Learn what Socialism Is.

[Toro]

Moron...Socialism is the last step before true communism...according to Marx. since that evil man's beliefs hit the world the "socialists" have adapted to the reality of each country where they push their collectivism......in too many places,that means mass graves and gulags......

Socialism allows for private proprety. Communism absolishes it. They're obviously not the same thing.

Communism is largely defined by the Communist Manifesto. Socialism comes in more flavors than Baskin Robbins. I'm interested in learning more the OPs specific flavor rather than listening to you make spectacularly inaccurate overgeneralizations about at topic you don't understand.

Right.

That Marx said this or that isn't particularly relevant. Marx was wrong about a lot of things. Believing Sweden is going become Cuba because they have a social market economy is pretty silly.

The truth is that all successful Western economies are mixed economies. The only difference is degree.

 

[kaz]

I'm tired of people on this board failing to understand what socialism is.. Educate yourselves.

You can also listen to any speech by any Democrat

 

[dblack]

I'll second Skylar's interest in how collective ownership should be handled. Not necessarily the transition to it, but in an ideal situation. Let's say we were starting fresh. How would we decide how to use resources efficiently if they are owned in common?

Would collective ownership mandate the elimination of the market? I mean, hypothetically speaking couldn't a company be communally owned and still be subject to the market? It may be akin to stock in a company that everyone owned.

Would some be allowed to own more than others? If not, I'm doubt we'd see any benefits of a market mechanism, and if so, how would that be different than today's corporations?

Resource distribution seems much more a matter of business than a matter of ownership. Only when collective ownership impacted business directly would it become an issue. Otherwise it may be more akin to revenue sharing. Like Alaska and its oil revenue being disbursed to citizens annually.

At the level of capital investment, ownership is synonymous with control over resource distribution. That's the main problem the stock market addresses. Investment, either via the market or more direct means, is how we currently decide, as a society, which projects are worthwhile and which aren't. I'm wondering how we'd make those decisions without private investment.

 

[2aguy]

I'll second Skylar's interest in how collective ownership should be handled. Not necessarily the transition to it, but in an ideal situation. Let's say we were starting fresh. How would we decide how to use resources efficiently if they are owned in common?

Would collective ownership mandate the elimination of the market? I mean, hypothetically speaking couldn't a company be communally owned and still be subject to the market? It may be akin to stock in a company that everyone owned.

Would some be allowed to own more than others? If not, I'm doubt we'd see any benefits of a market mechanism, and if so, how would that be different than today's corporations?

Resource distribution seems much more a matter of business than a matter of ownership. Only when collective ownership impacted business directly would it become an issue. Otherwise it may be more akin to revenue sharing. Like Alaska and its oil revenue being disbursed to citizens annually.

At the level of capital investment, ownership is synonymous with control over resource distribution. That's the main problem the stock market addresses. Investment, either via the market or more direct means, is how we currently decide, as a society, which projects are worthwhile and which aren't. I'm wondering how we'd make those decisions without private investment.

Like they actually do in socialist countries...some government agent without any connection to the project decides, they have nothing at risk, are probably being bribed and the project will usually have no real value........

 

[emilynghiem]

I'm tired of people on this board failing to understand what socialism is.. Educate yourselves.

Dear Socialist
People in America tend to stretch the term, use it more loosely to
mean ANY social program that gets micromanaged by federal govt.

It does NOT have to mean pure ownership to get called Socialistic.

I guess we should distinguish the terms literal Socialism
from "socialistic." Instead of arguing back and forth over literal terms,
let's talk about what application and degree of "socialistic govt involvement" we are discussing.
So we don't get hung up on terms and miss out on discussing actual content.

Most people I know don't want ANY political group pushing their agenda
through govt unless it's their own. So that IMPOSITION is the real issue,
not the type of system the person is. The REAL issue is not wanting
these mandating by govt where it isn't up the people's free choice and consent anymore.

Doesn't matter if you blame socialists, capitalists, left or right for pushing an imbalanced system,
the argument is against pushing opposing beliefs on the public against the will of the people affected.

Socialism has nothing to do with the federal government at all, I urge you to listen to the lectures above to get a sense of the history/usage of the word, it didn't start with marx.
I know people fail to understand socialism, it's sad..

Dear Socialist
Yes and no. Because the federal govt is where people enforce Constitutional laws,
that is why anything that involves people's natural rights have ended up argued on federal grounds.

For example, when conflicts happen on the State level that violate natural rights of people,
instead of kicking this back to the level of PEOPLE to resolve for themselves,
the political forces will sue and push the authority to the FEDERAL level
trying to protect local rights of people. So this is how issues of the people
end up in federal jurisdiction, when conflicts can't be resolved and people "call in the Feds."

The REAL problem is that when people
define socialism to mean the grassroots PEOPLE
and also feel their take on interests of the People is what GOVT is supposed to REPRESENT,
then they equate "people with govt,"
and make govt the central expression of the people's will.

