Pathways to socialism.

[Iceweasel]

Well, in a democracy, the state represents the will of the people, right? And I honestly haven't seen any definition of capitalism that didn't specify private ownership. How is state capitalism not a contradiction in terms?

It means the state acts as a "capitalist".

"An investor of capital in business,especially onehaving a major financial interest in an important enterprise."

capitalist - definition of capitalist by The Free Dictionary

China is a good example of state capitalism ( a very successfull one so far).

Wrong. China is communist and doesn't pretend otherwise. It allows businesses to operate at their discretion and right now they put the environment on the back burner to rake in as much money as they can.

Chinese capitalism is just another knockoff
China has indeed grown by leaps and bounds over the past decade. That’s a huge credit to a country that has modernized and industrialized on a previously unseen scale. And because of its 1.3 billion citizens, China has quite a bit of growth (read: catching up) still to come. China’s style of governance leaves the country light on regulation. However, it’s also light on rule of law, transparency, freedom of speech and several other key features that make the U.S. economy go ’round. Just because the Chinese government can move a village and build a road without holding a single hearing doesn’t mean the free market has taken hold. Indeed, it shows the opposite: China’s economy is largely state-planned, state-owned and state-run. The government uses capitalism only as a tool to reach its ends, not as a true expression of a free market.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

Yep... and Nordic countries are tiny. California has more people than the entire Nordic Region. Meaning it's culture is familial; meaning there remains a discernible level of Individual accountability.

What's more is that in the Nordic Region, it remains a very real possibility that one may not survive the winter and Death is a real motivator and it WILL hold you to account.

Such is not the case in the US.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Where you go wrong is thinking that 3rd world countries have an adherence to capitalism. That is far far from the case. In the first place most of these countries are incredibly corrupt. Whenever anyone tries to start a business there a series of government officials will show up with their hands extended asking for bribes.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

When did western Europe fail?

You mean the place with Greece, Spain and Italy? That's a Socialist success story?

Shytte happens when greedy a-hole Pubs wreck the world economy AGAIN, hater dupe. Plus, those 3 are used to it...Europe (and everywhere else ) doesn't have our natural resources, ugly America arrogant shytteheads...

Stop talking like a complete fucking moron. You were probably the Obama's English professor.

Can a leopard change his spots?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Well, in a democracy, the state represents the will of the people, right? And I honestly haven't seen any definition of capitalism that didn't specify private ownership. How is state capitalism not a contradiction in terms?

It means the state acts as a "capitalist".

"An investor of capital in business,especially onehaving a major financial interest in an important enterprise."

capitalist - definition of capitalist by The Free Dictionary

China is a good example of state capitalism ( a very successfull one so far).

Capitalists have bottom line responsibility, states don't.

You drift further from reality with each post. Then again you have to lie to defend socialism

 

[Iceweasel]

Capitalists have bottom line responsibility, states don't.

You drift further from reality with each post. Then again you have to lie to defend socialism

I have a feeling that's what liberals really mean when they start talking about state ownership of private business, as if there could be such a thing. The want the government to call all the shots with somebody else's money. Mostly to provide security and income for the dependents while the "owner" has to absorb all the risks and responsibility.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Capitalists have bottom line responsibility, states don't.

You drift further from reality with each post. Then again you have to lie to defend socialism

I have a feeling that's what liberals really mean when they start talking about state ownership of private business, as if there could be such a thing. The want the government to call all the shots with somebody else's money. Mostly to provide security and income for the dependents while the "owner" has to absorb all the risks and responsibility.

And that is a total refutation of the most successful economic system ever developed, capitalism.


Whether they realize it,or are simply those 'useful idiots,' they are endorsing Marxism.

"Marxism rested on the assumption that the condition of the working classes would grow ever worse under capitalism, that there would be but two classes: one small and rich, the other vast and increasingly impoverished, and revolution would be the anodyne that would result in the “common good.” But by the early 20th century, it was clear that this assumption was completely wrong! Under capitalism, the standard of living of all was improving: prices falling, incomes rising, health and sanitation improving, lengthening of life spans, diets becoming more varied, the new jobs created in industry paid more than most could make in agriculture, housing improved, and middle class industrialists and business owners displaced nobility and gentry as heroes."
From a speech by Rev. Robert A. Sirico, President, Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty.
Delivered at Hillsdale College, October 27, 2006
https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2007&month=05

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

Yep... and Nordic countries are tiny. California has more people than the entire Nordic Region. Meaning it's culture is familial; meaning there remains a discernible level of Individual accountability.

