For Socialism

[memenaut_06]

Here's why I think socialism works, and why it's better than capitalism. I'll keep this short and informative.

 

 

Health-care, education, and housing should be free,

Because the country needs smart and healthy people to prosper.

Because health, education, and a home are the bare minimums for a normal life.

Because people should be free to choose what to spend their earnings on.

 

Socialism doesn't need a tax system, because government already owns all businesses/firms.

Any money the people spend will go to the government,

and the government will then use it to pay the people who work for it.

The flow of money balances out, nobody makes any profits, and thus justice is served in the eyes of Marxists.

 

Competition will still exist in socialist economy, but this competition will be much more beneficial and productive.

Government will set detailed goals for different firms, like resource-efficiency, durability, re-usability, recyclability, etc.

The best firms will recieve benefits, and the worst will be reorganized.

This way, good work will always be rewarded, and all the benefits of the market will still be availible to everyone, but without the chaos of "economic cycles".

So, competition can be "relaxed" to promote cooperation between firms,

or it can be increased to encourage more effort, greater productivity, more efficiency, greater haste, etc.

 

City planners will also have the ability to design cities from the ground - up.

Nothing will be left to chance. That means no more traffic congestion, ghettos, or uncontrolled urban 'sprawl'.

Roads will be wide, clean, everything will be within a short distance, and ambulances, police, and fire trucks will be able to provide speedy assistance.

This also means clean breathing air and safer streets. Dirty industry won't intrude on neighbourhoods, and there will be no "safe havens" for drug dealers, thieves, or other low-lifes.

 

Economy will also be improved by computerized planning (not another bloated bureaucracy).

A country-wide cybernetic system will keep track of product inventories, and manage production and regional distribution.

 

The problem is that capitalism puts a speed-limit on innovation.

Companies have only limited information about their local part of the economy,

so before economy can regain equillibrium, it must pass signals between stockholders, consumers, retailers, wholesalers, manufacturers, producers, etc.

This also results in unnecessary duplication of effort and waste.

 

But under the cybernetic system, information from every source will be integrated into a single, distributed system.

Any change will cause immediate adjustment at every level of the economy, making reaction-time immediate.

This means socialist economy will be more responsive and adaptive than free-market!

 

 

According to my analysis, increasing economic integration ("corporate subsidization"),

the growing government, and computerization of the economy will naturally lead to socialism.

So, there's no need for another revolution.

Socialism will be the end-result of current trends,

the next logical step in the evolution of economy.

Socialism is the way of the future!

[Red_Ninja]

I agree with many of your points. Much of it may prove fanciful though, the "bourgeois" have much to lose. Anyone who attempts to change society is regarded as a terrorist, to the convenience of the ruling class.

 

The thing about Socialism is that is has never really been tried. The USSR for example could be argued to have been a state capitalist society. There were no free elections so it was not socialist. In many ways it was more akin to totalitarian fascism. Socialism of the type usually argued for by socialists today involves a massive extension of the democratic process, from the workplace up.

 

I'm no expert but I find it amusing when people say socialism doesn't work. Whatever the USSR was definitely didn't work - but can you look at the world in general and seriously argue that neoliberal capitalism works ? It's a glorified pyramid scheme. A few hundred centimillionaires and billionaires freeload their way through life while tens of thousands starve every day and hundreds of millions live in abject poverty. Not my idea of a system that "works".

[Lance]

The problem is that capitalism puts a speed-limit on innovation.

Companies have only limited information about their local part of the economy' date='

so before economy can regain equillibrium, it must pass signals between stockholders, consumers, retailers, wholesalers, manufacturers, producers, etc.

This also results in unnecessary duplication of effort and waste.[/quote']

 

I'm finding it hard to believe that you actually know what socialism is.

[the tree]

Health-care' date=' education, and housing should be free,

Because the country needs smart and healthy people to prosper.

Because health, education, and a home are the bare minimums for a normal life.[/quote']True, but just because something should be doesn't mean that it's practical or that its better than the alternative.

