The One Cause of Poverty That’s Never Considered

[Valjean]

Consider how all things are run.
A power structure always emerges.

Power structure? How about a coördinating or organizing system?

In socialism, there's a government. Individuals can't
own companies. Government runs all. So it has gone
in socialist countries.

In socialism, individuals own the companies; the means of production. They, the worker-owners, make all the decisions, including products, wages, hours, percs, and who will organize or control the various departments.

China, the USSR, N.Korea, Nazi Germany... not socialist; not co-ops.

Fans of socialism say that it will be different when they
do it right (unlike prior attempts), but they're short on
details for an actual structure that would be possible,
stable, & an improvement over capitalist results.

Prior attempts have achieved remarkable results -- till they were undermined by the CIA or corporate powers.

 

[Revoltingest]

Power structure? How about a coördinating or organizing system?

The term for that is "government".
Do you envision something different?
What would it be, & how would it be not "government"?

In socialism, individuals own the companies; the means of production. They, the worker-owners, make all the decisions, including products, wages, hours, percs, and who will organize or control the various departments.

When has it actually functioned that way?

China, the USSR, N.Korea, Nazi Germany... not socialist; not co-ops.

Let's set aside Nazi socialism, which was a hybrid...
You're saying that PRC, USSR, & NK weren't socialist?
Splain, please.

Prior attempts have achieved remarkable results -- till they were undermined by the CIA or corporate powers.

Results were indeed remarkable, eg, greatest mass
starvations, greatest pogroms, greatest deadly purges.

If every single attempt at socialism was quashed by
corporations, is socialism even possible? Perhaps this
existential threat is fundamental to socialism, eh.
So if you ever had your way, & USA became socialist,
Canadian or Mexican corporations would destroy it.

Jokes aside, the economic & social failures NK, PRC,
& USSR weren't due to the CIA or IBM. They operated
with plenty of autonomy, enuf to hang themselves.

 

[Valjean]

The term for that is "government".
Do you envision something different?
What would it be, & how would it be not "government"?

No coercive or authoritarian control.
I envision coördination by workers' committees.

When has it actually functioned that way?

One example is given in my link, then there are the small-scale examples I mentioned.

Let's set aside Nazi socialism, which was a hybrid...
You're saying that PRC, USSR, & NK weren't socialist?
Splain, please.

Calling yourself socialist or a people's republic doesn't make you one. Lipstick on a pig. They were authoritarian police states with exterme wealth and power hierarchies.

Results were indeed remarkable, eg, greatest mass
starvations, greatest pogroms, greatest deadly purges.

Police states.
What about Nicaragua, Catalonia, Chile, &al?

If every single attempt at socialism was quashed by
corporations, is socialism even possible? Perhaps this
existential threat is fundamental to socialism, eh.
So if you ever had your way, & USA became socialist,
Canadian or Mexican corporations would destroy it.

It's possible if the CIA or other monied powers don't undermine it.

Jokes aside, the economic & social failures NK, PRC,
& USSR weren't due to the CIA or IBM. They operated
with plenty of autonomy, enuf to hang themselves.

Yes, but they weren't socialist; not based on democratic co-ops. Not based on democracy at all.

 

[Revoltingest]

No coercive or authoritarian control.
I envision coördination by workers' committees.

If there's no such control, how would the system
prevent individuals from starting companies,
hiring workers, making goods, & selling them?

One example is given in my link, then there are the small-scale examples I mentioned.

We've had this discussion so many times before.
In capitalist systems, workers can & do form cooperatives.
With this right, why is it useful to create a socialist country
that imposes socialism, & bans capitalism?

Calling yourself socialist or a people's republic doesn't make you one. Lipstick on a pig. They were authoritarian police states with exterme wealth and power hierarchies.

It's not that they call themselves this or that.
They're socialist because they replace capitalism
with socialism, ie, the people (government) owns
the means of production.

Police states.
What about Nicaragua, Catalonia, Chile, &al?

