CDZ Capitalism Friendly Forms of Socialism you Rarely Hear About

[JimBowie1958]

So many conservatives refer to Socialism as though it were synonymous with Marxism, but it is not. That is a fallacy, and when the Strong AI begins to dominate the labor market, we will have to reconsider our hostility to having a socially sensitive form of capitalism as our loadstone for economic policy.

Market socialism - Wikipedia
Market socialism is a type of economic system involving the public, cooperative or social ownership of the means of production in the framework of a market economy. Market socialism differs from non-market socialism in that the market mechanism is utilized for the allocation of capital goods and the means of production.[1][2][3] Depending on the specific model of market socialism, profits generated by socially owned firms (i.e. net revenue not reinvested into expanding the firm) may variously be used to directly remunerate employees, accrue to society at large as the source of public finance or be distributed amongst the population in a social dividend.[4]
Market socialism is distinguished from the concept of the mixed economy because unlike the mixed economy, models of market socialism are complete and self-regulating systems.[5] Market socialism also contrasts with social democratic policies implemented within capitalist market economies: while social democracy aims to achieve greater economic stability and equality through policy measures such as taxes, subsidies and social welfare programs, market socialism aims to achieve similar goals through changing patterns of enterprise ownership and management.[6]
...
Early models of market socialism trace their roots to the work of Adam Smith and the theories of classical economics, which consisted of proposals for cooperative enterprises operating in a free-market economy. The aim of such proposals was to eliminate exploitation by allowing individuals to receive the full product of their labor while removing the market-distorting effects of concentrating ownership and wealth in the hands of a small class of private owners.[9] Among early advocates of market socialism were the Ricardian socialist economists and mutualist philosophers. In the early 20th century, Oskar Lange and Abba Lerner outlined a neoclassical model of socialism which included a role for a central planning board (CPB) in setting prices equal to marginal cost to achieve Pareto efficiency. Even though these early models did not rely on genuine markets, they were labeled "market socialist" for their utilization of financial prices and calculation. In more recent models proposed by American neoclassical economists, public ownership of the means of production is achieved through public ownership of equity and social control of investment.


Paternalistic conservatism - Wikipedia
Paternalistic conservatism is a strand in conservatism which reflects the belief that societies exist and develop organically and that members within them have obligations towards each other.[1] There is particular emphasis on the paternalistic obligation of those who are privileged and wealthy to the poorer parts of society. Since it is consistent with principles such as organicism, hierarchy and duty, it can be seen an outgrowth of traditional conservatism. Paternal conservatives support neither the individual nor the state in principle, but are instead prepared to support either or recommend a balance between the two depending on what is most practical.[2]

Social democracy - Wikipedia
Social democracy is a political, social and economic philosophy that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and a capitalist mixed economy. The protocols and norms used to accomplish this involve a commitment to representative and participatory democracy, measures for income redistribution and regulation of the economy in the general interest and welfare state provisions.[1][2][3] In this way, social democracy aims to create the conditions for capitalism to lead to greater democratic, egalitarian and solidaristic outcomes.[4] Due to longstanding governance by social democratic parties during the post-war consensus and their influence on socioeconomic policy in the Nordic countries, social democracy has become associated in policy circles with the Nordic model in the latter part of the 20th century.[5]
Social democracy originated as a political ideology that advocated an evolutionary and peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism using established political processes in contrast to the revolutionary approach to transition associated with orthodox Marxism.[6] In the early post-war era in Western Europe, social democratic parties rejected the Stalinist political and economic model then current in the Soviet Union, committing themselves either to an alternative path to socialism or to a compromise between capitalism and socialism.[7] In this period, social democrats embraced a capitalist mixed economy based on the predominance of private property, with only a minority of essential utilities and public services under public ownership. As a result, social democracy became associated with Keynesian economics, state interventionism and the welfare state while abandoning the prior goal of replacing the capitalist system (factor markets, private property and wage labour)[4] with a qualitatively different socialist economic system.[8][9][10] With the rise of popularity for neoliberalism and the New Right by the 1980s,[11] many social democratic parties incorporated the Third Way ideology,[12] aiming to fuse liberal economics with social democratic welfare policies.[13][14] By the 2010s, the Third Way had generally fallen out of favour.
Modern social democracy is characterised by a commitment to policies aimed at curbing inequality, oppression of underprivileged groups and poverty,[15] including support for universally accessible public services like care for the elderly, child care, education, health care and workers' compensation.[16] The social democratic movement often has strong connections with the labour movement and trade unions which are supportive of collective bargaining rights for workers as well as measures to extend decision-making beyond politics into the economic sphere in the form of co-determination for employees and other economic stakeholders