Because people should be free to choose what to spend their earnings on.

[...]

Any money the people spend will go to the government' date=' [/quote']There's clearly a contradiction here.

 

The flow of money balances out, nobody makes any profits, and thus justice is served in the eyes of Marxists.

If remember correctly, the Marxist philosophy makes money redundant.

 

 

Competition will still exist in socialist economy' date=' but this competition will be much more beneficial and productive.

Government will set detailed goals for different firms, like resource-efficiency, durability, re-usability, recyclability, etc.[/quote'] Competition between whom? What's to stop the goverment from setting easy goals for the companies that it likes and impossible ones for the comanys it doesn't like?

The best firms will recieve benefits' date=' and the worst will be reorganized.

This way, good work will always be rewarded, and all the benefits of the market will still be availible to everyone, but without the chaos of "economic cycles".[/quote']What's so chaotic about economic cycles?

 

So' date=' competition can be "relaxed" to promote cooperation between firms,

or it can be increased to encourage more effort, greater productivity, more efficiency, greater haste, etc.[/quote']So this artificial competition works a bit like a whip then?

 

 

City planners will also have the ability to design cities from the ground - up.

Nothing will be left to chance. That means no more traffic congestion' date=' ghettos, or uncontrolled urban 'sprawl'.

Roads will be wide, clean, everything will be within a short distance, and ambulances, police, and fire trucks will be able to provide speedy assistance.

This also means clean breathing air and safer streets. Dirty industry won't intrude on neighbourhoods, and there will be no "safe havens" for drug dealers, thieves, or other low-lifes.[/quote']What on earth has this got to do with socialism?

 

 

Economy will also be improved by computerized planning (not another bloated bureaucracy).

A country-wide cybernetic system will keep track of product inventories' date=' and manage production and regional distribution.[/quote']We already have networked buisness.

 

The problem is that capitalism puts a speed-limit on innovation.

Under capitalism people are free reap the rewards of working through the night and getting a month long project done in a couple of weeks if they so choose. How is there a speed limit?

 

 

Companies have only limited information about their local part of the economy,

Give me the name of any company on any market in the world and I can find you it's stock infomation in five minutes.

 

 

so before economy can regain equillibrium, it must pass signals between stockholders, consumers, retailers, wholesalers, manufacturers, producers, etc.

Gain equillibrium? It's an economy, it's going to be in a constant state of flux.

 

But under the cybernetic system, information from every source will be integrated into a single, distributed system.

And what will you call this new invention? The Internet?

 

Any change will cause immediate adjustment at every level of the economy, making reaction-time immediate.

Any change like, crashing?

 

This means socialist economy will be more responsive and adaptive than free-market!

Our economy already responds to small changes in a matter of minutesm, why do you need anything more responsive?

 

According to my analysis' date=' increasing economic integration ("corporate subsidization"),

the growing government, and computerization of the economy will naturally lead to socialism.[/quote']Have you published this analysis? Can we see it?

[memenaut_06]

If remember correctly, the Marxist philosophy makes money redundant.

 

You obviously don't understand the Marxist theory, so pay close attention.

 

Communism is the final result of socialism, but before that money still exists in socialism.

 

As new technologies innovate means of production, they increase productive capacity.

This trend must reach an "event horizon", after which the old system breaks down.

Eventually productive capacity exceeds our ability to consume it,

and companies go out of business because people only need fraction of what is sold.

 

Prices would be practically 0, because supply far exceeds demand.

How much you can get would no longer depend on how much you can afford,

but on how much you can physically consume within 24 hours.

 

Private property then becomes a meaningless idea because people can have whatever they need.

The money system also naturally decays, along with bourgois-proletariat class system,

and government becomes redundant, because all reasons for its existance are gone.

 

The communist maxim is "From each according to his abilities, To each according to his needs".

So now you know what the second part of that means.

