Socialism is GOOD for EVERYONE!

[editec]

In any thread regarding socialism, one critical element must be noted. Capitalism is plagued by imperfect contracting, primarily that of the nature caused by information asymmetries, which have the inevitable tendency to cause adverse selection and moral hazard problems.

So far so good

However, the same is not true for socialism inasmuch as an integral component of socialism is autogestion. (Workers' self-management.)

Here we go..in a few rare cases for period lasting what? months? That might have existed.

But anywhere you see socialism lasting for any period of time, what you see is that the working class is exploited WORSE than in most modern capitalist mixed economies.

Surely you cannot deny that is true, Agna.

This autogestion has the tendency of minimizing principal-agent problems. For instance, if we were to consider the available data on worker-owned enterprises, we might look to the work of researchers Logue and Yates in Cooperatives, Worker-Owned Enterprises, Productivity and the International Labor Organization

My wife actually works for a flat managment cooperative. There are no leaders, there are merely associates who take on responsibility for this task or that department.

They spend an AWFUL lot of time in meetings where issues get hashed out, assignments made and so foth.

So what I am telling you with the benefit of knowing somebody who actually walks the walk that I suspect to you is entirely theoretical talk, is this...

There's many a slip twix cup and workers' paradise's lip, amigo.

A survey of empirical research on productivity in worker-owned enterprises and cooperatives finds a substantial literature that largely supports the proposition that worker-owned enterprises equal or exceed the productivity of conventional enterprises when employee involvement is combined with ownership. The weight of a sparser literature on cooperatives tends toward the same pattern. In addition, employee-owned firms create local employment, anchor jobs in their communities and enrich local social capital.

Hence, we see that capitalism has the tendency to create inefficiencies because of its information asymmetries and more general principal-agent problems. Socialism has the benefit of correcting those issues, and thereby generating efficiency gains.

I know you believe that to be absolutely true, but I think it is probably wildly overstated.

My admiteed limited but Actual experience suggests to me that socialized worker dominated businesses are not very efficient, either.

FWIW, efficiency isn't ALWAYS a good marker of good business, anyway.

Sometimes inefficiencies are just the cost of working in a fair employment situtation.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Since that piece of comedy has nothing to do with socialism it's safe to say any point trying to be made is irrelevant.

I thought about calling it "Economic Justice" but it just didn't have the same ring to it.

Beyond interesting, it's ironic that the NEOCOMS, libs, love to coo about giving to the underprivileged, poor or whatever term makes them feel superior, it has been well documented that conservatives give more in VOLUNTARY charity than they do!

Yet they continue to champion "redistribution of wealth."

 

[dilloduck]

Since that piece of comedy has nothing to do with socialism it's safe to say any point trying to be made is irrelevant.

I thought about calling it "Economic Justice" but it just didn't have the same ring to it.

Beyond interesting, it's ironic that the NEOCOMS, libs, love to coo about giving to the underprivileged, poor or whatever term makes them feel superior, it has been well documented that conservatives give more in VOLUNTARY charity than they do!

Yet they continue to champion "redistribution of wealth."

Could it be that they are greedy bastards ?

 

[Annie]

Faster, Please! » We’re All Fascists Now II: American Tyranny

We’re All Fascists Now II: American Tyranny
Posted By Michael Ledeen On February 14, 2009 @ 12:21 pm In Uncategorized | 20 Comments

Most Americans no longer read Alexis de Tocqueville’s masterpiece, Democracy in America, about which I wrote a book (Tocqueville on American Character; from which most of the following is taken) a few years ago. What a pity! No one understood us so well, no one described our current crisis with such brutal accuracy, as Tocqueville.

The economics of the current expansion of state power in America are, as I said, “fascist,” but the politics are not. We are not witnessing “American Fascism on the march.” Fascism was a war ideology and grew out of the terrible slaughter of the First World War. Fascism hailed the men who fought and prevailed on the battlefield, and wrapped itself in the well-established rhetoric of European nationalism, which does not exist in America and never has. Our liberties are indeed threatened, but by a tyranny of a very different sort.

