Pathways to socialism.

[danielpalos]

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?

Like what, for example? Government is not religion. And, our Founding Fathers already gave us our supreme, secular and temporal morals as civil Persons in our Republic.

 

[CultureCitizen]

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 did miss it, so here it goes again.

"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"

 

[williepete]

Reprinting your pipe dream doesn't make it make sense.

"Certain mechanisms must be in place in order to ensure true social ownership is ensured..."

OK, I won't take part in your proposed social ownership. What certain mechanisms are going to ensure I comply? And how?

 

[danielpalos]

Reprinting your pipe dream doesn't make it make sense.

"Certain mechanisms must be in place in order to ensure true social ownership is ensured..."

OK, I won't take part in your proposed social ownership. What certain mechanisms are going to ensure I comply? And how?

Entitlements are one form of "social ownership" accomplished via a social power to tax.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

True Socialism requires an unarmed citizenship

 

[williepete]

Just won't answer the coercion question.

Here's an example: Ole Bill owns a widget factory on the edge of town. Everyone in town agrees to join a collective where social ownership of the town's enterprises ensures peace, prosperity, sweetness and light. It's such a good idea that everyone happily volunteers to take part--except one.

Ole Bill refuses to relinquish control of his widget factory which was, up until now, his private property.

What Certain mechanisms will be in place in order to ensure true social ownership?

What is the town going to do to Ole Bill?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

Chile? I thought this was about the USA.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Dodging the question.

Here's an example: Ole Bill owns a widget factory on the edge of town. Everyone in town agrees to join a collective where social ownership of the town's enterprises ensures peace, prosperity, sweetness and light. It's such a good idea that everyone happily volunteers to take part--except one.

Ole Bill refuses to relinquish control of his widget factory which was, up until now, his private property.

What Certain mechanisms will be in place in order to ensure true social ownership?

What is the town going to do to Ole Bill?

In a true Socialist Utopia of unarmed citizens, Bill disappears into a Gulag

 

[hipeter924]

'Socialism' and 'Capitalism' are both too general and vague terms, if you are talking about a political and economic system.

There has never been a fully 'socialist' country, nor has there ever been a fully 'capitalist' country, instead mixed systems have existed which lean one way or the other.

So, in comes down to what 'socialism' you are describing. Is it 'socialism' in the USSR, which was totalitarian and ruled by party favorites rather than the masses?

Is it 'socialism' in France, which has always been a mixed economy, with a strong state and public service?

Is it 'socialism' as idealized by Marxist-Leninists, by Trotsky, by Stalin, by Mao, by Pol Pot, by Social Democrats, or by Democratic socialists? Because they all have different ideas of what 'socialism' means.

 

[danielpalos]

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

True Socialism requires an unarmed citizenship

No, it doesn't; only some forms of religious socialism require unarmed citizens.

 

[danielpalos]

True Socialism does not require a War on Drugs.

 

[dblack]

Just won't answer the coercion question.

Here's an example: Ole Bill owns a widget factory on the edge of town. Everyone in town agrees to join a collective where social ownership of the town's enterprises ensures peace, prosperity, sweetness and light. It's such a good idea that everyone happily volunteers to take part--except one.

Ole Bill refuses to relinquish control of his widget factory which was, up until now, his private property.

What Certain mechanisms will be in place in order to ensure true social ownership?

What is the town going to do to Ole Bill?

The idea is that, in a socialist society, Bill would never have accrued ownership of something as large as a factory. Transitioning to such a system, from one of private ownership, won't be easy and, likely, not peaceful. But for the sake of the discussion, it's probably better to imagine that that's already been resolved and deal with the questions of the OP from that point forward. Can we have a viable economy and society under socialism? Is it compatible with free society?

It's not so hard to imagine. We already share many things in common - air, water, etc.., but also roads, parks and other public facilities. We are also share social control, in varying degrees, over many, privately-owned, public utilities. Socialism proposes extending this to all large scale projects and services (basically replacing the role or corporations and large privately owned businesses).

But by far the most import thing socialism seeks to control isn't tangible property like factories and resources. It's capital. And while most of us tend to associate capital with personal wealth and luxuries, its real significance is the way it represents economic power. In a capitalist economy, the owners of capital have the power (to the degree that they have capital) to decide how we direct our labor and resources as a society. The decide whether we spend our time and energy making blue jeans or bombs. It's this decision making power that socialists want brought under the power of government

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

True Socialism requires an unarmed citizenship

No, it doesn't; only some forms of religious socialism require unarmed citizens.

Right, because Hitler, Mao and Stalin were religious fanatics

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Does this imaginary hospital have the ability to turn people away that didn't invest 5,000 dollars into building it? And is this imagined profit margin going to come from charging the shit out of those outside the initial $5k investors?

Does a regular hospital have the ability to turn people away who are not the investors ?
No , so the answer is no. It would be immoral and have no sense from a business point of view.
The profit can't certainly not come from "charging the shit out of those outside the initial $5K investors".
That is not how a regular business works . True, under certain circumstances companies give preferential treatment to their employees, that doesn't mean they are able to charge arbitrary fees, market forces are still at work, (slightly) tamed by collective ownership.

Then why would I invest 5k in this hospital? There's no reason to do that if I can just go any time and they have to take care of me.

 

[danielpalos]

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

True Socialism requires an unarmed citizenship

No, it doesn't; only some forms of religious socialism require unarmed citizens.

Right, because Hitler, Mao and Stalin were religious fanatics

Armed solders are not unarmed citizens.

 

[williepete]

Transitioning to such a system, from one of private ownership, won't be easy and, likely, not peaceful.

It never has been peaceful and it never will be. Which keeps me in constant amazement that people still want to try this failed and failed again utopian pipe dream.

You can't convince people to give up their private property in exchange for an idea that fails every time. It's not in a person's self interest to join a collective where the efforts he contributes does not equal the benefits he receives. This ain't rocket science folks.

The economy can be boiled down to one word: Incentive.

Kill incentive and you kill an economy and everyone suffers. Reward incentive and you have growth and prosperity. History is clear on this.

 

[williepete]

This argument is as old as the hills. Around 1848, Frédéric Bastiat published his argument against the socialist movement in France titled "The Law". It punched holes in the concept of "legal plunder" by explaining why human nature would sabotage such a society.

Introduction:

Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850) was a French economist, statesman, and author. He did most of his writing during the years just before — and immediately following — the Revolution of February 1848. This was the period when France was rapidly turning to complete socialism. As a Deputy to the Legislative Assembly, Mr. Bastiat was studying and explaining each socialist fallacy as it appeared. And he explained how socialism must inevitably degenerate into communism. But most of his countrymen chose to ignore his logic. The Law is here presented again because the same situation exists in America today as in the France of 1848.

The Law
http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html#SECTION_G001

 

[BluesLegend]

Ahem, what happens ultimately to these socialist leaders? Yes the people get fed up with them and they are put to death or imprisoned.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

What would be the drawbacks of having a large number of companies organized in such a fashion?

drawbacks? they would not be profitable and would go bankrupt. This is why there are none to speak of. A child would know this just not a liberal.

 

[MACAULAY]

The O. P. has tweaked Marx, and supposes he has found the new (newest) key to Utopia.

Each generation has to learn on its own. Which seems like the reason why computers are likely to take over eventually.