as a society decide to provide for our citizens" and "rights".
No person has the right to compel another to serve them. That doesn't change if they're disabled. That does not mean that we as a society cannot come together and decide to provide some level of services for certain people. That still does not make those services a "right".
Likely he or she will feel like a horse's ass at first, until the calm (as in relief) sets in. To be clear, are you implying no one you have ever known or know now has been exploited in business or in life?
Is it possible in any current socialist system?
Where do you find an extant socialist system?
If you include theoretical systems then the subject system is one of many answers.
No of course not, most of the people I've talked to about the safety net of America who said they didn't want to pay for it didn't seem to think they would ever benefit from any of it, I disagree most people at one time or another will or their family will benifit in one way or another from the safety net of America. Even if a forest fire just burns down you son's shed and FEMA pays for it.
Or some shit like that.
The one guy that I know who has bitched the longest and loudest about a portion of his taxes going to a safety net unfortunately now is not doing so well and it may be not long before he finds himself in desperate need of long term government assistance. I hope he doesn't, but I believe he will, but it sure is sadly ironic in his case.
That's about what I figure as well. I'll be kind, but some day I'm the sort that will bring it up.
I have too... he would, thats the type of friendship its always been... honest but caring.
I think the deeper problem is that so many feel entitled to that money.
is it possible to control people's lives and tell them how many kids they can/cannot have due to their ability to take care of them ? would we do this by income bracket ? (not insulting, just questions raised by your statement)
Steve, I so appreciate your comment, because prevention is a form of the safety net! Similar to you, I have heard people, especially younger ones, who can not fathom a so-called "safety" set of programs. For example, I can think of the tragedy of aging, sickly, parents who have their grown children (their legacy) killed off ahead of them. What do these folks do when the doctor bills and medical device needs kick in and there is no help? 'Situationals' happen everyday somewhere on the planet and personal wealth or income evaporates. And, quality of life spirals downward, and never rises again.
Again, I appreciate your openness!
Thank you. Most of my posts are from personal experiences that I dont mind sharing especially if it is helpful to others. Thanks again
Honest question: Does this statement run close alongside the pro-life philosophy of not ending the life of any viable child—even the malformed baby? Or, are you implying sterilization of one or the other sexually involved, "couple"?
oh i'm certainly in agreement with you - that's not the issue. your statement:
yes i agree but how would you be able to enforce this (not that you want to but i would be curious on your thoughts) ? it sounds like you wish to legislate "responsibility" and i'm not sure how that could be accomplished. (just curious on thoughts, nothing more)
i certainly wish more people would take that advice as well
Oh, how I wish people would have children responsibly!!!! But like you said, you can't legislate that and still have a civil, free society. I don't want to be like China where a family was allowed one child. I think they may be allowed two now, but I'm not sure.
If I had waited to have children until I could really afford them, I wouldn't have had any, either! LOL! Now that I can afford them...they are grown and out of the house. Or can I afford them now because they are grown?
i think they are allowed 2 children now, i'm not 100% sure and don't have time to look it up right now. But i agree - i don't want to be come like China either , it's a conundrum.
you can afford them because they are grown and you don't have to change their litter boxes so much
i agree with you - and maybe education is the way to go, but that will be met with challenges from various groups of people. some people will always care less and work less and expect to be supported - unfortunately they will always be apart of any society. It's not fair to have to take up that responsibility or expect others to do it for you etc... but i'm told quite frequently - life isn't fair. i have no solutions on this either, because so far it looks like all solutions involve government force or hurting innocent people by ending programs they desperately need or some other consequence that will affect too many other innocent people. It all comes down to how humans are - and not all of us are great human beings.
Or feed them! Gosh...the grocery bill used to be the size of the National Debt!
The National Debt ? that certainly buys a LOT of Twinkies !
oh i understand
i personally don't like that attitude either.
Nonsense.
We have spent Trillions of taxpayer dollars on social welfare and there are more homeless than when LBJ began the Marxist Great Society redistribution of wealth
What is my group? As for me, absolutely not
Please be clear: (Answering these two questions may go a long way in my understanding where you are coming from.)
No I live in a rural setting away from society
As a Christian Minarchist I do not want government dictating what I do as a business. Local government certainly has some authority which is all to often abused with over regulation
That is partially the problem here. You are attempting to legislate for all from a haven. Thank you for clearing that up! However, it means you and yours (group-minority) seek to wield more power and influence over people whom you do not know or care to know. And the rather 'sticky' questions are partially this:
Minarchist
The most common form of libertarian, this is someone who believes in government at it's absolute minimum, generally taken to mean a government that suppress crime (defined as force and fraud) and foreign invasion. In the eyes of a minarchist, all government functions are negative, and there is no social engineering whatsoever.
Source:
"Christian" for all intents and purposes is added for descriptive enhancement of you and yours doing what exactly for society-at-large?
I live this way because I’ve hated cities all my life and because I’ve been libertarian since age 10 when I read began seriously reading history and political science
i didn’t do this specifically for a religious event as you tried to coyly suggest
I am not coyly suggesting any such thing you and yours' religious worldview just now. I do ask why are you and yours seeking to legislate for the larger communities? You live in a cut-off community, a refuge, and that is fine when it suits you.
However, in the late 1800 through 1900s, some ultra wealthy industrialist men appeared who dominated manufacturing power and financial power with their holdings. Labor (the workers) had no power in itself to put up against such men. It existed then as what you detest for yourself now: A form of labor slavery. It was the early stages of feudalism.
Then, the center of gravity shifted: government intervened in the personages of legislatures, courts, and a leader, President Theodore Roosevelt.
Government did so, because of its constitutional creed:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. . . .
Lo and behold, you can not develop any of this in a wildly outdated system! LFoD, it is clear to me from your comments, you would support men like Cornelius Vanderbilt, John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie and their power of monopoly and trusts—today. Well, "old money" is still around all these years later as inherited wealth.
LFoD: Do you really intend to support these and other ultra-wealthy families to pick up out of the dust of time-feudalism where their forefathers left off?
You seem to misunderstand my views.
the only legislation I want is the rollback of government, the repeal of the any Marxist redistribution ofwealth programs, and the repeal of private behavior laws like drug laws, censorship, prostitution, marriage and divorce which are private matters, not the roll of government
I describe myself asChristian Minarchist to furtherdefine my views on the connection or lack thereof to government on issues
I'm a Christian minarchist (a distinct type of libertarianism) who believes govt should be as small as possible. National defense, a uniform system of justice (court system), protection of creativity (patents), a uniform monetary system, and negotiation of treaties and trade. That is the legitimate function of our central govt. I oppose all drug laws, censorship, laws against prostitution, or laws on marriage and divorce. These are private moral issues and not the purview of government
Christian libertarianism describes the synthesis of Christian beliefs concerning free will, human nature, and God-given inalienable rights with libertarian political philosophy. It is also an ideology to the extent that its supporters promote their cause to others and join together as a movement. In contrast to the Christian left and the Christian right respectively, they believe charity and enforcement of personal-level morality should be the purview of the (voluntary) church and not the state. These responsibilities must not be abrogated, though any non-governmental organization (NGO) not publicly financed is free to pursue them as well.
Secular libertarianism, socialism, fascism, and crony capitalism are strongly opposed, as is theocracy. The latter does not include merely being influenced by Christian concepts; whereas in a theocracy, government derives its powers from a divine or religious authority directly exercising governmental control. The use of force is never justified to achieve purely political, social, or religious goals, but is reserved solely to uphold natural rights
oxymoron
We agree on something ... at least in principle.
Really? You are going to claim Marx did not say “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Programme?
That is not going to happen; and, you should be sufficiently senior enough to know (or have heard) why it can not happen. It has to do with community, urbanization, and efficiency. People can not live in such close proximity to each other and not actively care about or for one another: Consider what happens in epidemics—who is responsible for whom? We are responsible!
For me to assist you in your time of need, first, you must do your part to help keep me alive.
No, I am going to state (unequivocally) and again that your interpretation is both superficial and wrong. As I explained earlier in another article, this statement is referring to a future society that can generate all that is required to sustain needs of life so that the people are free to contribute according to their talents and interests. It is, in essence, the sentiment of live to work (contribute) vs. work (labor) to live (survive). You have to actually read this stuff - cherry-picking (and confirmation bias) yields misinformation.
This was Marx in 'utopia' mode.
As a history buff, are you able to share with us when this country was past libertarian in its character? What was the period? I'd like to consider it.
STOP. It strikes me that you and yours, as libertarians, think positively about "practices" Christianity would consider abuses of the body (as a temple). Christianity's claim is to how it works to tamp down promiscuous behaviors and attitudes. How can you state your "movement" is spiritually healthy? Curious.
Can you state this paragraph in the affirmative? I can not get your meaning as is, sorry.
In fact, since we did not discuss this in this article, let's put forth the actual words again for others to read for themselves:
This is Marx' utopia - a world in which society produces in abundance and - in so doing - ensures everyone has a decent life and thus enable everyone to productively pursue their ambitions, wants, interests. Marx was referring to a utopian level of freedom that does not yet exist on the planet in any nation (and may never exist).
Incorrect. Critique of the Gotha Programme dealt specifically on technical strategies with the transition during socialism while moving from capitalism to communism
“Offering perhaps Marx's most detailed pronouncement on programmatic matters of revolutionary strategy, the document discusses the "dictatorship of the proletariat", the period of transition from capitalism to communism, proletarian internationalism and the party of the working class. It is notable also for elucidating the principles of "To each according to his contribution" as the basis for a "lower phase" of communist society directly following the transition from capitalism and "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" as the basis for a future "higher phase" of communist society. In describing the lower phase, he states that "the individual receives from society exactly what he gives to it" and advocates remuneration in the form of labour vouchers as opposed to money.”
I don’t want any taxpayer money taken from others to assist me nor my money to help them.
helping others in community doesn’t require government. That is socialist belief and stands contrary to Christianity where we are taught by the Lord to give as if directly unto Him and in so doing glorify God
Because we acknowledge free will. Government coerced morality is contrary to all Christian teaching and does not work which is clearly evident
not imposing Government control of morality is not the same as endorsing or approving
At our founding. That was the goal of the founders who sought to escape from and prevent future government intrusion into our lives, our businesses, and our faith
Samuel Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Thomas Paine, and others write extensively on this (although it should be noted that Paine was an atheist, rebuked by others for his attacks on Christianity)
True, but... There's always one eh ?
In America we are not all christians, this country is a huge mix of many religions. Do we expect the christians to take care of all of the problems of all of the people of all of the religions... No
All religions are not so geared up or taught by the Lord to give as if directly unto Him and in so doing glorify God as you say. Not to mention people who just dont care whatever they believe.
So we as a civilized society not wanting to walk over the sick, elderly and dying just to get to work each day have opted to band together using our government as the tool to use to help the less fortunate, sick and dying to a degree. To the point we at least dont have t look at them.
That of course for the working folks cost us money, taxes.
...................................................
At our founding. That was the goal of the founders who sought to escape from and prevent future government intrusion into our lives, our businesses, and our faith.
we as a civilized society not wanting to walk over the sick, elderly and dying amended that goal, seemingly without amending the constitution to reflect the changed goal.
I dont see that changing.
PS: Please dont get too involved in your response if you respond, much of what you know and have evidently read seems way over my head. Thanks, I always enjoy your point of views you make me think ,too much some times though...lol
lol
Zoom like an airplane .....
There is very little which is grand scale about what you are wanting to see enacted. Your big concept is to allow magnates to decide the fate and direction of our nation. Men and women so wealthy, influential, and powerful that the force of their wills caused the darkening of skies (from soot), tainting of many waters (pollution), denuding of forests, and exhausting of farm lands, to list just a few hazards from self-reliance running amok. Fraudulence would be prevalent everywhere, at least, outside you and yours (group) refuges from society. How long could your group evade discovery and fraud?
Industrialism without morals destroys standards. Unchecked business tycoons consume massive quantities of resources (or construct "storehouses" unto themselves), because making and holding money is the thing—not mattering how its gained straight or crooked.
What ended all this in the early 20th century? A rebellion by farmers, workers, and the consciences of millions of our citizens. Government in the form of the three branches acted: They did so with various regulations and systems of checks! In the churches, a social gospel awareness was born to help people process and better heal themselves in society (against economic inequality, poverty, and et ceteras), and social service professions began.
Nothing about a great nation can be performed by men and women who think too small. . . . —Calbab.
I may know the verses (and context) being invoked here. But to avoid confusion: can you and yours share a (one) scriptural reference, please?
Moreover, how does what you and yours do "in-house" on the narrowest path complement outsiders and their broader paths?
But, you are consistent in your notion that two individuals of the same sex ought not enter into marital relations! Today,
In addition, we continuously make choices not to justify murder of our sick, elderly, dying, and poor citizens. On a positive note, when faced with these set of questions-which the founding fathers stalled on regarding slaves and their slave masters. Masters who were commercial magnates (like in Natchez, Mississippi's cotton industry) were unwilling to free men and women kept tightly controlled as chattel-property in sorrow, ruined states of existence, and offered no way out. Hope arrived in the 1900s, when truth, justice, fairness, decency, and dignity showed up in the forms of good government and populous revolt.
Government uses force to impose its will. I oppose the use of government to impose even the will of people of faith
Thanks Steve
The first sentence of commentary should have been sufficient
”Critique of the Gotha Programme was a detailed assessment”, not a utopian overview.
I stand against most of what you support from the past
As to the Social gospel, that was commanded by God going back over 2500 years ago to God’s Word to Isaiah
delete
See 5.2.97
what others do whether faith based or shared interests groups should be up to them. But as a Christian I’m always sharing with others outside of Christ what we do.
I recognize the free will right of two humans to form a bond even if it violates God’s commands. But it isn’t a marriage. I only recognize as a marriage what God has defined as a marriage
Socialism, fascism, crony capitalism, and theocracy would not involve free will because by definition the are imposed on all of society which means against the will of many
That is a problem then, lfod. If you want to understand something you need to focus on what was actually stated and then within the context. You present an abstract by an author that does not even address the quote in question. Now you tell me that I should simply focus on the first sentence of that abstract.
Trying to find some angle to weakly justify what you wish the text stated is flawed analysis. Not very convincing display.
How kind of you and yours to adore the Constitution in its pristine state without further legal necessities or adornments. However, the branches of government will always find just cause to expedite legal and regulatory acts in the country: Or, the people swell undeniably and rebel!
Your group can not withstand the cause of labeling what is unworkable in this country-right!
I am able to read your entire response for "social gospel" through the private notes section. Thank you. (Smile.)
That long ago? Any other time period?
If you really believe this, then you should have a problem with capitalism, because that is exactly what the capitalist institution of private, individually-owned means of (social) production does.
I'm sorry, but I just have to ask...
Do you or do you not accept that Marx used the phrase "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" specifically as an "only then" condition of his hypothetical higher phase of communist society?
No. It doesn't. The very assertion is nonsense.
It's about as far from nonsense as it gets.
If I can gain control over something that other people require for life, and so long as I can protect it and prevent them from taking it from me, then that gives me power over them, it compels them into my service. They become compliant and servile, and I can make them do all kinds of things, like performing large amounts of work over long periods of time to make me much, much wealthier than it makes them. I can even make them think they're doing it voluntarily. Hell, some will even go as far as to take on embarrassingly large amounts of debt (sometimes crippling) in order to acquire skills and education in the hope of receiving a bigger reward for serving me better. Now, that's power.
That's what the working class is. That's why we have a working class in the first place: Some few control the productive resources that everyone else, the entire population, requires for life. The ones who do not control productive resources (the working class) have to try their damnedest to enter into the service of those who do (the capitalist class) in exchange for their livelihoods. If they don't (or can't), then they are discarded like so much human refuse to suffer, starve, and (if capitalism is actually allowed to be laissez-faire and left to its own dastardly devices) ultimately die.
