Democracy and Capitalism - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

"It's the economy, stupid!"

Moderator: PoFo Economics & Capitalism Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By Decky
#14796461
Anyone who says the Soviet Union was not socialist is the worst kind of Trotskyite, a wrecker and a spy and an ally to the fascists and capitalists.
User avatar
By Rugoz
#14796487
Decky wrote:Anyone who says the Soviet Union was not socialist is the worst kind of Trotskyite, a wrecker and a spy and an ally to the fascists and capitalists.


Thank you for your useful contribution.
#14797480
quetzalcoatl wrote:
Socialism is the direct ownership of capital by the workers of a particular enterprise, and the control of its direction and leadership structure.



Truth To Power responded:
Please provide a dictionary citation to support that definition, which falsely implies that an economy of competing, private, worker-owned firms (e.g., family farms) is socialistic.

......

State ownership of capital AND LAND is socialism, because the state is a collective.

......

When people catch on that owning land enables them to take everything from everyone else legally and risk-free, they always take as much as they can.



And Rugoz also responded:
Socialists need to get rid of their antiquated jargon. What you want is equal wealth (and consequently income) distribution. Is that possible? Maybe, but only with great efficiency losses.



TTP, please provide evidence that “an economy of competing, private, worker-owned firms” exists somewhere. Economies need more that just farms to function.


You both have been corrected on your claims of the definition of socialism many times. Here is one more refutation of your claim: Marx’s whole economic analysis, purpose, and goal was to explain the advantages and inevitability of the whole society of workers being in control of the whole society. Thus if something, be it land ownership or efficiency losses get in the way of a successful economy and the working class loses control, it will no longer be socialism. But continuing experiments with socialist organization are showing that socialism can overcome obstacles as well as capitalist organization, and better.

In it’s life of 60 years the Mondragon Corporation has faced many challenges and overcame them all. Today they are socialist enough that the difference between the lowest paid worker and the highest paid person (president) is just 6 fold, and they have never laid off workers in any economic downturn. And they are efficient enough that they have competed against capitalist businesses all those years and have won each battle. They have even entered into partnerships to provide services and goods to two top international corporations without threat to they socialist organization. Those two corporations? GM and Microsoft.

So worry not about land ownership, efficiency, or any other obstacles that may arise. Socialism can be flexible and adaptive in worker-control of the economic life of the working class. And there's no need to speculate about this. We have actual examples today.
#14797898
Senter wrote:TTP, please provide evidence that “an economy of competing, private, worker-owned firms” exists somewhere. Economies need more that just farms to function.

An example would be the 19th century American frontier economy of family farms.
You both have been corrected on your claims of the definition of socialism many times.

No, others have wrongly disputed our correct use of dictionary definitions of the term.
Here is one more refutation of your claim:

No it isn't:
Marx’s whole economic analysis, purpose, and goal was to explain the advantages and inevitability of the whole society of workers being in control of the whole society.

Marx was wrong, it is not advantageous but useless, as bitter historical experience has shown, and it is not inevitable but infeasible; Marx is not the arbiter of word usage; and Marxism != socialism.
Thus if something, be it land ownership or efficiency losses get in the way of a successful economy and the working class loses control, it will no longer be socialism.

Wrong. Socialism is collective ownership, not worker control.
But continuing experiments with socialist organization are showing that socialism can overcome obstacles as well as capitalist organization, and better.

Not really. It can sometimes survive, but rarely thrives.
In it’s life of 60 years the Mondragon Corporation has faced many challenges and overcame them all. Today they are socialist enough that the difference between the lowest paid worker and the highest paid person (president) is just 6 fold, and they have never laid off workers in any economic downturn.

Mondragon is a VOLUNTARY cooperative corporation, not a compulsory socialist society. Voluntary cooperatives can of course work, such as the Israeli kibbutzim or traditional family farms of the American frontier.
And they are efficient enough that they have competed against capitalist businesses all those years and have won each battle.

