socialism question

[Elegiac]

I'm not suggesting it, I'm merely stating that there is a control that doesn't exist in capitalistic systems.

Zzzzz.

Social classes exist and they exercise the control in capitalist societies by designing the system to entrench themselves and their interests. Please stop acting like capitalism has ever been about a 'free market'.

[Forogil]

No True Entrepreneur? Really?

You are 100% missing point the point of the hyperbole:

Leading companies may seem easy, but actually is difficult - and everyone cannot do it.

[Shadowferal]

No difference today between "captain of industry" and "robber baron."

Corporate-fascism stinks no matter what.

[Elegiac]

You are 100% missing point the point of the hyperbole:

Leading companies may seem easy, but actually is difficult - and everyone cannot do it.

The same thing applies to literally every human endeavour.

This idea that people who are critical of capitalism are somehow insisting that all people are equal in every way, including ability, is based off your caricature of socialist ideology and not reflective of how it actually is.

It's a silly non-argument that merits a silly answer, so here:

CEOs are bad because tittysprinkles.

[Forogil]

Zzzzz.

Social classes exist

Social classes exist, as do math classes, and phys.ed. classes. But class structures are mostly a thing of the past.

[Elegiac]

Social classes exist, as do math classes, and phys.ed. classes. But class structures are mostly a thing of the past.

*looks at America's gross wealth inequality and lack of social mobility and the general attitude towards poor people in Western countries*

Sure Jan.

[Endus]

I'm not suggesting it, I'm merely stating that there is a control that doesn't exist in capitalistic systems.

And until you have understood at least one of capitalism or socialism I don't see this as getting anywhere.

Your problem is that I do understand them, and can see that you're being inconsistent.

There is no "control" required for a socialist system that is not, in equal measure, required for a capitalist system. That literally does not exist. You're making it up.

Capitalism is individual ownership of the means of production.
Socialism is collective ownership of the means of production.

There is no "control" required for one that isn't equally required of the other.

[Forogil]

The same thing applies to literally every human endeavour.

This idea that people who are critical of capitalism are somehow insisting that all people are equal in every way, including ability, is based off your caricature of socialist ideology and not reflective of how it actually is.

Actually that equality is an integral part of Marx' ideas that started the socialistic theory. (Who based it on the factory-owner Engels' contempt of the workers as interchangeable identical cogs.)

[Elegiac]

Actually that equality is an integral part of Marx' ideas that started the socialistic theory. (Who based it on the factory-owner Engels' contempt of the workers as interchangeable identical cogs.)

Well ackshually it's been more than a century since the Communist Manifesto was published and socialist thought has evolved significantly in the interim, and that Marx is not the word of god on the subject?

You're not really countering the idea that your perception of socialism is based on a caricature.

[Endus]

Actually that equality is an integral part of Marx' ideas that started the socialistic theory. (Who based it on the factory-owner Engels' contempt of the workers as interchangeable identical cogs.)

Marx did not come up with the idea of socialism. Nor the term, even.

For someone who was insisting that I don't understand socialist theory, that's a pretty egregious mistake, dude.

Over and above Elegiac's point that Marxist socialism is just one particular branch, and there's more than a century of theory between the Communist Manifesto and today.

[Forogil]

Well ackshually it's been more than a century since the Communist Manifesto was published and socialist thought has evolved significantly in the interim, and that Marx is not the word of god on the subject?

Some have evolved by abandoning socialism.
Others have placed other Gods next to Marx without producing anything better, and sometimes engaging in human sacrifices.

[Elegiac]

Some have evolved by abandoning socialism.
Others have placed other Gods next to Marx without producing anything better, and sometimes engaging in human sacrifices.

What a ridiculous non sequitur.

I'll take that as an admission you don't have an actual argument.

[Kellhound]

Mainland China was basically socialist under Mao and the Gang of Four, and the subsequent growth is due to no longer being socialist (i.e. the means of production are no longer controlled collectively as they were previously; hence the rise of living standards and number of billionaires).

Mainland China is not even socialistic according to the ruling communist party, who instead claims that it is "pre-socialist".

Obviously industrial espionage helps, especially when catching up, but they are not the only country engaging in that.

(And dictatorship of the proletariat just means that the proletariat is the controlling class, which is part of the socialism stage according to traditional communistic ideologies.)

Mao was a dictator wrapping socialism around himself to gain the support of the peasants. It was a dictatorship of the proletariat in name only.
China is less socialist now than it was under Mao.

- - - Updated - - -

I thought it wasnt allowed to cherry-pick what is or wasn't "true" socialism?

Either way, the paragraph you quoted can not be interpreted without the wider context provided in the rest of my post to understand my position.

We are not looking to the past for answers but towards the future with new ideas and modern solutions.

I go with the idea that socialism and communism actually place the power with the people, not concentrating it in a new oligarchy that displaced the old one.

