Socialism is Communism.

[PhantomWolf]

What happens when the government "messes up"? What happens, when, god forbid, someone like Trump is in control of virtually every important aspect of your life?

Quite simple really. I know it sort of explodes the mind to even consider it, but rather than having the legislative or executive branches running these things directly, you set up a company with a board of directors and a CEO who are all appointed by a non-partisan committee, and then they run the day to day business needed to have the services operational while the Government merely acts as the bag man and pays the costs of running the business. The board and CEO can be directly responsible to the Government, just as private company Boards and CEOs are responsible to the shareholders, so they need to run their department as efficiently as they can while still proving a good service, however, they aren't under the pressure of making massive profits so they can provide for the people of the country in a cheap and effective manner without having to charge exorbitant rates to do so.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

What happens when the government "messes up"? What happens, when, god forbid, someone like Trump is in control of virtually every important aspect of your life?

then they won't get re-elected if they fail to provide the necessities citizens have come to expect.
If the Government was in charge of providing the Basics, those in power would have an incentive to make sure they get it.
As it stands, Politicians might have an incentive to sabotage, intentionally or otherwise, private companies and blame them for failing.

If the State is the Provider of Last Resort (as they are for Banks), then they have no excuse - and would have to buy from the Private Sector to make up for their failure.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

In another thread, a poster suggested that there is a material difference between Communism and Socialism, and claiming that while Communism is a failed ideology (or at least implying that the Marxist/Leninist iterations were), Socialism is not. This could not be further from the truth. First, lets start with some definitions:



and



Clearly, the most important aspect of both politico-economic systems is the abolition of private property, and the state ownership of the means of production. In this sense, there is no meaningful difference between the two systems, instead, Socialism is just a "transitional theory" as per definition #3.

All socialists are in essence advocating for communism (the total abolition of private property), even though the state (and the elites who run the state) don't yet have complete control of all property.

Socialism is defined elsewhere as the "state ownership of the means of production", but where the classless system that Marx advocated has "not yet been realized".

Since advocating for the transition to a failed ideology is just as abhorrent as advocating for a failed ideology, the terms Socialism and Communism, as well as Socialists and Communists, can rightfully be used interchangeably.

Dictionaries are a good indication of common usage until they are not. The term "socialist" is indeed used and understood as you state by sociolinguistic groups that share standard to extreme views on the Right in the USA. The economy of Venezuela is "socialist" in terms of state ownership of oil and a few industries, along with functional one-party rule.

However, the term "socialist" is not used as you state by most speakers in the EU, and in practice, socialism within the EU has not involved wholesale ownership of production. State ownership is largely as it is in the US, involving public goods and infrastructure. Calling main EU parties identifying as socialist "commies" is out-and-out ignorant. Yes, you may fish for a quote from an EU loon; but it is far outweighed by abundant factual evidence regarding the policies and actual practices involved in socialist governance in Western Europe.

So, the use of terms varies by region, demographics, and political philosophy. I could go on, but your OP title and proposition have been dismissed, as has the pat first response you got from a public knee jerk.

 

[Andy_Ross]

It's interesting that in the UK the right wing govt is taking the rail system that they privatised in the 1980s back in to public ownership.
The track and infrastructure is back in public ownership as are several of the 'franchises' to run the actual trains.
They have now just announced they are taking over the timetable and ticketing functions.

 

[Norman Alexander]

What happens when the government "messes up"? What happens, when, god forbid, someone like Trump is in control of virtually every important aspect of your life?

See, you are mistaken with your assumption.

The head of state of even a partially socialist country is not, and never has been, "in control" of every important aspect of your life. The government is. Just like in the USA. They set the laws on behalf of the people of the state, and there are mechanisms to enforce compliance when necessary. You would know this as the justice system.

When the head of state has their own private police force to enforce their own personal will on people, that's no longer socialism.

 

[lomiller]

In fact, North Korea might be an example of the only actual socialist regime, according to the rigid definition, because it's pretty clear that all property is owned by the state, but it hasn't yet achieved Marx's vaunted classless state, because of the existence of a murderous dictator, and his privileged inner circle. They continue to exist with a spectacular standard of living at the expense of everyone else, in a class system.