That's how it works. That's how it's always worked. Master and slave, patron and client, lord and serf, capitalist and worker. That is precisely the thing, the socially-exploitative historical norm, the perennial ethical problem of civilization itself, that all of the various ideas about socialism people have been brainstorming over the centuries are meant to solve. Socialism isn't supposed to be about oppression, it's supposed to be about freedom from oppression; specifically, the class oppression (and exploitation) that arises naturally in capitalism as a result of the aforementioned institution of private, individually-owned property in the social means of production (i.e., private capital).
Kudos to TiG, by the way, for clearly stating the following in his article:
And yet-- you aren't able to keep all of it for yourself!
Because the government always takes part of it away from you.
And if you don't give part of your earnings to the government-- they will take part of what you earn away from you- by the use of force if necessary!
(Don't believe me? Try not paying your taxes for as while-- and see if you are able to "keep all of it for yourself!!!)
I am going to offer to black and white videos from the 50's and 60's which helped formulate the U.S. attitude and view of communism (political system) and socialism (economic system), because I want them to be on the record. To be clear I am not stating any position of my own right now. Got it? More than anything else I hope to enhance this discussion and not confuse it in anyway! Crosses fingers.
&
Why not?
You have focused on a good area. The 50s and 60s created quite a bit of propaganda. The USSR was a horrible system and its leaders (especially Stalin) engaged in truly horrific actions. So we all should be aware of what was going on. But during that time we also (in the USA) equated socialism with the former USSR. In 2018 that is still around.
I appreciate your comment, friend TiG! This is what is driving me at this point: To get some video footage on "background" thinking. Some of us, in here, indeed lived through these types of videos (Coronet Films for schools) and/or were 'saturated' in them through other means.
Great videos and a real shame today’s kids never get to see this high quality educational material. If more millennials had seen this kind of educational material many of them would not be the communist loving basketcases they are today.
Dean, I could put forth a long video that gets into technical matters or put up a brief video that takes almost no effort yet gives an introduction. I think you would complain no matter what is presented.
Note that the article (the link) takes you to the next level. After that you have a corpus of information on the subject.
I understand your 'concerns,' however, I offer these as historical files only. Not to 'slam' anybody's position. Thanks!
Good post!
Of course to really understand Communism, we must go back to the teachings of two of the most important men in the history of Communism-- none other than Marx and Lenin!
I am going to offer to black and white videos from the 50's and 60's which helped formulate the U.S. attitude and view ofcommunism (political system) and socialism (economic system),
Fascinating videos!
Of course in many ways times have changed.
In addition to warnings about deviant economic systems. there were also videos in that era warning about all sorts of "deviant behaviour" to look out for!
Here's another video that captures the bizarre zeitgeist* of that era:
_________________________________________________________________
* Note: I occasionally like to use big words in a futile attempt to impress people. But here's a confession-- more often than not I have no idea what they actually mean, LOL!
Of course homosexuality, like Socialism, is a serious Sin against God-- "everybody" knows that! And left unchecked it will cause the downfall of our entire civilization! While no potential danger can match the threat Socialism & Homoxexuality pose there were also videos warning us about another horrendous threat to humankind-- Marijuana
. . . (AKA "The Devil's Flower"):
Krishna, I am choked up watching this video. I did a blog on NT using an image of Mr. Franklin Kameny, homosexual rights pioneer activist, and his protest in front of the White House. Former President Obama actually honored him at the White House during his presidency and the signing a memorandum to extend benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees.
What a national 'treasure' former President Barack Obama and Michelle Obama are. No hate. Simply love.
I also wrote my first NT blog on how I had to lie to enlist and serve this country I love. I once started a letter to a sitting president while sitting at my service desk (early days of office "pcs": government issue) asking why can't they change the outdated (scare-tactic) notion that homosexuals should fear blackmail. Ultimately, halfway through it I backspaced it all away, closed down Word, shut off my computer, and just went home. I simply felt it would be a futile effort and the thought 'tired' me out.
This video touched me on so many levels. All those young and old faces - and the manner of their living, just 'blew' me away. Good call, brother.
Oh, don't you love how melodramatic propaganda can be. Sometimes when I watch the quit smoking ads geared towards getting youth to never start smoking I just laugh at how over-the-top some can be. Though it is good not to smoke ever, to be sure! In the 21st century, non-smoking ads for all their glitz use 'old-school' methods!
And I have seen several propaganda films from the 50's about the "crazed" homosexual coming to groom young men and boys. It is amazing what some programmers write about other people. Confusing homosexuality, with pedophilia. A separate 'category.' It is the same methods applied to scare people away from even mildly considering that!
Yes. "Theoretical". It only works with spherical humans in a vacuum.
But not 1/1000th as much as they have when they start their own business.
Fair assessment.
I highly doubt it. Socialism is all the popular rage right now among Millennials who are just starting out in adult life and scared about not being able to make it.
The thing is....they can make it. They're going to make it. It's going to work out fine, and these perfectly natural fears will be distant memories. As that happens, the primary attraction of socialism evaporates.
Has it ever worked? Personally, I have not seen any society on the planet that was ready to evolve to socialism.
In the world we live (based on capitalism) you are quite correct. The owner / entrepreneur commits his/her soul to their business. Even the direct reports to the owner will have only a fraction of the intensity and drive of the entrepreneur (typically). And, in fact, there are systems of socialism that retain an entrepreneurial element for that very reason.
Jack, I propose that the Millennials do not have clue one about this. What they call 'socialism' mostly is naive expectations of free stuff from the government or general philosophical views that the wealth is dramatically out of balance. I would be shocked if many of those young people understand socialism from a socio-economic/political perspective or understand that moving to socialism would be a change of historic proportions - like moving from feudalism to capitalism.
To wit, what they call 'socialism' is yet another over-simplified overloading of a horribly overloaded word.
No. But if you found a species of spherical humans and put them in a vacuum.... (Big Bang Theory reference)
I think this is why most people equate "capitalism" and "freedom". If I dislike my working environment, I am able to go out and create my own. I don't have that freedom in a socialist economy, where the collective owns the means of production.
100% agree.
The joke I've been referencing here is one I heard on the Big Bang Theory. It goes something like this...
"Did you hear that the theoretical physics department has finally developed a solid theory on why the chicken crossed the road?"
"No. That's amazing."
"Yeah...but it only works with spherical chickens in a vacuum."
The point being that socialism is an exceeeeeeeedingly naive idea that can only have a chance of working in a hyper-idealized fantasy world that will never exist. This is why socialism in the real world tends to involve large concrete walls covered in barbed wire and heavily armed guards to remind everyone how great it is.
Not a chance they have a clue.
But I do think their Baby Boomer parents have done a totally shit job preparing them for the challenges of real life as an adult. Those challenges are certainly not insurmountable, but it's easy to see how they appear intimidating when someone is so utterly unprepared.
It's like playing soccer as a kid, where your coach has spent the first three weeks letting you name all the soccer balls and draw faces on them while telling you this makes you the best soccer players ever. You then show up at the first game and the other team can all dribble, pass, and shoot. You immediately realize you're screwed, and changing the rules of the game seems the most direct way not to get your ass kicked.
Sure you do. That is actually part of the intent - to enable ambitious people with a good idea to realize the idea as a capitalized business.
( Going to leave my response to this so as to focus on the topic. )
Then it's not a socialist economy
That's what we have now. No socialist transformation required.
That's a revealing comment. If a socialist economy (a description of same) can be recognized as good you call it capitalism (or at least 'not' socialism).
This is possible now; but is very difficult to pull off. Ever try to get a startup capitalized? It is certainly possible but I would be interested in your argument that our current system is the best in this regard - that there is no way to improve the opportunity for talent, creativity and drive to be realized in a new business. And beyond that, that our current system with substantial wealth/power disparity is stable and sociologically ideal.
Revealing in the sense of "revealing that I adhere to traditional definitions of socialism". Socialist economies are ones where the state/collective owns the means of production.
Not at all. People do it every day. Literally....every day. Except maybe Christmas or Thanksgiving....but maybe those too.
Yes. And spend my days consulting with clients who have done it or are doing it.
History tells us that it is, especially for Americans. Culturally, we tend to be more driven and more achievement-oriented than other western cultures. We value courage and we honor those who are willing to take risks and work to make those risks pay off.
Now hang on.... There is a huge difference between "this is the best system" and "no improvements are possible". Of course improvements are possible (improvements are ALWAYS possible), and any good system is continually monitored, adjusted, and improved.
Throwing capitalism out for a socialist structure is the economic version of demanding participation trophies. It is favored almost exclusively by those who fear they will fail in the current structure. It's like the kid who will only play a game if he's guaranteed not to lose.
We're going to assume wealth and power are related closely enough to be used interchangeably.
Income and wealth disparity are installed in our schools, as our society is slowly poisoned by our appallingly poor educational system. America is supposed to be "the land of opportunity". We have a public education system that fails miserably to prepare students for participation in our economy. The poor students know this, BTW.
We make kids spend two years learning how to factor polynomials, and never teach them what a mutual fund is. (when is the last time you factored a polynomial?) We turn out kids who can't write, can't spell, and can't figure out that global warming is real and BernieCare won't ever be.
None of that would be so bad if they left school knowing how to rewire a house or replace a natural gas line. But they don't know that, either. They did spend 7 months studying "To Kill A Mockingbird" because it's their English teacher's favorite book and she'd rather talk about that than fix their horrific grammar.
But schools get penalized for high drop out rate, so they bless whatever pathetic level of knowledge the kids have and turn them out into the world. The affluent kids go to college and the poor kids go to work for $10/hr because they have no skills.
If you want to fix income and wealth disparity....raise standards in schools. Stop giving diplomas to kids who don't know anything, and stop wasting their time trying to make them learn shit they'll never need to know. Start turning out kids who are ready to participate in and contribute to our economy. Start teaching them how to accumulate wealth.
As long as we keep churning out appallingly low-quality graduates, wealth and income disparity will continue to accelerate. The math on that is very simple.
Where is this proposed ('throwing out')? That does not make any sense to me. Capitalism circa 2018 will evolve. It may evolve into some variant of capitalism and it might evolve into some variant of socialism. But I do not see how any initiative (short of national conquest) will simply change capitalism into socialism. Even then it makes no logical sense. How do you force people to want to cooperate in the democratic control over the productive resources of the economy?
The means of production in an economy cannot be government controlled AND privately controlled.
Sure. But it will still be capitalism.
I do not see how the two are possibly going to co-exist. That's like the NFL having 6 teams who play cricket. The competition will drive out the weaker entities.
I agree completely.
Government control would be state capitalism. Public controlled is socialism - government is simply an administrative agent. But the real point is that you seem to envision the flipping of a switch rather than a long evolution. Evolution is likely the only way such a major change in paradigm would take place.
Sure. But it will still be capitalism.
Might be. Why on Earth do state this as a certainty? How could you possibly know what economic system we might evolve to?
Where does co-exist come into play? What are the 'two'? I made no mention of anything co-existing - evolution (as used in my comment) is not 'co-existence'.
You agree then that flipping a switch to change paradigms makes no sense and that forcing cooperation makes no sense.
There is a meaningful difference?
History seems to disagree with this idea, but then I may just not be remembering a good example. Where has this sort of evolution ever happened?
Capitalism works because it is based on the reality of human nature instead of the fantasy of what human nature might be. That's why China is evolving from a socialist country into a capitalist one. That's why socialist countries always end up having to lock everybody in.
It doesn't. But it would need to in your "gradual evolution" model.
"Evolution"...especially "gradual evolution"...requires the coexistence of the old while the new develops. That's how evolution works. A slightly better thing emerges and has a competitive advantage over the previous models. It's more successful, and so more of the new things survive while more of the old things die off. But there is a loooooong time where the new and old exist together.
Correct.
Yes
Never. I am sure I have described this to you somewhere but there has never been a society (going back to the 19th century when industrialization was coming of age) in which the people held decentralized, democratic control over their productive resources. In all cases control was held by the State and/or by a minority (aristocracy). And in my estimation there are no extant societies whose citizens are even ready for taking such control. What I have suggested is that we first need a societal evolution where people become less reliant on the leaders (merely being followers) and start to get informed and actively involved in the matters that directly impact them economically (and socially). I do not expect to see that in my lifetime. Therefore I do not expect to see any nation evolve to the point where the predominant dynamic is socialism rather than capitalism.
History and I are on the same side.
In a sense you are saying what I just wrote above. One difference though is that you claim to KNOW that societal evolution will never result in sufficiently informed and active citizens. You might be correct, but you surely do not KNOW this.
China was never socialist. Never did the people of China have democratic,decentralized control over their productive resources.
Then you do not understand evolution or are imposing restrictions on how evolution might occur. Let's just go with the basics. Workplace democracy is not socialism. So if that occurs we do not have capitalism coexisting with socialism, we simply have a variant of capitalism. Evolution would be more along the lines of increased democratic involvement, decreased private capitalization, etc. to the point where the nation predominantly operates based on democratic decentralized decision making by the people. It would be more like capitalism fading away and socialism fading in. The notion of having two diametrically opposed economic systems coexisting does not seem likely or even possible.
Should have read this first. Given that is what you mean by 'coexist' then yes I agree with that. That is not what I think of when one uses the term 'coexist' but I am okay with your meaning. For example, in biochemical evolution, we typically do not look at a transitional species (technically every entity is a transitional instance though) and say it is actually two species that coexist.
I think we're agreeing more than we're disagreeing, to be certain.
Most of the issues are semantics. But semantics is the problem this article seeks to address.
In other words, I personally do not care if someone thinks socialism is a good or a bad idea. I have no dog in this hunt (and realistically IMO nobody alive today does either). My focus is rather to encourage people to learn what they are talking about. To not simply cry 'socialism' when they run across something they dislike (or like). The material is out there and available to us all. Sure, it takes an effort to understand this complex subject, but this article I think offers a rather easy way to slide into the material.
I know most people will not put forth an ounce of effort and will continue to label authoritarian rule or redistribution of wealth or Obama bailing out GM or .... as 'socialism'. But hopefully a few have hit the 'aha' point. Hopefully more will realize that typically a politician who self-labels as 'socialist' is likely to be a statist capitalist who seeks more social democracy in the USA.
The problem with your supposition is that many socialist groups themselves disagree with you on these distinctions making this seed interesting but ultimately not leading to a change of thinking
There are numerous proposals in the corpus known as socialism. And they most definitely are not identical - people approach problems differently. But they will have similar objectives - decentralized, democratic control of the productive resources of a nation rather than control by a minority.
That noted, which disagreeing socialist groups are you referring to and with what do they disagree (as you read things)?
Nobody can do anything with a comment that simply makes a vague assertion.
Sorry, I have to ask a very basic and perhaps stupid question, but following Schweikart's model, how do the companies come about in the first place?
The companies would form as a group of individuals filing (presumably) to create a new business. They would seek capitalization from a decentralized, regional capital fund that is itself funded from taxing other businesses (who basically are giving back).
Hiring, in this scenario, is akin to taking on new partners. Thus if a new person joins the business it would be a calculated decision that the productive resource provided by the new person would offset the sharing of profits that would ensue.
The business would compete in the marketplace in the familiar sense and would be in total control over how it uses its profits. But such decisions are decided democratically (which does not rule out representative democracy by the way).
Just based on my own experiences and observations, I think this mindset will take a while to happen, if it can.
It sounds like a communal arrangement for a business.
It is a cooperative society wherein the citizens are engaged and informed and actively deciding a balance between social/environmental and economic issues. We will likely not live to see a nation based on socialism but there are localized versions (e.g. Mondragon ) which have some of the elements.
The people who started the business own the business. The people they bring in also own the business. The ownership is not necessarily equal. The wages are not equal.
Imagine a privately owned corporation wherein each employee owns real stock and shares democratically in the major decisions of the corporation (including who serves as managers). That is an approximation, but it will take you closer to the concept than where you currently are.