 

 

Competition between whom? What's to stop the goverment from setting easy goals for the companies that it likes and impossible ones for the comanys it doesn't like?

 

The same system of checks and balances that stops the same kind of corruption in your government.

 

Abused workers file lawsuit -> Offenders get sued -> Politicians lose careers -> Victims get compensation.

 

 

What's so chaotic about economic cycles?

 

What's so orderly about recession and inflation?

 

 

Under capitalism people are free reap the rewards of working through the night and getting a month long project done in a couple of weeks if they so choose. How is there a speed limit?

 

What about large-scale innovations like industrialization, automation, computerization, or whatever is yet to come.

Any sort of massive change like this must wait for the right economic signals.

 

Businesses first need to find a profitable opportunity, stockholders need to then begin investing in the company.

It will then take several years for the business to grow.

 

Imagine there's some great new innovation - let's say, a cheap car design that runs on a renewable fuel,

but production of this fuel requires industrial facilities which do not exist.

The new car will not sell, because these industrial facilities do not exist to make the fuel,

and no one will construct the industrial facilities because no one will buy the fuel.

 

The point is that growth takes time, and there will only be growth where there is profit.

 

But under socialism, any innovation can be put into effect immediately.

Space colonization, new means of production, human cloning, genetic engineering,

nano-technology, artificial intelligence, cybernetic economic planning system, automated mass transit, etc, etc...

 

 

Have you published this analysis? Can we see it?

 

No, I don't have time to publish everything I do, but I've already covered the main points. What don't you understand?

[In My Memory]

Memenaut,

 

I think as a social experiment, capitalism is the best of all possible economic systems. Its possible to make capitalism work without some nasty social ills like child-labor sweatshops or unchecked pollution, as long as we have an effective Congress to compell corporations to observe human rights and environmental laws.

 

Maybe we can find a nice place between socialism and capitalism, such as being civil socialists and business capitalists. I really like that idea, because it means we can have all the free healthcare and education we want, but also let businesses compete with one another in the free market.

 

Here is the real problem with business socialism, when you say:

City planners will also have the ability to design cities from the ground - up.

Nothing will be left to chance. That means no more traffic congestion' date=' ghettos, or uncontrolled urban 'sprawl'.

Roads will be wide, clean, everything will be within a short distance, and ambulances, police, and fire trucks will be able to provide speedy assistance.

This also means clean breathing air and safer streets. Dirty industry won't intrude on neighbourhoods, and there will be no "safe havens" for drug dealers, thieves, or other low-lifes.

 

Economy will also be improved by computerized planning (not another bloated bureaucracy).

A country-wide cybernetic system will keep track of product inventories, and manage production and regional distribution.[/quote']

Do you know how absolutely monsterously bloated and huge the bureacracy would need to be for a socialist economy to adjust to the daily changes in supply and demand? Think Microsoft, only 1000x the size, and 1/1000th the efficiency.

 

Capitalist economies remove all the logistics and monumental overhead from the backs of economy planners because capitalist economies are internally self-regulating. The price of oranges in the 10s of 1000s of supermarkets changes changes each day and changes for each store, trying to manage all those prices, supplies, and demands of just oranges alone requires phenomenal overhead, and I doubt any socialist system could adapt quickly or accurately enough to make it work.

 

At best, the solution to this problem you've suggested is technomagic where an enormous cybernetic system will make it work... if this is what you base the claim that socialism is a better alternative than capitalism, then you havent shown anything anything at all. Without even a flowchart of how this cybernetic system could work in principle, you cant genuinely say that socialism is better than capitalism.

[JohnB]

But under socialism, any innovation can be put into effect immediately.

Space colonization, new means of production, human cloning, genetic engineering,

nano-technology, artificial intelligence, cybernetic economic planning system, automated mass transit, etc, etc...

memenaut, where does the money for these changes come from? In your first post you said "The flow of money balances out, nobody makes any profits,". If there are no profits, then there is no spare money to pay for the wonderful new innovation. Or do you shut down the car factory for 20 years while you build your space colony?

