The lithmust test for socialism v. capitalism.

[Father Heathen]

Wasn't this anecdotal tale of false equivalency already posted and refuted?

 

[Stevicus]

A few months ago, I listened to this professor on how he can proof that Communism, and socialism will beat Capitalism.
Richard D. Wolff - Wikipedia
I do not have the exact You tube Video where he teaches about the socialist Restaurant which he proposes will be much better than the Capitalist restaurant.
I was shocked to think that a Professor Emeritus of Economics at the University of Massachusetts could say what he did, AND GETS AWAY WITH IT!

In short, he says that it is easy to convert Capitalism to socialism.
Take as example, a restaurant, and let the employees run the company.
Divide them in half, and say on a Friday before businuss, let them discuss the plan for the next week. Let then decide on the wages, expenses, menue, workhours etc. Let them divide the profits amongst the employees. next week it is the other half's turn to rule and he continued with this silly tales of economics.

What a fool.
First of all, a Restaurant is not as difficuilt to start off, and to maintain profitable as would be say a mega company making cars.
It is much more simplistic in its model, therefor it might even be possible to give the professor's students the premises to start their Restaurant.

Soon will they discover that not all the students want to run a restaurant, but would rather sell coffee. They will not agree on the theme and presentation of how the company should look like. Some would want different colors table cloths, others will hate the lights, what will the walls be painted, or will it be draped.

Once they went this far, the "Half" meeting on the first friday will now decide that everyone must go and borrough 2 000 dollars to enable the purchase of the machines, tools, and everything else needed.
This will be just as bad a meeting, because some will realise they will need more money to advertise, and others will say, no we will get our friends and spread the word. No one will agree on anything,
By this time the other half of the students realised they will have to make 2 000 debt and trust this "team" to procure profits to ensure they get their money back.

Then the games begin, and by miracle the company started to operate, and at this stage the investors have to pay back the first months payment on the loan, yet they still did not earn any money. They found many small costs which they never budgeted for, and all this extra expenses will mean that they will only receive their first profits 4 months down the line. One of the team members is in hospital, and
Now the fun starts.

They realise the only way to get some profit through the Restaurant, is to pay the inverstors, who is the workers, lower wages. But this is not so easy, because all of them decide on the dividion of money, and they all decided to rather buy cheaper ingredients for their Burgers and whatever they are selling.

This is where it becomes a de ja veau on what happened in East Germany and Russia in the 70's and 80's, and quality just vanishes, and no more customers.

Now the excuses for their failure results in all the employees withoput a job, in debt, and having no future prospects in the company, and they close down blaming capitalism for charging so much for meat and bread.

This is the actual difference between Socilaism and capitalism.
Ownership!
If you compare this restaurant with the one a few blocks away, the owner and his wife got the idea to sell a unique Burger and fries. They created an immage of family is welcome. They decided on the theme and made the loan!
They had a businuss plan, and knew it will take at least 6 months to be established, and sold their house to support their venture.
They then employed people who they can afford, and those people sold their labour to be employed, even though it would seem a low wage, but they have a secure income, whilst the owner keeps on fighting for survival.
2 years later this company is very lucrative, and the owner opened a second restaurant, aqnd he flies from opening to making a profit.

Do you agree with my observation that the Restaurant is not some organisation enslaving its employees, but it is the property of the owner,

because

HE HAD THE INTELLIGENCE AND DRIVE TO MAKE IT HAPPEN, AND YOU ARE ONLY....
YES....
A WORKER!!!
If you can do better, go and do it, stop blaming successfull people for your shortfalls.

I've noticed that you have a tendency to set up these bizarre scenarios as a way of criticizing socialism and extolling the supposed virtues of capitalism. I've encountered this viewpoint and the line of thinking which drives it many times before, especially during the Cold War when ideological arguments about the glories of capitalism and the perils of communism were much more common.

As for your example, I don't know if a restaurant is a good example. I suppose examples of socialist eateries in the U.S. might be military mess halls or school cafeterias. I often read local articles about public health inspections, and it seems that school cafeterias generally pass with flying colors, whereas their private sector counterparts do poorly by comparison. Restaurants also have a high turnover in employees, and it's also a very fickle market, as a lot of restaurants end up going under, especially when the economy faces a downturn.

I've known of a few local restaurants which had to close because their rents were too high. It wasn't socialists or "big gov" causing their demise, but an example of capitalists preying on capitalists. That's where capitalism will ultimately fail, since capitalists prey on each other as much as they prey on the common people. Thieves and pirates always fall out and get into big fights over booty and other ill-gotten gains. That's inevitable, and that's where they will go ultimately go down.

Frankly, that's how socialists were able to gain whatever power they gained to begin with. If not for capitalists mindlessly fighting each other in WW1, socialists never would have gotten out of the starting gate. That's something you might think about the next time you decide to start a thread about how great capitalism is. When left to its own devices, capitalism is ultimately self-destructive.