So the liberals keep using federal govt to protect the "will of the people"

In reality, if the ownership belongs to the PEOPLE then
this is the same as what "free enterprise" and "free market" people want.
Ownership and control to belong to the PEOPLE.

Ideally, these groups would AGREE if we truly let PEOPLE represent and
manage their own affairs. There is nothing to stop PEOPLE from enforcing
the SAME Constitutional protections that we keep running to the Feds to mandate for us.
This is similar to Luther lobbying for direct enforcement of laws among the people,
invoking authority directly, and not depending on Catholic authority as the middleman.

Most of the problem is struggle for power between political groups,
so they both run to the federal govt to fight takeover by the other group.

That's how the control keeps ending up as federal issues.

 

[emilynghiem]

I'm tired of people on this board failing to understand what socialism is.. Educate yourselves.

the word "IS" is missing in between socialism and for

Dear bedowin62
I see nothing wrong with self-chosen socialist coops.
If people AGREE to share responsibility for a school, or community garden,
or health care coop, this can work well.

I'd be curious to see the maximum population that can be governed under
a single entity without becoming so bureaucratic that laws can't be enforced fairly
and turn into elitist cliques abusing "power concentrated in the hands of a few"
like any other human institution where the numbers get too big and accountability is lost.

whether we set up a free market or socialist relationship or group,
the common factor is people CHOOSE FREELY to participate and follow the rules.

 

[emilynghiem]

I'm tired of people on this board failing to understand what socialism is.. Educate yourselves.

Hi Socialist
about your speaker who has a bias AGAINST capitalism
how do you expect to get anywhere with this approach
of pitting one choice against the other?

Nobody I know responds well to forcing a system on them
they don't want, and trying to discredit them for the system they do want to use.

the system of choice is not the issue
so much as how it is USED.

ANY system if it is abused to DENY equal protections,
to deprive equal free choice or liberty to the participants,
to oppress due process so the people in charge can control
the program, THAT is the problem with ANY system of ANY type!

So your guy here criticizes Capitalism for being abused to exploit people unequally.
But that's the SAME criticism of people against the abuse of socialist politics to exploit people unequally!

You are right the goals and the objections are more in common
with what people really want and don't want.

The problem I see is your guy makes the SAME mistake
you are complaining of. You are saying people are dissing Socialism unfairly
but then your guy disses Capitalism and blames that label.

That part I would change.

If the video were about aligning on the common goals
of enforcing equal rights against abuses, then you might get farther
than by insulting Capitalist followers while
complaining when people do this with Socialist followers.

Why make the same mistake you are preaching against?

 

[Socialist]

I'm tired of people on this board failing to understand what socialism is.. Educate yourselves.

You are wasting your time. The folks that you're complaining about don't give a fiddler's **** what socialism actually is. Its just a pejorative to them.

I'll have a discussion with you though. How does your flavor of socialism handle collective ownership of the means of production?

Well, my "flavor" refers to the stance taken by almost all modern day socialists, democratic ownership of the means of production for the good of the community and not the profit of a capitalist. This has been done before to various degrees, whether it be market socialism, anarchists seizing production like was done in spain, the modern day zapatistas who run their communities on these lines. I know it's a pejorative, why I won't bother responding to them, they have a chance to educate themselves, if they refuse, not my problem.

 

[emilynghiem]

I'm tired of people on this board failing to understand what socialism is.. Educate yourselves.

You are wasting your time. The folks that you're complaining about don't give a fiddler's **** what socialism actually is. Its just a pejorative to them.

I'll have a discussion with you though. How does your flavor of socialism handle collective ownership of the means of production?

Well, my "flavor" refers to the stance taken by almost all modern day socialists, democratic ownership of the means of production for the good of the community and not the profit of a capitalist. This has been done before to various degrees, whether it be market socialism, anarchists seizing production like was done in spain, the modern day zapatistas who run their communities on these lines. I know it's a pejorative, why I won't bother responding to them, they have a chance to educate themselves, if they refuse, not my problem.

News for you
as long as the democratic ownership is by people using free enterprise, then it can be run to provide for the community and not for profit sake, still be socialistic, but operating under free market not govt owned.

Paul Newman for one, started a business to generate funds for charity but it is run as a business where it maintains jobs and teaches the people business and work skills, and how to run effectively as other businesses, but the profits made support charity.

The teacher who mentored me to take over a small school ran it as a DbA to minimalize the overhead and tax accountng required, bit it served as a charity coverng the costs of keeping the office space available to help as many students as we could help as a team. The ones who could pay were enough to cover basic operation costs. All by voluntarY participation.

So you can provide the same socialistic ideals of serving people before profits, and still operate under free enterprise and not be govt run.

A neighbor with the Green Party also volunteered in South or Central America helping farmers set up locally managed coops where more of the money stayed with the workers and it was still free market.