Democratic socialism - Wikipedia
Democratic socialism is a political philosophy that advocates political democracy alongside a socially owned economy,[1] with an emphasis on workers' self-management and democratic control of economic institutions within a market or some form of a decentralised planned socialist economy.[2] Democratic socialists argue that capitalism is inherently incompatible with the values of liberty, equality and solidarity and that these ideals can be achieved only through the realisation of a socialist society. Democratic socialism can support either revolutionary or reformist politics as a means to establish socialism.[3]
In the term democratic socialism, the adjective democratic is added and used to distinguish democratic socialists from Marxist–Leninist inspired socialism which to many is viewed as being undemocratic or authoritarian in practice.[3][4][5][6] Democratic socialists oppose the Stalinist political system and the Soviet-type economic system, rejecting the perceived authoritarian form of governance and highly centralised command economy that took form in the Soviet Union and other Marxist–Leninist states in the early 20th century.[6] Democratic socialism is distinguished from 20th-century social democracy on the basis that democratic socialists are committed to systemic transformation of the economy from capitalism to socialism whereas modern social democrats are opposed to ultimately ending capitalism and are instead supportive of progressive reforms to capitalism.[3][4]
In contrast to modern social democrats, democratic socialists believe that reforms state interventions aimed at addressing social inequalities and suppressing the economic contradictions of capitalism would only see them emerge elsewhere in a different guise.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13] Democratic socialists believe that the systemic issues of capitalism can only be solved by replacing the capitalist economic system with socialism, i.e. by replacing private ownership with collective ownership of the means of production and extending democracy to the economic sphere.[3][4][14] The origins of democratic socialism can be traced to 19th-century utopian socialist thinkers and the British Chartist movement that differed in detail yet all shared the essence of democratic decision making and public ownership of the means of production as positive characteristics of the society they advocated.[15] In the early 20th century, the gradualist, reformist socialism promoted by the British Fabian Society and Eduard Bernstein's evolutionary socialism in Germany influenced the development of democratic socialism....

Democratic socialism is defined as having a socialist economy in which the means of production are socially and collectively owned or controlled, alongside a democratic political system of government.[1] Democratic socialism rejects self-described socialist states as it rejects Marxism–Leninism and its derivatives such as Stalinism and Maoism, among others.[3][4][5][6] As a result, Peter Hain classifies democratic socialism along with libertarian socialism as a form of anti-authoritarian socialism from below (using the term popularised by Hal Draper) in contrast to Stalinism and state socialism. For Hain, this democratic/authoritarian divide is more important than the revolutionary/reformist divide.[19] In this type of democratic socialism, it is the active participation of the population as a whole and workers in particular in the self-management of the economy that characterises democratic socialism while nationalisation and centralised economic planning (whether coordinated by an elected government or not) are characteristic of state socialism. A similar, more complex argument is made by Nicos Poulantzas.[20] Draper himself used the term revolutionary-democratic socialism as a type of socialism from below in his The Two Souls of Socialism, writing: "[T]he leading spokesman in the Second International of a revolutionary-democratic Socialism-from-Below [...] was Rosa Luxemburg, who so emphatically put her faith and hope in the spontaneous struggle of a free working class that the myth-makers invented for her a "theory of spontaneity".[21] Similarly, he wrote about Eugene V. Debs: "Debsian socialism" evoked a tremendous response from the heart of the people, but Debs had no successor as a tribune of revolutionary-democratic socialism".[22]
Democratic socialism has also been defined as social democracy prior to the 1970s, when the displacement of Keynesianism caused many social democratic parties to adopt the Third Way ideology, accepting capitalism as the current powers that be and redefining socialism in a way that it maintains the capitalist structure intact.[23][24][11][25][26] As an example, the new version of Clause IV of the New Labour Constitution conflates democratic socialism with modern social democracy. While affirming a commitment to democratic socialism,[27][28] it no longer definitely commits the party to public ownership of industry and in its place advocates "the enterprise of the market and the rigour of competition" along with "high quality public services [...] either owned by the public or accountable to them".[27] Like traditional social democracy, democratic socialism tends to follow a gradual, reformist or evolutionary path to socialism rather than a revolutionary one, a tendency that is captured in the statement that Labour Party revisionist Anthony Crosland, intellectual leader of the liberal and right-wing of the party, "argued that the socialism of the pre-war world (not just that of the Marxists, but of the democratic socialists too) were now increasingly irrelevant".[29][30] This tendency is also often invoked in an attempt to distinguish democratic socialism from Marxist–Leninist socialism as in Norman Thomas' Democratic Socialism: A New Appraisal,[31] Roy Hattersley's Choose Freedom: The Future of Democratic Socialism,[32] Jim Tomlinson's Democratic Socialism and Economic Policy: The Attlee Years, 1945–1951[33] and Donald F. Busky's Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey.[5] A variant of this set of definitions is Joseph Schumpeter's argument set out in Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (1941) that liberal democracies were evolving from liberal capitalism into democratic socialism with the growth of workers' self-management, industrial democracy and regulatory institutions.[34]
As a term, democratic socialism has some significant overlap on practical policy positions with social democracy, although they are often distinguished from each other.[3][4][14] Policies commonly supported are Keynesian in nature, including significant of regulation over a mixed economy, social insurance schemes, public pension programs and a gradual expansion of public ownership over major industries.[35] Policies such as free healthcare and education are described as "pure Socialism" because they are opposed to "the hedonism of capitalist society".[36] Partly because of this overlap, some political commentators use the terms interchangeably.[37][38] The difference between the two is that modern social democrats support practical reforms to capitalism as an end in itself whereas democratic socialists ultimately want to go beyond social democratic reforms and advocate systemic transformation of the economy from capitalism to socialism.[3][4][14] During the late 20th century, these labels were embraced, contested and rejected due to the emergence of developments within the European left such as Eurocommunism, the rise of neoliberalism, the fall of the Soviet Union and Marxist–Leninist governments, the Third Way and the rise of anti-austerity and Occupy movements in the late 2000s and early 2010s due to the global financial crisis of 2007–2008 and the Great Recession. This latest development contributed to the rise of politicians that represent the more traditional social democracy such as Jeremy Corbyn in the United Kingdom and Bernie Sanders in the United States,[39] who assumed the label democratic socialist to describe their rejection of centrist, Third Way politicians that supported triangulation within the Labour and Democratic parties.[40][41]

 

[depotoo]

You do realize you are quoting wiki, which is the left’s child to spread disinformation when it comes to political idealogy.

