Public Ownership of the Means of Production

[Debater Slayer]

Do you support public ownership of the means of production? Why or why not?

For the purpose of this thread, the means of production are essential services, essential utilities, and factories for essential goods. Also, public ownership doesn't necessarily imply state ownership; it could be collective ownership by individual citizens or workers.

To answer the question: I do, but the brand of socialism I support strongly opposes concentration of power in the hands of a one-party state. Instead, I believe public ownership of the means of production should belong to citizens and workers. Furthermore, I believe privately owned means of production should be allowed to exist parallel to publicly owned ones, albeit under sound regulation to reduce exploitation and undue influence of oligarchs.

 

[Revoltingest]

Do you support public ownership of the means of production? Why or why not?

I oppose it.
Every country that has replaced capitalism with
socialism has been a hot mess. You seem to be
addressing "socialism-lite", ie, allowing capitalism
for non-essential goods. But this still puts in place
a central power structure characteristic of full blown
socialism...a recipe for authoritarianism & economic
lethargy.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I oppose it.
Every country that has replaced capitalism with
socialism has been a hot mess. You seem to be
addressing "socialism-lite", ie, allowing capitalism
for non-essential goods. But this still puts in place
a central power structure characteristic of full blown
socialism...a recipe for authoritarianism & economic
lethargy.

I don't see a way for a society to properly innovate and have sufficient independence from state power without the existence of capitalism in some measure. The question is to what extent, which I addressed in the OP.

I suppose you could call it "socialism-lite," but it's the form of socialism I find most realistic considering human nature and its susceptibilty to corruption when given too much power. Conversely, I also find it much more realistic and less prone to corruption than full-blown capitalism.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't see a way for a society to properly innovate and have sufficient independence from state power without the existence of capitalism in some measure. The question is to what extent, which I addressed in the OP.

The extent you propose is greater than just
public utilities. "Essential" goods is a big
area, & one prone to mischievous expansion
when government has such great power.

If I wanted to produce an essential good, eg,
a car, & I did it better & cheaper than the
government, my act would be illegal. Ugh.

I suppose you could call it "socialism-lite," but it's the form of socialism I find most realistic considering human nature and its susceptibilty to corruption when given too much power.

Your proposal just isn't likely to be as bad
as purer socialism, eg, N Korea, USSR.

Conversely, I also find it much more realistic and less prone to corruption than full-blown capitalism.

Nah, it's worse than capitalism. Perhaps you
make the common mistake of believing that
"capitalism" means no regulation.

 

[Debater Slayer]

The extent you propose is greater than just
public utilities. "Essential" goods is a big
area, & one prone to mischievous expansion
when government has such great power.

If I wanted to produce an essential good, eg,
a car, & I did it better & cheaper than the
government, my act would be illegal. Ugh.

It wouldn't be illegal; it would only have to exist parallel to counterparts created by publicly owned facilities. That way, business owners and billionaires couldn't freely gouge prices for essential items and services.

Your proposal just isn't likely to be as bad
as purer socialism, eg, N Korea, USSR.

There's a significant amount of debate on whether the forms implemented in the USSR were "purer socialism." You'll find many socialists strongly opposing those. Even more so for the North Korean variant.

Nah, it's worse than capitalism. Perhaps you
make the common mistake of believing that
"capitalism" means no regulation.

No, capitalism can be regulated, but I don't think that's sufficient, hence the further step of having publicly owned facilities for essential goods.

 

[Revoltingest]

It wouldn't be illegal; it would only have to exist parallel to counterparts created by publicly owned facilities.

That's an improvement.
But government typically hates competition.
For example, our Postal Service makes it
illegal to compete with 1st Class Mail.

That way, business owners and billionaires couldn't freely gouge prices for essential items and services.

Gouging is a problem when there's no competition.
That's best addressed by preventing monopolism.

There's a significant amount of debate on whether the forms implemented in the USSR were "purer socialism."

Note that I used "purer" to indicate relatively
more socialistic than your proposal. Contrast
that with "pure", which I specifically eschewed.

You'll find many socialists strongly opposing those. Even more so for the North Korean variant.

