5 ms·

Then the issue is with the self-described socialists who don't want socialism. Market based capitalism with wealth distribution and strong social safety nets is

Then the issue is with the self-described socialists who don't want socialism. Market based capitalism with wealth distribution and strong social safety nets is not the same thing as a society in which the means of production are communally owned. In fact, the two are in direct opposition of one another, and cannot coexist. I don't disagree with you that most "socialists" want what is essentially a government modeled on the Nordic states. But its highly problematic for those people to delude themselves into thinking that is socialism. I think it boils down to a bunch of lemmings who essentially want social democracy who don't realize a fraction of their comrades genuinely want to abolish private property and install an authoritarian government. At the very least it makes one doubt how seriously their loud opinion should be taken when those opinions are completely internally inconsistent.

sudosysgen 5y ago
Communal ownership of the means of production is not the definition of socialism. It's merely compatible with the actual definition, which is worker ownership of the means of production. Some socialists, such as Marx, argue that the logical endpoint of socialism is communal ownership of the means of production at some point in the future when the average worker produces more than their need.
- bart_spoon 5y ago
  Worker-owned enterprises are something perfectly achievable now, in the existing free-market societies we currently have. The reason you don't see many is because they still require capital, and the majority people with capital aren't interested in giving it to companies that then give all ownership to the workers. So the issue becomes that for socialist-structured companies to become effective and commonplace extensive government intervention is required. At that point the line between "worker" and "communal" means of production becomes pretty thin. Like a large amount of socialist theory, there is a lot of verbiage and effort devoted to theoretical concepts that, when the rubber meets the road, boil down to irrelevance.
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    I fully disagree. If you were to declare by decree that all companies must be worker owned, you would create a vastly different economic and social structure from if it was actually owned communally, for example, you would have serious differences in income and capital ownership due to market competition, as well as incentives against vertical integration. This is not extensive government intervention, it boils down to a simple change in property ownership laws. Also, loans are fully compatible with worker-owned companies, so you can still have capital transfer. So I disagree very strongly that this "boils down to irrelevance".

sudosysgen 5y ago

Communal ownership of the means of production is not the definition of socialism. It's merely compatible with the actual definition, which is worker ownership of the means of production. Some socialists, such as Marx, argue that the logical endpoint of socialism is communal ownership of the means of production at some point in the future when the average worker produces more than their need.

bart_spoon 5y ago
Worker-owned enterprises are something perfectly achievable now, in the existing free-market societies we currently have. The reason you don't see many is because they still require capital, and the majority people with capital aren't interested in giving it to companies that then give all ownership to the workers. So the issue becomes that for socialist-structured companies to become effective and commonplace extensive government intervention is required. At that point the line between "worker" and "communal" means of production becomes pretty thin. Like a large amount of socialist theory, there is a lot of verbiage and effort devoted to theoretical concepts that, when the rubber meets the road, boil down to irrelevance.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  I fully disagree. If you were to declare by decree that all companies must be worker owned, you would create a vastly different economic and social structure from if it was actually owned communally, for example, you would have serious differences in income and capital ownership due to market competition, as well as incentives against vertical integration. This is not extensive government intervention, it boils down to a simple change in property ownership laws. Also, loans are fully compatible with worker-owned companies, so you can still have capital transfer. So I disagree very strongly that this "boils down to irrelevance".