Socialism Is Always Doomed to Fail

[steve_bank]

The capitalist sees the other as something to potentially profit off.

While the other does not wish to be the tool of some capitalist.

Thus the constant struggle to tame the unwilling slaves by the capitalists wanting to profit off them.

Yeah that pesky thing that humans want food, housing, clothing and entertainment. If you want to get rid of capitalism, create the energy matter converter from StarTrek.

Colorado Atheist: Capitalists are just people with a knack and a penchant for accumulating money and power. When their accumulations get too big, they do not get smarter or more compassionate. No! They get mean and snotty and say the kinds of things you said above. You clearly speak for the "me" generation. Their imagination gets stunted and their impatience with the rest of the human race grows. Capitalism does not have principles. It just has one big speedometer and capitalists think that it measures all human progress. They may think this because they usually imagine themselves superior in every way to most of the human race...sort of like you do.

t is a bit more than a 'knack'. HP was started by two engineers in a garage. Apple started by two tinkerers in a garage. Intel. The old Digital Ewuipment. IBM. BOEING. A long list.

I'ne worked in start ups. In one the owner mortgaged his house and spent 2 years living at work and traveling.

Most people have no clue of the work and commitment it takes to develop new companies. Most expect to have a good job with good benfits and pay without acknowledging what it took to make the job available. Jobs and technology do not grow on trees.

There are two sides to the ownership-labor dichotomy/

 

[Harry Bosch]

Then you need to include that in your definition.

'Collective' means 'of many people'. It doesn't imply homogeneity nor universality.

If your definition relies upon implied information, then it's not really a definition at all - it's just a hint. And you can't blame others if they don't get your hints. When you provide a definition, it's up to you to make it accurate and complete to avoid confusion. That's not something you can leave to your audience to do for you, if you want to be understood.

So I need to define the word "collective" when read the definition of Socialism as "collective ownership of the means of production"?

How far back do I need to go in defining things for you that theoretically you should know?

You do, if you are using the word in an unusual way - as you just told me you are.

Unless you don't care if people misunderstand you. In which case, why bother to say anything at all?

Is a worker's cooperative a 'collective'; or is it disqualified because it excludes the workers' neighbours, friends, and/of families?

Is 'collective ownership' present ONLY if all citizens are owners? If not, why 'all workers' are a 'collective' but 'all shareholders' are not, is not at all clear.

It seems to me that you have a very specific set of ideas about what collections of people qualify as a 'collective' in this context; and that if you care about being understood, you need to provide that set of ideas to your audience.

? He's using the word as it's mostly defined in just about every dictionary.

According to Merriam-Webster:

Definition of socialism
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

 

[bilby]

You do, if you are using the word in an unusual way - as you just told me you are.

Unless you don't care if people misunderstand you. In which case, why bother to say anything at all?

Is a worker's cooperative a 'collective'; or is it disqualified because it excludes the workers' neighbours, friends, and/of families?

Is 'collective ownership' present ONLY if all citizens are owners? If not, why 'all workers' are a 'collective' but 'all shareholders' are not, is not at all clear.

It seems to me that you have a very specific set of ideas about what collections of people qualify as a 'collective' in this context; and that if you care about being understood, you need to provide that set of ideas to your audience.

? He's using the word as it's mostly defined in just about every dictionary.

According to Merriam-Webster:

Definition of socialism
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

The word in question here is 'collective'.

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

How does this definition exclude corporations owned collectively by a (potentially large) number of shareholders? Or are shareholder owned corporations an example of socialism?

What about corporations in which government(s) hold a portion of the shares? Are they necessarily 'socialist'?

 

[steve_bank]

Post war England and France were socialist. Nothing about no private ownership or national collectivism. That was more in line with Russian and Chinese communism

 

[Angra Mainyu]

How is that not Potemkin? It looks like it's growing only because it's being used to produce useless things.

An ilussion would be to make cardboard buildings to make it look like those are real buildings. That would be evidence of a Potemkin economy, though of course not conclusive: if the economy is actually growing and making all sorts of other things, that would be decisive counter evidence. But making a city that the planners believe will be used, and is not useless in the sense it doesn't function properly but rather, that people aren't moving there, is not a sign of Potemkin economy. Rather, it seems like clear evidence that resources have been wasted due to poor planning.