This is where I observe that no matter what I
say about socialism vs capitalism, nothing is
ever understood & remembered by socialists.
For the umpteenth time....
The best results under capitalism are superior
to the best results under socialism, which has
a perfect record of every socialist country being
an authoritarian economic disaster.
So the continual citing of some capitalist countries
being bad is a failed counter.

 

[Kathryn]

I believe all systems eventually fail because we live in a world full of flawed people.

 

[Revoltingest]

I believe all systems eventually fail because we live in a world full of flawed people.

Ain't nuthin perfect.
But some systems are more fault tolerant than others.

I once worked in flight controls on the F18.
All planes can crash. All systems can fail.
But we design them to work better, last longer,
& survive the threats thrown at them.

 

[Kathryn]

Ain't nuthin perfect.
But some systems are more fault tolerant than others.

And some systems are more engrained or powerful than others. But they all fail eventually. They implode.

 

[Revoltingest]

And some systems are more engrained or powerful than others. But they all fail eventually. They implode.

It's still useful to select the best system over the worst.
A long & productive life beats a short miserable one.

 

[Kfox]

I said that socialism is social control of the means of production, and that what constitutes "social control" CAN include government control, but only in circumstances where that government can reasonably be said to be representative of the general population. I also specified that there are forms of social control that would not require government.

My question is concerning the forms of social control that do not require government.
*Who funds the initial expense of starting the business?
*Who decides who gets hired?
*Who makes the decisions on how the business is run?
*Who gets left unpaid when the company does not make a profit?

Please be as specific as possible.

 

[Kfox]

This is what I got from the standard definition of socialism.
Best I can get from Marx is that socialism is an idealized version of pluralism.
The socialization of man. Where everyone acts out of love for their fellow man. Where everyone only cares about their actual needs not their false need.

I mean what the hell do you need fancy food for or any luxury items. You need food, a place to stay, education and healthcare. First man was to evolve to the point that he can let go of his excesses and is ruled by compassion.

Kinda reminds me of a Christian friend of mine who said if everybody were to just follow God's laws and love perfectly like Jesus did, all of our problems would be over. Problem is nobody is perfect so any idea requiring perfection is useless when applied to imperfect people.

 

[Kfox]

Since everyone's livelihood depends on it, "good" management decisions would be in everyone's best interest. Not so when all the decisions are being made based on the greed/ego of the capital investor.

Would you mind answering the following questions;

*Who funds the initial expense of starting the business?
*Who decides who gets hired?
*Who makes the decisions on how the business is run?
*Who gets left unpaid when the company does not make a profit?

Please be as specific as possible.

 

[Kfox]

Government is the people. "Owned by the government" might be better put as 'publicly owned'. Socialism is radical democracy.

Government are a few select few people who are supposed to represent the people. It would be absurd to suggest in a country with 300 million people, that all 300 million are a part of the government.

 

[Kfox]

Capitalists don't like labor unions. They fought tooth and nail, even up to the point of committing mass murder, to try to prevent people from forming labor unions. For this reason, one could say that labor unions are "anti-capitalist," and I recall you saying earlier that anything "anti-capitalist" is socialist.

Unions are not Socialist, they are the result of capitalism. Anti Capitalism does not equal socialism.

 

[Stevicus]

This is where I observe that no matter what I
say about socialism vs capitalism, nothing is
ever understood & remembered by socialists.
For the umpteenth time....
The best results under capitalism are superior
to the best results under socialism, which has
a perfect record of every socialist country being
an authoritarian economic disaster.
So the continual citing of some capitalist countries
being bad is a failed counter.

No one has ignored this thing that you've said for the umpteenth time, and no one has ever denied that life in these United States is far more comfortable and luxurious than what it was like in those icky socialist countries. Anyone can see that, and it's very easy to point out.

But the problem is that you're omitting huge swaths of historical fact which would give greater elucidation and elaboration on the causes and effects which led to the results of which you speak.

You're handwaving away centuries of history and making a very superficial argument which has been addressed and countered numerous times.

