Pathways to socialism.

[dblack]

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

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

As usual, Ed, you have it exactly wrong. The drawback of such a system is that unprofitable companies would NOT go bankrupt.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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

100% stuipid and liberal. The wheel, saw, screw, compuper, nail, electricity, plumbing, oil, etc displaced billions of workers yet unemployment is only 5.5%, exactly what it always was.

So what do we learn about the liberal IQ?

 

[williepete]

A small sampling from Frederic Bastiat's "The Law".
Human nature insures socialism's failure as history has proven.


A Fatal Tendency of Mankind
Self-preservation and self-development are common aspirations among all people. And if everyone enjoyed the unrestricted use of his faculties and the free disposition of the fruits of his labor, social progress would be ceaseless, uninterrupted, and unfailing.

But there is also another tendency that is common among people. When they can, they wish to live and prosper at the expense of others. This is no rash accusation. Nor does it come from a gloomy and uncharitable spirit. The annals of history bear witness to the truth of it: the incessant wars, mass migrations, religious persecutions, universal slavery, dishonesty in commerce, and monopolies. This fatal desire has its origin in the very nature of man — in that primitive, universal, and insuppressible instinct that impels him to satisfy his desires with the least possible pain.

Property and Plunder
Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor; by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources. This process is the origin of property.

But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others. This process is the origin of plunder.

Now since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain — and since labor is pain in itself — it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work. History shows this quite clearly. And under these conditions, neither religion nor morality can stop it.

When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor.

It is evident, then, that the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder instead of to work. All the measures of the law should protect property and punish plunder.

But, generally, the law is made by one man or one class of men. And since law cannot operate without the sanction and support of a dominating force, this force must be entrusted to those who make the laws.

This fact, combined with the fatal tendency that exists in the heart of man to satisfy his wants with the least possible effort, explains the almost universal perversion of the law. Thus it is easy to understand how law, instead of checking injustice, becomes the invincible weapon of injustice. It is easy to understand why the law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people, their personal independence by slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property by plunder. This is done for the benefit of the person who makes the law, and in proportion to the power that he holds.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The O. P. has tweaked Marx,
.

yes liberal killers wont give up on Marx until he has killed 300 million. We are only at 200 million now.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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

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

As usual, Ed, you have it exactly wrong. The drawback of such a system is that unprofitable companies would NOT go bankrupt.

care to explain??

 

[francoHFW]

Except in HaterDupe World USA, socialism is known as ALREADY the policy in the modern world, although in the USA it still panders WAY too much to the greedy idiot rich, and is ALWAYS democratic. Communism died with the USSR. THAT doesn't work duh.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

, socialism is known as ALREADY the policy in the modern world,

actually dear socialism slowly killed 120 million in the 20th century so is the worlds most evil political philosophy so far. Ever think of college??

 

[Iceweasel]

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

Can you give us an example of where that has actually happened? The problem with socialism is people. You can't have it without a concentrated power running it and you can't have concentrated power without corruption.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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

Can you give us an example of where that has actually happened? The problem with socialism is people. You can't have it without a concentrated power running it and you can't have concentrated power without corruption.

yes corruption at the top is a huge problem but so is destroying the incentives for anyone to work at any level.

 

[Iceweasel]

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

Can you give us an example of where that has actually happened? The problem with socialism is people. You can't have it without a concentrated power running it and you can't have concentrated power without corruption.

yes corruption at the top is a huge problem but so is destroying the incentives for anyone to work at any level.

I'm doing it wrong then because I've been busting my ass since '72. If you include my homelife we can go back to about '66.

 

[CultureCitizen]

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

It would protect you ( at least partially ) from healthcare inflation.

 

[CultureCitizen]

The decide whether we spend our time and energy making blue jeans or bombs. It's this decision making power that socialists want brought under the power of government

Ahm... I thought I had made a clear distinction in the OP between socialism and state capitalism.
This is specally true when you have a dictatorship.

 

[CultureCitizen]

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

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

Is the Grameen bank not proffitable ?

 

[Iceweasel]

The decide whether we spend our time and energy making blue jeans or bombs. It's this decision making power that socialists want brought under the power of government

Ahm... I thought I had made a clear distinction in the OP between socialism and state capitalism.
This is specally true when you have a dictatorship.

"State capitalism" is called fascism in the English language. It isn't capitalism at all. How could it be?

 

[williepete]

Still waiting for the OP to answer my question. In his/her society where "Certain mechanisms must be in place in order to ensure true social ownership is ensured...".

What happens to me when I won't comply with the "mechanisms"?

 

[francoHFW]

, socialism is known as ALREADY the policy in the modern world,

actually dear socialism slowly killed 120 million in the 20th century so is the worlds most evil political philosophy so far. Ever think of college??

That's communism, ignorant hater dupe, and I STILL have a Masters in History. You?

 

[CultureCitizen]

Just won't answer the coercion question.

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

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

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

What is the town going to do to Ole Bill?

There are some options :
a) They could buy Ole Bill's competition ( unless, Ole Bill has a monopoly).
b) If it is a public company they could buy shares in the stock market.
c) They could kickstart a new company and ... stop buying from Ole Bill.

 

[Iceweasel]

There are some options :
a) They could buy Ole Bill's competition ( unless, Ole Bill has a monopoly).
b) If it is a public company they could buy shares in the stock market.
c) They could kickstart a new company and ... stop buying from Ole Bill.

a)It won't hurt Bill unless they can do a better job.
b)If Bill owns it they can't buy anything but the goods.
c)New companies startup all the time. Most fail.

Next.

 

[CultureCitizen]

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

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

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

That's the problem when people take a sentence out of context.

"While it can be argued that when the state owns a company it does so having in mind the best interest of the society, it is often the case that the company is used to advance the agenda of a group of people holding office. Certain mechanisms must be in place in order to ensure true social ownership is ensured , like transparency and democracy."

So , the paragraph refers to the situation when the state is the owner of a company as in the case of the US postal service, public schools and universities and utility companies which produce electricity in the US.

In such cases there has to be a mechanism that allows the citizens to evaluate if the SOE is not being used to advance the goals of the manager of the company.

 

[francoHFW]

Socialism has been defined by being democratic since the 30's. "Now we're all socialists!" -Finland PM after O-Care passed....I realize that the definition mess/confusion has been ginned up by Pubs to keep the dupes as ugly American chumps of the greedy idiot rich/corporations. The greedy idiot GOP ones, hater dupes.