Thread: Socialism

Originally Posted by Dick Martin

Where have you ever seen that argument being made in America? Who are these socialists who are making these claims?

Are you disputing that socialists are opposed to private ownership of large businesses? That seems fairly consistent with basic socialist theory as I understand it, though I'm willing to learn differently from any socialists willing to set the record straight.

Dick martin, socialists in America aren't making these claims. I'm following the arguments being made in this thread, not trying to divine what American socialists think.

What I'd hoped to discuss in this thread is what I see as the fundamental change that state socialism implies, that being moving to government control of the "means of production". I'll say up front, that the terminology is troublesomely vague to me. "Means of production" could be taken to mean merely the resources and 'large' equipment required for industrial production. But it could also be interpreted as the minds and bodies of the workers doing the producing.

Though it may make libertarians uncomfortable to acknowledge, the line between what is acceptably "own-able" and what is not, is arbitrary to some degree. Despite a widespread acceptance of the concept of private property in our culture, there are many things we prefer to leave openly accessible to all. Most of us wouldn't want to pay for the air that we breath and there seems to be consensus that public transportation lanes (roads, airspace, etc ...) should be free from constraints of ownership.

So, it's not inconceivable to me that we might move to a workable society where real estate, for example, wasn't own-able. There are certainly historical examples, but I assume a post industrial version would be considerably different from the nomadic, tribal societies I have in mind. But I think the idea is worth considering.

What I'd be most interested in is the specifics of how far socialists believe we should go in abolishing private property. Deny private ownership of land is one thing; pragmatically, it's not that far removed from the way things work now, where we essentially 'rent' the land we think we 'own' via taxes. But where does that leave things like tools or equipment that individuals might wish to purchase and use to make a living?

The other interesting bit which seems to be at the core of any sort of socialist transition would the role of profit in economic transactions. If you allow people to buy and sell things at all, profit will be a fact of life, and given that many socialists seem to seem to want to eliminate profit altogether, I wonder about how that will affect our freedom to trade with each other.

Originally Posted by dblack

Are you disputing that socialists are opposed to private ownership of large businesses? That seems fairly consistent with basic socialist theory as I understand it, though I'm willing to learn differently from any socialists willing to set the record straight.

Nah, I am not disputing the definition of socialism. I am trying to make a connection with the purpose of the thread. Is the purpose of the thread to be an abstract discussion of an -ism that will never be? Is it an attempt to erect a straw man and then knock it down? Or, the more likely choice; something else all together, and I totally missed the point yet again?

This thread is in a forum named "Economic Issues Business, Commerce, Consumer Affairs, Economics, Public Finance, Trade" so I am guessing it is not intended to be an abstract discussion about politics.

In any event, I offer this observation: China, as I understand it, would be defined as a socialist country, yet free enterprise and personal freedom thrives there (except in the area of politics).

So, to respond to the purpose of the thread, can you offer me some guidance as to where you are hoping the discussion will go?

Originally Posted by Dick Martin

So, to respond to the purpose of the thread, can you offer me some guidance as to where you are hoping the discussion will go?

hmm... I dunno. DT's OP seemed to be mostly exploratory. I thought we were discussing how socialism might work as an alternative to our current arrangement. For the purposes of discussion and learning, I'm working with the assumption that such a transition would be politically feasible, and trying to imagine how it might play out. Advocacy is another question, though there's bound to be some debate over the perceived benefits and drawbacks.

Also, regarding the other thread that I believe prompted DT's post, I was most interested in how socialism could be implemented without the centralized 'command economy' approach that most agree doomed the Soviets.

I think Dragontalk is trying to get at what a workable future socialism would look like.

Personally, I think the future is going to be mega welfare-state capitalism. I see a future where per capita GDP tops $1 billion, but unemployment is 80% due to automation. What that will probably mean is a guaranteed income for all citizens of say, $250,000/yr(in today's dollars), while the top 20% that have skills to contribute to this extremely advanced society generate wealth that not even Bill Gates could imagine.

There won't be any discontent with this aside from casual complaining because no one will really want for anything. Not everyone can be an engineer or a scientist, which are about the only jobs that will require humans about 100 years from now.

Originally Posted by adaher

I think Dragontalk is trying to get at what a workable future socialism would look like.

Personally, I think the future is going to be mega welfare-state capitalism. I see a future where per capita GDP tops $1 billion, but unemployment is 80% due to automation. What that will probably mean is a guaranteed income for all citizens of say, $250,000/yr(in today's dollars), while the top 20% that have skills to contribute to this extremely advanced society generate wealth that not even Bill Gates could imagine.

