[Unthinking Majority]

This does not contradict my point that socialism does it better.

Socialism does do some things better, like defense and healthcare. Capitalism also does other things better. The statistics bear out, time and time again, that in order to maximize socioeconomic success in a country you need a mix of capitalism and socialism. The evidence is overwhelming, and there are NO exceptions through history. The USSR failed because it did not embrace liberal democracy and capitalism, and the US has major social issues because it has not embraced enough socialism. There are many, many other examples.

Yes, I know the myths that capitalists tell each other and us.

Capitalism has its problems, and its benefits are uneven to society in key areas like healthcare and education, but it is more efficient and cost effective. I've worked in government, private industry, and the non-profit sector. The private sector is the most efficient, because if they aren't they go out of business.

I know many US people believe this. I assume you are also form the USA.

I'm not an American.

I used to be a communist, in my 20's and 30's. Then i grew up, got my head out of the books and into the real world and learned how it really works.

[Wulfschilde]

I think capitalism is a way for people who don't know each other really well to be able to interact and work with each other.

I have "socialism" in my family and really close friends but it wouldn't work with total strangers. People who want to force it are putting the cart before the horse.

[ckaihatsu]

Socialism does do some things better, like defense and healthcare. Capitalism also does other things better. The statistics bear out, time and time again, that in order to maximize socioeconomic success in a country you need a mix of capitalism and socialism. The evidence is overwhelming, and there are NO exceptions through history. The USSR failed because it did not embrace liberal democracy and capitalism, and the US has major social issues because it has not embraced enough socialism. There are many, many other examples.

This is way too blithe -- you're talking out of your ass because there *is* no mixture of socialism and capitalism anywhere. What there *is* is a capitalist state that levies taxes in order to benefit large capitalists whenever the capitalists can't do it on their own, through the individualistic (balkanized) bribe-taking that's called 'profits'.

So services like defense and healthcare (and roads, and education, and recovering from market crashes) are better-done by government because they're so wide-scale in implementation, with little chance to recoup large costs -- not amenable to balkanization / fragmentation over private claims and profit-extraction, even though they're critical services to the functioning of society and capitalism.

Capitalism has its problems, and its benefits are uneven to society in key areas like healthcare and education, but it is more efficient and cost effective. I've worked in government, private industry, and the non-profit sector. The private sector is the most efficient, because if they aren't they go out of business.

Capitalism's *problem* is capitalism -- that's why it goes running to the state every time something goes wrong, that doesn't fit into triumphalist capitalist theory.

Government austerity measures have been cutting back the safety net for *workers*, but there's plenty of safety net in place for *large capitalists* like AIG and Goldman Sachs:

The banks agreeing to receive preferred stock investments from the Treasury include Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Morgan Stanley, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Bank of America Corp. (which had just agreed to purchase Merrill Lynch), Citigroup Inc., Wells Fargo & Co., Bank of New York Mellon and State Street Corp.[44][45][46] The Bank of New York Mellon is to serve as master custodian overseeing the fund.[47]

The U.S. Treasury maintains an official list of TARP recipients and proceeds to the government on a TARP website. Note that foreign-owned U.S. banks were not eligible. Beneficiaries of TARP include the following:[48]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_ ... rticipants

---

I'm not an American.

I used to be a communist, in my 20's and 30's. Then i grew up, got my head out of the books and into the real world and learned how it really works.

And now you're able to *misrepresent* that real world, in text -- !

I think capitalism is a way for people who don't know each other really well to be able to interact and work with each other.

I have "socialism" in my family and really close friends but it wouldn't work with total strangers. People who want to force it are putting the cart before the horse.

This is more of the rampant 'personalization' of politics that we see routinely from the right-wing -- as though small-scale, interpersonal-level social-psychology 'qualities' like 'trust', 'faith', 'integrity', 'character', etc., are what's at-work when it comes to a modern political economy.

The 'real economy' is basically what the powers-that-be (the bourgeoisie) *have* to let happen, at smaller scales, since there's no incentive to tend to such by the *largest* economic powers (corporations).

What socialism *really* is, is the aim of fully *socializing* those large-scale economic organizations, for control by its workers, along with government, so as to deny any and all private claims to their functioning, going-forward. Capitalism is synonymous with elitism, and the world's productive capacities are better-suited to *mass* control and *mass* distribution, something that capitalism does not do, inherently.

