The End of History: Or will Communism ever make a comeback?

[Valjean]

A personal definition, eh.
Check every dictionary....it's about the people owning
the means of production. Authoritarianism is simply
what happens under socialism...a necessity to prevent
people from free economic association.

But if we get to define things as we want.....

Capitalism:
A system of constitutional democracy that stresses
individual liberties, both social & economic. It allows
regulation to protect people's rights, anti-competitive
conduct, & the environment.

Owning the means of production = the workers owning their own tools, workplace and runnint their business themselves, democratically.

Capitalism generates an owner class. It's stratified, and the workers' jobs, hours, working conditions, wages, &c, are controlled by the owner. When you have owners controlling the business and workers, you have potential authoritarians.

When you have a worker's co-op, who's the authority? It's a democracy.

 

[Revoltingest]

Owning the means of production = the workers owning their own tools, workplace and runnint their business themselves, democratically.

Democracy isn't in the definition of socialism.
Moreover, in practice it's never evenhappened.

Capitalism generates an owner class. It's stratified, and the workers' jobs, hours, working conditions, wages, &c, are controlled by the owner. When you have owners controlling the business and workers, you have potential authoritarians.

Socialism generates a powerful political class.
It too is highly stratified, with this elite in charge
of everything....as history shows.

When you have a worker's co-op, who's the authority? It's a democracy.

Worker's co-ops exist under capitalism. But they
never get very large. This is cuz they don't compete
well with other business structures. And under
socialism, they're all under the thumb (historically)
of the elite central government.

 

[Valjean]

Democracy isn't in the definition of socialism.
Moreover, in practice it's never evenhappened.

Socialism generates a powerful political class.
It too is highly stratified, with this elite in charge
of everything....as history shows.

Social stratification managed by an élite class -- that's the opposite of socialism.
Let me guess: you're equating socialism with China and the USSR....

Worker's co-ops exist under capitalism. But they
never get very large. This is cuz they don't compete
well with other business structures. And under
socialism, they're all under the thumb (historically)
of the elite central government.

They can get large -- if the US doesn't undermine them for economic reasons or as bad examples of democratic values cutting into corporate profits. The US has done this extensively, all over the world.

Co-ops compete fine, when given the chance. Since profits are shared, workers have a stake in the business. Profits go into the business and workers, not to Caiman Island accounts and yachts.
It's capitalists who milk their businesses for cash, and will sell, merger or move operations overseas if there's a quick profits to be made. Capitalism is exploitative, and an economic teeter-totter, plagued with intermittent booms and busts.

Large co-op. Successful, competitive, and democratic:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation

 

[Revoltingest]

Social stratification managed by an élite class -- that's the opposite of socialism.
Let me guess: you're equating socialism with China and the USSR....

You've defined "socialism" as an ideal you'd like to see.
This differs from dictionary definitions, which are just
the people (as a group)owning the means of production.
Imagining democracy, prosperity, liberty, efficiency,
equality, & good governance is your add-on to it.

They can get large -- if the US doesn't undermine them for economic reasons or as bad examples of democratic values cutting into corporate profits. The US has done this extensively, all over the world.

When has the US gone after domestic cooperatives?

Co-ops compete fine, when given the chance. Since profits are shared, workers have a stake in the business. Profits go into the business and workers, not to Caiman Island accounts and yachts.

And yet, coops still remain relatively few & small.
Were they all that great, they'd proliferate.
Old saying about organizations comes to mind....
"All chiefs & no Indians"

It's capitalists who milk their businesses for cash, and will sell, merger or move operations overseas if there's a quick profits to be made. Capitalism is exploitative, and an economic teeter-totter, plagued with intermittent booms and busts.

Socialism is also exploitative. But instead of a private
employer, the worker has "the people" giving the orders.

Large co-op. Successful, competitive, and democratic:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation

Good for them.
This shows the beauty of capitalist organization,
ie, that it allows diversity of structures, with
membership being voluntary, unlike socialism,
which must prohibit free economic association.

 

[Kooky]

We're living in the best of all systems, praise Market!
And soon, we'll experience a global warming surge that will make everything even bester, praise Market!

Whatever bad thing happens is probably because of socialism, praise Market!

 

[Valjean]

You've defined "socialism" as an ideal you'd like to see.
This differs from dictionary definitions, which are just
the people (as a group)owning the means of production.
Imagining democracy, prosperity, liberty, efficiency,
equality, & good governance is your add-on to it.

The socialism I advocate is a mixed economy, not classical, Marxian socialism. Such economies exist, and they work.

I don't see how a socialized commons precludes democracy, prosperity, liberty or efficiency.
Capitalism is not democratic. Socialism is. Capitalism is hierarchical.
Capitalism produces a stratified prosperity, and a large class of less-than-prosperous workers.
Liberty? How is Socialism incompatible with liberty? It's Capitalism that tends to exploit, and to limit options and social mobility.
Efficiency? How do you define it? Capitalism 'efficiently' wrings wealth from society, and concentrates it in the owner/ruler class. Socialism efficiently distributes profits among those who produce the wealth.

When has the US gone after domestic cooperatives?

Thus far, the few co-ops in the US have not threatened the status quo. It's foreign "socialism" that invites US intervention.

And yet, coops still remain relatively few & small.
Were they all that great, they'd proliferate.
Old saying about organizations comes to mind....
"All chiefs & no Indians"

"All chiefs and no Indians," or all Indians and no chiefs?