It seems that most self-described "socialists"
oppose socialism, ie, "the people" instead of
individual & aggregated individuals owning
the means of production

No, capitalism can be regulated, but I don't think that's sufficient, hence the further step of having publicly owned facilities for essential goods.

I await examples of where that yields
superior results. Theory is useful, but
it must be validated empirically.

 

[Sirona]

Do you support public ownership of the means of production? Why or why not?

For the purpose of this thread, the means of production are essential services, essential utilities, and factories for essential goods. Also, public ownership doesn't necessarily imply state ownership; it could be collective ownership by individual citizens or workers.

To answer the question: I do, but the brand of socialism I support strongly opposes concentration of power in the hands of a one-party state. Instead, I believe public ownership of the means of production should belong to citizens and workers. Furthermore, I believe privately owned means of production should be allowed to exist parallel to publicly owned ones, albeit under sound regulation to reduce exploitation and undue influence of oligarchs.

In East Germany, this was called "people's property". Since you were "part of the people", you owned pretty much "everything", but not "really", so you had no incentive to take care of it. As a result, especially industrial businesses were running on empty, and those did own something (e.g. a house) had no way of taking care of it (e.g. repairing the façade), because the rents set by the state were far too low. Everything looked grey and run-down, without exaggeration. When our school class was visited by pupils from "West Germany" in 1991, they said that everything "looked like after a war".

The far-reaching ban on private property also led to consequential problems, e.g. severe environmental pollution. This is not an exclusive problem of socialism, of course, but it was in line with the general tendency to economise on substance (even mentioning environmental pollution was forbidden and considered an act against the state).

In addition, there was great stagnation in the scientific-technical field. For example, a certain (very effective and painless) physiotherapy, which I would have needed as a child, was banned because its inventor had fled from the Eastern bloc to the West. If the GDR had continued to exist, I would not have been able to get certain more advanced medicines that I depended on. There also would have been few outdated computers and no internet (or only for the poltical elite). I can hardly imagine the world I saw as "normal" as a child nowadays.

Still, I think it's stupid that predatory capitalism and (real) socialism are always presented as unalterable opposites. Yet there is a compromise that we in Germany call "social market economy". A capitalist economic system with state aid for the disadvantaged who need it.

 

[Soandso]

Seems to work in the case of Winco

 

[Debater Slayer]

In East Germany, this was called "people's property". Since you were "part of the people", you owned pretty much "everything", but not "really", so you had no incentive to take care of it. As a result, especially industrial businesses were running on empty, and those did own something (e.g. a house) had no way of taking care of it (e.g. repairing the façade), because the rents set by the state were far too low. Everything looked grey and run-down, without exaggeration. When our school class was visited by pupils from "West Germany" in 1991, they said that everything "looked like after a war".

The far-reaching ban on private property also led to consequential problems, e.g. severe environmental pollution. This is not an exclusive problem of socialism, but it was in line with the general tendency to economise on substance (even mentioning environmental pollution was forbidden and considered an act against the state).

In addition, there was great stagnation in the scientific-technical field. For example, a certain (very effective and painless) physiotherapy, which I would have needed as a child, was banned because its inventor had fled from the Eastern bloc to the West. If the GDR had continued to exist, I would not have been able to get certain more advanced medicines that I depended on. There also would have been no internet (or only for the polticl elite). I can hardly imagine the world I saw as "normal" as a child nowadays.

Still, I think it's stupid that predatory capitalism and (real) socialism are always presented as unalterable opposites. Yet there is a compromise that we in Germany call "social market economy". A capitalist economic system with state aid for the disadvantaged who need it.

That sounds exactly like the kind of strongly centralized planning I pointed out as being a problem earlier. I wouldn't trust a government to perfectly micromanage an economy, let alone one with a singular ruling party as was the case in the USSR.

 

[Revoltingest]

In East Germany, this was called "people's property". Since you were "part of the people", you owned pretty much "everything", but not "really", so you had no incentive to take care of it. As a result, especially industrial businesses were running on empty, and those did own something (e.g. a house) had no way of taking care of it (e.g. repairing the façade), because the rents set by the state were far too low.

