Socialism is profitable!

Jul 26, 2009
5,666
406
Opa Locka
#21
Without money, how do you propose people exchange goods? The barter system was very inefficient and it would be very hard to implement that in today's world with the very large and diverse amount of goods that we have.

As for the soviets, how do you feel that would work? Would everyone vote for the soviets or only the people in the industry? Also, what would keep people from corrupting the soviets like they corrupt governments today? Also, consider the fact that in a truly capitalist situation, consumers are free to stop buying products from companies they don't like and workers are free to leave companies that they don't like (so long as they didn't sign a contract.) If enough people aren't willing to work for a company, the company would have to raise wages or benefits- it all depends on what people are willing to work for. And if a company is not able to innovate and create goods that people want, no one will buy their products and the company will lose money/go under. The common people actually have a lot of power in capitalism because they essentially control which companies survive and what sort of payment workers get. It would all eventually move towards market equilibrium, which is not only optimal for growth, but allows for supply and demand numbers that both sides are willingly agreeing to. The problem with today's "capitalism" is that it is not capitalism- the government regulates and favors too many parts of markets which cause these distortions and give certain groups more power. In free market capitalism not only would you not have that and not only would common people have more power, but you don't run the risk of corrupt soviets as in your proposed situation. I know you said they'd be elected, but there is always time between elections when a disliked and corrupt soviet may still have the power to rule until they are voted out.
Alright...

The barter system is why money exists. I'm hardly advocating a return to that. I've answered your question, more effort/quality/impotence = more. A good doctor that truly cares for their patients will live as they do now. A good teacher who truly cares for their students will live just as well, something that's not the case now. Same goes for factory workers who work hard and produce quality products and so on and so forth. Contrary to what is said, socialism encourages innovation as it'll result in a direct (as opposed to indirect via money) increase in wealth and status as well as eliminating the finical restrictions people have (Do you have any idea what I and many others could do if we could afford to?).

Soviets wouldn't be gov't, just a socialist equivalent to a board of directors. They'd only control their local industry (company). How do you mean? We're talking about industry leaders, not law makers. A soviets job would be to maximize profits (money if it hasn't been abolished or else greater standard of living) and keep their local industry (say construction in NYC) healthy. The only lobbying being done wouldn't be much different then the current unions.
 

myp

Site Founder
Jan 14, 2009
5,841
50
#22
Actually, they are the result of opposition to capitalism.

A worker's cooperative - which is what this is - is owned by its workers. This is the vehicle for workers' control of the means of production. This is quite definitely socialism.
Call it socialism if you like, but that sort of situation can also be formed in a capitalist economy. A worker-run corporation can be formed in capitalism- there is no law against it and it is completely possible.

Capitalism can not give the same result. Or rather, it could hypothetically, but simply wouldn't. Because capitalism is based on private property and a tool of the bourgeoisie. That's also why free market capitalism is slightly oxymoronic.
This is where you are misguided. The company that you used as an example has formed in an economy that is strongly based on private property. How do you explain that? I understand that you are for a left-libertarian (libertarian socialism) approach, but how do you see that as possible? People will always be selfish and while you may believe that resources are for everyone, everyone won't think that way and people will try to control as much as they can anyway. The only difference is that without private property, the situation would be a big mess when issues arise.

Alright...

The barter system is why money exists. I'm hardly advocating a return to that. I've answered your question, more effort/quality/impotence = more. A good doctor that truly cares for their patients will live as they do now. A good teacher who truly cares for their students will live just as well, something that's not the case now. Same goes for factory workers who work hard and produce quality products and so on and so forth.
How do you think we will exchange goods without money though? Do you really think people will just give up their goods for free? If so, what happens when someone refuses to do so. The world isn't made up of a population that is 100% willing to share what they make- everyone is not like that. Also, what happens when there is abundance of one good and not another? Who gets rationed and how? Money is necessary in order to make transactions among people easy.

Contrary to what is said, socialism encourages innovation as it'll result in a direct (as opposed to indirect via money) increase in wealth and status as well as eliminating the finical restrictions people have (Do you have any idea what I and many others could do if we could afford to?).
Socialism does not encourage innovation because everyone is not willing to work and contribute- it is largely susceptible to the free loader problem. As for what you and others can do with resources- in a free market capitalist economy, moving through wealth levels is a lot easier due to opportunity and less restrictions on the individual.

