ummmm…,no pun intended?
Pun intended 
Yea… I would not argue. I think this is a more effective rebuttal to socialists reasoning than bring up Venezuela or other state dominant disasters that people tend to jump to.
There is some studies that suggest collectively owned firms outperform. If that’s the case and they actually have a competitive advantage (which I’m skeptical of), then you should see more firms structured in that manner to exploit the advantage. But I suspect there a lot of a downsides that are hard to forsee.
My pleasure, interesting topic!
I haven’t been following this thread, but again…
The idea that the uneducated peasants have the power to vote, and alter the economic system of the largest economy on Earth, is laughable. How naive does one have to be to believe? And yet Americans keep talking as if they hold that power. The economic system is corporatism, and it will remain such until 1) a successful civil war, or 2) collapse. Done.
Collective ownership creates the incentive for people to work harder so it would make sense that they do better, but I don’t think it’s necessarily better for the capitalist since he is now sharing his upside with others instead of exploiting and extracting the profits from each employee.
i think i may be the first to mention this but moving from private ownership to collective ownership would either require a buyout of the private owner, that the private owner is bankrupted by a new business under collective ownership or that the business is stolen from him.
not all collective owners have capital so buying out the private owner or starting a new business under collective ownership is impossible. in order for collective ownership to exist in the US, it would require the nationalization/expropriation of every single business. this is why collective ownership is effectively state ownership. the state must dictate the nationalization/expropriation and those who run the state get to set the terms of how the nationalized/expropriated businesses are divvied up. sounds like chaos and a way for a new elite group to be created.
the only way to bridge the gap between today’s world and a fairer one for the average joe is through taxation. you tax and redistribute. simple. this is what european countries have embraced. capitalism, but capitalism that limits corporate profits through taxation and improves average human experience.
the hallmark of democratic socialism is the economic structure of worker-owned businesses which is impossible unless you completely eradicate capital therefore making capital unnecessary for new business formation. the only way to ensure this is to literally go back to the stone age where all products can be formed using things in our environment with no virtually no power or consumables. achieving true democratic socialism would probably seal the fate of 6+ billion lives. these people are stupid and truly do not understand why capital is a positive thing. they see it as the root of all evil and poverty and yet it is the solution to evil and poverty, with redistribution. capital is the sole reason we have 7+ billion souls on this earth rather than 1 million.
This is why I brought this up on this form! Wow, what a great and fair statement.
MLA, was there a particular source or book that inspired this or is it your personal line of reasoning? I would like to educate myself deeper on these points.
Basically what MLA and others are saying. You’re fantasizing about some utopia where popular rule of assets is anything other than mob rule and a misguided popularity contest. I mean, we just elected Trump to lead the free world and look at who the other contestants were. This is why socialism fails. Eventually people just push for whoever they like, or whoever says the popular thing and you waste down the assets through mismanagement (ahem, venezuelan oil assets) for short term gain because people are largely idiots who think in the short term. This is where capitalism secedes, largely because it allows for individualism and for individuals to fail. Entrepreneurs can scrape together capital and act independently from any oversight committee or popularity (read party based) approval process. People who are right more, accumulate more capital and thus more vote in real time. As they lose touch, their wealth (vote) declines. This mechanism does not exist in socialism which essentially equates to facebook debates where every moronic opinion counts solely because it exists.
I’m not saying capitalism isn’t flawed, can’t be abused or shouldn’t be adapted or regulated. I’m simply saying that any successful system over the long term has capitalism at its core by necessity. Scandanavia is nice and all but you’re looking at homogenous countries with populations the size of a single large city and sizable oil wealth.
^This and what MLA said. Also see: “Tragedy of the Commons”
I realize my cartoon is over-the-top, but I couldn’t have a reasonable discussion with most of the “Feel the Bern” folks I’ve run into so I just send them that. Like many Trumpers, simple memes/arguments are all they can seem to handle (despite supposedly Bernie supporters being better educated…)
America doesn’t have capitalism as its core anymore, and there’s no way to turn the clock back.
I thought this was funny. A Koch brothers funded research house published a report designed to slate medicare-for-all, but actually found it would decrease the overall cost of healthcare provision while greatly increasing coverage. Bernie makes a reasonable point at the end of his video. If every other first world country can provide some form of state funded healthcare which provides greater benefits at much lower costs, why should we believe those who say the USA uniquely cannot provide the same?
Is cutting costs and improving service levels ‘socialism’ or just common sense?
Because it’s this sort of oversimplification of the situation that sticks the argument. Doctors in the UK and other countries had their education paid for by the government. They come out and make ~$120k a year more or less for life (adjusted for inflation). Most of the world also relies very heavily on generics which creates a situation where the US funds the world’s research by buying branded drugs (which pays for R&D). As a result, the wealthy in this country are used to getting a higher level of customized care through the current competitive tiered system in the US. Our nation is also fat as sh*t and sedentary. So the overhaul you’re looking for to get to a structure like foreign countries while possible will take decades of coordinated, unpopular political action over the healthcare lobby. Highly unlikely.
we can tax the fatties which odds are will be regressive, or tax the rich which is progressive! I would rather we tax a percentage of income (including capital gains) rather than be forced to share control to employees that may not understand how to properly manage a business. with great equity comes great responsibility!
Another argument I’ve heard is that socialism came after wealth for those countries. If that’s true, then it’s a decision to forgo future growth. If USA did that, it impacts everyone. If some random European country does that, the impact is minimal globallly
it’s pure MLA baby! i am the Fountain of Reason. it is an incredibly easy critique.
no matter what system you operate under, someone has to ultimately decide whether to go ahead with a new idea or not. under the current system, private capital mixed with public funding sources allows ease of new business formation, assuming there is a profit potential (thus a need). most people can self fund small projects themselves and only have to convince a handful of people to fund large projects.
in democratic socialism, do i have to get the majority vote of my township to attain scissors and other hair care products on my behalf and open a barbershop? if so, how long does the vote take and is someone influencing the masses against me? what if i want to build data centres or build websites and expand the internet at the expense of the inefficient newspaper industry? will all of those working in the inefficient newspaper industry and all of their peers vote against me/progress?
lol there an app right now where people answer a a series of multiple choice question and at the end of it, a prize is split between everyone who gets the right answer.
anyways, this kind of tech makes it easier to get everyone to vote on an issue. imagine if we can all vote on anything. whether a person is guilty or not. whether marijuana should be legalized. etc etc. i dont really like defining what is right or wrong, i much prefer to get the opinion of others and do what the majority thinks.
we can also use this to rate people like in black mirror. china is creating sometihing like it, a form of credit score, where they rate people based on their contribution to society. i like that too. just so we know who the pos are. i feel that people will do the right thing more if they are constantly judged.
“The nail that sticks out gets hammered down.”