[Wulfschilde]

I dunno. I notice that when you give someone credit they don't deserve, your only choices are (1) become more authoritarian or (2) let things get worse. And I've also noticed that most communist governments, they do the same thing. They get really authoritarian while the economy and society degenerates. So it seems to scale up pretty much the same.

[Pants-of-dog]

Socialism does do some things better, like defense and healthcare. Capitalism also does other things better. The statistics bear out, time and time again, that in order to maximize socioeconomic success in a country you need a mix of capitalism and socialism. The evidence is overwhelming, and there are NO exceptions through history. The USSR failed because it did not embrace liberal democracy and capitalism, and the US has major social issues because it has not embraced enough socialism. There are many, many other examples.

Capitalism has its problems, and its benefits are uneven to society in key areas like healthcare and education, but it is more efficient and cost effective. I've worked in government, private industry, and the non-profit sector. The private sector is the most efficient, because if they aren't they go out of business.

I'm not an American.

I used to be a communist, in my 20's and 30's. Then i grew up, got my head out of the books and into the real world and learned how it really works.

You believe the same myths about communism that US residents do.

[Unthinking Majority]

Capitalism's *problem* is capitalism -- that's why it goes running to the state every time something goes wrong, that doesn't fit into triumphalist capitalist theory.

Government austerity measures have been cutting back the safety net for *workers*, but there's plenty of safety net in place for *large capitalists* like AIG and Goldman Sachs

I'm defending capitalism in general, I'm not defending the corruption of politicians in the United States. The fact that some crooked paid-off politicians in the US gave tons of money to bail out some banks and insurance companies and ignored workers doesn't mean capitalism as a system of economics is wholly a failure worldwide or even in the US throughout history. That's quite the slippery slope argument.

There's a reason why no economically successful country nationalizes most of its industries on a mass scale: because it would hamper its economy. The proof is in the pudding. Go ask China, where hundreds of millions have been lifted out of subsistence poverty because of "evil" capitalist reforms.

You sounds like a 2nd year college student. If you want to redistribute money you don't have to nationalize the means of production, you just have to tax the rich and redistribute it to the masses. I've worked in many government departments, government bureaucrats are morons and government is often slow, wasteful, and inept. Keep them away from running businesses as much as possible.

What socialism *really* is, is the aim of fully *socializing* those large-scale economic organizations, for control by its workers, along with government, so as to deny any and all private claims to their functioning, going-forward. Capitalism is synonymous with elitism, and the world's productive capacities are better-suited to *mass* control and *mass* distribution, something that capitalism does not do, inherently.

This is all theoretical utopian BS. Give me examples of where this has worked well on a large scale? That's what I thought. You have no real-world evidence, only theory. Ask any scientist: no theory is worth the paper its written on without demonstrable evidence. Go transform your country into a thriving worker-owned utopia and i'll gladly change my mind and move there myself. They've been trying, and failing, to do so for over 170 years since Marx/Engels wrote the Manifesto. I'm still waiting. Insanity is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Or just a damn waste of time and money.

If you want the best society that has ever functioned in human history go copy the Scandinavian countries or other highly developed nations that have a healthy mix of capitalism and socialism (socialized medicine, education, etc).

[Pants-of-dog]

I'm defending capitalism in general, I'm not defending the corruption of politicians in the United States. The fact that some crooked paid-off politicians in the US gave tons of money to bail out some banks and insurance companies and ignored workers doesn't mean capitalism as a system of economics is wholly a failure worldwide or even in the US throughout history. That's quite the slippery slope argument.

Bailing out banks is not an aberration. It is how capitalism is designed to work. It was not a coincidence that almost all countries did this. This is what happens when banks and rich people are allowed to buy politicians through “campaign contributions” and “lobbying”.

And there are many other systemic failures of capitalism: climate change is one of the more obvious ones.

There's a reason why no economically successful country nationalizes most of its industries on a mass scale: because it would hamper its economy. The proof is in the pudding. Go ask China, where hundreds of millions have been lifted out of subsistence poverty because of "evil" capitalist reforms.

I think this causative relationship requires evidence.

You sounds like a 2nd year college student. If you want to redistribute money you don't have to nationalize the means of production, you just have to tax the rich and redistribute it to the masses. I've worked in many government departments, government bureaucrats are morons and government is often slow, wasteful, and inept. Keep them away from running businesses as much as possible.