Agreed--but they are heading for one hell of an economic crash. I just hope they don't try to use war as a way out of it.

I'm not sure about that. There will likely be a recession eventually, but I don't know it will be that bad.
Still, if it does happen, I hope so as well, but I don't think they need to, as they are a totalitarian regime that can use domestic suppression instead, without risking the fall of the regime in case of losing a big war. The equation changes if a crash happens after they've become powerful enough to win, though.

 

[Harry Bosch]

What the defenders of capitalism never seem to see is the fragile nature of the system and they never seem to see the victims of the crashes. The blindness of the believers.

It is a system that is constantly crashing.

The last crash was in 2008.

The system had collapsed and the government had to step in and prop it up.

Even despite the massive support from the government about a trillion in wealth just disappeared. The economy faltered and millions lost their jobs and then their homes and dreams.

The system is a bunch of junk that breaks down and produces misery constantly.

It is not worth having.

And this is just the US. Let's not talk about Europe.

All economies go up and down. The value of a house or a stock is the value at a particular time. Over time it changes. It's one of the reasons why managing wealth or assets is not as easy as it sounds. If you can't handle swings in value, you shouldn't be an owner. You think that the Spanish Anarchists didn't have booms and busts in their short-lived era? Do you think that centrally controlled economies don't experience busts?

Why not talk Europe? As a progressive, I'd say that Europe's greater safety net evens out the booms and busts.

You cannot make any comments on "all economics".

You don't know many economic theories and most can never be tried because of the dominance of the systems that exist and own the natural means of production. The minerals and the commodities like fertile land, and the minds and habits of the population.

We are stuck with this piece of junk of system that is just a casino for rich people and a death and misery lottery for others.

At this point it would take incredible violence to rid ourselves of this monstrosity.

Why does the takeover have to be violent? You have a belief system (anarchy) that you believe would be better for society and workers than capitalism. IMO, it won't work. But prove me wrong! Rather than wait for a chance to violently take over, why not start your own company with like minded people. Attract people to your company by offering them better pay and benefits.

I recently started my third company. My second company was essentially worker owned. It went well until we got larger and more complex. I'm proud to say that my third company is B corp. B corps value rigorous standards of social and environmental performance, accountability, and transparency. Several of my partners thought that I was nuts. But I'm the most excited that I've ever been. We are putting what we value to work. We pay the highest wage and offer the best benefits. Every person is asked to volunteer in the community 40 hours a week. We care deeply about the environment. We're doing it. And B corps are growing. We're taking over. And the company is the most profitable company that I've ever worked in. We're growing. And we're doing it peacefully....

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Why does the takeover have to be violent? You have a belief system (anarchy) that you believe would be better for society and workers than capitalism. IMO, it won't work. But prove me wrong! Rather than wait for a chance to violently take over, ....

Hold on. If it's anarchy as the goal, then don't you mean "violently NOT take over?"

 

[untermensche]

The capitalist sees the other as something to potentially profit off.

While the other does not wish to be the tool of some capitalist.

Thus the constant struggle to tame the unwilling slaves by the capitalists wanting to profit off them.

Yeah that pesky thing that humans want food, housing, clothing and entertainment. If you want to get rid of capitalism, create the energy matter converter from StarTrek.

The delusion of the capitalist.

The only way to have food is to make most the servants of the few.

Imagine if humanity was sharing the wealth it is creating.

- - - Updated - - -

The capitalist sees the other as something to potentially profit off.

While the other does not wish to be the tool of some capitalist.

Thus the constant struggle to tame the unwilling slaves by the capitalists wanting to profit off them.

Yeah that pesky thing that humans want food, housing, clothing and entertainment. If you want to get rid of capitalism, create the energy matter converter from StarTrek.

Colorado Atheist: Capitalists are just people with a knack and a penchant for accumulating money and power. When their accumulations get too big, they do not get smarter or more compassionate. No! They get mean and snotty and say the kinds of things you said above. You clearly speak for the "me" generation. Their imagination gets stunted and their impatience with the rest of the human race grows. Capitalism does not have principles. It just has one big speedometer and capitalists think that it measures all human progress. They may think this because they usually imagine themselves superior in every way to most of the human race...sort of like you do.

