Socialism on the rise?

[Rick Otto]

You're the one who said you wanted a genuine conversation, Greenguzzi. I've offered that.

If I've asked tough questions, it's only because I've thought this through more than a few times already. That said, this being a discussion forum, you are certainly free to discontinue conversing with me at any time you choose.

Since you are advocating for socialism, the burden is on you to make the case.

Answer the questions ... or don't. Your choice.

Fair point. Thinking things through occurs at multiple levels. Some are easier to explain than others.



I'm actually with you on this, Greenguzzi. There are several ways to accomplish this under our existing free-enterprise system.
1) Have the employees own stock in the corporation. (Admittedly, this works best for those who start the company. Many people have become millionaires and billionaires simply because they took the chance on working with a start-up company which eventually became huge.)
2) Have each employee own a certain percentage of the company. This is sometimes done with cooperative private companies.
3) Have employees and customers own shares in the company. This is done frequently with private cooperatives.
4) Give ownership of the company to its union. (Noting that this was actually done when Chrysler went bankrupt. The union owned about 60% of Chrysler at the time it emerged from bankruptcy, maybe more. Curiously, the union surrendered, or sold, most of its ownership shortly afterward ... for reasons which have never been explained, at least not that I have ever found.)

I'm sure there are other ways for workers in a company to share in ownership within the existing free-enterprise structure. (I'm also certain that I've oversimplified the statements above. )

I'm just not aware though how "workers" have ever actually owned production in socialist states ... except by the state taking ownership. Perhaps you can enlighten me.



You caught me on that one. I guess I do care, at least a little, about the definition of socialism.

Great suggestions!

What's your take on Public/private partnerships?

 

[NightHawkeye]

Great suggestions!

What's your take on Public/private partnerships?

I think the Trans-Texas Corridor was awful.

Fortunately, it was ultimately defeated.

 

[AceHero]

Certain forms of socialism have actually been called Inclusive Capitalism.”

• Coalition for Inclusive Capitalism

Where we're at in the times we live in and why is needing to remember community development starts with neighborhood/'Hometown Security'' work (thanks to Majora Carterfor the phrase) when it comes to looking to practical ways of changing up the area we live in instead of doing the same strategy of waiting for the next presidential figure to save us all. No one is going to save you but YOU - and the people you value.

• 
• Educate and Empower: Tools For Building Community Wealth
• COMMUNITY-WEALTH.ORG

• 
  
  Reclaiming the Commons
  The United States is full of everyday commons management systems such as public libraries, the…
  
  
• 
  
  Making Cities Stronger: Public Library Contributions to Local Economic…

I truly believe there are so many practical ways we can rebuild community around us from the bottom up and it didn't take a presidential figure to do it. And what I am saying is very much based on understanding the power of community wealth:

There is great significance in showing the power of community ownership. I appreciate his 2014 interview with Bill Moyers, where U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders tells Bill that Big Money and Big Media are keeping critical issues from the American public. And the man is in line with MLK (whom he was an activist for during his campaigns) - as MLK was a Democratic Socialist and I appreciate the ways that both of them sought to address issues from the bottom up....THE SAME thing that the Founding Fathers spoke on when it came to Stock Ownership for all (which I have spoken about before herei, here and here ).

• Social Democracy Is 100% American | BillMoyers.com
• The Citizen's Share | The ESOP Association Blog
• 
  
• What the Founding Fathers Believed: Stock Ownership

​

A lot of these ideas seem similar to what Gar Alperovitz spoke of in his book America Beyond Capitalism: Reclaiming Our Wealth, Our Liberty, and Our Democracy. It's a good read.

 

[greenguzzi]

You're the one who said you wanted a genuine conversation, Greenguzzi. I've offered that.

If I've asked tough questions, it's only because I've thought this through more than a few times already. That said, this being a discussion forum, you are certainly free to discontinue conversing with me at any time you choose.

Maybe you believe that you have offered a genuine conversation. But you said yourself that you are not willing to even care about the definition of the subject of the conversation; that's taking the straw-man to a level I have never seen before. I can't accept that a genuine conversation can exist when one of the participants doesn't care whether or not we are even talking about the same subject.

When one of the participants doesn't care if we are talking about the same subject, then that person doesn't want a conversation, they want to propagate their ideas. That is perfectly fine, we just all need to realise that this is what's happening. Which is why I suggested that a blog might meet your needs better than a forum.

I'm more than happy to attempt to answer any relevant questions you might send my way. But until we can agree on what we are talking about, any questions you might have are meaningless.

You caught me on that one. I guess I do care, at least a little, about the definition of socialism.

Maybe there's hope for a genuine conversation after all.

Some of the other points you raise in your post look interesting. I'll think more on them later. For now I have make some money for my capitalist overlords.