Most of us imagine the transformation of a free society to a tyrannical state in Hollywood terms, as a melodramatic act of violence like a military coup or an armed insurrection. Tocqueville knows better. He foresees a slow death of freedom. The power of the centralized government will gradually expand, meddling in every area of our lives until, like a lobster in a slowly heated pot, we are cooked without ever realizing what has happened. The ultimate horror of Tocqueville’s vision is that we will welcome it, and even convince ourselves that we control it....

...As Tocqueville grimly predicted, modern totalitarians have thoroughly mastered this lesson. Nazis, Fascists and Communists have passionately preached sermons of equality, and constantly paid formal homage to the sovereignty of the people. Hitler proclaimed himself primus inter pares, the first among equals, while Mao and Stalin claimed their authority in the name of a classless society where everyone would be equal. And, while Communism was brought to power by violent coups or by military conquest, Fascism was not installed by violence. Hitler and Mussolini were popular leaders, their authority was sanctioned by great electoral victories and repeated demonstrations of mass public enthusiasm, and neither of them was ever challenged by a significant percentage of the population. The great Israeli historian Jacob Talmon coined the perfect name for this perversion of the Enlightenment dream, which enslaves all in the name of all: totalitarian democracy.

These extreme cases help us understand Tocqueville’s brilliant warning that equality is not a defense against tyranny, but an open invitation to ambitious and cunning leaders who enlist our support in depriving ourselves of freedom. He summarizes it in two sentences that should be memorized by every American who cherishes freedom:

The…sole condition required in order to succeed in centralizing the supreme power in a democratic community is to love equality, or to get men to believe you love it. Thus the science of despotism, which was once so complex, is simplified, and reduced, as it were, to a single principle.​

As I said last time, we’re in for a hell of a fight. Or so I hope.

 

[Agnapostate]

Here we go..in a few rare cases for period lasting what? months? That might have existed.

But anywhere you see socialism lasting for any period of time, what you see is that the working class is exploited WORSE than in most modern capitalist mixed economies.

Surely you cannot deny that is true, Agna.

Months? This is a microeconomic analysis regarding the efficiency of worker-owned enterprises; I did not even comment on full-fledged socialism. Regardless, I'm not sure what justifies the latter comment about socialism; I certainly can't say that there was widespread exploitation of workers in Aragon and Catalonia during the Spanish Revolution, for instance. I hope this isn't another inappropriate reference to the Soviet Union.

My wife actually works for a flat managment cooperative. There are no leaders, there are merely associates who take on responsibility for this task or that department.

They spend an AWFUL lot of time in meetings where issues get hashed out, assignments made and so foth.

That doesn't surprise me. There's no one-size-fits-all model for a functioning enterprise...except for the fact that there's no one-size-fits-all model for a functioning enterprise, which might be called a model itself. That being said, effective utilization of democratic management techniques will generally yield efficiency gains...and I'm skeptical as to what anecdotal evidence can say to general policy issues.

So what I am telling you with the benefit of knowing somebody who actually walks the walk that I suspect to you is entirely theoretical talk, is this...

It isn't. I've traveled through the Basque region, which is the home of the Mondragon Cooperative Corporation, the largest corporation in the Basque region and the seventh larges in Spain. The MCC, of course, has existed for more than twenty years, and the worker-owned enterprises which preceded its formation as a corporation have existed for more than fifty.

There's many a slip twix cup and workers' paradise's lip, amigo.

Speaking of a "workers' paradise" seems to border on utopianism. Since free market capitalism primarily suffers from utopianism in its advocates' disregard of principal-agent problems and asymmetric information, I wouldn't be especially inclined to embrace a utopian ideal myself. Hence, noting obvious problems with worker-owned enterprises is to commit the perfectionist fallacy if your purpose is to completely discredit them.

I know you believe that to be absolutely true, but I think it is probably wildly overstated.

It's not overstated. As I've mentioned previously, principal-agent problems cannot be minimized in a hierarchical firm with conflicting interests amongst workers, managers, owners, and investors. Capitalists are aware of the resulting difficulties that may occur as a result of this (i.e. shirking), which is why efficiency wages remain one of the most prevalent compensatory mechanisms utilized in the capitalist firm.

My admiteed limited but Actual experience suggests to me that socialized worker dominated businesses are not very efficient, either.

Yes, but your limited experience may be related to an anomaly and cannot effectively analyze the efficiency of worker-owned enterprises in the same manner that Logue and Yates's analysis of ESOP's and parastatals can.