That's just false, as the recent collapse of Mondragon's Fagor electrical appliance manufacturing subsidiary proves.
So worry not about land ownership, efficiency, or any other obstacles that may arise.

Mondragon owns land. If it had not bought land decades ago, it could not have survived.
Socialism can be flexible and adaptive in worker-control of the economic life of the working class. And there's no need to speculate about this. We have actual examples today.

Socialism can work as a voluntary cooperative institution like Mondragon, the kibbutzim, or the traditional family farm. It cannot work as the basis for an entire economy, and has never done so. Venezuela is just the latest example of socialism's failure: even with the advantage of immense oil rents, it only lasted a couple of decades before collapsing.
#14797905
Pants-of-dog wrote:Not really, no. The US, for example, is supposed to support racial equality, but it does not. In fact, since creating actual equality with blacks and indigenous people would have a huge negative impact on capitalism, black and indigenous equality does not exist.

Please note that this is only applicable to liberal democracies, which people from the US tend to call republics. Other types of democracy are, of course, compatible with capitalism.


I don't know where you live but obviously not in USA. Its working fine here.
#14799402
A democracy would lead to well regulated capitalism for manufacturing and services. When capitalism fails, such as it has in health insurance, the government would take over.

The problem with our democracy in the U.S. is, politicians are beholden to big money donors -- especially Republicans. Their economic policies don't represent the people in any way, shape, or form. Granted, there are Democrats who are corrupt, also, but they're nowhere near as bad as the Republicans.

The only answer is publicly funded elections, which Bernie Sanders has proposed, but there's no chance of that happening with Republicans in control of all branches of the federal government.
#14807007
Truth To Power wrote:An example would be the 19th century American frontier economy of family farms.

Family farms? Did they compete with each other for sales? Hardly what could reasonably be called "an economy".


No, others have wrongly disputed our correct use of dictionary definitions of the term.

What was the origin of that meaning of "socialism"?


Marx was wrong, it is not advantageous but useless, as bitter historical experience has shown, and it is not inevitable but infeasible; Marx is not the arbiter of word usage; and Marxism != socialism.

What the heck. I'll let you hold that opinion if it suits you.


Wrong. Socialism is collective ownership, not worker control.

And state ownership is not "collective ownership".


Not really. It can sometimes survive, but rarely thrives.

Given the degree of practical implementation of socialist theory, which is admittedly very low, I'll let you hold that opinion too.


Mondragon is a VOLUNTARY cooperative corporation, not a compulsory socialist society.

Who says it has to be compulsory to be socialism?


Voluntary cooperatives can of course work, such as the Israeli kibbutzim or traditional family farms of the American frontier.

Yes, and they can be socialism.


That's just false, as the recent collapse of Mondragon's Fagor electrical appliance manufacturing subsidiary proves.

The loss of a battle is not the loss of the war. They remain successful.


Mondragon owns land. If it had not bought land decades ago, it could not have survived.

Not being on the Mondragon team, I couldn't say, but I can say that it is very common for capitalist businesses to own the land they occupy too. But even if you are correct here, it certainly doesn't reflect on the viability of Mondragon or socialism. It's just something you think you can use to make a negative comment about them.


Socialism can work as a voluntary cooperative institution like Mondragon, the kibbutzim, or the traditional family farm. It cannot work as the basis for an entire economy, and has never done so.

And what are you going to offer as "proof"? Venezuela? LOL!!!


Venezuela is just the latest example of socialism's failure: even with the advantage of immense oil rents, it only lasted a couple of decades before collapsing.

LOL!!! Venezuela was constantly under various kinds of attack from the U.S. and other capitalist countries. In addition, they failed to diversify the economy but kept it focused on oil, thinking it would always provide for a good economy. Then the price of world oil crashed.

Given those conditions it strikes me as a bit premature to make your claim socialism's failure. Capitalism struggled for about 100 years to figure out what worked. Should we say capitalism failed too? No, capitalism persisted as socialism will and will eventually figure it out too.