Soviets wouldn't be gov't, just a socialist equivalent to a board of directors. They'd only control their local industry (company). How do you mean? We're talking about industry leaders, not law makers. A soviets job would be to maximize profits (money if it hasn't been abolished or else greater standard of living) and keep their local industry (say construction in NYC) healthy. The only lobbying being done wouldn't be much different then the current unions.
And you don't see a problem with that? Look at what the UAW did to GM and the Big Three. Also, people who are self-interested may try to manipulate the heads of the Soviets for their own gains- for example outsourcing that specific Soviet's contracts to another specific soviet or company. The allure for more power always exists in some people and they would be willing to manipulate in order to get it. How do you stop that when entire industries are controlled by soviets? If one soviet gets corrupted it could mean a huge collision course for the entire economy.
 
Jul 26, 2009
5,666
406
Opa Locka
#23
Nothing would be 'free'. You'd simply be paying with labor rather then money. So yes, you want a plasma TV? Fine you get it if you worked for it buy the person giving it to you, if they worked just as hard, can get the supplies for another such TV from someone else and they, if working just as hard, could get food for their families, ect. Same system as exists with money, only without the fear of being broke. If you can't 'afford' something, it's due to your own laziness.

Free loaders die is socialism. Socialism is worker rule, you don't work, you don't get provided for (no labor = no rights to anything as your buying power would be based of effort/quality/importance) and thus the free loader problem is moot. No welfare programs in socialism.

Yes, people are well paid and taken care of. As the UAW pointed out, they didn't get greedy, everyone else just got too weak to demand faire wages. If you want an example of overpayment, look at pro-sports. Besides, no unions would exist as the workers would have a direct say and the soviets, if facing the issue that the auto companies are, could simply pass a regulation on 'wages'. As for economic problems, that exists in a capitalist economy as well, it's natural and the Soviets would only control local industries. A city or state, no more. The US Economy doesn't tank because Mobile, AL suffers an economic slump. ;)
 

Dirk

Anarchist
Apr 27, 2009
1,943
5
Disunited Queendom
#24
Call it socialism if you like, but that sort of situation can also be formed in a capitalist economy. A worker-run corporation can be formed in capitalism- there is no law against it and it is completely possible.
As i subsequently said. And yes, it has happened. Though even David's example is not fully owned by the workers. But yes, it's possible and there are no laws against it.

This is where you are misguided. The company that you used as an example has formed in an economy that is strongly based on private property. How do you explain that? I understand that you are for a left-libertarian (libertarian socialism) approach, but how do you see that as possible? People will always be selfish and while you may believe that resources are for everyone, everyone won't think that way and people will try to control as much as they can anyway. The only difference is that without private property, the situation would be a big mess when issues arise.
Ooh, "misguided". That's a very, erm, interesting word-choice.

Yes, it has indeed. But as i've said, it's more as a result of opposition to capitalism than a direct result of capitalism itself.

I don't think that property - land - should belong to anyone. I think that the world's resources should be a common treasury. But i think that every individual has an inherent right to ownership of that which he or she produces. Which includes buying and selling. But capitalism doesn't endorse this. Socialism isn't allowed, although, as you rightly point out, aspects thereof are possible.
 

myp

Site Founder
Jan 14, 2009
5,841
50
#25
Nothing would be 'free'. You'd simply be paying with labor rather then money. So yes, you want a plasma TV? Fine you get it if you worked for it buy the person giving it to you, if they worked just as hard, can get the supplies for another such TV from someone else and they, if working just as hard, could get food for their families, ect. Same system as exists with money, only without the fear of being broke. If you can't 'afford' something, it's due to your own laziness.
And what is going to measure the amount of "work" you have done?

Yes, people are well paid and taken care of. As the UAW pointed out, they didn't get greedy, everyone else just got too weak to demand faire wages. If you want an example of overpayment, look at pro-sports. Besides, no unions would exist as the workers would have a direct say and the soviets, if facing the issue that the auto companies are, could simply pass a regulation on 'wages'. As for economic problems, that exists in a capitalist economy as well, it's natural and the Soviets would only control local industries. A city or state, no more. The US Economy doesn't tank because Mobile, AL suffers an economic slump. ;)
Are you really trying to tell me UAW's deal with the big three was fair? It lead to the downfall of the companies as so much money was tied up into wages and benefits. Some of those requirements were just ridiculous with people getting paid over 100k for simply factory jobs. Even many leftist publications have called out the UAW for their absurd askings. You say everyone else simply didn't command enough benefits/wages, but that simply isn't true considering so many people were willingly employed at lower wages- the market equilibrium was clearly lower than what UAW workers were getting. The UAW workers were just OVERPAID.