Some of them are just observant.

And they know the game is immoral and unjust.

So they would rather be the person shitting on others than the person being shit on.

That is capitalism. The majority is shit on by a deranged minority.

All human progress and decency comes in spite of a system that doesn't care about those things. An inhuman system built by the most deranged and the most greedy and the most willing to harm their fellow man.

 

[Funkytrip]

I always see capitalism as a way for a country/humanity to lift themselves to a higher standard of living (due to innovation & competition) so that enough resources are freed to create a healthy welfare system. But an actual injection of socialism is then needed to preserve that higher standard of living for everyone and to maintain the welfare system.

If that injection of socialism is lackluster, capitalism wins and the standard of living decreases for everyone but the property owners.

This is why Europe countries do/did so well: Their dose of socialism keeps people happy while still being able to complete in a mainly capitalistic world.

 

[arkirk]

Knowing the game is unjust does not justify pursuit of policies that hurt others and turn many lives into a cascade of horror, homelessness,poverty, want, etc. We really owe it to ourselves to think outside the rules of this cruel game. After all, what does it mean to be creative? Must every creation be approved by a rich oligarch? Somewhere in our past, it was observed by some philosopher: "Show me a great fortune, and I will show you a great crime successfully perpetrated." To which I would add...Show me a Trump or a Clinton and I will show you a great crime being perpetuated.

Pink has a song that says it all... WHAT ABOUT US?

All this type a personality promotion is ridiculous and part of the problem. Doing big things does not automatically mean doing great things or good things. Growth of the industries talked about in several posts above (eg. Boeing, IBM, Apple, etc.) occurred with GREAT OPPORTUNITY COSTS to actions and organizations of an entirely different nature and very well may spell the end of mankind. Big is not necessarily good for us or our planet. How is building delivery systems for atomic bombs good? Use your powers of observation and recognize we are all owned by nature. When we get all narcissistic and fuck too hard with nature, we may make money but unleash forces we cannot contain. I do not worship Bill Gates or Steve Jobs. Albert Schweitzer or Jonas Saulk are far better examples of human beings.

 

[coloradoatheist]

The delusion of the capitalist.

The only way to have food is to make most the servants of the few.

Imagine if humanity was sharing the wealth it is creating.

- - - Updated - - -

The capitalist sees the other as something to potentially profit off.

While the other does not wish to be the tool of some capitalist.

Thus the constant struggle to tame the unwilling slaves by the capitalists wanting to profit off them.

Yeah that pesky thing that humans want food, housing, clothing and entertainment. If you want to get rid of capitalism, create the energy matter converter from StarTrek.

Colorado Atheist: Capitalists are just people with a knack and a penchant for accumulating money and power. When their accumulations get too big, they do not get smarter or more compassionate. No! They get mean and snotty and say the kinds of things you said above. You clearly speak for the "me" generation. Their imagination gets stunted and their impatience with the rest of the human race grows. Capitalism does not have principles. It just has one big speedometer and capitalists think that it measures all human progress. They may think this because they usually imagine themselves superior in every way to most of the human race...sort of like you do.

Some of them are just observant.

And they know the game is immoral and unjust.

So they would rather be the person shitting on others than the person being shit on.

That is capitalism. The majority is shit on by a deranged minority.

All human progress and decency comes in spite of a system that doesn't care about those things. An inhuman system built by the most deranged and the most greedy and the most willing to harm their fellow man.

The point about the food, clothing, etc is that since we have to have those things we need to trade for them. So the choices for trade are either we each decide on our own what we do to get those things, or we let the central authority dictate who does it and we all become slaves to society.


No, the human progress is happening because of the system, it tries to advance human progress because it's the unmet desire for that capitalism provides for.

- - - Updated - - -

Knowing the game is unjust does not justify pursuit of policies that hurt others and turn many lives into a cascade of horror, homelessness,poverty, want, etc. We really owe it to ourselves to think outside the rules of this cruel game. After all, what does it mean to be creative? Must every creation be approved by a rich oligarch? Somewhere in our past, it was observed by some philosopher: "Show me a great fortune, and I will show you a great crime successfully perpetrated." To which I would add...Show me a Trump or a Clinton and I will show you a great crime being perpetuated.