You don't have to reject business profit to serve socialistically. and the same greed for profit that can throw companies off balance
Can equally throw off socialistic systems if there is greed for power.

Even though the Occupy groups I tried to help owned nothing, when I donated costs to have a legal office space to assemble and organize for longterm outreach, even the access to shared space became the object of greed and the same corruption occurred the group was criticizing in corporations run by greed.

 

[Socialist]

I'm tired of people on this board failing to understand what socialism is.. Educate yourselves.

You are wasting your time. The folks that you're complaining about don't give a fiddler's **** what socialism actually is. Its just a pejorative to them.

I'll have a discussion with you though. How does your flavor of socialism handle collective ownership of the means of production?

Well, my "flavor" refers to the stance taken by almost all modern day socialists, democratic ownership of the means of production for the good of the community and not the profit of a capitalist. This has been done before to various degrees, whether it be market socialism, anarchists seizing production like was done in spain, the modern day zapatistas who run their communities on these lines. I know it's a pejorative, why I won't bother responding to them, they have a chance to educate themselves, if they refuse, not my problem.

News for you
as long as the democratic ownership is by people using free enterprise, then it can be run to provide for the community and not for profit sake, still be socialistic, but operating under free market not govt owned.

Paul Newman for one, started a business to generate funds for charity but it is run as a business where it maintains jobs and teaches the people business and work skills, and how to run effectively as other businesses, but the profits made support charity.

The teacher who mentored me to take over a small school ran it as a DbA to minimalize the overhead and tax accountng required, bit it served as a charity coverng the costs of keeping the office space available to help as many students as we could help as a team. The ones who could pay were enough to cover basic operation costs. All by voluntarY participation.

So you can provide the same socialistic ideals of serving people before profits, and still operate under free enterprise and not be govt run.

A neighbor with the Green Party also volunteered in South or Central America helping farmers set up locally managed coops where more of the money stayed with the workers and it was still free market.

You don't have to reject business profit to serve socialistically. and the same greed for profit that can throw companies off balance
Can equally throw off socialistic systems if there is greed for power.

Even though the Occupy groups I tried to help owned nothing, when I donated costs to have a legal office space to assemble and organize for longterm outreach, even the access to shared space became the object of greed and the same corruption occurred the group was criticizing in corporations run by greed.

That's still operating under capitalism.

 

[emilynghiem]

I'm tired of people on this board failing to understand what socialism is.. Educate yourselves.

You are wasting your time. The folks that you're complaining about don't give a fiddler's **** what socialism actually is. Its just a pejorative to them.

I'll have a discussion with you though. How does your flavor of socialism handle collective ownership of the means of production?

Well, my "flavor" refers to the stance taken by almost all modern day socialists, democratic ownership of the means of production for the good of the community and not the profit of a capitalist. This has been done before to various degrees, whether it be market socialism, anarchists seizing production like was done in spain, the modern day zapatistas who run their communities on these lines. I know it's a pejorative, why I won't bother responding to them, they have a chance to educate themselves, if they refuse, not my problem.

News for you
as long as the democratic ownership is by people using free enterprise, then it can be run to provide for the community and not for profit sake, still be socialistic, but operating under free market not govt owned.

Paul Newman for one, started a business to generate funds for charity but it is run as a business where it maintains jobs and teaches the people business and work skills, and how to run effectively as other businesses, but the profits made support charity.

The teacher who mentored me to take over a small school ran it as a DbA to minimalize the overhead and tax accountng required, bit it served as a charity coverng the costs of keeping the office space available to help as many students as we could help as a team. The ones who could pay were enough to cover basic operation costs. All by voluntarY participation.

So you can provide the same socialistic ideals of serving people before profits, and still operate under free enterprise and not be govt run.

A neighbor with the Green Party also volunteered in South or Central America helping farmers set up locally managed coops where more of the money stayed with the workers and it was still free market.

You don't have to reject business profit to serve socialistically. and the same greed for profit that can throw companies off balance
Can equally throw off socialistic systems if there is greed for power.

Even though the Occupy groups I tried to help owned nothing, when I donated costs to have a legal office space to assemble and organize for longterm outreach, even the access to shared space became the object of greed and the same corruption occurred the group was criticizing in corporations run by greed.

That's still operating under capitalism.

I am talking about operating by free enterprise. You can still fulfill the same goals as socialism but operate freely through free enterprise. That way you respect the best of both -- both the focus on the greater good and service to the community interests and the reward for individual free will to
Manage the business to serve the
Maximum good. Where ppl own and manage it democratically on their own.

The failures i cite are caused by human greed and abuse that happen in any institution where the numbers get too big to police directly and democratically. So a large socialistic structure isnt any less prone to human corruption than a large capitalist structure.

Personally I keep finding the sexist factor skews the democratic process. If men start competing for power, any group can fall to bullying abuses. Lots of factors can allow conflicts to corrupt the group, not just capitalism or profit
As the blame.

