Socialist AMA
This post might be a mistake... but what the hell. Since socialism has been getting more attention lately but is generally explained in the media and press by people who are opposed to it, I’m happy to answer any sincere questions people have. I can only speak for myself as socialism is a diverse tradition. I do not view socialism as a series of policies or reforms and I do not view economically nationalized states as socialism. I see it as a popular movement of wage-earners, the majority, to build full social and economic democracy in society. Questions or respectful disagreement are welcome. I’ll probably just ignore disingenuous or trollish posts.
Oh no. This is the less commonly talked about but equally bad form of political correctness. Establish a definition that is more palpable in order to reduce the negative reaction to the original word. I don’t care what you think socialism is. The definition is right here: Noun - a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. If you want to defend it. Defend the common definition of it. Not “your” version. Nice try comrade.
Well I’m sure Mr. Webster is much more of an authority than Marx or Rosa Luxembourg or whoever :D But yup, by that definition the USSR, China, Cuba, and European or Latin American social-democracy are not socialism. I agree with that aside from leaving out the “how” of socialism which is a democratic movement of workers. Socialism in my tradition developed following the French Revolution and was surrounding the question of how to achieve democracy and working class enfranchisement (property owners, not workers could vote) when the French Revolution and 1848 revolutions failed to achieve this. In modern terms, how can we have democracy when the main power and decisions are completely out of the scope of an (already not very) representative government. Capitalist governments limit popular influence by design. In addition, major decisions about our lives have no democratic component of any kind. The major economic decisions that impact our lives are about as democratic as decisions by feudal lords.
Sorry I left out part of the definition. Here is the rest of it (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism. So no, the Webster definition is not in conflict with Marx.
Nothing can be purely capitalist or socialist. A good mix of both models will work wonders. There are some industries where socialist models suits better like security, law & order, transportation (debatable), healthcare (debatable), education (debatable), etc. But some areas are better managed by private sector. Although a booming private sector makes a country rich the quality of lives of the people does not directly correspond to this. Also, private sector should be regulated well which requires a strong government otherwise it will end up being crony capitalism which is what is happening in the Trump administration today.
Agree with most of why you said, but do you have an example of your final statement?
“Also, private sector should be regulated well which requires a strong government otherwise it will end up being crony capitalism” I think you got this almost right. Let me add this. We need a strong (ability to enforce good regulations) yet limited and accountable government. Limited - implies that the scope of regulations should be limited to a set standard (consumer/freemarket-helping/environmental/etc.) Accountable - implies accountability to the people. Not the lobbyists. But I think that’s what you meant. Correct me if I’m wrong.
If you want to look at a failed capitalist model read about private healthcare in India. You would be horrified about the attrocities that these privately run hospitals have done.
Oh please. Don’t conflate free market capitalism with cronyism and corruption. There are many problems in that system that have nothing to do with free market.
Also there’s virtually no competition India as a result of widespread corruption involving private companies and the government. Not a good comparison at all.
This post was cancer as soon as it was posted
Socialism only works when a large segment of society is willing to contribute to support a smaller segment of society. Good examples are Finland, Norway, Sweden, etc. Once the contributing segment of society gets smaller than the leaching segment, you get widespread problems. I think socialism is a temporary socialism that will inevitably lead to a growth in government fueled by the leaching segment of society becoming more and more comfortable with their circumstances.
This is true. Socialism would work if every participant (or at least a good majority) “buy” into it and put the needs of society before themselves. Unfortunately... human nature happens.
“From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.” Hmm I wonder why in this system, people are incentivized to have poor ability and high needs?? 🤔 In such a system, why should I work to my fullest ability? I will do minim required work and claim maximum need to support my exaggerated requirements. Wonder why such a system would fail? 🤔
Why do you think socialism is more fair or more democratic than capitalism? If I'm in a group of 30 people where everyone has $10, but I spend $5 to write a book which I then sell to 15 people in the group for $2 each, I will effectively have more capital (and effectively more influence) than everyone else. But what is unfair about that scenario? Did I steal from anyone? Why do you feel that this scenario needs to be rebalanced back to everyone having $10?
Most socialists don’t understand the concept of “voluntary exchange of goods” and believe that wealth is zero-sum. They can’t see that wealth is created.
I’m not really concerned with fairness. I want people to win more power for themselves and mutual control over the man-made conditions that impact their lives. Capitalism is a barrier to this - destroying the environment for profits and leaving the rest of us to deal with the consequences is a good example. Democratic control of the economy by the actual producers (workers) and society is the best way to balance different needs and wants to achieve equal power as far as I can see. Regarding the example though: If you sell your home-made zine on a street corner, this is artisan production like a shepherd in the Middle Ages who makes some rugs with leftover wool and sells or trades it for things of more or less equal value. Trade for use is pretty universal, capitalism or not. Trade based on profit-accumulation is one of the unique things about capitalism. This only existed on the margins in feudalism (when it happened at all) and was sometimes outright banned. What’s “unfair” about this is that it required armed power and repression to establish and then once established relies on maintaining populations that have to seek work to survive. Historically capitalism removed all the peasants, created vagrancy laws to compel the newly landless to seek employment. If they couldn’t they could be arrested and then forced to work or sent to a colony to make up for their crime of being poor. That’s capitalism as it develops and similar things are happening in China and Africa today, just different methods and details. People claim it’s fair because investors take a risk but first of all, where’s they get that capital? Family if you’re rich or banks if you’re not. Where’d the families and banks get that wealth? In the us it was from cotton and slavery that provided the start-up capital for industry.
