Pathways to socialism.

[occupied]

I've started this thread to explore the different paths and obstacles that might appear while switching to socialism. But before engaging into any discussion it is necesary to establish a working definition.

"Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy."

Here it is important to distinguish "social ownership" and "state ownership". While it can be argued that when the state owns a company it does so having in mind the best interest of the society, it is often the case that the company is used to advance the agenda of a group of people holding office. Certain mechanisms must be in place in order to ensure true social ownership is ensured , like transparency and democracy. In any case, when the state has the control of several companies, we might be facing a scenario of state capitalism and not of socialism.

From my viewpoint cooperatives are the closest form of social ownership to date.
Can you think of any other ways to achieve social ownership?
What would be the drawbacks of having a large number of companies organized in such a fashion?
Do you think such arrangement is compatible with the free market ?
Share your thoughts.

You miss one important point. But it is the main point that is missing from any socialist or communist system. Why would I take the risk of inventing something and take it to market if I don't get to own it? If the government is going to become my partner in anything I do and take their deemed "fair share" why would I bother? I could do just as well by taking your government job at the same amount of pay I would get anyway and not have to deal with so much government bullshit and assholes along the way.

The drawback is you lose as a society any innovation. Socialism and communism arrive at the same conclusion as they have in the past and why they always fail. When you can't gain for yourself you don't stick your neck out. Every citizen simply pulls back into the government fold as they are taught to do and shut up to get by. Socialism and communism are the death of innovation and advancement. As a matter of fact it retards what gains were already achieved. Your latest test subject is Valenzuela and these people stand in lines forever to maybe get the government reward of a roll of fucking toilet paper. That's socialism and communism. The only people that don't suffer under that system are the rulers. They get to live like kings, at your expense.

Wealthy people and socialism are not incompatible, you just can't get rich in exploitative ways that do not serve the greater good. Become a rich doctor because you do the best boob jobs? Absolutely. Become a rich banker because you gouge people on loans? Never.

 

[lake avenue]

Because you neglect the one real world thing that would make it work as designed, you and those who hold similar beliefs

I'll make it very clear right now that I'm very pro-capitalist.

in every socio-political-economic model always neglect to take human nature into account. The reason every man made system ultimately fails is because people are involved. You may not like the "broken record" but history has shown it is always true, there's no escaping it.

... So are you going to explain your point or no? You simply mumble something about human nature and then nothing?

because, again, this is a broken record argument, I'll assume you think that humans are inherently greedy, and therefore communism cannot work. In that case, I will say the same to you that I say to every other person ever who says this: I would like you to prove that. With a source or scientific study, not just you saying "yeah that's the way it is".

 

[Ringel05]

Because you neglect the one real world thing that would make it work as designed, you and those who hold similar beliefs

I'll make it very clear right now that I'm very pro-capitalist.

in every socio-political-economic model always neglect to take human nature into account. The reason every man made system ultimately fails is because people are involved. You may not like the "broken record" but history has shown it is always true, there's no escaping it.

... So are you going to explain your point or no? You simply mumble something about human nature and then nothing?

because, again, this is a broken record argument, I'll assume you think that humans are inherently greedy, and therefore communism cannot work. In that case, I will say the same to you that I say to every other person ever who says this: I would like you to prove that. With a source or scientific study, not just you saying "yeah that's the way it is".

Uummmm, you didn't understand what I posted? You think I stated EVERY single person is inherently greedy? You obviously make a hell of a lot of assumptions.
I did source accepted and known scientific study in my first response, not my fault if you are unaware of the principles and laws encapsulated in both references.
Look at almost every economic system that has ever been created, the model for all is to lift everyone up, to benefit all but in real life history shows us this is never the case, psychology and sociology explains why. I don't care if you're pro-capitalist, pro-communist, pro-socialist, pro-whatever all the scientific fields I have referenced show how and why they all ultimately fail.

 

[occupied]

Because you neglect the one real world thing that would make it work as designed, you and those who hold similar beliefs

I'll make it very clear right now that I'm very pro-capitalist.

in every socio-political-economic model always neglect to take human nature into account. The reason every man made system ultimately fails is because people are involved. You may not like the "broken record" but history has shown it is always true, there's no escaping it.

... So are you going to explain your point or no? You simply mumble something about human nature and then nothing?

because, again, this is a broken record argument, I'll assume you think that humans are inherently greedy, and therefore communism cannot work. In that case, I will say the same to you that I say to every other person ever who says this: I would like you to prove that. With a source or scientific study, not just you saying "yeah that's the way it is".