My town tried to enact a rent control ordinance that
would've rolled back rents to below operating costs
for many properties. The law's designers seemed
to not understand how their law would work, nor
the inexorable consequences. Fortunately, the
state saw this looming debacle, & made rent
control illegal state-wide.
This illustrates putting economic power in the hands
of dreamy socialist leaders who know nothing of the
businesses they seek to control.

 

[PureX]

Do you support public ownership of the means of production? Why or why not?

No. I am a socialist, not a communist.

I support mutual control of (the means of production is a silly and outdated phrase) commercial enterprise. With the investors, the laborers, the consumers, and community (environment) all being equally represented.

The big "socialist" boogey-man the capitalists like to throw around endlessly is collective ownership. But that is not what defines socialism. Nor does socialism even need to control ALL commercial activity. Luxury goods and services could still be reasonably produced and controlled via the free market. All socialism demands is that everyone involved in and effected by commercial production have a say in the way it's being carried out.

 

[Debater Slayer]

That's an improvement.
But government typically hates competition.
For example, our Postal Service makes it
illegal to compete with 1st Class Mail.

You could always voice opposition to an overstepping government or even vote it out of office within the framework I proposed.

Gouging is a problem when there's no competition.
That's best addressed by preventing monopolism.

I disagree. When a price-gouging business sets the baseline, competitors don't have to compete with a fair price. They just have to gouge less exorbitantly.

This is visible even at the level of more obtainable goods such as computer graphics cards: the latest offerings from Nvidia and AMD are both blatantly overpriced, but that's because they're just competing with themselves. There's no mechanism to keep prices in check. Those aren't an example of essential goods, where price gouging would be even more troubling and abusive.

Note that I used "purer" to indicate relatively
more socialistic than your proposal. Contrast
that with "pure", which I specifically eschewed.

Even that would be disputed. Many view Stalinism as a fundamentally twisted version of Marxist ideals abused for the purpose of grabbing power and extending authoritarian reach.

It seems that most self-described "socialists"
oppose socialism, ie, "the people" instead of
individual & aggregated individuals owning
the means of production

"The people" are just citizens collectively. That's what I'm referring to here, at least.

I await examples of where that yields
superior results. Theory is useful, but
it must be validated empirically.

I think there are numerous examples of the problems within full-fledged capitalism that a degree of socialism could address.

 

[Debater Slayer]

No. I am a socialist, not a communist.

I support mutual control of (the means of production is a silly and outdated phrase) commercial enterprise. With the investors, the laborers, the consumers, and community (environment) all being equally represented.

The big "socialist" boogey-man the capitalists like to throw around endlessly is collective ownership. But that is not what defines socialism. Nor does socialism even need to control ALL commercial activity. Luxury goods and services could still be reasonably produced and controlled via the free market. All socialism demands is that everyone involved in and effected by commercial production have a say in the way it's being carried out.

I think we're just saying the same thing in different terms. Your last paragraph is basically what I proposed in the OP.

 

[Debater Slayer]

My town tried to enact a rent control ordinance that
would've rolled back rents to below operating costs
for many properties. The law's designers seemed
to not understand how their law would work, nor
the inexorable consequences. Fortunately, the
state saw this looming debacle, & made rent
control illegal state-wide.
This illustrates putting economic power in the hands
of dreamy socialist leaders who know nothing of the
businesses they seek to control.

Conversely, homelessness resulting from rent hikes sometimes happens too. The problem with your state's rent limit seems to me to have been one of poor implementation, not an unsound principle.

 

[PureX]

I think we're just saying the same thing in different terms. Your last paragraph is basically what I proposed in the OP.

But it's very important to clarify that we are not talking about collective ownership, as that implies total control by the government that supposedly represents the social collective. And we can see from the past that this does not work for long or on a larger scale. Which is why the capitalists ALWAYS point to is and call it "socialism" when it is not.

The goal is mutual representation in the endeavor of commercial production. So that everyone effected by the endeavor gets a say in if and how it's carried out. This does not require "ownership" of the said commercial endeavor. And, in fact, probably should not involve collective ownership. All it requires is that the capital investors/owners do not get to make all the decisions unilaterally, and regardless of their effect on everyone else involved in the endeavor, as they do under capitalism.

 

[Revoltingest]

You could always voice opposition to an overstepping government or even vote it out of office within the framework I proposed.