"socialism is when the government does stuff, the more stuff it does the more socialismer it is" - carl marks
I don’t think I have to worry about you ignoring trollish posts, because this AMA is one. It’s extremely biased to define socialism through the eyes of someone who was motivated to promote it, and practically dedicated his life theorizing what a socialist utopia would be. Karl Marx’ greatest accomplishment occurred on March 14, 1883. When the working people, or proletariat, completely overthrow a company’s leadership, there is no company. If left in complete control, they’d simply bankrupt the company and stop working there because there was no more money to appear on their paychecks. There is a balance. Even modern union-organized workplaces acknowledge that they don’t want to BE management, they want management to do the “right thing.” (I know, I know...) In a mature, capitalist economy, hourly labor has organized in some, perhaps not all corporations. Free market forces are at work in one direction or another - depending on whether there is a labor shortage or surplus. Take healthcare for example. We know it’s its own part of our economy, so the ACA couldn’t simply outlaw or otherwise cut off customers from all private insurance companies. Health insurance is a PRODUCT. It is packaged and sold to individuals and as group policies to employers. To be profitable it must manage a risk pool. It must also take in more money in premiums than it pays in claims. ACA basically said we’re going to shit in your nice clean risk pool and you’ll still be responsible for staying afloat. Because we’re capitalist, government doesn’t pay outright for medical care of the average working stiff. They can throw you a subsidy, but the premiums are still higher than they were before the legislation. Health Insurance’s job isn’t to give you 100% coverage. It would incentivize policyholders to submit frivolous claims, especially if their employer had a solid disability income plan. It’s a hedge against unexpected medical costs so you can minimize your outlay if you have a health emergency and not wreck your budget plan as badly. Claims are actually disincentivized by copays and deductibles. That being said. The average customer profile of any insurance company, health or auto, home or umbrella policy, is someone who pays a steady premium with years between claims. Perhaps one or two major claims per lifetime. Too many, and you’re dropped. It’s still a business. If you’re too accident-prone, or just plain bad luck, you’re pulling down their good risk and driving up rates. Sorry. This ain’t no soup kitchen, boy.
^this. Well said
Lol, again so socialism can only be explained by people opposed to it? What defect of logic is this? So when a celebrity does an AMA they are illegitimate if they talk about their experience in a movie or show? If a tech exec does an AMA about their experience, it’s illegitimate? And to think that right-wingers in tech complain about lack of diversity of politics! Anyway, should the military, police and prisons be privatized? I mean they killed all those American Indians and sold the land for cheap, what part of free-market theory is that? What part of the free market created the internet? Oh public funds created it and now the “evil anti-market” government hands it over to companies to rule and profit. The free-market arguments are a fairy tale of the last few decades because it treats capitalism like it exists in a bubble outside of society and history. People attribute economic success to “free market” but then when the boom ends they blame “cronyism” or “corruption” or government interference. It’s pretty absurd and a recent development because 40 years ago yall’d be defending kensianism and saying depressions have been solved instead of touting the “free market” since that was keansianism welfare states were the common sense pro-capitalist view back then.
In a free world which does not prevent you from moving anywhere (unlike some socialist countries did) why do you choose to suffer under capitalism instead of moving to a beautiful socialist place?
What place is that? Workers ran things in Spain until the USSR sabotaged it and Franco crushed it. Worker councils ran Russia until 14 other countries sent the military to crush it. They failed but destroyed enough that someone like Stalin could bury it. Worker militias and council ran Paris until the French government and Prussians called a truce to drown the working class quarters in blood. If socialism is so impossible, you’d think governments would make less of an effort to crush or co-opt it every time it emerges.
I hear Venezuela is nice. Though some weaklings prefer Sweden.
Are you more interested in increasing the wealth of the poor or closing the gap between the rich and poor?
I’m interested in working people building political independence as well as winning more control and power at work. One of the effects of that, even within capitalism, would no doubt be a narrowing of inequality and increases in living standards for low-wage employees as well as the jobless. Given the option I think most people would rather not work under the threat of homelessness or have to see human economic misery in their neighborhoods constantly.
But within a heavy socialist system, you're going to have more government regulations, higher taxes, and more government control generally. Those things typically make it harder and more costly for people to start and run businesses. So how would socialism actually give people more control and power at work? What I'm seeing is that it will give them less control and power, and simply shift that power and control to the state. Tell me where I'm going wrong here.