Communism as envisioned by Marx is not really workable, humans are wired to form and follow hierarchies. The trick is not to do away with central authority but to make it socially beneficial and non-exploitative. Make every form of power, political, economic and religious, fully accountable for their actions and there will be no need for an artificial social system.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

f the government is going to become my partner in anything I do and take their deemed "fair share" why would I bother?

I think you missed the part in the OP which differentiates state ownership and social ownership.
Regardless...
a) the government should act as a sponsor ( and a carefull one at that), not as the sole owner.
b) I don't think every single production means should be socialized , but maybe just those that cover basic needs for a working society : water, food, energy, education, healthcare.

There is no difference between state or social ownership. It' all the same bullshit that basically means you as the entrepreneur don't own what you built and won't be rewarded for it. It takes innovation and hard work and makes it a participation trophy.

a) Once the government is involved in any way it's fucked. Careful? Really? When the hell is the government ever careful and not forceful? Obiecare comes to mind. That's about as careful and job killing as you can get.

b) How can you only select a special few business' to run through government? It's impossible. Once you pick one to socialize they effect other suppliers and then some people think they need special treatment and it never ends. And in the end you get no production, no innovation and yet the chosen suppliers of the government get to live like kings.

You should probably just come out and say you wish the US could fail just like Russia did and every other country that has tried this system has. There is nothing that can keep us afloat by acting just like all of the failures and expecting something will magically fall in place and we won't suffer the same failures they did and still are living under.

 

[Ringel05]

Because you neglect the one real world thing that would make it work as designed, you and those who hold similar beliefs

I'll make it very clear right now that I'm very pro-capitalist.

in every socio-political-economic model always neglect to take human nature into account. The reason every man made system ultimately fails is because people are involved. You may not like the "broken record" but history has shown it is always true, there's no escaping it.

... So are you going to explain your point or no? You simply mumble something about human nature and then nothing?

because, again, this is a broken record argument, I'll assume you think that humans are inherently greedy, and therefore communism cannot work. In that case, I will say the same to you that I say to every other person ever who says this: I would like you to prove that. With a source or scientific study, not just you saying "yeah that's the way it is".

Communism as envisioned by Marx is not really workable, humans are wired to form and follow hierarchies. The trick is not to do away with central authority but to make it socially beneficial and non-exploitative. Make every form of power, political, economic and religious, fully accountable for their actions and there will be no need for an artificial social system.

The problem lies with making it non-exploitative. Personality traits, personal motivation or the lack thereof determines how each person approaches all aspects of life, and that's not even including the highly motivated, highly functional, highly intelligent and highly charismatic, narcissists, sociopaths and psychopaths. That's just the tip of the iceberg.

 

[CultureCitizen]

I've started this thread to explore the different paths and obstacles that might appear while switching to socialism. But before engaging into any discussion it is necesary to establish a working definition.

"Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy."

Here it is important to distinguish "social ownership" and "state ownership". While it can be argued that when the state owns a company it does so having in mind the best interest of the society, it is often the case that the company is used to advance the agenda of a group of people holding office. Certain mechanisms must be in place in order to ensure true social ownership is ensured , like transparency and democracy. In any case, when the state has the control of several companies, we might be facing a scenario of state capitalism and not of socialism.

From my viewpoint cooperatives are the closest form of social ownership to date.
Can you think of any other ways to achieve social ownership?
What would be the drawbacks of having a large number of companies organized in such a fashion?
Do you think such arrangement is compatible with the free market ?
Share your thoughts.

I believe social "corporatism" counts; Hoover Dam and the Fed are examples of public sector means of production; for the People.

Daniel, thoug I agree with you that Hoover Dam is an example of SOE which works for the society, I would not be so sure about the FED.

The FED seems to favour banks and those with huge accounts to get zero interest rates.

What I am proposing is something closer to capitalism :
a) We need a hospital with some 1,000 beds. The hospital should be able to cope with 20,000 cases per year ( I am just making up the numbers).
b) We gather 20,000, families. Each family would invest some 5,000 to build the hospital AND get a tax break ( here is the part where the government acts as a sponsor ) .
c) Everyone gets a share on the hospital. Now , if the prices start going up and the hospital turns proffits , part of the proffit will go back to the investors, hence making healthcare more affordable. Notice that the investors are also the main customers of the hospital so any predatory policies would probably be kept at bay.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

I've started this thread to explore the different paths and obstacles that might appear while switching to socialism. But before engaging into any discussion it is necesary to establish a working definition.

"Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy."

Here it is important to distinguish "social ownership" and "state ownership". While it can be argued that when the state owns a company it does so having in mind the best interest of the society, it is often the case that the company is used to advance the agenda of a group of people holding office. Certain mechanisms must be in place in order to ensure true social ownership is ensured , like transparency and democracy. In any case, when the state has the control of several companies, we might be facing a scenario of state capitalism and not of socialism.

From my viewpoint cooperatives are the closest form of social ownership to date.
Can you think of any other ways to achieve social ownership?
What would be the drawbacks of having a large number of companies organized in such a fashion?
Do you think such arrangement is compatible with the free market ?
Share your thoughts.

You miss one important point. But it is the main point that is missing from any socialist or communist system. Why would I take the risk of inventing something and take it to market if I don't get to own it? If the government is going to become my partner in anything I do and take their deemed "fair share" why would I bother? I could do just as well by taking your government job at the same amount of pay I would get anyway and not have to deal with so much government bullshit and assholes along the way.

The drawback is you lose as a society any innovation. Socialism and communism arrive at the same conclusion as they have in the past and why they always fail. When you can't gain for yourself you don't stick your neck out. Every citizen simply pulls back into the government fold as they are taught to do and shut up to get by. Socialism and communism are the death of innovation and advancement. As a matter of fact it retards what gains were already achieved. Your latest test subject is Valenzuela and these people stand in lines forever to maybe get the government reward of a roll of fucking toilet paper. That's socialism and communism. The only people that don't suffer under that system are the rulers. They get to live like kings, at your expense.

Wealthy people and socialism are not incompatible, you just can't get rich in exploitative ways that do not serve the greater good. Become a rich doctor because you do the best boob jobs? Absolutely. Become a rich banker because you gouge people on loans? Never.

You're an idiot. The best people in a profession don't ever get government sanctioning. It's the shitty ones that know somebody. And why are loans gouging people but making them pay the government price for two miss matched tit's acceptable?

 

[occupied]

Because you neglect the one real world thing that would make it work as designed, you and those who hold similar beliefs

I'll make it very clear right now that I'm very pro-capitalist.

in every socio-political-economic model always neglect to take human nature into account. The reason every man made system ultimately fails is because people are involved. You may not like the "broken record" but history has shown it is always true, there's no escaping it.

... So are you going to explain your point or no? You simply mumble something about human nature and then nothing?

because, again, this is a broken record argument, I'll assume you think that humans are inherently greedy, and therefore communism cannot work. In that case, I will say the same to you that I say to every other person ever who says this: I would like you to prove that. With a source or scientific study, not just you saying "yeah that's the way it is".

Communism as envisioned by Marx is not really workable, humans are wired to form and follow hierarchies. The trick is not to do away with central authority but to make it socially beneficial and non-exploitative. Make every form of power, political, economic and religious, fully accountable for their actions and there will be no need for an artificial social system.

The problem lies with making it non-exploitative. Personality traits, personal motivation or the lack thereof determines how each person approaches all aspects of life, and that's not even including the highly motivated, highly functional, highly intelligent and highly charismatic, narcissists, sociopaths and psychopaths. That's just the tip of the iceberg.

We must have an ideal to work for rather than just continuing to allow shittyness to be rewarded and calling it a fact of life. Even the narcissists will work for the greater good if it is the only way to accumulate worldly goods and self glorification.

 

[CultureCitizen]

There is no difference between state or social ownership. It' all the same bullshit that basically means you as the entrepreneur don't own what you built and won't be rewarded for it. It takes innovation and hard work and makes it a participation trophy.

No , that's completely false.
The alternative I am proposing is cooperative ownership. There are some working examples of this form of ownership. Notably the Grameen bank of Bangladesh works under such principle.

 

[CultureCitizen]

a) Once the government is involved in any way it's fucked. Careful? Really? When the hell is the government ever careful and not forceful? Obiecare comes to mind. That's about as careful and job killing as you can get.

b) How can you only select a special few business' to run through government? It's impossible. Once you pick one to socialize they effect other suppliers and then some people think they need special treatment and it never ends. And in the end you get no production, no innovation and yet the chosen suppliers of the government get to live like kings.

