Why Socialism doesn't work ?

[Revoltingest]

We are getting somewhere! YES!

No, it's only page 5.
Wait til page 10 to collapse into each other's arms.

 

[YmirGF]

Looking at Dictionary.com's primary definition.....

1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of themeans of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

....the "community as a whole" is essentially "the state".

I prefer adhering to dictionary definitions when possible.
(Arcane technical usages are sometimes necessary, but
the context & audience should make the meaning clear.)
Otherwise, Obama is a "commie", Trump is a "Nazi",
& Libertarians are "clinically insane alien life forms".

How dare you insist on common definitions. Only a white supremacist would stoop to that level.

 

[Revoltingest]

I never offered you an argument but an opinion and the friendly suggestion that we respectfully disagree. Here is a rough argument:

It is my understanding that a place that has no capitalism but fits few of the criteria of socialism is not socialist. In the same way that a country with elections but lacking the civic institutions rights and duties of democracy is not democratic.

I'm not saying that the USSR wasn't true socialism. I'm saying it wasn't socialism at all. The workers had no right to unionise, the community had no means to exercise control and the ownership of production (and everything else) was de facto reserved for an autocratic elite that controlled the party.

I'm not sure what is arrogant or disingenuous about holding that opinion that this isn't socialism.

That's only one tradition within a large umbrella of ideas.

That's the first reasonable explanation for excluding the USSR I've heard.
But I still disagree, since socialism was the intent. The big wrinkle was
the question of whether the state was the "community as a whole"
Some thought so. Some didn't.
But unionization is not a criterion for socialism in ordinary usage of the term.

 

[Revoltingest]

How dare you insist on common definitions. Only a white supremacist would stoop to that level.

Well, I have been called that here.
(Personally, I'm more of a "white inferiorist".)

 

[Yerda]

Looking at Dictionary.com's primary definition.....

1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of themeans of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

....the "community as a whole" is essentially "the state".

Well there's a place where we aren't in agreement. The state isn't the community. In the examples cited as bad socialism the community doesn't have a say in production, distibution, land reform etc. The state is never even selected by the community as a whole but literally forced upon them. So control isn't with the workers, local people or the nation as a whole. That's what I meant when I said that the examples you listed weren't socialist according to this definition.

Here's the weird thing, I suspect that if we were both clear on how we are both using these words then a good part of our disagreement would evaporate. When I refer to capitalism I don't mean any general system of private enterprise governed by market forces. I'm more likely to be looking at the tendency toward economic exploitation and coercion, cronyism, corporate malpractice (from outright fraud to externalising costs to rent seeking to lawfare and lobbying) and the forms of political control and constraint the average person faces as a result of all of this. If when you say capitalism you mean something a bit more like the first description then we probably aren't that far apart in what is desirable and achievable through poltical economy. Perhaps.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well there's a place where we aren't in agreement. The state isn't the community. In the examples cited as bad socialism the community doesn't have a say in production, distibution, land reform etc. The state is never even selected by the community as a whole but literally forced upon them. So control isn't with the workers, local people or the nation as a whole. That's what I meant when I said that the examples you listed weren't socialist according to this definition.

If socialism requires some organization(s) other than the state to control the means of production, then this looks entirely impossible. Government isn't the kind of animal which would cede economic control to some other entity/entities. It's just not something observed in nature.

Here's the weird thing, I suspect that if we were both clear on how we are both using these words then a good part of our disagreement would evaporate. When I refer to capitalism I don't mean any general system of private enterprise governed by market forces. I'm more likely to be looking at the tendency toward economic exploitation and coercion, cronyism, corporate malpractice (from outright fraud to externalising costs to rent seeking to lawfare and lobbying) and the forms of political control and constraint the average person faces as a result of all of this. If when you say capitalism you mean something a bit more like the first description then we probably aren't that far apart in what is desirable and achievable through poltical economy. Perhaps.

How you see capitalism is not part of the definition...the listed problems
are just emergent properties we dislike. (This is where government is
needed.) But capitalism does play out better than the alternatives, eg,
N Korea, Cuba, which are...well....whatever they're called if not "socialist".
It seems that socialism is the unicorn of economics.