But aside from that, the thread is about democracy and capitalism. And if we limit "democracy" to voting every few years, then the two have shown they can coexist. But "compatible"? Not really. At least not without successful brainwashing propaganda. Most people will eventually reject any proposal of neglect and undermining of rights and freedoms in order to allow capitalist businesses to continue to make bigger and bigger profits. And most capitalist businesses will not be able to survive without growing profits. But Worker Self-Directed Enterprises (WSDEs)? That's different. They don't require such continual growth.

Sens. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., along with freshman New Hampshire Democrat Maggie Hassan, introduced two bills late last week aimed at expanding the number of small employee-owned ventures.

From The Vermont Digger:
“By expanding employee ownership and participation, we can create stronger companies in Vermont and throughout this country, prevent job losses and improve working conditions for struggling employees,” Sanders said in a statement. “Simply put, when employees have an ownership stake in their company, they will not ship their own jobs to China to increase their profits, they will be more productive, and they will earn a better living.”

In a statement, Leahy agreed with Sanders, saying “growth and good-paying jobs in these high-performing companies have benefited employee owners, their companies and our communities.”

One of the bills — dubbed the Work Act — borrows the model of the Vermont Employee Ownership Center, a nonprofit that helps businesses facilitate the transfer of ownership to their employees. In 2016, the center helped two companies become employee-owned, while three others became worker cooperatives.

The newly introduced legislation would provide $45 million in federal funding to help states create and expand employee ownership centers.

A second bill introduced last week would create a U.S. Employee Ownership Bank, which would be allocated $500 million to offer low-interest loans and assistance to help workers purchase businesses through stock purchases or plans to form a cooperative.

Employee-owned businesses have higher productivity, morale, sales and wages, according to analysts. Rutgers University, which has studied the topic extensively, has found that employee ownership boosted company productivity by an average of 4 percent, while profits went up 14 percent.

https://vtdigger.org/2017/05/17/senator ... ationwide/
#14808040
Senter wrote:Family farms? Did they compete with each other for sales?

Yes.
Hardly what could reasonably be called "an economy".

Proving only that you have no idea what reason is.
What was the origin of that meaning of "socialism"?

You mean the etymology?
I'll let you hold that opinion if it suits you.

How magnanimous.
And state ownership is not "collective ownership".

Sure it is, when the state is a collective.
Given the degree of practical implementation of socialist theory, which is admittedly very low, I'll let you hold that opinion too.

Oh, joy.
Who says it has to be compulsory to be socialism?

Socialism imposed by political means is compulsory.
Yes, and they can be socialism.

They are socialist. Socialism is properly understood as a system of economic organization implemented at the level of society, not just one collective.
The loss of a battle is not the loss of the war. They remain successful.

You were factually incorrect.
Not being on the Mondragon team, I couldn't say, but I can say that it is very common for capitalist businesses to own the land they occupy too.

Common, but not universal.
But even if you are correct here, it certainly doesn't reflect on the viability of Mondragon or socialism.

Yes, it does. Any fool can collect land rent and use it to subsidize inefficient operations.
It's just something you think you can use to make a negative comment about them.

Your claim is that they are efficient. But when they are collecting land rents, they don't have to be efficient.
And what are you going to offer as "proof"? Venezuela? LOL!!!

It's more evidence.
LOL!!! Venezuela was constantly under various kinds of attack from the U.S. and other capitalist countries.

Oh, nonsense. Certainly the USA has been hostile to the socialist regime, but the economic damage has been self-inflicted.
In addition, they failed to diversify the economy but kept it focused on oil, thinking it would always provide for a good economy. Then the price of world oil crashed.

Lack of competition, lack of resilience.
Given those conditions it strikes me as a bit premature to make your claim socialism's failure.

It's failed everywhere it has ever been tried on a societal level. Everywhere.
Capitalism struggled for about 100 years to figure out what worked. Should we say capitalism failed too? No, capitalism persisted as socialism will and will eventually figure it out too.

