Pathways to socialism.

[CultureCitizen]

I've started this thread to explore the different paths and obstacles that might appear while switching to socialism. But before engaging into any discussion it is necesary to establish a working definition.

"Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy."

Here it is important to distinguish "social ownership" and "state ownership". While it can be argued that when the state owns a company it does so having in mind the best interest of the society, it is often the case that the company is used to advance the agenda of a group of people holding office. Certain mechanisms must be in place in order to ensure true social ownership is ensured , like transparency and democracy. In any case, when the state has the control of several companies, we might be facing a scenario of state capitalism and not of socialism.

From my viewpoint cooperatives are the closest form of social ownership to date.
Can you think of any other ways to achieve social ownership?
What would be the drawbacks of having a large number of companies organized in such a fashion?
Do you think such arrangement is compatible with the free market ?
Share your thoughts.

 

[lake avenue]

Socialism and Communism will be lifetimes down the road, it's going to be a mostly natural transition from an extremely developed capitalist state, such as Karl Marx wrote in the Communist Manifesto. Wealth inequality will likely have to be high in order for people to consider it at this hypothetical stage.

Obstacles would be loyalists and the government, of course. Transition will be rough and probably won't be very pretty. Anarchy might assume itself for awhile until a socialist/communist state can be made. Any leftover defectors at that point will most likely be killed or deported.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Socialism has a 100% fail rate, what's the fucking point of discussing it?

 

[danielpalos]

I've started this thread to explore the different paths and obstacles that might appear while switching to socialism. But before engaging into any discussion it is necesary to establish a working definition.

"Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy."

Here it is important to distinguish "social ownership" and "state ownership". While it can be argued that when the state owns a company it does so having in mind the best interest of the society, it is often the case that the company is used to advance the agenda of a group of people holding office. Certain mechanisms must be in place in order to ensure true social ownership is ensured , like transparency and democracy. In any case, when the state has the control of several companies, we might be facing a scenario of state capitalism and not of socialism.

From my viewpoint cooperatives are the closest form of social ownership to date.
Can you think of any other ways to achieve social ownership?
What would be the drawbacks of having a large number of companies organized in such a fashion?
Do you think such arrangement is compatible with the free market ?
Share your thoughts.

I believe social "corporatism" counts; Hoover Dam and the Fed are examples of public sector means of production; for the People.

 

[occupied]

The way the private sector is turning to automation for everything there will eventually either have to be socialism or kill the excess people not serving the mechanized economy. Far too many kinds of jobs are becoming extinct and not enough new ones are being created.

 

[FA_Q2]

I've started this thread to explore the different paths and obstacles that might appear while switching to socialism. But before engaging into any discussion it is necesary to establish a working definition.

"Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy."

Here it is important to distinguish "social ownership" and "state ownership". While it can be argued that when the state owns a company it does so having in mind the best interest of the society, it is often the case that the company is used to advance the agenda of a group of people holding office. Certain mechanisms must be in place in order to ensure true social ownership is ensured , like transparency and democracy. In any case, when the state has the control of several companies, we might be facing a scenario of state capitalism and not of socialism.

From my viewpoint cooperatives are the closest form of social ownership to date.
Can you think of any other ways to achieve social ownership?
What would be the drawbacks of having a large number of companies organized in such a fashion?
Do you think such arrangement is compatible with the free market ?
Share your thoughts.

Social ownership and state ownership are synonymous in an economy that is diverse and large. Such concepts can exist within a small community but cannot scale over a large one. there is simply no way of communally owning such resources that are so spread out over millions of 'owners.' There MUST be an entity to dole out those resources and hence the only working model comes into play - communism. Unfortunately, such a system is doomed to abject poverty and failure.

What makes you think that such a move would be beneficial?

 

[danielpalos]

The way the private sector is turning to automation for everything there will eventually either have to be socialism or kill the excess people not serving the mechanized economy. Far too many kinds of jobs are becoming extinct and not enough new ones are being created.

Why not simply reserve Labor at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage that clears our poverty guidelines, on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States?

 

[BluesLegend]

Socialists should be ashamed of themselves. Get a job and pay your own bills losers.

 

[danielpalos]

Socialists should be ashamed of themselves. Get a job and pay your own bills losers.

go fund your own war on drugs; losers.

 

[Ringel05]

I've started this thread to explore the different paths and obstacles that might appear while switching to socialism. But before engaging into any discussion it is necesary to establish a working definition.

"Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy."

Here it is important to distinguish "social ownership" and "state ownership". While it can be argued that when the state owns a company it does so having in mind the best interest of the society, it is often the case that the company is used to advance the agenda of a group of people holding office. Certain mechanisms must be in place in order to ensure true social ownership is ensured , like transparency and democracy. In any case, when the state has the control of several companies, we might be facing a scenario of state capitalism and not of socialism.