 

[Yerda]

If socialism requires some organization(s) other than the state to control the means of production, then this looks entirely impossible. Government isn't the kind of animal which would cede economic control to some other entity/entities. It's just not something observed in nature.

Maybe. Cooperatives exist and function quite well. We can form organisations that are democratic as possible whose aim is to control some parts of the economy (mostly public goods and services) while the market/private enterprise does its part in pricing and disrtribution of other parts (most commodities I imagine).

How you see capitalism is not part of the definition...the listed problems
are just emergent properties we dislike. (This is where government is
needed.) But capitalism does play out better than the alternatives, eg,
N Korea, Cuba, which are...well....whatever they're called if not "socialist".

I agree.

 

[Revoltingest]

Maybe. Cooperatives exist and function quite well. We can form organisations that are democratic as possible whose aim is to control some parts of the economy (mostly public goods and services) while the market/private enterprise does its part in pricing and disrtribution of other parts (most commodities I imagine).

Under capitalism, people are free to form cooperatives.
They're relatively few in number though.

 

[Yerda]

Under capitalism, people are free to form cooperatives.
They're relatively few in number though.

Fair point. Aspects of socialism can exist to some extent under capitalism (that's not a new idea) and be surprisingly robust. Capitalism is a flexible beastie.

 

[joe1776]

So "socialism" also includes capitalism in this uncommon usage,
in which case it refers to capitalism with a social safety net?

Is your position so weak that you can't simply admit that nations can "socialize" such things as healthcare?

Do you envision this future to exclude capitalism?
(I ask because it's not clear.)

When I referred to a cooperative economy, I meant entirely cooperative. The one and only advantage of capitalism is that the manufacturing part of a nation's economy isn't under the complete control of a bumbling-corrupt government.

Once an effective decision-making model is in place, capitalism, with all its negative side-effects, will be obsolete.

A society is a cooperative endeavor, it will work at its best only when citizens can survive and thrive by cooperating rather than competing..

 

[joe1776]

Oh, good grief. They are not doing spectacularly economically. They are doing ok though.

So, when you say that the "Nordic" nations are not doing spectacularly economically;" you are using GDP or a similar statistic that no citizen with a brain would give a damn about if they were choosing a place to live?

Yet on surveys of social criteria which would interest me if I were choosing a place to live, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Switzerland usually rank in the top ten among the nations of the world.

Then again, if it is all just inept and corrupt government why does Socialism seem to attract people who have no qualms strong-arming their populations once they are given power and are reluctant to leave office once in power. Other than banana republic dictatorships that seems to be a feature of Socialist/Communist governments.

Are the governments of Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Switzerland examples of governments who have no qualms about strong-arming their people in your opinion? Do you categorize them as "banana republics?"

 

[YmirGF]

So, when you say that the "Nordic" nations are not doing spectacularly economically;" you are using GDP or a similar statistic that no citizen with a brain would give a damn about if they were choosing a place to live?

Hopefully all prospective citizens would have a brain as it is a pretty basic human need if one wishes to keep breathing. Quite honestly, IF I was looking for some place to go despite already living in the paradise of the Pacific Northwest, which is unlikely, yes, I would be concerned if prospective countries had sluggish economies. I think you would have to be brain dead NOT to take that into consideration.

Yet on surveys of social criteria which would interest me if I were choosing a place to live, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Switzerland usually rank in the top ten among the nations of the world.

Given that I am financially well beyond a need for a massive social safety net, many of the brownie points in these surveys mean little to me. If I am not wrong, other than due to the massive population shift currently going on in Europe due to the conflict in the Middle East, immigration was hardly at a blistering pace to any of these locations prior to the stampede.

Are the governments of Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Switzerland examples of governments who have no qualms about strong-arming their people in your opinion? Do you categorize them as "banana republics?"

Oh, do try to be serious. Assuming you have a fraction of the reading comprehension I assume you possess, in theory, you know precisely the type of countries I am talking about in that part.

 

[Estro Felino]

Are the governments of Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Switzerland examples of governments who have no qualms about strong-arming their people in your opinion? Do you categorize them as "banana republics?"