Pink has a song that says it all... WHAT ABOUT US?

All this type a personality promotion is ridiculous and part of the problem. Doing big things does not automatically mean doing great things or good things. Growth of the industries talked about in several posts above (eg. Boeing, IBM, Apple, etc.) occurred with GREAT OPPORTUNITY COSTS to actions and organizations of an entirely different nature and very well may spell the end of mankind. Big is not necessarily good for us or our planet. How is building delivery systems for atomic bombs good? Use your powers of observation and recognize we are all owned by nature. When we get all narcissistic and fuck too hard with nature, we may make money but unleash forces we cannot contain. I do not worship Bill Gates or Steve Jobs. Albert Schweitzer or Jonas Saulk are far better examples of human beings.

Homelessness and poverty are the default nature of humans, capitalism has gotten us out of that. But if you are concerned about the Earth then returning us to a state of homelessness and poverty is the answer.

 

[BH]

Thought experiment. Everyone has the ability to own their own business and decides to try to save money to open one up. Would our economic system actually allow everyone to own their own business, individual or as a co-op? I guess many people could buy clothes or shoes to retail or mow some yards but I do not see how everyone could start a company and get it big to where they get rich.

What would happen if everyone who has to work for a living by working for someone else actually did start saving all their money to start their own businesses, and I mean a business big enough to have income coming in enough to live on, not supplemental money. If people were disiciplined enough to save every penny they did not absolutely need to spend they would cut their own throats economically. They would most likely end up losing their jobs because the extra money from others wasn't circulating (everyone saving so no money coming in where they work or not as much) and their savings would have to be used to take care of themselves until they found work.

Banks--even if people saved and somehow managed not to lose their jobs with everyone around them saving every last penny the banks could not loan everyone enough money to go out and start their business.




Capitalism may work extremely well for a few and not to many for many but it seems for it to succeed it has to have most people not want to be in the higher income ranges and/or not be capitalists.

 

[arkirk]

Colorado Atheist: Can you tell us please, just what "system" are you talking about. Capitalism is NOT A SYSTEM. It is instead a bunch of private lesser systems of exploitation of the vast majority of the people, and many people just being branded worthless by the owners of these systems (corporations). Human progress has essentially become stalled by the greed of the oligarchs. You know it in your heart even if you cannot say it.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Colorado Atheist: Can you tell us please, just what "system" are you talking about. Capitalism is NOT A SYSTEM. It is instead a bunch of private lesser systems of exploitation of the vast majority of the people, and many people just being branded worthless by the owners of these systems (corporations). Human progress has essentially become stalled by the greed of the oligarchs. You know it in your heart even if you cannot say it.

Except things haven't stalled though, our expectations have become so high.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

untermensche, do you think a joint stock corporation is an example of socialism? I don't think it is, but some here apparently do.

 

[PyramidHead]

Given that 7 billion humans are living to the highest average life expectancy ever before achieved in human history, with the highest achieved by the wealthy capitalist countries, I'd say the current environment is the healthiest and fittest environment for humans that has ever been achieved.

Axulus: Have you been paying attention to the news? American life expectancy is decreasing. More than 2 billion people are food insecure. The entire middle east is war torn. There are refugees everywhere. Capitalism is NOT A SYSTEM. Instead, it is a license for exploitation of the unfinancialized parts of the planet. There is starvation in Yemen because the U.S. is cooperating with the Saudis to bomb the country into submission. Capitalism has a lot of bad things about it. One that is rather clear is that it serves warmongers very well.

You need to pay less attention to the news, and more attention to history.

Everything is awful right now. But nowhere CLOSE to as awful as it has been up until now.

Pick any date more than twenty years in the past, when fewer people were hungry than today; or when there was less death from war and conflict. You can't do it.

You're wrong on both counts, as there were certainly periods of time in which the population of humans was so low that, by definition, there would be fewer total hungry people and fewer total deaths from war. Your sentiment is true in a per capita sense, but it's not at all obvious to me that per capita numbers are indicative of progress when absolute numbers don't tell the same story.

From the perspective of someone who is starving, it makes no difference that there are billions of non-starving people in the world, making his status a statistical rarity. If there are tens of millions of starving people, every one of them is a tragedy, regardless of what proportion of the total they comprise.

