democratic socialism and capitalism

[Guardsman Bass]

Hi

I just visited the Democratic Socialists of America website, where they claim they are the largest socialist organization in America (although that is not saying much; I doubt their membership is over a million, and I guarantee it is smaller than the microscopic Libertarian Party) where they say they are in favor of "economic democracy."

Since they are wonderfully vague on what this means to non-members, I have decided to ask the board.

Although capitalism is "democratic" in the sense that it is always controlled by the populace through indirect means such as where one shops, the DS seem to advocate either one of the two following:

1. Government ownership of means of production established through gradual, democratic means. This, if true, would place them in the same category as the Fabians (british gradual socialists) and the Social Democrat party of the early twentieth century. I personally am apprehensive about this: It is effectively turning capitalism into mass representative democracies, which I believe will kill efficiency and quality.

2. Elimination of hierarchies in the workplace. In other words, eliminating the hierarchical corporation model, with its pyramid of workers on bottom, CEO on top, and orders always flowing downwards, into some sort of democratically managed "collective enterprises," which would still probably be for profit. Such collectives would elect their management, and distribute profits amongst themselves. This I am not sure about; I believe it will tend to eliminate superbly massive economies-of scale (although it may still be possibly by uniting the collective through association on the internet and other means), but will tend towards higher wages on average. Most likely will result in difficulties in starting businesses though, and reduce individual initiative to establish enterprises(probably a goal of the DS anyways). This form of economy is also favored generally by leftish anarchists ( not anarcho-capitalist Ayn Randians) and middle of the way greens(between extremists and moderates), who would prefer a smaller, more artisan style approach to production using individual, specialized engineering and advanced technology. Plus, they believe it will be easier to protect the environment if the economy is made of small collective enterprises rather than gigantic corporations. For readers of Kim Stanley Robinson, this is the economy used on Mars in Blue Mars the book. The interesting thing is that the system actually DOES exist in Spain (can't remember the link, but you can surely find it on google. Check it out; it is quite interesting.)

What are your thoughts, reader?

[Montcalm]

Socialism is just another word for communism.

[Sea Skimmer]

Socialism is just another word for communism.

No its not, communism is a specific form of socialism.

[Joe]

1. Government ownership of means of production established through gradual, democratic means. This, if true, would place them in the same category as the Fabians (british gradual socialists) and the Social Democrat party of the early twentieth century. I personally am apprehensive about this: It is effectively turning capitalism into mass representative democracies, which I believe will kill efficiency and quality.

Stupid fucking idea. No private property equals no incentives equals drastically diminished productivity.

2. Elimination of hierarchies in the workplace. In other words, eliminating the hierarchical corporation model, with its pyramid of workers on bottom, CEO on top, and orders always flowing downwards, into some sort of democratically managed "collective enterprises," which would still probably be for profit. Such collectives would elect their management, and distribute profits amongst themselves. This I am not sure about; I believe it will tend to eliminate superbly massive economies-of scale (although it may still be possibly by uniting the collective through association on the internet and other means), but will tend towards higher wages on average. Most likely will result in difficulties in starting businesses though, and reduce individual initiative to establish enterprises(probably a goal of the DS anyways). This form of economy is also favored generally by leftish anarchists ( not anarcho-capitalist Ayn Randians) and middle of the way greens(between extremists and moderates), who would prefer a smaller, more artisan style approach to production using individual, specialized engineering and advanced technology. Plus, they believe it will be easier to protect the environment if the economy is made of small collective enterprises rather than gigantic corporations. For readers of Kim Stanley Robinson, this is the economy used on Mars in Blue Mars the book. The interesting thing is that the system actually DOES exist in Spain (can't remember the link, but you can surely find it on google. Check it out; it is quite interesting.)

Well, it might lead to higher wages (which will be wiped out by diminished profits) but the "smaller, more artisan" style of production is also going to boost prices. And these collective enterprises will be destroyed by cheaply-priced foreign goods.

And the environment? Try strengthening private property law. When it's your property, every day is Earth day.

[Darth Wong]

Socialism is just another word for communism.

Communism outlaws the use of capital. Socialism does not; it merely involves the government controlling a lot of that capital for social purposes. This is no small distinction. America is not entirely capitalist, and is actually somewhat socialist because it has income taxes, a large government, and a welfare system.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Socialism is just another word for communism.

Communism outlaws the use of capital. Socialism does not; it merely involves the government controlling a lot of that capital for social purposes. This is no small distinction. America is not entirely capitalist, and is actually somewhat socialist because it has income taxes, a large government, and a welfare system.

Socialism is just a halfway house in the journey towards Communism. Once redistribution is accepted as a valid "right" of the government, you can be sure that you'll eventually end up with Communism if the expansionist tendincies of government are not curtailed.

[Alex Moon]

Socialism is just another word for communism.

