What does Socialism Add to the Economy?

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ok, that is fine but what is the socialism part. What's being added by socialism?

E.g. in Denmark e.g. the education system as it is in effect government controlled and produces well educated citizen.

 

[Estro Felino]

So after these revolutions, did that fix it so now everyone has the same opportunity to own a piece of land?

Fixed it perfectly.
Just think that I know a wonderful place in Italy that entirely belonged to a marquis.

Then fascism came to power and the fascist government expropriated all those lands from that marquis.
Now there is a country village and each citizen has their own piece of land.

Aristocrats need be "beaten up" every now and then. Metaphorically of course.

 

[Nakosis]

Well, so far all attempts have been non-democratic and haven't really worked out. But some versions of a combination of capitalism and socialism as the welfare state it works.

Ok, that is fine but what is the socialism part. What's being added by socialism?

Socialism is a zero sum game. The amount of resources are fixed and then disrtributed by the Government based on central planning. The analogy is you go to the grocery store with $100 in cash. There is only so much to spend, so compromises needs to be made based on you need; how many meals. This does not always offer you much room for too many extravagant choices. Choice is a wild card that central planners cannot fore see. Each person gets a share, so there is little incentive to work beyond the zero sum.

It would be like you go to work for 4 hours and get $100. Or you can work 8 hours and get $100. Unless you live to work, the smart person stops at 4 hours. Some will even work 0 hours ,since all get to share. The zero sum pool is not very deep.

When the Pilgrims first came to America and landed at Plymouth, they attempted a religious commune version of socialism, where the fruit of everyone's labor was added to a pile and then shared. This was based on applied Christianity before the label socialism. The problem was Plymouth was near Cape Cod, which is a summer vacation paradise. During that first summer the young men enjoyed exploring and going to the beach, and were not working much, but were still eating. The following winter many older people died and the settlement barely survives the winter. It can be cold and snowy in Massachusetts during the winter; nor'easter or snow hurricane.

The following spring the Governor decided to incentivize work, by having a commune quota, but anything beyond that, one got to keep and could sell for profit. Now if you worked 8 hours you could make $200, with $100 as the commune tithe. The fall of that year is when they had the first Thanksgiving, since they create such a bounty. They met the needs of socialism; zero sum, plus they had profit would can be reinvested for a better standard of living; positive sum game= profit.

The term Pilgrims has to do with religion. The religion of the Pilgrims allowed them to work as team, while free market capitalism gave them incentive to work harder for the team and for themselves. With the decline of religion in the USA, due to government over reach, the Government has had to take over what had been done via applied religion; good will, charity and volunteers. That had led to huge national debt.

This debt is basically socialism, running a negative sum game; borrowing, to make socialism look better today, than it actually is. If it could not borrow that house of cards would collapse. When applied religion was involved, they could balance the budget, since there was citizen involvement and good will sharing of the bounty; Plymouth the 2nd year.

Socialism would seem then to require a non-existent universal goodwill.

I think even capitalism would benefit if such universal goodwill could be found. Socialism needs a component which it doesn't really have a method to contribute to.

I can see religion as least promoting an idea of universal goodwill.

I have goodwill towards my neighbor as long as he keeps his resources and needs separate from mine. Not going to be happy if they decide to come take my resources for their needs.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ok, that is fine but what is the socialism part. What's being added by socialism?

Answered her, click on it:

What does Socialism Add to the Economy?

Ok, that is fine but what is the socialism part. What's being added by socialism? E.g. in Denmark e.g. the education system as it is in effect government controlled and produces well educated citizen.

www.religiousforums.com

 

[Nakosis]

It depends on the scale of the economy.

“Socialism” within a family or small commune or collective makes a lot of sense.

Socialism for 100 million people is something completely different.

The problem is people think that what can work at a small scale based on personal relationships can simply be expanded to a mass scale based on impersonal abstractions.

Scale changes all.

Sure, I have a vested interest in family but that is not universal.
It may work with some families and not with others.
The outliers, even in a small group could cause problems.
Socialism doesn't necessarily produce goodwill but still depends on it.

 

[Nakosis]

E.g. in Denmark e.g. the education system as it is in effect government controlled and produces well educated citizen.

Yes, I don't know what happened with the US. We generally look to private schools to provide a better education.
We have public schools but they seem to cater to a lower denominator.

I'm glad it works for you but it doesn't seem to work is all cases.

 

[Nakosis]

Public ownership, where the central goal of industries/services is not widening the profit margin.

Widening the profit margin requires innovation. Thinking outside of the box, reducing costs. Understanding the labor and consumer markets.

Not a bad thing if done correctly. The closure of a business if done wrong.

We knew the market value of our product. Had to save the customer money to get their business. Innovate new manufacturing procedures to reduce material and labor costs.

 

[Revoltingest]

Socialism is a zero sum game. The amount of resources are fixed and then disrtributed by the Government based on central planning. The analogy is you go to the grocery store with $100 in cash. There is only so much to spend, so compromises needs to be made based on you need; how many meals. This does not always offer you much room for too many extravagant choices. Choice is a wild card that central planners cannot fore see. Each person gets a share, so there is little incentive to work beyond the zero sum.

