Pathways to socialism.

[AntiParty]

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.

Austrailia Socialism has the exact flaws our Capitalism has. Noting Socialism is when elected officials repesent wages the people "vote for".

Our votes/opinions don't matter in Austrailia or USA. The Corporate Rich run the show.

The politicians here obviously don't represent us statistically. In Austrailia, "voters vote for wages" aka. SOCIALISM. The politician gets funding and/or threats in his/her wallet and doesn't represent them. Same as here.

 

[AntiParty]

Some Americans want Socialism. Yet big Industry would buy our Big Government again. Some want Communism. But that would only mean the BIGGEST industry would win the Hitler spot.

 

[AntiParty]

We live in a society that believes we must "Nix It!" if it has a flaw.

Government had a flaw? Nix It!
Unions had a flaw? Nix It!
Food Stamps had a flaw? Nix It!
Republicans had a flaw? Nix Them!
Democrats had a flaw? Nix Them!
Libertarians had a flaw? Nix Them!

It's important to be an informational collectivist. Because the "NON CONTROLLISTS" want to ban everything.

 

[lake avenue]

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.

Is this the part where the guilty claim ignorance? seems like it.

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.

No, no, go ahead and explain it to me. Or you know, just be the typical user I see on here and just say "oh if you don't see it you're stupid so I won't explain it"

yeah, what a great way to facilitate discussion.

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.

English, though neither of our backgrounds matter since neither of us can prove otherwise. I could say that I'm a brain surgeon or studying political science; I can't prove any of these claims so it's rather redundant. But I guess if you have to go waving your e-peen around, go ahead.

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?

Almost completely irrelevant to human greed. If greed isn't your point, you have failed to even present a claim to me.

If you want real 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.

What a great way to facilitate discussion.

Hey, like I said, you decided to be a prick, don't be surprised when you get slapped back.

And by that, you mean you throwing your claims of education around as if anyone here cares.

The only thing I care about is your post content; and it's shit. Almost half of that was you telling me about how educated you are and how I should care; not to do with the actual discussion.

 

[Ringel05]

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.

Is this the part where the guilty claim ignorance? seems like it.

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.

No, no, go ahead and explain it to me. Or you know, just be the typical user I see on here and just say "oh if you don't see it you're stupid so I won't explain it"

yeah, what a great way to facilitate discussion.

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.

English, though neither of our backgrounds matter since neither of us can prove otherwise. I could say that I'm a brain surgeon or studying political science; I can't prove any of these claims so it's rather redundant. But I guess if you have to go waving your e-peen around, go ahead.

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?

Almost completely irrelevant to human greed. If greed isn't your point, you have failed to even present a claim to me.

If you want real 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.

What a great way to facilitate discussion.

Hey, like I said, you decided to be a prick, don't be surprised when you get slapped back.

And by that, you mean you throwing your claims of education around as if anyone here cares.

The only thing I care about is your post content; and it's shit. Almost half of that was you telling me about how educated you are and how I should care; not to do with the actual discussion.

You really are an ignorant dismissive prick aren't you. Yeah, English, should have known....... Greed is the only human motivation you can think of??!! How parochial. I showed you proof, you dismissed it simply because you can't or won't understand it. If you had read my response (courteous discussion) to Occupied you would have been given a slight glimpse into some of the aspects of human nature that drive people and how it relates but all you care about is being an ignorant ass because you can't see past your own nose.
Now you want a real discussion, try treating people with respect first, but if you piss on my shoes I'll piss on yours.
Oh and my background isn't just an internet claim, it's real, the point was you obviously don't have the intellect, background and training to understand even the simplest of abstract associative evidence, you're pathetically out of your league and it shows.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Have you ever considered that possibility that an armed citizenry might be an obstacle to socialism?

 

[danielpalos]

The way the private sector is turning to automation for everything there will eventually either have to be socialism or kill the excess people not serving the mechanized economy. Far too many kinds of jobs are becoming extinct and not enough new ones are being created.

Why not simply reserve Labor at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage that clears our poverty guidelines, on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States?