The slow response of the US medical industry is another example of how capitalism fails as a system, and it effectively disproves the myth that the free market responds faster.

Because of the requirement to have a commodity driven exchange, the USA still has not started widespread testing for the corona virus.

This is all theoretical utopian BS. Give me examples of where this has worked well on a large scale? That's what I thought. You have no real-world evidence, only theory. Ask any scientist: no theory is worth the paper its written on without demonstrable evidence. Go transform your country into a thriving worker-owned utopia and i'll gladly change my mind and move there myself. They've been trying, and failing, to do so for over 170 years since Marx/Engels wrote the Manifesto. I'm still waiting. Insanity is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Or just a damn waste of time and money.

If you want the best society that has ever functioned in human history go copy the Scandinavian countries or other highly developed nations that have a healthy mix of capitalism and socialism (socialized medicine, education, etc).

I have noticed a lack of real-world evidence in your posts, now that you mention it.

[Donna]

This is all theoretical utopian BS. Give me examples of where this has worked well on a large scale?

Capitalist firms have become so big and dependent on government subsidization (and government stimulation of financial markets) that these conservative arguments about the inefficiency of central planning won't be able to hold up much longer. You're losing the intellectual battle because capitalism is in decay.

[annatar1914]

Capitalist firms have become so big and dependent on government subsidization (and government stimulation financial markets) that these conservative arguments about the inefficiency of central planning won't be able to hold up much longer. You're losing the intellectual battle because capitalism is in decay.

I live in a region of the United States that could hardly be more conservative and pro-capitalist than it already is.

And yet, one of the most revered and respected institutions (to give an example of an anomaly) in the rural areas is the rural electric ''co-op'', a Co-operative business where the workers own the electrical company that keeps the power on and is still quite successful to this day. The idea the the people who work in business concerns cannot run them all very successfully for the mutual benefit of all is frankly bullshit.

Of course if you look at the balance sheets of a Socialist business concern and a Capitalist one you're going to see the difference between a worksite based on providing for community needs, and a private owned institution based on profit, on private greed.

But I bet if you were to ask anyone who's lived and worked in a worker owned enterprise and/or society, the trade-offs are well worth it for the majority.

[SolarCross]

Co-ops are absolutely within the rich tapestry of "capitalism". We have lots of co-ops in the UK. The fun thing is there is literally zero difference between them than any regular enterprise in terms of worker pay and conditions or value for money to the consumer.

By far the biggest impact on energy prices is the greed of the taxman not the greed of the private investor.

[ckaihatsu]

I'm defending capitalism in general, I'm not defending the corruption of politicians in the United States. The fact that some crooked paid-off politicians in the US gave tons of money to bail out some banks and insurance companies and ignored workers doesn't mean capitalism as a system of economics is wholly a failure worldwide or even in the US throughout history. That's quite the slippery slope argument.

This is *ludicrous* -- do you really think that *any other* group of politicians would do things any differently?

You seem fully oblivious to the existence of *power* -- why wouldn't those who have power in capitalist society defend the *privileges* of that power? Do you really think that politicians are 'professional' 'neutral' functionaries, and aren't also wealthy themselves? It's a government of the wealthy, for the wealthy, by the wealthy.

If the system was 'malfunctioning' in 2008-2009, why didn't the supposedly-impartial politicians and officials let it fail, and look instead for alternatives to replace it? No, they used *public funds* to fix the bottom line, so as to keep that system going, with all of the social ills it maintains, like income inequality.

And here *you're* defending it as something that's 'beneficial', and fixable.

There's a reason why no economically successful country nationalizes most of its industries on a mass scale: because it would hamper its economy. The proof is in the pudding. Go ask China, where hundreds of millions have been lifted out of subsistence poverty because of "evil" capitalist reforms.

It's not enough to nationalize -- it also has to be done *well*. We have nationalized schools, roads / transportation, health care (to a degree), etc., and yet these sectors are woefully underfunded and basically set-up to fail. Where's the bailouts for *these* sectors of government spending???

You sounds like a 2nd year college student. If you want to redistribute money you don't have to nationalize the means of production, you just have to tax the rich and redistribute it to the masses. I've worked in many government departments, government bureaucrats are morons and government is often slow, wasteful, and inept. Keep them away from running businesses as much as possible.

