Pathways to socialism.

[LOki]

The problem? Common ownership of the means of production.

It is the inherent flaw that makes the failure of socialist experiments inevitable.

That doesn't take into account for representative forms of socialism.

It accounts for, and applies to, your "representative socialism" fully.

Sorry about your luck, Cupcake.

 

[danielpalos]

The problem? Common ownership of the means of production.

It is the inherent flaw that makes the failure of socialist experiments inevitable.

That doesn't take into account for representative forms of socialism.

It accounts for, and applies to, your "representative socialism" fully.

Sorry about your luck, Cupcake.

no, it doesn't; punkin.

it is the Socialism of Government by the People, for the People.

 

[LOki]

The problem? Common ownership of the means of production.

It is the inherent flaw that makes the failure of socialist experiments inevitable.

That doesn't take into account for representative forms of socialism.

It accounts for, and applies to, your "representative socialism" fully.

Sorry about your luck, Cupcake.

no, it doesn't; punkin.

It sure does, Cupcake.

it is the Socialism of Government by the People, for the People.

"Representative Socialism is a form of economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources in which an independent ruling body (for an election period) charged with the responsibility of acting in the people's interest to whom they represent."​

"Common ownership... of the means of production."

See Pumpkin? You're just wrong again.

Sorry about your luck.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Have you ever considered that possibility that an armed citizenry might be an obstacle to socialism?

No; the military is "socialism in action".

I wasn't talking about the mil

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.

Have you ever considered that possibility that an armed citizenry might be an obstacle to socialism?

No; the military is "socialism in action".

I wasn't talking about the military, numskull.

no clue and no Cause, like usual?

Ironic

 

[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.

Have you ever considered that possibility that an armed citizenry might be an obstacle to socialism?

No , I hadn't. I had contemplated other more realistic alternatives, like a coup d'etat from the military a fake terrorist attack which would require the state to controll the governemnt or blackmail from corporations threatening to stop investing in the country, that , I have considered.

An armed citizenry ... no . Not on my list.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Nordic countries are nearly homogeneous white and Christian, sparsely populated with vast natural resources.

You're comparing a "Country" with a population of three New York City boroughs to the USA?

No ,
I would compare the Norse against Chile.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Have you ever considered that possibility that an armed citizenry might be an obstacle to socialism?

No , I hadn't. I had contemplated other more realistic alternatives, like a coup d'etat from the military a fake terrorist attack which would require the state to controll the governemnt or blackmail from corporations threatening to stop investing in the country, that , I have considered.

An armed citizenry ... no . Not on my list.

You just take it for granted that the people want socialism then?

 

[bripat9643]

Nordic countries are nearly homogeneous white and Christian, sparsely populated with vast natural resources.

You're comparing a "Country" with a population of three New York City boroughs to the USA?

No ,
I would compare the Norse against Chile.

Norway is the Saudi Arabia of Scandinavia. It's dishonest to use it as an example in any examination of the merits of socialism.

 

[CultureCitizen]

I find it richly ironic the OP has this quote posted to his/her signature:

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Albert Einstein

7 Reasons Socialism Will Make You Poorer Than Capitalism

"...there are so many perverse incentives that drive the promotion of socialism. If you're a politician, socialism puts power in your hands while capitalism takes it away. If you want to use the government to control people's lives, socialism is a wonderful vehicle to do just that while capitalism robs you of that opportunity. If you would rather live off the dole than to work or alternately, prefer to make money off "who you know" instead of "how good a service you provide," again socialism works better for you."

7 Reasons Socialism Will Make You Poorer Than Capitalism - John Hawkins - Page full

Willie,
I think you missed the definition I posted as socialism as well as the fact that I made a clear distinction between state capitalism and socialism.
Read that part again and I'll gladly engage in a constructive discussion.

 

[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.

Have you ever considered that possibility that an armed citizenry might be an obstacle to socialism?

No , I hadn't. I had contemplated other more realistic alternatives, like a coup d'etat from the military a fake terrorist attack which would require the state to controll the governemnt or blackmail from corporations threatening to stop investing in the country, that , I have considered.

An armed citizenry ... no . Not on my list.

You just take it for granted that the people want socialism then?

Well , somehow.
There are already some "socialist" reforms within the US like free basic education and public schools and medicare. And I don't see anyone revolting.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Norway is the Saudi Arabia of Scandinavia. It's dishonest to use it as an example in any examination of the merits of socialism.