It's not hard to imagine a process in which new employees would buy shares from those already in place. This would add value to seniority,
Obviously, salaries would vary with responsibility... although not to the absurd degree we see today. But there are other ways to incite creativity and to reward it. Bonuses for particular achievements, partial ownership of patents, and so on. The point is that employee-ownership does not prevent rewards for merit.
Bob answered your question @10.1.5 . He replied to me but it really was an answer for you.
I like the idea of partial patent ownership. Too many corporations today own the patent you develop even if you did it on your own time
If one takes that kind of time and money to get a "Patent" on something, what stops them from actually starting their own business with their patented product.
Hoping someone will buy it for a "bazillion" dollars, instead of not being greedy and settling for "Millions" ?
Most "corporate researchers" sign a contract that gives ownership to the corporation of all creations. There's a logic to this. If a researcher could patent her off-the-clock discoveries, it would be too easy to slide discoveries from on-the-clock to off-the-clock.
Thank-you Bob. I have neither the time nor the patience to explain things to Sam
If the Patentee
......agree's.
Again, we're talking about something that can only ever work in a hyper-idealized environment.
Nobody's going to give the new busboy ownership shares of the restaurant. There is a 75% chance he's not going to be there more than 90 days.
This idea creates massive, massive incentive NOT to hire new people. So they'll be part time or contract. You're going to put the "gig economy" into hyper-drive.
If the busboy leaves, his shares (if you will) stay with the company.
The company would be motivated to bring on new workers based on need. Which is what effective companies do.
Hopefully you recognize that we are talking about an environment that would be as different from capitalism as capitalism is from feudalism (just to put this into perspective). So yes, very different dynamics are at play. And it is important to let go of certain ideas in order to understand the paradigm. For example, you seem to view stock ownership as it exists under capitalism (i.e. a stock market, people owning shares as investments in companies they have nothing to do with, etc.) Imagine a future where there is no stock market. These are profound differences.
Ergo, as I have noted for years and quite a few times in this article, we are talking about a system that we might evolve to. But it certainly is in the future and most likely beyond any of our lifetimes. And if the future is socialism (or maybe some exotic variant of capitalism) the assumptions and principles that we apply today under 2018 capitalism will not make sense under an entirely different paradigm.
Now, finally, the key point of this article is to break free of slogans and labels. The notion of socialism, just based on the surface-touching we have done in these discussions, is fundamentally different than the exemplar of slogan-based 'socialism' - the former USSR or the most contemporary example of 'socialism' - Venezuela. Authoritarian rule, command economies, State ownership and control of the MoP did not and cannot deliver a situation in which the people own and control the productive resources of their economy. The former USSR is a direct contradiction of the term 'socialism' and a freakish distortion of the concept of 'communism'. Venezuela's 'socialism' was authoritarian rule, immature command economy which expropriated private property and engaged in irresponsible redistribution of wealth. After the party ran out of funds, the people (who never controlled the productive resources of their economy - and certainly were nowhere near the level of sophistication to even pull that off) suffer from the dismantling of an effective economy. Their system bears no resemblance to what we are discussing here regarding Economic Democracy.
There are well-defined terms for the failures of historical socio-economic/political systems. We can use these terms to rather precisely identify the problems with any system. But calling anything we dislike 'socialism' produces a term that at the very best means 'something I think is bad' and ignores an entire body of work.
duplicate comment, nothing to see here....
NOTE: This FYI is not meant to be a countervailing argument against the point of this article!
This is another historical look at how the citizens of this country came about their perspectives and attitudes on communism (political system) and socialism (economic system):
Lenin called it 'Communism' and 'Socialism' and no matter what took place after the initial labeling, those names stuck. The former USSR effectively became the exemplar for those labels.
Some of us learned our perceptions from a lone family member who survived Lenin's October Revolution. Otherwise, we would not be here today.
Events like this make it very difficult to separate what actually happened vs. what is meant to happen.
Understandably. Then Lenin died and arguably the worst monster of recent history took over - Stalin.
A beast can never be as cruel as man. So artistically cruel. —The Brothers Karamozov
I have researched the drastic cruelties of the Bolshevik Revolution. Thank you, Dave.
I just now opened my computer. The conversation has been running for 13 hours.
TiG, you deserve the highest congratulations on attempting - and largely succeeding - in discussing this topic.
Yes there are some who actually are trying to engage in discussion and ask good, serious questions rather than simply opine with their bumpersticker. Generally I am impressed with the NT community.
Yes-- good job!
(He's probably an ENTP, like you, me, Kavika & BF...or perhaps an INTJ or INTP?)
which cannot be achieved or maintained without govt force.
I will control my own labor and resources thanks...
anyone thinks otherwise had better bring the force of government with them when they try to control me
cheers
Try to think in terms of an evolutionary process rather than 'something' forcing a new economic system. Forced democratic cooperation is an oxymoron. Thinking in terms of force misses the point and relies upon slogan-level understanding of the subject matter. Either the people of a nation will have evolved to be active and engaged in their socio-economic/political system to the point where they can effectively manage decentralized control of the productive resources of their nation or they will be as we are today - a few leaders and a mass of followers. The former opens the road for a very different economic system (and society), the latter is a continuation of what we have today.
Vegan donuts?
ewwww.....
Applying the principle at a national level is what comprises a theory of socialism.
That is how I see it too. This is an evolutionary process that will only come to pass if the people want it. That means it will be a function of success and desire. The notion of forcing such a profound change is both undesirable and (it would seem) impossible. How does one force a society to cooperate and be engaged and informed? I see no way to force that and certainly do not support force.
All societies are held together by force. The alternative would be anarchy, which would quickly give place to rule by whoever has the biggest stick.
Capitalism is maintained by force. The wealthy control the government, which in turn protects their holdings.
Capitalists have used force against their workers since forever.
of course.... tell me something new...
like how is the left going to find enough force to flip this country into a socialist shit hole?
without an amendment to the constitution, capitalism is not going away. cops will not help socialists, and the military will not help socialists capture our govt or suppress the people regardless of what politicians say. the military will just round up the politicians and try them for treason.
so... tell me exactly how this socialism is ever going to happen?
all that will happen for sure is the thieving bastards aka socialists will get shot.
which I suspect is what the anarchists really want to happen. gotta burn it down to build it back up right?
the bottom line is simple. the left does not have enough balls, bullets, or brains to flip this country over.
no one alive today will see amercia become a socialist shit hole.... you have my word on that.
I would find a different retirement plan... socialism? not a chance.
The steel and coal industries come to mind
That would never happen if you were using 'socialism' armed with an understanding of the material provided by this article. If by 'socialism' you are referring to an authoritarian State which forces the people to behave according to its will then you are speaking in fantastic terms about systems that self-label as 'socialist' as part of an effective propaganda campaign. If you think 'socialism' is expropriation of private property, redistribution of wealth, etc. then you are simply using 'socialism' as a catch all phrase for bad socio-economic/political notions. Ultimately, what I suspect you have in your mind when you use the label 'socialism' is nothing like what this article presents.
In other words, it is difficult to imagine anyone who would be in favor of 'socialism' as you likely have grown to understand the term.
Spoken like a loyal Marxist and complete nonsense
you can not have socialism without the force of govt to back it up.
and... that force will forever be denied to the socialists without an amendment to the constitution first,
in 2016 less than half of the states supported the leftwingnuts but you reckon 3/4ths of the states will agree to socialism?
GO FISH
Depends on the specifics. Go back to the origin of the industrial age where father, mother and kids were all working in factories to sustain life. Things of course have greatly improved, but the power of money and ownership of productive resources has certainly not dissipated - the ability to control continues. ( I think that might be what Bob is getting at. )
You never heard of company houses? Company stores? Script that could only be used in the company store?
Re-read about the days of the Robber Barons.
I think we should try and convince people to use words like "Stalinism" an "Maoism" because that's actually what they're talking about.
... and statism and fascism.
Indeed, I often encourage people to stop calling everything they dislike 'socialism'. It sounds like a conspiracy theorist rant and there are perfectly good, well-defined terms out there to describe the concern. I started my article with a list of them (e.g. 'redistribution of wealth').
Friend TiG, there is an 'unspoken' question that I think has not been addressed so far (I could be wrong about that, though):
This intertwining of ideologies is confusing to many and it would help to get some kind of 'separation.' Because you are right, the truth of this word, "socialism" is being carried along by misinformation .
Marx and Engels did not invent these terms but they most certainly serve as the root of the modern definition.
Communism, per Marx, refers to an ideal society wherein technology is sufficient to provide everyone with what they need. That is, there is no concept of working to live. People work based on their skills, ambitions, interests. This is a society that, believe it or not, is best summarized by looking at the society Gene Roddenberry implemented as part of his Star Trek series (especially TNG). Marx did not lay out the details for Communism ... pretty much left it as a stateless, classless society of people pursuing their interests for mutual societal benefit.
Socialism, however, was defined as an interim transition from capitalism to communism. The idea was (a bit naive I think) that worldwide capitalism would self-destruct and that the working class (the proletariat) would take control of the factories, etc. and run their societies democratically. Marx also toyed with the idea of this taking place in a revolutionary fashion (probably because of the times in which he lived, revolution was THE means of change). But regardless of that, socialism was to be a system where the working people owned and controlled the means of production and distribution (the productive resources of society - that which is necessary to sustain life and beyond). It is a society where everyone participates but with unequal results (not every job pays the same, not every worker works as hard or as well, etc.) Importantly, there is no minority control over the productive resources - no bourgeoisie control and no state control.
I think the smart thing to do is to look at Marx in terms of objectives but not so much in terms of actual details for a working system. Marx really did not provide an architecture for how his predictions would unfold. He offered things such as: socialism cannot take place except in a mature industrialized nation (Lenin ignored that in Russia). Mostly his work focused on defining capitalism (he was one of the strongest historical figures for defining capitalism) and then critiquing capitalism - noting all the flaws as he saw them and getting into mind-numbing levels of detail in his analysis.
Stellar reply!
Interestingly, I was thinking about the futuristic outlook of Star Trek: The Next Generation as 'worked' on this topic. And, you know me, I was thinking about the concept behind the biblical Tower of Babel and The Acts of the Apostles: 'They had all things in common.'
44 All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45 They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. 46 Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47 praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.
So yes, all this did flow through me. . . . (Smile.)
Again! Great 'give.'
Unlike Capitalism-- where the government would never, ever attempt to take any of your hard earned money away from you -- and certainly wouldn't ever attempt to enforce this by the use of...force!
For example, in a Capitalist system, if perish forbid the evil government wanted to take some of your money away from you. (Say, for example, for an income tax). . . and you refused-- they would never actually use force to take that money away from you. Nope-- not in a Capitalist system!
I think you might find, taxing me to fund the govt is not actually the same as taxing me to fund your business.
"There are additional things rich countries operating as Economic Democracies might do to address the problems of global poverty. They might make their “intellectual property” freely available to poor countries, devote a portion of their publicly-funded research to problems faced by poor countries and help to create “intermediate technologies” that make work easier and more satisfying without rendering rural workforces redundant or generating urban unemployment.
The intended long-run effect of these social protectionist policies is to allow poor countries to devote fewer of their resources to producing for wealthy-country consumption, thereby ensuring that they have more resources available to satisfy the needs of their own people. The point of socialist protectionism is not to protect one’s own workforce at the expense of workers elsewhere, but to protect one’s own workers so as to enhance the life prospects of people everywhere—and of the planet itself."
Brief Conclusion
It is my contention that such a system, as outlined above, would be economically viable. Moreover, it need not suffer the massive evils of contemporary capitalism, among them staggering inequality, intractable unemployment, overwork on the part of those who have jobs, “irrational” economic instability having nothing to do with natural causes, and massive environmental degradation."
You would need a "World King", that has the endall say in order for something like that to work. It's as if the author "Thinks?" everyone should/NEEDS to think the same !
So much for "Individuality" huh !
YOU "WILL" COMPLY, YOU "WILL" COMPLY !
Not sure how anyone can get to that from the article. Reading is hard work ... much easier to just invent nonsense.
Your musings are off topic. Either attempt to offer serious analysis, questions on the topic or leave. I figure 1/2 dozen or more pointless snarky remarks from you is enough tolerance for one day.
Unless you get ALL "Leaders" of this world thinking the same...….Your outa luck on a "Collective".
"Either attempt to offer serious analysis, questions on the topic or leave."
As to the topic, Everything I have posted displays and uses the EXACT wording from the article for my conclusions.
How the Fuck is that an "OFF TOPIC" thing !
Should I agree with "Everything" like a good little "Collective citizen, in order for you to Think? I was "On Topic" ?
You are tossing out ridiculous scenarios that do not follow from the material. Anyone can enter a discussion and propose absurdities and claim that what they have proposed is a natural consequence of the material. It is a clever way to skirt the CoC while doing nothing other than disrupting serious discussion.
Disagreement works. Plenty of people have disagreed in this discussion. Disagreement based on honest, serious reading of the material (or even based on refusing to read the material and continuing with a slogan-based understanding) has been accepted. But coming in here and tossing out snarky nonsense which pretty much anyone can recognize as nothing more than an intent to disrupt is not acceptable.
There are other articles. Feel free to leave this one.
I made sure I pasted the exact words from YOUR article/seed above my comment, so there wouldn't be any doubt from whence I came from. How that is being "Off Topic" is beyond my limited? intelligence.
Already explained that to you. Now is the time for you to cease with the meta, the complaints, the nonsense and get on topic. Leaving is another option.
Better I leave this mess. Wouldn't want to confuse others using any more of the actual seeded narrative, more than they are.
It is Me! I think. . . I actually see the point of this question about a 'world king.' This concept of a "world cooperative" is so new that its scary. Naturally, we look for who will be the new 'Chairperson' aka: Head.
If look closely into the video for the article at 2:42 "private profit interests" is permanently replaced by "We The People interests," thus the people are this new 'chairperson' aka. Head.
TiG! I am having 'trouble' holding a 'world body' in my mind. Won't it make some kind of hidden or public cabal over us?
Where do you find anything like a world body in this article? You equate 'we the people' with some individual. Why? Seriously, I am not following your point.
Good question: I am attempting to merge the concept Marx's socialism NEEDING to spread across the earth with massive amounts of people. Eureka! I think I see where you are now. This is that DECENTRALIZED governments you and the video is speaking up.
NOTE: We are all not all arriving at the same spot mentally at the same time. It is coming in slow increments. (Smile.)
The idea that the nations of the world would even cooperate enough to consider some sort of unifying economic standard seems like a fantasy to me. But the concept of a worldwide economic system is so far out there, I actually never even really entertain what that might be.
Well, global socialism is in the subject matter (and illustrated in some of the 50-60's vidoess I dispensed). So yes, it takes some trading in questions and answers to condense down to a picture of this appropriately—for me at least. No shame in my game. I have no problem in asking for clarification of what I do not understand.
I, we, are 'exploring' a subject for which you are clearly ahead on the trail. (Smile.)
deleted
Okay, you have a lot wrong with the above statement.
First of all, Socialism requires that the control of production be taken away from those that created that production. It actually stifles innovation, because people cannot control what they have created in a Socialist society. They no longer own the creation or the ideas behind the creation. Remember, Socialism is really about society controlling everything; but who decides what is distributed by that society? The government, because they are supposed to represent the will of the people of that society. So, in reality, the distribution and control of resources and production are really controlled by a VERY small minority as the leaders of government is usually a smaller portion of society than the wealthy since these top members are part of the wealthy class. They decide who gets what resources, how and when those resources are transported and delivered, etc.
In Capitalism, the creator owns the rights to their creations and the ideas behind those creations. They go out and FREELY acquire the necessary resources for their creations to be produced, they do not have to ask the government for permission to get the resources or have to rely on the government to deliver those resources. All they need government to do is act as a mediator in disputes with others who have the resources or those that have a grievance with them over their creations. The wealthy expand, because they can freely sell their ideas and creations to someone else or distribute them themselves.
