What does socialism mean to you?

Capitalism produces surplus (profit over and above costs). That surplus is managed in different ways, according to the politics of time and place, and/or the preferences of the individual.

Socialism does not produce surplus, it merely meets costs (self-sufficiency being the only goal). There is no 'profit', there is only sustainability.

 

Even a socialist kibbutz has expenses it must pay and revenue it makes. It cannot continue to exist if if must pay others more than it can produce in revenue.

Revenue less expenses equals profit. Even a kibbutz needs to earn a profit in order to survive.

 

You misunderstand. A collective meets costs, but doesn't produce any meaningful surplus. There is usually only enough to cover the upkeep of non-productive members (the very aged, the children, and the ill). And no one is 'paid'. Members are simply given work, food, and access to housing/land/tools etc. In exactly the same way that members of a family do not get paid for being members, but are expected to pull their weight in exchange for housing/food etc.

 

Yes, a family would probably be the smallest socialism possible, possibly just two people. But this socialism would obviously not be 100% self-sufficient. They would need to purchase things, like TVs, cars, coffee, computers, etc.

So they would need to earn a profit so that they could use that profit to purchase the things that they could not produce themselves, or those things that would be uneconomical for them to do so.

 

Interesting response.

 

I hit the post button before I even wrote anything. I have since fixed it.

 

Sure, but they're still only making enough to cover their costs (whatever any given family's costs are). The family itself is not a business, so doesn't produce a profit independent of the labor value of the members. There also isn't usually enough to fund random external citizens who are not contributing to the collective - ie, Joe Public. Does that make sense?

 

First, I don't know why a family would fund random external citizens. Their responsibility is to themselves. Of course they may use some of their profit to contribute to charity, sure.

As a family would you be happy if at the end of the month your bank account was exactly the same as it was at the beginning of the month? I would think not. You need to make a profit in order to accumulate the wherewithal to cover future (and possibly unanticipated) expenses: busted head gasket, busted water heater, college education, retirement income, etc.

So the goal of the socialism we call the family is to make as much profit as possible in order to lay aside funds in anticipation of future expenses. I don't see how other socialisms wouldn't have the same concerns.

 

Ask your browser.

 

You made it too complex when socialism is much simpler. Socialism appears when the State(even if in the name of the collective) owns all means of production of goods and services and its distribution, as opposed to capitalism, with individual ownership, private property etc.

I think far too many people confuse the Commons with socialism, habitually. Societies, going far back have had this idea that some things are so important as not to be left up to the profit motive of the individual, whether it be infastructure, defense, etc. And then all of the people contribute, generally by being taxed, in providing these things. The same principle is used when we band together, as a group, to fight off invaders instead of some rich people hiring mercenaries to protect their own property, and leaving it up to other rich people to do the same for themselves.

 

I can almost agree with you. The Socialism you describe should be called full-fledged socialism as many peolple here seem to believe there is only one form of socialim: that of Cuba (even though it's no longer pure socialism there) or Venezuela. There are many milder forms of socialism. The minimum hourly wage in the US is already a mild implementation of socialism. The various taxes are another.

 

Sorry, but that's tosh! Minimum wages are a reaction to market failure in capitalism; its about supporting capitalism. Crikey, they're even supported by big business (given its SMEs who typically are effected more)

 

An economic is a trade-off. The study of economics is the study of trade-offs.
You may know more about economics than me, but you don't know the first thing about economics.

 

That makes both of us about as knowlegeable about economics as economists are.

 

Economists are almost as inaccurate as are meteorologists. Only baseball players are worse. If they hit 300, they're happy.

 

Whatever! Is the minimum wage imposed by the govt or not?

 

So government coercion equals socialism? Crikey, that's even more back to front!

Understand socialism and then construct a post. Wait for that moment!

 

Not quite: govt coercion is used in other fields too, e.g. speed limits or immigration (!), but yes, a certain amount of socialism needs govt coercion.

 

No, politics is the art of using deception to get what benifits you. Socialism is the State telling you what benifits you, while they are shoving it down your throat by force.

 

The "government=socialism" cobblers bores me. Imagine my disinterest with the ridiculous idea that "minimum wage=socialism". Teach yourself some basics.

 

Maybe not, but it equals coercion.

 

Don't pretend to be an expert if you can't see that minimum wage is a step (be it a small one) in the direction of socialism.
It gives the worker some protection against excessive capitalistic exploitation.

The "government= socialism" thing is your idea; not mine.

 

I don't need to be an expert. It is a cretinous comment. A minimum wage is a mere correction for market failure in capitalism. That its supported by big business illustrates the folly of your stance.

It can marginally reduce underpayment. Even then, its small fry. There's a reason why the discussion, within capitalism, has shifted to the living wage.

I've tried to be nice to you and interpret your folly. You are of course free to stick with the utterly ridiculous "minimum wage equals socialism". God bless your individualism

 

There is no market failure.

 

What you call my individualism made me state that minimum wage is a protection against excesses of capitalism...! You're useless!