I've started this thread to explore the different paths and obstacles that might appear while switching to socialism. But before engaging into any discussion it is necesary to establish a working definition.
"
Socialism is a social and
economic system
characterised by social
ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy."
Here it is important to distinguish "social
ownership" and "state
ownership". While it can be argued that when the state owns a company it does so having in mind the best interest of the society, it is often the case that the company is used to advance the agenda of a group of people holding office. Certain mechanisms must be in place in order to ensure true social ownership is ensured , like transparency and democracy. In any case, when the state has the control of several companies, we might be facing a scenario of state capitalism and not of socialism.
From my viewpoint cooperatives are the closest form of social ownership to date.
Can you think of any other ways to achieve social ownership?
What would be the drawbacks of having a large number of companies organized in such a fashion?
Do you think such arrangement is compatible with the
free market ?
Share your thoughts.
Social ownership and state ownership are synonymous in an economy that is diverse and large. Such concepts can exist within a small community but cannot scale over a large one. there is simply no way of communally owning such resources that are so spread out over millions of 'owners.' There MUST be an entity to dole out those resources and hence the only working model comes into play - communism. Unfortunately, such a system is doomed to abject poverty and failure.
What makes you think that such a move would be beneficial?
I don't think it is ( having an entity to dole out the resources). It just shifts power from the corporations into the state.
While it is not possible to have a "nation wide" healthcare system, I do think it should be possible to have a set of local hospitals working as local cooperatives. Your thoughts on this
option ?
I don't think it is realistic.
You can have somewhat local control over a single business entity but the reality is that the economy has become complex enough that resources that are commonplace are no longer local. For instance - there really are very few places that vehicles are actually produced. How then do you figure out how an individual in California, where no vehicles are produced, gets one? 80 percent of the worlds electronic goods are produced in a single facility in China. How and who decides how we bring those to market in a socialistic society?
That is the core problem with 'local' ownership by the people of the means of production. Everyone owns the car factory in your neighborhood but everyone in the nation needs a car. Are you going to sell those cars then as you would in a capitalist society? How are you going to deal with those in a local district in Tennessee that do not produce anything anyone really wants then? How have you solved any of the problems that capitalism has in that scenario? All you have done is move the problem around a bit.
In the end, a socialistic nation requires an entity that decides where the goods are needed and sends them there. In essence, there is no such thing as the 'people' owning the means of production. It goes right to the government.
You might like a similar thread I started that focuses on the fact that there are not going to be any jobs left after enough automation and robotics kick in. I don't really think that socialism has the answers here though.
The future of capitalism US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
First , thanks for an interesting answer and engaging into actual discussion.
" How then do you figure out how an individual in California, where no vehicles are produced, gets one? "
Same way as today , supply and demand. The market is a usefull tool .
The difference is that the company is owned by the workers ( and maybe) also by the locals. This changes the behavior of both, the "unions" and the company. Unions killing a company by unreasonable wage rises would be stopped on their tracks, moving a factory to another country would probably be a last resource.
"Everyone owns the car factory in your neighborhood but everyone in the nation needs a car. Are you going to sell those cars then as you would in a capitalist society? "
Indeed. If the product is bad the company still goes out of business. I do notice that collective ownership requires a set of people who is more financially educated.
"In essence, there is no such thing as the 'people' owning the means of production. It goes right to the government."
Well , the government has to run some services ( some people have a hard time admiting that ) . But collective ownership seems like an interesting alternative. It both empowers people and gives them more responsibility.
There are several levels of collective ownership:
1) It can be owned by the employees only , as Kantega
2) It can be owned by the "customers" as is the case with the Grameen Bank.
3) It can be owned both by the workers and the locals.
4) It can be owned by all the members of a country ( this would be the extreme case, but a mechanism should be enabled as to halt the actual ownership by the state).
What I am thinking is that by having collective means of production and markets the end result should be more stable allthough some efficiency is lost in the process.
Kantega - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Grameen Bank - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
