Cons: It will never work in practice because human nature is a thing.
Maybe if we stop teaching our children that the most important thing in life is to have more stuff than your neighbors, it will stop being part of our nature.
"it will never work in practice" says the person using the internet who can drive down the paved road to the community credit union, or indeed one of the banks that was bailed out by the government before going to the library, posting a letter, and then goes to work the next day in which they are required to be efficient in their job in order to make sure other people's work isn't affected, and must not break the law while at work, laws created to preserve the health and wellbeing of society, themselves and their colleagues, meanwhile while at work their trash is collected and sent to a public refuse center, spends the weekend at the local state park, which is subject to pollution laws, and indeed even has the temerity to vote in a democracy and is allowed to participate in the stock market without owning a business or a warehouse of goods, experiences freedom of movement across a union of states (one might even call them United States, and one formed as a socialist revolt against Monarchism and the capitalist imposed taxes without representation, and later held a civil war around the socialist ideal of abolitionism).
They may even express sentiments such as "food waste is bad", "pollution is bad", "I enjoy watching TV, reading books, listening to music, and/or participating in sports" and "I can change careers and do something different to what the family business is".
All of which are socialist ideas that clearly don't work in real life.
Socialist ideas is to move away from the idea of private ownership. Everything is owned by the “people” in collective (which in practice often means the state). You don’t own your cellphone, your computer or your shoes. They’re all provided to you by the “people” (the state).
The roads in your example are paved by private companies in a competitive market (often funded by tax money). They may have been selected by the state to do the work at an agreed price. Next time some other private company might do the work because they compete with even better prices. This process is not socialistic.
that is one very strict definition of socialism, which is not a monolith. Nor is there any agreed Purity test of what is or is not socialism
... with that in mind - following your roads example still
if roads are paid for, described, prescribed and constructed / maintained by private companies as you say - why is the government involved at all? Isn't it more accurate to say the government owns all roads (in the US- due to eminant domain- all land) and contracts private companies to build them
companies only exist by the express permission of and after registration by the government, and we can argue who holds the most soft power, but the fact is if you fuck up bad enough the government will disband your company for you
the existence of a market does not mean socialism is not happening: in reality, the "profit incentive" of capitalism is also tempered by the social contract of socialism. In my post I was careful to give examples of the social contract that outway pure profit incentives (ie you can't build a factory in a national park)
I would say the process of agreeing to do something in exchange for money is neither (/unknowably) capitalist or socialist (or neither or both) without further context.
In these cases it’s capitalism with some social systems in place. A far cry from full on socialism.
why can we only critique "full on" socialism? (what does that even mean) and yet capitalism with democratic-socialistic elements is treated as if it's "full on" capitalism?
Cons: It will never work in practice because human nature is a thing.
This exact reason is why capitalism will never work. Human nature will look to exploit.
Exploitation is the point of capitalism. It's working as designed.
Historically, human nature led naturally to socialist societies. It happened for thousands of years even before anyone named it socialism
It's absolutely disturbing how avidly people seem to want to ignore that inconvenient truth...
"The people will own the means of production". Except it's never once worked out that way.
"Everyone will be happy to go to work, because it's for the good of all". Except it's never once worked out that way.
"Nobody will ever have to worry about basic needs". Except it's never once worked out that way.
Socialism has historically consolidated both power and wealth just as reliably as capitalism has, and frankly, I don't buy that the impetus behind the growing advocacy for socialism even is actually equality... I think it's a desire to have more shit, with less effort required to get it (and that sounds sketchy, and I think people are generally averse to stating it openly due to this)
I personally think the most likely means to achieve that is ironically the capitalist system we currently have, with a huge boost to the economy in the form of universal basic income.
Give literally everyone $50k/yr. Period. Even musk, the zuck, bezos... Everyone... The people who don't want to do jack can sit around and enjoy the product of labor that will inevitably be increasingly provided by automation, out of necessity. The dream of the 1960's, of having robots do everything for us while we sit around at the park, will come to fruition finally, because while we've had the ability to do it, we've not had any means of paying our bills while sitting around. UBI would provide that, and "the capitalists" will have the incentive to automate because there will be less labor available.
Of course, we're talking about a massive spike in income tax here... But we're also making the labor far more valuable, by way of rarity. Harder to find workers, so you pay them more, and even with the increased taxation, even a modest salary reflects economic advantage over a nonworker. The guy that used to make $50k/yr is only making $25k/yr if we slap a 50% tax on him, but he's still putting $75k/yr in the bank, aint he?
I think "socialism" is the wrong direction. 180° exactly in the wrong direction. Unless by "socialism" people are actually advocating the "advanced welfare" Nordic approach...
Another pro is we can eat our neighbors when food becomes scarce. Or we can report them for owning a grain of wheat and have them murdered.