Right now, US society is stifled as we are not really Capitalist anymore. We are trying to move to a Socialist society, which has been proven time and time again to stifle economic freedom and growth as government ends up controlling everything. Essentially, we have a legal monopoly under Socialism, and it is called government. And, you are conflating that Monopoly with Corporate Monopolies where a company tries to control the entire market for their company so they can demand any price they want for their product. Both government and companies have the same natural state that they gravitate towards: Total control. You need to keep that thought in your head when trying to compare both Capitalism and Socialism. Socialism GUARANTEES A MONOPOLY BY GOVERNMENT and therefore that monopoly is controlled by the few elite in control of the government as shown by Venezuela and every other country where Socialism has been tried.
Then it is by definition not the people who are controlling the productive resources of the economy. What you are describing is expropriation - possibly fascism. Get past the labels and the slogans and look into the details.
Actually that is not the case unless the creator is the business owner (or operating as an individual). It would be more true under socialism. I think you should read the article before commenting. The whole point of this article is to give people an easy way to see beyond the labels and other nonsense and look at one of several contemporary theories of socialism. Rehashing the same old superficial concepts that fall under the label of 'socialism' is the exact opposite of the intent. Here you have an example of socialist theory that matches the dictionary definition of the term as well as the detailed historical intellectual treatment of the subject matter.
your people can not control the productive resources of our economy on their own without the force of government.
and "we the people" will kick that govts ass first if they try
you want socialism? see your state govt.
it is not going to happen on a federal level unless states try it first and succeed at it.
perhaps your state can lead by example? (the only way to get that amendment passed.)
I am pointing out the realities of the systems. You want to have a narrow discussion on the THEORY, which is a good ideal; but the reality is quite different. Did you really read my response at all? The government represents society (which is what your theory has to have in order to work) and that government will take total control over the resources and production of everything as has always been the case when Socialism has been implemented. In the process, Socialism becomes what you claim Capitalism is; and the reality of Capitalism is that the people control everything and choose which of those creators they prefer and then those creators that are chosen become wealthy and their products are distributed as they are produced. Frankly, you are mixing the reality of the situation to push the theory that will not work; because it requires participation by the government and hence creates the very situation that you are railing against (control of the resources by the few). Capitalism can result in the same situation; but only if the people only choose few different people whose creations they like; but in Capitalism, it is the CHOICE of the people that decides everything. Socialism's reality is that everything becomes the choice of the government, acting in the name of the people, as to how everything is divided up.
No, Tom, I am encouraging a discussion of the actual theory (not a slogan-based cartoon) and trying to get people to (for a moment) move beyond the slogans and labels.
If the government takes control then the people are NOT in control.
Think about this for a second. Every civilized society has participation by the government. Now what is the difference between a participating government administering for the good of the people vs. a government that owns and controls? You cannot seem to recognize socialism without immediately presuming own and control yet the idea is that the government is administering for the people and the people own and control.
and exactly how are you going to deal with the umpteen millions of us business owners and self-employed people who say no?
politely ask us to change our minds?
to date not a single socialist has answered that question honestly.... are you the one?
I would leave you alone and go ask somebody else to invest in my idea
So 'no' to what? Are you thinking this is about forcing people to do something they do not wish to do? If so, reverse that. One cannot force people to willingly cooperate in the democratic control over their productive resources. Force, as I suspect you are using it, is an oxymoron here.
that is capitalism in a nutshell... millions are doing that right now.
so carry on, no one will even try to stop you.
seriously, yall are simply too funny
You're the one that's funny.
The whole point of TiG's article is to get us to think. He's done a very good job of teaching this old lady a thing or two and I've learned something new
Why do you presume I am a socialist?
Simply because I have studied this area? Because I am trying to get others to look beyond slogans and labels?
That really is the problem I am trying to address in this article. People taking little tidbits, repeating what others have told them without actually doing the hard work of actual research, presuming a 'truth' and then thinking they have all the answers.
Free market socialism. Look it up and learn it.
I see that... you also have learned "asking people to invest in your idea" is actually called capitalism.
we have been doing that for over 200 yrs now.... just get out there and do it .
no laws need be changed and no economic system needs to be replaced to borrow money for your ideas
nothing is holding you back but yourself.
cheers
we have already had this conversation... and you lost.
you want free market socialism?
talk to your state govt. it is never going to happen on a federal level unless you can make it work at a state level first.
the proof is in the pudding.
california is your best bet by far... go shit hole that state first and then we can talk about the whole country going down that path.
cheers
You refused to take part because I wouldn't let you light your hair on fire and scream VENEZUELA.
There is no reason why it couldn't if you had any knowledge of the subject. You are somehow conviced that socialism mean an oppressive and coercive federal government and a command economy, but you are wrong. It is your own ignorance of the subject that is preventing a rational discussion of the subject. TIG is trying to teach people in this thread.
I simply refused to buy into your bs. and still do....
again, state level, make it work, or move along.
we can experiment with one or two states, see: california for your best bet
but all 50 states at once? not a chance in hell.
you have no other viable options.
Looks like Magic is not really trying to discuss. Since he claims you 'lost' he likely was not trying to understand what you were describing - only trying to score debate points.
You are ignorant of the subject, either because of your own ignorance or because of brainwashing by conservative sources media that you prefer.
we have discussed in the past.. and your not qualified to think or speak for me.
brainwashed or not...
make it work on on a state level or move along
force/ legislate that on all 50 states at once? there will be a real civil war.
reminder:
there are well over 30-60million of us brainwashed folks who are military, veterans, and cops. with over 300million guns ready to be passed around within our states. (currently the largest unregulated militia on the planet. this is not a fight any sane person is going to want to walk into willingly
A government trying to do good for the people is a young government that has not figured out that it can be greedy and control everything. Current governments throughout the world, including the USA's, are in the midst of turning towards the state of total control. Some like the Soviet Union have failed because these types of governments cannot be sustained. They, either, have to force people to comply, which requires diverting resources from the people to the military and police forces to keep control, or get overthrown in some way, shape, or form. Most governments are what I call Semi-Socialist governments, they are between Capitalist and Socialist. Government has some controls over the economic resources, through regulations and laws. They, sometimes, control the resources (ie Nuclear Energy). However, it is the fact they have partial control that causes problems and reduces the control of resources by the people as the choices have been narrowed artificially. For example, government bailouts is a form of government choice over people choice. GM and Chrysler were failing due to mismanagement and people no longer supporting their products; but the government came in and issued the auto-bailout to prevent them from failing. In a true Capitalistic society, GM and Chrysler would have both failed and possibly been bought out by someone else whom may or may not decide to keep some or all of their brands. That was a Socialist act to keep these companies in business when by all rights they should have failed. Were these companies vital to US interests? Not really as multiple companies do what they do, so the only reason to bail them out was to protect a symbol of American greatness, not the actual choice of the people. In fact, in the case of Chrysler, the bailout only delayed what would have happened without the bailout. They ended up being bought by another company, so it became a waste of resources by the government; if you make an objective observation about it. IT changed nothing while diverting resources from something else that might have had a more positive impact on society.
But I can comment on what I have observed; as I did.
What does this have to do with this article? This article provides an introduction to a democratic socialism in terms of a specific theoretical variant known as Economic Democracy.
You are off on some other topic. If you are talking about forcing a new system you have either entirely missed the point or did not even bother to read the article.
the usa is a republic. the states are democracies.
again... state level, make it work, show us how wrong we are? or go fish.
ok one chance. and no more.
explain exactly how you are going to install free market socialism without force of govt.
I'm very curious about that bit - but as of yet it remains unexplained. are you the one?
Show you are wrong with respect to what? You are being vague.
The states are not democracies because we as citizens do not vote on issues directly but have elected representatives do it for us. We are constitutional republics because the states also have constitutions and 3 branches (governor, legislatures and state judiciaries) of government.
It is obvious that the level of civics education in the US is abysmal.
that free market capitalism works long term... we say it will not work long term... so prove us wrong... simple.
make it work on a state level and prove it. or your dream is not going to happen
we / brainwashed people like me will use force to not let you experiment with the whole of the usa all at once.
that is seriously your only option.... again, use california as the example.
if your ideas are sound we can all watch free market socialism work in califonia and then talk about the whole country. but not until then.
Your language reveals your confusion. Install is not the right word. That connotes someone (or some force) introducing a new system.
What I have outlined (quite a few times in this article) is that a change as fundamental as moving from capitalism to socialism would necessarily be evolutionary. First, the people themselves would need to evolve to the point where they are active and engaged with the issues of society. The people would need to want to be involved and responsible for making decisions. More than just going to vote every now and then. So until there is a society on the planet like this, I would not expect any system of socialism to emerge.
The likely way it would work, if it even happens, would be with the growth of democratic units such as workplace democracy. The more people engage in businesses where the workers are the owners, run democratically (in principle) and share in the rewards and losses the more people will learn what is required to be informed and engaged in society.
My key point, which you apparently never read, is that socialism necessarily comes from the people wanting it. The notion of force is an oxymoron. Forcing cooperative decentralized control over the productive resources makes no logical sense. You think force and you are thinking of some other concept.
ahhhhhh... so there is zero chance of any form of socialism during any of our lifetimes... or the next.
no worries then - good chat.
cheers
You must have mistyped. Did you mean to type 'we say capitalism will work long term'? If so, you may be correct - a variant of capitalism might be the best solution. That is not what this article is about.
First, it is not my dream. Second, are you seriously suggesting that in the domain of an article I am supposed to somehow make socialism 'work' in a USA state? What on Earth kind of nonsense argument is this?
Your posts are growing incoherent. If all you have to offer is 'make it work ... make it work' then you are clearly not trying to discuss this topic.
And that is another point I have repeatedly made. IMO I do not think any of us will see a socialist nation. Certainly not a socialist USA - not based on where we currently are. That is just my assessment - not sure what sort of time-frame most people are thinking.
if all you have to offer is it will work, trust us, without proving it first on a state level? ya have nothing but a dream that will never see the light of day.
capitalism has brought more people out of poverty than any other economic system and we will be keeping it unless you can prove your version of socialism works on a state level first
remember, the brainwashed are born skeptics with guns - welcome to murica
You don't know what democratic market socialism is so logically you can't make that statement with any sort of certainty.
Is that what you think this is about? Good grief man, get with the program. This article is not about promoting a system. It is about getting past slogans and labels and into the underlying objectives, concepts and principles.
Seems to me the only thing you read in this article is the title.
for the last 60 plus years they have been trying to evolve us into a "international community"
and that plan died nov8th 2016.
I reckon any version of socialism will meet the same fate in the end.
just when people think it is going to stick it will be snatched away and trashed just like that liberal, international, world order was recently trashed via trumps election.
in this country individual liberty is always going to trump collective liberties. (pardon the pun
It might. But in the meantime how about we learn just a little about this deep subject so that we are smart enough to not label as 'socialism' elements such as 'expropriation of private property' or 'authoritarian rule' or 'fascism' or ... Let's understand what we are talking about. This does not come with a mandate to accept socialism. It is about getting past the superficial, contradicting, ridiculous slogans and know what one is talking about.
if I dont know what it is? that only means you failed when you explained it to me weeks ago.
try to do better next time.
my fun for the day here is done... now, im out into the sun.
cheers
explain it without taxing corporations or the people to fund it.
if you can explain it without needing to take from one to give to another? im in.
take your time I will return manyanna
That is an 'idle' threat. Not worthy of consideration. We can all take our balls and go home and never fire a shot! Moreover, this topic is shared for informational purposes and not advocacy purposes. Why can't you get that, without threatening escalation?!
Magic Eight Ball! I am not meaning to needle you on this. But,
Tom, I think, and I could be wrong here, that the political government and the economic system are separate and distinct in this socialist 'model' for discussion.
Correct me, if I am wrong TiG! In your model you are not dealing with politics are you? On the other-hand to continue and avoid posting a new comment, if the model combines political and economic into one system, then the government in play is made up of electable and replaceable people, no?
You are correct that politics is not directly discussed here but we all know politics will be at play in any society under any system.
The government also can mean different things. On one hand the government can be virtually synonymous with THE party and THE state - take the former USSR. At the other extreme, the government is nothing more than the administrative infrastructure used by the demos to facilitate their wishes. Every civil society will have some form of government.
I think Tom envisions the government as that which controls more than that which serves. In this model one must view the government as the latter.
There are different views on how this works (as you can imagine) so I will offer my opinion (with which some socialists absolutely disagree). Personally in a nation of any decent size (especially ours) direct democracy is impossible. I see absolutely no possible way it could work. We necessarily must build a structure of representation - a representative democracy such as what is in play (at least in theory) in the USA. But to better get the point across, let's see how this representative democracy might work in a workplace. In some models you will find that the workplace is organized into councils. The idea is that the 'management' of a business function consists of a council of elected workers (elected by some subset of the owners). This council would in turn elect a leader who would serve as the spokesperson, chair for the council. Leadership could shift frequently. Council members can be removed by the workers. This is a very demanding representative democracy in which the managers are working for the good of the workers they represent. Very different - very unusual when compared to our familiar organizational structures. But, of course, this is directly following the principle of the demos having decentralized control. This alone should reveal a dramatic contrast with systems that have self-labeled as 'socialist' such as the former USSR where democracy of any form was a fantasy for entire lifetimes.
Interestingly, words like, "legislative" appeared in my mind when the video uses the phrase, "We the people" in connection with collecting taxes. Also early on the world, "council" comes to mind when trying to get away from, "legislature"! I think I am catching on now.
Question:
Yes. The owners are the workers.
I wish that I could vote this very simple idea up more than once.
Having a private business cooperatively owned by both the workers and their customers is the goal.
I am glad you wrote that > here <. Because it allows me to add: This is why the concept is so alien to me, some of us, we are 'birthed' and "bonded" to capitalist ownership. This discussion is a great abstract and I am enjoying it!
It has to do with the reality of how Socialism is enacted by the government. You had two companies, one was privately (limited number of investors) held (Chrysler) and the other publicly (anyone could purchase stock and own a piece) held (GM), Both were bailed out by the government. The first ended up having the same result as would have occurred had the government taken no action whatsoever. The second ended up having the public investors completely screwed over by the government as they received no compensation for the government take over. In both cases, the government stepped in on what it stated was for the public (society) good. In both cases, the public got screwed. In the first case, the money given to Chrysler was wasted as it did nothing to change the outcome and in the second those members of society that owned stock ended up having the money they put towards that stock taken from them without anything to show for it. That is the system that will end up happening in any form of Socialism as government will always try to take over and is a necessary participant in a Socialist economy due to being the representatives of the people (society). Capitalism in its purest form is actually the only real system that anyone wanting to better society should be advocating as that would preclude government from having any involvement outside the role of mediator and is the only system where every resource is actually owned by society not by a select few.