Here I explain why socialism works there https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/why-socialism-fails-sometimes.207812/#post-5600619
Leave a comment...if u please

 

[dfnj]

Under capitalism, people are free to form cooperatives.
They're relatively few in number though.

In a laissez-faire capitalist system, how do you prevent people from getting laws passed creating cartels and monopolies based on their own selfish self-interests? Take the United States for example. Based on exorbitant CEO pay, there is no mechanism like free-markets to wring out the inefficiencies of CEO pay. And it seems to me there's a lot of pricing fixing going on in the United States. How do you explain this curve:

https://www.quandl.com/data/FRED/CU...umers-Purchasing-Power-of-the-Consumer-Dollar

And then when we have the lowest unemployment rates in decades there also seems to be price fixing going on with wages:

Pretty grim numbers: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/realer.t01.htm

https://www.epi.org/blog/why-is-wag...wage-jobs-are-being-added-disproportionately/

Do you at least admit under such a system the possibility of outrageous abuse and corruption against the worker making the median wage is even possible? And if it is possible, what is the worker making the median wage supposed to do in order to create opportunity out of nothing? Many people making the median wage already work two or three jobs. Do you think there's just nothing you can do and life is just tough?

 

[Revoltingest]

Is your position so weak that you can't simply admit that nations can "socialize" such things as healthcare?

Is yours so weak that you refuse to understand that health care
is not "the means of production"?
Moreover, I've advocated a particular kind if single payer system.
You're new...you might've missed that.

When I referred to a cooperative economy, I meant entirely cooperative.

An every-kid-gets-a-trophy-for-participating kind of economy, eh?
Don't fear competition. It makes things better.

The one and only advantage of capitalism is that the manufacturing part of a nation's economy isn't under the complete control of a bumbling-corrupt government.

That's a huge advantage, given that we rarely
see a government which isn't "bumbling-corrupt".

Once an effective decision-making model is in place, capitalism, with all its negative side-effects, will be obsolete.

Have a positive example from the real world?

A society is a cooperative endeavor, it will work at its best only when citizens can survive and thrive by cooperating rather than competing..

And we'll all sing Kumbaya together as we share feelings around the drum circle.
Nah....I like competition.

 

[Revoltingest]

In a laissez-faire capitalist system, how do you prevent people from getting laws passed creating cartels and monopolies based on their own selfish self-interests?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law

Take the United States for example. Based on exorbitant CEO pay, there is no mechanism like free-markets to wring out the inefficiencies of CEO pay. And it seems to me there's a lot of pricing fixing going on in the United States. How do you explain this curve:

https://www.quandl.com/data/FRED/CU...umers-Purchasing-Power-of-the-Consumer-Dollar

And then when we have the lowest unemployment rates in decades there also seems to be price fixing going on with wages:

Pretty grim numbers: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/realer.t01.htm

https://www.epi.org/blog/why-is-wag...wage-jobs-are-being-added-disproportionately/

Do you at least admit under such a system the possibility of outrageous abuse and corruption against the worker making the median wage is even possible? And if it is possible, what is the worker making the median wage supposed to do in order to create opportunity out of nothing? Many people making the median wage already work two or three jobs. Do you think there's just nothing you can do and life is just tough?

There is potential for incompetence & corruption under all economic systems.
It's why I favor a government which prevents that.
Capitalism is superior to socialism in surviving such human shortcomings.

 

[Revoltingest]

In a laissez-faire capitalist system, how do you prevent people from getting laws passed creating cartels and monopolies based on their own selfish self-interests?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law

Take the United States for example. Based on exorbitant CEO pay, there is no mechanism like free-markets to wring out the inefficiencies of CEO pay. And it seems to me there's a lot of pricing fixing going on in the United States. How do you explain this curve:

https://www.quandl.com/data/FRED/CU...umers-Purchasing-Power-of-the-Consumer-Dollar

And then when we have the lowest unemployment rates in decades there also seems to be price fixing going on with wages:

Pretty grim numbers: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/realer.t01.htm

https://www.epi.org/blog/why-is-wag...wage-jobs-are-being-added-disproportionately/

Do you at least admit under such a system the possibility of outrageous abuse and corruption against the worker making the median wage is even possible? And if it is possible, what is the worker making the median wage supposed to do in order to create opportunity out of nothing? Many people making the median wage already work two or three jobs. Do you think there's just nothing you can do and life is just tough?