Pros: It's nice in theory.
Cons: It will never work in practice because human nature is a thing.
Maybe if we stop teaching our children that the most important thing in life is to have more stuff than your neighbors, it will stop being part of our nature.
"it will never work in practice" says the person using the internet who can drive down the paved road to the community credit union, or indeed one of the banks that was bailed out by the government before going to the library, posting a letter, and then goes to work the next day in which they are required to be efficient in their job in order to make sure other people's work isn't affected, and must not break the law while at work, laws created to preserve the health and wellbeing of society, themselves and their colleagues, meanwhile while at work their trash is collected and sent to a public refuse center, spends the weekend at the local state park, which is subject to pollution laws, and indeed even has the temerity to vote in a democracy and is allowed to participate in the stock market without owning a business or a warehouse of goods, experiences freedom of movement across a union of states (one might even call them United States, and one formed as a socialist revolt against Monarchism and the capitalist imposed taxes without representation, and later held a civil war around the socialist ideal of abolitionism).
They may even express sentiments such as "food waste is bad", "pollution is bad", "I enjoy watching TV, reading books, listening to music, and/or participating in sports" and "I can change careers and do something different to what the family business is".
All of which are socialist ideas that clearly don't work in real life.
Socialist ideas is to move away from the idea of private ownership. Everything is owned by the “people” in collective (which in practice often means the state). You don’t own your cellphone, your computer or your shoes. They’re all provided to you by the “people” (the state).
The roads in your example are paved by private companies in a competitive market (often funded by tax money). They may have been selected by the state to do the work at an agreed price. Next time some other private company might do the work because they compete with even better prices. This process is not socialistic.
that is one very strict definition of socialism, which is not a monolith. Nor is there any agreed Purity test of what is or is not socialism
... with that in mind - following your roads example still
if roads are paid for, described, prescribed and constructed / maintained by private companies as you say - why is the government involved at all? Isn't it more accurate to say the government owns all roads (in the US- due to eminant domain- all land) and contracts private companies to build them
companies only exist by the express permission of and after registration by the government, and we can argue who holds the most soft power, but the fact is if you fuck up bad enough the government will disband your company for you
the existence of a market does not mean socialism is not happening: in reality, the "profit incentive" of capitalism is also tempered by the social contract of socialism. In my post I was careful to give examples of the social contract that outway pure profit incentives (ie you can't build a factory in a national park)
I would say the process of agreeing to do something in exchange for money is neither (/unknowably) capitalist or socialist (or neither or both) without further context.
In these cases it’s capitalism with some social systems in place. A far cry from full on socialism.
why can we only critique "full on" socialism? (what does that even mean) and yet capitalism with democratic-socialistic elements is treated as if it's "full on" capitalism?
This exact reason is why capitalism will never work. Human nature will look to exploit.
Exploitation is the point of capitalism. It's working as designed.
Historically, human nature led naturally to socialist societies. It happened for thousands of years even before anyone named it socialism
It's absolutely disturbing how avidly people seem to want to ignore that inconvenient truth...
"The people will own the means of production". Except it's never once worked out that way.
"Everyone will be happy to go to work, because it's for the good of all". Except it's never once worked out that way.
"Nobody will ever have to worry about basic needs". Except it's never once worked out that way.
Socialism has historically consolidated both power and wealth just as reliably as capitalism has, and frankly, I don't buy that the impetus behind the growing advocacy for socialism even is actually equality... I think it's a desire to have more shit, with less effort required to get it (and that sounds sketchy, and I think people are generally averse to stating it openly due to this)
I personally think the most likely means to achieve that is ironically the capitalist system we currently have, with a huge boost to the economy in the form of universal basic income.
Give literally everyone $50k/yr. Period. Even musk, the zuck, bezos... Everyone... The people who don't want to do jack can sit around and enjoy the product of labor that will inevitably be increasingly provided by automation, out of necessity. The dream of the 1960's, of having robots do everything for us while we sit around at the park, will come to fruition finally, because while we've had the ability to do it, we've not had any means of paying our bills while sitting around. UBI would provide that, and "the capitalists" will have the incentive to automate because there will be less labor available.
Of course, we're talking about a massive spike in income tax here... But we're also making the labor far more valuable, by way of rarity. Harder to find workers, so you pay them more, and even with the increased taxation, even a modest salary reflects economic advantage over a nonworker. The guy that used to make $50k/yr is only making $25k/yr if we slap a 50% tax on him, but he's still putting $75k/yr in the bank, aint he?
I think "socialism" is the wrong direction. 180° exactly in the wrong direction. Unless by "socialism" people are actually advocating the "advanced welfare" Nordic approach...
Another pro is we can eat our neighbors when food becomes scarce. Or we can report them for owning a grain of wheat and have them murdered.