The past holds more answers than the future.

[Forogil]

What a ridiculous non sequitur.

No, it is a fact that the examples that people show of "socialism working" are primarily social democrats that have abandoned socialism (or are in that process).

There are obviously other variants like "worker collectives" that even exist in capitalistic countries. It's just that don't exist on a large scale as they are not attractive to workers, and they don't scale well.

[Vash The Stampede]

This idea that people who are critical of capitalism are somehow insisting that all people are equal in every way, including ability, is based off your caricature of socialist ideology and not reflective of how it actually is.

The problem with dividing people based on ability is that we tend to hold others down and prevent them from gaining your abilities to begin with, while at the same time holding your own ability to a much more unrealistic standard. Doctors come to mind first when I see signs that say, "Do not confuse your Google Search with my Medical Degree" when in reality most Doctors use Google to diagnose their patients. There will also be a point when Doctors will be replaced by IBM's Doctor Watson, because any profession can be broken down into simple tasks that any person or AI can do. The only thing separating one person's abilities from another is years of expensive education and training. In the end we're all human and 20% of patients with serious conditions are first misdiagnosed by "professionals" and the suicide rate among Doctors is higher than the general population. As humans we tend to want more than our fair share of the money pie, especially if we're in a position of power, like your health.

[Clone]

Your problem is that I do understand them, and can see that you're being inconsistent.

There is no "control" required for a socialist system that is not, in equal measure, required for a capitalist system. That literally does not exist. You're making it up.

Capitalism is individual ownership of the means of production.
Socialism is collective ownership of the means of production.

There is no "control" required for one that isn't equally required of the other.

Can the collective under socialism be private as well? From my understanding a system where everyone in the company has equal share and stake is socialist as well.

- - - Updated - - -

Mainland China was basically socialist under Mao and the Gang of Four, and the subsequent growth is due to no longer being socialist (i.e. the means of production are no longer controlled collectively as they were previously; hence the rise of living standards and number of billionaires).

Mainland China is not even socialistic according to the ruling communist party, who instead claims that it is "pre-socialist".

Obviously industrial espionage helps, especially when catching up, but they are not the only country engaging in that.

(And dictatorship of the proletariat just means that the proletariat is the controlling class, which is part of the socialism stage according to traditional communistic ideologies.)

Chinese government still owns the bulk of the means of production.

[Endus]

Can the collective under socialism be private as well? From my understanding a system where everyone in the company has equal share and stake is socialist as well.

Yes. There's absolutely nothing about "collective ownership" that translates automatically to "public ownership". A system where shareholders are employees or regular customers is just as "socialist" as anything else. The stakes don't even have to be equal.

For instance, pirate ships back in the day often ran on a "share" system, where everyone got a share of treasure, and the officers would get extra shares (captain usually getting two, for instance). That's a socialist system in miniature. A society where all ships and companies were run that way would be a socialist economy.

[Halicia]

Yes. There's absolutely nothing about "collective ownership" that translates automatically to "public ownership". A system where shareholders are employees or regular customers is just as "socialist" as anything else. The stakes don't even have to be equal.

For instance, pirate ships back in the day often ran on a "share" system, where everyone got a share of treasure, and the officers would get extra shares (captain usually getting two, for instance). That's a socialist system in miniature. A society where all ships and companies were run that way would be a socialist economy.

A good example of democratic socialism, actually... but I'd disagree with your implication that one system is "just as socialist" as another system. Especially when the definitions of communism and socialism become entangled in the conversation.

[Mayhem]

Its funny for me when I see naive people pushing this. We had this socialism and we got rid of it. Now West is embracing shit that we were glad to get rid of .

You had real democratic socialism that failed?

- - - Updated - - -

But it requires capital to do so and a complex economical strcuture, which in turn enhances the quality of life of the average citizen.

Pure Socialism requires just a regime, kills any innovation and stagnates a country.

Are you by any chance a US citizen?

[Endus]

A good example of democratic socialism, actually... but I'd disagree with your implication that one system is "just as socialist" as another system. Especially when the definitions of communism and socialism become entangled in the conversation.

All that "socialism" requires is collective ownership of the means of production. If you've got that, there is no "more socialist" that you can go. If you have a hypothetical system of liberal market socialism, where civil liberties are strongly defended and ownership of the means of production (but that's it; other property can still be individually owned) is mandated as collective under the law, so employees all own some number of shares in the company they work for, that system is 100% socialist. There is no "more socialist" it can go. It would, in fact, be more socialist than modern China or the historical USSR, both of which allow for private ownership of the means of production (albeit heavily controlled and selected).

You're basically trying to pull a "no true Scotsman" argument, with the implication that the evils of totalitarianism are somehow integrally linked to socialist economics, and that's just false. If you can't distinguish between totalitarian communism and other forms of socialism, that's a personal bias, not an argument.