No, you gave me examples of what you described as Socialism. I addressed your examples, and responded that nothing they were doing was being excluded under the rubric of Capitalism, and furthermore they REQUIRE Capitalism for this to even function. Even if this was an example (which it is not) it would still be a very tiny and regional implementation.
Well of course a system that was designed as a fix to capitalism requires capitalism. You can't fix something that isn't there. Socialism is simply the next step in the evolution of human society.
Weather or not you call it an example of socialism or not (semantics), its the heart of what we are asking for.
Oh it doesn't concentrate power? I feel much better now that I have your assurances. Is that the key, or is that something you just believe? It is a "unique" system that "decentralizes" power by "attaching it to individual workers". Really? How?
That is the entire point. A company isn't owned by a single person but owned by each worker democratically. Each worker has equal say in the runnings of the company and large company elect representatives who are accountable to them. You understand democracy so it shouldn't be much of a stretch to imagine that being extended to the workplace. "Democratic socialism" is just democracy in the economy.
How is it decentralized? What keeps these people operating for the common good and not for self interest?
In a democracy, self-interest and common good are the same thing (assuming you think freedom is good). If the majority of the workers want to take the company in a certain direction, then the desires of the majority represent the common good. Those who don't like it are free to leave and start their own cooperative or pool their votes to form a coalition like a political party within the company.
Does it really make power grabs more difficult? What evidence do you have to support this? I have about 100 years of history showing that it is in fact EXTREMELY VULNERABLE to power grabs.
Well if the system is functioning as intended, a power centralization cannot occur unless people voluntarily give away their power. In that situation a people should be able to take the power back through elections and as long as there are fair elections, functioning democracy can't lead to a power grab. Therefore, for a power grab to occur, it would have to happen outside of the rules of the democratic system. It wouldn't mean that the system created the power grab. This type of power grab can happen in any system and is really just a distraction from the main topic.
You can't have collective resources without TAKING them from people by FORCE under Socialism.
I never mentioned collective resources and am completely against anything authoritarian. There you go again bringing things in from other places that have not been suggested. The soviets had collective resources and took them by force? cool. I'm not interested in a system that was on the opposite side of the political spectrum from what I am suggesting.
The only thing that should be collective is worker ownership over the means of production. We don't need force to give people ownership over themselves and their own time. Giving each individual power over themselves is literally the polar opposite of authoritarianism.
Also are we talking about Socialism or cooperatives here, you seem to be shifting between the two as it serves your argument.
Its because you are using a loose version of the word and I am using a very specific version of the word. When I say socialism I simply mean "worker ownership of the means of the production" or "economic democracy" and a worker cooperative is what a large socialist company looks like. Its really the only difference in the economy. Encouraging worker cooperatives is simply a democratic way to create a socialist economy.
I think your confusion is because we often claim an economy that is structured this way will distribute things more evenly and you interpret that as actively taking resources away from people and redistributing them which is wrong.
So the subsidies and grants you suggested earlier are not forms of hand outs? Could have fooled me. They still have to be paid for by some one, call it whatever you like. Are your suggestions really that difficult to disagree with? So far really you have told me over and over again what you believe, what you feel, and what you imagine Socialism to be, and very little of how you intent to implement this system in reality.
This is why I wish you would read about the examples I have given you. They are completely based on reality. As a scientist, I don't suggest a solution unless it has been tested successfully. The government already gives the handouts in the form of unemployment. Marcora laws simply gave groups of people all of their unemployment money up front to start a cooperative.
For the fourth time, I already reviewed Marcora laws and responded to this suggestion SEVERAL times and refuted your premise of it being an example of a successful implementation of Socialism. Once again you make the arrogant assumption that I just need to read a little bit more to "get it". After all your ideas are quite advanced, progressive, and evolved, they might be very hard for a mere mortal such as myself to grasp. You on the other hand understand completely. Do doctors really have that freedom? I am not so sure. Socialized medical programs have kind of screwed that one up. HOW is it available? Again you jump to a conclusion with zero explanation of the methods to arrive there.
You say that you read them but then you say things like they aren't based on reality which makes it sound like you don't think they actually ever happened. That is why I feel like you didn't really review their outcomes. Please tell me what was unsuccessful about them? I mean, obviously, some cooperatives are going to fail but that was a very small percentage and an economy with innovation has to have some business failure. What is unsuccessful about Mondragon? We must have different definitions of success because I have never seen anyone claim that company is not successful.
Oh it increases the standard of living does it? Based on what data? Oh right, more assumptions. Is it not convenient at every corner everything just works out exactly as you had hoped under this hypothetical system? It is almost as if it is unrealistic and not based the real world.
Its statements like this that make it hard for me to believe your animated post about reading about Macrora laws and Mondragon. Anyone who had read about them, would not think they are fantasy and not based on reality. Are you saying that all of the information about companies like Mondragon is a hoax? just socialist propaganda?