As for the soviets failing- what happens when they fail? Who takes over? What is the process of restructuring? What you are describing currently sounds a lot like bankruptcy- which is an element of private property economies and capitalism.

Yes, it has indeed. But as i've said, it's more as a result of opposition to capitalism than a direct result of capitalism itself.
How so? This belief that capitalism is against workers having power is completely absurd. It is a manifestation of a mislabeling of economies as capitalism. America is not a truly capitalist market- it has been far from it for a long time. In a free market, the state would essentially be untied with the market and workers would easily be able to form co-ops if the people wanted to- there would be no laws favoring anything against it. Corporations in the same industry may still exist (unless everyone in the industry was pro co-op), so the co-ops would have to be competitive, but other than that there would be nothing deterring their formation.

I don't think that property - land - should belong to anyone. I think that the world's resources should be a common treasury. But i think that every individual has an inherent right to ownership of that which he or she produces. Which includes buying and selling. But capitalism doesn't endorse this. Socialism isn't allowed, although, as you rightly point out, aspects thereof are possible.
What about resources like oil or things that take large, expensive equipment to harvest? Who would own those because the common man would not be able to go there and get it himself. If one person finds oil and starts drilling, what stops a bunch of others from just coming along and also drilling there, making the original founder's exploration very unprofitable (possibly to a loss) for him? Such a situation may in fact put people off from finding future oil sources. (oil is just an example- this can be applied to many different resources.)

Also, without property ownership what stops anyone from going outside (on the land) anyone else's house and simply staying there or trashing it?

Furthermore, what stops people who have force from simply saying they own some land. Even if the government says no one can own land, what stops someone from simply building a fence or defending the land around their house or some resource? Do you expect the government to get involved and break up the possession?
 

Dirk

Anarchist
Apr 27, 2009
1,943
5
Disunited Queendom
#26
How so? This belief that capitalism is against workers having power is completely absurd.
Well, as you can see, realistically, capitalists have to keep the workers from getting power, they have to destroy the labour movement if they want to maintain private (bourgeois) power.

It is a manifestation of a mislabeling of economies as capitalism. America is not a truly capitalist market - it has been far from it for a long time. In a free market, the state would essentially be untied with the market and workers would easily be able to form co-ops if the people wanted to- there would be no laws favoring anything against it. Corporations in the same industry may still exist (unless everyone in the industry was pro co-op), so the co-ops would have to be competitive, but other than that there would be nothing deterring their formation.
America is very capitalist. It's not free market capitalist but then, you know, i think that ultimately, that's a pipe dream to be honest.

What about resources like oil or things that take large, expensive equipment to harvest? Who would own those because the common man would not be able to go there and get it himself. If one person finds oil and starts drilling, what stops a bunch of others from just coming along and also drilling there, making the original founder's exploration very unprofitable (possibly to a loss) for him?
Nothing. It's a common resource. But when you get scarce resources, that might actually provide a motive to find a sustainable resource and would probably help people learn about self-sufficiency and also the value of working together.

Such a situation may in fact put people off from finding future oil sources.
Good.

That's only an issue really for resources in some scarcity, of course.

Also, without property ownership what stops anyone from going outside (on the land) anyone else's house and simply staying there or trashing it?
The lack of motive, for one thing.

Furthermore, what stops people who have force from simply saying they own some land.
The lack of legislation to back them up.

Even if the government says no one can own land,
What government? No one's forcing anyone here.

what stops someone from simply building a fence or defending the land around their house or some resource?
Everyone else.

Do you expect the government to get involved and break up the possession?
Only if i were senile or delusional.
 

myp

Site Founder
Jan 14, 2009
5,841
50
#27
Sorry for the late reply- been busy of late. Anyway, here we go...