 

[Socialist]

I'm tired of people on this board failing to understand what socialism is.. Educate yourselves.

You are wasting your time. The folks that you're complaining about don't give a fiddler's **** what socialism actually is. Its just a pejorative to them.

I'll have a discussion with you though. How does your flavor of socialism handle collective ownership of the means of production?

Well, my "flavor" refers to the stance taken by almost all modern day socialists, democratic ownership of the means of production for the good of the community and not the profit of a capitalist. This has been done before to various degrees, whether it be market socialism, anarchists seizing production like was done in spain, the modern day zapatistas who run their communities on these lines. I know it's a pejorative, why I won't bother responding to them, they have a chance to educate themselves, if they refuse, not my problem.

News for you
as long as the democratic ownership is by people using free enterprise, then it can be run to provide for the community and not for profit sake, still be socialistic, but operating under free market not govt owned.

Paul Newman for one, started a business to generate funds for charity but it is run as a business where it maintains jobs and teaches the people business and work skills, and how to run effectively as other businesses, but the profits made support charity.

The teacher who mentored me to take over a small school ran it as a DbA to minimalize the overhead and tax accountng required, bit it served as a charity coverng the costs of keeping the office space available to help as many students as we could help as a team. The ones who could pay were enough to cover basic operation costs. All by voluntarY participation.

So you can provide the same socialistic ideals of serving people before profits, and still operate under free enterprise and not be govt run.

A neighbor with the Green Party also volunteered in South or Central America helping farmers set up locally managed coops where more of the money stayed with the workers and it was still free market.

You don't have to reject business profit to serve socialistically. and the same greed for profit that can throw companies off balance
Can equally throw off socialistic systems if there is greed for power.

Even though the Occupy groups I tried to help owned nothing, when I donated costs to have a legal office space to assemble and organize for longterm outreach, even the access to shared space became the object of greed and the same corruption occurred the group was criticizing in corporations run by greed.

That's still operating under capitalism.

I am talking about operating by free enterprise. You can still fulfill the same goals as socialism but operate freely through free enterprise. That way you respect the best of both -- both the focus on the greater good and service to the community interests and the reward for individual free will to
Manage the business to serve the
Maximum good. Where ppl own and manage it democratically on their own.

The failures i cite are caused by human greed and abuse that happen in any institution where the numbers get too big to police directly and democratically. So a large socialistic structure isnt any less prone to human corruption than a large capitalist structure.

Personally I keep finding the sexist factor skews the democratic process. If men start competing for power, any group can fall to bullying abuses. Lots of factors can allow conflicts to corrupt the group, not just capitalism or profit
As the blame.

I can see your point, but a "mixed" system doesn't work, it's why socialism hardly exists anywhere, capitalists dominate.

 

[Skylar]

Moron...Socialism is the last step before true communism...according to Marx. since that evil man's beliefs hit the world the "socialists" have adapted to the reality of each country where they push their collectivism......in too many places,that means mass graves and gulags......

Socialism allows for private proprety. Communism absolishes it. They're obviously not the same thing.

Communism is largely defined by the Communist Manifesto. Socialism comes in more flavors than Baskin Robbins. I'm interested in learning more the OPs specific flavor rather than listening to you make spectacularly inaccurate overgeneralizations about at topic you don't understand.

Right.

That Marx said this or that isn't particularly relevant. Marx was wrong about a lot of things. Believing Sweden is going become Cuba because they have a social market economy is pretty silly.

The truth is that all successful Western economies are mixed economies. The only difference is degree.

You're confused. I'm not saying that communism is 'right' because Marx wrote it. I'm saying that Communism is largely defined by the communist manifesto. Which Marx wrote.

Socialism is and was more of a synthesis. There were many, many cooks in that kitchen. It comes in a variety of styles, flavors and system. Most share common characteristics. But it isn't defined by any one 'manifesto' or any one person. So when you discuss socialism with anyone, you have to define terms or at least set some basic ground rules to figure out what version of socialism you're discussing.

 

[Skylar]

I'll second Skylar's interest in how collective ownership should be handled. Not necessarily the transition to it, but in an ideal situation. Let's say we were starting fresh. How would we decide how to use resources efficiently if they are owned in common?

Would collective ownership mandate the elimination of the market? I mean, hypothetically speaking couldn't a company be communally owned and still be subject to the market? It may be akin to stock in a company that everyone owned.

Would some be allowed to own more than others? If not, I'm doubt we'd see any benefits of a market mechanism, and if so, how would that be different than today's corporations?

Dunno. Is Alaskan oil owned more by some than others? Its not a perfect analogy as oil is more of a resource than a means of production. But collective ownership and collective distribution of resources works in that context.