Wind the clock back to a time when the total population of humans was far lower than it is today, and perform the same mental exercise. To be a starving person is still a harm and a tragedy, but it is not more of a tragedy because there are fewer non-starving people elsewhere in the population. In fact, if the total number of starving people in such a time is in the tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands, that's arguably better than today's situation, as there are fewer instances of conscious suffering.

Whenever I hear these per capita arguments, I cringe at the prospect of planetary exploration. Suppose we manage to reduce poverty to 1% of the population, but simultaneously we colonize the solar system and increase the number of humans to 10 trillion. Do we pat ourselves on the back because there are only 100 billion humans living in poverty...? I think we should recoil in horror at the idea. Nothing makes that number okay. Moral hazard doesn't scale like that in my book.

 

[arkirk]

Thought experiment. Everyone has the ability to own their own business and decides to try to save money to open one up. Would our economic system actually allow everyone to own their own business, individual or as a co-op? I guess many people could buy clothes or shoes to retail or mow some yards but I do not see how everyone could start a company and get it big to where they get rich.

What would happen if everyone who has to work for a living by working for someone else actually did start saving all their money to start their own businesses, and I mean a business big enough to have income coming in enough to live on, not supplemental money. If people were disiciplined enough to save every penny they did not absolutely need to spend they would cut their own throats economically. They would most likely end up losing their jobs because the extra money from others wasn't circulating (everyone saving so no money coming in where they work or not as much) and their savings would have to be used to take care of themselves until they found work.

Banks--even if people saved and somehow managed not to lose their jobs with everyone around them saving every last penny the banks could not loan everyone enough money to go out and start their business.




Capitalism may work extremely well for a few and not to many for many but it seems for it to succeed it has to have most people not want to be in the higher income ranges and/or not be capitalists.

That is an astute observation indeed.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Thought experiment. Everyone has the ability to own their own business and decides to try to save money to open one up. Would our economic system actually allow everyone to own their own business, individual or as a co-op? I guess many people could buy clothes or shoes to retail or mow some yards but I do not see how everyone could start a company and get it big to where they get rich.

What would happen if everyone who has to work for a living by working for someone else actually did start saving all their money to start their own businesses, and I mean a business big enough to have income coming in enough to live on, not supplemental money. If people were disiciplined enough to save every penny they did not absolutely need to spend they would cut their own throats economically. They would most likely end up losing their jobs because the extra money from others wasn't circulating (everyone saving so no money coming in where they work or not as much) and their savings would have to be used to take care of themselves until they found work.

Banks--even if people saved and somehow managed not to lose their jobs with everyone around them saving every last penny the banks could not loan everyone enough money to go out and start their business.




Capitalism may work extremely well for a few and not to many for many but it seems for it to succeed it has to have most people not want to be in the higher income ranges and/or not be capitalists.

There is nothing stopping everyone now from going out and starting their own business. Why doesn't everyone go out and start their own hot dog stand now?

 

[arkirk]

Colorado Atheist: Capitalists are just people with a knack and a penchant for accumulating money and power. When their accumulations get too big, they do not get smarter or more compassionate. No! They get mean and snotty and say the kinds of things you said above. You clearly speak for the "me" generation. Their imagination gets stunted and their impatience with the rest of the human race grows. Capitalism does not have principles. It just has one big speedometer and capitalists think that it measures all human progress. They may think this because they usually imagine themselves superior in every way to most of the human race...sort of like you do.

t is a bit more than a 'knack'. HP was started by two engineers in a garage. Apple started by two tinkerers in a garage. Intel. The old Digital Ewuipment. IBM. BOEING. A long list.

I'ne worked in start ups. In one the owner mortgaged his house and spent 2 years living at work and traveling.

Most people have no clue of the work and commitment it takes to develop new companies. Most expect to have a good job with good benfits and pay without acknowledging what it took to make the job available. Jobs and technology do not grow on trees.

There are two sides to the ownership-labor dichotomy/

You are right for a change in a backhanded way. It is more than a knack. It is obsessive behavior coupled with amoral goals. There are a lot of other words to describe capitalism...try greed.

 

[Trausti]