 

[JimBowie1958]

You do realize you are quoting wiki, which is the left’s child to spread disinformation when it comes to political idealogy.

Yes, but these are not controversial topics, and h ave been established as subjects for decades.

I think Wikipedia is safe on these topics.

I was just looking for a brief description, but if you have some better sources that would be welcome to see.

 

[depotoo]

You do realize you are quoting wiki, which is the left’s child to spread disinformation when it comes to political idealogy.

Yes, but these are not controversial topics, and h ave been established as subjects for decades.

I think Wikipedia is safe on these topics.

I was just looking for a brief description, but if you have some better sources that would be welcome to see.

Actually, not really. Find an old 50’s physical book encyclopedia.

 

[anynameyouwish]

You do realize you are quoting wiki, which is the left’s child to spread disinformation when it comes to political idealogy.

Yes, but these are not controversial topics, and h ave been established as subjects for decades.

I think Wikipedia is safe on these topics.

I was just looking for a brief description, but if you have some better sources that would be welcome to see.

on the one hand you defend social democracy (a liberal democrats ideal) while positing at the end that liberal democrats are the lowest forms of life on earth.

So though I agree with your point about social democracy i still think YOU are the lowest form of life on earth.

well....one of, anyway.......so many conservatives.....

 

[depotoo]

I do believe many terms used today by all political spectrums are not as they actually were defined 50-100 years ago.

 

[night_son]

So many conservatives refer to Socialism as though it were synonymous with Marxism, but it is not. That is a fallacy, and when the Strong AI begins to dominate the labor market, we will have to reconsider our hostility to having a socially sensitive form of capitalism as our loadstone for economic policy.

Market socialism - Wikipedia
Market socialism is a type of economic system involving the public, cooperative or social ownership of the means of production in the framework of a market economy. Market socialism differs from non-market socialism in that the market mechanism is utilized for the allocation of capital goods and the means of production.[1][2][3] Depending on the specific model of market socialism, profits generated by socially owned firms (i.e. net revenue not reinvested into expanding the firm) may variously be used to directly remunerate employees, accrue to society at large as the source of public finance or be distributed amongst the population in a social dividend.[4]
Market socialism is distinguished from the concept of the mixed economy because unlike the mixed economy, models of market socialism are complete and self-regulating systems.[5] Market socialism also contrasts with social democratic policies implemented within capitalist market economies: while social democracy aims to achieve greater economic stability and equality through policy measures such as taxes, subsidies and social welfare programs, market socialism aims to achieve similar goals through changing patterns of enterprise ownership and management.[6]
...
Early models of market socialism trace their roots to the work of Adam Smith and the theories of classical economics, which consisted of proposals for cooperative enterprises operating in a free-market economy. The aim of such proposals was to eliminate exploitation by allowing individuals to receive the full product of their labor while removing the market-distorting effects of concentrating ownership and wealth in the hands of a small class of private owners.[9] Among early advocates of market socialism were the Ricardian socialist economists and mutualist philosophers. In the early 20th century, Oskar Lange and Abba Lerner outlined a neoclassical model of socialism which included a role for a central planning board (CPB) in setting prices equal to marginal cost to achieve Pareto efficiency. Even though these early models did not rely on genuine markets, they were labeled "market socialist" for their utilization of financial prices and calculation. In more recent models proposed by American neoclassical economists, public ownership of the means of production is achieved through public ownership of equity and social control of investment.


Paternalistic conservatism - Wikipedia
Paternalistic conservatism is a strand in conservatism which reflects the belief that societies exist and develop organically and that members within them have obligations towards each other.[1] There is particular emphasis on the paternalistic obligation of those who are privileged and wealthy to the poorer parts of society. Since it is consistent with principles such as organicism, hierarchy and duty, it can be seen an outgrowth of traditional conservatism. Paternal conservatives support neither the individual nor the state in principle, but are instead prepared to support either or recommend a balance between the two depending on what is most practical.[2]

Social democracy - Wikipedia
Social democracy is a political, social and economic philosophy that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and a capitalist mixed economy. The protocols and norms used to accomplish this involve a commitment to representative and participatory democracy, measures for income redistribution and regulation of the economy in the general interest and welfare state provisions.[1][2][3] In this way, social democracy aims to create the conditions for capitalism to lead to greater democratic, egalitarian and solidaristic outcomes.[4] Due to longstanding governance by social democratic parties during the post-war consensus and their influence on socioeconomic policy in the Nordic countries, social democracy has become associated in policy circles with the Nordic model in the latter part of the 20th century.[5]
Social democracy originated as a political ideology that advocated an evolutionary and peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism using established political processes in contrast to the revolutionary approach to transition associated with orthodox Marxism.[6] In the early post-war era in Western Europe, social democratic parties rejected the Stalinist political and economic model then current in the Soviet Union, committing themselves either to an alternative path to socialism or to a compromise between capitalism and socialism.[7] In this period, social democrats embraced a capitalist mixed economy based on the predominance of private property, with only a minority of essential utilities and public services under public ownership. As a result, social democracy became associated with Keynesian economics, state interventionism and the welfare state while abandoning the prior goal of replacing the capitalist system (factor markets, private property and wage labour)[4] with a qualitatively different socialist economic system.[8][9][10] With the rise of popularity for neoliberalism and the New Right by the 1980s,[11] many social democratic parties incorporated the Third Way ideology,[12] aiming to fuse liberal economics with social democratic welfare policies.[13][14] By the 2010s, the Third Way had generally fallen out of favour.
Modern social democracy is characterised by a commitment to policies aimed at curbing inequality, oppression of underprivileged groups and poverty,[15] including support for universally accessible public services like care for the elderly, child care, education, health care and workers' compensation.[16] The social democratic movement often has strong connections with the labour movement and trade unions which are supportive of collective bargaining rights for workers as well as measures to extend decision-making beyond politics into the economic sphere in the form of co-determination for employees and other economic stakeholders