That being said, the engine of efficiency in capitalism is competition. Its essentially the primary (perhaps sole?) advantage of the system. And how would you motivate the risk of investment without the possibility of benefit? What would motivate innovation? Collective benefit may be altruistic, but its not a very good personal motivator.

Collective benefit tends to work on smaller scales where the benefit is more immediate. The group say....goes on a hunt, or raises a barn, or repairs a boat. And then the group benefits directly. I don't think you could go much farther than a few thousand before the immediacy of benefit begins to break down. And with it the personal motivation.

Perhaps some hybrid system. Where you could personally benefit from a project of your own design.....but only up to a point. Say, a ratio of the mean wage. Say, 30 times. It would motivate the individual to work harder, spread the wealth among the community, and still allow for the collection of modest fortunes

Or, a more capitalist system with time limits. Steep inheritance taxes, or corporations with human lifespans. The former would be unpopular and the latter chaotic, but it would certainly encourage more of a meritocracy, especially if the taxes collected were put into an outstanding public education system.

I'm just thinking out loud and hypothetically.

At the level of capital investment, ownership is synonymous with control over resource distribution. That's the main problem the stock market addresses. Investment, either via the market or more direct means, is how we currently decide, as a society, which projects are worthwhile and which aren't. I'm wondering how we'd make those decisions without private investment.

Kinda. The Stock Market itself has almost nothing to do with resource distribution. As almost all of the trades upon it don't actually distribute resources or benefit the business that issued the shares in any meaningful way. Stock trading produces nothing, enhances nothing, refines nothing. It provides one and only one product: liquidity. And yet traders syphon off enormous capital in exchange for no useful service. The bonuses for wall street traders alone was more than all minimum wage workers earning for an entire year.

In terms of practical use or efficiency, those resources are just wasted.

Only the initial public offering or the owner that actually executes a commodities contract involve resource distribution. And that happens only once for each share or contract. While the same share or contract may be traded hundreds, if not thousands of times. And produce......nothing. Liquidity. The ability to sell the share faster. A product that is only useful to the very people leeching off value in exchange for nothing.

Worse, there are a comparative handful of people making these decisions. Large investor to large investor trades make up well over 99% of all trades. With well over 95% of all publically traded shares owned by a few thousand hedge funds and investment trusts. We already have a tiny group deciding who is worthy of 'investment'. With the goal of benefit for those in benefit for those 'investments' aimed to stay within the same tiny group.

In terms of a system to distribute resources, its rather top heavy. And overwhelmingly benefits a comparative few. Its also *wildly* unstable. The purer in form, the more unstable it is.

 

[Socialist]

Moron...Socialism is the last step before true communism...according to Marx. since that evil man's beliefs hit the world the "socialists" have adapted to the reality of each country where they push their collectivism......in too many places,that means mass graves and gulags......

Socialism allows for private proprety. Communism absolishes it. They're obviously not the same thing.

Communism is largely defined by the Communist Manifesto. Socialism comes in more flavors than Baskin Robbins. I'm interested in learning more the OPs specific flavor rather than listening to you make spectacularly inaccurate overgeneralizations about at topic you don't understand.

Right.

That Marx said this or that isn't particularly relevant. Marx was wrong about a lot of things. Believing Sweden is going become Cuba because they have a social market economy is pretty silly.

The truth is that all successful Western economies are mixed economies. The only difference is degree.

You're confused. I'm not saying that communism is 'right' because Marx wrote it. I'm saying that Communism is largely defined by the communist manifesto. Which Marx wrote.

Socialism is and was more of a synthesis. There were many, many cooks in that kitchen. It comes in a variety of styles, flavors and system. Most share common characteristics. But it isn't defined by any one 'manifesto' or any one person. So when you discuss socialism with anyone, you have to define terms or at least set some basic ground rules to figure out what version of socialism you're discussing.

Err the communist manifesto was directed at a small specific group of people relevant to the time period, it's not what one should read to determine what communism is or isn't. In regards to your posts about collectives breaking down, I disagree, the anarchists in Spain during the revolution existed for 3 years IN A WAR before they were militarily crushed, one could also look to the modern day zapatistas, various collectives worldwide, etc.. When discussing socialism as a synthesis, socialism came about before Marx with the core idea of collective ownership, both socialism and communism are very straight forward, it's a matter of achieving one of the above that causes the great debates. Social democrats actually believe socialism can be achieved through reformism and the like, revolutionaries like the Maoists In India believe overthrowing the state and building a proletariat dictatorship to lead the way to communism will work, millions are practicing Maoists, all around the world. I look forward to dialogue between us, I recommend reading up on Marxism by referring to the Marxist internet archive. If you want a better examination of communism, read the principles of communism: The Principles of Communism

 

[Skylar]

Moron...Socialism is the last step before true communism...according to Marx. since that evil man's beliefs hit the world the "socialists" have adapted to the reality of each country where they push their collectivism......in too many places,that means mass graves and gulags......

Socialism allows for private proprety. Communism absolishes it. They're obviously not the same thing.