 

[Stevicus]

Unions are not Socialist, they are the result of capitalism. Anti Capitalism does not equal socialism.

Well, socialism is also the result of capitalism. Unions were formed so that workers could be unified and have greater bargaining power. It could be seen as a more moderate alternative to socialism, and it's true that stronger labor unions and more liberal policies made for a better standard of living and a more productive society.

I would also agree that, in theory, anti-capitalism does not equal socialism, although in practice, it often appears to be interpreted as such.

 

[Revoltingest]

No one has ignored this thing that you've said for the umpteenth time....

And yet, it must be repeated.

....and no one has ever denied that life in these United States is far more comfortable and luxurious than what it was like in those icky socialist countries. Anyone can see that, and it's very easy to point out.

And yet the issue arises regularly,
& socialists deny socialism's failures.

But the problem is that you're omitting huge swaths of historical fact which would give greater elucidation and elaboration on the causes and effects which led to the results of which you speak.

You always cite history of the rise of socialism
as contrary evidence when I argue that capitalism
works better. The problem with your argument
is that it doesn't address how poorly socialism works.

You're handwaving away centuries of history and making a very superficial argument which has been addressed and countered numerous times.

I wave that which is irrelevant.
"Superficial" would even be a compliment to your
argument, which is merely irrelevant to comparing
the usefulness of 2 different systems.

 

[Nakosis]

Capitalists don't like labor unions. They fought tooth and nail, even up to the point of committing mass murder, to try to prevent people from forming labor unions. For this reason, one could say that labor unions are "anti-capitalist," and I recall you saying earlier that anything "anti-capitalist" is socialist.

I think that was part of the political propaganda machine. By identifying labor unions with socialism they were able to demonize them. First you demonize socialism, thanks to Russian and Cuba, then associate anything you don't want in the US with socialism.

Socialism has been associated with so many things, it is hard to know what it means anymore.

 

[Stevicus]

And yet, it must be repeated.

Well, doesn't that say something?

And yet the issue arises regularly,
& socialists deny socialism's failures.

You always cite history of the rise of socialism
as contrary evidence when I argue that capitalism
works better. The problem with your argument
is that it doesn't address how poorly socialism works.

Well, maybe it's because commonly-held perceptions about "socialism's failures" and "how poorly socialism works" may be exaggerated a wee bit?

That's why it's necessary to look at the history of what actually happened, rather than simply make surface-level judgments based in biased perceptions about abstract "systems." I see this as more of a historical issue, but also a human issue. All you want to do is count beans and crow about who has more, and you seem to believe that that settles the argument. That's like Trump going on about how his rockets were bigger than North Korea's rockets. Even if it's true, it doesn't really make any real point.

I wave that which is irrelevant.
"Superficial" would even be a compliment to your
argument, which is merely irrelevant to comparing
the usefulness of 2 different systems.

It's superficial because you seem to want to argue within extremely narrow parameters and put everything into a tight little box, but the human condition can't be explained in such limited terms.

 

[Revoltingest]

Capitalists don't like labor unions.

That's not accurate. Certainly, businesses dislike unions.
But many capitalists aren't businesses or owners, eg, trade unions.
Their role in capitalism is just different, ie, getting what they can
by threatening to muck up the works. It's all part of the system.

 

[Nakosis]

No one has ignored this thing that you've said for the umpteenth time, and no one has ever denied that life in these United States is far more comfortable and luxurious than what it was like in those icky socialist countries. Anyone can see that, and it's very easy to point out.

But the problem is that you're omitting huge swaths of historical fact which would give greater elucidation and elaboration on the causes and effects which led to the results of which you speak.

You're handwaving away centuries of history and making a very superficial argument which has been addressed and countered numerous times.

Hard to say whether or not we would have been better off without the socialist movement. The West use the idea of socialism to demonize some things that weren't necessarily bad or anti-capitalist. Socialism ended up pushing capitalism in a bad direction. Or our political leaders used socialism to push capitalism in a anti-social direction. Marx created a dichotomy that was unnecessary.