Again you're trying to *personalize* politics -- this isn't about demographics, nor is it about me.

And who do you think would be in a position to 'tax the rich and redistribute it to the masses' -- ??

That would be *government*, which you're maligning as an instrument of redistribution of wealth, when you just *recommended* a redistribution of wealth.

Why don't you expand on this theme / issue of *how* to redistribute wealth, more?

This is all theoretical utopian BS. Give me examples of where this has worked well on a large scale? That's what I thought. You have no real-world evidence, only theory. Ask any scientist: no theory is worth the paper its written on without demonstrable evidence. Go transform your country into a thriving worker-owned utopia and i'll gladly change my mind and move there myself. They've been trying, and failing, to do so for over 170 years since Marx/Engels wrote the Manifesto. I'm still waiting. Insanity is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Or just a damn waste of time and money.

And here you're oblivious to *history*. Recall that it was *foreign invasions* that knocked the Bolshevik Revolution off-course, so why aren't you blaming *Western imperialism* for the monstrosity that Stalin's 'socialism-in-one-country' became?

You seem to think that socialism comes through a petri dish, that certain countries are experimented-on, so that we can see
(from 'above', presumably) if it's viable or not -- this is *disgusting* and you sound like an elitist eugenicist for taking such a reprehensible top-down perspective on people's lives.

If you want the best society that has ever functioned in human history go copy the Scandinavian countries or other highly developed nations that have a healthy mix of capitalism and socialism (socialized medicine, education, etc).

Why should *anyone* defend capitalism *in the least* when it's *elitist*??

It also *fails*, as we saw in 2008-2009, and are seeing currently, with the coronavirus outbreak and the unwillingness of capitalist plutocratic-interested governments, to address it. *You're* not addressing it, or any other pressing social issues that are left unaddressed by capitalism and its elitist politicians.

[ckaihatsu]

The class character of the government response was starkly revealed on Thursday. The Federal Reserve, in a desperate and futile attempt to counteract the selloff on Wall Street, announced that it was allocating $1.5 trillion to buy up stocks and other assets. The US Congress, on the other hand, is haggling over a few billion dollars in assistance to those who are thrown out of work or otherwise impacted—a drop in the bucket compared to what is urgently required.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/0 ... s-m13.html

[annatar1914]

@SolarCross , you said;

Co-ops are absolutely within the rich tapestry of "capitalism".

And yet, any attempt to make all businesses in effect like a Co-Op is seen as some dire threat to the very human race

We have lots of co-ops in the UK.

Lots everywhere, including Socialist countries of course.

The fun thing is there is literally zero difference between them than any regular enterprise in terms of worker pay and conditions or value for money to the consumer.

I don't believe that.

By far the biggest impact on energy prices is the greed of the taxman not the greed of the private investor.

Both have an impact and are un-necessary.

[SolarCross]

The class character of the government response was starkly revealed on Thursday. The Federal Reserve, in a desperate and futile attempt to counteract the selloff on Wall Street, announced that it was allocating $1.5 trillion to buy up stocks and other assets. The US Congress, on the other hand, is haggling over a few billion dollars in assistance to those who are thrown out of work or otherwise impacted—a drop in the bucket compared to what is urgently required.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/0 ... s-m13.html

The best time to buy is when the market bottoms out. The Fed can make vast amounts of money buying up over-sold stocks then selling them on the recovery. The money they are using is 100% fake too so there have nothing to lose and the world to gain. There is nothing desperate about it.

[late]

There is nothing desperate about it.

Pretty sure they just propped up the financial markets with several hundred billion to avoid a repeat of the last collapse. The 'too bog too fail' banks are even bigger now, and they are still fragile.

[Pants-of-dog]

The fun thing is there is literally zero difference between them than any regular enterprise in terms of worker pay and conditions or value for money to the consumer.

In a worker co-op, there is zero chance for sexual harassment of a worker by the boss.

In a worker co-op, spending money on having a safe work environment is seen as an investment, while in the capitalist model, it is seen as an expense to be avoided when possible.

A co-op can still work in situations where a traditional model would be considered unprofitable. The co-op need only pay its workers and its expenses, while the traditional model needs to pay all of that plus a profit for the owners.