To "voice opposition" is a weak remedy.
We see how this fares socialist regimes,
eg, N Korea, China, Cuba.
It works better in democratic countries.

I disagree. When a price-gouging business sets the baseline, competitors don't have to compete with a fair price. They just have to gouge less exorbitantly.

You don't seem a believer in competition being
able to deliver better prices & products. But
I see that my ability to choose among provides
yields better value than government could offer.
Government, when a sole provider, has no
incentive to improve price or quality.

This is visible even at the level of mpre obtainable goods such as computer graphics cards: the latest offerings from Nvidia and AMD are both blatantly overpriced, but that's because they're just competing with themselves.

I wonder if they really are overpriced?
Or just higher than you'd like?
Why not just buy a cheaper product
from a socialist source?

There's no mechanism to keep prices in check.

Of course there is, ie, competition.
It's just a stochastic process, not a government
imposed strictly determined mechanism.

Even that would be disputed. Many view Stalinism as a fundamentally twisted version of Marxist ideals abused for the purpose of grabbing power and extending authoritarian reach.

A fundamental problem of a command economy is that
power grabbing isn't merely a problem to avoid...it's
a fundamental emergent property, as evidenced every
time a country replaced capitalism with socialism.

"The people" are just citizens collectively. That's what I'm referring to here, at least.

And in every country, there's the emergent property
of their being represented by a government, which
takes on a life of its own, with its own interests, ie,
the interests of those at the helm. Their interests
often don't coincide with the "people".
Again, approach this empirically...how does it play
out in countries?

I think there are numerous examples of the problems within full-fledged capitalism that a degree of socialism could address.

Of course there are problems with capitalism.
There are problems with every economic system.
Regulation simply works better than socialism.
The less socialism, the better.

 

[Soandso]

Of course there are problems with capitalism.
There are problems with every economic system.
Regulation simply works better than socialism.
The less socialism, the better.

Even in terms of healthcare?

 

[Revoltingest]

Conversely, homelessness resulting from rent hikes sometimes happens too.

Liberals automaticaly & blindly lust after rent control
as the singular solution. There are other better means
to mitigate the problem....
- Financial assistance to those in need, funded by taxes.
- Making regulation more useful & less expensive,
eg, zoning, housing codes, building codes.
- Enabling more efficient building, eg, multi-family housing,
small houses, mobile homes. Those things are often
prohibited, thereby making housing spendier.

The problem with your state's rent limit seems to me to have been one of poor implementation, not an unsound principle.

My state has no rent control.
The disaster was proposed by the city, Ann Arbor,
AKA, "The People's Republic Of Ann Arbor".
Our problem is that we have tens of thousands of
university students, many just temporary residents
from out-of-state. Yet they get to vote here on matters
that have consequences that would linger long after
they leave. All they care about is paying less rent
for a few years. To Hell with the permanent locals.

 

[Heyo]

I oppose it.
Every country that has replaced capitalism with
socialism has been a hot mess. You seem to be
addressing "socialism-lite", ie, allowing capitalism
for non-essential goods. But this still puts in place
a central power structure characteristic of full blown
socialism...a recipe for authoritarianism & economic
lethargy.

The extent you propose is greater than just
public utilities. "Essential" goods is a big
area, & one prone to mischievous expansion
when government has such great power.

If I wanted to produce an essential good, eg,
a car, & I did it better & cheaper than the
government, my act would be illegal. Ugh.

Your proposal just isn't likely to be as bad
as purer socialism, eg, N Korea, USSR.

Nah, it's worse than capitalism. Perhaps you
make the common mistake of believing that
"capitalism" means no regulation.

You're fighting a straw man. What you imagine in your irrational fear of socialism is not what @Debater Slayer has proposed.

 

[Revoltingest]

Even in terms of healthcare?

Sure.
But regulation is one of USA's problems.
It's poorly designed, & makes things very
inefficient.
But since health care isn't the "means of production",
I don't object to government providing it.
Just don't make private health care illegal (as Hillary
once proposed). We need a Plan B for when our
government drops the ball...as it is wont to do.
I'd like the right to purchase something over &
above the government minimum service.