 

I think my first thought was correct.

Here's why I think socialism works, and why it's better than capitalism.

Next week, how to nail jelly to the ceiling.

[padren]

I think the meters you are using to evaluate good government are not the best milestones. For me, the most important function of a government is to maximize the capacity a person has to execute their own choices in life in peace. You obviously can't let one guy be free to beat on people randomly as it messes with another person's ability to do their own thing, so there are laws and national defense and such.

So people organize public utilities, law enforcement, national defense, criminal justice, consumer protections, health care (in an odd way I do consider federalized healthcare a base requirement for maximization, which I know is debatable), and whatnot.

 

The problem with a socialistic system, is people like me don't really fit in - I've chosen to take large risks in hopes I'll get very productive (I really don't care that much about the money) results.

 

The only places I could fit in within a socialist system would be organized crime or underground resistance.

[aguy2]

Here's why I think socialism works' date=' and why it's better than capitalism. I'll keep this short and informative.

[/quote']

 

For nearly 80 years up to 1/3 of humanity tried to make centrally run economic systems work. All their attempts resulted in miserable failures. Empirical evidence would indicate that such systems don't work. Period.

 

aguy2

[Aardvark]

The thing about Socialism is that is has never really been tried.

 

Check out Britain in the 1970's. Socialism was tried' date=' the government owned most of the large industries, it owned the airlines, the railways, the freight companies, the oil companies, the telephones, the gas, the steel and iron works, the coal mines, it even owned the travel agents.

 

The government told companies what prices to charge and what wages to pay, it centrally directed the economy, it planned and built new towns and cities and directed and controlled where companies could invest. It also provided free health care and free education for all.

 

If that's not socialism what is? (and by the way, it resulted in chaos and near total collapse)

 

 

I'm no expert but I find it amusing when people say socialism doesn't work.

 

What is amusing here? Do you think socialism does work?

 

 

tens of thousands starve every day and hundreds of millions live in abject poverty.

 

Where are these tens off thousands of people who are starving every day?

 

It might interest you to look at the history of famine. There is an axiom that 'democracies don't starve'. People starve in dictatorships, in controlled economies. Where there are elections and the rudiments of 'capitalism' there are no famines. For examples, compare pre independence India with independent India. Or compare 1960's India with 1960's China. Or semi democratic Kenya to undemocratic Ethopia.

 

Pointing out imperfections in 'capitalism' doesn't make socialism the answer. Socialism has been tried, repeatedly, in different countries, at different times and in different ways. The only example that even half supports the contention that socialism can work is Sweden, and even Sweden has had to ditch a lot of socialist policies to prevent economic crisis.

[-Demosthenes-]

Socialism doesn't need a tax system' date=' because government already owns all businesses/firms.

Any money the people spend will go to the government,

and the government will then use it to pay the people who work for it.

The flow of money balances out, nobody makes any profits, and thus justice is served in the eyes of Marxists.[/quote']

The government pays, and therefore effectively controls you. You vote for the current government at re-election, or they don't pay you, and you starve. Ya for your version of socialism.

[Aardvark]

The government pays, and therefore effectively controls you. You vote for the current government at re-election, or they don't pay you, and you starve. Ya for your version of socialism.

 

Another word to describe that is feudalism.

 

Ya for serfdom!

[aguy2]

The government pays, and therefore effectively controls you. You vote for the current government at re-election, or they don't pay you, and you starve. Ya for your version of socialism.

 

The Russians used to say, "We pretend to work and the government pretends to pay us."

 

aguy2

[pcs]

Here's why I think socialism works, and why it's better than capitalism. I'll keep this short and informative.

 

Is this your first time sharing this point of view with others? I was expecting a more rigorous defense.

[-Demosthenes-]

The Russians used to say' date=' "We pretend to work and the government pretends to pay us."

 

aguy2[/quote']

Ah, to be comrades again...

