Next time you hear someone criticizing socialism...

[danielpalos]

Ask them how well capitalism was doing in 1929.
View attachment 245504 View attachment 245506 View attachment 245505

To the extent that capitalism’s problems – inequality, instability (cycles/crises), etc. – stem in part from its production relationships, reforms focused exclusively on regulating or supplanting markets will not succeed in solving them. For example, Keynesian monetary policies (focused on raising or lowering the quantity of money in circulation and, correspondingly, interest rates) do not touch the employer-employee relationship, however much their variations redistribute wealth, regulate markets, or displace markets in favor of state-administered investment decisions. Likewise, Keynesian fiscal policies (raising or lowering taxes and government spending) do not address the employer-employee relationship.

Keynesian policies also never ended the cyclical instability of capitalism. The New Deal and European social democracy left capitalism in place in both state and private units (enterprises) of production notwithstanding their massive reform agendas and programs. They thereby left capitalist employers facing the incentives and receiving the resources (profits) to evade, weaken and eventually dissolve most of those programs.

It is far better not to distribute wealth unequally in the first place than to re-distribute it after to undo the inequality. For example, FDR proposed in 1944 that the government establish a maximum income alongside a minimum wage; that is one among the various ways inequality could be limited and thereby redistribution avoided. Efforts to redistribute encounter evasions, oppositions, and failures that compound the effects of unequal distribution itself. Social peace and cohesion are the victims of redistribution sooner or later. Reforming markets while leaving the relations/organization of capitalist production unchanged is like redistribution. Just as redistribution schemes fail to solve the problems rooted in distribution, market-focused reforms fail to solve the problems rooted in production.

Since 2008, capitalism has showed us all yet again its deep and unsolved problems of cyclical instability, deepening inequality and the injustices they both entail. Their persistence mirrors that of the capitalist organization of production. To successfully confront and solve the problems of economic cycles, income and wealth inequality, and so on, we need to go beyond the capitalist employer-employee system of production. The democratization of enterprises – transitioning from employer-employee hierarchies to worker cooperatives – is a key way available here and now to realize the change we need.

Worker coops democratically decide the distribution of income (wages, bonuses, benefits, profit shares, etc.) among their members. No small group of owners and the boards of directors they choose would, as in capitalist corporations, make such decisions. Thus, for example, it would be far less likely that a few individuals in a worker coop would earn millions while most others could not afford to send children to college. A democratic worker coop decision on the distribution of enterprise income would be far less unequal than what typifies capitalist enterprises. A socialism for the 21st century could and should include the transition from a capitalist to a worker-coop-based economic system as central to its commitments to less inequality and less social conflict over redistribution.

Capitalism Is Not the “Market System”



An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link, content.
Angelo

Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.

USMB Rules and Guidelines

Russian communist food lines at the meat Market

Ravi's Open Diary: Russian Revolution Centenary: Part Two

Seems like they just needed more Labor to help out so many "customers".

I'm sure that was the problem. In socialism why work when the government supplies everything lol

there is no natural rate of unemployment under socialism only under capitalism. better planning could have made more personnel available to ensure sufficient supply to meet demand.

Or it could have been the stock was to low to have more workers

...a bottleneck somewhere up the supply chain could have used more personnel.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Russian communist food lines at the meat Market

Ravi's Open Diary: Russian Revolution Centenary: Part Two

Seems like they just needed more Labor to help out so many "customers".

I'm sure that was the problem. In socialism why work when the government supplies everything lol

there is no natural rate of unemployment under socialism only under capitalism. better planning could have made more personnel available to ensure sufficient supply to meet demand.

Or it could have been the stock was to low to have more workers

...a bottleneck somewhere up the supply chain could have used more personnel.

...a bottleneck somewhere up the supply chain could have used more personnel.

Yeah, the bottleneck that occurs where socialists outlaw market signals......the entire economy

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Russian communist food lines at the meat Market

Ravi's Open Diary: Russian Revolution Centenary: Part Two

Seems like they just needed more Labor to help out so many "customers".

I'm sure that was the problem. In socialism why work when the government supplies everything lol

there is no natural rate of unemployment under socialism only under capitalism. better planning could have made more personnel available to ensure sufficient supply to meet demand.