Capitalism beat the hell out of feudalism from the outset.
But aside from that, the thread is about democracy and capitalism. And if we limit "democracy" to voting every few years, then the two have shown they can coexist. But "compatible"? Not really. At least not without successful brainwashing propaganda.

I agree that democracy is somewhat pro forma in capitalist societies.
Most people will eventually reject any proposal of neglect and undermining of rights and freedoms in order to allow capitalist businesses to continue to make bigger and bigger profits.

They don't seem to have.
And most capitalist businesses will not be able to survive without growing profits.

No, that's Marxist nonsense. Most capitalist businesses are barely profitable for years on end.
But Worker Self-Directed Enterprises (WSDEs)? That's different. They don't require such continual growth.

It's easy to see you don't know how business works in a capitalistic economy.
#14814985
Truth To Power wrote:Yes.

Proving only that you have no idea what reason is.

Oh ouch. So you reply on personal attacks to help you avoid answering hard questions. Got it.


You mean the etymology?

Still avoiding.


Sure it is, when the state is a collective.

The state is never a collective.


Socialism imposed by political means is compulsory.

So who says it has to be imposed by political means? How would you feel about laws that make the creation of worker cooperatives simpler? Is that an example of imposing socialism? You agreed Mondragon was not/is not compulsory and it is an example of applied socialism.


Socialism is properly understood as a system of economic organization implemented at the level of society, not just one collective.

By some, but not by socialists. You're stuck on the early, outdated, failed attempts that have been long since abandoned. Socialism is a relationship between worker and management/ownership that is different, fundamentally, from that of capitalism.


You were factually incorrect.

So if a line of production of a capitalist corporation fails and is dropped, that is a failure of capitalism too? Fagor didn't out-compete a capitalist line. So it was dropped and Mondragon goes on successfully. But you want to claim Manodragon failed because of Fagor?? Really??


Any fool can collect land rent and use it to subsidize inefficient operations.

Your claim is that they are efficient. But when they are collecting land rents, they don't have to be efficient.

Both capitalist and socialist co-ops produce goods, make a profit, pay workers, own land, and collect rents, and you want to pretend that somehow the co-op is "failing" if it collects rents as part of business. LOL!!!


Certainly the USA has been hostile to the socialist regime, but the economic damage has been self-inflicted.

Lack of competition, lack of resilience.

No one is arguing that Venezuela didn't make mistakes, including Venezuela. So what? As a new, emerging economy surrounded by hostile capitalist nations, a big mistake like Venezuela's turns out to be very serious, and maybe fatal. That doesn't prove anything about socialism.


It's failed everywhere it has ever been tried on a societal level. Everywhere.

Fine. And the reasons are known to socialists and other Marxists. We will keep trying and eventually we will figure out how to make it work.


Capitalism beat the hell out of feudalism from the outset.

In what? Production of goods? Feudalism wasn't designed and developed around production of goods. It was designed and developed around production of food. So there's no surprise there.


They (public) don't seem to have (rejected proposals of neglect and undermining of rights and freedoms).

The protests and resistance is growing. It takes pretty serious conditions for people to finally say "enough!"


No, that's Marxist nonsense (that most capitalist businesses will not be able to survive without growing profits). Most capitalist businesses are barely profitable for years on end.

It's easy to see you don't know how business works in a capitalistic economy.

When a capitalist business doesn't grow and profit, they cut back workers, increasing unemployment. Now we are seeing government cutting services and rolling back gains we have made in order to funnel more dollars to the corporate elite who are facing difficulties. The people will take only so much of this before rebelling. It's easy to see that you don't know how this works in a capitalistic economy.

...Which Hamas refuses and wasn't ordered by the […]

@skinster so you confess that Hamas committed ma[…]

^ Wouldn't happen though, since the Israelis are n[…]

I was actually unaware :lol: Before he was […]