I am not proposing state capitalsim , which is what you are describing.
Regardless the government runs certain services in every single country : education , military , judicial , electricity... the list goes on.

Regardless, I am reposting an example :

What I am proposing is something closer to capitalism :
a) We need a hospital with some 1,000 beds. The hospital should be able to cope with 20,000 cases per year ( I am just making up the numbers).
b) We gather 20,000, families. Each family would invest some 5,000 to build the hospital AND get a tax break ( here is the part where the government acts as a sponsor ) .
c) Everyone gets a share on the hospital. Now , if the prices start going up and the hospital turns proffits , part of the proffit will go back to the investors, hence making healthcare more affordable. Notice that the investors are also the main customers of the hospital so any predatory policies would probably be kept at bay.

Your thoughts on this option ?

 

[Ringel05]

Because you neglect the one real world thing that would make it work as designed, you and those who hold similar beliefs

I'll make it very clear right now that I'm very pro-capitalist.

in every socio-political-economic model always neglect to take human nature into account. The reason every man made system ultimately fails is because people are involved. You may not like the "broken record" but history has shown it is always true, there's no escaping it.

... So are you going to explain your point or no? You simply mumble something about human nature and then nothing?

because, again, this is a broken record argument, I'll assume you think that humans are inherently greedy, and therefore communism cannot work. In that case, I will say the same to you that I say to every other person ever who says this: I would like you to prove that. With a source or scientific study, not just you saying "yeah that's the way it is".

Communism as envisioned by Marx is not really workable, humans are wired to form and follow hierarchies. The trick is not to do away with central authority but to make it socially beneficial and non-exploitative. Make every form of power, political, economic and religious, fully accountable for their actions and there will be no need for an artificial social system.

The problem lies with making it non-exploitative. Personality traits, personal motivation or the lack thereof determines how each person approaches all aspects of life, and that's not even including the highly motivated, highly functional, highly intelligent and highly charismatic, narcissists, sociopaths and psychopaths. That's just the tip of the iceberg.

We must have an ideal to work for rather than just continuing to allow shittyness to be rewarded and calling it a fact of life. Even the narcissists will work for the greater good if it is the only way to accumulate worldly goods and self glorification.

Never said we shouldn't have an ideal to strive for, it's one thing that gives us purpose even if it is a lost cause.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

I've started this thread to explore the different paths and obstacles that might appear while switching to socialism. But before engaging into any discussion it is necesary to establish a working definition.

"Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy."

Here it is important to distinguish "social ownership" and "state ownership". While it can be argued that when the state owns a company it does so having in mind the best interest of the society, it is often the case that the company is used to advance the agenda of a group of people holding office. Certain mechanisms must be in place in order to ensure true social ownership is ensured , like transparency and democracy. In any case, when the state has the control of several companies, we might be facing a scenario of state capitalism and not of socialism.

From my viewpoint cooperatives are the closest form of social ownership to date.
Can you think of any other ways to achieve social ownership?
What would be the drawbacks of having a large number of companies organized in such a fashion?
Do you think such arrangement is compatible with the free market ?
Share your thoughts.

I believe social "corporatism" counts; Hoover Dam and the Fed are examples of public sector means of production; for the People.

Daniel, thoug I agree with you that Hoover Dam is an example of SOE which works for the society, I would not be so sure about the FED.

The FED seems to favour banks and those with huge accounts to get zero interest rates.

What I am proposing is something closer to capitalism :
a) We need a hospital with some 1,000 beds. The hospital should be able to cope with 20,000 cases per year ( I am just making up the numbers).
b) We gather 20,000, families. Each family would invest some 5,000 to build the hospital AND get a tax break ( here is the part where the government acts as a sponsor ) .
c) Everyone gets a share on the hospital. Now , if the prices start going up and the hospital turns proffits , part of the proffit will go back to the investors, hence making healthcare more affordable. Notice that the investors are also the main customers of the hospital so any predatory policies would probably be kept at bay.

Does this imaginary hospital have the ability to turn people away that didn't invest 5,000 dollars into building it? And is this imagined profit margin going to come from charging the shit out of those outside the initial $5k investors?

 

[CultureCitizen]

Does this imaginary hospital have the ability to turn people away that didn't invest 5,000 dollars into building it? And is this imagined profit margin going to come from charging the shit out of those outside the initial $5k investors?