FWIW, efficiency isn't ALWAYS a good marker of good business, anyway.

Sometimes inefficiencies are just the cost of working in a fair employment situtation.

Yes, I'm quite aware of that. I wouldn't have specified efficiency gains as beneficial if they had the deleterious effect of imposing negative social opportunity costs on a disenfranchised population or citizenry. But that doesn't seem to be the case. Consider the abstract again:

A survey of empirical research on productivity in worker-owned enterprises and cooperatives finds a substantial literature that largely supports the proposition that worker-owned enterprises equal or exceed the productivity of conventional enterprises when employee involvement is combined with ownership. The weight of a sparser literature on cooperatives tends toward the same pattern. In addition, employee-owned firms create local employment, anchor jobs in their communities and enrich local social capital.

Hence, workers' self-management is regarded as not only having the effect of equaling or exceeding the productivity of conventional enterprises, they also bring considerable social benefits to the table, placing their value above that of traditional capitalism in that regard.

 

[WhiteLion]

Of course it doesn't. One thing about consistent about you socialist-types, when the ugly truth of socialism is put in front of you in stark reality, y'all go into denial mode so fast you make the Flash look like an arthritic old man.

On thing consistent about you conservative types, you keep on getting your political terms mixed up and attribute words to an idealogy that don't match.

How you feel about things now year and half into Obamas presidency ya dumbass...

 

[Charles_Main]

I see. Redistribution of wealth is one of the core tenets of socialism, and one of the primary reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Union.

So a post about the redistribution of wealth has nothing to do with socialism.

Hmm...that's interesting logic.

The Soviet Union wasn't a socialist state. Hell, it wasn't even a communist state.

There you go again revising history. They most definitely were a communist state, and the Totalitarianism you speak of is and will always be the result of such socialist states. In order to enforce the draconian Taxes and redistribution, the Government enevitably needs TOTAL POWER, and no opposition.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

There's a rich a guy and a poor guy.

The government takes $1,000 from the rich guy and gives it to the poor guy.

Then we ask the question: Does socialism work?

The rich guy says, “Hell no, I just lost a 1,000 bucks!”

The poor guy says, “Hell yeah, I just made a 1,000 bucks!”

A month later the government takes $1,200 from the rich guy and gives it to the poor guy.

Then we ask the question: Does socialism work?

The rich guy says, “Hell no, I just lost 1200 bucks!”

The poor guy says, “Hell yeah, I just made 1200 bucks!”

Now the rich man, feeling gypped and sensing the obvious pattern, packs up his small technology firm and moves it to China. When he gets there, he realizes that he can save 70% off his labor costs, build a state of the art production studio and never pay property taxes (ever), get an instant business tax cut of 98%, and relish in the fact that Uncle Sam no longer has the legal authority to swipe benjamins from his checking account to give to the poor guy.

Then we ask the question: Does socialism work?

The rich guy says, “Hell yeah, ever since the government pushed me out of the States, my profits have increased 10 fold in 2 months!”

The poor guy says, *

So it's clear that socialism does work for EVERYONE. We have the poor man on record attesting to the free money he made. And we have the rich man on record praising the government for helping him transform his small business into a global enterprise. And nobody disputes the record...it's a record of fact.

So I think that pretty much settles it. Socialism helps the poor. AND socialism helps the rich. So it doesn't matter if you're rich or poor, socialism offers a little something to everyone. That's a win-win for everybody. Anyone who doesn't agree, clearly hasn't considered these facts.

So now we're seeing a rapid shift in American political thought. We're starting to see more and more politicians not only embracing this proven political theory of taking more from the rich and giving it to the poor, but even promising to codify it into federal law. Wow. I've never been more proud to be an American! It looks like America is finally moving in the right direction.

*note from the editor: for some reason the poor man was not available for comment regarding the last question. When we called his phone, it was disconnected, and when we drove by his house we found that it had already been foreclosed on. We checked the local park benches and liquor stores, but without any luck. Therefore, our editorial decision was to conclude our study based on the calculated average of his previously recorded comments.

===============


Because I know some of you are reading this for the first time, and I know you're not actually going to read all the replies before you post your opinion, I will quote myself here to save you the time.

