Julian658 wrote:No I haven't. I am skeptical because socialism has never worked. At best, it works in families or very small groups with kinship. Otherwise, people are not altruistic.
First of all there has never yet been a country in which an established, functioning economic system has been based on workers actually owning and controlling the MoP (businesses). So it is a false statement that claims socialism has never worked. Neither has any attempt to put a human settlement on Mars.
Secondly, humans have altruistic or social characteristics. We normally work in a socially organized manner to compete with others who do the same. We see it in both business and in sports to name two common ones.
It turns out that socialist countries are often authoritarian fascist like states with massive oppression.
Again, there are no socialist countries. You are conflating strategies that were intended to "get to socialism" with the actual political system in each case, none of which were/are socialism. The goal was never ultimately achieved anywhere. Yet. Even Cuba is still working on it.
You have failed to tell me how you can impose socialism without an authoritarian repressive state. What will you do if someone wants to be a capitalist within a socialist nation?
That will be figured out when we get there. You're still stuck on the old, failed model of military take-over and imposition of some interim system the eradicates the old. That failed for known reasons, and the lessons of those failures have led to the realization that the transition must be carried out much as capitalism also carried out the transition from feudalism to capitalism: gradually.
Sure, I am biased, but one cannot argue with success. Capitalism has given us the most prosperity in world history.
The flaw in your thinking is the apparent belief that capitalism can just go on forever if allowed to. It's required 2.5 to 3% annually compounded growth in markets, revenue, sales, profits, etc. is not sustainable. It's continuing substitution of machines for workers is no sustainable. It's increasing ownership and/or influence of government is not sustainable.
Venezuelans are leaving the country in large numbers. The food stands in grocery stores are empty and most people are now quite thin due to caloric restriction. The state is repressive and violent with dissidents. I would say the workers are not running the system in a very efficient manner. And BTW, they are a petroleum rich nation.
What's your point? Ukraine is not doing great. Ethiopia is not doing great. Sudan is not doing great. Nigeria is not doing great. In 2018 the GDP per capita of Iceland, Ireland, Norway, and Switzerland (and Luxembourg and Singapore) were all better than the US. So what's your point?
I agree, but workers on their own cannot produce anything unless they are directed by an organization with talent.
Oh I love it. A floor manager is a worker. Business managers are workers. Accountants are workers. Production managers are workers. Sales managers are workers. Actuaries are workers. I am confident that they, along with the remainder of the work force, can manage production. Try checking Mondragon.
Why would they work that hard? What is the motivation?
Achievement. Progress. Social commitment. Pride.
Overproduction makes everything extremely cheap. Why do you think homeless people have cell phones?
I think cellphone ownership among them is not so common.
As I said: Anyone that lives in a the gutter or is dirt poor benefits from socialism.
That's capitalist anti-socialist nonsense.
But. how about the rest of the people that are doing OK in a capitalist nation?
Are you concerned about them?
The government should be hands off. The only role is to provide a framework of no aggression between the parties that exchange services or goods.
OF COURSE!! WHY DIDN'T I THINK OF THAT?? Except that is fantasy. It has never happened and doesn't exist anywhere that I know of. And you?
In the USA we were closest to that around 1915 and it did wonders for the working class.