Does a regular hospital have the ability to turn people away who are not the investors ?
No , so the answer is no. It would be immoral and have no sense from a business point of view.
The profit can't certainly not come from "charging the shit out of those outside the initial $5K investors".
That is not how a regular business works . True, under certain circumstances companies give preferential treatment to their employees, that doesn't mean they are able to charge arbitrary fees, market forces are still at work, (slightly) tamed by collective ownership.

 

[FA_Q2]

I've started this thread to explore the different paths and obstacles that might appear while switching to socialism. But before engaging into any discussion it is necesary to establish a working definition.

"Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy."

Here it is important to distinguish "social ownership" and "state ownership". While it can be argued that when the state owns a company it does so having in mind the best interest of the society, it is often the case that the company is used to advance the agenda of a group of people holding office. Certain mechanisms must be in place in order to ensure true social ownership is ensured , like transparency and democracy. In any case, when the state has the control of several companies, we might be facing a scenario of state capitalism and not of socialism.

From my viewpoint cooperatives are the closest form of social ownership to date.
Can you think of any other ways to achieve social ownership?
What would be the drawbacks of having a large number of companies organized in such a fashion?
Do you think such arrangement is compatible with the free market ?
Share your thoughts.

Social ownership and state ownership are synonymous in an economy that is diverse and large. Such concepts can exist within a small community but cannot scale over a large one. there is simply no way of communally owning such resources that are so spread out over millions of 'owners.' There MUST be an entity to dole out those resources and hence the only working model comes into play - communism. Unfortunately, such a system is doomed to abject poverty and failure.

What makes you think that such a move would be beneficial?

I don't think it is ( having an entity to dole out the resources). It just shifts power from the corporations into the state.

While it is not possible to have a "nation wide" healthcare system, I do think it should be possible to have a set of local hospitals working as local cooperatives. Your thoughts on this option ?

I don't think it is realistic.

You can have somewhat local control over a single business entity but the reality is that the economy has become complex enough that resources that are commonplace are no longer local. For instance - there really are very few places that vehicles are actually produced. How then do you figure out how an individual in California, where no vehicles are produced, gets one? 80 percent of the worlds electronic goods are produced in a single facility in China. How and who decides how we bring those to market in a socialistic society?

That is the core problem with 'local' ownership by the people of the means of production. Everyone owns the car factory in your neighborhood but everyone in the nation needs a car. Are you going to sell those cars then as you would in a capitalist society? How are you going to deal with those in a local district in Tennessee that do not produce anything anyone really wants then? How have you solved any of the problems that capitalism has in that scenario? All you have done is move the problem around a bit.

In the end, a socialistic nation requires an entity that decides where the goods are needed and sends them there. In essence, there is no such thing as the 'people' owning the means of production. It goes right to the government.


You might like a similar thread I started that focuses on the fact that there are not going to be any jobs left after enough automation and robotics kick in. I don't really think that socialism has the answers here though.
The future of capitalism US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[lake avenue]

Uummmm, you didn't understand what I posted? You think I stated EVERY single person is inherently greedy? You obviously make a hell of a lot of assumptions.

Hard for anyone to do anything but that when your posts are a gargle of horse shit and you repeatedly fail to specify what the fuck you're talking about.

I did source accepted and known scientific study in my first response, not my fault if you are unaware of the principles and laws encapsulated in both references.

First of all, these 'laws' (which aren't actually laws, for future reference) are not scientific studies, they're terms for a set of conditions.

Parkinson's law is the adage that "work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion".
The Pareto principle (also known as the 80–20 rule, the law of the vital few, and the principle of factor sparsity) states that, for many events, roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes.

You can go ahead and explain to me how that has fuck-all to do with communism. I'll wait.

Look at almost every economic system that has ever been created, the model for all is to lift everyone up, to benefit all but in real life history shows us this is never the case, psychology and sociology explains why.

This is called leading an argument. Instead of just saying "history shows us this blah blah" how about you actually provide proof that your claims are so?

I don't care if you're pro-capitalist, pro-communist, pro-socialist, pro-whatever all the scientific fields I have referenced show how and why they all ultimately fail.

You haven't referenced any scientific fields. Two made up sets coined by authors are not scientific fields. Do you even know what 'scientific' means?

 

[FA_Q2]

I've started this thread to explore the different paths and obstacles that might appear while switching to socialism. But before engaging into any discussion it is necesary to establish a working definition.

"Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy."

Here it is important to distinguish "social ownership" and "state ownership". While it can be argued that when the state owns a company it does so having in mind the best interest of the society, it is often the case that the company is used to advance the agenda of a group of people holding office. Certain mechanisms must be in place in order to ensure true social ownership is ensured , like transparency and democracy. In any case, when the state has the control of several companies, we might be facing a scenario of state capitalism and not of socialism.

From my viewpoint cooperatives are the closest form of social ownership to date.
Can you think of any other ways to achieve social ownership?
What would be the drawbacks of having a large number of companies organized in such a fashion?
Do you think such arrangement is compatible with the free market ?
Share your thoughts.

I believe social "corporatism" counts; Hoover Dam and the Fed are examples of public sector means of production; for the People.

Daniel, thoug I agree with you that Hoover Dam is an example of SOE which works for the society, I would not be so sure about the FED.

The FED seems to favour banks and those with huge accounts to get zero interest rates.

What I am proposing is something closer to capitalism :
a) We need a hospital with some 1,000 beds. The hospital should be able to cope with 20,000 cases per year ( I am just making up the numbers).
b) We gather 20,000, families. Each family would invest some 5,000 to build the hospital AND get a tax break ( here is the part where the government acts as a sponsor ) .
c) Everyone gets a share on the hospital. Now , if the prices start going up and the hospital turns proffits , part of the proffit will go back to the investors, hence making healthcare more affordable. Notice that the investors are also the main customers of the hospital so any predatory policies would probably be kept at bay.

In general, you just described the CAPITALIST concept of the stock market.

 

[CultureCitizen]

I've started this thread to explore the different paths and obstacles that might appear while switching to socialism. But before engaging into any discussion it is necesary to establish a working definition.

"Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy."

Here it is important to distinguish "social ownership" and "state ownership". While it can be argued that when the state owns a company it does so having in mind the best interest of the society, it is often the case that the company is used to advance the agenda of a group of people holding office. Certain mechanisms must be in place in order to ensure true social ownership is ensured , like transparency and democracy. In any case, when the state has the control of several companies, we might be facing a scenario of state capitalism and not of socialism.

From my viewpoint cooperatives are the closest form of social ownership to date.
Can you think of any other ways to achieve social ownership?
What would be the drawbacks of having a large number of companies organized in such a fashion?
Do you think such arrangement is compatible with the free market ?
Share your thoughts.

Social ownership and state ownership are synonymous in an economy that is diverse and large. Such concepts can exist within a small community but cannot scale over a large one. there is simply no way of communally owning such resources that are so spread out over millions of 'owners.' There MUST be an entity to dole out those resources and hence the only working model comes into play - communism. Unfortunately, such a system is doomed to abject poverty and failure.

What makes you think that such a move would be beneficial?

I don't think it is ( having an entity to dole out the resources). It just shifts power from the corporations into the state.

While it is not possible to have a "nation wide" healthcare system, I do think it should be possible to have a set of local hospitals working as local cooperatives. Your thoughts on this option ?

I don't think it is realistic.

You can have somewhat local control over a single business entity but the reality is that the economy has become complex enough that resources that are commonplace are no longer local. For instance - there really are very few places that vehicles are actually produced. How then do you figure out how an individual in California, where no vehicles are produced, gets one? 80 percent of the worlds electronic goods are produced in a single facility in China. How and who decides how we bring those to market in a socialistic society?

That is the core problem with 'local' ownership by the people of the means of production. Everyone owns the car factory in your neighborhood but everyone in the nation needs a car. Are you going to sell those cars then as you would in a capitalist society? How are you going to deal with those in a local district in Tennessee that do not produce anything anyone really wants then? How have you solved any of the problems that capitalism has in that scenario? All you have done is move the problem around a bit.

In the end, a socialistic nation requires an entity that decides where the goods are needed and sends them there. In essence, there is no such thing as the 'people' owning the means of production. It goes right to the government.


You might like a similar thread I started that focuses on the fact that there are not going to be any jobs left after enough automation and robotics kick in. I don't really think that socialism has the answers here though.
The future of capitalism US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

First , thanks for an interesting answer and engaging into actual discussion.