 

[Valjean]

There are lots of successful socialist businesses. They're not unusual. They work. I belong to a food co-op myself.
One of Spain's largest industries is a co-op.

 

[bobhikes]

A few months ago, I listened to this professor on how he can proof that Communism, and socialism will beat Capitalism.
Richard D. Wolff - Wikipedia
I do not have the exact You tube Video where he teaches about the socialist Restaurant which he proposes will be much better than the Capitalist restaurant.
I was shocked to think that a Professor Emeritus of Economics at the University of Massachusetts could say what he did, AND GETS AWAY WITH IT!

.

Communism is not Socialism. Socialism has ownership but creates a cap on earnings and diverts excessive profits to socialist ventures(Medical benefits for all, retirement benefits for all...etc)

 

[exchemist]

I've noticed that you have a tendency to set up these bizarre scenarios as a way of criticizing socialism and extolling the supposed virtues of capitalism. I've encountered this viewpoint and the line of thinking which drives it many times before, especially during the Cold War when ideological arguments about the glories of capitalism and the perils of communism were much more common.

As for your example, I don't know if a restaurant is a good example. I suppose examples of socialist eateries in the U.S. might be military mess halls or school cafeterias. I often read local articles about public health inspections, and it seems that school cafeterias generally pass with flying colors, whereas their private sector counterparts do poorly by comparison. Restaurants also have a high turnover in employees, and it's also a very fickle market, as a lot of restaurants end up going under, especially when the economy faces a downturn.

I've known of a few local restaurants which had to close because their rents were too high. It wasn't socialists or "big gov" causing their demise, but an example of capitalists preying on capitalists. That's where capitalism will ultimately fail, since capitalists prey on each other as much as they prey on the common people. Thieves and pirates always fall out and get into big fights over booty and other ill-gotten gains. That's inevitable, and that's where they will go ultimately go down.

Frankly, that's how socialists were able to gain whatever power they gained to begin with. If not for capitalists mindlessly fighting each other in WW1, socialists never would have gotten out of the starting gate. That's something you might think about the next time you decide to start a thread about how great capitalism is. When left to its own devices, capitalism is ultimately self-destructive.

Exactly. The market economies of most industrialised countries employ a blend of highly regulated capitalism with a considerable amount of social provision. This blend is largely the product of the political power of labour, exerted gradually over generations, in a democracy, to modify the basic capitalist mechanism without destroying the incentive to create wealth. The balance point is different in different countries - regulations and social provision are stronger in France and the Scandinavian countries than in the UK or, even more so, the USA - but all are blends.

 

[sun rise]

It is hard to distinguish the difference between a business in a communist country and one in a capitalist country today.
China has very much a hybrid economy running successfully in a command driven society. Vast companies like Huawei are both highly profitable, and highly innovative. and world leaders in their field. At the same time, you have tiny companies that eek out a living from foreign buyers by selling on Ebay. But this change is far from complete, and is far from being spread evenly over the country.

People are people everywhere and they learn to not only survive, but thrive under any system they find themselves in.
I suspect that the Hybrid model being developed in China, will prove to be one of the most successful to have been established anywhere.

Perhaps the world is now so large and complex that only Command systems can cope in terms of long term planning and social provision. in a way that serves a vast majority of the people. However it will inevitably curtail some personal freedoms.

It would be foolish to think it could not be developed in the west out of the hybrid economies of Europe.
the trick will be maximising freedoms while developing the benefits of a command structure.

That's interesting speculation. Certainly China is a mixed economy with both government and private businesses but all must do what the state demands.

 

[Revoltingest]

One country which has been a republic, but seems to be being gradually turned into an absolute monarchy is....the United States!

It's fun for anti-Trumpers to say, but the sky has not fallen as predicted.
Eventually, the hated one will leave office, & things will return to normal.
Or what passes for normal.

 

[exchemist]

It's fun for anti-Trumpers to say, but the sky has not fallen as predicted.
Eventually, the hated one will leave office, & things will return to normal.
Or what passes for normal.

Yes I think it will, so long as Trump does not get a second term, at least. But it has been a very unpleasant eye-opener to see the extent of the president's power to appoint unsuitable people - even members of his own family - and to sack people he finds inconveniently independent-minded, without having to give any reasons and with no legal recourse for the person sacked. The distortion and chilling of the workings of institutions have been quite significant. Trump has tried to rule like Henry VIII and not many have been able to stand up to him. Thankfully, the military have done so - and it looks as if he does not have the Supreme Court in his pocket.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes I think it will, so long as Trump does not get a second term, at least.

Even if he wins a 2nd term, we're still a constitutional republic.
His opposition enjoy claiming that Ameristan is becoming (or has become) fascist.
But their reasons hold no water, ie, they're merely reasons to hate him.