Democratic socialism - Wikipedia
Democratic socialism is a political philosophy that advocates political democracy alongside a socially owned economy,[1] with an emphasis on workers' self-management and democratic control of economic institutions within a market or some form of a decentralised planned socialist economy.[2] Democratic socialists argue that capitalism is inherently incompatible with the values of liberty, equality and solidarity and that these ideals can be achieved only through the realisation of a socialist society. Democratic socialism can support either revolutionary or reformist politics as a means to establish socialism.[3]
In the term democratic socialism, the adjective democratic is added and used to distinguish democratic socialists from Marxist–Leninist inspired socialism which to many is viewed as being undemocratic or authoritarian in practice.[3][4][5][6] Democratic socialists oppose the Stalinist political system and the Soviet-type economic system, rejecting the perceived authoritarian form of governance and highly centralised command economy that took form in the Soviet Union and other Marxist–Leninist states in the early 20th century.[6] Democratic socialism is distinguished from 20th-century social democracy on the basis that democratic socialists are committed to systemic transformation of the economy from capitalism to socialism whereas modern social democrats are opposed to ultimately ending capitalism and are instead supportive of progressive reforms to capitalism.[3][4]
In contrast to modern social democrats, democratic socialists believe that reforms state interventions aimed at addressing social inequalities and suppressing the economic contradictions of capitalism would only see them emerge elsewhere in a different guise.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13] Democratic socialists believe that the systemic issues of capitalism can only be solved by replacing the capitalist economic system with socialism, i.e. by replacing private ownership with collective ownership of the means of production and extending democracy to the economic sphere.[3][4][14] The origins of democratic socialism can be traced to 19th-century utopian socialist thinkers and the British Chartist movement that differed in detail yet all shared the essence of democratic decision making and public ownership of the means of production as positive characteristics of the society they advocated.[15] In the early 20th century, the gradualist, reformist socialism promoted by the British Fabian Society and Eduard Bernstein's evolutionary socialism in Germany influenced the development of democratic socialism....

Democratic socialism is defined as having a socialist economy in which the means of production are socially and collectively owned or controlled, alongside a democratic political system of government.[1] Democratic socialism rejects self-described socialist states as it rejects Marxism–Leninism and its derivatives such as Stalinism and Maoism, among others.[3][4][5][6] As a result, Peter Hain classifies democratic socialism along with libertarian socialism as a form of anti-authoritarian socialism from below (using the term popularised by Hal Draper) in contrast to Stalinism and state socialism. For Hain, this democratic/authoritarian divide is more important than the revolutionary/reformist divide.[19] In this type of democratic socialism, it is the active participation of the population as a whole and workers in particular in the self-management of the economy that characterises democratic socialism while nationalisation and centralised economic planning (whether coordinated by an elected government or not) are characteristic of state socialism. A similar, more complex argument is made by Nicos Poulantzas.[20] Draper himself used the term revolutionary-democratic socialism as a type of socialism from below in his The Two Souls of Socialism, writing: "[T]he leading spokesman in the Second International of a revolutionary-democratic Socialism-from-Below [...] was Rosa Luxemburg, who so emphatically put her faith and hope in the spontaneous struggle of a free working class that the myth-makers invented for her a "theory of spontaneity".[21] Similarly, he wrote about Eugene V. Debs: "Debsian socialism" evoked a tremendous response from the heart of the people, but Debs had no successor as a tribune of revolutionary-democratic socialism".[22]
Democratic socialism has also been defined as social democracy prior to the 1970s, when the displacement of Keynesianism caused many social democratic parties to adopt the Third Way ideology, accepting capitalism as the current powers that be and redefining socialism in a way that it maintains the capitalist structure intact.[23][24][11][25][26] As an example, the new version of Clause IV of the New Labour Constitution conflates democratic socialism with modern social democracy. While affirming a commitment to democratic socialism,[27][28] it no longer definitely commits the party to public ownership of industry and in its place advocates "the enterprise of the market and the rigour of competition" along with "high quality public services [...] either owned by the public or accountable to them".[27] Like traditional social democracy, democratic socialism tends to follow a gradual, reformist or evolutionary path to socialism rather than a revolutionary one, a tendency that is captured in the statement that Labour Party revisionist Anthony Crosland, intellectual leader of the liberal and right-wing of the party, "argued that the socialism of the pre-war world (not just that of the Marxists, but of the democratic socialists too) were now increasingly irrelevant".[29][30] This tendency is also often invoked in an attempt to distinguish democratic socialism from Marxist–Leninist socialism as in Norman Thomas' Democratic Socialism: A New Appraisal,[31] Roy Hattersley's Choose Freedom: The Future of Democratic Socialism,[32] Jim Tomlinson's Democratic Socialism and Economic Policy: The Attlee Years, 1945–1951[33] and Donald F. Busky's Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey.[5] A variant of this set of definitions is Joseph Schumpeter's argument set out in Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (1941) that liberal democracies were evolving from liberal capitalism into democratic socialism with the growth of workers' self-management, industrial democracy and regulatory institutions.[34]
As a term, democratic socialism has some significant overlap on practical policy positions with social democracy, although they are often distinguished from each other.[3][4][14] Policies commonly supported are Keynesian in nature, including significant of regulation over a mixed economy, social insurance schemes, public pension programs and a gradual expansion of public ownership over major industries.[35] Policies such as free healthcare and education are described as "pure Socialism" because they are opposed to "the hedonism of capitalist society".[36] Partly because of this overlap, some political commentators use the terms interchangeably.[37][38] The difference between the two is that modern social democrats support practical reforms to capitalism as an end in itself whereas democratic socialists ultimately want to go beyond social democratic reforms and advocate systemic transformation of the economy from capitalism to socialism.[3][4][14] During the late 20th century, these labels were embraced, contested and rejected due to the emergence of developments within the European left such as Eurocommunism, the rise of neoliberalism, the fall of the Soviet Union and Marxist–Leninist governments, the Third Way and the rise of anti-austerity and Occupy movements in the late 2000s and early 2010s due to the global financial crisis of 2007–2008 and the Great Recession. This latest development contributed to the rise of politicians that represent the more traditional social democracy such as Jeremy Corbyn in the United Kingdom and Bernie Sanders in the United States,[39] who assumed the label democratic socialist to describe their rejection of centrist, Third Way politicians that supported triangulation within the Labour and Democratic parties.[40][41]

