6 ms·

Generally the places we call socialist are state capitalist, meaning the state owns the means of production. The evolution from capitalism isn't to communism,

Generally the places we call socialist are state capitalist, meaning the state owns the means of production. The evolution from capitalism isn't to communism, it would be something new, something different. What we should want is a better system that is more fair to everyone and doesn't by its very purpose destroy the world.

tbihl 10y ago
I'm responding because I hate when people think that down-voting is a signal for disagreement, and because I think half of your second statement can be addressed. State ownership of capital is the definition of socialism. In as much as anyone uses your term 'state capitalist', they use it to refer to the heavy-handed control of markets by government in places like China. As to the departure from capitalism: when you depart from free markets without some seriously strong restraints to prevent further movement, you're always moving toward the same endpoint of non-choice and stagnation, but there are plenty of trajectories to get there. In the US, we enact well-meaning policy to protect our hallowed institutions or to protect the disadvantaged. The resulting distortions in knowledge conveyed by prices create arbitrage opportunities. Organizations/companies that can find and exploit those opportunities can grow powerful, and then they can sink in their talons to further distort and fossilize the market to their advantage. In the middle term, we have a different small group of people who get rich at others' expense, but it's a race to the bottom just like any other. Our confidence in preventing that decline is a finesse, just like in bridge: we're handing over control in the hope that we can both effect an intended change and regain control. That's a good trick for as long as you can keep it up. Having said that, I think it's bizarre to say that any system's purpose is to destroy the world, even if that is the probable end state.
- randomgyatwork 10y ago
  According to Wikipedia: "Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production;"[1] "social ownership" refers to the various forms of ownership for the means of production in socialist economic systems; encompassing public ownership, employee ownership, cooperative ownership, citizen ownership of equity[1] and common ownership.[2] As far as the meaning of socialism, I'd see an evolution of capitalism leading to the employee/cooperative ownership with less government interference. It makes sense that the people doing the work have a say in the company they are a part of. There could be problems, there are always problem with any system. But a fairer situation for all workers seems overall more beneficial to society as a whole. The issues you are describing in the US don't seem to be socialist, they are consequences of capitalism. As a process capitalism focuses on concentration of power, rent-seeking, limitation of competition (through corporate lobby). Basically what we have now is capitalism, there is no perfect ideal capitalism that we would be better with, and should move towards, we've already gone down that path and these are the consequences. This to me is the reason why we should be honestly talking about trying something else, something better. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_ownership https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_ownership
  - DominikR 10y ago
    > "social ownership" refers to the various forms of ownership for the means of production in socialist economic systems; encompassing public ownership, employee ownership, cooperative ownership, citizen ownership of equity[1] and common ownership.[2] In Capitalism you actually have the freedom to share the means of production. Go out there and convince a few people to form a company that is collectively owned. It can be done. So why don't we then see formation of companies with employee ownership or cooperative ownership? Because it is a model that is far less effective in producing goods and services, thus in almost every case someone tried it it failed. (and many did try) The only way this can work is by outlawing private enterprises as we know them today, because if private enterprises were allowed to exist besides these models then they would be guaranteed to crush these alternative organisation forms. We have seen this happen every single time Socialism was implemented. Capitalists economies consistently crushed Socialist economies. Therefore everyone that insists on implementing Socialism has to accept that it will mean that innovation and efficiency will significantly go down as a result, which also means that everyone will get poorer. (if you produce less or at higher costs per unit then this is bound to happen) It also means that other societies that do not implement Socialism will have an advantage and over time we'll fall back in development significantly. And then of course you somehow have to sell your population to accept that the government will take away their private property and redistribute it, if it is any kind of business. So it's kind of a tough sell to anyone that thinks the whole thing through. It is also immoral by the way. You have to steal private property from others and limit their freedoms just so your little collective has a shot at surviving in the market. If it weren't so then you'd have already created the collective, because you could. No one is preventing you from doing it in a Capitalist economy.

tbihl 10y ago

I'm responding because I hate when people think that down-voting is a signal for disagreement, and because I think half of your second statement can be addressed. State ownership of capital is the definition of socialism. In as much as anyone uses your term 'state capitalist', they use it to refer to the heavy-handed control of markets by government in places like China. As to the departure from capitalism: when you depart from free markets without some seriously strong restraints to prevent further movement, you're always moving toward the same endpoint of non-choice and stagnation, but there are plenty of trajectories to get there. In the US, we enact well-meaning policy to protect our hallowed institutions or to protect the disadvantaged. The resulting distortions in knowledge conveyed by prices create arbitrage opportunities. Organizations/companies that can find and exploit those opportunities can grow powerful, and then they can sink in their talons to further distort and fossilize the market to their advantage. In the middle term, we have a different small group of people who get rich at others' expense, but it's a race to the bottom just like any other. Our confidence in preventing that decline is a finesse, just like in bridge: we're handing over control in the hope that we can both effect an intended change and regain control. That's a good trick for as long as you can keep it up. Having said that, I think it's bizarre to say that any system's purpose is to destroy the world, even if that is the probable end state.

randomgyatwork 10y ago
According to Wikipedia: "Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production;"[1] "social ownership" refers to the various forms of ownership for the means of production in socialist economic systems; encompassing public ownership, employee ownership, cooperative ownership, citizen ownership of equity[1] and common ownership.[2] As far as the meaning of socialism, I'd see an evolution of capitalism leading to the employee/cooperative ownership with less government interference. It makes sense that the people doing the work have a say in the company they are a part of. There could be problems, there are always problem with any system. But a fairer situation for all workers seems overall more beneficial to society as a whole. The issues you are describing in the US don't seem to be socialist, they are consequences of capitalism. As a process capitalism focuses on concentration of power, rent-seeking, limitation of competition (through corporate lobby). Basically what we have now is capitalism, there is no perfect ideal capitalism that we would be better with, and should move towards, we've already gone down that path and these are the consequences. This to me is the reason why we should be honestly talking about trying something else, something better. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_ownership https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_ownership
- DominikR 10y ago
  > "social ownership" refers to the various forms of ownership for the means of production in socialist economic systems; encompassing public ownership, employee ownership, cooperative ownership, citizen ownership of equity[1] and common ownership.[2] In Capitalism you actually have the freedom to share the means of production. Go out there and convince a few people to form a company that is collectively owned. It can be done. So why don't we then see formation of companies with employee ownership or cooperative ownership? Because it is a model that is far less effective in producing goods and services, thus in almost every case someone tried it it failed. (and many did try) The only way this can work is by outlawing private enterprises as we know them today, because if private enterprises were allowed to exist besides these models then they would be guaranteed to crush these alternative organisation forms. We have seen this happen every single time Socialism was implemented. Capitalists economies consistently crushed Socialist economies. Therefore everyone that insists on implementing Socialism has to accept that it will mean that innovation and efficiency will significantly go down as a result, which also means that everyone will get poorer. (if you produce less or at higher costs per unit then this is bound to happen) It also means that other societies that do not implement Socialism will have an advantage and over time we'll fall back in development significantly. And then of course you somehow have to sell your population to accept that the government will take away their private property and redistribute it, if it is any kind of business. So it's kind of a tough sell to anyone that thinks the whole thing through. It is also immoral by the way. You have to steal private property from others and limit their freedoms just so your little collective has a shot at surviving in the market. If it weren't so then you'd have already created the collective, because you could. No one is preventing you from doing it in a Capitalist economy.