But it has been a very unpleasant eye-opener to see the extent of the president's power to appoint unsuitable people - even members of his own family - and to sack people he finds inconveniently independent-minded, without having to give any reasons and with no legal recourse for the person sacked. The distortion and chilling of the workings of institutions have been quite significant. Trump has tried to rule like Henry VIII and not many have been able to stand up to him. Thankfully, the military have done so - and it looks as if he does not have the Supreme Court in his pocket.

Other Presidents had the same power.
And some, like Clinton, used it to pursue oppression, eg, curbing free
speech, limiting the right to a jury trial. But we didn't see much criticism
from his fans. Not much objective analysis in criticizing one President
relative to another, eh.

 

[exchemist]

Even if he wins a 2nd term, we're still a constitutional republic.
His opposition enjoy claiming that Ameristan is becoming (or has become) fascist.
But their reasons hold no water, ie, they're merely reasons to hate him.

Other Presidents had the same power.
And some, like Clinton, used it to pursue oppression, eg, curbing free
speech, limiting the right to a jury trial. We don't see much objective
analysis in criticizing one President relative to another.

No, that I do not buy. Trump is in a different league entirely. You have to be blind not to see it.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, that I do not buy. Trump is in a different league entirely. You have to be blind not to see it.

"You have to be blind to not see" that our system is not Trump.
While he is certainly a novel leader, he is not permanent.
And I notice that you didn't acknowledge fascist-like acts by
prior Presidents. We survived those. We'll survive Trump.

 

[exchemist]

"You have to be blind to not see" that our system is not Trump.
While he is certainly a novel leader, he is not permanent.
And I notice that you didn't acknowledge fascist-like acts by
prior Presidents. We survived those. We'll survive Trump.

Nobody is saying your system is Trump.

 

[Revoltingest]

Nobody is saying your system is Trump.

Au contraire, when they speak of his becoming a dictator or a monarch,
thereby making us fascist, that would necessarily be his dispensing with
our system, taking total control, & becoming the system.

 

[metis]

A few months ago, I listened to this professor on how he can proof that Communism, and socialism will beat Capitalism.
Richard D. Wolff - Wikipedia
I do not have the exact You tube Video where he teaches about the socialist Restaurant which he proposes will be much better than the Capitalist restaurant.
I was shocked to think that a Professor Emeritus of Economics at the University of Massachusetts could say what he did, AND GETS AWAY WITH IT!

In short, he says that it is easy to convert Capitalism to socialism.
Take as example, a restaurant, and let the employees run the company.
Divide them in half, and say on a Friday before businuss, let them discuss the plan for the next week. Let then decide on the wages, expenses, menue, workhours etc. Let them divide the profits amongst the employees. next week it is the other half's turn to rule and he continued with this silly tales of economics.

What a fool.
First of all, a Restaurant is not as difficuilt to start off, and to maintain profitable as would be say a mega company making cars.
It is much more simplistic in its model, therefor it might even be possible to give the professor's students the premises to start their Restaurant.

Soon will they discover that not all the students want to run a restaurant, but would rather sell coffee. They will not agree on the theme and presentation of how the company should look like. Some would want different colors table cloths, others will hate the lights, what will the walls be painted, or will it be draped.

Once they went this far, the "Half" meeting on the first friday will now decide that everyone must go and borrough 2 000 dollars to enable the purchase of the machines, tools, and everything else needed.
This will be just as bad a meeting, because some will realise they will need more money to advertise, and others will say, no we will get our friends and spread the word. No one will agree on anything,
By this time the other half of the students realised they will have to make 2 000 debt and trust this "team" to procure profits to ensure they get their money back.

Then the games begin, and by miracle the company started to operate, and at this stage the investors have to pay back the first months payment on the loan, yet they still did not earn any money. They found many small costs which they never budgeted for, and all this extra expenses will mean that they will only receive their first profits 4 months down the line. One of the team members is in hospital, and
Now the fun starts.

They realise the only way to get some profit through the Restaurant, is to pay the inverstors, who is the workers, lower wages. But this is not so easy, because all of them decide on the dividion of money, and they all decided to rather buy cheaper ingredients for their Burgers and whatever they are selling.

This is where it becomes a de ja veau on what happened in East Germany and Russia in the 70's and 80's, and quality just vanishes, and no more customers.

Now the excuses for their failure results in all the employees withoput a job, in debt, and having no future prospects in the company, and they close down blaming capitalism for charging so much for meat and bread.