Socialism is also exploitative. But instead of a private
employer, the worker has "the people" giving the orders.

The worker is "the people," and "the orders" are a democratic agreement involving all affected parties.

Good for them.
This shows the beauty of capitalist organization,
ie, that it allows diversity of structures, with
membership being voluntary, unlike socialism,
which must prohibit free economic association.

Capitalist work is not voluntary. Workers have little say in either their compensation or working conditions. It's take it or leave it -- and leaving it is often not an option.

 

[Brinne]

The innate contradictions and inefficiencies of capitalism will likely be the cause for its downfall. I think it’s pretty hard to say for sure when and what exactly the world looks like after but capitalism isn’t likely to be around forever.

Markets, sure will probably last but neoliberal capitalism as know now — likely not.

 

[Revoltingest]

Capitalism is not democratic.

Neither is socialism as history shows.
Democracy isn't inherent in either system.
It's just more common in Capitalist countries.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Owning the means of production = the workers owning their own tools, workplace and runnint their business themselves, democratically.

Capitalism generates an owner class. It's stratified, and the workers' jobs, hours, working conditions, wages, &c, are controlled by the owner. When you have owners controlling the business and workers, you have potential authoritarians.

When you have a worker's co-op, who's the authority? It's a democracy.

I own my stuff. I paid for it. The government didnt pay for it but acts like it's their stuff though anyways.

I park on my own private lawn, I get a ticket on my windshield.

Who really owns the property?

 

[PureX]

I own my stuff. I paid for it. The government didn't pay for it but acts like it's their stuff though anyways.

I park on my own private lawn, I get a ticket on my windshield.

Who really owns the property?

'Ownership' is just a facade. What matters is control: who has it and how much. And by both reality and necessity our control of pretty much anything is going to be limited. So the question is by whom, by what, and by how much.

You live in and depend on a whole community of people. And they have decided that they should have some control over how you use the land you've been afforded by the facade of 'ownership'; because what you do with it will effect them, too.

 

[Valjean]

Neither is socialism as history shows.

What examples do you have in mind? Sometimes socialism does work.

Democracy isn't inherent in either system.
It's just more common in Capitalist countries.

Here I'm not following at all. Isn't democracy an essential part of a socialized society? It's Capitalism that works most effectively under a centralized monarchy, dictatorship or oligarchic corporatocracy.

 

[Valjean]

I own my stuff. I paid for it. The government didnt pay for it but acts like it's their stuff though anyways.

I park on my own private lawn, I get a ticket on my windshield.

Who really owns the property?

What's this have to do with communism or socialism? I should think in a society with The People in charge, you'd have less of this 'government' overreach.

 

[Twilight Hue]

What's this have to do with communism or socialism? I should think in a society with The People in charge, you'd have less of this 'government' overreach.

Simply put. Communist and socialist nations typically do things like this.

 

[Twilight Hue]

'Ownership' is just a facade. What matters is control: who has it and how much. And by both reality and necessity our control of pretty much anything is going to be limited. So the question is by whom, by what, and by how much.

You live in and depend on a whole community of people. And they have decided that they should have some control over how you use the land you've been afforded by the facade of 'ownership'; because what you do with it will effect them, too.

It's a slippery slope. Someday almost all private property rights will be gone. Wait and see.

 

[PureX]

It's a slippery slope. Someday almost all private property rights will be gone. Wait and see.

That's very unlikely. But the fact that so many of us now live in such close proximity, and that we depend on each other for nearly everything we need to survive, and thrive, we will inevitably have to give up some individual control. We are not autonomous beings, anymore. It's the price we paid for longer life spans, higher birth rates, shorter work days, and all that fun technology. And most people are very happy to have made tat trade.

 

[Valjean]

It's a slippery slope. Someday almost all private property rights will be gone. Wait and see.

It's already gone -- unless you own a church.

If you have to pay a sum of money periodically to retain ownership of something, you're renting it. You can call it property tax or whatever you like, but it conforms to the definition of rent, ergo: it is rent. You're renting your property from the gubmint.

An individual may not legally own real property in the United States.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It's already gone -- unless you own a church.

If you have to pay a sum of money periodically to retain ownership of something, you're renting it. You can call it property tax or whatever you like, but it conforms to the definition of rent, ergo: it is rent. You're renting your property from the gubmint.

An individual may not legally own real property in the United States.

So much for the pursuit of happiness.

Those days I fear are long gone.

 

[Valjean]

So much for the pursuit of happiness.

Those days I fear are long gone.

Why would any of this preclude happiness? Wouldn't socialism make sure everyone had sufficient food, shelter, healthcare, &c, and the means to pursue personal goals, lifestyle changes, and so on? That sounds like a pretty good foundation for pursuit of happiness to me.

 

[Kooky]

Why would any of this preclude happiness? Wouldn't socialism make sure everyone had sufficient food, shelter, healthcare, &c, and the means to pursue personal goals, lifestyle changes, and so on? That sounds like a pretty good foundation for pursuit of happiness to me.

Unless you're a landlord or other kind of rent seeking capitalist, whose sole manner of survival depends on controlling access to scarce resources without adding anything productive to the economy.

 

[Valjean]

Unless you're a landlord or other kind of rent seeking capitalist, whose sole manner of survival depends on controlling access to scarce resources without adding anything productive to the economy.

But would housing be a scarce resource, or would a more socialist society make sure everyone had an affordable home?
The City That's Built An Affordable Housing Paradise