Let me give an example from my life. Before I ended up having medical bills for my wife and I piling up, I used to be an investor. I owned shares of Wrigley, Coca-Cola, Hershey, and was talked into investing into WorldCom by my financial advisor. Wrigley ended up being bought out by M&M/Mars, which is a private company, so I ended up getting a sum of money for my stock in Wrigley. WorldCom became worthless due to their mismanagement and fraud and I did get a small amount back due to selling before the stock became a penny stock and from the court settlement in the class action suit. I ended up selling all of my shares in both Coke and Hershey due to financial need. Had Wrigley been in the same situation as GM, I would have received nothing for that stock due to being a small investor in the company. That is what happens when government steps in for the good of society, the small investors are completely screwed over and they are the very public that you want to see be in control over all of the resources. What you are talking about is an ideal that will never be reached in any sort of Socialist economic plan, because government has to always be involved. And, I cannot stress that reality enough; because it is the elephant in the room that you want to ignore and it should not be ignored because someone will get trampled if it is ignored. By taking out a required piece in the system, you have a system that never works, and government is a required piece to any sort of Socialist economic plan. With Capitalism, the entire system rests on the actual public to make decisions and automatically gives control to society as a whole. Any other system just creates artificial winners and losers while quashing actual creativity and innovation.
try it. nothing but fail will befall those who try to roll over this nation.
riddle me this.
how is it all the so-called brilliant minds on the left cannot succeed in capitalism but the stupid fuks like me thrive?
answer key
all their problems are other peoples fault - therefore they can not fix any of the problems without others changing their behavior
all my problems are my fault - therefore I can fix all of my problems myself
moral of the story is a universal timeless truth
as long as you wait on others to change in order to make your life better? your life will suck.
cheers
Your scenario is about government officials using public funds to prop up a failing entity. Offering an example of something you dislike and merely labeling it 'socialism' is precisely the problem this article raises. Unless you see a system wherein the people have decentralized control over their productive resources (not the State, not a controlling government, not aristocracy) then you do not have socialism.
Read the article. If you actually dislike socialism (genuine public control over productive resources) that is cool. But disliking some socio-economic/political feature or act and then simply labeling the object of your dislike 'socialism' is the intellectual failure I am trying to help people overcome.
I offered a real world example of what happens in a Socialist society. The will of the society was trumped in 2009 by the government’s auto bailout. The will of society was not to buy Chrysler or GM vehicles, but government stepped in to artificially prop them up. EVERY bailout is a Socialist move as Capitalism requires that each entity be responsible for its own financial health and that government step out of the way. ALL Socialism requires government intervention in the name of society; but you keep ignoring that fact.
Excuse me, but now I will needle you. This is not about liberals or my life. What part of this is an abstract discussion are you unable to process? Dial up or turn down your defense mechanisms, because those are your fault and only you can control it. This is an innocuous exchange we are all sharing in, and nobody needs to get 'hurt.'
No you did not. Tom, you offer examples of that which you dislike and simply label it 'socialist'. That is the whole point of this article - to help people understanding the defining characteristics of socialism so that they will be less likely to blindly cry 'socialism' at every turn.
The USA under Obama was not operating with a socialist economic system. It was capitalism. It still is capitalism. Does that not illustrate how silly it is to call what you have offered an example of 'socialism'? Honestly, the socio-economic/political system of the USA did not shift into an entirely different paradigm in Obama's first year in office.
I am not the one with the blinders on Tom.
Yes, I did. Socialism ends up becoming whatever the government desires is what will happen economically. There is no freedom of choice, just the illusion of it. Society did not like Chrysler and GM vehicles at the time of the auto bailout and government stepped in to artificially prop them up for the good of society. That IS the reality of Socialism in a nutshell. Just because I don't like Socialism doesn't mean that I don't recognize it. You, on the other hand, seem to put the blinders on when someone talks about reality.
If the government is calling the shots then, by definition, the people are NOT calling the shots.
If the people (not government officials, not aristocracy) but the actual people are not controlling the productive resources of the economy then you do not have socialism.
Pure capitalism is too concentrated and it is that which eats it own tail. Can you survive in it?
Pure capitalism does not concentrate anything, it is the choices of the people that determine what happens under capitalism. Monopolies are when a company controls the entire market, but the only ways they get to that point are if the people choose to purchase their products over their competitors or they buy out their competitors. In fact, government creates temporary monopolies for patents, which last for 20 years (in the USA). The owner of the patent is the only person who can choose to license or create that product during that 20 year period. During that time period, the people can choose to buy that product if it is offered to them. In a true capitalist society, there would be no patents but multiple manufacturers of the product, from the start, and people can choose which manufacturers they wish to buy from. If the people prefer company B, company B would do better than any other company in terms of sales. At that point, it becomes a matter of management and foresight on the part of company B as to whether they remain in business. A real world example of a company that is mismanaging its own success is Subway. They expanded to the point where their stores are/were competing against each other (Starbucks is doing the same thing). Subway mismanaged their expansion by not considering how close each store would be. I can name an example right off the top of my head: In Lebanon, OR, there is a Subway in the Walmart and another about halfway between the Walmart and where US 20 splits into two one-way roads (Main Street, which is East US 20, and Park Street, which is West US 20). They are well within 2 miles of each other. A better example is the Starbucks that went in near the intersection of Airport Road and US 20. There is literally a Starbucks kiosk in the Safeway store that is cata-corner from that Starbucks. The difference between the two is that the new Starbucks has a drive-thru, while you have to go into Safeway to get your triple-chocolate foam mocha latte...
Tom, you jumped context. Above there is no hint you wanted to discuss market over-saturation. Your previous statement is a remark on "bailouts" and "government non-intervention." Is this correct?
Pure capitalism has no interest in any holistic health of a community or nation, but: good government must in order that good enterprises persist.
Market oversaturation is a form of mismanagement. Government should not get involved when a company mismanages itself as they did with Chrysler and GM. Heck, where I used to live (near State College, PA in 2008), there used to be 2 or 3 (I forget exactly) different Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep dealerships within 9 miles of each other. Now, there is only 1. The reason for the loss of dealerships was the auto-bailout, which caused both GM and Chrysler to close dealerships. The irony is that it did not address oversaturation in all markets nor did it close dealerships in a logical fashion. I remember seeing an article about a dealership that was closed, but was in fact the most successful dealership out of the several in the area of that dealership that GM could have chosen from to close. They kept one of the least successful dealerships open, if I remember correctly. Managing a company properly is part of Capitalism.
It was not an act of socialism. Ownership did not change, to my knowledge. It was not pure capitalism. Better call it a government-business sector negotiation and it was executed under extreme duress and strain resting on top of a multitude of our systems and financial outlooks.
The video above elucidates on this subject as complex as it was then, and helps to explain why it is not socialism as interpreted in this article.
You are not suggesting that managing a company properly is a defining characteristic of capitalism are you?
Ownership of GM changed. It went from the stockholders to the government to the unions and some other stockholders. Chrysler's ownership went from a private company to Fiat. And, I stated repeatedly that Chrysler's bailout did nothing to change the outcome at all, other than delaying it artificially. Nowhere did I state that the government bought out Chrysler. I did, however, state that the government bought out GM in the bailout. I, then, went on to explain how market oversaturation was a form of mismanagement that both GM and Chrysler suffered from (through dealerships being placed close together of the same brands).
Managing a company is part of every economic system not just Capitalism. In Socialism, you have a management split between government and private ownership for the most part in how it is practiced. Companies might as well be under complete government control with how restrictive the regulations enacted by Socialist governments can be.
Agreed
Do you have some special list of regulations in mind? The example system offered in this article clearly does not have regulations on the order you describe: 'might as well be under complete government control'. Further, if the government controls businesses then we have minority control. Minority control is the exact opposite of what is described.
To be crystal clear, government control over the productive resources of a nation would be minority control. It does not really matter if the minority control comes from government or aristocracy (or both) - it is still minority control. Minority control = capitalism.
You're losing me (eyes glazing over). What does any of that have to do with socialism as interpreted in this article?
The government ownership of GM wasn't a hostile takeover. GM/GMAC begged for that money to rectify many decades of Gross Mismanagement starting in the 1960s. Once the BoD accepted that money the government became the majority stockholder because of that investment, unless you think that taxpayer should have handed over billions of dollars and not have a majority voice in the management of the company their bailout is keeping afloat? I would have liked to have seen criminal charges brought against their management and that of Chrysler as well.
The government divested themselves of both companies within a few years, but GM is still on shaky ground. The Chrysler of 2008 exists in name only because their car segment doesn't exist. FIAT controls Jeep, the SUVs, minivans, and Ram trucks.
Democratic socialism is a BS dream. Bernie can't define how it will work (other than in his wet dreams) it or explain how to pay for it. No one can give a working model.
That might be the case. Although someone simply crying bullshit is not very persuasive.
I agree with you there. Bernie advocated social democracy. He just called it Democratic Socialism. Bernie is an enigma IMO.
True. The only models of democratic socialism are theoretical. I do not think there is a society on the planet where the demos are ready to engage in democratic decentralized control over their productive resources. If democratic socialism does evolve it will likely not be in any of our lifetimes. That, now, is simply my opinion. But I have reasons for the opinion and have articulated them in the comments.
I have a question for the kneejerkers: Would you guys be Ok with a third sector of the economy someday emerging? A cooperative sector, with membership being completely voluntary, comprised of a large number of 100% worker-owned businesses not operating on their own in competitive isolation, but joined up under a common umbrella organization, with it's own internal banking/finance and education/training services?
Just trying to understand what you're actually opposed to. Surely it can't be the idea of workers owning and controlling means of production and profits themselves. It's the idea of being forced into something, right? So, what if you weren't?
I was wondering when the cavalry would show up.
Boy, there's been a lot of crap posted here. It looks like a few people missed the point of TiG's article entirely.
Almost every new business is worker owned when it starts.
Further, there is nothing to stop the structure you describe from happening in our current capitalist system.
If you think it's a good idea, go for it. You don't need anybody's permission.
What people are opposed to is the mandatory "cooperation" all such systems eventually demand when the voluntary thing doesn't work out in real life.
Yes, I know. It doesn't directly involve the Government either. It would be a kind of libertarian socialism.
Totally understandable. I feel that way myself. But this particular voluntary thing already has worked out in real life. The general structure, anyway, so it has that going for it.
What I don't understand is all of the unwarranted hostility I see in several people's posts, having little or nothing to do with what TiG actually wrote in his article.
That is how the farmers in my area work together.
As a group they coordinate together to best utilize their equipment to produce crops. Different farms have different equipment, yet needed by all. They combine their resources and time to crank out whatever it is they are growing in a given year.
A side benefit is for a local, long time breakfast cook. He sold his business and retired several years ago. A local restaurant let's him use their place for early Saturday and Sunday breakfasts to primarily serve the local farmers. Of course, the local PD, FD and folks like me like to visit for those breakfasts too.
There is an ongoing effort among extremely naive yet vocal people with poor math skills to redefine the term "socialism" so as to make it appear less oppressive and to rationalize their support for Bernie Sanders.
The steps to this "logic" tend to start with something like "well...libraries and interstate highways are government paid, so that means they're socialist...and they're not so bad", and end up 10 minutes later with "somebody else should pay for my health insurance"...which is really the goal all along.
Needless to say, none of that shit is true, and after dozens of angry liberal Bernie supporters insist that it is...the whole process gets a bit tedious.
But altogether it's not a formal, legal entity, is it? What I mean is that they aren't actually incorporated in some way, sharing legal ownership over the land and equipment as a worker cooperative, are they?
I can't honestly answer that question. My observation is they all seem independent and not tied contractually, but that is just an observation.
Bernie should just run as the Euro-style social democrat that he is. Everything he talks about amounts to reforms within capitalism, not something other than capitalism. That's pretty much what social democrats do these days. Then again, that's pretty much what every left-oriented party does these days, even socialist parties, so I guess there wouldn't really be much of a point to it after all.
I wasn't talking about Bernie supporters, though. At least I don't think they're Bernie supporters.
Hopefully people will realize that none of the above is socialism. As you noted and I fully agreed earlier - socialism should be properly understood so calling bad things 'socialism' or calling good things 'socialism' is an intellectual failure and is little more than propaganda.
At least on NT, I would hope that people know enough now to not call interstate highways or health insurance 'socialism'. Infrastructure is not 'socialism' - it is a fundamental requirement of any civilized society. Healthcare and other services is not 'socialism' - they are public services. These public services (when extensive) are often a result of a system known as 'social democracy' - a variant of capitalism - the so-called 'mixed economy'.
When do you plan to accept that we are opposed to a federally planned command economy? It is only conservatives who use the exasmple of Russia or even Venezuela when they claim to oppose socialsim or even democratic socialism. Does it help you to understand the situation better if I say that the businesses are socialist (the means of the production are owned/controlled by the workers)but the workers themselves are capitalists? I do not want the government to own and operate for-profit businesses. The job of the government is to regulate private business and to provide public services such as schools, fire, police, parks, roads/infrastructure and common defense etc.
That is we the people who understand democratic socialsim in this thread are arguing for a free market socialism and worker-customer co-ops. Id like to see that utilities such as water/sewer, intenet, power and natural gas be co-ops. I belong to an organic grocery co-op and love it, even if the selection is quite limited. A single payer healthcare system that is a co-op would be great.
no matter how thin one slices a tomato.. it is still tomato.
no matter how they break it down, any version of socialism will always fail when it comes to implementation.
regardless of what version or slice of socialism we talk about, socialism of any kind requires govt force to implement.
the socialist soup de jour of the day boils down to:
tax corporations to fund their business ventures ( aka employee-owned business. bought and paid for by others )
so actually in simplest terms
socialists only want the rewards... none of the risk or effort.
a 100% employee-owned business is not socialist and not even a new idea in our capitalist society.
stealing the money required to start that business from those evil corporations? socialism in a nutshell.
A perfect example of 'if I dislike something I will call socialism'.
With all the time you have spent on this article and all the patient responses people have provided to your comments and questions, you still do not even understand the basics. Under the model described in this article, the business tax paid by businesses is used to grow and expand businesses. It is a capital fund supported by and used by businesses for business. I think we might now be in the 'I do not like it if it is different than capitalism'.
Hardly zero risk. The workers in an employee owned business lose their livelihood if the business fails. They will not be bankrupted (as often is the case today) but hardly zero risk. The worker / owners would also likely be liable for debt they incurred (e.g. unpaid purchases). Hopefully a system like this would mitigate risk and that would be a good thing unless you desire a system where business participants (worker/owner) are bankrupted if their business does not succeed.
Missing the point entirely. Again.
Correct. Congratulations on getting that part right.
This suggests you have no understanding whatsoever of this material.
Shortly after you accept that regardless of what you think you are "opposed to", your ideas only work when they are forced.
It is only liberals who refuse to acknowledge the concept of "dead weight", which is the real reason socialist ideology is dying of cancer from the moment it's born.
Again, there is nothing to stop this from happening under our current capitalist system. So why doesn't it? Hmmm... It's for the same reason that most partnerships dissolve. Dead weight. The people who are more productive and work harder get tired of carrying those who are less productive or less ambitious or less diligent. In capitalist systems, those more productive people move on to arrangements that are more rewarding.
That's what it does now. No change required.
So go form some co-ops. Why do you need to change the system that currently allows you to do what it is you want to do?
That's even easier now under the de-regulated electricity system. You should be up and running in no time.
Explain why the selection is limited.
And here we have it. Why does it need to be single payer? Why do I need to belong to the same co-op that you want? I already have health insurance from a mutual company with which I am very happy. Why do I need to change? You say you don't want to force people into your system, yet you can't finish the post without outlawing my already co-op health insurance.
What part of epistte's description ( epistte @ 21.2.8 ) requires force (other than 'force' which is part of the rule of law in any civilized society)?
Which makes it capitalism.
And...incidentally....makes it eerily similar to the current SBA.
Well, no. In that model, the assets tax goes into a national fund that replaces private finance in capitalism. It puts finance capital under social control.
How? If startup / expansion capital is democratically allocated in what way do you see that as capitalism.
Other than single-payer healthcare, which by definition forces everybody into the same program regardless of what they would prefer?
Simple.
The problem with all socialist systems...and labor unions....is that they do not differentiate between high-quality "workers" and low-quality "workers".
Anybody can start a business. Creating a successful one takes sweat, worry, hard work, diligence, organization, and mountains of effort above and beyond the call of being a "worker". People who put all of that into growing a successful business are not interested in sharing ownership with every new hire...or anyone who goes home at 5:00. The only way you're going to get them to do that is through force.
As opposed to the tax going into a national fund that guarantees private finance under federal regulation.
Sounds pretty similar to me.