The first mistake was trusting Wikipedia. Can't debate factual relativism.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The first mistake was trusting Wikipedia. Can't debate factual relativism.

But you can discuss the ideas as presented.

Personally, I like a blend of Market Socialism, in a context of social democracy guided by Paternal Conservatism.

 

[night_son]

The first mistake was trusting Wikipedia. Can't debate factual relativism.

But you can discuss the ideas as presented.

Personally, I like a blend of Market Socialism, in a context of social democracy guided by Paternal Conservatism.

Right, so let's take a look at Wikipedia's definition of Paternal Conservatism. Myself, I am all for helping the less fortunate on a personal level. Examples: As a teen I went on mission trips with the Methodist Church to Puerto Rico, Jamaica, Bolivia and Nigeria. I have managed and contributed to a food bank with various churches, and I've done time in soup kitchens and some personal outreach to fellow veterans, which included collecting them off the street and putting them up in hotels so they could better get a grasp on reality, or their lives somewhat stabilized. My significant other, a leukemia survivor, volunteers at a local children's hospital. All of that kind of volunteerism and charity work is awesome. Everyone should feel obligated to do it some level.

However, when making the leap from good deeds done by the individual to what amounts to charity by government, the waters of democracy and capitalism muddy and sometimes even boil. In my opinion, government assistance assumes some segment of society will always be poor, always be victims, perpetually. Government assistance could aim to genuinely provide a "leg-up" to the less fortunate, although I have never witnessed or known of such programs succeeding as intended, and an argument could be made for the mere acknowledgement of "less fortunate" segments of society by the government becoming affirmation and even permission for those so-called victim demographics to remain forever so; forever receiving their government handout. This is the general meaning, in my opinion, of Paternal Conservatism, that there must be some less fortunate segment of society, and said segment must be aided by the bureaucracy at large in order to get them that hallowed leg up in society. I strongly disagree. Personal effort, personal responsibility, personal merit and extremely hard work are, in my opinion, all one needs in this nation of ours to rise to almost any heights of success; financially, socially, etc.

Market Socialism, at least according to the Wikipedia blurb you have quoted, is in fact no less than an attempt to fit the square peg of hard socialism (a transitionary phase of government/economy between capitalism and communism) into the round hole of Western Free Market Capitalism. The definition you have cited struggles in its language to take ownership of big industry and business and shoehorn it into the "purity" of a collectivized, communal Marxist's wet dream, a sort of kumbaya hybrid of free and government or as the Marxist like to say, "proletariat" owned means of production, which is in fact industry owned by the Party apparatchik and never the people themselves. No different than the lie of unions as organically freer and more beneficial to the individual worker as a semi-utopian shelter from the evil rich.

Further, the second to the last paragraph of your quoted definition of Market Socialism should terrify every last freedom loving, patriotic American, and I quote:

"Market socialism is distinguished from the concept of the mixed economy because unlike the mixed economy, models of market socialism are complete and self-regulating systems.[5] Market socialism also contrasts with social democratic policies implemented within capitalist market economies: while social democracy aims to achieve greater economic stability and equality through policy measures such as taxes, subsidies and social welfare programs, market socialism aims to achieve similar goals through changing patterns of enterprise ownership and management.[6]"

"Aiming" to achieve greater economic stability reads to me as ensuring equality of outcome, which is government enforced economic outcome and is scary as hell. So-called Market socialism, according to the above part of its Wikipedia definition, "aims to achieve similar goals through changing patterns of enterprise ownership and management". What I get from that statement is a government which forces diversity of social class, race, gender, religion, etc. into the ownership and management of industry and business, much like the postmodernist politically correct radical American left is currently trying to do across our nation. And that is bad, really, really bad and I will give you a reason why.

Bolsheviks, among the original devils of Marxism, operated according to the Marxist derived ideology of Class Warfare, in fact, the success of their Revolution depended upon pitting the proletariat against the bourgeoisie and the wealthy upper class to the point of bloodshed and then violent revolt. In the case of the postmodernists at the core of the radical American left, Race Warfare or Victim Class Warfare are what the postmodernist Marxists depend on to bring about violent social, economic and political revolution. In essence, this Market Socialism and Social Democracy of yours, is simply original sin pure Marxism disguised as some form of evolved capitalism but is in reality that same old first transitionary step from democracy and capitalism to communism.