Communism outlaws the use of capital. Socialism does not; it merely involves the government controlling a lot of that capital for social purposes. This is no small distinction. America is not entirely capitalist, and is actually somewhat socialist because it has income taxes, a large government, and a welfare system.

Socialism is just a halfway house in the journey towards Communism. Once redistribution is accepted as a valid "right" of the government, you can be sure that you'll eventually end up with Communism if the expansionist tendincies of government are not curtailed.

Not really. Usually you just end up with really heavy socialism because the people in charge aren't willing to make the final steps to communism, one of which is that they give up power.

[Darth Wong]

Communism outlaws the use of capital. Socialism does not; it merely involves the government controlling a lot of that capital for social purposes. This is no small distinction. America is not entirely capitalist, and is actually somewhat socialist because it has income taxes, a large government, and a welfare system.

Socialism is just a halfway house in the journey towards Communism. Once redistribution is accepted as a valid "right" of the government, you can be sure that you'll eventually end up with Communism if the expansionist tendincies of government are not curtailed.

Slippery slope fallacy.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Communism outlaws the use of capital. Socialism does not; it merely involves the government controlling a lot of that capital for social purposes. This is no small distinction. America is not entirely capitalist, and is actually somewhat socialist because it has income taxes, a large government, and a welfare system.

Socialism is just a halfway house in the journey towards Communism. Once redistribution is accepted as a valid "right" of the government, you can be sure that you'll eventually end up with Communism if the expansionist tendincies of government are not curtailed.

Slippery slope fallacy.

Ever since government intervention was accepted in the 1930s the size and scope of government has continued to grow and government regulations have become more common; the government is regulating more of our lives and taking more of our money every year. Explain to me how this trend, if it continues, WON'T lead to a totalitarian-communist state.

[Howedar]

Theoretical communism is in many ways the exact opposite of socialism.
The withering away of the state vs The state is all powerful and controls everything

[Darth Wong]

Explain to me how this trend, if it continues, WON'T lead to a totalitarian-communist state.

First you must prove that the trend is bound to continue indefinitely until it reaches an absolute extreme.

[Joe]

Theoretical communism is in many ways the exact opposite of socialism.
The withering away of the state vs The state is all powerful and controls everything

Yes, and theoretical communism is about as valid in reality as intelligent design.

[Howedar]

Naturally.

[weemadando]

Well, Australia is democratic socialist...

So I guess we're commie traitors.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Explain to me how this trend, if it continues, WON'T lead to a totalitarian-communist state.

First you must prove that the trend is bound to continue indefinitely until it reaches an absolute extreme.

You damn well know that this is impossible to prove. All I can do is point out trends and facts about American attitude towards goverment and its role in soceity and make predictions based on this data. I can't "Prove" it because human society isn't simple enough to predict, with the precision of scientific laboratory expirements, the results from any given set of facts.

[Darth Wong]

You damn well know that this is impossible to prove. All I can do is point out trends and facts about American attitude towards goverment and its role in soceity and make predictions based on this data. I can't "Prove" it because human society isn't simple enough to predict, with the precision of scientific laboratory expirements, the results from any given set of facts.

Then you have no basis for claiming that it's inevitable.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

You damn well know that this is impossible to prove. All I can do is point out trends and facts about American attitude towards goverment and its role in soceity and make predictions based on this data. I can't "Prove" it because human society isn't simple enough to predict, with the precision of scientific laboratory expirements, the results from any given set of facts.

Then you have no basis for claiming that it's inevitable.

Your ignoring the fact that I said "if the expansionist tendancies of government are not curtailed." There is no evidence to support that these expansionst tendancies are going to be curtailed, and pleanty to support the idea that government will continue to grow.

[Darth Wong]

Then you have no basis for claiming that it's inevitable.

Your ignoring the fact that I said "if the expansionist tendancies of government are not curtailed."

So your statement applies only in the total absence of any individualistic tendencies among the population. Right. And you feel this is likely ... why?

There is no evidence to support that these expansionst tendancies are going to be curtailed, and pleanty to support the idea that government will continue to grow.

Bullshit. They are already being curtailed. The balance between size of government and reduction of taxes is hotly contested at every level.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Then you have no basis for claiming that it's inevitable.

Your ignoring the fact that I said "if the expansionist tendancies of government are not curtailed."

So your statement applies only in the total absence of any individualistic tendencies among the population. Right. And you feel this is likely ... why?

There is no evidence to support that these expansionst tendancies are going to be curtailed, and pleanty to support the idea that government will continue to grow.

Bullshit. They are already being curtailed. The balance between size of government and reduction of taxes is hotly contested at every level.

Most people blindly follow whatever indoctrination they're given as children. They're Southern Babtists cause their parents were (or Catholic or whatever), they go to every election and pull Deomocrat and Republican because their parents did.... they lack, or dont utilize critical thinking skills; they very thing that is needed to question the status quo of continued government growth and abuse of power.

