Why Socialism doesn't work ?

[joe1776]

Is yours so weak that you refuse to understand that health care
is not "the means of production"?

Your argument rests on the argument that a health care system doesn't actually "produce" the care it gives? Really?

Moreover, I've advocated a particular kind if single payer system. You're new...you might've missed that.

I didn't miss it. I agreed with you. I took it as an intelligent concession on your part that the free market had failed in health care.

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

I agree that capitalism serves a useful purpose for now. That's why I said that mixed economies are best.

Have a positive example from the real world?

No, there are no governments capable of managing such an economy yet. Many intelligent people, like you, don't even recognize the problem. So, they aren't thinking about solutions.

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

I feel like a winner when my debate opponent is reduced to sarcasm and ridicule.

 

[Revoltingest]

Your argument rests on the argument that a health care system doesn't actually "produce" the care it gives? Really?

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

In economics and sociology, the means of production (also called capital goods)[1] are physical non-human and non-financial inputs used in the production of economic value. These include raw materials, facilities, machinery and tools used in the production of goods and services.[2][3] In the terminology of classical economics, the means of production are the "factors of production" minus financial and human capital.

I didn't miss it. I agreed with you. I took it as an intelligent concession on your part that the free market had failed in health care.

We don't have a generally very free market for health care.
The big exception is concierge health care.

No, there are no governments capable of managing such an economy yet. Many intelligent people, like you, don't even recognize the problem. So, they aren't thinking about solutions.

I recognize more problems than you might realize.
But I find your solution of socialism to be a far greater problem.

I feel like a winner when my debate opponent is reduced to sarcasm and ridicule.

Oh, no....not another one of those who declare
a win after flailing about like a landed trout.
(Yes, I went there....I used rhyming.)

Back to my question....
Have you ever tried a cooperative?

 

[joe1776]

What disturbs me about many socialist thinkers is that they pretend that they own the moral high ground...

You're right that I think we proponents of cooperative economic policies have the moral high ground. I think it unfair that the right to own private property, for example, favors someone born highly intelligent and infected with greed. But I also think that such a right is a stupid policy because it fails to motivate the full cooperation of all citizens in these cooperative endeavors we call "society."

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.

You don't seem to understand that all cooperative endeavors, such as a nation, require that individual citizens trade in the right to act any way they please for greater benefits...and, if those benefits aren't fairly distributed, there's no reason to fully cooperate.

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).

Please explain:
Why is your statement applicable only to cooperative economies and not to competitive economies?

...The free market is the one in charge with government used more or less like a rudder....

So, in your materialistic world, supply and demand rules all human activity?

The "mastermind" complex worries me, again, due to my appreciation of human nature.

An intelligent policy-making system would maximize IQ, maximize experience and training, and minimize self-interest and other biases relevant to the issue at hand.

In World War Two, the allies formed an advisory group of experts on strategy that later became the Rand Corporation. I think today's communications technology is going to make even better decision-making systems possible.

 

[joe1776]

...
Have you ever tried a cooperative?

I don't live alone in the wilderness. I am a member of a society -- which is essentially a cooperative endeavor.

 

[YmirGF]

You're right that I think we proponents of cooperative economic policies have the moral high ground. I think it unfair that the right to own private property, for example, favors someone born highly intelligent and infected with greed. But I also think that such a right is a stupid policy because it fails to motivate the full cooperation of all citizens in these cooperative endeavors we call "society."

This kind of thought is somewhat alien to my perspective, Joe, so I'll have to go and dig around on my property for a couple of hours to chew through this miasma of thought.

 

[Shad]

"State Capitalism"? Really?

Yes. Look it up

No, it is not as it has a "mixed economy".

Mixed does not mean not capitalism. Mixed as in there are social safety nets

Is that why it's become #6 internationally? I wish we had that kind of "crippling" here in Michigan.

Look up the difference between "the state" and "the economy". The poverty levels are also very high to the point that places in SF consider 1000k a year to be in poverty

"Social democracy" is a political system, not an economic one.

Which uses democracy to address social balances and lack of which include economic.

Like all other countries, it has a "mixed economy" but is significantly more socialistic than the U.S.'s economy.[/QUOTE]

Having more social nets does not make Socialist. Those are still capitalist nations using private ownership in capitalism markets.

As I mentioned previously, it's a matter of degrees since all countries have what we call "mixed economies".

Mixed does not mean non-capitalism

Also, taxes are really intrinsic to "socialism" if you stop and think about it. IOW, tax monies collected go to the government(s) and the money is spent or is dispersed from there = "socialism".

Nonsense. Collecting taxes does not make anything Socialist. Again you seems not to know what Socialism is. State interventionism such as taxes is not Socialism. A Welfare state is not Socialism

Now, mind you, I'm using a different definition than what most probably think of, but there are many different definitions and forms of "socialism": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Read Marx and Engels.