 

[jwoodie]

So many conservatives refer to Socialism as though it were synonymous with Marxism, but it is not. That is a fallacy, and when the Strong AI begins to dominate the labor market, we will have to reconsider our hostility to having a socially sensitive form of capitalism as our loadstone for economic policy.

I notice that you failed to cite a single country demonstrating how your economic theory is superior to capitalism. I wonder why?

 

[badger2]

Problematic is the example of religion in comparison to paternal conservatism, because capitalism manufactures those dispossessed who stand in religion's charity mafia shelter-food lines. Not only gossamer myths and fairy tales, these same protection rackets receive government funding. duh. They do not solve the problem of the manufacturing these institutionalized victims of misery and resentment. Along these same lines, surplus labor (symbolized by these dispossessed and deterritorialized) is the key to why socialism does not work

 

[grbb]

Georgism is a good balance between socialism and capitalism.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Georgism is a good balance between socialism and capitalism.

Taxing land rent is not the windfall it was two hundred years ago, but I think it can be comparable to the Robotics tax many propose in our time.

In the process of taking natural resources and rendering them into a product then logistically moving that product to market and then selling, has a variety of logical function points that people used to perform. As those function points are automated, the government loses revenue that would have come from an actual person that was paid to do that job.
The government should tax those function points to recover lost revenue, then use that revenue to fund a Universal Basic Income.

 

[grbb]

Robotic tax is complex. What counts as robots? Vending machine in McDonald?

If you want to see what good taxation is just look at how Malls collect rent.

If malls collect rents through income taxes then the malls will be filled with tenants that simply shift profit somewhere else. We have corporations like Microsoft that simply shift profit to ireland.

So malls collect rents based market price of the space they rent.

Also the amount of money the malls collect is directly correlated with what the malls do. If malls install cctv and become safe then the tenant makes more money and there will be higher demand for spaces in the malls. The malls collect more rent.

So I like turning governments into business. However, if that's too complex, we can start with georgism. It's a good stepping stone.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Robotic tax is complex. What counts as robots? Vending machine in McDonald?

If you want to see what good taxation is just look at how Malls collect rent.

If malls collect rents through income taxes then the malls will be filled with tenants that simply shift profit somewhere else. We have corporations like Microsoft that simply shift profit to ireland.

So malls collect rents based market price of the space they rent.

Also the amount of money the malls collect is directly correlated with what the malls do. If malls install cctv and become safe then the tenant makes more money and there will be higher demand for spaces in the malls. The malls collect more rent.

So I like turning governments into business. However, if that's too complex, we can start with georgism. It's a good stepping stone.

But a mall is a close knit, well defined space. Main Street business is not so much.

Personally I like the concept of Subsidiarity where you are enabling people to work for themselves selling what they themselves make. I want to avoid taxing small business and focus taxes on corporations that are making a windfall on automated labor instead.

In the question you asked, yes, a vending machine would be taxed if it replaces a human labor function point.

A soda vending machine is not replacing a person, but a kiosk menu order-taking device does. The functionality in the business is what determines if it is replacing a person or not. A smart terminal that is used for entering data by a person is not taxable in this scenario because the laborer is still present, but the tool has been automated to a large part.

I suspect that by 2030 we will start seeing major contraction in the number of jobs available due to automation. In fact we are already starting to see it if you delve into the weeds.

 

[there4eyeM]

Any system that vaunts materialism over higher human attributes is traitorous to our nature and place in the universe. Economic systems must be subject to the qualities of creativity and capacity for compassion which set our race (humans) apart. There is nothing wrong with money and capitalism as such. In the same way, there is nothing wrong with co-operative effort. It is what is immaterial about us that is finest, and if we sacrifice that for 'goods', we destroy what is truly good.

 

[task0778]

Capitalism is a system of choice, of your own free will you get to choose whether or not to buy or sell or trade something. I see nothing anti-ethical about that, it isn't the system that places materialism over higher human attributes, it is the individual who does that at his or her own discretion. Some people want to remove or control that choice, substituting their concept of morality for everyone else's, and THAT is what I would call traitorous to our nature.

The thing about capitalism is that more than any other economic model it offers the most opportunities for wealth, economic growth, and well-being for EVERYBODY. As well as innovation, research and development, advancements in health science and medicine, nothing else come close. If you don't believe that, take a look at what the world was like before capitalism came along and compare that to the standard of living now.

The thing with capitalism is that if left unfettered, great inequities and disparities can occur. The answer isn't that capitalism is bad and needs to be replaced, but it does require effective governance. You want to find the best solutions to prevent or reduce the injustices and inequities, but without destroying the great wealth production that can be achieved. And that is where the divergence comes in for many of us, some say lets do this and others say no, lets do that. And the problem is, that instead of trying to work out some kind of cooperative compromise, we are engaged in denigrating and demonizing the other side. IOW, we're fucked.

 

[SomeDudeUDunno]

I don't work well with others, so I am anti-socialism of any sort. That aside, not a huge individualist either. I think there is a happy medium for us all that God gave us by way of nature.

 

[there4eyeM]

It has always surprised me that more people do not realize that it is in one's self interest to have as many of our fellow humans as possible be happy and peaceful.
There are two reasons to help others. The first is that you love them and are happy to share what is yours. The other is that you want them to be happy so they don't come and take what is yours.
In other words, we all benefit when everyone benefits. That means at least some level of social, co-operative effort. It is so overwhelmingly obvious that we are social animals that any debate about it is ridiculous. That being the case, social activity is only a matter of more or less. At best, it is done out of enlightened self-interest. When it is forced, it becomes destructive of our finer capacities.