Would you prefer that we started with the public option where people could voluntarily buy into a single-payer system or continue to pay for for-net-profit insurace coverage?
The possibility that there are different plans under the single-payer system seems to elude you.
Now hold on Jack.
First, that is not the defining characteristic of what she wrote - it even appears as a trailing after-thought:
I am surprised that you would even accept a notion such as 'single payer healthcare' as a defining characteristic of 'socialism'. I would have expected you to tell epistte that she should not include that in her list because it makes no sense as a quality of socialism (assuming that was even her intent given it was written as an after-thought). Instead that is the only thing you focused on.
Second, and certainly more important , single-payer healthcare clearly does not distinguish socialism from capitalism. So look at where she describes the system and show me the use of force that is out of the norm one would see in civil society:
This is where I was asking for a serious, thoughtful response.
Where do you get the notion that under socialism all workers are considered the same?
I agree with your description of the entrepreneur, owner (and even extending to direct reports) but you certainly know that such drive tapers off very quickly. Nobody is as driven as the working owner . That is why, using your example of 'force' I would argue that our current system forces employees to work harder than they naturally would.
But finally, if a group of people are all working owners (and their business is their livelihood) why do you reject even the idea that they might more naturally operate in a productive fashion? Here I point you to the Mondragon system and a real world counter-example to your position.
Schweickart's national investment fund isn't private finance. The money doesn't belong to individuals looking to make a profit off of it. In his model it would most often be doled out as grants that don't have to be paid back (via investment managers at community banks, with local community councils having a say as well). The recipients pay the capital assets tax to the national investment fund instead. It's like leasing socially-owned means of production.
The above are (partly paraphrased) from your post. These were ignored by Jack yet this is where you describe a system that is not based on force and is clearly focused on decentralized, democratic control over the productive resources of the economy.
I would prefer people who have no clue about our current system learn about it before declaring it needs to be abolished.
As long as they're paying full price, fine.
If you want to healthcare co-op, buy your health insurance from a mutual company. If you're determined to have government healthcare, either go to work for them or pay the full cost Medicare coverage.
But most advocates of single payer simply want somebody else to pay their bills.
What happens when the business fails? What happens when the founders want to sell it?
If it fails and no reorganization and retry is to be made, then the remaining assets return to the public bank and the people look for other work.
They can't sell it. Businesses in Schweickart's model are democratically controlled by the people who work there (just like a worker cooperative), but they don't own their capital assets outright. They are essentially leasing them from society (the assets tax). They can either operate their businesses to make a living, or close them and return the assets to the public bank. As a side note, each business has to maintain a capital depreciation fund internally, for maintaining the value of whatever material assets they're using up over time.
He has a book out about the whole thing. It's called After Capitalism. It's not a long, tedious read or anything. Maybe check it out sometime.
None of this constitutes "socialism". Even the term "free market socialism", as it's being described...is not socialism.
Employee-owned businesses are not uncommon in our current capitalist system. Co-ops are not uncommon, and include household names like USAA or Mass Mutual Life Insurance.
None of that is socialist, none of it is particularly difficult to do, and none of it requires a change of system....or even a change TO our system.
I would agree that none of this distinguishes socialism from capitalism (and, of course, vice-versa) but what epistte listed is characteristic of the category known as democratic socialism. I suspect that she was, in part, trying to illustrate that democratic socialism is not authoritarian rule, state-expropriated companies, etc.
What distinguishes socialism from capitalism is effective democratic control over the productive resources of the economy. (Note that the second bullet item - when expanded in scope to the nation itself - is a defining characteristic of socialism.)
But my question was why you claimed epistte's description required force. I presume you have changed your mind.
You've been doing a whole lot of the exact reverse, so you're hardly in a position to call the kettle black.
Which is exactly what he described.
If I...as a business owner...do not want to contribute to this fund....can I opt out? No? If I want to finance my own business venture at a bank or with private equity, am I still able to do so?
No..it really is nearly zero risk. If it fails, they lose their job. Big deal. They have none of their own money in the venture.
You cannot possibly fail to understand the motivational power of the price of failure.
You just said that WAS the point. How is he missing it?
No, it isn't. Once again, roads, schools, and bridges are not socialist. Nor are they "democratic socialist".
I'm sure she thinks it won't be. But when people refuse to cooperate with this ideology, that will change.
What really distinguishes them is that capitalism accounts for human nature and socialism pretends it doesn't exist.
A transition to socialism will require force. Making "worker owned companies" universal will require force.
But once again, we see the almost universal pattern of pro socialist argument. Roads and schools are socialist, and they're not so bad => socialism isn't so bad => somebody else should pay for my health care.
Back up your allegation.
Hardly. Here is his description:
It would take some mighty intellectual twists to see that quote as this: TiG : " the business tax paid by businesses is used to grow and expand businesses." Read the parts in blue? Who are the ' others '? Who are these ' corporations '? Note that he thinks this is a rob Peter to pay Paul scenario when, per my comment, this is business in general feeding a fund (giving back) to benefit business in general.
Further, if TM8B actually meant " the business tax paid by businesses is used to grow and expand businesses" as you state ( Jack : " exactly what he described") then why would he be complaining? That simply does not match the blue .
This is a very odd question to ask but let's run with it. In the subject system (Economic Democracy) there is a provision for the small business capitalist and even entrepreneurial endeavors. But let's skip that exception and stick with the main theme which is this: If a society has evolved to an economic system of socialism that means it's economic system is not capitalism. The economic system would be fundamentally different so for the general case the answer is principally no to the question of ' can I still operate as a capitalist in a socialist economy? '.
Okay. If you wish to call that nearly zero risk then I will accept that as your assessment. The focus here is on understanding what socialism is and what it is not; not on convincing you to like any of its features. So if you think mitigating risk to startup operations is bad then duly noted.
Having been an entrepreneur in two successful businesses and dealing with (for years) having my personal assets and livelihood on the line and working endlessly against seemingly impossible odds, I just might know it as well as anyone. You, however, seem to think that risking everything is the only possible way for people to be motivated to do their best. Given a working example to the contrary, Mondragon, you might want to moderate your opinion a bit.
As I noted in my prior comment to you (did you miss that?), nothing is like being the responsible party with all the skin in the game. But to think that is only way business can work - to deny the notion that worker owners would not have enough drive (in their lesser risk environment) is strange since that particular dynamic is evidenced. This aspect is NOT strictly theoretical.
You think I support the notion that " socialists only want the rewards... none of the risk or effort. " AND that I claimed that to be the point?? Time to reread.
Correct. Now read what I wrote. Then read what epistte wrote. Here, I will make it easy for you.
Here is what I wrote. You quoted it, now actually read it:
Read the part in blue. I then noted that these are characteristic of democratic socialism in that they are typically part of democratic socialist systems. These are not defining characteristics, they are simply characteristics. In other words, you will often find that democratic socialist systems are based on a market economy.
Now let's look at what epistte wrote ... or the line that probably triggered you:
This, as I noted, does not define socialism. But yes, under democratic socialism (and many other systems) the job of the government includes the above. As opposed to, for example, authoritarian control over social and economic factors of the people. Hard to argue with what epistte wrote.
I disagree. However, I do agree in part. One of my criticisms of socialism is indeed the human element. I have made that rather clear in this article - even in the article proper:
I have made similar comments throughout. Socialism might require more than the average human being is willing to offer in terms of personal responsibility, cooperation, diligence, etc. I will not blindly dismiss all thinking along these lines (especially since we can see that categorically dismissing such cooperative dynamics is demonstrably wrong - we can see this working today). But, sure, I totally get your point ... just do not share your categorical, absolute certainty.
And, yet again, I have commented on this endlessly - including upfront in the article proper. Here we go again - upfront in the article before any comments were offered:
Basically, socialism (of some form) will exist if societies evolve to the point where a) they are capable to effectively grab the reigns rather than always follow the leader and b) they want this! If people do not want this system then I predict it will never happen. If some entity forces a system that it calls 'socialism' it will certainly not be based on democratic cooperative control. Right?
You are not reading anything I write?? Yes, Jack, none of this constitutes socialism. (Why are you doing this?) None of those items distinguish socialism from capitalism (or vice-versa). If one were defining socialism one would not list those items as 'this is what makes a system socialism'. However if one (in the case the one is epistte) is trying to demonstrate that a particular category of socialism is NOT authoritarian, egalitarian, etc. then the list makes very good sense. And, importantly, none of it requires 'force' (getting back to your original objection).
Yes. Agreed. Good grief man at least recognize when people have agreed with you. Workplace democracy is not a defining characteristic of socialism - it is not a distinguishing characteristic of socialism (vs. capitalism). How many ways must one put this? Bizarre.
And again, yes you are correct. Having explained this already I am at a loss as to what to do other than offer this:
Thus, I ask this question. What, Jack, distinguishes democratic socialism from capitalism? I am curious as to what is going on in your head.
You just finished defending epistte's system...which conspicuously included roads, schools, fire and police as examples of socialism.
The "others" are other businesses. You refer to them like all the businesses in America are one entity, ignoring the fact that they compete with each other.
You're talking about a tax on businesses. That's necessarily going to need to include businesses already in existence when you start this scheme, who are being forced to pay part of their profits to eliminate risk for new businesses.....risks they themselves overcame.
You're also talking about existing small businesses being taxed in order to provide funding for potential competitors. No business would ever do this willingly. So yeah....business owners are going to raise holy hell, and rightfully so.
OK, so we can agree this will require forcing people to participate.
Jack, seriously, this is ridiculous. You are not even reading my words and instead playing strawman games. There is no way that I believe you did not understand what I wrote. So what gives?
Not sure why you are so confused. The capitalization fund is for all national businesses (under this system). It is administered nationally, regionally and locally. Note, there are myriad ways to do this: Economic Democracy offers one. The point, however, is that the people are democratically dealing with economic and sociological issues - deciding priorities at a local, regional and national level. Yes, the businesses are in competition. Absolutely! Of course!
Yet again, you do not even read what I wrote. You act as though this is some new system wherein one flicks a switch. You and I have already discussed this and we both agreed that if such a change were to occur it would be evolutionary. We even cleared up the specifics of what we meant by evolutionary. So what is the problem?
Existing? This is the flip the switch strawman again.
I think this is the last time I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt. Here is my response - from the article proper before any comments were entered:
understatement of the year.
not to mention. the supreme court simply would not allow it.
it only takes one word to kill a socialist plan in the USA
Liberty
Not to interrupt, but that happens all the time, just in a different way. Financing from banks does that very thing. Loans are taken out by businesses (for new equipment, expansions, whatever), and then paid back with interest, which increases the capital the bank has on hand to loan out again to other businesses, including potential competitors. I've never noticed any holy hell being raised about that.
There is absolutely nothing in the US Constitution that would prohibit it.
we have no desire to cooperate with dead weight. and will not be forced to do so.
any questions?
not how the constitution works...
there is nothing in the constitution that allows it.
It's becoming that way, yes.
Well let's clarify. Do you agree with her or don't you? Is the system she's describing what you are describing?
You claim that such a change would occur slowly, and you continue to use the term "evolution". There are several problems with that. First, there will be a great big switch flip when you begin to assess taxes. Secondly, "evolution" involves stronger things outlasting weaker ones. The new businesses you describe will not be stronger. They will not be able to compete with traditional businesses, any more than your local high school football team will be able to compete with Clemson or Alabama.
Yes, existing. Whom do you intend to tax to create this fund?
This scheme of yours requires government action. The president would sign a bill. Democratic Peoples Fund would be created. Taxes would be assessed. Switch flipped. I'm not sure how that's not obvious.
Then we'll need agree this isn't ever going to happen.
Well...I would have said it happens through the SBA, but I was told this new scheme isn't like that. Even the SBA isn't a good parallel. It's funded by personal income tax as well as corporate. This scheme apparently uses only business dollars.
If my bank loans out my money to a potential competitor, it pays me interest on that money, and it's still my money. Needless to say a tax doesn't operate that way.
I certainly agree. That is not even remotely close to what is being discussed. But you understand that, right? You are not offering an unrelated strawman based on mining the words force and cooperate, right?
Clearly you are now in the mode of replacing what I actually write with something that makes the debate easier for you .
Here is but one spot of several where I state my position:
If you are going to ignore what I write and then invent whatever words you wish then why bother pretending to debate me? You can do just as well sitting in a room by yourself playing both sides of the chess board.
No. I refer to all businesses of the nation as the set of all businesses of the nation.
Yes, that is what Economic Democracy is talking about.
Hello Jack? You continue to invent conditions that were not presented. Ignoring what is actually presented. There is no 'start this scheme' and 'flip a switch and convert capitalism to socialism'. If you are going to ignore the evolution discussion and insert your own contrived flip the switch scenario then, again, go debate yourself.
It gets old reseeding the same quote:
In super simple terms: epistte did not list the defining characteristics of democratic socialism, but what she listed are commonly part of democratic socialism proposals (and are part of many extant systems based on capitalism). And back to my original question, why do you think what she wrote required force ? (That was the point, which you continue to avoid.)
So you did read that. Why do you forget it in other posts?
You might be correct. In which case this will not occur. How you think you can predict the future which such certainty is a funny thing to behold. But yes, IF the conditions are that a nation does not like and encourage more democratic, decentralized control of productive resources then ( as I have noted numerous times ) this will not happen.
First, every incremental change in law requires that kind of government action. So as our society moves forward (as it has in the past) you will see that very dynamic. Not some big switch. Think of it as thousands of little switches if you must. Not sure how that is not obvious (back at you) considering what I described is clear by looking at our history.
Second, who says that a nation would simply move to create this capitalization fund for all businesses? You presume a nation is going to in one big switch change from private capitalization to public capitalization and you think you are thoughtfully trying to discuss this topic?
Move off the big switch nonsense. My position is that any change from capitalism to socialism would be on the order of the change from feudalism to capitalism. If it occurs it will take a very long time (none of us will live to see it) and will necessarily evolve (incremental changes). That is my opinion. That has been my opinion. And I am confident that I have been quite clear and consistent. So no break offered in your continued attempts to change my arguments.
Seems quite clear to me. Seems to me all one need do is read for comprehension and my position will spring forth.
I am reading it. That's the issue. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they aren't reading or do not understand.
You say "demonstrate". I would say "pretend". It's a common occurrence in the "trying to pretend Bernie Sanders isn't a fringe nutter" era. A list is made of things that are wholly non-socialist and then presented as part of the wonderful shiny new socialist system they want to enact. It's the candy designed to lure one into the back of the unmarked van. And if the goal is indeed to pretend, then yes, that list is an excellent strategy.
So let's go over some basics of this whole exercise, and see if we can't understand each other better.
1. Socialism, by definition, requires collective/government/worker control of the means of production. "Democratic socialism" is no different.
2. The current state of affairs is not one where the collective/government/workers control the means of production.
3. Some form of transition would need to take us from the current capitalist system to a new socialist system.
4. Suggesting a slow gradual "evolution" from here to there is akin to suggesting that antelope will evolve to predators and lions to vegetarians. It requires a direct reversal of all past observable evolution.
5. Therefore, despite your protestations, some catalyst would be required to start this migration (evolution is the wrong word, as we both acknowledge coexistence is impossible)
6. As well all know very well that those who currently control the means of production will not surrender that control willingly, the collective/government/workers will have to take that control by force.
So I have indeed read your protestations that there will be no "light switch" event, and I understand you want us to believe that no force will be required, and I acknowledge there are assertions that "democratic socialism" is somehow non-authoritarian and doesn't actually eliminated freedoms. And in your theoretical utopia, you may actually believe all of that to be true. In anything resembling the real world, none of it would be.
What part of "disagreement" is a mystery?
Nonsense. It isn't going to happen by itself.
Totally agree. The problem is not disagreement, the problem is ignoring / restating what I wrote. Given I have delivered the quotes with paraphrases numerous times I no longer give you the benefit of the doubt.
