If you want to advocate socialism, please tell me how it works...

In talking to Petrus4 and ANOK in the thread Why my mind is closing toward Capitalism I've been hearing quite a bit about the ideas behind socialism, but I'm having a hard time getting anyone to tell me exactly how it would work. In the thread I posted this:

I don't think we wasted 65 pages of a thread, what I'm saying is that we've pretty much covered ideals, pros and cons of socialism and capitalism, and all that's happening now are random posters taking each others' comments out of context to make a point that has already been made (and probably refuted in some way, shape or form).

We can talk about the ideals and theories of socialism, but the key argument is always, "we haven't seen a true socialistic society in modern times". From my other posts, you can get a pretty good feel for the way I think Capitalism should be implemented as a hypothetical:

My thought is that it can work well if you are able to protect individual Citizens from the tyranny of the majority and the sociopath. I propose this to be done through a representative government bound to a document very, very similar to the Constitution of the United States and the Declaration of Independence. I like the concept of structure laid out by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is great from the aspect of protecting the people from the government. I think the new document, however, would have to go farther in protecting each Individual's Natural Rights from other Individuals (sociopaths) and also lay out the Natural Responsibilities that go along with having Natural Rights. The federal government would then have ONLY the responsibility of upholding these Rights for the Citizens against the perils that may come from other Citizens, State governments, the federal government itself or from another country.

The main goal of this system is to prevent psychopaths from using the system to gain ultimate power of Individuals. We can all agree that whether done through corporatism, fascism (via Capitalism) or communism (via socialism) this would be a very bad thing. To me socialism provides a much easier path to the endgame of despotism for the sociopath, as gaining control in a socialistic society would mean gaining control of the allocation of resources. This would to lead to direct serfdom for the people. I think that capitalism, where resources are acquired and traded privately with little or no oversight, is much more difficult to hijack if a representative government limited in power but intricate in design that protects the Citizens' Rights exists.

I elaborated a bit more than I wanted to there, but this is my basic reason and idea for Capitalism, how it should be implemented, and why this implementation makes it better than socialism. My question to those who advocate socialism, then, is how you would propose to implement it from the start, in a real world country where power-hungry sociopaths exist. How would you stop them from corrupting your system? What is your mechanism for allocation of resources? For getting people to produce resources for the community? What if they decided they don't want to do anything of value for the community? How are the Natural Rights of Man, namely Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness (these are really important ideals to me) treated, respected, handled, and protected? How are people who choose not to uphold the Natural Responsibilities that stem from these Rights handled? Do you see any limits to the feasibility of your system regarding size and/or scope to your community/country? If so, how does it handle trade with other communities/countries to gain resources it can't produce or obtain on its own?

I'm curious to see any responses to this, as it is a little difficult for me to come up with those answers for socialism since I am admittedly biased toward Capitalism. However, these are a lot of the questions I answered for Capitalism when thinking about how to implement if fairly.

I think I made decent case for the way I see a Capitalist economic system and a limited government system (surprisingly largely based on the Constitutional Republic the US is supposed to be) would mesh and why I thought it was better than anything I was hearing about socialism in this thread.

I wanted to hear how socialism would tackle the questions mentioned above and deal with society as a whole with or without a formal government.

So here's your chance: Please build a picture of how socialism would look at the ground level, describe any means of distribution or government structure necessary, and maybe how large you think the system could get before having problems...

reply to post by ProgressiveSlayer

One problem with your Ideal 1776 costitution is Capitalism was in it's true infancy with the industrial revolution just beginning.The 1776 constitution was suitable for an agrarian society i.e it was saddly already outdated.You ask how socialism would work?I say you already see glimpses everyday eg you mow the council land strip no? .You might see more obvious cases after disasters though when everyone just moves to help everyone else and government moves in,not to help but to maintian control because workers would just operate the factories ,stores ect. ie perform services and produce.You see we arent ment to be this way scraping and scratching in a world of plenty.we labour to produce all but share so little.

reply to post by ARandomAfflictionOfSense


Note I said largely based, I didn't say it didn't need any tweaks. However, I feel the idea of having Freedom and personal Liberty as long as you don't infringe on the Freedom and Liberty of others works no matter what kind of economy you have. This should be the purpose of government imo, protecting those Rights. That concept doesn't get outdated.

