By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - What is "socialism"? - An attempt to clear up myths/misconceptions

sc94597 said:
Matsku said:

In my opinion capitalism is in some way necessary because people don't want take risks if there is no reward. So if everyone would own everything society wouldn't progress because no one would pay more taxes than others because no one would start up new companies and earn more money. That's why social democratism is the best possible social system.

Who mentioned that everybody would own everything under socialism? Socialism merely is the premise that the workers in associated labor should control the productive capital which they use to perform that labor. People could and would still take planned risks because there are still rewards achieved by reducing the costs of production. It just so happens that you can only profit under socialism by actually reducing costs rather than externalizing them on to others. 

There are also many ways people can be motivated to achieve something without financial profit. 

People might take some risks with existing companies under socialism but they wouldn't make new ones with no chance of reward from their huge risk. That's just human nature.



Around the Network
Matsku said:
sc94597 said:

Who mentioned that everybody would own everything under socialism? Socialism merely is the premise that the workers in associated labor should control the productive capital which they use to perform that labor. People could and would still take planned risks because there are still rewards achieved by reducing the costs of production. It just so happens that you can only profit under socialism by actually reducing costs rather than externalizing them on to others. 

There are also many ways people can be motivated to achieve something without financial profit. 

People might take some risks with existing companies under socialism but they wouldn't make new ones with no chance of reward from their huge risk. That's just human nature.

Why wouldn't people association and dissociate into new worker's cooperatives for a variety of reasons? Competition (and therefore innovation) will still exist under market socialism, it just happens that the rewards are distributed to more people, and therefore more people have stake in reducing costs. Hence you'll still have innovation with the aim to reduce costs of production. There will still be profits in the sense of gains in productivity and wealth over the inputs. 



sc94597 said:
Matsku said:

People might take some risks with existing companies under socialism but they wouldn't make new ones with no chance of reward from their huge risk. That's just human nature.

Why wouldn't people association and dissociate into new worker's cooperatives for a variety of reasons? Competition (and therefore innovation) will still exist under market socialism, it just happens that the rewards are distributed to more people, and therefore more people have stake in reducing costs. Hence you'll still have innovation with the aim to reduce costs of production. There will still be profits in the sense of gains in productivity and wealth over the inputs. 

But the biggest risk would still be by the company's founder an for that people have always wanted and will always want a bigger reward. Also democracy and human rights have almost never worked well with socialism (for example China and the Soviet Union).



sc94597 said:
DonFerrari said:

There is no leveled play field since people have different capabilities... and although everyone likes to paint human as the most evil creatures on the world, you won't find species that take good care of the elderly to the point human does, won't find the level of empathy for the disabled, etc.

Leveled playing field =|= equality in outcome, so I don't know why you're speaking about capabilities. 

I didn't said there would be or intended to be equality in the outcome... it still means the field is not leveled, you'll put arbitration on what is a leveling field but it won't ever be leveled.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

sc94597 said:
Matsku said:

People might take some risks with existing companies under socialism but they wouldn't make new ones with no chance of reward from their huge risk. That's just human nature.

Why wouldn't people association and dissociate into new worker's cooperatives for a variety of reasons? Competition (and therefore innovation) will still exist under market socialism, it just happens that the rewards are distributed to more people, and therefore more people have stake in reducing costs. Hence you'll still have innovation with the aim to reduce costs of production. There will still be profits in the sense of gains in productivity and wealth over the inputs. 

There is nothing preventing the workers to unite and make their cooperatives and whatnot, usually they fail.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
DonFerrari said:
sc94597 said:

Why wouldn't people association and dissociate into new worker's cooperatives for a variety of reasons? Competition (and therefore innovation) will still exist under market socialism, it just happens that the rewards are distributed to more people, and therefore more people have stake in reducing costs. Hence you'll still have innovation with the aim to reduce costs of production. There will still be profits in the sense of gains in productivity and wealth over the inputs. 

There is nothing preventing the workers to unite and make their cooperatives and whatnot, usually they fail.