Well, as you can see, realistically, capitalists have to keep the workers from getting power, they have to destroy the labour movement if they want to maintain private (bourgeois) power.
And how do you justify this claim? In capitalism, if an employer starts to unfairly take advantage or abuse workers, the worker has the right to leave and find another job. If an employer has no one willing to work for him/her, then he would most likely raise standards until someone is willing to work there.


America is very capitalist. It's not free market capitalist but then, you know, i think that ultimately, that's a pipe dream to be honest.
No, I don't. We got relatively close to it during the early years of this nation and we experienced great prosperity. In fact, I would say my vision of free market capitalism is far from a pipe dream in comparison to your radical stateless society. What is really more likely?

Nothing. It's a common resource. But when you get scarce resources, that might actually provide a motive to find a sustainable resource and would probably help people learn about self-sufficiency and also the value of working together.
That is a problem though. If it costs too much to find it resources only to have them provide very little profit, then the motive is often gone. For example, if it took $10 million to find a new source of oil, and the oil in the area was potentially worth $50 million, then a oil company obviously has a motive to find that resource. Now, in your system they may pay $10 million to find it only to have hundreds of oil companies come in and take the oil so that the original company can't even make back its original $10 million in discovery costs. This provides a motive NOT to find resources, not the opposite.



Good.

That's only an issue really for resources in some scarcity, of course.
Every resource is scarce- there is no unlimited resource. Also, what about things like finding special herbs and things for new health-related procedures. Are you saying that under your system you would be ok letting human advancements that could save millions of lives slip away because there is no benefit to find new resources? That sort of thinking stops the progress of civilization and the growth of technology, which ultimately do improve people's lives.

The lack of motive, for one thing.
And you think vandals always have a reason for what they do? You think arsonists always burn things with a purpose?


The lack of legislation to back them up.
You don't need legislation to back something up. Ultimately, legislation isn't even the strongest form of security- it is arms. A guy with tanks in a town with people without tanks would most likely be able to use force to get what he wants.



Do you really think that everyone else will care at all if the situation doesn't effect them at all? Your sort of world only works if everyone is compassionate, caring, selfless, and healthy. This is not the world we live in. Human nature simply is not like that. There will always be selfish people. There will always be manipulative people. You can not change that, you can only make it harder for one person to abuse the liberties of others when they are trying to manipulate or abuse others out of their own interest.
 

Dirk

Anarchist
Apr 27, 2009
1,943
5
Disunited Queendom
#28
And how do you justify this claim? In capitalism, if an employer starts to unfairly take advantage or abuse workers, the worker has the right to leave and find another job. If an employer has no one willing to work for him/her, then he would most likely raise standards until someone is willing to work there.
It's often not practical to leave a job. And you know as well as i do that capitalism requires a certain number of people unemployed as a back-up for such an occasion or where there is a requirement of expansion. How will the unemployed be provided for?

This is the reason man created Unions.

No, I don't. We got relatively close to it during the early years of this nation and we experienced great prosperity. In fact, I would say my vision of free market capitalism is far from a pipe dream in comparison to your radical stateless society. What is really more likely?
Of course my ideal is a pipe dream! What ideal isn't? But it's a nice idea to work towards. Pure capitalism is a pipe dream - well, more like a nightmare - in that to enforce private property, there always needs to be a Government, which always needs funding, which commits the cardinal sin - disrupting free movement of capital. Not to mention in practice, it distributes most power and privelege to those well off - the bourgeoisie - leaving the honest working man (or woman) to lease their labour and get little in return.

That is a problem though. If it costs too much to find it resources only to have them provide very little profit, then the motive is often gone. For example, if it took $10 million to find a new source of oil, and the oil in the area was potentially worth $50 million, then a oil company obviously has a motive to find that resource. Now, in your system they may pay $10 million to find it only to have hundreds of oil companies come in and take the oil so that the original company can't even make back its original $10 million in discovery costs. This provides a motive NOT to find resources, not the opposite.
As i say. Society will still require energy. This would encourage renewable resources.

Every resource is scarce- there is no unlimited resource. Also, what about things like finding special herbs and things for new health-related procedures. Are you saying that under your system you would be ok letting human advancements that could save millions of lives slip away because there is no benefit to find new resources? That sort of thinking stops the progress of civilization and the growth of technology, which ultimately do improve people's lives.
If it is vital or important or in demand, which it would be in the cases you suggest, free federation in fact encourages likeminded people to come together and work for a common goal or resource or what have you.