The original post was about redistributing wealth. Barack Obama's position on this is VERY clear. So there's no question what his position is (unless you think he's lying about it). The question is whether it will actually work. Concerning that, you can agree or disagree.

What are we calling socialism? Fine, call it whatever you want. Let's call it "economic justice." Does that change the outcome any?

Interesting post but...there's nothing in any part of your post that explains how Obama's plan to redistribute wealth is going to benefit average Americans in the long-term.

Rather than debating the nuances of political theories from a freshman poli-sci class, can anyone explain to me, specifically and in practical terms, how Obama's policy of income redistribution is actually going to help working class people in the long-run?

Despite what anyone believes, I'm actually an independent voter and I would love for someone to make a reasonable and rational defense for his economic policies.

That was the reason I posted this in the first place.

Thank You.

This thread was started in 2008? does anyone see the truth that was stated by the OP?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I see. Redistribution of wealth is one of the core tenets of socialism, and one of the primary reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Union.

So a post about the redistribution of wealth has nothing to do with socialism.

Hmm...that's interesting logic.

The Soviet Union wasn't a socialist state. Hell, it wasn't even a communist state.

There you go again revising history. They most definitely were a communist state, and the Totalitarianism you speak of is and will always be the result of such socialist states. In order to enforce the draconian Taxes and redistribution, the Government enevitably needs TOTAL POWER, and no opposition.

The Soviet Union wasn't a socialist state. Hell, it wasn't even a communist state.

Damn Dr. Grump said that? holy shit! what a moron.

 

[Chris]

Gaze on the horrible result of socialism...

 

[Flagwavrusa]

Not if the welfare guy moves to China.

 

[Twofox]

Yea, let's push both right and leftist radical agendas. The U.S. gov't was setup with LIMITED gov't in mind. Some things it is supposed to do by design. It's worked for 200 years. But wait, no democracy has ever lasted over 200 years, so ours must be due to crumble! First we're a republic, and second, making something fail, then pointing to how it really didn't work is complete BS.

2 other points. Congress has been in Dem control for the last 6 years. Also, Obama added enormously to the deficits Bush created. Blaming bush for what Obama did is a cop out. BOTH PARTIES are equally guilty. Why? Because they are both filled with progressives.

Progressive is a great sounding term, "We're all about progress". But it's just a way to market totalitarianism or something close to it.

 

[Bern80]

Of course it doesn't. One thing about consistent about you socialist-types, when the ugly truth of socialism is put in front of you in stark reality, y'all go into denial mode so fast you make the Flash look like an arthritic old man.

Not at all. There are many better educated than me in the theory and history but the ugly truth is that the moment Lenin put party in the place of primacy whatever was happening in the Soviet Union wasn't socialism. Where it has been properly instituted and I have to say in a perhaps more diluted form than Marx and Engels envisaged, it has worked. Scandinavia for example. Britain after WWII with the Attlee government, for example.

The truth is that socialism will happen but it will be gradually, not through a series of acts of violence but gradually as capitalism begins to fail again but more importantly as humanity around the world realises that the environment can't sustain capitalism and that a less rapacious form of making life comfortable for humans and other animals is not only desirable but necessary.

Something that needs to be defined (other than the term socialism itself) to have a reaonable debate woud be what does it mean to say 'socialism works'. What is 'successfull' socialism? Part of the problem I think is that some seem to think the goal of socialism and the goal of capitilism are the same and so a debate ensues about which system can do it better. They two are not meant to have the same outcome. Socialism is meant to to ensure the security of an economic system and by extension the members in that system. Capitalism is meant to provide unlimited OPPORTUNITY for prosperity. It doesn't gaurantee prosperity. Capitalism requires more effort and accountability on the part of the the individual the, socialsim less so. In simplistic terms it's a debate between security and freedom. Only one of those systems allows both.

You mention socialism happens gradually. Maybe you shoud ask WHY it happens and then explain why it's such a great idea. Also your implied notion that capitlism is about ever increasing expansion is off base too. that is not a requirement for sustained capitalism, nor is it even likely. Greater consumption comes from greater numbers of people and as a people are numbers keep getting bigger. You mention making life comfortable for people. Well that is all socialism can do. Comfortable will have to be determined by some arbitrary arbiter and to put a limit on what people can achieve for themselves is to enslave them