 

[Libby von H]

So many conservatives refer to Socialism as though it were synonymous with Marxism, but it is not. That is a fallacy, and when the Strong AI begins to dominate the labor market, we will have to reconsider our hostility to having a socially sensitive form of capitalism as our loadstone for economic policy.

Market socialism - Wikipedia
Market socialism is a type of economic system involving the public, cooperative or social ownership of the means of production in the framework of a market economy. Market socialism differs from non-market socialism in that the market mechanism is utilized for the allocation of capital goods and the means of production.[1][2][3] Depending on the specific model of market socialism, profits generated by socially owned firms (i.e. net revenue not reinvested into expanding the firm) may variously be used to directly remunerate employees, accrue to society at large as the source of public finance or be distributed amongst the population in a social dividend.[4]
Market socialism is distinguished from the concept of the mixed economy because unlike the mixed economy, models of market socialism are complete and self-regulating systems.[5] Market socialism also contrasts with social democratic policies implemented within capitalist market economies: while social democracy aims to achieve greater economic stability and equality through policy measures such as taxes, subsidies and social welfare programs, market socialism aims to achieve similar goals through changing patterns of enterprise ownership and management.[6]
...
Early models of market socialism trace their roots to the work of Adam Smith and the theories of classical economics, which consisted of proposals for cooperative enterprises operating in a free-market economy. The aim of such proposals was to eliminate exploitation by allowing individuals to receive the full product of their labor while removing the market-distorting effects of concentrating ownership and wealth in the hands of a small class of private owners.[9] Among early advocates of market socialism were the Ricardian socialist economists and mutualist philosophers. In the early 20th century, Oskar Lange and Abba Lerner outlined a neoclassical model of socialism which included a role for a central planning board (CPB) in setting prices equal to marginal cost to achieve Pareto efficiency. Even though these early models did not rely on genuine markets, they were labeled "market socialist" for their utilization of financial prices and calculation. In more recent models proposed by American neoclassical economists, public ownership of the means of production is achieved through public ownership of equity and social control of investment.


Paternalistic conservatism - Wikipedia
Paternalistic conservatism is a strand in conservatism which reflects the belief that societies exist and develop organically and that members within them have obligations towards each other.[1] There is particular emphasis on the paternalistic obligation of those who are privileged and wealthy to the poorer parts of society. Since it is consistent with principles such as organicism, hierarchy and duty, it can be seen an outgrowth of traditional conservatism. Paternal conservatives support neither the individual nor the state in principle, but are instead prepared to support either or recommend a balance between the two depending on what is most practical.[2]

Social democracy - Wikipedia
Social democracy is a political, social and economic philosophy that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and a capitalist mixed economy. The protocols and norms used to accomplish this involve a commitment to representative and participatory democracy, measures for income redistribution and regulation of the economy in the general interest and welfare state provisions.[1][2][3] In this way, social democracy aims to create the conditions for capitalism to lead to greater democratic, egalitarian and solidaristic outcomes.[4] Due to longstanding governance by social democratic parties during the post-war consensus and their influence on socioeconomic policy in the Nordic countries, social democracy has become associated in policy circles with the Nordic model in the latter part of the 20th century.[5]
Social democracy originated as a political ideology that advocated an evolutionary and peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism using established political processes in contrast to the revolutionary approach to transition associated with orthodox Marxism.[6] In the early post-war era in Western Europe, social democratic parties rejected the Stalinist political and economic model then current in the Soviet Union, committing themselves either to an alternative path to socialism or to a compromise between capitalism and socialism.[7] In this period, social democrats embraced a capitalist mixed economy based on the predominance of private property, with only a minority of essential utilities and public services under public ownership. As a result, social democracy became associated with Keynesian economics, state interventionism and the welfare state while abandoning the prior goal of replacing the capitalist system (factor markets, private property and wage labour)[4] with a qualitatively different socialist economic system.[8][9][10] With the rise of popularity for neoliberalism and the New Right by the 1980s,[11] many social democratic parties incorporated the Third Way ideology,[12] aiming to fuse liberal economics with social democratic welfare policies.[13][14] By the 2010s, the Third Way had generally fallen out of favour.
Modern social democracy is characterised by a commitment to policies aimed at curbing inequality, oppression of underprivileged groups and poverty,[15] including support for universally accessible public services like care for the elderly, child care, education, health care and workers' compensation.[16] The social democratic movement often has strong connections with the labour movement and trade unions which are supportive of collective bargaining rights for workers as well as measures to extend decision-making beyond politics into the economic sphere in the form of co-determination for employees and other economic stakeholders