It's at least as accurate to say North Korea is a perfect Capitalist state because all property is privately owned, albeit by a single person and his cronies. Furthermore there are no restrictions on what these people can do with their property.

 

[lomiller]

Quite simple really. I know it sort of explodes the mind to even consider it, but rather than having the legislative or executive branches running these things directly, you set up a company with a board of directors and a CEO who are all appointed by a non-partisan committee, and then they run the day to day business needed to have the services operational while the Government merely acts as the bag man and pays the costs of running the business. The board and CEO can be directly responsible to the Government, just as private company Boards and CEOs are responsible to the shareholders, so they need to run their department as efficiently as they can while still proving a good service, however, they aren't under the pressure of making massive profits so they can provide for the people of the country in a cheap and effective manner without having to charge exorbitant rates to do so.

This is often only true in name only. In some companies it's a major problem in some others it's a relatively minor one but in all cases the board of directors and CEO put their own interests ahead of their shareholders interests to at least some degree.

 

[PhantomWolf]

This is often only true in name only. In some companies it's a major problem in some others it's a relatively minor one but in all cases the board of directors and CEO put their own interests ahead of their shareholders interests to at least some degree.

The CEO and board have to turn up to the Company Shareholders AGM and explain themselves and their actions, and if they have screwed over the shareholders to the point that the majority of vote-able shareholders are upset, then those shareholders can get rid of them. That is what I mean by being "responsible to".

 

[The Don]

It's interesting that in the UK the right wing govt is taking the rail system that they privatised in the 1980s back in to public ownership.
The track and infrastructure is back in public ownership as are several of the 'franchises' to run the actual trains.
They have now just announced they are taking over the timetable and ticketing functions.

It's almost as if privatising the railways in a way so as to make it as difficult as possible to re-nationalise (as opposed to privatising it in a way so as to make it better for customers, more efficient to run, easier to administer or any combination of them) was a bad idea.

The subsidies will continue, the privatised railways can be even more certain of profits because the public purse is assuming a greater and greater proportion of the risk and the railway users will continue to be screwed over. Business as usual IOW.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

The CEO and board have to turn up to the Company Shareholders AGM and explain themselves and their actions, and if they have screwed over the shareholders to the point that the majority of vote-able shareholders are upset, then those shareholders can get rid of them. That is what I mean by being "responsible to".

Not a majority of shareholders but a majority of votes. Usually thats a pretty small number of people relatively.

Voting out the board is something that very rarely happens in reality.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Not a majority of shareholders but a majority of votes. Usually thats a pretty small number of people relatively.

Voting out the board is something that very rarely happens in reality.

I remember a sketch from the 80s. Board meeting is asked if they want tea or coffee. All but two put hands up for tea but everyone gets coffee because the two hold outs had more shares.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Only the most powerful of people ever achieve a level of power where they can fully recreate the system.

99.9999999% of powerful people, even if we're only talking the upper echelons of super-powerful, achieve power in an established system.

In a Capitalist society people become super-wealthy robber-barons because that's where the power is. If they were in the 1980s Soviet Union they would put all their effort into being party insiders. If they were in Italy in the Renissance they would put all their effort into marrying into the Medici. If you crash landed on a desert island with them they would be the first to grab the conch.

 

[lomiller]

The CEO and board have to turn up to the Company Shareholders AGM and explain themselves and their actions, and if they have screwed over the shareholders to the point that the majority of vote-able shareholders are upset, then those shareholders can get rid of them. That is what I mean by being "responsible to".

The Board of Directors typically maintains control of proxy votes. Look at what's happening with the Hudson's Bay Company (the oldest publically traded corporation in the world) The CEO and Board of Directors are literally trying to drive their own company into bankruptcy so they can take it private and sell off the real-estate holdings.

The more common scenario is IBM though the early 2000's where the CEO did everything possible to drive up short term earnings even at the expense of long term growth then took a retirement package worth well over $100 million to just as the that long term lethargy set in.

You can also look at the sub-prime mortgage crisis in the 2000's. The people bundling worthless mortgages together knew there was much higher risk than was being stated and knew that shareholders ultimately would pay the price, they also knew they could get away with it and walk away with millions of $. They chose the money over shareholders interests and no one raised a finger to stop them.