Communism is largely defined by the Communist Manifesto. Socialism comes in more flavors than Baskin Robbins. I'm interested in learning more the OPs specific flavor rather than listening to you make spectacularly inaccurate overgeneralizations about at topic you don't understand.

Right.

That Marx said this or that isn't particularly relevant. Marx was wrong about a lot of things. Believing Sweden is going become Cuba because they have a social market economy is pretty silly.

The truth is that all successful Western economies are mixed economies. The only difference is degree.

You're confused. I'm not saying that communism is 'right' because Marx wrote it. I'm saying that Communism is largely defined by the communist manifesto. Which Marx wrote.

Socialism is and was more of a synthesis. There were many, many cooks in that kitchen. It comes in a variety of styles, flavors and system. Most share common characteristics. But it isn't defined by any one 'manifesto' or any one person. So when you discuss socialism with anyone, you have to define terms or at least set some basic ground rules to figure out what version of socialism you're discussing.

Err the communist manifesto was directed at a small specific group of people relevant to the time period, it's not what one should read to determine what communism is or isn't.

I think Marx is a fair source on what Communism is or isn't.

In regards to your posts about collectives breaking down, I disagree, the anarchists in Spain during the revolution existed for 3 years IN A WAR before they were militarily crushed, one could also look to the modern day zapatistas, various collectives worldwide, etc..

My comments weren't necessarily about communes 'breaking down', as how to maintain personal motivation when benefits for your labor aren't immediate. And I can't see immediate benefit lasting beyond a certain size: a few thousand at most. Likely, several hundred. Beyond that and benefit becomes more of a notional concept. You'd need to wrap it in something else. Like....nationalism. Or racism. Or religion.

Within that threshold, and you likely wouldn't need to. As people can witness the immediate benefits.

 

[Socialist]

Moron...Socialism is the last step before true communism...according to Marx. since that evil man's beliefs hit the world the "socialists" have adapted to the reality of each country where they push their collectivism......in too many places,that means mass graves and gulags......

Socialism allows for private proprety. Communism absolishes it. They're obviously not the same thing.

Communism is largely defined by the Communist Manifesto. Socialism comes in more flavors than Baskin Robbins. I'm interested in learning more the OPs specific flavor rather than listening to you make spectacularly inaccurate overgeneralizations about at topic you don't understand.

Right.

That Marx said this or that isn't particularly relevant. Marx was wrong about a lot of things. Believing Sweden is going become Cuba because they have a social market economy is pretty silly.

The truth is that all successful Western economies are mixed economies. The only difference is degree.

You're confused. I'm not saying that communism is 'right' because Marx wrote it. I'm saying that Communism is largely defined by the communist manifesto. Which Marx wrote.

Socialism is and was more of a synthesis. There were many, many cooks in that kitchen. It comes in a variety of styles, flavors and system. Most share common characteristics. But it isn't defined by any one 'manifesto' or any one person. So when you discuss socialism with anyone, you have to define terms or at least set some basic ground rules to figure out what version of socialism you're discussing.

Err the communist manifesto was directed at a small specific group of people relevant to the time period, it's not what one should read to determine what communism is or isn't.

I think Marx is a fair source on what Communism is or isn't.

In regards to your posts about collectives breaking down, I disagree, the anarchists in Spain during the revolution existed for 3 years IN A WAR before they were militarily crushed, one could also look to the modern day zapatistas, various collectives worldwide, etc..

My comments weren't necessarily about communes 'breaking down', as how to maintain personal motivation when benefits for your labor aren't immediate. And I can't see immediate benefit lasting beyond a certain size: a few thousand at most. Likely, several hundred. Beyond that and benefit becomes more of a notional concept. You'd need to wrap it in something else. Like....nationalism. Or racism. Or religion.

Within that threshold, and you likely wouldn't need to. As people can witness the immediate benefits.

We agree that Marx has a say, but Engels was someone who worked closely with him, and my post specifically addressed the manifesto, which was targeted at specific people at the time, it's not a good introduction to communist thought, just saying.. Well, the end goal of communism/socialism isn't to have everyone in one mega community, it's to allow each community to run themselves through democracy, and it's unrealistic to assume something won't hold them together, the desire to learn, invent, survive.. Capitalism has only been around for a couple of centuries stemming from the revolution in France, I can't take seriously anyone who attempts to formulate that human nature is in line with capitalism, not saying you are, just a general point.

 

[Skylar]

Socialism allows for private proprety. Communism absolishes it. They're obviously not the same thing.

Communism is largely defined by the Communist Manifesto. Socialism comes in more flavors than Baskin Robbins. I'm interested in learning more the OPs specific flavor rather than listening to you make spectacularly inaccurate overgeneralizations about at topic you don't understand.

Right.

That Marx said this or that isn't particularly relevant. Marx was wrong about a lot of things. Believing Sweden is going become Cuba because they have a social market economy is pretty silly.