It would be like you go to work for 4 hours and get $100. Or you can work 8 hours and get $100. Unless you live to work, the smart person stops at 4 hours. Some will even work 0 hours ,since all get to share. The zero sum pool is not very deep.

When the Pilgrims first came to America and landed at Plymouth, they attempted a religious commune version of socialism, where the fruit of everyone's labor was added to a pile and then shared. This was based on applied Christianity before the label socialism. The problem was Plymouth was near Cape Cod, which is a summer vacation paradise. During that first summer the young men enjoyed exploring and going to the beach, and were not working much, but were still eating. The following winter many older people died and the settlement barely survives the winter. It can be cold and snowy in Massachusetts during the winter; nor'easter or snow hurricane.

The following spring the Governor decided to incentivize work, by having a commune quota, but anything beyond that, one got to keep and could sell for profit. Now if you worked 8 hours you could make $200, with $100 as the commune tithe. The fall of that year is when they had the first Thanksgiving, since they create such a bounty. They met the needs of socialism; zero sum, plus they had profit would can be reinvested for a better standard of living; positive sum game= profit.

The term Pilgrims has to do with religion. The religion of the Pilgrims allowed them to work as team, while free market capitalism gave them incentive to work harder for the team and for themselves. With the decline of religion in the USA, due to government over reach, the Government has had to take over what had been done via applied religion; good will, charity and volunteers. That had led to huge national debt.

This debt is basically socialism, running a negative sum game; borrowing, to make socialism look better today, than it actually is. If it could not borrow that house of cards would collapse. When applied religion was involved, they could balance the budget, since there was citizen involvement and good will sharing of the bounty; Plymouth the 2nd year.

I've known people who fled the USSR & its socialist satellites.
I recall....

 

[Koldo]

Widening the profit margin requires innovation. Thinking outside of the box, reducing costs. Understanding the labor and consumer markets.

Not necessarily. There are many other ways to do it like buying the competitors, lobbying for legislation that will effectively create a barrier to others, making use of slave labor (either indirectly or directly), cartel, etc.

The capital owner's profit generates an additional cost attached to the product that doesn't exist in public ownership.

 

[Twilight Hue]

?

A wonderful party until the stolen money runs out.

 

[Augustus]

Reciprocity is not central to socialism though.

That is why they tend to end up relying on force rather than happy acceptance.

The power is also greatly centralized in capitalist societies though.

Yes, and steps have to be taken to mitigate this. But it is not to the same degree and not so rigid.

It’s just a less bad system given the realities of human nature.

 

[Augustus]

Socialism doesn't necessarily produce goodwill but still depends on it.

Which is why it ends up being oppressive and going counter to its stated purpose.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

?

Help for those who can no longer help themselves, and quite often in the process turning social dependents into productive, tax-paying members of the community. A pretty good outcome, in my view.

 

[Stevicus]

So does religion.
So does socialism take the place of religion?

Not sure how that directly effects the economy though.

It's a political philosophy. The economy is affected by whatever political philosophy is embraced by the political leaders in a given society.

 

[Stevicus]

Which is why it ends up being oppressive and going counter to its stated purpose.

Does this mean that human nature is so morally bankrupt that the only way to get people to show goodwill towards their neighbors is by force?

 

[Augustus]

Does this mean that human nature is so morally bankrupt that the only way to get people to show goodwill towards their neighbors is by force?

No.

The problem is scaling goodwill from real people with reciprocal personal relationships to impersonal mass societies based on abstractions and where many people will game the system in many ways.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Does this mean that human nature is so morally bankrupt that the only way to get people to show goodwill towards their neighbors is by force?

That's why Nanny State has to spank one's naughty bottom. Those people deserve a spanking by Nanny. In fact , they should have two good spankings, or maybe three , or maybe go for four.... five. .....perhaps six even?

 

[Stevicus]

That's why Nanny State has to spank one's naughty bottom. Those people deserve a spanking by Nanny. In fact , they should have two good spankings, or maybe three , or maybe go for four.... five. .....perhaps six even?

It's not that kind of nanny. Not as fun as the one you describe here.

 

[Stevicus]

No.

The problem is scaling goodwill from real people with reciprocal personal relationships to impersonal mass societies based on abstractions and where many people will game the system in many ways.

Theoretically, it's supposed to work from the bottom up. That is, local areas where people have closer personal relationships with each other would have their own local governments and would elect representatives to the national government to advocate for their interests. That's how it's supposed to work here, and that's how it was supposed to work in the Soviet Union. "All power to the Soviets" meant all power to the local councils.

 

[Augustus]

Theoretically, it's supposed to work from the bottom up. That is, local areas where people have closer personal relationships with each other would have their own local governments and would elect representatives to the national government to advocate for their interests. That's how it's supposed to work here, and that's how it was supposed to work in the Soviet Union. "All power to the Soviets" meant all power to the local councils.

I agree that the more localised the more you can effectively integrate a variety of welfare provisions.

Some form of mixed economy in a highly decentralised, federal system would be my favoured form of government.