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

Capitalism is about Voluntary social transactions that involve mutually beneficial trade.

 

lol. y'all have nothing but gossip and fake news, not argument.

even "little Puerto Rico girls" can do that.

 

Okay, now I'm embarrassed for you.

Meantime, can you do me a favour and stop speaking for the Left? It can actually get worse for us, you know.

 

lol. You only have gossip, not arguments.

we really just need a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, unemployment compensation for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, and Industrial Automation to help with social costs.

 

I'll ask it again (for the umpteenth time): WHO will qualify?

 

usually, legal adults; minors would need to get emancipated.

 

This is why it's doomed you will never get everybody to agree. This is why socialist regimes in the past simply slay dissidents.

When you point to a cult as an example, a cult that can simply expel dissidents into its containing society it's obvious why it won't work on a national scale. You can't expel dissidents into a culture containing the cult because it has dominated the entire culture.

So the socialist directorial elite simply imprison or slay them.

Also cults operate through suppression of information and behavioral, emotional and economic extortion and manipulation.

Seems frightening people would point to dich a sinister artifact and think that is at all positive.

It's not voluntary though. Cults maintain members and gain new members through suppression of information emotional extortion and all sorts of underhanded tactics up to and including brainwashing.

So to say that someone is voluntarily brainwashed and extorted is not really an honest statement.

 

SPECIFICS PLEASE!

I've been earning (for example) $350k per year for the past 20 years, but I've had one too many days off and have just been fired. Do I qualify?

 

You're talking about that weird mutant, 'state socialism'. Nothing to do with real socialism. The voluntary type which I keep reminding you is the ONLY real socialism, and the ONLY one which actually works.

And sorry, but you're wrong about cults. Some are corrupt (forced) sure, but many are not. I live near one which is entirely voluntary, and members are not shielded in any way from the modern world or from information.

 

that's what the discussion is about. It isn't some esoteric version of "real socialism."

 

RE: Socialism is, in the first analysis AND the final analysis, a national economic system that is intended to free the worker of exploitation.

I wonder if the idea in the following scenario could be what is actually happening in capitalism and thereby renders the above sentence moot.

A self employed furniture maker can make 1 table in 8 hours. He has $60 of materials in the table. He sells the table for $220. The furniture maker is making $20 per hour, or $160 per day.

A factory owner offers to pay the furniture maker $25 per hour. The factory owner can purchase the material for 1 table for $40 instead of $60 because of quantity purchases. The factory owner has purchased better equipment/technology than the self-employed furniture maker could afford, so the furniture maker can produce 2 tables every 8 hours instead of 1. The factory owner sells the tables for $190 each instead of $220 which benefits the consumer, the worker made $200 per day instead of $160 which benefits the worker, and the owner made $100 which benefits the owner. The owner will also invest some of that $100 back into the company, and the cycle continues.

I see symbiosis here, not exploitation. I suspect this is pretty much how capitalism typically works.

(Sidenote: Of course, one can argue what "exploitation" means. If one uses the negative connotation, then clearly the worker above is not being exploited. If we use a neutral connotation of "exploitation," then the worker is exploiting the owner just as much as the owner is exploiting the worker. They used each other for their own gain.)

 

Where does it say this thread is specifically about one specific (and very corrupt!) iteration of Socialism?

 

Yes. Simply being unemployed on an at-will basis; is grounds for unemployment compensation due to Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.

Not Labor's problem.

 

Except that, a self-employed furniture maker in the western world is by definition, a craftsman. Craftsmen do NOT sell tables for $220. Had you said $2200, you'd be closer to the reality.

 

Socialism= all large industries, natural resources, factories, schools, hospitals, banks, employers, etc, being collectively run & controlled i.e. by the State.

 

High end, sure. Crank, I respect your position on socialism. Seems you are the only socialist around here who has given deep thought to the system and feels it would sincerely benefit society, rather than simply parroting some sentences from a book/professors. So, I would definitely like your input.

So as not to detract from the idea, how about we change "furniture" to "widgets":

A self employed widget maker can make 1 widget in 8 hours. He has $60 of materials in the widget. He sells the widget for $220. The widget maker is making $20 per hour, or $160 per day.

A factory owner offers to pay the widget maker $25 per hour. The factory owner can purchase the material for 1 widget for $40 instead of $60 because of quantity purchases. The factory owner has purchased better equipment/technology than the self-employed widget maker could afford, so the furniture maker can produce 2 widgets every 8 hours instead of 1. The factory owner sells the widgets for $190 each instead of $220 which benefits the consumer, the worker made $200 per day instead of $160 which benefits the worker, and the owner made $100 which benefits the owner. The owner will also invest some of that $100 back into the company, and the cycle continues.

I see symbiosis here, not exploitation. To use worker exploitation as a reason to have a socialist economy doesn't seem quite right.

 

Nice of you to say so, thanks

But I'm not sure I think it would benefit society generally. More accurately, I prefer to see it as a continuing option for those who think they have what it takes (and it takes a LOT of work and self-sacrifice), and have a preference for collective living. It IS a good alternative for those who don't care for competition in their day to day interactions with the world, or who are eccentric enough to be difficult for all but 'family'. Or even just those who are fed up with the grid, and want to live self-sufficiently on the land.

Modern westerners are in no way fit for collective living, so it will remain an outlier option as long as we remain 'selfish and lazy individualists'. This is the very reason that an imposed socialism will never work here. 90% of us would rail against it, and the whole thing would break down in very short order. The irony is that those who think they want it, would be the very people who would hate it the most. Your average capitalist understands there are no free lunches, and is usually prepared to work with that.

 

You're absolutely right. There is no exploitation, in this scenario. And 'worker exploitation' as impetus for socialism is a joke. Workers in a genuine collective get no say in what work they do, or hours they work. And they don't get paid at all, much less $15 an hour. Again though, they get the initial say in volunteering for the collective in the first place. Not unlike 'volunteering' to apply for a job.

 

We may need to address the meaning of capitalism here as well. Foundationally, its merely the private ownership of resource. Owning your own socks and underwear and deciding how they are used is capitalistic. No one wants to end that... I hope.

 

I really appreciate your explanation of your position. It certainly makes sense. Thank you for the clarification, and again, much respect!

 

Its not about whatever esoteric nonsense you call "real socialism."

 

There is NOTHING esoteric about the sheer hard grind of collective living.

 

It's really a matter of practicalities. Socialism (collectivism, in this case) is a useful tool for the harnessing of group energy for the betterment of the group itself. It's a great option for some, and works very well when everyone is on board with the brutal nature of working for the common good, rather than the self. And I say 'brutal', because to the spoiled westerner, that's how it seems.

It is also the ultimate separator of chaff from grain. You find out very very quickly, who is genuine and who was just looking for a free lunch. That's the only part of the whole thing which I would like to see applied (if such a thing was possible!) to broader society. It's why I like public education so much. What you do with it tells the rest of the collective whether you're entitled to any further largesse.

 

So far you're only confirming your ignorance of the debate. Why, for example, refer to the Soviet Union when referring to the Walrasian Auctioneer (which is a mere means to highlight perfect competition in capitalism)? Why also is there no effort to refer to the Austrian Economists that participated in the debate, given the consequences for socialist political economy? Have you even ever read any of Hayek's output or do you get your analysis straight from McCarthyism 101?

 

Socialism describes an economy.