And you think vandals always have a reason for what they do? You think arsonists always burn things with a purpose?
There's definitely a reason. What you mean is whether the crime is socially or psychologically motivated.

You don't need legislation to back something up. Ultimately, legislation isn't even the strongest form of security- it is arms. A guy with tanks in a town with people without tanks would most likely be able to use force to get what he wants.
The tyrant would have to watch his back like hell. There's the option of guerilla war. It's impossible to indefinitely occupy a place without hearts and minds. And this in a society that has rejected all forms of illegitemate authority?

I can imagine a transitionary violence. People taking advantage and so on. But society inevitably organises itself. There are some things i have no idea or can only guess at how they would work in practice. But people aren't going to form around my ideals, they would organise around what society wants.

Do you really think that everyone else will care at all if the situation doesn't effect them at all? Your sort of world only works if everyone is compassionate, caring, selfless, and healthy. This is not the world we live in. Human nature simply is not like that. There will always be selfish people. There will always be manipulative people.
But people are caring, loving and compassionate. These are all vital parts of human nature. Selfishness is only one aspect of human nature. But we learn to cooperate and get along with others, to work toward common goals, to help people, to care.

When you are a toddler, you see someone has something, you want it. You try and take it from them. As you grow older, you learn about sharing and that games are often more fun when you play together with someone else. Later on, you find that chores are finished much sooner if you have someone to help you.

Of course there will always be people that embrace the more negative sides. But for the most part, and in the majority of instances, these occur due to social environment. It's about social development. You may decide to abuse your freedoms. Until you are considered an adult by your parents, they can still deal with you.

No society is ever perfect but the number of people doing things considered bad will most likely be less than those doing bad - and succeeding - today. If you look at most of the crimes they are committed by those in poverty, often the cause of crime will be to relieve poverty (theft etc), or to escape poverty (drug dealing), or to mentally escape poverty (taking drugs). This is induced by the socio-economic climate.

You can not change that, you can only make it harder for one person to abuse the liberties of others when they are trying to manipulate or abuse others out of their own interest.
But who stops this abuse? The Government? So long as a Government exists, it will gather power. It almost has its own social gravitational field. Governments aim to escape accountability to the people and gain powers. Who would be defined as "bad people"? Political dissidents, for example?

The current system in America is state capitalism. As it is, economically, America would break down completely if it changed to a free market economy. Whether breaking down or with a hypothetical ideal country, a free market economy would always favour the rich. The poor would be crushed.
 
Last edited:

deanhills

Secretary of State
Mar 15, 2009
2,187
2
#29
Whether breaking down or with a hypothetical ideal country, a free market economy would always favour the rich. The poor would be crushed.
All market economies favour the rich. Sort of makes sense doesn't it, those who do good business and score the most are always the rich, whether the economy is free or not, the rich will buy their freedom to get what they want. The poor always loose, whether the economy is free or restricted.
 
Nov 21, 2017
2,777
57
Behind the 8 ball
#30
Sorry guys, but you both really need to look at the facts. Dirk claims that socialism allows for free profit, but forgets to look at the economic laws of supply and demand and the effect that taxes and government interference has on them.

And David, you do realize that Publix is a PRIVATE company, right? Also, Wal-Mart has similar stock options for its workers and it still has had great growth. Both companies are private, so you can't really make a case for socialism based on the success of either. Not only that, but Publix may have better growth in the grocery market, but Walmart still has great productivity and market share in that market, not to mention its business is also in a lot of other areas. Also, you need to be wary of such studies because there are other studies that will tell you just the opposite and the reality of the matter is that so many consumers continue to shop at WalMart because they are satisfied in one way or another- whether it be fair prices or service. No one is forcing people to shop at Walmart, yet despite all of the bad media from anti-corporation groups, a VERY LARGE amount of Americans and people around the world still willingly shop there.
I don't see how Publix stays in business!

Just saw them advertise on TV boneless, skinless chicken breast for $5.49 a pound! As if it is a GOOD DEAL!!!

You can get it all week long for $1.79 at ALDI or Save A Lot. :smug:

Run! Don't walk away from Publix.

 

Similar Discussions