People helping each other after a disaster? You mean people using the supplies they have collected for themselves to help others through charity? That's more a Capitalist idea when done by Free Will, a notion that helping the community with what you have in the hopes that it will be better for you in the future.

reply to post by ProgressiveSlayer

I see we both have different ideas about what capitalism is and that ok, so i'll explain my idea of it very briefly and we can go from there.I work in a factory that requires alot of workers and produce a product.The workers never own what they produce the capitalist or the corp or govt does.The workers are given a wage but the wage is never the actual value of what they produce, it's less.In a libertarian socialist society the workers or no one would own the factories ect.

reply to post by ARandomAfflictionOfSense


To answer your question, a Capitalist system that could successfully preserve Self Determination would look something like this: You tell someone that you are willing to help them produce a product if they pay you a wage. You agree on the wage. If you don't think the wage is fair you can ask for a raise and explain your reasoning. If the employer does not agree, you can keep the job, find another that you feel will pay you a fair wage, or start a company so you get to keep the profits if you have acquired the means to do so. Likewise, if you are not giving the employer what they feel they are paying for, they can fire you. The government structure would exist ONLY to make sure your Rights are respected by the employer, and that you have the opportunity to change jobs or that there is a fair chance for you to start your own company if you wish.

I understand the argument that you are not being paid a fair wage for your job, but in my opinion the discrepancy gets skewed when the government takes a good chuck of the money you earned and gives it to someone else, or worse uses it to subsidize the company you work for. That's not right at all because it eliminates your means to save money to start a company and greatly shrinks your options for employment ,as those who get subsidized are the ones with more opportunity to survive the ridiculous regulations the government uses your money to enforce. As you can see, the size and scope of government greatly affects the effectiveness of Capitalism imo and its intervention should be as little as possible.

The next part of your answer is the part that never makes sense to me. If the workers own the factory, what happens to the stuff the factory produces? Does it get sold with in some kind of market within the society and the profits divided among the workers? Does it go into a pool of resources that gets split by everyone in the society? What if you no longer like working at the factory and want to do something else? Is it fair to have your own company where you are the only person working and get to keep everything you produce? What about service-based jobs? Are those non-existant?

If the "pool of resources" exists how is fairness maintained?

These are questions I keep asking but it always comes back to "the workers own the factory" and apparently I'm supposed to take it from there but I guess I'm too f***ing stupid to do that for myself or something. No offense intended RandomAct.

reply to post by ProgressiveSlayer


You are not stupid and I'm not offended but thanks for the apology.As an eg to your question lets say you work in a power plant and you and your fellow worker make electricity.Well we are pretty good at making electricty these days so you and your work mates make more than you your selves need the rest is cream surpluss and is fed to the grid,of course all of it is but you get the point.

You can see through modern advances due in part to capitalism granted,we can produce as much as we ourselves need plus more.What happens in a post wage society is anyones guess and i'm not saying it will ever happen let alone soon.But when we look at now all is war, debt,prisons ,over time ,even those who have made a good life a threatened with eviction ,job loss and ruin.How do we keep going like this when it gets real .

reply to post by ARandomAfflictionOfSense


Thank you for an honest answer... Like I said, I get the concept but when I try to think about what happens when "the products leave the factory" all I can think of is kind of shared profit system among the workers in that factory or company or whatever which ultimately still leads to a Capitalist market within the society or the resources get dolled out by someone which in my opinion is kind of a dicey situation. Even if you put all sorts of checks and balances and systems in place, a few bad decisions by the Citizens and poof: you have authoritarian government with power and control over all resources, which is bad in all cases.