There won't be any discontent with this aside from casual complaining because no one will really want for anything. Not everyone can be an engineer or a scientist, which are about the only jobs that will require humans about 100 years from now.

In that scenario I see two possible routes, and of course all shades between.

One route is the route towards fulfillment, enrichment, and personal ambition. Some jobs are hard to turn over to machines. Teaching, personal services, whether it is waitress, masseuse, or ball washer, entertainer, or shrink would be in that category. I suspect there will be demand for hand crafted items over machine-made. There is a whole arena of activities that will keep people busy.

Then, of course, there is the other route. The people who will watch TV all day, waddle to the mailbox occasionally, and go to the casino when their check arrives.

And all in between.

People will always stay busy, another reason that there won't be discontent due to the huge wealth disparities. Idleness+ poverty= revolution, but busy + comfortable= contented obesity.

We're actually already heading in that direction. Most middle class folks these days don't work backbreaking jobs. They have lots of leisure time. Plenty of commentary has been expended criticizing modern citizens for just vegging out all the time, when they aren't rushing to the mall to buy the latest thing. Most such commentators want us to be outraged about what all the moneyed people are doing, but we aren't and we won't be, so long as we can sit down in front of the TV with a six-pack and get 200 channels.

I think that's a good thing, actually, because I enjoy the fact that despite being a bit under the median income of this country, I enjoy leisure and comfort that easily beats anything kings used to enjoy. And I'm sure 100 years from now, even the poorest citizens will enjoy a lifestyle Bill Gates can't even match. So no revolution.

Originally Posted by adaher

People will always stay busy, another reason that there won't be discontent due to the huge wealth disparities. Idleness+ poverty= revolution, but busy + comfortable= contented obesity.

We're actually already heading in that direction. Most middle class folks these days don't work backbreaking jobs. They have lots of leisure time. Plenty of commentary has been expended criticizing modern citizens for just vegging out all the time, when they aren't rushing to the mall to buy the latest thing. Most such commentators want us to be outraged about what all the moneyed people are doing, but we aren't and we won't be, so long as we can sit down in front of the TV with a six-pack and get 200 channels.

I think that's a good thing, actually, because I enjoy the fact that despite being a bit under the median income of this country, I enjoy leisure and comfort that easily beats anything kings used to enjoy. And I'm sure 100 years from now, even the poorest citizens will enjoy a lifestyle Bill Gates can't even match. So no revolution.

The problem with what you are reporting is that the numbers are shifting. The group of which you speak, and are a member, is not growing in size. That life is slipping away for millions of Americans. If the slide is not reversed then it is just a question of time before some demagogue does with the poor what the TEA Party is doing with the uninvolved.

There really isn't a statistically discernible slide outside of the fact that we're in a recession. Look at say, 2006 numbers and everything still looks pretty good for the middle class. The middle class is shrinking, but not becuase the ranks of the poor are growing, because the ranks of the wealthy are growing.

Originally Posted by dblack

Are you disputing that socialists are opposed to private ownership of large businesses? That seems fairly consistent with basic socialist theory as I understand it, though I'm willing to learn differently from any socialists willing to set the record straight.

Excellent way of wording it so that any answer proves your point. Kind of like the old question, "Are you still beating your wife?" Try asking an honest question instead, you'll love the freedom it gives you to communicate with others that think differently.

All the socialist I know of aren't in this country, and the ones you so conveniently label as such, are Americans who work, pray, raise their families and have the same concerns as those in the GOP. No one that I know of on the left is opposed to anyone owning large businesses.

The group you must label something, so you know how to deal with them without thinking, understand that true 'free' enterprise does not work, except for the benefit of the large corporations. With true free enterprise, we get the union breaking of the coal mine days, company stores, large corporations that force small ones out of business and then raise prices, cheap products made in China, poison in our food, raping of mountain tops and country sides for coal, the bad smogs of the 70s, the acid rain and all those bad things that come from unregulated free trade.

Take our current economic recession, brought forth by the passage of the Glass/Segal Act in 1999, by a GOP Congress and signed by Clinton. It took less than 8 years for this big deregulation of the large finance companies to bring about this extremely bad recession. That, and greatly underfunding of all the regulatory agencies by "W" Bush.

What I really don't understand about some, is their acting so holy, meanwhile voting in scoundrels that we all know will allow less regulation and large profits by those who are already making obscene profits.

You forgot to mention flammable drinking water. Brought to us by Dick Cheney.

If socialism isn't government ownership of the means of production, then the term no longer has any meaning. Again, welfare states are not a unique aspect of socialism, they predate socialism and have been present in every type of economy.

I guess we really are all capitalists now.