This is the actual difference between Socilaism and capitalism.
Ownership!
If you compare this restaurant with the one a few blocks away, the owner and his wife got the idea to sell a unique Burger and fries. They created an immage of family is welcome. They decided on the theme and made the loan!
They had a businuss plan, and knew it will take at least 6 months to be established, and sold their house to support their venture.
They then employed people who they can afford, and those people sold their labour to be employed, even though it would seem a low wage, but they have a secure income, whilst the owner keeps on fighting for survival.
2 years later this company is very lucrative, and the owner opened a second restaurant, aqnd he flies from opening to making a profit.

Do you agree with my observation that the Restaurant is not some organisation enslaving its employees, but it is the property of the owner,

because

HE HAD THE INTELLIGENCE AND DRIVE TO MAKE IT HAPPEN, AND YOU ARE ONLY....
YES....
A WORKER!!!
If you can do better, go and do it, stop blaming successfull people for your shortfalls.

What Wolff actually believes and says is that, since the worker and the community also have a vested interest that's at stake, they should also have a say along with the owner(s).

IOW, it's not an either/or dichotomy. And I agree with him, btw.

 

[Duke_Leto]

Richard Wolff is not a socialist, whatever he may call himself, and co-ops aren’t socialism.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

This is where it becomes a deja veau...

Well of course the restaurant's a failure -- who wants "veal I've already seen?"

 

[Stevicus]

Exactly. The market economies of most industrialised countries employ a blend of highly regulated capitalism with a considerable amount of social provision. This blend is largely the product of the political power of labour, exerted gradually over generations, in a democracy, to modify the basic capitalist mechanism without destroying the incentive to create wealth. The balance point is different in different countries - regulations and social provision are stronger in France and the Scandinavian countries than in the UK or, even more so, the USA - but all are blends.

This is true. As we've seen in the U.S. and other countries, capitalism works best when it is restrained and regulated by government - even as much as capitalists balk and complain about the interference of "big gov." Without the moderating influence of government, capitalism would have self-destructed a long time ago.

But now, a lot of capitalists want to do away with that moderating influence and go back to the laissez faire version of capitalism they enjoyed during the 19th century. This was back in the days when capitalism could thrive on genocide, racism, slavery, child labor, and other such atrocities which are now illegal. That's why capitalists of today are probably more politically dangerous than they were 50-100 years ago, back when capitalists were still reasonable enough to make a deal with labor unions. Now, they don't want to do that anymore, and they seem to be hellbent on some kind of "all or nothing" gambit.

You can see it with the melodrama of the OP and others who treat socialism in apocalyptic terms. But even before that, back during the 70s and 80s, conservative capitalists who followed Reagan seemed obsessed on "fixing" something that was working well and never needed to be fixed. Now that they've had their way, the fact is, they didn't fix it at all; they ruined it.

And now they're wondering why more people are starting to gravitate towards socialism, and they're clearly petrified of the whole idea, thinking the sky will fall or something.

 

[Stevicus]

Even if he wins a 2nd term, we're still a constitutional republic.
His opposition enjoy claiming that Ameristan is becoming (or has become) fascist.
But their reasons hold no water, ie, they're merely reasons to hate him.

Other Presidents had the same power.
And some, like Clinton, used it to pursue oppression, eg, curbing free
speech, limiting the right to a jury trial. But we didn't see much criticism
from his fans. Not much objective analysis in criticizing one President
relative to another, eh.

I guess it would depend on whether such criticisms would fall in line with the individual critic's set of principles. For example, Clinton signed NAFTA, so it seems that blue-collar and pro-labor Democrats (aka "his fans") should criticize him for doing so. And a lot of them did, including myself.

My memory of the Clinton years is a bit fuzzy, so I honestly don't recall him trying to curb free speech or limit the right to a jury trial. I remember he did a lot of squirrely things, though, and there were quite a few scandals during his time in office. I just don't remember those things specifically.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Given that the OP is a South African who probably learned English with British spellings, I’d give him organisation.

We prefer to think of them as 'proper' spellings...

(Said with my tongue in cheek)

 

[Revoltingest]

I guess it would depend on whether such criticisms would fall in line with the individual critic's set of principles. For example, Clinton signed NAFTA, so it seems that blue-collar and pro-labor Democrats (aka "his fans") should criticize him for doing so. And a lot of them did, including myself.

My memory of the Clinton years is a bit fuzzy, so I honestly don't recall him trying to curb free speech or limit the right to a jury trial. I remember he did a lot of squirrely things, though, and there were quite a few scandals during his time in office. I just don't remember those things specifically.

On free speech, he tried to make it illegal for people to publicly object to
adult group homes being established in their neighborhood by applying
fair housing law to those not in a public accommodation business.
Essentially, he'd have treated political speech as commercial speech.
He lost.
On jury trials, his administration argued for the Petty Offense doctrine,
which allows judges to unilaterally suspend the right to trial by jury
if the accused faced less than a year in jail. This is now law, despite
the Constitution's guarantee in all prosecutions.

Those are the tip of the iceberg.