 

Look at Russia, Communism was cool... unless you were jewish... or Polish... or not a party member... or too smart for your own good... or... you pretty much get the idea.

[memenaut_06]

Capitalist economies remove all the logistics and monumental overhead from the backs of economy planners because capitalist economies are internally self-regulating.

 

What do you mean self-regulating? Ensuring that capitalists always win?

 

You should stop reading capitalist propaganda.

There is nothing holy about punching buttons on a calculator.

 

Capitalists just want to make the most profits,

so they set price which sells the most products for greatest cash.

It is part math and part guesses - completely brainless task!

 

These guys aren't geniuses, they make mistakes too.

 

It is like evolution. It slow and painful process that takes many years and

many failed attempts to get it right.

If there was a smart being that had more information, he could do the same things

in a fraction of the time and without the same mistakes.

 

Think - if a guy with a calculator in each company can do it

with limited information about his local part of the economy,

then it can be done even better by an integrated network

with TOTAL information about every part of the economy.

 

Look at how much it helped Russia - it was lifted out of the dark ages and turned into

space-age super-power with planned economy.

Then it turned into 3rd world country again when it became capitalist.

 

 

Without even a flowchart of how this cybernetic system could work in principle, you cant genuinely say that socialism is better than capitalism.

 

It's called control theory, part of cybernetics. It relies on a feedback control loop

to maintain a steady state of economic homeostasis.

 

Inventory is made of availible goods and rate of consumption is measured.

Projections are made, and targets are set to make up for the difference.

Rate of production is adjusted accordingly.

 

 

There are detailed equations for feedback control, but that requires good understanding of the math behind cybernetics.

 

 

memenaut, where does the money for these changes come from? In your first post you said "The flow of money balances out, nobody makes any profits,". If there are no profits, then there is no spare money to pay for the wonderful new innovation. Or do you shut down the car factory for 20 years while you build your space colony?

 

You're still thinking in terms of capitalist economics!

 

Look - government will own all factories, industrial machinery, raw materials, etc.

It doesn't NEED to pay for refining, manufacturing, production, construction, and everything else.

 

All it needs to pay for are the workers.

 

And if the work is done by machines, then government doesn't even need to pay for it!

It just pays for the workers that run the powerplants that power the machines.

 

Building space colony will put more money into the hands of consumers,

which will then be spent on goverment goods and services.

 

The only limit is actual physical wealth - raw materials, territory, workers themselves, etc.

 

So you are worried too much about money. What is money after all? It is just means of exchange.

 

Actually, socialism won't even use paper money - it will all be computerized. It will only be called money by tradition.

 

And no profits means there will be no gigantic gap between the rich capitalists and the working class.

 

 

 

The problem with a socialistic system, is people like me don't really fit in - I've chosen to take large risks in hopes I'll get very productive (I really don't care that much about the money) results.

 

You like risks?

 

Become space colonist - you will travel to distant world,

terraform it while living in "space commune",

then engineer a new bio-system to inhabit the planet,

found a new society, and become its historic figure.

 

Become cybernaut - your mind will be merged with machine,

you will become part of greater entity,

you will be free of the warped matrix of human perception,

and you will transcend confines of the flesh.

 

Become bio-engineer - you will experiment with new forms of life,

play god in the role of evolution, and you will you will

design the next generation of humans.

 

Become nano-engineer - you'll assemble everything atom by atom, you will explore the

world of bacteria and viruses, and you will create self-reproducing, self-organizing

automatons that evolve to greater levels of complexity.

 

Become soldier - you'll be trained to shoot rifle, fly jet, operate tank,

you will become part of a giant fighting machine, and you will conquer

new lands in the name of socialism.

 

 

Check out Britain in the 1970's. Socialism was tried

[...]

it resulted in chaos and near total collapse)

 

That's a capitalist lie, stop reading bourgeois agitprop.

 

There was world-wide downturn in business in 1970s caused by recession and inflation.

 

To prevent companies from collapsing and turning into anarchy,

government had to nationalize everything.