 

[mark46]

OK. Now that you say you don't want a strong authoritarian government ... how do you implement socialism without a strong authoritarian government?

One should consider the Socialist Party platform of 1912 or the various European policies. And then consider the policies of the US. The US has implement almost all of elements of democratic socialism.

Democratic socialism, just as regulated capitalism, is implemented one law at a time, one regulation at a time.

In the US, we have Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare. Medicare Part D, public education, public libraries, toll free rounds (for the most part, unemployment insurance, workplace safety rules, and now access medical insurance for 90% of our citizens. All of these were called socialist in the past. In addition, the US has many protections for protected classes including those various racial groups, women, the disabled and veterans. The protections have also been called socialist in the past. Finally, regulations of business enterprises have been added many, many times in the past two centuries. We have clean water and air acts. We have milage standards for the vehicles we drive. We have banking regulations. These also have been called socialist.

So, for many, we have had a slippery slide into socialism from he time of the wonderful age of the 1920's to our current condition (really starting in 1932).

 

[NightHawkeye]

One should consider the Socialist Party platform of 1912 or the various European policies. And then consider the policies of the US. The US has implement almost all of elements of democratic socialism.

Democratic socialism, just as regulated capitalism, is implemented one law at a time, one regulation at a time.

Yes, that does seem to be the progressive agenda of 1912.

In the US, we have Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare. Medicare Part D, public education, public libraries, toll free rounds (for the most part, unemployment insurance, workplace safety rules, and now access medical insurance for 90% of our citizens.

OK. The US is now largely socialist ...

All of these were called socialist in the past. In addition, the US has many protections for protected classes including those various racial groups, women, the disabled and veterans. The protections have also been called socialist in the past. Finally, regulations of business enterprises have been added many, many times in the past two centuries. We have clean water and air acts. We have milage standards for the vehicles we drive. We have banking regulations. These also have been called socialist.

... and now also bankrupt. One has to wonder if there might be some connection?

So, for many, we have had a slippery slide into socialism from he time of the wonderful age of the 1920's to our current condition (really starting in 1932).

Thank you for stating this, Mark. I largely agree with your assessment.

One might question then, given that all of this wonderful socialist agenda has come to fruition in the US, what more exactly needs to be done ... that we can afford to do? It seems to me that for all of this coming to fruition there is scant satisfaction with any of it. Instead, there is clamoring for more, more, and more free stuff. Why is that, do you suppose?

 

[mark46]

Yes, that does seem to be the progressive agenda of 1912.

OK. The US is now largely socialist ...

... and now also bankrupt. One has to wonder if there might be some connection?

Thank you for stating this, Mark. I largely agree with your assessment.

One might question then, given that all of this wonderful socialist agenda has come to fruition in the US, what more exactly needs to be done ... that we can afford to do? It seems to me that for all of this coming to fruition there is scant satisfaction with any of it. Instead, there is clamoring for more, more, and more free stuff. Why is that, do you suppose?

Our debt as a percentage of GNP has indeed gone way up since 2005. This is primarily as a result of our the very low tax rates implemented by George Bush, at the same time as we have to pay for 2 (now 3) wars. This simply was not, and is not sound economics. Recall a time just 16 years ago when we had a surplus and were looking forward to retiring the debt is a decade or so.

THERE IS MUCH THAT WE CAN DO
1) Social Security needs a couple minor tweaks. All income should be subject to Social Security taxation. The COLA formula should be changed to be based on consumption by seniors, not on wages. The retirement age might be changed also (over a a period of several years). These are minor fixes and would easily "fix" Social Security.

2) Total health care costs are going down. However, there are fixes that can be made. Healthcare and healthcare insurance should not be tied to employment. Such deductions should be removed. Trump and Sanders probably agree that everyone should simply be put on Medicare. The costs to the society would be much, much LESS than today. Of course, there would a great loss of insurance company jobs.

3) The corporate tax system is a mess. Almost all deductions should be removed, certainly including health care, and expenses associated with moving jobs out of the country. R&D and capital expenses should be expensed in the year spent. And rates should be reduced. Taxes on dividends, capital gains and death should be removed. All of this would make our corporations much more competitive.

4) Banks should not be both investment and retail. They would be split again. Also hedge fund mangers should be taxed based on income tax, rather than corporate tax.

5) And yes, tax rates on individuals should be increased, and taxation on the highest earners should at a higher percentage rate than those will lower wages (considering the total of income and payroll taxes). Gates should not pay taxes at lower rate than his admin. I would note that for many this would be a benefit since they would no longer have primary health insurance (although they could have supplemental policies).

6) There should be a $10 per barrel tax on oil, implemented over 3-5 years, and then increased by index. This money would be part of the Highway Fund to be used for bridges, tunnels and roads (after the usual 10% local matching).