Democratic socialism - Wikipedia
Democratic socialism is a political philosophy that advocates political democracy alongside a socially owned economy,[1] with an emphasis on workers' self-management and democratic control of economic institutions within a market or some form of a decentralised planned socialist economy.[2] Democratic socialists argue that capitalism is inherently incompatible with the values of liberty, equality and solidarity and that these ideals can be achieved only through the realisation of a socialist society. Democratic socialism can support either revolutionary or reformist politics as a means to establish socialism.[3]
In the term democratic socialism, the adjective democratic is added and used to distinguish democratic socialists from Marxist–Leninist inspired socialism which to many is viewed as being undemocratic or authoritarian in practice.[3][4][5][6] Democratic socialists oppose the Stalinist political system and the Soviet-type economic system, rejecting the perceived authoritarian form of governance and highly centralised command economy that took form in the Soviet Union and other Marxist–Leninist states in the early 20th century.[6] Democratic socialism is distinguished from 20th-century social democracy on the basis that democratic socialists are committed to systemic transformation of the economy from capitalism to socialism whereas modern social democrats are opposed to ultimately ending capitalism and are instead supportive of progressive reforms to capitalism.[3][4]
In contrast to modern social democrats, democratic socialists believe that reforms state interventions aimed at addressing social inequalities and suppressing the economic contradictions of capitalism would only see them emerge elsewhere in a different guise.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13] Democratic socialists believe that the systemic issues of capitalism can only be solved by replacing the capitalist economic system with socialism, i.e. by replacing private ownership with collective ownership of the means of production and extending democracy to the economic sphere.[3][4][14] The origins of democratic socialism can be traced to 19th-century utopian socialist thinkers and the British Chartist movement that differed in detail yet all shared the essence of democratic decision making and public ownership of the means of production as positive characteristics of the society they advocated.[15] In the early 20th century, the gradualist, reformist socialism promoted by the British Fabian Society and Eduard Bernstein's evolutionary socialism in Germany influenced the development of democratic socialism....

Democratic socialism is defined as having a socialist economy in which the means of production are socially and collectively owned or controlled, alongside a democratic political system of government.[1] Democratic socialism rejects self-described socialist states as it rejects Marxism–Leninism and its derivatives such as Stalinism and Maoism, among others.[3][4][5][6] As a result, Peter Hain classifies democratic socialism along with libertarian socialism as a form of anti-authoritarian socialism from below (using the term popularised by Hal Draper) in contrast to Stalinism and state socialism. For Hain, this democratic/authoritarian divide is more important than the revolutionary/reformist divide.[19] In this type of democratic socialism, it is the active participation of the population as a whole and workers in particular in the self-management of the economy that characterises democratic socialism while nationalisation and centralised economic planning (whether coordinated by an elected government or not) are characteristic of state socialism. A similar, more complex argument is made by Nicos Poulantzas.[20] Draper himself used the term revolutionary-democratic socialism as a type of socialism from below in his The Two Souls of Socialism, writing: "[T]he leading spokesman in the Second International of a revolutionary-democratic Socialism-from-Below [...] was Rosa Luxemburg, who so emphatically put her faith and hope in the spontaneous struggle of a free working class that the myth-makers invented for her a "theory of spontaneity".[21] Similarly, he wrote about Eugene V. Debs: "Debsian socialism" evoked a tremendous response from the heart of the people, but Debs had no successor as a tribune of revolutionary-democratic socialism".[22]
Democratic socialism has also been defined as social democracy prior to the 1970s, when the displacement of Keynesianism caused many social democratic parties to adopt the Third Way ideology, accepting capitalism as the current powers that be and redefining socialism in a way that it maintains the capitalist structure intact.[23][24][11][25][26] As an example, the new version of Clause IV of the New Labour Constitution conflates democratic socialism with modern social democracy. While affirming a commitment to democratic socialism,[27][28] it no longer definitely commits the party to public ownership of industry and in its place advocates "the enterprise of the market and the rigour of competition" along with "high quality public services [...] either owned by the public or accountable to them".[27] Like traditional social democracy, democratic socialism tends to follow a gradual, reformist or evolutionary path to socialism rather than a revolutionary one, a tendency that is captured in the statement that Labour Party revisionist Anthony Crosland, intellectual leader of the liberal and right-wing of the party, "argued that the socialism of the pre-war world (not just that of the Marxists, but of the democratic socialists too) were now increasingly irrelevant".[29][30] This tendency is also often invoked in an attempt to distinguish democratic socialism from Marxist–Leninist socialism as in Norman Thomas' Democratic Socialism: A New Appraisal,[31] Roy Hattersley's Choose Freedom: The Future of Democratic Socialism,[32] Jim Tomlinson's Democratic Socialism and Economic Policy: The Attlee Years, 1945–1951[33] and Donald F. Busky's Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey.[5] A variant of this set of definitions is Joseph Schumpeter's argument set out in Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (1941) that liberal democracies were evolving from liberal capitalism into democratic socialism with the growth of workers' self-management, industrial democracy and regulatory institutions.[34]
As a term, democratic socialism has some significant overlap on practical policy positions with social democracy, although they are often distinguished from each other.[3][4][14] Policies commonly supported are Keynesian in nature, including significant of regulation over a mixed economy, social insurance schemes, public pension programs and a gradual expansion of public ownership over major industries.[35] Policies such as free healthcare and education are described as "pure Socialism" because they are opposed to "the hedonism of capitalist society".[36] Partly because of this overlap, some political commentators use the terms interchangeably.[37][38] The difference between the two is that modern social democrats support practical reforms to capitalism as an end in itself whereas democratic socialists ultimately want to go beyond social democratic reforms and advocate systemic transformation of the economy from capitalism to socialism.[3][4][14] During the late 20th century, these labels were embraced, contested and rejected due to the emergence of developments within the European left such as Eurocommunism, the rise of neoliberalism, the fall of the Soviet Union and Marxist–Leninist governments, the Third Way and the rise of anti-austerity and Occupy movements in the late 2000s and early 2010s due to the global financial crisis of 2007–2008 and the Great Recession. This latest development contributed to the rise of politicians that represent the more traditional social democracy such as Jeremy Corbyn in the United Kingdom and Bernie Sanders in the United States,[39] who assumed the label democratic socialist to describe their rejection of centrist, Third Way politicians that supported triangulation within the Labour and Democratic parties.[40][41]