Even if it passes, the latest tax cut won't reduce the size of the government. Expenses will exceed revenues and the shortfall will be made up through inflation (which is an indirect form of taxation).

[kojikun]

blkbrry, so youre saying that youre a moron because your parents were?

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

blkbrry, so youre saying that youre a moron because your parents were?

Yea, that obviously what I'm saying....

[Edi]

Socialism is just a halfway house in the journey towards Communism. Once redistribution is accepted as a valid "right" of the government, you can be sure that you'll eventually end up with Communism if the expansionist tendincies of government are not curtailed.

Then you will care to explain to me why my country (and the rest of Europe) is not communist despite social democratic (i.e. leftist) forces have been in power here for decades, as well as elsewhere in Europe? Your claim is complete and utter bullshit, and stinks accordingly. Given the general American attitudes toward European forms of government, not to mention actual communism, it will never gain any ground in the US unless the general attitude of the population dramatically shifts.

Edi

[Superman]

Socialism is NOT communism. This guy is obviously some Rush Limbaugh clone that wants to put his two cents in. Do your homework, dick wad.

And why don't you answer Edi. He brings up good points.

[Stuart Mackey]

Socialism is just another word for communism.

Communism outlaws the use of capital. Socialism does not; it merely involves the government controlling a lot of that capital for social purposes. This is no small distinction. America is not entirely capitalist, and is actually somewhat socialist because it has income taxes, a large government, and a welfare system.

Socialism is just a halfway house in the journey towards Communism. Once redistribution is accepted as a valid "right" of the government, you can be sure that you'll eventually end up with Communism if the expansionist tendincies of government are not curtailed.

According to that theory NZ, Australia, Canada and Britian should have gone communist in 1946.

[NecronLord]

Ah superb. Economics. One of my favorite topics.

1. Government ownership of means of production

I pointps to collective farming, five year plans and other assorted failures of total govt economic control as discreditation of any claim that this is a good or desirable idea.

established through gradual, democratic means.

Meaning what? nationalising non essential companies one at a time? While national transport infrastructue, public transport, education, order and healthcare are IMO neccessery for a modern state, nationalising the corprate sector is a terrible thing/

This, if true, would place them in the same category as the Fabians (british gradual socialists) and the Social Democrat party of the early twentieth century. I personally am apprehensive about this: It is effectively turning capitalism into mass representative democracies, which I believe will kill efficiency and quality.

I agree.

2. Elimination of hierarchies in the workplace.

Ah I see! A genius plan, which will increase efficiency one hunded fold:roll:

In other words, eliminating the hierarchical corporation model, with its pyramid of workers on bottom, CEO on top, and orders always flowing downwards, into some sort of democratically managed "collective enterprises,"

I can see it now.
"What shall we do today comrades?"
"Slack off!"
"All in favor of slacking off?"
"Right, to the pub!"

which would still probably be for profit.

Probably?

Such collectives would elect their management,

Ah good, popularity>ability

and distribute profits amongst themselves.

Party members first I suppose?

This I am not sure about; I believe it will tend to eliminate superbly massive economies-of scale (although it may still be possibly by uniting the collective through association on the internet and other means), but will tend towards higher wages on average.

That's contradictory. It would generate what are known as diseconomies of scale, as each small collective purchases supplies, the avrage cost per unit would increase. They clearly do not understand the reasons for economies of scale. If I need two hundred bricks of clay dilvered to a pottery factory, I will pay £/$1 for dilivery(Just take as read). If I need twenty bricks of clay dilivered to ten collectives of three workers then we (the people) need to pay £/$10. This means that working under a capitalist model is more efficient, period. Therefore, the costs that do not exist under the current model will be passed onto The Workers

Most likely will result in difficulties in starting businesses though

No shit.

, and reduce individual initiative to establish enterprises(probably a goal of the DS anyways).

The more mindless automotons the better huh? Because Innovation is a BAD thing and must be punished!

This form of economy is also favored generally by leftish anarchists ( not anarcho-capitalist Ayn Randians) and middle of the way greens(between extremists and moderates), who would prefer a smaller, more artisan style

You mean no common standards and massive costs? How the fuck do you make an 'artisan style' computer motherboard?

approach to production using individual, specialized engineering

and advanced technology.

Which will of course no longer be produced to common standards, and thus won't work.

Plus, they believe it will be easier to protect the environment if the economy is made of small collective enterprises rather than gigantic corporations.

Why? It's far easier to keep an eye on corparations than it is to keep an eye on rogue 'artisans'

For readers of Kim Stanley Robinson, this is the economy used on Mars in Blue Mars the book.

I knew no-one on this planet could be stupid enough to concieve of this. Maybe we could model our society on the Borg?

The interesting thing is that the system actually DOES exist in Spain (can't remember the link, but you can surely find it on google. Check it out; it is quite interesting.)

I would imagine Olrik is better qualified to talk about this than myself.