From my viewpoint cooperatives are the closest form of social ownership to date.
Can you think of any other ways to achieve social ownership?
What would be the drawbacks of having a large number of companies organized in such a fashion?
Do you think such arrangement is compatible with the free market ?
Share your thoughts.

Social ownership and state ownership are synonymous in an economy that is diverse and large. Such concepts can exist within a small community but cannot scale over a large one. there is simply no way of communally owning such resources that are so spread out over millions of 'owners.' There MUST be an entity to dole out those resources and hence the only working model comes into play - communism. Unfortunately, such a system is doomed to abject poverty and failure.

What makes you think that such a move would be beneficial?

Because some haven't figured out that their perfect design model on paper immediately hits an insurmountable obstacle that is real world application. Paretos Principle and Parkinson's law are two that come to mind.

 

[CultureCitizen]

The way the private sector is turning to automation for everything there will eventually either have to be socialism or kill the excess people not serving the mechanized economy. Far too many kinds of jobs are becoming extinct and not enough new ones are being created.

I would call that planting the seeds for an armed revolution. So , indeed some measure has to be taken , because by 2060 there will probably be no manufacturing jobs at all. I am wondering if the service sector will be able to accomodate everyone ( considering that some of the service employments will also cease to exist). One possible scenario would be to have a huge sector of the population living on food stamps.

 

[lake avenue]

Socialism has a 100% fail rate, what's the fucking point of discussing it?

its quite interesting that no nation has ever actually been socialist then.

 

[CultureCitizen]

I've started this thread to explore the different paths and obstacles that might appear while switching to socialism. But before engaging into any discussion it is necesary to establish a working definition.

"Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy."

Here it is important to distinguish "social ownership" and "state ownership". While it can be argued that when the state owns a company it does so having in mind the best interest of the society, it is often the case that the company is used to advance the agenda of a group of people holding office. Certain mechanisms must be in place in order to ensure true social ownership is ensured , like transparency and democracy. In any case, when the state has the control of several companies, we might be facing a scenario of state capitalism and not of socialism.

From my viewpoint cooperatives are the closest form of social ownership to date.
Can you think of any other ways to achieve social ownership?
What would be the drawbacks of having a large number of companies organized in such a fashion?
Do you think such arrangement is compatible with the free market ?
Share your thoughts.

Social ownership and state ownership are synonymous in an economy that is diverse and large. Such concepts can exist within a small community but cannot scale over a large one. there is simply no way of communally owning such resources that are so spread out over millions of 'owners.' There MUST be an entity to dole out those resources and hence the only working model comes into play - communism. Unfortunately, such a system is doomed to abject poverty and failure.

What makes you think that such a move would be beneficial?

I don't think it is ( having an entity to dole out the resources). It just shifts power from the corporations into the state.

While it is not possible to have a "nation wide" healthcare system, I do think it should be possible to have a set of local hospitals working as local cooperatives. Your thoughts on this option ?

 

[lake avenue]

I've started this thread to explore the different paths and obstacles that might appear while switching to socialism. But before engaging into any discussion it is necesary to establish a working definition.

"Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy."

Here it is important to distinguish "social ownership" and "state ownership". While it can be argued that when the state owns a company it does so having in mind the best interest of the society, it is often the case that the company is used to advance the agenda of a group of people holding office. Certain mechanisms must be in place in order to ensure true social ownership is ensured , like transparency and democracy. In any case, when the state has the control of several companies, we might be facing a scenario of state capitalism and not of socialism.

From my viewpoint cooperatives are the closest form of social ownership to date.
Can you think of any other ways to achieve social ownership?
What would be the drawbacks of having a large number of companies organized in such a fashion?
Do you think such arrangement is compatible with the free market ?
Share your thoughts.

Social ownership and state ownership are synonymous in an economy that is diverse and large. Such concepts can exist within a small community but cannot scale over a large one. there is simply no way of communally owning such resources that are so spread out over millions of 'owners.' There MUST be an entity to dole out those resources and hence the only working model comes into play - communism. Unfortunately, such a system is doomed to abject poverty and failure.

What makes you think that such a move would be beneficial?

Because some haven't figured out that their perfect design model on paper immediately hits an insurmountable obstacle that is real world application. Paretos Principle and Parkinson's law are two that come to mind.

How do these, at all, become obstacles for real world application? The 'it's only good on paper' argument has become such a redundant and repeated saying that I feel like I'm listening to a broken record.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Socialists should be ashamed of themselves. Get a job and pay your own bills losers.