The truth is that all successful Western economies are mixed economies. The only difference is degree.

You're confused. I'm not saying that communism is 'right' because Marx wrote it. I'm saying that Communism is largely defined by the communist manifesto. Which Marx wrote.

Socialism is and was more of a synthesis. There were many, many cooks in that kitchen. It comes in a variety of styles, flavors and system. Most share common characteristics. But it isn't defined by any one 'manifesto' or any one person. So when you discuss socialism with anyone, you have to define terms or at least set some basic ground rules to figure out what version of socialism you're discussing.

Err the communist manifesto was directed at a small specific group of people relevant to the time period, it's not what one should read to determine what communism is or isn't.

I think Marx is a fair source on what Communism is or isn't.

In regards to your posts about collectives breaking down, I disagree, the anarchists in Spain during the revolution existed for 3 years IN A WAR before they were militarily crushed, one could also look to the modern day zapatistas, various collectives worldwide, etc..

My comments weren't necessarily about communes 'breaking down', as how to maintain personal motivation when benefits for your labor aren't immediate. And I can't see immediate benefit lasting beyond a certain size: a few thousand at most. Likely, several hundred. Beyond that and benefit becomes more of a notional concept. You'd need to wrap it in something else. Like....nationalism. Or racism. Or religion.

Within that threshold, and you likely wouldn't need to. As people can witness the immediate benefits.

We agree that Marx has a say, but Engels was someone who worked closely with him, and my post specifically addressed the manifesto, which was targeted at specific people at the time, it's not a good introduction to communist thought, just saying.. Well, the end goal of communism/socialism isn't to have everyone in one mega community, it's to allow each community to run themselves through democracy, and it's unrealistic to assume something won't hold them together, the desire to learn, invent, survive.. Capitalism has only been around for a couple of centuries stemming from the revolution in France, I can't take seriously anyone who attempts to formulate that human nature is in line with capitalism, not saying you are, just a general point.

Again, this 'hold together' meme you're hitting like a drum isn't my argument. Personal motivation is. How do you keep people motivated on an individual level......if the benefit of their labor isn't immediate. If you put up a fence around your home, the benefit is immediate. If you raise a communal barn that you'll be using, the benefit is immediate.

If you create a widget that will be shipped to another community to be used in in regulation equipment that will increase efficiency in water distribution.....the benefit isn't so immediate. I think issues of immediate benefit and personal motivation are largely based on the size of a community.

 

[Socialist]

Right.

That Marx said this or that isn't particularly relevant. Marx was wrong about a lot of things. Believing Sweden is going become Cuba because they have a social market economy is pretty silly.

The truth is that all successful Western economies are mixed economies. The only difference is degree.

You're confused. I'm not saying that communism is 'right' because Marx wrote it. I'm saying that Communism is largely defined by the communist manifesto. Which Marx wrote.

Socialism is and was more of a synthesis. There were many, many cooks in that kitchen. It comes in a variety of styles, flavors and system. Most share common characteristics. But it isn't defined by any one 'manifesto' or any one person. So when you discuss socialism with anyone, you have to define terms or at least set some basic ground rules to figure out what version of socialism you're discussing.

Err the communist manifesto was directed at a small specific group of people relevant to the time period, it's not what one should read to determine what communism is or isn't.

I think Marx is a fair source on what Communism is or isn't.

In regards to your posts about collectives breaking down, I disagree, the anarchists in Spain during the revolution existed for 3 years IN A WAR before they were militarily crushed, one could also look to the modern day zapatistas, various collectives worldwide, etc..

My comments weren't necessarily about communes 'breaking down', as how to maintain personal motivation when benefits for your labor aren't immediate. And I can't see immediate benefit lasting beyond a certain size: a few thousand at most. Likely, several hundred. Beyond that and benefit becomes more of a notional concept. You'd need to wrap it in something else. Like....nationalism. Or racism. Or religion.

Within that threshold, and you likely wouldn't need to. As people can witness the immediate benefits.

We agree that Marx has a say, but Engels was someone who worked closely with him, and my post specifically addressed the manifesto, which was targeted at specific people at the time, it's not a good introduction to communist thought, just saying.. Well, the end goal of communism/socialism isn't to have everyone in one mega community, it's to allow each community to run themselves through democracy, and it's unrealistic to assume something won't hold them together, the desire to learn, invent, survive.. Capitalism has only been around for a couple of centuries stemming from the revolution in France, I can't take seriously anyone who attempts to formulate that human nature is in line with capitalism, not saying you are, just a general point.

Again, this 'hold together' meme you're hitting like a drum isn't my argument. Personal motivation is. How do you keep people motivated on an individual level......if the benefit of their labor isn't immediate. If you put up a fence around your home, the benefit is immediate. If you raise a communal barn that you'll be using, the benefit is immediate.