Or it could have been the stock was to low to have more workers

...a bottleneck somewhere up the supply chain could have used more personnel.

not in a socialist system the government dictates the allotment of meat per person

 

[danielpalos]

Seems like they just needed more Labor to help out so many "customers".

I'm sure that was the problem. In socialism why work when the government supplies everything lol

there is no natural rate of unemployment under socialism only under capitalism. better planning could have made more personnel available to ensure sufficient supply to meet demand.

Or it could have been the stock was to low to have more workers

...a bottleneck somewhere up the supply chain could have used more personnel.

...a bottleneck somewhere up the supply chain could have used more personnel.

Yeah, the bottleneck that occurs where socialists outlaw market signals......the entire economy

We have a much better understanding of economics, now; and, the former Soviet Union could have pursued industrial automaton instead of wasting their time on a Cold War with us.

 

[dblack]

Capitalism is unstable, unequal and fundamentally undemocratic.

Yep. That's the nature of freedom.

 

[the other mike]

Capitalism is unstable, unequal and fundamentally undemocratic.

Yep. That's the nature of freedom.

Free if you're lucky ?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm sure that was the problem. In socialism why work when the government supplies everything lol

there is no natural rate of unemployment under socialism only under capitalism. better planning could have made more personnel available to ensure sufficient supply to meet demand.

Or it could have been the stock was to low to have more workers

...a bottleneck somewhere up the supply chain could have used more personnel.

...a bottleneck somewhere up the supply chain could have used more personnel.

Yeah, the bottleneck that occurs where socialists outlaw market signals......the entire economy

We have a much better understanding of economics, now; and, the former Soviet Union could have pursued industrial automaton instead of wasting their time on a Cold War with us.

Capitalists have a much better understanding of economics.
Socialists.....not so much.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Capitalism is unstable, unequal and fundamentally undemocratic.

Yep. That's the nature of freedom.

Free if you're lucky ?

I'm not in jail.
Is it because I'm lucky, or because I never committed a crime?

 

[the other mike]

"Socialism will always fail. We'll make sure of it."

 

[the other mike]

I'm not in jail.
Is it because I'm lucky, or because I never committed a crime?

In your particular case, I would presume it was luck.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Ask them how well capitalism was doing in 1929.
View attachment 245504 View attachment 245506 View attachment 245505

To the extent that capitalism’s problems – inequality, instability (cycles/crises), etc. – stem in part from its production relationships, reforms focused exclusively on regulating or supplanting markets will not succeed in solving them. For example, Keynesian monetary policies (focused on raising or lowering the quantity of money in circulation and, correspondingly, interest rates) do not touch the employer-employee relationship, however much their variations redistribute wealth, regulate markets, or displace markets in favor of state-administered investment decisions. Likewise, Keynesian fiscal policies (raising or lowering taxes and government spending) do not address the employer-employee relationship.

Keynesian policies also never ended the cyclical instability of capitalism. The New Deal and European social democracy left capitalism in place in both state and private units (enterprises) of production notwithstanding their massive reform agendas and programs. They thereby left capitalist employers facing the incentives and receiving the resources (profits) to evade, weaken and eventually dissolve most of those programs.

It is far better not to distribute wealth unequally in the first place than to re-distribute it after to undo the inequality. For example, FDR proposed in 1944 that the government establish a maximum income alongside a minimum wage; that is one among the various ways inequality could be limited and thereby redistribution avoided. Efforts to redistribute encounter evasions, oppositions, and failures that compound the effects of unequal distribution itself. Social peace and cohesion are the victims of redistribution sooner or later. Reforming markets while leaving the relations/organization of capitalist production unchanged is like redistribution. Just as redistribution schemes fail to solve the problems rooted in distribution, market-focused reforms fail to solve the problems rooted in production.

Since 2008, capitalism has showed us all yet again its deep and unsolved problems of cyclical instability, deepening inequality and the injustices they both entail. Their persistence mirrors that of the capitalist organization of production. To successfully confront and solve the problems of economic cycles, income and wealth inequality, and so on, we need to go beyond the capitalist employer-employee system of production. The democratization of enterprises – transitioning from employer-employee hierarchies to worker cooperatives – is a key way available here and now to realize the change we need.