Case in point is your very next paragraph where you yet again ignore that I do not hold epistte's list as the defining characteristics of democratic socialism (nor do I hold that she intended that). Rather, again, she was distinguishing democratic socialism from authoritarian, command-economy systems. So you pretending innocent disagreement is not convincing.
More like suggesting feudalism would evolve to capitalism. If you want to offer an analogy that has any bearing on the discussion.
I reject your presumed certainty that our system cannot possibly evolve to one with democratic, decentralized control over the productive resources of the economy. You give yourself far too much credit to make such a bold statement about the future (distant future IMO as I have noted). I am sure you believe that it is impossible and that is fine - this article is about understanding socialism, not accepting it. Your certainty, however, is unsubstantiated.
Correct. No way will this be done by a switch. As I have stated many times, society itself (I think) would have to evolve from where we are to the point of the members being engaged and informed and seeking to assume democratic control over the productive resources of the economy. An evolutionary approach would necessarily see capitalism fade. If that does not occur then I see no way for a change of paradigm. Thus the future would be some variant of capitalism. Any of this sound familiar to you?
I am not trying to get you to believe this Jack. I have offered my opinion on how this would occur it at all. Logically, if force is involved then the system we are going to will be something very different from democratic socialism. If this does not evolve naturally I personally do not see it coming to pass. Try to understand that without twisting the meaning.
Good
This is not 'my' invention. My focus in this article is to mitigate the silly labeling of everything as socialism. You can pretend that you have not read my criticism of the proposed system and socialism in general but that is simply intellectual dishonesty on your part. At this point you have no excuse for getting my position (and especially my words) wrong - benefit of the doubt is gone. I understand that strawman tactics make debate easier, but it is (again) like you playing both sides of the chessboard. You do not need me to do that and I will continue to call you out on the tactic.
Then feel free to stop doing it.
The. Means. Of. Production. Controlled. By. The. Workers.
Yes. Which is why I reject the concept as applicable to this discussion. Repeatedly. Are you reading anything I'm writing?
I'm glad you find it amusing. Let me tell you how it's done. It's not particularly complicated, actually. You simply take a look at how things have been progressing for an extended period of time and observe patterns. Based on these "patterns", I can predict with a great deal of certainty that the sun will rise tomorrow, it will be hot in Texas, and hard charging, capable people with a lot to lose will out compete a co-operative of people with no skin in the game.
You've already said that in a socialist system businesses must be worker-owned and must be collective/government capitalized. Therefore at some point, the current business structure will be disallowed. Switch flipped. Any "no switch" scenario is a ridiculous fantasy.
Yes. You've repeated that several times. You've also mistaken my rejection of this idea for failure to read it. You keep describing it as an "evolution". Impied in the use of that word is your belief that socialism is a more advanced, stronger system than capitalism. We disagree on that, as well.
Yes. Human beings also might evolve with gills.
Some of which will be infinitely more likely than others.
You again presume I haven't already. I have. But let's analyze it so you can be sure.
Not a chance. For reasons we've already discussed at length.
It's impossible for it to function even then.
No...it's forcing the people in that society who control the means of production to surrender it.
Unrelated to socialism/capitalism.
It will be, but not because people do not think for themselves, which is a ridiculously pompous suggestion to begin with.
So this thing that you declare is the "opposite of capitalism"...you've just finished saying looks very much like capitalism.
Where is the force? If your answer is that you believe there is no way to have democratic control over the productive resources of the economy except by force then that is fine. That is your opinion. It is not an argument (except one from incredulity), nor is it factual.
I can predict that the stock market will continue to rise but I sure as hell cannot predict the the dynamics of leadership. Predict the next Apple, Google, Amazon or Microsoft. Identify the next mega-trend and how it will play out. Predict the next economic downturn (since we know that will occur) and the conditions under which it comes to pass.
The point (should be obvious) is that while we can certainly predict general tendencies using history as a guide, our ability to predict quickly degrades as we get into specifics. So just offering examples of things we can predict does not make much of an argument. Thus, your certainty that our system will always be capitalism is unfounded. And, just to remind you, I have never made the inverse claim of certainty.
Under Economic Democrac y (and most generally in the category of Democratic Socialism), most every business is worker owned and operated (but, as I noted, not all ). Point being, it is not ME saying it and you got it wrong anyway.
Not 'government capitalized' since that can be interpreted to mean government control and that misses the point entirely. It is publicly capitalized (per Economic Democracy ).
That can only make sense if you cannot fathom the concept of evolution. Do you think, in biochemical terms now, that the eye simply resulting from flipping a switch? Did evolution flip a switch and viola a lens appeared to focus the light along with the cognitive mechanisms to properly interpret same? If so, then I understand why you keep returning to your switch.
Talk about extrapolation! The quality of a system is a function of the society in which it operates. So, you claim to be reading what I write, so now try to follow what I wrote upfront:
To make this super simple to understand - part of what I am saying here is that the socio-economic/political system of the future will most likely be a function of societal evolution. If future societies head to more decentralized democratic control (and thus away from centralized, minority control) we will likely see a system that would qualify (technically) as some variant of socialism. If not, we will likely see a system that would qualify as a variant of capitalism. The quality of the system is measured by how effectively it meets the needs of the society.
Surely you understand this now. And maybe you see how absurd it is to claim to KNOW where future societies will head.
You think democratic, decentralized control over the productive resources of an economy is the same as centralized, minority control over the productive resources of an economy?
Do not confuse "rejecting" with "ignoring".
I reject the idea that such a difference is possible in real life. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Feudalism evolved into capitalism because capitalism is a superior system with a superior opportunity for more people to self-actualize. This also makes it a superior system to socialism, which is why it is not possible to "evolve" in the manner you seem committed to. "Devolve", maybe, but even that is unlikely. Further, the emergence of capitalism did not outlaw feudalism, so there was an extended period of coexistence...which is a necessary component of "evolution". You have stated that such coexistence is not possible between socialism and capitalism. So once again..."evolution" is impossible.
Noted. With the previously stated explanation of why you're using the wrong term.
No way will this be done without a switch. We'll just need to disagree on this.
Meh. Maybe. It will certainly be called "democratic". Much easier to use force in the name of "democracy".
I don't. The key is to understand that which you reject or disagree. When it comes to what I personally write, when you return with paraphrases that are either NOT based on what I wrote or a distortion of what I wrote then this is an issue of ignoring or willfully engaging in intellectual dishonesty. So, simply stated, if you claim something to be my position I recommend you be accurate. Don't just put up what you would like my position to be and argue against that.
As you wish.
Might as well just copy what I have already written:
of course we would be OK with that. it is not even a new idea.
carry on, no one will even attempt to stop you.
no laws need be changed and no economic system needs to be replaced.
now get out there and just do it...
btw an employee-owned business is capitalism.
it does not become socialist until you tax us to pay for that business ventures creation.
and that? is not going to happen.
That does not move it from capitalism. Taxation is not a distinguishing characteristic of socialism. The distinguishing characteristic is decentralized control of the productive resources by the people, rather than by a minority (either government as the minority or aristocracy as the minority ... does not matter).
Do anything you wish, but if in the end a minority is calling the economic shots then you will still have some variant of capitalism.
You're just not getting into the idea of the discussion some people are trying to have. You still have the poo-pooing attitude and frankly, you're boring
According to your seed it is ! It's called a "Penalty to keep "non-borgs" in "Check" !
Moreover, there is a rather simple legal mechanism that can be put in place to keep this capitalist class in check. The basic problem with capitalists under capitalism is not their active, entrepreneurial role (which relatively few actually play), but their passive role as (richly-rewarded) suppliers of investment capital."Economic Democracy offers a transparent, rational substitute for this latter role—the capital-assets tax.
As ALL "Socialism" needs to try and stay relevant ...…. it "MUST CONTROL" !
And don't tell me "The People" can do it. Even "They" need "Someone" to keep them under "Control" !
You do not understand what 'distinguishing characteristic' means.
Taxation does not make a system socialism.
Taxation does not distinguish socialism from capitalism.
See?
I NEVER posted anything close to that.
I posted.....and used words from your own seed....Noting it is "NEEDED" for socialists to get control for the "Collectives" sakes.
You know those types.... The "Free Spirits".
Can't have that for "Socialism" to work as NEEDED.
Yes, socialism -as with capitalism- typically involves taxation.
There is nothing surprising or even interesting about the fact that a socio-economic/political system would include taxation.
But in your "Seed"....it's used a "Penalty" for not complying with the "Collective" !
Your own seed even goes as far as saying that if a company is sold, and it is deemed to be "To much", it must be sold to the "Entity" in control for a price deemed acceptable.
In "Real World" words...…"We the Collective" will Control...… EVERYTHING !
I don't think YOU understood what YOUR OWN "Seed" was saying.
Really man, try to actually comprehend what you are reading. Your cherry-picking landed you in the middle of the section where the article discusses the special entrepreneurial dimension provided by Economic Democracy. This is a special mechanism designed to provide a channel for entrepreneurial endeavors. This is a special case - a temporary capitalism (so to speak) - built into the system. And what you cherry-picked was a discussion on how to achieve the benefits of entrepreneurial capitalism without the drawbacks of profiting via investment capital:
A special case is not the normal case. This is not difficult to understand so maybe you should do your own reading. Get a handle on the material before tossing out a half-baked idea.
What you comprehended from your "Seed" and what I comprehended apparently are two different understandings....even though it's right there in print as to the actual "Wants/Needs" of the socialist types.
Seems to me....two differing opinions...... "Proves" that "Collective Socialism" WILL NOT WORK in this Country ….or the world for that matter..... unless your into "Forcing" Folks into complying with your perceptions. Bet the one that differs.....will fight. But I hear there are places for those "Fighting" types in socialistic worlds.
Indeed.
Not the point. The point of this article is to help people (those who genuinely would like to learn something) understand the defining characteristics of socialism. That is, know what socialism is and what is not socialism. There is no requirement nor an objective of convincing anyone that socialism is the best system or that socialism will even work.
This was all described in the article proper. You should know this by simply reading clear English so I do not feel obligated to walk you through every little step - especially since you are simply here to disrupt.
It IS the "Point" !
As your own quote notes ….. and what you ARE trying to portrait …. "Socialism isn't what folks should think about it."
Based on your own "Seed".....it IS what people should think. It's a "Bad situation". All the "Failed or Failing" socialist countries PROVE that time and again.
Collectivism NEVER works. Even Co-ops fail more than they succeed.
You are now declaring the point of my article? Not your call.
Prove that you have clue one about socialism as offered by this article. What are the defining characteristics of socialism as offered by this article?
What's YOUR call ?
Socialism is a good thing....depending ?
"Prove that you have clue one about socialism as offered by this article."
I already did that, using the words directly from YOUR Seeded article, then YOU told me I was Off-Topic for doing such, then you told me I didn't have a viable argument worth staying on the article. You actually asked me to leave.
Just as I figured, you have not put forth effort to even get clue number one.
Not going to spend my time rewriting what is clearly stated in the article proper.
Exactly what "Socialist" types do. Close their minds to what they consider "Outside" interference. Kudos to YOU !
You do the "Seed" well.
Off topic (among other things). This is your only warning.
Again ?
Better closed socialist doors than free market open doors I suppose.
Bye !
A worker cooperative is not a capitalist enterprise. There is no capital-owning minority (capitalists) paying workers less than the value of what they produce in order to pocket the remainder as profit. There is no internal class duality. Production is effected by a single common class of worker-owners, which is inherently socialistic, not capitalistic.
The capital assets tax in Schweickart's model isn't paid by entrepreneurial capitalists, it is paid by enterprises that are actually in the system, and is essentially a leasing fee on the socially-owned means of production that those particular enterprises make use of (their capital assets). The money goes into a fund (what he calls a national investment fund) which is specifically used to capitalize new businesses for the system, and to provide financing for existing ones if needed. It's a way for the system to perpetually recapitalize itself while excluding external capitalist finance, which is always costly and sometimes downright extortionate.
You didn't post the legal mechanism he mentioned for keeping entrepreneurial capitalists "in check" (his system makes an allowance for the good things that this particular type of capitalist can do). It's not the capital assets tax, which doesn't apply to them since they own their own capital outside of his main system. It's this:
Keep in mind that TiG offered Schweickart's model as one example of a non-centrally-planned, non-command-economy form of socialism (which many people seem to think is the only kind of socialism there is). It's a particularly interesting one to boot (if a person actually tries to understand it), in that it retains markets for goods and services (but not for capital, of course). That's not something you see in many older state-planned models. Yugoslavia had some of it in the 1980's, but that was about it (that I can recall off the top of my head, anyway).
take your pseudo-intellectual bs elsewhere. I have no time for semantic games.
employee-owned business in today's capitalist society do not have a capital-owning minority (capitalists) paying workers less than the value of what they produce in order to pocket the remainder as profit. as by the very definition, it is still an employee owned business.
the truth is
you want others to pay for your business ventures.
you want all the rewards but willing to take none of the risks with your own money
meaning: socialists are thieves... period.
the only thing stopping you right now from starting an employee based business ?
you want/need to steal the money from some evil capitalist first
and if the business fails? no big deal... it was not your money to begin with... there is no loss.
(and no reason for you to be good at your business either - as taxpayers cover all losses.)
I have more respect for bank robbers than any socialist... at least a bank robber is honest about it.
"just put the money in the bag and no one gets hurt."
That sounds very much like "I do not understand!", spoken by someone not even smart enough to ask politely for further explanation...
I have a better idea. How about taking your ignorant, slanderous bullshit elsewhere instead, hmm?
You obviously have nothing of value to add to this conversation, and are only here to spray troll piss around.
Make thoughtful comments - disagreeing as much as you wish - or leave this article. Picking fights with derogatory comments crosses the line.
even one case? is unacceptable
see liberty for details
What constitutionally defined form of liberty would be taken from you by market socialism?
I think that's what I was thinking about when I was proposing scenarios on employee owned businesses. Who could possibly be against a third sector emerging attempting to do business in this manner? We already have numerous employee owned businesses
Yup. The sector already exists, in a way, but hardly anyone ever talks about it. I think it accounts for several hundred billion in sales, too. Not sure how many of the businesses are actually worker cooperatives, though. Most are probably esops, which are better than regular old run-of-the-mill capitalist enterprises (take your check and go home), but not in the same league as a cooperative (from a left perspective, anyway).
So, you want to go back to Communes? That has been tried before and they have failed each time.
How on Earth do you get that from dig's question?
To be clear, per Oxford:
Exactly what YOUR Seeded Article proposes as a "Good Thing"....a "Collective", but with Taxable perks....and penalties for those that don't conform too !
Because, that is how a commune is run, TiG. It is exactly what dig is talking about. 100% owned by the community and shared equally with its own banking system. Most times, communes run on a barter economy where services and goods are exchanged for other goods and services. But, what dig said is what a commune does, at least when it has been tried here in the USA.
Well I think I will wait for Dig to return and speak for himself. He will disagree with your 'commune' characterization, but let's leave that up to him since this is his post.
Communes are obviously communist because everything is held jointly by all in those economic concepts. We are discussing socialism, market socialism to be exact.
I think Americans hear the word commune and tend to think of a hippie compound out in the woods somewhere, but that's not what I'm talking about at all. People wouldn't be living together and sharing everything equally. I'm talking about actual, real-world businesses. The kind that most, if not all of us are familiar with, in which people go to work 5 days a week to produce a good or service for sale on the open market. The kind that has to produce something of value that other people actually want or need to consume or they go out of business.
I was talking about something like the Mondragon Cooperatives. Here's a short clip about them (less than 3 minutes long) from the documentary film Shift Change:
" Commune " is the French word for "municipality". It can be anything from a little village to the city of Paris.
" La Commune " (with emphasis on the definite article "la" ) was a failed 1871 revolt that attempted to create a socialist state. It was repressed with much blood by the bourgeoisie (property-owning class).
