What, exactly, is socialism? Again this discussion seems necessary.

You haven't just invented a childish term. You have coupled it with ignorance of your own political system. Take Hillary. Her hawkishness isn't consistent with a left wing nature. Indeed, most Democrats are in the pocket of big business and willingly support neoliberalism.

There's some evidence of change, arguably encouraged by the Democrats allowing reality tv fodder to rise to power. See, for example, success of recent left wing activism in the replacement of democrat conservatives. Let's hope that continues. For far too long Americans haven't really had a choice. They could vote for an idiot right winger or a plastic right winger.

 

just lousy right wing management. Venezuela is a federal republic, like the US. we lucked out, we got FDR.

 

Then you disagree with Marx, the "father" of socialist movements in the world. He said socialism ("the dictatorship of the proletariat") would be an economic system in which the capitalist class ("bourgeoisie") would be replaced by the working class ("proletariat") and that workers would "cast of the chains of capitalist exploitation" by taking control. The state taking control is not socialism. It was a strategy for "getting to socialism". And that strategy has mostly failed. Cuba and Venezuela remain as examples or cases in which the strategy's outcome is still undetermined. Russia and China both failed as they fell into state capitalism which is an economy in which the state or government owns and directs the means of production and the working class comprise the subjects who are directed by the state.

 

Marx would agree that in a socialist society the government owns and operates means of production.

 

No he doesn't. Let's see you quote him from any of his writings. About the closest he comes to that is in the Communist Manifesto where he says:
"The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class;"

But notice the caveat: "i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class;"

If the state is not in actual fact an organization of the proletariat (working class) then it isn't socialism.

Here is the expert. Listen to him from the 2:25 timestamp -

 

Good socialists should learn how to use capitalism for all of its worth.

 

huh? So in your view socialists should find ways to get rich under capitalism? IOW, socialists should just shut up and become capitalists. I guess you don't yet see where capitalism is going.

 

Socialists becoming capitalists, that is the end result of workers owning the means of production, unless you want to change your definition of socialism .

 

The market isn't a condition for capitalism; nor is the firm. Capitalism is 'an economic system in which surplus value is extracted in the production process by using wage labour and utilized in the circulation process to sustain capital accumulation'. A radical change to ownership just delivers market socialism.

 

I actually gave the answer in the OP. But I'll detail it succinctly for you now.

Capitalism consists of private ownership of the means of production for private profit.

Socialism, according to Marx and every socialist in existence, ends such private ownership and profit. Rather, the working class owns the MoP and controls it for the people. So in socialism, private ownership and profiting is banned. Collective ownership and management replaces it and the goal is benefit to the whole society.

Next question?

 

Right, socialism just replaces the capitalist class with the working class as the owners of the MoP , but there is nothing inherent with the working class for us to assume they will be more beneficial to society.

You need to be more specific, do the workers of an individual company own the company and make the management decisions or do the workers collectively own all of the MoP in the entire nation? Advocates of socialism have been rather vague on this point.

 

socialists should also be good at macroeconomics, not just microeconomics.

 

"Just"?? LOL!!!!

Who would the working class exploit? Their families? Their friends? Listen, if you don't understand this any better than that it's ok. You can remain content with your ideas because they won't be a problem.

You need to be more specific, do the workers of an individual company own the company and make the management decisions or do the workers collectively own all of the MoP in the entire nation? Advocates of socialism have been rather vague on this point.[/QUOTE]
Vague? Crisake we have a major and leading example or two beginning with The Mondragon Cooperative Corporation. How more specific do you require? There's plenty of info on the web about it and you could learn plenty.

 

Vague? Crisake we have a major and leading example or two beginning with The Mondragon Cooperative Corporation. How more specific do you require? There's plenty of info on the web about it and you could learn plenty.[/QUOTE]

A worker owned company would have the same incentive to exploit the environment and the consumer as the capitalist owners. A workers income would be dependent on the success of the company. Conceivably, cutting corners on pollution controls and/or product quality would increase workers income being that profits are banned.

Under this type of economic system some workers would see an increase in compensation and other workers would see a decrease in compensation, relative to working for wages, not all enterprises are successful.

If Mondragon is the example then that clears up some of my questions not addressed in the OP.

 

Speculation. What you are warning of hasn't happened, and you show you don't understand this anyway. PRIVATE profits would be banned under full, stable, functioning socialism. But profits are normal for workers' co-ops due to the level of nationwide development, which is low.

How is that any different from how it is now? And this is only related to the vestiges of capitalism that Marx said would remain for a while.

It's an example.

 

Stalin was helping Hitler while the USA was helping Britain.

so my views of socialism are forever spoiled

 

Because of Stalin and Hitler? Don't you realize you are objecting to a strategy and not to socialism? Stalin's strategy failed miserably as did the entire Russian effort. No socialist worthy of the name approves of that history and strategy today.

 

no, they deny it ever occured

 

LOL!!!! Hardly. You're looking in the wrong places. Besides, you were responding to me and my views on it.

 

my russian co-worker denies that the USSR helped Hitler in any significant way

he denies that the USSR turned over German Communists to the Nazis.

he denies that the USSR supported the Nazis in propoganda

 

I find it amusing how right wingers claim anarcho-socialist like George Orwell as one of their own, all because of his colourful depiction of pigs

 

Ok.

 

All governments disseminate propaganda. Mostly it infiltrates the culture and social understanding as "news" and in more subtle ways. So relying on people who grew up and lived subjected to such propaganda but made no personal, independent study of the subject to overcome the traditional propaganda, is to rely on that propaganda. Russians are probably even MORE propagandized than Americans, but maybe not. Maybe we're equals on that score if it could be determined.

The point is to break through the propaganda. And the first step in that process is to stop clinging to our own learned propaganda! We must stop "treasuring" it like it's our sacred American whatever. That doesn't mean reject it with some kind of attitude but no substitute. It means stop clinging. And then with the space for possibilities that results, to begin to learn facts. And let the facts replace the propaganda.

And here is an 11-minute video that is one of the best explanations of socialism, communism, and Marxism I've ever found. It agrees perfectly with my own understanding acquired over half a century. But it is necessary to listen closely. And you'll need to skip over the ad first too. But also notice the distinction made between communist/socialist theory, and communist/socialist social and economic systems. MOST PEOPLE flip back and forth in their conversations between opinions on ideology/theory, and opinions on economic systems, thus confusing the two and they never notice they're doing it!

 

Why do you insist on definitions which you explain with undefinable terms? Neither socialism nor capitalism are about words. They are about government vs. freedom.

 

Is this supposed to make sense? If so, could you try again. If not, thanks for making my point.