If you create a widget that will be shipped to another community to be used in in regulation equipment that will increase efficiency in water distribution.....the benefit isn't so immediate. I think issues of immediate benefit and personal motivation are largely based on the size of a community.

I thought it was, but I'm tired and it's 7 AM here.. Anyways, I'm pretty sure people would receive the benefit of their labor without alienation or extraction of the value they produce, which occurs in a capitalist system. You assume people won't be inventing things. Throughout history countless people have invented things for the good of others without a motive for profit, I'm pretty sure that communities would be able to figure out common sense things like regulation equipment as useful, while also relying on more immediate benefits. Nothing is perfect though, certainly not Capitalism, or feudalism, or slavery..

 

[dblack]

I'll second Skylar's interest in how collective ownership should be handled. Not necessarily the transition to it, but in an ideal situation. Let's say we were starting fresh. How would we decide how to use resources efficiently if they are owned in common?

Would collective ownership mandate the elimination of the market? I mean, hypothetically speaking couldn't a company be communally owned and still be subject to the market? It may be akin to stock in a company that everyone owned.

Would some be allowed to own more than others? If not, I'm doubt we'd see any benefits of a market mechanism, and if so, how would that be different than today's corporations?

Dunno. Is Alaskan oil owned more by some than others? Its not a perfect analogy as oil is more of a resource than a means of production. But collective ownership and collective distribution of resources works in that context.

That being said, the engine of efficiency in capitalism is competition. Its essentially the primary (perhaps sole?) advantage of the system. And how would you motivate the risk of investment without the possibility of benefit? What would motivate innovation? Collective benefit may be altruistic, but its not a very good personal motivator.

Collective benefit tends to work on smaller scales where the benefit is more immediate. The group say....goes on a hunt, or raises a barn, or repairs a boat. And then the group benefits directly. I don't think you could go much farther than a few thousand before the immediacy of benefit begins to break down. And with it the personal motivation.

Perhaps some hybrid system. Where you could personally benefit from a project of your own design.....but only up to a point. Say, a ratio of the mean wage. Say, 30 times. It would motivate the individual to work harder, spread the wealth among the community, and still allow for the collection of modest fortunes

Or, a more capitalist system with time limits. Steep inheritance taxes, or corporations with human lifespans. The former would be unpopular and the latter chaotic, but it would certainly encourage more of a meritocracy, especially if the taxes collected were put into an outstanding public education system.

I'm just thinking out loud and hypothetically.

At the level of capital investment, ownership is synonymous with control over resource distribution. That's the main problem the stock market addresses. Investment, either via the market or more direct means, is how we currently decide, as a society, which projects are worthwhile and which aren't. I'm wondering how we'd make those decisions without private investment.

Kinda. The Stock Market itself has almost nothing to do with resource distribution. As almost all of the trades upon it don't actually distribute resources or benefit the business that issued the shares in any meaningful way. Stock trading produces nothing, enhances nothing, refines nothing. It provides one and only one product: liquidity. And yet traders syphon off enormous capital in exchange for no useful service. The bonuses for wall street traders alone was more than all minimum wage workers earning for an entire year.

In terms of practical use or efficiency, those resources are just wasted.

Only the initial public offering or the owner that actually executes a commodities contract involve resource distribution. And that happens only once for each share or contract. While the same share or contract may be traded hundreds, if not thousands of times. And produce......nothing. Liquidity. The ability to sell the share faster. A product that is only useful to the very people leeching off value in exchange for nothing.

Worse, there are a comparative handful of people making these decisions. Large investor to large investor trades make up well over 99% of all trades. With well over 95% of all publically traded shares owned by a few thousand hedge funds and investment trusts. We already have a tiny group deciding who is worthy of 'investment'. With the goal of benefit for those in benefit for those 'investments' aimed to stay within the same tiny group.

In terms of a system to distribute resources, its rather top heavy. And overwhelmingly benefits a comparative few. Its also *wildly* unstable. The purer in form, the more unstable it is.

I think you're missing the key function of wealth accumulation and investment in a market economy. Most of us fixate on material comfort as the primary benefit that wealth provides, but beyond an income of $200k/yr or so (roughly the top 5% in the US) additional wealth doesn't add much in the way of comfort and joy. At that level, wealth is primarily an expression of economic power. And the market is how we distribute that power. The market does this by rewarding those who invest in projects that society values - with more wealth, and by penalizing those who invest it foolishly - shifting the wealth to others. In an ideal free market (free of fraud and political graft) wealth is accumulated by those most skilled at investing it according to society's wants and needs.

In a socialist economy, decisions of what to produce and build aren't made privately, by individuals pursuing profit. But they still need to be made. Usually, that means government controls how society's labor and resources are distributed. The core question in the socialism/capitalism debate, in my view, is how we distribute economic power. Do we make economic decisions democratically (1 vote per person), or via a the market (1 vote per dollar)?