What's more is that in the Nordic Region, it remains a very real possibility that one may not survive the winter and Death is a real motivator and it WILL hold you to account.

Such is not the case in the US.

Scandinavia is both socialist, and pretty much de-Christianized.
And largely successful.

Your post is an excellent analysis of why Leftists make a mistake pointing out same as a model for most of the world.

 

[williepete]

To even hint that China is a positive example of state-run capitalism pulls the thin veil away from our OP.

China is a one party authoritarian state which uses prison labor and child labor. Any disobedience or protest can and often does result in being sent to a labor camp or an appointment with a bullet to the back of the head.

That's what socialism is all about. Coercion. It can't stand on its own.

 

[PoliticalChic]

To even hint that China is a positive example of state-run capitalism pulls the thin veil away from our OP.

China is a one party authoritarian state which uses prison labor and child labor. Any disobedience or protest can and often does result in being sent to a labor camp or an appointment with a bullet to the back of the head.

That's what socialism is all about. Coercion. It can't stand on its own.

Gee....are you sure about that, willie?

'Cause the Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC) proudly pointed to
Communist China, the world’s top emitter of greenhouse gas, as “doing it right” regarding climate change while calling the U.S. Congress “very detrimental” in the fight against global warming."
UN s Top Climate Official Goal Is To Intentionally Transform the Economic Development Model

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

Point taken. I see the difference in the average company and what you are referring to. This structure can and does exist with a capitalistic system though and I don’t see how you are connecting this within socialism unless you are going to mandate that all companies are owned in this manner.
Even then, you are skirting what socialism is because you keep referring to the workers as owning such production BUT not addressing the problem that it is still owned by a small portion of the people. Nothing addresses those that are not in that small group.
Your OP alludes to the idea that there are not enough jobs for everyone and yet this mechanism does nothing to address this. Further, it also does nothing to address wealth inequality. I don’t see the advantage here at all.
Lastly, you are referring to cases and examples of existing structures like this that exist within a capitalist system. IOW, this does not make a socialistic system nor are they examples of working instances of socialism. Private ownership is still maintained.

 

[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

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

See above.
You want communal ownership but to maintain a capitalist system outside of each individual company. How does that address anything?

 

[FA_Q2]

Nor is it socialism. How could it be ?

It is state control of the means of production, the definition of socialism.

No , it is not. That's why I wrote down the definition in the OP.

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

What you describe is state capitalism, which more closely resembles China.

It is hard to communicate effectively when you use terms as absurd as this.
China is not a capitalist state – that is well established. There is no actual reason to insist on calling it state capitalism other than an agenda.

 

[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.

100% stuipid and liberal. The wheel, saw, screw, compuper, nail, electricity, plumbing, oil, etc displaced billions of workers yet unemployment is only 5.5%, exactly what it always was.

So what do we learn about the liberal IQ?

that liberals understand "shell-games" with Statism better than the right?

 

[bripat9643]

Capitalists have bottom line responsibility, states don't.

You drift further from reality with each post. Then again you have to lie to defend socialism

I have a feeling that's what liberals really mean when they start talking about state ownership of private business, as if there could be such a thing. The want the government to call all the shots with somebody else's money. Mostly to provide security and income for the dependents while the "owner" has to absorb all the risks and responsibility.

That's called "fascism." It's what all liberals believe in.

 

[danielpalos]

Hoover Dam and the Fed are two examples of public sector means of production.

 

[Uncensored2008]

No , it is not. That's why I wrote down the definition in the OP

{
socialism


Tweet
noun so·cial·ism \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
: a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies


48 words to make in SCRABBLE®
with Q and no U »

Full Definition of SOCIALISM
1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
}

Socialism Definition of socialism by Merriam-Webster

Try again, sparky..

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

What you describe is state capitalism, which more closely resembles China.

 

[regent]

Most economies are probably a mixture of socialism and capitalism, with maybe a light dusting of fascism, and a pinch of communism. Perhaps we argue over the amounts rather than the pure thing.
A question: why was Marx so against most forms of socialism, particuarly what he called the utopian socialists?

 

[danielpalos]

He hadn't read our federal Constitution?

 

[francoHFW]

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

When did western Europe fail?

You mean the place with Greece, Spain and Italy? That's a Socialist success story?

Shytte happens when greedy a-hole Pubs wreck the world economy AGAIN, hater dupe. Plus, those 3 are used to it...Europe (and everywhere else ) doesn't have our natural resources, ugly America arrogant shytteheads...

Stop talking like a complete fucking moron. You were probably the Obama's English professor.

You understand, so cut the crap.