 

[metis]

Mixed does not mean not capitalism. Mixed as in there are social safety nets

And these safety nets reflect socialistic steps, and I said nothing about it being supposedly "non-capitalism". Matter of fact, I said more than once that "mixed economy" means a mixture of capitalistic and socialistic programs.

Read Marx and Engels.

I have, and I taught political philosophy, including Marx and Engels in detail for many years (I taught a political science course for roughly 25 years, btw). However, what I have seen over and over again by many people is they all too often do not understand that their proposals went well beyond economics, plus theirs were extreme forms of socialism (they had a falling out with each other). If you had even just perused my link, you would know this.

Nonsense. Collecting taxes does not make anything Socialist. Again you seems not to know what Socialism is.

You continue to miss the point, which I did explain that I was using a bit of a s-t-r-e-t-c-h on the definition, but I think I've had enough of this discussion anyway. Seems that you would rather just argue than actually carefully read and actually contemplate about what I post.

fini

 

[Shad]

What specific flaws do you find with socialism that don't involve examples of X nation?

Undesirable job will run into rampant labour shortages as greater incentives are removed under socialism. Socialism fails to address service sectors which do not actually make a product of value.

What is utopian about a cooperative economy?

As it ignores the human element.

Do you think it impossible that we humans could invent a good decision-making model that could manage such a thing?

At a global level? Nope.

Governments can still be criticized, but as a world phenomenon, they are improving. They're far better today than they were centuries ago.

Only in parts of the worlds. Typically those high on the HDI.

 

[Shad]

And these safety nets reflect socialistic steps, and I said nothing about it being supposedly "non-capitalism". Matter of fact, I said more than once that "mixed economy" means a mixture of capitalistic and socialistic programs.

Those social programs are paid for via taxes using capitalism. Mixed is government intervention in markets. That is not the same thing as socialism

I have, and I taught political philosophy, including Marx and Engels in detail for many years (I taught a political science course for roughly 25 years, btw). However, what I have seen over and over again by many people is they all too often do not understand that their proposals went well beyond economics, plus theirs were extreme forms of socialism (they had a falling out with each other). If you had even just perused my link, you would know this.

Socialism isn't merely a economic system. Yes many went to extremes as implementation of socialism requires oppression if not extermination of those opposing it.

You continue to miss the point, which I did explain that I was using a bit of a s-t-r-e-t-c-h on the definition, but I think I've had enough of this discussion anyway. Seems that you would rather just argue than actually carefully read and actually contemplate about what I post.

Nope. You merely confuse state intervention in the form of taxes and uses of taxes by the state as socialism. I corrected you. Do note I replied to a specific point. If you can not follow that point and the response that is your problem not mine. Remember "IOW, tax monies collected go to the government(s) and the money is spent or is dispersed from there = "socialism". That is nonsense.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't live alone in the wilderness. I am a member of a society -- which is essentially a cooperative endeavor.

As a business owner, I engage in both competition and cooperation,
mostly the latter.

How long have you owned or run a business?

 

[Revoltingest]

I have, and I taught political philosophy, including Marx and Engels in detail for many years (I taught a political science course for roughly 25 years, btw). However, what I have seen over and over again by many people is they all too often do not understand that their proposals went well beyond economics, plus theirs were extreme forms of socialism (they had a falling out with each other).

And yet you still have trouble with the definition of "socialism".

 

[Shad]

You're right that I think we proponents of cooperative economic policies have the moral high ground. I think it unfair that the right to own private property, for example, favors someone born highly intelligent and infected with greed. But I also think that such a right is a stupid policy because it fails to motivate the full cooperation of all citizens in these cooperative endeavors we call "society."

That is an opportunity issue

 

[joe1776]

As a business owner, I engage in both competition and cooperation,
mostly the latter.

How long have you owned or run a business?

I'm 83. I retired 25 years ago. I ran a commercial real estate company for 27 years before that. I hated the work but it was profitable.

In the future cooperative economy that I foresee, I would have been assigned more useful work, probably retrained for different jobs, and I would never want to retire because I like feeling useful and engaged in a worthy cause.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm 83. I retired 25 years ago. I ran a commercial real estate company for 27 years before that. I hated the work but it was profitable.

In the future cooperative economy that I foresee, I would have been assigned more useful work, probably retrained for different jobs, and I would never want to retire because I like feeling useful and engaged.

I started & ran a property management company (residential & commercial).
So with some similarity in backgrounds, I know that you did a whole lotta
cooperation with customers & clients. Competition was really about setting
prices, which is hardly to be foes at each others' throats.

Btw, I hated it too. I should'a stayed an engineer, with my contracting &
consulting business. It was more fun.