These are simply the first few examples that came to mind. It is obviously erroneous to claim there is zero difference for the workers.

[SolarCross]

In a worker co-op, there is zero chance for sexual harassment of a worker by the boss.

They are still human. Joining a co-op does not magically turn you into a sexually repressed ant drone.

In a worker co-op, spending money on having a safe work environment is seen as an investment, while in the capitalist model, it is seen as an expense to be avoided when possible.

Not true from what I have seen. Neither have immunity to law suits as well.

A co-op can still work in situations where a traditional model would be considered unprofitable. The co-op need only pay its workers and its expenses, while the traditional model needs to pay all of that plus a profit for the owners.

Which makes it difficult for the co-op to raise capital for expansion and re-investment.

These are simply the first few examples that came to mind. It is obviously erroneous to claim there is zero difference for the workers.

The differences are exceedingly marginal in practice and they are not 100% positive either. One drawback is that co-ops tend to have rather sluggish ability to respond dynamically to situations. This is partly because they cannot easily expand or shrink their capital base, but also because the more scrupulous they are to include everyone in decision making the slower, tedious, incoherent and more bureaucratic that decision making is.

Either way co-ops are an absolutely valid way to run a business in a capitalist world. Capitalism is private enterprise and that is exactly what a co-op is. Come the revolution they will all be lined up and shot with the rest of us.

[Pants-of-dog]

They are still human. Joining a co-op does not magically turn you into a sexually repressed ant drone.

There is no boss to threaten the worker with getting fired. The other worker cannot fire the person and therefore has no economic leverage.

Not true from what I have seen. Neither have immunity to law suits as well.

Since you have no intelligent rebuttals, I will move on.

Which makes it difficult for the co-op to raise capital for expansion and re-investment.

Since the owner would close the business when it is unprofitable, that would also make it difficult for the owner to raise capital for expansion and re-investment.

The differences are exceedingly marginal in practice and they are not 100% positive either. One drawback is that co-ops tend to have rather sluggish ability to respond dynamically to situations. This is partly because they cannot easily expand or shrink their capital base, but also because the more scrupulous they are to include everyone in decision making the slower, tedious, incoherent and more bureaucratic that decision making is.

Not necessarily. The ongoing corona virus debacle is showing how the market is hampered by the need for profit. A worker run co-op could switch to a model where worker’s health and jobs are protected faster than a profit driven model.

[SolarCross]

There is no boss to threaten the worker with getting fired. The other worker cannot fire the person and therefore has no economic leverage.

They have managers and directors. The larger the organisation the more managers and layers of managers same as any organisation. So yeah they have bosses. What kind of threat is getting fired anyway? Weird.

Since you have no intelligent rebuttals, I will move on.

You are not sane enough to recognise an intelligent rebuttal.

I am not even hostile to co-ops so your hostility is unreasonable again. I am just not pretending they are something magically other. It's just another business model, with pros and cons like any other.. sole proprietor, partnerships, limited liability company, public liability company, charity, co-ops... and more besides all happily interwoven with each other doing business for a positive peaceful aim.

Since the owner would close the business when it is unprofitable, that would also make it difficult for the owner to raise capital for expansion and re-investment.

Well since co-ops are not taking over the world they can't be that amazing.

Not necessarily. The ongoing corona virus debacle is showing how the market is hampered by the need for profit. A worker run co-op could switch to a model where worker’s health and jobs are protected faster than a profit driven model.

Co-ops are not separate from the market either, they still have to pay wages and pay costs and please customers who can choose to spend their money elsewhere. Shutting a co-op down for a few months is going to have to endure the same economic damage as a plc or a ltd.

The difference is there would have to be like a million votes and revotes and recounts and endless boring meetings before anything was decided.

Can we just be realistic about stuff for a change?

[Pants-of-dog]

They have managers and directors. The larger the organisation the more managers and layers of managers same as any organisation. So yeah they have bosses. What kind of threat is getting fired anyway? Weird.

In other words, I am correct for the vast majority of co-ops and probably correct for all of them, depending on the internal structure of the larger ones.

Co-ops are not separate from the market either, they still have to pay wages and pay costs and please customers who can choose to spend their money elsewhere. Shutting a co-op down for a few months is going to have to endure the same economic damage as a plc or a ltd.

No. I already explained how co-ops can survive lean economic times better than traditional ones.