There are other publically traded companies where shareholders simply have no say in how the company is run due to how the shares are structured.

 

[Tippit]

If you crash landed on a desert island with them they would be the first to grab the conch.

Can you elaborate more on this power of the conch?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Can you elaborate more on this power of the conch?

The conch is communism.

 

[Tippit]

The conch is communism.

I'm not convinced. Sometimes a conch is just a conch. But why would anyone want to be grabbing conchs on a desert island? Is it because it could be used as a horn, to issue powerful orders? Is it because maybe the pointy end could be used as a weapon? Is it because holding it up to your ear and listening to the "sound of the ocean" might confer some kind of perceived power over the other island stragglers?

I don't get it. Someone explain it to me.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Can you elaborate more on this power of the conch?

It's a reference to the classic children survival/social breakdown novel Lord of the Flies where the boys agree that to talk at the formal meetings you have to be holding a conch shell.

The people who seek out positions of power within a system are more important than the system of power.

Now that's not to say that the system of power is not not worth discussing nor not important, nor is this some wishy-washy "All systems are the same" nonsense, but very rarely do systems create evil people.

Stalin would not have magically been a good or even fundamentally different person if the Soviet Union had been a capitalist or socialist or farming commune country. He would have sought out (or stumbled into or whatever) the positions of power in those systems as well.

 

[JoeMorgue]

As I said earlier if in "the system" (again I think pigeonholing systems in categories from a hundred years ago is... less than ideal) the "people" choose "the government" the distinction between "the people own the means of production" and "the government owns the means of production" is, at best, an academic minor distinction.

I have a hundred cows. My neighbors decide I have too many cows and take 50 of them.
I have a hundred cows. My neighbors all vote on a government that will take 50 of them because they think I have too many cows.

What's the difference?

 

[Tippit]

It's a reference to the classic children survival/social breakdown novel Lord of the Flies where the boys agree that to talk at the formal meetings you have to be holding a conch shell.

Ahh ok. I've actually read the book and watched the movie and still did not get the reference, I forgot about the conch shell.

The people who seek out positions of power within a system are more important than the system of power.

Now that's not to say that the system of power is not not worth discussing nor not important, nor is this some wishy-washy "All systems are the same" nonsense, but very rarely do systems create evil people.

I disagree with this. You can remove bad people in power, but if the systems remain the same, new bad people will simply replace them. This is one of the primary reasons why, as a conspiracy theorist, I have developed strong opposition to governments, banks, corporations, and generally large centralized institutions.

It ends up getting me confused with "right-wingers", even though I am not right-wing. I am frequently called a whiny communist by right-wingers when I try to explain to them how the Federal Reserve System works, and why much of their wealth isn't based on merit.

If one thing is true, conspiracy theorists are universally hated. That's ok though, I sleep well at night.

Stalin would not have magically been a good or even fundamentally different person if the Soviet Union had been a capitalist or socialist or farming commune country. He would have sought out (or stumbled into or whatever) the positions of power in those systems as well.

Stalin's power would, however, be limited to the degree that the systems in question were not centralized. As it was, socialism bestowed both Stalin and Mao virtually unlimited power and control.

 

[Tippit]

In North Korea the means of production is owned by, and run for the benefit of the ruling family. In fact it's only under a democracy that the distinction between public and private ownership of the means of production even matters. In turn, this implies that much of the criticism directed at socialism isn't due to the problems with command economies, it's an objection to democracy and economic mobility.

Do you have evidence that all, or even most property in North Korea is titled in Kim Jong-Un's name? You may find this point silly, but the likelihood is that the state owns everything, and Kim Jong-un instead just controls everything.

The principle (or my principle) criticism directed at socialism isn't an objection to democracy and economic mobility, I support both of those things. The criticism of socialism is at the prospect whereby a state that owns the means of production is one dictator away from resembling North Korea.

What's the saying? "A government powerful enough to give you everything you desire is powerful enough to take everything you have away." Socialism depends on the (often illusory) power of democratic accountability - the idea that the will of the proletariat will be reflected in government. I would argue that this is a dangerous precipice.

Sweden isn't going to turn into a tyrannical dictatorship overnight. It might take generations. But eventually it might succumb to the same human nature that shapes North Korea.