4 ms·

I know this is going to be an unpopular take, but isn't the idea of socialism that you make a unitary democratic government fill the role of Huge Monopoly Found

by r14c 1y ago

I know this is going to be an unpopular take, but isn't the idea of socialism that you make a unitary democratic government fill the role of Huge Monopoly Foundation so you can do stuff like fund research labs and be accountable to the public?

greyw 1y ago
Hardly. Socialism is about workers/communities owning the means of production. Research labs these days are mostly funded by the public. That's just about allocation of government resources.
nine_k 1y ago
It's the statist idea. Socialism in practice usually involves regulating the market heavily, or into oblivion altogether, and giving the State a huge redistribution power. See my comment nearby on why such a setup fails to work. A socialism where the only way to work is to own a part of an enterprise (so no "exploitation"is possible) would likely work much better, and not even require a huge state. It would be rather inflexible though, or mutate back into capitalism as some workers would accumulate larger shares of enterprises.
- r14c 1y ago
  Having some kind of default steward for market developments that get so competitive and fundamental that they reach full market saturation is helpful. Under a market system, at that scale, the need for growth starts to motivate companies to cut corners or squeeze their customer base to keep the numbers going up. You either end up pricing everyone out (fixed supply case) or the profit margins get so slim that only a massive conglomerate can break even (insatiable demand case). This is why making fundamental needs and infrastructure into market commodities doesn't work either. The problem with social democracy is that it still gives capitalists a seat at the table and doesn't address the fundamental issues of empowering market radicalism. Some balance would be nice, but I don't really see that happening.
  - sien 1y ago
    Across the OECD average government spending is 46% of GDP. https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/policy-issues/public-finance-and-budgets.html https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/policy-issues/public-finance-... How is that 'market radicalism' ? How is government spending ~25 trillion USD a year somehow not considered?
    - r14c 1y ago
      "market radicalism" as in, the notion that ~all aspects of life should be subject to market forces. I think markets are good for a lot of things, but competing for basic necessities like food and shelter puts people in a really unhealthy headspace. The green revolution made a lot of our concepts about food scarcity obsolete. A good example of market radicalism at play in the US is the healthcare system. "Everyone knows" that the market is better at allocating resources, but we actually have terrible outcomes and there is no political will to change an obviously broken system. Despite having real-world examples of single-payer (and hybrid) healthcare systems out there that are more cost effective and have better outcomes.
      - nine_k 1y ago
        Because it's really not a market at all. On what market the cost of services to be rendered would be held secret, or at least obscure? Try shopping for a particular kind of surgery across hospitals. How many plans does your employer offer? Would you rather buy a plan independently? Why? The whole "insurance" system is not insurance mostly, but a payment scheme, of a quite bizarre, complicated, and opaque kind. The regulatory forces that gave birth to it are at least as strong as any market forces remaining in the space, and likely stronger. OTOH direct markets are a poor way to distribute goods that have a very inelastic and time-sensitive demand, like firefighting, urgent healthcare, or law enforcement. Real insurance is a better way, and a permanent force sustained by tax money usually demonstrates the best outcomes. The less urgent healthcare is, the better a market works, all the way to fitness clubs which are 100% market-based.
- Apocryphon 1y ago
  Sounds like distributism.
- jandrese 1y ago
  It depends. Socialism is one of the better alternatives for areas where markets function poorly, like healthcare.

by r14c 1y ago

greyw 1y ago

Hardly. Socialism is about workers/communities owning the means of production. Research labs these days are mostly funded by the public. That's just about allocation of government resources.

nine_k 1y ago

It's the statist idea. Socialism in practice usually involves regulating the market heavily, or into oblivion altogether, and giving the State a huge redistribution power. See my comment nearby on why such a setup fails to work. A socialism where the only way to work is to own a part of an enterprise (so no "exploitation"is possible) would likely work much better, and not even require a huge state. It would be rather inflexible though, or mutate back into capitalism as some workers would accumulate larger shares of enterprises.

r14c 1y ago
Having some kind of default steward for market developments that get so competitive and fundamental that they reach full market saturation is helpful. Under a market system, at that scale, the need for growth starts to motivate companies to cut corners or squeeze their customer base to keep the numbers going up. You either end up pricing everyone out (fixed supply case) or the profit margins get so slim that only a massive conglomerate can break even (insatiable demand case). This is why making fundamental needs and infrastructure into market commodities doesn't work either. The problem with social democracy is that it still gives capitalists a seat at the table and doesn't address the fundamental issues of empowering market radicalism. Some balance would be nice, but I don't really see that happening.
- sien 1y ago
  Across the OECD average government spending is 46% of GDP. https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/policy-issues/public-finance-and-budgets.html https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/policy-issues/public-finance-... How is that 'market radicalism' ? How is government spending ~25 trillion USD a year somehow not considered?
  - r14c 1y ago
    "market radicalism" as in, the notion that ~all aspects of life should be subject to market forces. I think markets are good for a lot of things, but competing for basic necessities like food and shelter puts people in a really unhealthy headspace. The green revolution made a lot of our concepts about food scarcity obsolete. A good example of market radicalism at play in the US is the healthcare system. "Everyone knows" that the market is better at allocating resources, but we actually have terrible outcomes and there is no political will to change an obviously broken system. Despite having real-world examples of single-payer (and hybrid) healthcare systems out there that are more cost effective and have better outcomes.
    - nine_k 1y ago
      Because it's really not a market at all. On what market the cost of services to be rendered would be held secret, or at least obscure? Try shopping for a particular kind of surgery across hospitals. How many plans does your employer offer? Would you rather buy a plan independently? Why? The whole "insurance" system is not insurance mostly, but a payment scheme, of a quite bizarre, complicated, and opaque kind. The regulatory forces that gave birth to it are at least as strong as any market forces remaining in the space, and likely stronger. OTOH direct markets are a poor way to distribute goods that have a very inelastic and time-sensitive demand, like firefighting, urgent healthcare, or law enforcement. Real insurance is a better way, and a permanent force sustained by tax money usually demonstrates the best outcomes. The less urgent healthcare is, the better a market works, all the way to fitness clubs which are 100% market-based.
Apocryphon 1y ago
Sounds like distributism.
jandrese 1y ago
It depends. Socialism is one of the better alternatives for areas where markets function poorly, like healthcare.