 

And the USA had to do similarly with "Economic Stabilization Act of 1970",

introducing wage and price controls.

 

Socialism saved the world from the recession created by capitalism.

But this isn't the history they teach at school.

 

 

There is an axiom that 'democracies don't starve'. People starve in dictatorships, in controlled economies. Where there are elections and the rudiments of 'capitalism' there are no famines.

 

What does democracy have to do with economics?

 

If economy is controlled by elected people, does that still make it dictatorship?

 

Capitalism is the real dictatorship. Nobody appointed the rich to power.

 

"Democratic capitalism" is an oxymoron. How can you get elected unless you have

lots of money for advertising and election campaigns?

...or lots of corporate "friends" who give you "campaign donations"?

 

Why would politicians go through all the trouble of politics, unless they

were getting paid a lot by the rich?

Do you think politicians really care so much about their

ideas that they would go through all that trouble?

 

No wonder all parties are the same thing. Different sides of

the same coin, so to say. Politicians are just puppets.

 

No politician will ever do anything, except make money for

himself and make government friendly for the rich.

 

 

The Russians used to say, "We pretend to work and the government pretends to pay us."

 

Yes, after 1985, when traitor Gorbachov began destroying USSR by installing free-market.

[Dak]

communism != despotism any more than Democracy = capitalism

 

The lack of freedoms in a commuism is aimed soley at buisnesses, not nessesaraly at the people; it is possible to have a socialist state where the trade is govournment controlled and the people have freedom in all other areas, eg a democratic communism.

 

so the comparisons between democracy and communism/communism and despotism are not entirely acurate.

[Pangloss]

Look at how much it helped Russia - it was lifted out of the dark ages and turned into

space-age super-power with planned economy.

Then it turned into 3rd world country again when it became capitalist.

 

You have it backwards. It became a 3rd world country under communism' date=' and has turned to a market economy to climb out of it, and (surprise surprise) it's working.

 

Think - if a guy with a calculator in each company can do it

with limited information about his local part of the economy,

then it can be done even better by an integrated network

with TOTAL information about every part of the economy.

 

There's no fewer people "punching calculators" under your system. They're just doing it by force instead of choice.

 

"I will work harder!" said Horse.

[Jim]

Socialism fails because it does not harness greed.

[Pangloss]

Interesting.

[Dak]

Socialism fails because it does not harness greed.

 

 

yeah, it is unfortunately easyer to get people to do things for selfish reasons than for altruistic ones.

 

However -- and this is more of a result of the despotic way in which communist russia was run than due to the fact that it was a communism -- the biggest pieriod of industrial growth, as far as im aware, was in communist russia just prior to world war II; stalins 5-year plans dragged russia to a level where it could compete with the other superpowers in just over 10 years (if memory serves correctly).

 

Now, Im not saying that it was nice, but it was effective... maybe some form of toned-down 'x-year plans' in a socialist society could work well? Then you'd still have the drive to innovate and inprove that is present in capitalism, with the ideological niceties of communism.

[Pangloss]

I don't see where the case has been here that communism was actually "effective" at any given time, as opposed to only giving the appearance of being effective.

[bascule]

One would like to think the Paris Commune was effective for the brief time it lasted...

[Nemesio]

"I will work harder!" said Horse.

 

Nice touch!

[Dak]

I don't see where the case has been here that communism was actually "effective" at any given time, as opposed to only giving the appearance[/i'] of being effective.

 

The staggering increase in oil, coal, steel and electrisity production, along with the increase in manufactured goods production and the results of the 'projects', of socialist russia -- which, as i said, was a result of stalins (somewhat despotic) 5-year-plans (which i was reffering to when i said 'effective') rather than of communism.

 

Also, you can't argue with the fact that, at the time of the cold war, communist russia was one of the two biggest powers in the world by quite a margin (capitalist america being the other one); as i said, not nessesarily a direct result of communism, but still an effective communist state.