Yes there is, there's a police force to violently suppress them.



VGPolyglot said:
DonFerrari said:

There is nothing preventing the workers to unite and make their cooperatives and whatnot, usually they fail.

Yes there is, there's a police force to violently suppress them.

I'm yet to see a single police takeover against any cooperative in Brazil, and here being a place people condemn for being corrupt, violent, etc. They fail because they lack the competence to manage a company. Indeed like 90% of the companies in Brazil are very small (less than 10 employees) and they can still exist and do better than the "no owner" philosophy.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DonFerrari said:
sc94597 said:

Why wouldn't people association and dissociate into new worker's cooperatives for a variety of reasons? Competition (and therefore innovation) will still exist under market socialism, it just happens that the rewards are distributed to more people, and therefore more people have stake in reducing costs. Hence you'll still have innovation with the aim to reduce costs of production. There will still be profits in the sense of gains in productivity and wealth over the inputs. 

There is nothing preventing the workers to unite and make their cooperatives and whatnot, usually they fail.

Except you know the lack of capital and large-scale poverty of the workers due to the monopolization of land, high rents, low wages, etc all of which are caused by state violence. Not to mention subsidies and regulatory favors for the large corporations which can afford expensive lawyers and lobbyists. Yeah, besides all of that nothing is preventing the workers from uniting and forming cooperatives that have a chance. 

The areas where cooperatives are most successful are those where monopolization is practically impossible, like farming. Many farmers are unable to get loans and/or insurance from profit-seeking investors and therefore form credit unions and mutual insurance groups. This has been immensely successful for those farmers whom joined. 

Without the state setting the rules of the game, I am quite confident that capitalist privilege would be so undermined that cooperatives would be viable alternatives to wage labor, and the bargaining power of labor would match (if not exceed) that of capital. 

This is not without mentioning that historically cooperation among workers was outlawed and forbidden by many states. 



sc94597 said:
DonFerrari said:

There is nothing preventing the workers to unite and make their cooperatives and whatnot, usually they fail.

Except you know the lack of capital and large-scale poverty of the workers due to the monopolization of land, high rents, low wages, etc all of which are caused by state violence. Not to mention subsidies and regulatory favors for the large corporations which can afford expensive lawyers and lobbyists. Yeah, besides all of that nothing is preventing the workers from uniting and forming cooperatives that have a chance. 

The areas where cooperatives are most successful are those where monopolization is practically impossible, like farming. Many farmers are unable to get loans and/or insurance from profit-seeking investors and therefore form credit unions and mutual insurance groups. This has been immensely successful for those farmers whom joined. 

Without the state setting the rules of the game, I am quite confident that capitalist privilege would be so undermined that cooperatives would be viable alternatives to wage labor, and the bargaining power of labor would match (if not exceed) that of capital. 

Yes those low wages.... those exploitators capitalists that have 5% profit margins of the products are exploring their employees to such indecent degrees.

But I do agree with you that the government favors and conduct monopolies for large corporations. Still a lot of the big companies of today started of without any capital or favor from governments.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Matsku said:
sc94597 said:

Why wouldn't people association and dissociate into new worker's cooperatives for a variety of reasons? Competition (and therefore innovation) will still exist under market socialism, it just happens that the rewards are distributed to more people, and therefore more people have stake in reducing costs. Hence you'll still have innovation with the aim to reduce costs of production. There will still be profits in the sense of gains in productivity and wealth over the inputs. 

But the biggest risk would still be by the company's founder an for that people have always wanted and will always want a bigger reward. Also democracy and human rights have almost never worked well with socialism (for example China and the Soviet Union).

There is no single founder. All of the people are equals in a worker's cooperative. There is no hierarchy, and all risk is shared amongst all persons. The bigger reward is earned by being more productive and innovative, just the same as in our current society. 

 

China and the Soviet Union were marxist-leninist hellholes which never achieved socialism. So I don't know why you'd bring them up. It's as if I cited Pinochet as an example of how capitalism is incompatible with liberty.