So you can't figure out how someone who
a) Is employed
b) Works with large corporations
c) Pays his own bills with no help from the government

might have a "socialist" point of view ?

 

[occupied]

The way the private sector is turning to automation for everything there will eventually either have to be socialism or kill the excess people not serving the mechanized economy. Far too many kinds of jobs are becoming extinct and not enough new ones are being created.

Why not simply reserve Labor at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage that clears our poverty guidelines, on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States?

I am guessing some sort of guaranteed minimum income will have to be instituted at some point just to keep the necessity economy (food, energy, medicine) from collapsing. We are already seeing the beginning of this in the way food stamps subsidize low wages.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Socialism has a 100% fail rate, what's the fucking point of discussing it?

Nordic countries are socialists to a certain degree. They are not failed countries, and I would argue they are much more successfull than many third world countries who have a closer adherence to laissez fair capitalsim.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

I've started this thread to explore the different paths and obstacles that might appear while switching to socialism. But before engaging into any discussion it is necesary to establish a working definition.

"Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy."

Here it is important to distinguish "social ownership" and "state ownership". While it can be argued that when the state owns a company it does so having in mind the best interest of the society, it is often the case that the company is used to advance the agenda of a group of people holding office. Certain mechanisms must be in place in order to ensure true social ownership is ensured , like transparency and democracy. In any case, when the state has the control of several companies, we might be facing a scenario of state capitalism and not of socialism.

From my viewpoint cooperatives are the closest form of social ownership to date.
Can you think of any other ways to achieve social ownership?
What would be the drawbacks of having a large number of companies organized in such a fashion?
Do you think such arrangement is compatible with the free market ?
Share your thoughts.

You miss one important point. But it is the main point that is missing from any socialist or communist system. Why would I take the risk of inventing something and take it to market if I don't get to own it? If the government is going to become my partner in anything I do and take their deemed "fair share" why would I bother? I could do just as well by taking your government job at the same amount of pay I would get anyway and not have to deal with so much government bullshit and assholes along the way.

The drawback is you lose as a society any innovation. Socialism and communism arrive at the same conclusion as they have in the past and why they always fail. When you can't gain for yourself you don't stick your neck out. Every citizen simply pulls back into the government fold as they are taught to do and shut up to get by. Socialism and communism are the death of innovation and advancement. As a matter of fact it retards what gains were already achieved. Your latest test subject is Valenzuela and these people stand in lines forever to maybe get the government reward of a roll of fucking toilet paper. That's socialism and communism. The only people that don't suffer under that system are the rulers. They get to live like kings, at your expense.

 

[Ringel05]

I've started this thread to explore the different paths and obstacles that might appear while switching to socialism. But before engaging into any discussion it is necesary to establish a working definition.

"Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy."

Here it is important to distinguish "social ownership" and "state ownership". While it can be argued that when the state owns a company it does so having in mind the best interest of the society, it is often the case that the company is used to advance the agenda of a group of people holding office. Certain mechanisms must be in place in order to ensure true social ownership is ensured , like transparency and democracy. In any case, when the state has the control of several companies, we might be facing a scenario of state capitalism and not of socialism.

From my viewpoint cooperatives are the closest form of social ownership to date.
Can you think of any other ways to achieve social ownership?
What would be the drawbacks of having a large number of companies organized in such a fashion?
Do you think such arrangement is compatible with the free market ?
Share your thoughts.

Social ownership and state ownership are synonymous in an economy that is diverse and large. Such concepts can exist within a small community but cannot scale over a large one. there is simply no way of communally owning such resources that are so spread out over millions of 'owners.' There MUST be an entity to dole out those resources and hence the only working model comes into play - communism. Unfortunately, such a system is doomed to abject poverty and failure.

What makes you think that such a move would be beneficial?

Because some haven't figured out that their perfect design model on paper immediately hits an insurmountable obstacle that is real world application. Paretos Principle and Parkinson's law are two that come to mind.

How do these, at all, become obstacles for real world application? The 'it's only good on paper' argument has become such a redundant and repeated saying that I feel like I'm listening to a broken record.

Because you neglect the one real world thing that would make it work as designed, you and those who hold similar beliefs in every socio-political-economic model always neglect to take human nature into account. The reason every man made system ultimately fails is because people are involved. You may not like the "broken record" but history has shown it is always true, there's no escaping it.

 

[CultureCitizen]

f the government is going to become my partner in anything I do and take their deemed "fair share" why would I bother?

I think you missed the part in the OP which differentiates state ownership and social ownership.
Regardless...
a) the government should act as a sponsor ( and a carefull one at that), not as the sole owner.
b) I don't think every single production means should be socialized , but maybe just those that cover basic needs for a working society : water, food, energy, education, healthcare.