The English word "community" is an obvious derivative from commune .
Funny you mention that. I actually thought about referencing the French usage somehow, but I wasn't exactly sure about it. I was thinking they were something like counties, because I often see French places listed as being within this Commune or that. Thanks for the info.
Very interesting video. Oddly, I do not see any mention anywhere of what happens to people who are "not a 'good' fit.z' Curious of the concept on that account. What I am getting after is a statement of several cons inherent in the system. And, are those negatives manageable, negotiable, or destructive?
Part of this is government being the employer of last resort.
I don't quite follow you: Is this a government company?
No, it is the government itself. Government continues to exist as a necessary element of civil society.
Oddly? It was under 3 minutes. Not a lot of room for detail.
I'm not sure what you mean by not a good fit. New people are given a grace period of several months to a year before they can buy in and become a fully-vested member. This gives them time to see if the work environment is right for them. Also, each cooperative has a hierarchy of managers as well as a social council to hopefully deal with any problems.
Here's the organizational structure for Mondragon cooperatives:
From what I've read they tend to bend over backwards to try to solve personal problems. They kind of have to, since everyone is a co-owning member, b ut if ultimately no solution can be found, then a person can certainly leave. Hell, entire cooperatives can quit the larger organization if they really want to. Participation is voluntary after all.
Nothing is perfect. Every system has problems, but considering that they've been around for 62 years, going from 5 members in 1956 to about 80,000 today (and still growing), I'd say they're pretty good at managing problems.
Edit: I wanted to mention as a side note that all those managers and councils are selected by the members themselves at annual meetings. It's workplace democracy. The workers hire their managers, instead of the other way around.
TiG might have mistaken your comment about the video to mean his video in the article itself, the one about David Schweickart's model for Economic Democracy, which is for an entire country. In Schweickart's model the government takes on the responsibility of employer of last resort to prevent extreme poverty and homelessness.
Mondragon isn't part of the Spanish government and doesn't guarantee jobs. It is part of their business philosophy to create as many good paying jobs as possible, though. Social responsibility is part of their culture.
Yup, I answered with respect to the system, not the Mondragon cooperative.
Thank you for increasing my knowledge of the system. This is a first 'blush' case for me. The video sounded so, too, drama-less. So I had a question. (Smile.)
Yes, my statements in this round are about Mondragon.
A cooperative is essentially a giant corporation (no matter the size of the cooperative), but where every holder of company shares has voting stock. That's the first thing you need to remember, it is as close to pure Capitalism as you can get in a semi-Socialist society. The members get compensation for the use of their equipment through their shares in the cooperative; however, even cooperatives are subject to mismanagement. Just look at the Eastern Cooperative (a defunct dairy cooperative) and compare them to Land O' Lakes (a VERY successful dairy cooperative).
I could easily nitpick the language you used, but am not going to do so. However, I am curious, given your comment, what point you would make? Your comment seems to suggest an ending sentence of the form:
Therefore ...
I was talking specifically about a worker cooperative. One person, one vote, regardless of shares, if unequal shares are used at all. Some don't, some are one person, one share, one vote.
And they're not as close to pure capitalism as you can get. They are precisely the opposite. "Pure" capitalism would be a company belonging to a minority, even just one person, who employs non-owning workers for as little pay as the market would allow in order to make as much profit off of their labor for himself as possible. Capitalist businesses are minority-owned, minority-controlled, and are operated like little dictatorships for the primary enrichment of the owners, not the people working there. A worker cooperative, on the other hand, is a pluralistically-owned, democratically-operated, power sharing business, which is socialistic in nature, not capitalistic (also, remuneration is determined by the worker-owners themselves, not by the labor market).
Yes, they are. Everything is. But are cooperatives, or more specifically a group of different worker cooperatives, federated under a common umbrella organization, what you meant by going back to communes?
I can't believe I forgot to add that pure capitalism would also lack government intervention on the part of the working class. No labor laws, no minimum wage, no safety regulations, no environmental regulations, no public education, no Social Security, no Medicare, no Medicaid, no public safety net whatsoever. Pure capitalism would be pure laissez-faire.
... and even with 'pure capitalism' civil society must provide laws (some people call this 'force') for it to effectively operate. Hard to imagine any system working without laws providing property rights, contract law, etc.
Yup.
Actually, in "Pure" Capitalism, each employee would be paid based on how much value they bring to and work they do for the company regardless of ownership. If you are employed by company X, but you only do 1 hour of shoddy work in an 8 hour of day while spending the rest of the time playing Solitaire on a work computer; then you should only be paid a very small amount due to the fact you don't bring very much value or strong work ethic to the job. Now, if you do 5 hours of excellent work, but spend 3 hours split between reading trade publications and playing Solitaire on a work computer, you should be paid much higher due to the fact you bring a lot of value and are increasing your worth to the company due to staying up to date with your particular company's business sector. That's what "Pure" Capitalism is about, you get a return off of your work by how much you work, how hard you work, and how much you improve your value to the company. The problem is when Socialist ideas like a Minimum Wage a implemented. They artificially inflate the cost of hiring those that do shoddy work and require a similar increase in the pay given to the more valuable workers. The problem then becomes how much can a company afford to pay their employees in order to keep them while staying in business and maximizing profit. And, most of these Socialist actions are brought about because of a minority of business owners actually would pay as little as possible to even the best workers to maximize profit. However, unless the company is a monopoly, they would not be able to get away with doing something like that for very long as the employees would be able to move to a better paying company.
No matter the economic system, greed will still be a part of it. "Pure" Capitalism actually is the best system to prevent greed as everyone is in competition with each other to get the best workers and most value for their investments to maximize their profits. In any other system, the greed shows up in trying to artificially increase the costs for hiring the worst employees to create an equality of outcome (ie minimum wage and standard benefits packages vis a vis the PPACA).
No.
In "pure" capitalism, the workers would be paid just enough to avoid starving. All added value would go to the owner.
The essential purpose of capitalism is to enrich the owner. Period.
Some owners are decent human beings, who take pity on "their" employees, and treat them almost like real people....
1. Yes, David Ricardo's "Iron Law of Wages."
2. I understand this behavior as well, though mostly in the "old days" it worked this way for the self-employed owners, and their management teams only.
Employees who are not a source of profit (whose work barely pays their own wage or less) never keep their jobs very long unless the employer is a bad manager. Employees who are indeed sources of profit for their employer (the "good" ones) can certainly receive a larger reward from their master for their services, but it will still only be the minimum the employer thinks he has to pay in order to prevent them from going somewhere else. He just wants to keep them locked in making profit for him, and as such they can never, ever receive the full value their labor adds. If they did, then the best the employer could ever hope to do is break even, and he would have no reason to employ them in the first place (no profit motive).
That's capitalism. An owning minority employs the working majority for one reason and one reason only -- to increase the wealth of the owning minority. Some make more than others, but at the end of the day the workers receive only what the market forces employers to pay, even if the employer is making money hand over fist off of their labor (which, honestly, is the goal -- get the highest rate of profit possible; as much as you can, as fast as you can).
You should read what dig wrote a few times. You magnificently missed his point and even argued points (as if you were rebutting what he wrote) that he had stipulated as a foundation for his point.
If a business is the kind which customers frequent in person, like a restaurant or a store, for example, then their labor is indeed adding value because the environment and atmosphere of the establishment itself is part of the product being sold, it's part of what the customers are buying. Filthy restaurants with disgusting bathrooms tend to get less repeat business than clean and tidy ones, wouldn't you say? That's the market's way of saying dirty ones are valued less than clean ones. Custodial labor adds value.
Even if customers never set foot on the premises, custodial labor is still additive so long as regularly cleaned bathrooms and offices are a necessary input for production. If they aren't, or if the employees can do their own cleanup without affecting productivity and someone else is still being paid to clean, then the employer might just be a bad manager.
False.
"Pure Capitalism" (AKA "Laissez Faire Capitalism") means that no one watches over the system to check abuse. What would eventually happen is that there would be a few large corporations that could do whatever they wanted....everyone else wou;ld march to their orders.
One of the problems that seems to arise in discussions of this type is that there are degrees of Socialism. (Technically speaking, Communism is a form of Socialism-- albeit it a very extreme one. And by its very nature, it must have an authoritarian government to exist. But there are also more moderate (and very democratic) forms of Socialism such as exist in Scandinavia and perhaps some other countries)>
People often argue about whether the U.S. is a "Socialist" country or a "Capitalist" country. The fact is-- we actually have a mixed system. (It's Capitalist in that a person can start a business and become successful-- and in fact bringing economic advantages to others. But OTOH, we have Social Security-- which is actually a moderate form of . . . Socialism!)
What source are you using that defines communism as an emergent property of authoritarian government (state)? That sounds like a definition that uses the former USSR as the exemplar for communism. The former USSR was an authoritarian, single-party, command economy headed (for most of its existence) by a brutal dictator. The people of the former USSR never had anything remotely close to decentralized democratic control over the productive resources of the nation.
Since Lenin and Stalin co-opted their labels from Marx and then proceeded to do the opposite of what Marx outlined (Stalin doing this to the extreme), would it not be more correct to go to the source and look at the objectives there?
Those are social democracies - variants of capitalism. There are not socialism either.
The USA is a capitalist nation. We can play with words forever but ultimately the productive resources of the USA are controlled by a minority (the leaders of the private sector). Our economic system is solidly capitalism. We do have public programs, as is true with any civilized society. Social security, for example, is a public program. It has absolutely nothing to do with socialism. There is nothing whatsoever about social security that is socialism other than the root word 'social'.
One could label the USA a weak social democracy. That would be accurate.
Eh, Socialism is just another political/economic ideology that fails miserably whenever it is attempted outright due to that little thing called human nature. Like all ideologies. However, when blended with other ideologies (specifically capitalism) Socialism can be VERY useful.
Describe socialism as you see it. Who is in charge? How is that control exercised? What is the key objective of socialism? How can the polar opposite paradigm of capitalism be 'blended' with it?
Today there exist social democracies. These are capitalist economies wherein the businesses are heavily taxed to generate revenue for public offerings (e.g. universal healthcare). If that is what you consider 'blending' then note that there is no socialism in this system. The economy is capitalism with 'social' programs (public services). The presence of public services is not a distinguishing characteristic of socialism. Every civil society under any system will almost certainly have public services.
In pure socialism no one single person is in charge, methods of supply, distribution, production, are a communal decision. Almost an absolute democracy really. As far as actual governance goes, that is a little trickier.
"The people" lol. Ah that phrase always makes me laugh. "The People" are NEVER in charge or in control and socialism is no different (in reality, not ideological theory).
Ideally through a purely democratic system. The community, nation, whatever decide as a group what should happen. There are still systems of laws, but the collective group gets to decide what they are and how they are enforced.
If you asked Marx, communism. From a modern perspective, I would say the goal is a more or less equal distribution of wealth and resources throughout a populace to help that entire group thrive. There is still some inequality, but ultimately no one is going to bed without a roof over their head, food in their bellies, and the ability to see a doctor.
The way most Western nations have done it. Be capitalist economically (with restrictions), but tax that economic system to help provide the most basic needs of the populace as a whole via government (food, shelter, healthcare, education etc). Make sure that everyone starts out on the most basic, level playing field, and let them excel or not from there. Politically is where it gets a tad bit more complicated, but IMO a representative democracy is the way to go. And for the record, I would consider Communism to be the polar opposite of Capitalism
I would consider some aspects to be "socialism" when a representative government essentially corners the market on certain industries. I would consider universal healthcare to be a crude form of socialism in a western democracy, same with the police, fire fighters, military etc. In that the populace as a whole chips in for the basic common good. Actual socialism, no. But as close as we are likely to get, probably.
The difference for me is what type of government is providing those services.
That is not 'socialism' though - what you are calling 'socialism' here is simply the offering of public services. The purpose of socialism is NOT to provide public services. But public service would be a result of any meaningful socio-economic/political system. There is a well-known and largely well-defined term for what you described: social democracy.
I agree, but for the same reason socialism is the polar opposite. Both socialism and communism do not have minority control (State or aristocracy, does not matter) over the productive resources of the economy.
That is minority control. That is properly called statism or (if excessive) fascism. It is not socialism.
However, for the most part, ...
... since I am not going to nit-pick.
We both know the working definition has changed. If you wanna go strictly with Marx's definition, then I don't think socialism exists anywhere in the world. I am coming from a more modern, "evolved" interpretation. That being that a representative democracy is, in theory, the expressed will of the people, and thus the people are calling the shots. And when that government is providing the bulk of any given services, then that is socialism in practice.Not perfect I know, and there is plenty of disagreement.
Oh I know. The purpose of socialism is to pave the way for communism (according to Marx). Today I think the purpose of socialism is, again, to start everyone out on a level playing field, providing a base level of opportunity. The ideology has changed from its original definition I think.
And that is what I call myself, a social democrat. That is the closest I think our species will ever get to socialism. I am one of those who thinks socialism is good in theory, but will never work in practice. That does not mean there are not certain aspects of the ideology that cannot be worked into our current system for a better outcome.
True, but if I recall, within socialism there is still the concept of private ownership correct? Of personal property? Whereas in Communism private ownership is gone completely, you don't even own the clothes on your back, you are just borrowing them. It has been a few years since my last Poli Sci class, but I think that is the biggest difference between them. If I am wrong please let me know.
All depends on what century you are in right?
It is social democracy - a variant of capitalism. Providing public services is not a defining characteristic of socialism any more than it is a defining characteristic of capitalism. Providing services has nothing to do with the fundamental economic system.
Providing more opportunity to more people (not a level playing field) was core to Marx and remains core today. That has not changed. What has changed, really, is the approach on how to accomplish that end. Marx did very little work on how socialism would actually take place. Quite a bit of thinking has ensued since the late 19th century.
Possibly. Not sure any of us will be around to know for certain.
It is normally called personal property. And certainly, the idea of personal possessions is unchanged from capitalism. Private property refers to minority ownership of the means of production and distribution.
No. Not sure where that comes from. Makes no sense. What would be the advantage of that? That sounds like something generated from the 1950's during the Red scare. A purely egalitarian society would be hell IMO. And it would self destruct.
Let's do a thought experiment.
Let's imagine a consultant who starts her own business. At first, she's all alone, doing everything: prospecting for new clients, executing the missions, writing the reports to the client, and even doing the accounting.
Clients are pleased with her work, and soon she cannot keep up... so she wants to bring in a collaborator for the secretarial and accounting stuff. She herself will still be doing the "productive work"... but she can't do it all unless she unloads the other stuff. The collaborator is necessary for the company to be efficient.
So... how does the newbie fit in, if the rule is "all companies are co-ops"? The owner and her future partner would negotiate the conditions, until both are satisfied.
First, the consultant's salary would surely be higher. Second, the accountant would have to buy half of the company, according to a schedule over time. Third, the two "owner-employees" would participate in the company's profits, in proportion to how many "shares" each holds - ultimately fifty-fifty... unless the two decide to engage a third partner...
.
The point here is not to define details. It is that, while the system must provide a path toward "equal membership", it must also assure a good reward for creation and initiative. With a little thought, it isn't difficult to imagine a package that reconciles both.
"Exodus 20:17 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor’s”"
Thank you S.P. for putting "Teeth" to my comment You deleted to give me a third "Ticket" !
"Socialism" is all about "Coveting" someone else's ideas, ideals and successes to succeed, then claim it as a "Cooperative" win !
False.
"Pure Capitalism" (AKA "Laissez Faire Capitalism") means that no one watches over the system to check abuse. What would eventually happen is that there would be a few large corporations that could do whatever they wanted....everyone else would march to their orders.
How do you feel about the U.S. Social Security System?
well... ya stayed home and will get a check from the govt to live on.
how did you like your free 30 day trial of socialism?
LOL