I am guessing some sort of guaranteed minimum income will have to be instituted at some point just to keep the necessity economy (food, energy, medicine) from collapsing. We are already seeing the beginning of this in the way food stamps subsidize low wages.

Just one more point of contention with the Right; shouldn't Their hard money faction be complaining about the use of "monopoly" money for food stamps instead of legal tender for all debts, public and private.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

What if you simply got paid for it; because the Peoples' HR finally put the right person in the right place a the right time.

The real difference between socialism and capitalism is the social moral support in enabling Persons to multitask and learn how to not Only be a good ditch digger, but also a good poet.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

The Fed is a profit center, like Hoover Dam; and unlike our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Have you ever considered that possibility that an armed citizenry might be an obstacle to socialism?

No; the military is "socialism in action".

 

[LOki]

The problem? Common ownership of the means of production.

It is the inherent flaw that makes the failure of socialist experiments inevitable.

 

[danielpalos]

The problem? Common ownership of the means of production.

It is the inherent flaw that makes the failure of socialist experiments inevitable.

That doesn't take into account for representative forms of socialism.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Have you ever considered that possibility that an armed citizenry might be an obstacle to socialism?

No; the military is "socialism in action".

I wasn't talking about the military, numskull.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Have you ever considered that possibility that an armed citizenry might be an obstacle to socialism?

No; the military is "socialism in action".

I wasn't talking about the mil

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.

Have you ever considered that possibility that an armed citizenry might be an obstacle to socialism?

No; the military is "socialism in action".

I wasn't talking about the military, numskull.

no clue and no Cause, like usual?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Socialism has a 100% fail rate, what's the fucking point of discussing it?

Nordic countries are socialists to a certain degree. They are not failed countries, and I would argue they are much more successfull than many third world countries who have a closer adherence to laissez fair capitalsim.

Nordic countries are nearly homogeneous white and Christian, sparsely populated with vast natural resources.

You're comparing a "Country" with a population of three New York City boroughs to the USA?

 

[dblack]

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'd need a clear definition of "means of production" before I could take such a plan very seriously. That's always been the show stopper for me with socialism, because, as I see it, the human mind is the means of production. Anything else is just disposable hardware.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The problem? Common ownership of the means of production.

It is the inherent flaw that makes the failure of socialist experiments inevitable.

That doesn't take into account for representative forms of socialism.

LOL

Do you just make stuff up as you go?

 

[Iceweasel]

An armed rev

The way the private sector is turning to automation for everything there will eventually either have to be socialism or kill the excess people not serving the mechanized economy. Far too many kinds of jobs are becoming extinct and not enough new ones are being created.

I would call that planting the seeds for an armed revolution. So , indeed some measure has to be taken , because by 2060 there will probably be no manufacturing jobs at all. I am wondering if the service sector will be able to accomodate everyone ( considering that some of the service employments will also cease to exist). One possible scenario would be to have a huge sector of the population living on food stamps.

An armed revolution would be perfect. Just kill all the parasites that think jobs are created to provide them an income. It's a win win. No deadbeats, more food and resources for the productive. I like it.

 

[BluesLegend]

Socialists should be ashamed of themselves. Get a job and pay your own bills losers.

So you can't figure out how someone who
a) Is employed
b) Works with large corporations
c) Pays his own bills with no help from the government

might have a "socialist" point of view ?

Ahahaha show me one and I will expose their blatant hypocrisy.

 

[williepete]

I find it richly ironic the OP has this quote posted to his/her signature:

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Albert Einstein

7 Reasons Socialism Will Make You Poorer Than Capitalism

"...there are so many perverse incentives that drive the promotion of socialism. If you're a politician, socialism puts power in your hands while capitalism takes it away. If you want to use the government to control people's lives, socialism is a wonderful vehicle to do just that while capitalism robs you of that opportunity. If you would rather live off the dole than to work or alternately, prefer to make money off "who you know" instead of "how good a service you provide," again socialism works better for you."

7 Reasons Socialism Will Make You Poorer Than Capitalism - John Hawkins - Page full