Well , then take Finland , or Sweeden, or Denmark or all of them together.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Have you ever considered that possibility that an armed citizenry might be an obstacle to socialism?

No , I hadn't. I had contemplated other more realistic alternatives, like a coup d'etat from the military a fake terrorist attack which would require the state to controll the governemnt or blackmail from corporations threatening to stop investing in the country, that , I have considered.

An armed citizenry ... no . Not on my list.

You just take it for granted that the people want socialism then?

Well , somehow.
There are already some "socialist" reforms within the US like free basic education and public schools and medicare. And I don't see anyone revolting.

Yeah, the frog is in the pot and the heat is one, but the water isn't boiling yet.

 

[bripat9643]

Norway is the Saudi Arabia of Scandinavia. It's dishonest to use it as an example in any examination of the merits of socialism.

Well , then take Finland , or Sweeden, or Denmark or all of them together.

Those countries are all only slightly more socialist than the United States. They are welfare states. Furthermore, previously they were much more capitalist.

 

[BluesLegend]

Lying scum socialist losers can feel free to move to their communist/socialist country of choice and live their dream. Here in the USA we refuse to become a slave of the state. Socialism = Slavery

 

[danielpalos]

The problem? Common ownership of the means of production.

It is the inherent flaw that makes the failure of socialist experiments inevitable.

That doesn't take into account for representative forms of socialism.

It accounts for, and applies to, your "representative socialism" fully.

Sorry about your luck, Cupcake.

no, it doesn't; punkin.

It sure does, Cupcake.

it is the Socialism of Government by the People, for the People.

"Representative Socialism is a form of economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources in which an independent ruling body (for an election period) charged with the responsibility of acting in the people's interest to whom they represent."​

"Common ownership... of the means of production."

See Pumpkin? You're just wrong again.

Sorry about your luck.

thank you for proving my point; punkin.

 

[LOki]

The problem? Common ownership of the means of production.

It is the inherent flaw that makes the failure of socialist experiments inevitable.

That doesn't take into account for representative forms of socialism.

It accounts for, and applies to, your "representative socialism" fully.

Sorry about your luck, Cupcake.

no, it doesn't; punkin.

It sure does, Cupcake.

it is the Socialism of Government by the People, for the People.

"Representative Socialism is a form of economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources in which an independent ruling body (for an election period) charged with the responsibility of acting in the people's interest to whom they represent."​

"Common ownership... of the means of production."

See Pumpkin? You're just wrong again.

Sorry about your luck.

thank you for proving my point; punkin.

Well, it was right there on top of your head the whole time.

 

[danielpalos]

thank you; i am glad i took off my tin foil hat long enough to have that sink in.

 

[williepete]

I think you missed the definition I posted as socialism as well as the fact that I made a clear distinction between state capitalism and socialism.
Read that part again and I'll gladly engage in a constructive discussion.

I didn't miss your definition. I don't need to read it again. I don't need to win the gift of your attention. We have nothing to discuss. But I do have one question I always find collectivists have a awkward time answering--and they usually don't.

You can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig. The only people who take the rebranding of the most failed attempt at society with the most blood on its hands are faculty lounge Marxists and college kids--both with no knowledge or experience of the real world.

At a certain point along this pathway to socialism, you and your fellow travelers are going to encounter people like me who will refuse to participate in your utopian workers' paradise. At that point, what direction will this pathway take in order to force reactionaries like me to toe the line? Castro's firing squads, Pol Pot's reeducation camps or merely Stalin's gulags?

If Socialism is so Great, Why Force It?
by Jonathan Gardner

If socialism is such a wonderful thing, then why do we need to threaten people to get them to participate? Shouldn’t they just do it on their own?

I imagine someone out there willing to make the argument that people are too stupid to think collectively, and that only by forcing them to do what is right will they ever come to the right answer.

Such a person would have to be stupid to think such a thing.

After all, people will happily aggregate their efforts when everyone benefits. Look at all the international corporations out there with millions of employees. How many of those people are forced to work there against their will?

The bottom line is that socialism doesn’t work. The people who are asked to put in the most get the least out of it. Only government can force them to participate.

 

[danielpalos]

Because, socialism requires social morals for free; it may be more of a capital challenge than most on the right can bear.

 

[williepete]

Because, socialism requires social morals for free; it may be more of a capital challenge than most on the right can bear.

So what do you do with those who will not accept or go along with the moral elite who know what's best for us?