As a scientist, thats not how I operate. I found out about worker cooperatives, Marcora laws, and several examples of how they increased standard of living before ever thinking "maybe this is something we should do". I let the data and reality of what has worked drive my desires.
Calling it "monetary policy" doesn't magically make it not a tax. Furthermore I have more knowledge of monetary policy, economics, and banking in general than the vast majority of the population having spent thousands of hours educating myself on the subjects. You tell me I lack understanding though so it must be true! You just got done telling me that the taxes generated by inflation will cover these expenses. Please, take a basic economics course, then maybe remedial math.
I didn't say anything about creating taxes or inflation. What I said is that the businesses which are created add to the economy by producing things and those things are bought and sold generating more tax revenue. Perhaps the problem is that what I am talking about is not covered in a "basic" economics course because it is a more advanced, modern way of thinking.
It should be easy to understand that it is better to have people creating businesses with the same money they would otherwise just be collecting as unemployment.
I believe you are insinuating that the monetary policy that you support under Socialism is one of printing more money correct? That is called inflation. It is a very basic and simple law of economics no one is disputing (but you of course). If you have a currency, and you print more of it, the buying power of the currency degrades. This results in everything costing more money to buy, and again we are back at square one with the haves and the have nots, only now the currency system is destroyed. This isn't some fringe theory, it is simple math and history that has been demonstrated pretty much since money has existed. Inflation is a tax on the currency holders because it robs the whole of buying power in order to create the new money.
So you see, the resources must still come from somewhere, and that somewhere is the workers. Your premise fails under your own rubric.
Here is the problem. Using logic that has worked since money has existed gets you in trouble when money fundamentally changes. Your understanding of money is outdated. Everything you have learned is still accurate in certain contexts, but it only applies to fixed-value currencies. Of course if all US currency was worth some amount of gold, more money simply divides the value further. This used to be 100% true but we don't have that anymore. That means, your basic understanding of buying power does not apply to US fiat. Once the US dumped the gold standard, we went to a fiat system of currency with no intrinsic value. Printing money isn't robbing gold from anyone because they had no gold in the first place.
The value our currency comes from markets and that market value is based on the ability of the IRS to collect tax and thus the strength of the US economy. The government has to spend money to get it out into the economy so it can be taxed. This doesn't mean that the US can spend money forever without inflation but it does mean that spending which stimulates the economy does not create inflation. The general rule of thumb is that, spending past the level of which we have reached maximum employment and the economy is running at 100% capacity creates inflation.
This is why we have deficits in the first place. You are distracted though because I never said anything about new spending (which could be done) but my suggestions were all fiscally neutral (even though they didn't need to be). I'm simply suggesting we restructure the way we spend the money we already hand out.
Oh just A BIT of force? Oh well, in that case the ends justify the means right? I thought no force was required for Socialism! Oh I see, it is only because evil Capitalism is here, but once that bad ideology is gone the force will be out right? The government doesn't "tell" people what to do, they make laws and enforce them with penalties (ie force). You didn't address my point that it is a violation of the first amendment right to free association.
I mentioned this because it is the way the most successful nations in the history of the world handle labor. Also, just a bit of force is still a lot less than what we have in the US right now under capitalism. Keep in mind that countries like Sweden and Switzerland are among the world leaders in economic freedom despite the "bit of force" in the form of sectoral labor laws. We're talking about the same type of force that keeps people from being free to own slaves. The supreme court ruling you are referring to when you mention right to work and 1st ammendment is Janus v AFSCME. That ruling only applies to public sector unions.
Its only anarchy and true communism where there is no state thus no force. No one is asking for that in today's world.
Yes, all the countless examples of Communism/Marxism/Socialism that resulted in the losses of hundreds of millions of lives in some of the most horrible ways possible don't count because they don't align with your imagination of what Socialism SHOULD BE. What Socialism is is an ideology that starts out with lots of great sounding concepts that have no substance and inevitably result in authoritarianism, because there is no other way for such a system to function long term. You deciding you would like to re-brand Socialism doe not change one iota of what this ideology has resulted in in the past, and nothing you are advocating is different than all the failures before you. Please, tell me some more about your super evolved, humanitarian, progressive ideas I simply just haven't looked into enough to "get it".
As for your holocaust, try Holodomor:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjcO4tcobc0This is the same line of thinking that justifies bigotry.
men who said they were muslim blew something up= islam kills people
men who said they were communist murdered people= communism kills people
priests raped little boys= catholicism rapes little boys
I have no answer for this because I am beyond stumped by how people can overgeneralize this badly. If one (or even many) people who claim to subscribe to an ideology, do bad things that are outside of, (and usually in opposition to) the ideology, those actions in no way represent said ideology.
I cannot wrap my head around how people jump to these sorts of conclusions and this has ended up being entirely responsible for your mental block surrounding socialism. It would be like taking you to Church and the whole time you think I am trying to take you to a meeting about raping little boys. Theres no way I could convince you to come in and listen. Even for a little while.