Worker coops democratically decide the distribution of income (wages, bonuses, benefits, profit shares, etc.) among their members. No small group of owners and the boards of directors they choose would, as in capitalist corporations, make such decisions. Thus, for example, it would be far less likely that a few individuals in a worker coop would earn millions while most others could not afford to send children to college. A democratic worker coop decision on the distribution of enterprise income would be far less unequal than what typifies capitalist enterprises. A socialism for the 21st century could and should include the transition from a capitalist to a worker-coop-based economic system as central to its commitments to less inequality and less social conflict over redistribution.

Capitalism Is Not the “Market System”



An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link, content.
Angelo

Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.

USMB Rules and Guidelines

I'd rather ask YOU why you have to refer all the way back to 90 years ago - and do it incorrectly - than deal with the many failures of socialism available much more recently.

 

[Cecilie1200]

there is no natural rate of unemployment under socialism only under capitalism. better planning could have made more personnel available to ensure sufficient supply to meet demand.

Or it could have been the stock was to low to have more workers

...a bottleneck somewhere up the supply chain could have used more personnel.

...a bottleneck somewhere up the supply chain could have used more personnel.

Yeah, the bottleneck that occurs where socialists outlaw market signals......the entire economy

We have a much better understanding of economics, now; and, the former Soviet Union could have pursued industrial automaton instead of wasting their time on a Cold War with us.

Capitalists have a much better understanding of economics.
Socialists.....not so much.

Not to mention human nature.

 

[the other mike]

I'd rather ask YOU why you have to refer all the way back to 90 years ago - and do it incorrectly - than deal with the many failures of socialism available much more recently.

Still nobody can answer without hyperbole or predetermined opinions.
Socialism has never been allowed to succeed without eventually being sabotaged by the United States or British imperialists..

 

[basquebromance]

Paychecks are barely budging, but the costs of housing, child care, health care, and education just keep going up. Families are working hard—and it's time to make sure they all have opportunities to thrive.

 

[the other mike]

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'd rather ask YOU why you have to refer all the way back to 90 years ago - and do it incorrectly - than deal with the many failures of socialism available much more recently.

Still nobody can answer without hyperbole or predetermined opinions.
Socialism has never been allowed to succeed without eventually being sabotaged by the United States.

Where was it succeeding up until the point of US "sabotage"?

 

[the other mike]

I'd rather ask YOU why you have to refer all the way back to 90 years ago - and do it incorrectly - than deal with the many failures of socialism available much more recently.

Still nobody can answer without hyperbole or predetermined opinions.
Socialism has never been allowed to succeed without eventually being sabotaged by the United States.

Where was it succeeding up until the point of US "sabotage"?

Don't patronize me or pretend you don't understand what I said.

While Marx did not approve of capitalism or communism, he had a pretty good idea of how the two could successfully coexist.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'd rather ask YOU why you have to refer all the way back to 90 years ago - and do it incorrectly - than deal with the many failures of socialism available much more recently.

Still nobody can answer without hyperbole or predetermined opinions.
Socialism has never been allowed to succeed without eventually being sabotaged by the United States or British imperialists..

I'm hearing excuses. "Socialism could succeed, if the real world would just stop existing! It's the US's fault!"

Never mind that, by your own admission, you're advocating something that has no actual track record of succeeding, based solely on your belief that it COULD work.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'd rather ask YOU why you have to refer all the way back to 90 years ago - and do it incorrectly - than deal with the many failures of socialism available much more recently.

Still nobody can answer without hyperbole or predetermined opinions.
Socialism has never been allowed to succeed without eventually being sabotaged by the United States.

Where was it succeeding up until the point of US "sabotage"?

Don't patronize me or pretend you don't understand what I said.

While Marx did not approve of capitalism or communism, he had a pretty good idea of how the two could successfully coexist.

Don't patronize me

Sorry, it's unavoidable.

Where was it succeeding up until the point of US "sabotage"?

Still no answer, eh?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'd rather ask YOU why you have to refer all the way back to 90 years ago - and do it incorrectly - than deal with the many failures of socialism available much more recently.

Still nobody can answer without hyperbole or predetermined opinions.
Socialism has never been allowed to succeed without eventually being sabotaged by the United States.

Where was it succeeding up until the point of US "sabotage"?

Don't patronize me or pretend you don't understand what I said.

While Marx did not approve of capitalism or communism, he had a pretty good idea of how the two could successfully coexist.

"Your disagreement is just a pretense! It proves you know I'm right, because EVERYTHING proves me right!"