Again, I understand people are frustrated with perversion of Capitalism that exists in the US today. I can even see where you might begin to think about other systems. But is socialism really a good idea if we don't know what's going to happen and how it will work once we implement it? If anyone has figured this out so we can debate actual "applied" systems I hope they post here.

Or we can begin a march back toward the Ideals put before us in 1776 in the Declaration of Independence and how we uphold in the Constitution (btw drafted in 1787 and ratified and put into place in 1788). Capitalism fueled by a constitutionally-backed respect for Individual Liberty would solve many of the problems that exist with the "Capitalism" that persists today, in my opinion.

reply to post by ProgressiveSlayer

I don't see capitalism as evil ,it's just how we run things today.It's unstable and chaotic and even tribal but for me it comes down to this.How can Everyone be free ? Anyone can but we all can't. Not if we want a workforce that mass produces and manages(good and services) the stuff we need and want.Otherwise we all go to the farms and become self sufficient lol.But then what happens is what happened everywhere the state makes you leave either by law or voilence.

It's kinda funny to me that most people don't realize that socialism has destroyed our capitalism.

Social Security, Welfare. It breeds a dependent, not a person that would try to do for himself and family.

Why should they work, if the rest will provide for them? And in turn be plunged into having nothing.

I will not work to be broke. I can sit at home and be broke.

reply to post by ProgressiveSlayer


Good luck finding a company that will bargain like that. You don't live in reality if you think that's possible.

Businesses give you what they are willing to pay you, unless you have a bargaining unit position (i:e- union). What you're advocating for sounds exactly like that, but with just one individual.

reply to post by rbnhd76


You do realize that we're in the middle of a recession?

Have you put any thought to the possibility that some of these "bums" on SSI and welfare are actually people who can't find work?

I do not advocate Socialism, for the record. I advocate certain specific behaviours, and I do not believe that said behaviours should be grouped together as an "ism."

The problem with isms, is the fact that psychopaths can claim to self-identify as an adherent of said ism, even when their behaviour is completely the opposite of the known definition of the ism. People have been going on about how psychopaths such as George Soros or David Rockefeller are Socialists, when what they don't understand is that said people will simply label themselves with whatever ism they perceive as being the most popular at the time.

So back when Capitalism was considered the in thing, John Rockefeller likely didn't mind being called a Capitalist. Now, however, his son has recognised that Socialism is the new ism that people claim to want, so he is calling himself a Socialist. The thing that you notice about psychopaths, however, is that no matter what ism they claim to subscribe to, their behaviour never changes.

ETA

In reply to The Sword

Where did i say bums? Yes there are some bums.

There are a lot more regular people who are caught up and entangled by THE VERY SYSTEM THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO SAVE THEM!

_________________________________________________-

That is entirely NOT what I meant. Not sure if you're being obtuse or ?

I said it breeds a dependant class. Even Jesus said you'll always have the poor.

I do have a heart. I haven't had steady work now for a couple years myself, being in the construction industry.

But I do anything somebody agrees to pay me for.

I don't want a union saying I can't work for less cause the guy is poor,( because I do)

and I don't care what the rich guy says when I quote him at a larger price.

If me and another agree on price, it's nobody else's business.

I keep my bills just as low as I can.

I don't have to eat steak and filet mignon.

I eat beans and rice, and rice and beans. And hamburger helper. and you get the idea.

ETA I just read your sig, I don't agree and that tells me about all I need to know. I'm out, and say what you will.

Originally posted by ARandomAfflictionOfSense
reply to post by ProgressiveSlayer

 

One problem with your Ideal 1776 costitution is Capitalism was in it's true infancy with the industrial revolution just beginning.The 1776 constitution was suitable for an agrarian society i.e it was saddly already outdated.You ask how socialism would work?I say you already see glimpses everyday eg you mow the council land strip no? .You might see more obvious cases after disasters though when everyone just moves to help everyone else and government moves in,not to help but to maintian control because workers would just operate the factories ,stores ect. ie perform services and produce.You see we arent ment to be this way scraping and scratching in a world of plenty.we labour to produce all but share so little.

you say the constitution was outdated when it was written? Yet somehow survives 200+ years to this day.

