About Socialism

Did they make the full value of their labor or did you profit in that your home value went up more than the value of their labor?

 

Is Dirty Donald bailing out the farmers, who he caused to lose their crop income with his idiotic tariffs,with taxpayer dollars of $28 BILLION Socialism????

 

My home value stayed the same until 1 or 2 months ago. Now it is in decline. Home prices are "softening" here. Why? What kind of conniving are you up to? What's your point?

 

Capitalism does not operate under the belief that the business owner assesses value. At the core of capitalism is the belief that value is determined by the agreement to trade. It operates under the premise that value is determined by a seller willing to sell and a buyer willing to buy.

The imposition of value on an individual is not a tenet of capitalism. It is a tenet of socialism. Capitalism does not require that businesses impose value on others. In fact, is it the only system with a built in mechanism to prevent the imposition of value. Under capitalism if a business owner over values a product, this discourages a buyer from buying that product. That creates a great incentive for other businesses to offer that product at a reduced price. It's competition under capitalist premises that has historically most accurately measured value, and equitably distributed goods.

Socialism, on the other hand, attempts to manipulate people's perception of value. It attempts to impose this restructuring of value on the society. This always produces shortages of high value goods, and surpluses of low value goods. It's not socialism that is lifting the globe out of poverty. It's capitalism.

 

Liberty is the individual's authority over and responsibility for them self.
Socialism is freedom from liberty.

 

It would be no different in the case of socialism as it is established and grows.

Ya think? Try going into a job interview and telling the company interviewer that you will only work for $10 more per hour than his offer. His imposition on a value of your labor will make him object and hire someone who will accept his offer of their value.

Try explaining that with an example. Also, try explaining how you "know" this. Or are you ready to admit you're wrong?

 

Not true. Both capitalism and socialism allow specific and limited freedoms.

 

You just steal from those who don't agree with the collective, we've seen it all before...

 

Basic error. The market is neither a necessary or sufficient criteria for capitalism.

 

What we've seen before has all either failed or is still trying to figure out how to "get to socialism." So why don't we all just discuss proposals and possibilities and how to overcome past problems rather than the sort of _____ you posted?

But the right and even others really don't want to explore possibilities and solve these problems because they are afraid of the picture of "socialism" that they have in their head.

 

It fails because it sucks, so why keep trying to duplicate failure? No thanks...

 

You're one, then, who fears the picture of "socialism" in your head. No country has ever fully established socialism, which is a complete departure from capitalism and its private ownership of business for private profit. THEREFORE, no one knows what it looks like and how it will fare.

Also, your view seems to reflect the all too common view that we can choose this or that economic system without recognizing that this system cannot go on much longer.

 

Cuba, the Soviets, North Korea, and a handful of others established it, that's what it looks like and that's what anyone with a brain wants to avoid...

 

No, they didn't establish worker ownership and control of the MoP. They all and each only got as far as implementing strategies to "get them to socialism" as anyone with a brain can see if they're honest.

 

How does one accomplish that? Oh right, you steal it from its lawful owners, and you say this isn't an ideology of theft? Too funny...

 

"Accomplish" what, exactly? Worker ownership and control? What I said and you seem completely unable to grasp is that
S T R A T E G I E S for establishing socialism failed. The newest strategy consists of workers joining to form worker-owned and controlled co-operative corporations, like Mondragon and Arizmendi Bakery and about 600 others already in operation in the US. Do you have a problem with such co-ops?

 

It's not HIS imposition. The imposition comes solely from the market. No business owner/controller would assign an hourly rate which was not in line with market pressures - IOW, a random figure based on the 'feelings' of the business owner.

 

There is no one who doesn't agree with the collective, since all members are volunteers. Hence the use of the word 'voluntarily'.

You're probably referring to politics. I'm not.

 

These are not socialism. They are capitalist enterprises.

 

So why don't they do it now, out perform capitalism and lead the revolution by example? Absolutely nothing is stopping anyone from starting a collective today.

 

The only way you can 'get them to socialism' is if everyone agrees. Then you have to actually practice the socialism. If it doesn't fall down at the first hurdle, it will at the second.

 

We do. All over the world. Anyone who lives or works cooperatively at self-sufficiency level is practising it. And it will 'out perform' capitalism because in a capitalist world (fee for service), only the rich can actually afford to abandon the collective. We are seeing the evidence of this all over the First World, wherein those who are NOT rich have abandoned the collective.

It will never out perform capitalism for social programs and other luxuries, however. But then it's not trying to, since such things are handled in house, by the collective. No one should ever need welfare, or govt housing etc. As long as each member participates in full, the collective provides those basics.

 

.

 

They are doing it. Didn't you notice that I said there are already about 600 such co-ops in the US already? Hello?

And regarding performance, employee-owned businesses have higher productivity, morale, sales and wages, according to analysts. Rutgers University, which has studied the topic extensively, has found that employee ownership boosted company productivity by an average of 4 percent, while profits went up 14 percent.

https://vtdigger.org/2017/05/17/senators-look-take-vermont-worker-owner-effort-nationwide/

If you would like more articles on their performance, I have a bunch. Just ask.

 

Where is this happening beyond fantasy land? It seems there is no need to discuss this issue, just prove your point without interfering in the lives of anyone else...