" How then do you figure out how an individual in California, where no vehicles are produced, gets one? "
Same way as today , supply and demand. The market is a usefull tool .
The difference is that the company is owned by the workers ( and maybe) also by the locals. This changes the behavior of both, the "unions" and the company. Unions killing a company by unreasonable wage rises would be stopped on their tracks, moving a factory to another country would probably be a last resource.

"Everyone owns the car factory in your neighborhood but everyone in the nation needs a car. Are you going to sell those cars then as you would in a capitalist society? "

Indeed. If the product is bad the company still goes out of business. I do notice that collective ownership requires a set of people who is more financially educated.

"In essence, there is no such thing as the 'people' owning the means of production. It goes right to the government."
Well , the government has to run some services ( some people have a hard time admiting that ) . But collective ownership seems like an interesting alternative. It both empowers people and gives them more responsibility.
There are several levels of collective ownership:
1) It can be owned by the employees only , as Kantega
2) It can be owned by the "customers" as is the case with the Grameen Bank.
3) It can be owned both by the workers and the locals.
4) It can be owned by all the members of a country ( this would be the extreme case, but a mechanism should be enabled as to halt the actual ownership by the state).

What I am thinking is that by having collective means of production and markets the end result should be more stable allthough some efficiency is lost in the process.

Kantega - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Grameen Bank - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[CultureCitizen]

In general, you just described the CAPITALIST concept of the stock market.

Not quite. First stock markets are limited to public companies.
Second , normal stock owners seldom have a chance to take any decisions in the company of which they hold stocks.
Some companies do give their employees a certain amount of stock options but that doesn't make them voting members or give them any kind of power in the company's affairs.

"Worker cooperatives have a wide variety of internal structures. Worker control can be exercised directly or indirectly by worker-owners. If exercised indirectly, members of representative decision-making bodies (e.g. a Board of Directors) must be elected by the worker-owners (who in turn hire the management) and be subject to removal by the worker-owners. This is a hierarchical structure similar to that of a conventional business, with a board of directors and various grades of manager, with the difference being that the board of directors is elected."

Worker cooperative - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

By the by , I did own stock of one of the companies for which I worked, but I had absolutely no power regarding the decision-making.

 

[Ringel05]

Uummmm, you didn't understand what I posted? You think I stated EVERY single person is inherently greedy? You obviously make a hell of a lot of assumptions.

Hard for anyone to do anything but that when your posts are a gargle of horse shit and you repeatedly fail to specify what the fuck you're talking about.

I did source accepted and known scientific study in my first response, not my fault if you are unaware of the principles and laws encapsulated in both references.

First of all, these 'laws' (which aren't actually laws, for future reference) are not scientific studies, they're terms for a set of conditions.

Parkinson's law is the adage that "work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion".
The Pareto principle (also known as the 80–20 rule, the law of the vital few, and the principle of factor sparsity) states that, for many events, roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes.

You can go ahead and explain to me how that has fuck-all to do with communism. I'll wait.

Look at almost every economic system that has ever been created, the model for all is to lift everyone up, to benefit all but in real life history shows us this is never the case, psychology and sociology explains why.

This is called leading an argument. Instead of just saying "history shows us this blah blah" how about you actually provide proof that your claims are so?

I don't care if you're pro-capitalist, pro-communist, pro-socialist, pro-whatever all the scientific fields I have referenced show how and why they all ultimately fail.

You haven't referenced any scientific fields. Two made up sets coined by authors are not scientific fields. Do you even know what 'scientific' means?

Tell ya what numb nuts, if instead of being a dismissive prick right off the bat you might have gotten a proper discussion but since you chose the prick route I just gave you what you deserved.
Now if you can't figure out what Parkinsons Law (yeah, it's an accepted scientific law; mathematics, history and sociology) or the Pareto Principle (again, proven over and over scientifically; mathematics, history, sociology and psychology) has to do with PEOPLE involved in ANY and EVERY political-economic system you're just as brain dead as any other partially educated prick.
Bet you had to look them both up, what's your background in, bet it's not in any of the human sciences areas, mine is.
You want proof? It's actually quite simple, without looking it up how many times has humankind not been at war since the beginning of human history?
If you want more proof I'm not going to present multiple dissertations on the psychology of humans, normal and abnormal traits, the historical record of man's violence and reasons behind it, and the study of cultural differences past and present that lend itself to both the psychology and historical factors. You can go to school for 12 years then follow up with a lifetime of study yourself.
Hey, like I said, you decided to be a prick, don't be surprised when you get slapped back.