There is potential for incompetence & corruption under all economic systems.
It's why I favor a government which prevents that.
Capitalism is superior to socialism in surviving such human shortcomings.

 

[joe1776]

Given that I am financially well beyond a need for a massive social safety net, many of the brownie points in these surveys mean little to me.

You have casually mentioned the need for a massive safety net before, almost as if you don't realize that it is capitalism that creates the need for a safety net.

Like you, I was born lucky, I inherited the ability not only to survive but to thrive in a competitive economy. Unlike you, I don't feel that an economic plan is great simply because it favored me and left so many unlucky others out in the cold.

Capitalism will ultimately fail because it's immoral. Meanwhile, the so-called mixed economies are the best we can do until we upgrade the way that policy decisions are made in governing.

 

[Revoltingest]

You have casually mentioned the need for a massive safety net before, almost as if you don't realize that it is capitalism that creates the need for a safety net.

Like you, I was born lucky, I inherited the ability not only to survive but to thrive in a competitive economy. Unlike you, I don't feel that an economic plan is great simply because it favored me and left so many unlucky others out in the cold.

Capitalism will ultimately fail because it's immoral. Meanwhile, the so-called mixed economies are the best we can do until we upgrade the way that policy decisions are made in governing.

I see socialism as immoral.
It's government seizing my right to form voluntary economic associations with others.
Under socialism....
If there's a famine, I'm stuck with the collective's failure.
If I see a better way than what's chosen by the collective, it's illegal to start a business.
To enforce those things, a powerful authoritarian government is necessary.

You can live that way if you want.
Just emigrate to N Korea or Cuba.
But don't impose it upon me.

Have you tried joining or forming a cooperative here in Americastan?

 

[YmirGF]

You have casually mentioned the need for a massive safety net before, almost as if you don't realize that it is capitalism that creates the need for a safety net.

Like you, I was born lucky, I inherited the ability not only to survive but to thrive in a competitive economy. Unlike you, I don't feel that an economic plan is great simply because it favored me and left so many unlucky others out in the cold.

Capitalism will ultimately fail because it's immoral. Meanwhile, the so-called mixed economies are the best we can do until we upgrade the way that policy decisions are made in governing.

What disturbs me about many socialist thinkers is that they pretend that they own the moral high ground and that if only a few good people, usually like themselves, were in a position to enact pure altruistic socialist polices, the utopian wonderland could begin to emerge. That said fabled beast has yet to appear is perhaps a genuine heads up.

As a keen student of human behavior and one who has a pretty good grasp of the human condition I not so quick to assume that doing things "my way" would be greatly beneficial to all. I'm far more inclined to let the individual sort their lives out for themselves with a minimum of interference from government.

Another thing my tiny brain was nibbling on yesterday was that for a socialist state to work, the majority of the people HAVE to be onboard or on the same page, as it is very much a cooperative effort. If you have too many citizens who are not keen on the whole socialist nirvana ideal things could get messy (and bloody).

Capitalism is also a cooperative effort, but to a much lesser extent, but is also a friendly competition. The free market is the one in charge with government used more or less like a rudder. Yes, that is a bit scary, because no one person or group is in charge and a business can grow into a behemoth of unimaginable power and influence. Without massive government intrusion, I just don't see how that circle can be squared and you "reward" super successful companies by splitting them up into leaner, less powerful, entities unrelated to the host.

I agree with you that, quite obviously, mixed economies are the best performers, and also suggest that very strong labor codes could be drafted that would make unions obsolete. Here I'm thinking of a Worker's Bill of Rights type scenario.

I am a bit worried about your very last tidbit though.

Meanwhile, the so-called mixed economies are the best we can do until we upgrade the way that policy decisions are made in governing.

To be fair, in virtually all self-described Socialist governments we has seen, to date, that would translate into elite fiat. The elites would simply mandate changes and follow through with implementation. The "mastermind" complex worries me, again, due to my appreciation of human nature.