Socialism is different from charity, which is what happens after a disaster. People give to charity WILLINGLY, Socialism on the other hand TAKES with failed promises to give.

Socialism is my opinion is social altruism.

Without getting into to that much, a good example of how socialism works would be to look at America's manufacturing and governmental policies of World War 2.

That is however a very small facet of what socialism actualy is or can be.

The nationalization of Britain coal industry is another pretty good example.

Originally posted by rbnhd76
ETA

In reply to The Sword

Where did i say bums? Yes there are some bums.

There are a lot more regular people who are caught up and entangled by THE VERY SYSTEM THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO SAVE THEM!

_________________________________________________-

That is entirely NOT what I meant. Not sure if you're being obtuse or ?

I said it breeds a dependant class. Even Jesus said you'll always have the poor.

I do have a heart. I haven't had steady work now for a couple years myself, being in the construction industry.

But I do anything somebody agrees to pay me for.

I don't want a union saying I can't work for less cause the guy is poor,( because I do)

and I don't care what the rich guy says when I quote him at a larger price.

If me and another agree on price, it's nobody else's business.

I keep my bills just as low as I can.

I don't have to eat steak and filet mignon.

I eat beans and rice, and rice and beans. And hamburger helper. and you get the idea.

ETA I just read your sig, I don't agree and that tells me about all I need to know. I'm out, and say what you will.

edit on 18-2-2012 by rbnhd76 because: Peace! Love you guys and wish you all the best. Honestly!

edit on 18-2-2012 by rbnhd76 because: (no reason given)

I am curious. Do you ever work for less than minimum wage?

Socialism for things that are vital to our survival and success in today's world.

Military
Education
Basic utilities (water, electric, gas, telecom)
Food Staples
Transportation
Healthcare
Basic banking and basic retirement security

All the above should be available on a non-profit basis.

Capitalism for everything else.

reply to post by rbnhd76


It is not literal.

I was speaking on just how perverted this country's values have become over the years. We're lucky if people don't view our founding fathers as america-haters.

reply to post by petrus4


Exactly... We agreed on this point before.

The thing is, I have a pretty decent idea of how to use Free Markets and Capitalism with a government structure to protect Natural Rights and hold people to the Natural Responsibilities you take on if you expect your Rights to be respected.

However, every time I try to get a similar vision out of someone who advocates socialism, I get quoted definitions and and a bunch of articles and you-tube videos telling me what socialism is. Problem is, the original thread caused me do quite a bit of research and thinking, so I have a grasp for what socialism is aiming. However, I haven't found a real good example in history of a system that worked. Spain did not last long enough to provide a case study for the system's propensity to repel the psychopathic despot (I mention this because it is probably the most common example I am told to look up).

So I offer a chance to spitball ideas about how to apply socialism to a country/community. In my opinion, you should respect one's Natural Rights (we'll pretend I don't believe the Right to personal property is one of these) and avoid the system being over-run from an outside force or being hijacked by a despot from within.

There are a number of western democracies through the 1970s which successfully operated a more socially just system than America has under capitalism which had positive strong democracy.

Some which come to mind were the Scandinavian countries and New Zealand in which although there was still private enterprise, the Government administered power utilities and taxpayer funded free medical health care, free taxpayer funded tertiary education etc.

They foundered as global free trade took hold in the late Eighties and credit agencies began to restrict credit to those countries, unless they instituted changes which basically opened up those areas to capital investors. However socialism of itself need not be anti democratic (although it can be). Often Capitalism is far more anti democratic and unjust.

I think many Americans do not understand the difference between social democracy and communism. Socialism in democratic countries practicing free enterprise can work, but is unable to survive against aggressive capital markets and global free trade which put capital ahead of people.

Communism is a different concept altogether from genuinely democratic socialism.