7) There should be criminal justice reform, including efforts to decriminalize the possession of some drugs. This is already done in many jurisdictions. Marijuana should not illegal by federal government law, and such laws left to the states.
=============
THESE ARE MINOR CHANGES
For those who oppose Social Security, little of this makes sense. However, for most legislators and citizens, this could be approved rather quickly.

 

[redleghunter]

Something is on the rise for sure.

Strong delusion and an adulterous generation.

 

[A2SG]

The 19th century was a time of tremendous growth and prosperity.

Sure, for a bit. Remember how it ended?

-- A2SG, it was in all the papers.....

 

[A2SG]

At one extreme ... free-enterprise. Some in this thread suggest that free-enterprise has caused a host of subtle worldwide problems which lurk largely under the radar, such as low-wages, poverty and workers who have been taken advantage of.

Because there's no profit in protecting your workers or paying them fairly. And if you lose some along the way, well, there's plenty more were they came from.

At the other extreme ... government controlled enterprise. The obvious examples of this have been horrendous to the extreme. All of the greatest calamaties of the twentieth century occurred under socialist regimes ... without exception. Just the truth.

And there's nothing in between. Nope, nothing whatsoever. Just two extremes, with a whole lotta nuttin' in the middle.

A-Yup.

Now, both of these approaches have drawn criticism in this thread, so wouldn't it be advisable to look at the criticisms leveled at each. Wouldn't that be a reasonable approach to a rational discussion on the subject? I merely ask the question, who, or what, is going to save you, or us, or the workers of the world, from the abuses of either system?

Sure. We can do that...and in so doing, pick the best aspects of both approaches, and use them to our advantage. Say, private ownership of companies, with government oversight to ensure they act within the law, and that workers are protected from exploitation, and the country from corporate excesses. Also safety net programs to keep people from starving, and a universal health care system so no one need lose access to health care simply because they cannot afford it.

Sounds like a plan to me.

How about a quick show of hands ...
Who believes government will save the workers of the world from being exploited?

It can, sure. Laws like the minimum wage, and workplace safety regulations do that. We've learned our lesson from laissez-faire capitalism, with things like black lung disease, company towns and child labor.

Who believes unfettered capitalism will save workers of the world from being exploited?

No one. After all, there's lots of money to be made exploiting workers, and none to be made by protecting them from being exploited.

Who believes a moral people operating within the constraints of a competitive free-enterprise system will minimize exploitation?

Depends on how many "moral people" actually practice the morality they espouse. In my experience, the number is significantly lower than 100%

I gotta be honest, I tend to put more trust in laws than in people following moral rules of their own volition.

-- A2SG, how many societies have you seen that existed without objectively defined -- and enforced -- laws?

 

[BrianJK]

Because there's no profit in protecting your workers or paying them fairly. And if you lose some along the way, well, there's plenty more were they came from.



And there's nothing in between. Nope, nothing whatsoever. Just two extremes, with a whole lotta nuttin' in the middle.

A-Yup.



Sure. We can do that...and in so doing, pick the best aspects of both approaches, and use them to our advantage. Say, private ownership of companies, with government oversight to ensure they act within the law, and that workers are protected from exploitation, and the country from corporate excesses. Also safety net programs to keep people from starving, and a universal health care system so no one need lose access to health care simply because they cannot afford it.

Sounds like a plan to me.



It can, sure. Laws like the minimum wage, and workplace safety regulations do that. We've learned our lesson from laissez-faire capitalism, with things like black lung disease, company towns and child labor.



No one. After all, there's lots of money to be made exploiting workers, and none to be made by protecting them from being exploited.



Depends on how many "moral people" actually practice the morality they espouse. In my experience, the number is significantly lower than 100%

I gotta be honest, I tend to put more trust in laws than in people following moral rules of their own volition.

-- A2SG, how many societies have you seen that existed without objectively defined -- and enforced -- laws?

But if people don't like child labor, they can just bit with their wallets and not but the product, right? I mean wouldn't the market take care of that?

Wait, no, you're right. It took governmental intervention to stop this and other atrocities. People who can't see a doctor and pills that cost hundreds apiece are similar issues which will take similar intervention. Use whatever word you want for it; it needs to happen.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Interesting...

 

[AionPhanes]

Socialism and state ownership are not synonymous. This is also true of Marxism. I was confused and conflating the two myself but it's not the case.

Marxism requires direct democratic control of the means of production by the workers themselves not politicians and certainly not a dictator and his appointed beuracrats. Wage slavery with a new boss (the government) is still wage slavery. Cooperatives, soviets, workers councils, and syndicates would be examples of real collective control not a business owned by the US Federal government or some dictator like Hitler or Stalin.