How does socialism work?

[bluethread]

There appear to be only four options regarding governmental action:

1. Let the consequences of personal actions follow without interference.

3. Dictate behaviors by legislation

2. Provide goods and services regardless of personal actions.

4. Withhold goods and services based on personal behaviors.

Given that socialism dictates that the paramount consideration in legislation is what is best for society as a whole, and advocates usually argue for it based on compassion for the individual. How does that work? Which combination or combinations of the options above provide the best outcomes for society as a whole, while showing compassion for the individual?

[Divine Insight]

Ok, how does "True Socialism" help determine what the interest of the society is?

It doesn't. Socialism isn't something magical. It's merely an economic philosophy. It's up to the people who implement it to see that it's done correctly.

In fact, the term "socialism" itself doesn't even need to be restricted to just an economical model. It could be referencing other social behaviors and interactions as well. The whole point to socialism is that the ideal is to benefit everyone within the society. That's how the society as a whole benefits.

It's certainly true that a socialistic philosophy can be poorly implemented just like anything else. It could also be grossly corrupt.

Socialism isn't a "Magic Cure" for anything. It's just a philosophy not unlike the philosophy of the Golden Rule.

You could ask the same questions about the Golden Rule.

How does the Golden Rule help determine that doing unto others as you would like them do unto is actually how others would like to be treated?

It doesn't. It's just an ideology that was invented in the hope that it might actually work. But it's not a magical spell that can insure that this philosophy will actually work. That all depends on precisely how individuals actually implement what they believe the "Golden Rule" to be suggesting.

And the same is true of Socialism. It's just an ideology. How it's actually implemented will depend entirely on the people who actually implement it.

People have used the "Golden Rule" as an excuse to seek revenge. I'm quite sure that people could also distort socialism in a similar way.

[bluethread]

Ok, how does "True Socialism" help determine what the interest of the society is?

It doesn't. Socialism isn't something magical. It's merely an economic philosophy. It's up to the people who implement it to see that it's done correctly.

In fact, the term "socialism" itself doesn't even need to be restricted to just an economical model. It could be referencing other social behaviors and interactions as well. The whole point to socialism is that the ideal is to benefit everyone within the society. That's how the society as a whole benefits.

Louis XV and Marie were working to benefit everyone within the society. This what "Let them eat cake." was all about. They mandated that bakers must provide bread for everyone. Yet, this thinking led to the French revolution.

People have used the "Golden Rule" as an excuse to seek revenge. I'm quite sure that people could also distort socialism in a similar way.

Ok, how would you implement socialism such that it works?

[Furrowed Brow]

OK, so can you please provide an umbrella definition that includes all kinds of socialism, or is "socialism" just a collection of criticisms of other economic models? For, example. is the application of resources for the benefit of society as a whole the base philosophical principle of all forms of socialism?

I'll give you my personal take on perhaps the most generic characteristic. I think socialism is a dissatisfaction with capitalism, feels there is a better way to organise a society such that the means of production are not owned by a few; and where they are owned by a few this tends to be bad for the rest and negative consequences of which needs to be militated against.

Sure, what is in the interests of society as a whole is a consideration in all economic models. Are you saying that socialism is just an economic consideration and not an economic model? If that is the case, why is it referred to as an "ism"?

Most of us have never studied economics and yet might still call ourselves socialist. So I think socialism stems form a more basic consideration that capitalism is unfair or is seen not to work so well. Socialism can be an economic model but then there are various formulations that may be called socialism.

What dies guilt have to do with it? If one is guilty of something, isn't that a social judgment? One what is that judgment based?

Well yes exactly. I'm no fan of Tony Blair. But yes I think there is a certain kind of faux liberal who calls themselves socialist that really prefer capitalism and its rewards, but feel uncomfortable about some of the negative consequences of capitalism.

Regarding the other two, how does socialism replace and/or expunge capitalism?

In the case of Lenin it is revolution and shooting people in the head who are enemies of the revolution. Bevan is a hero of mine. He hated a certain stripe of capitalism and elitism, and oversaw the creation of the nation health service, social housing and a welfare state. He belonged to a labour party committed to the state ownership of all means of production. But he was not a violent revolutionary.

If it is a rejection of capitalism, is it just that? Does socialism provide an alternative model, or is it just a contrarian economic tool? If egalitarianism is necessary for socialism to avoid certain economic "failures", how does one implement that. How does the 8 to 1 salary ratio you presented in one of your examples equate to egalitarian?

I can't say it is perfectly fair, but it is fairer and it is practical and it is intended to promote better work life, and better social outcomes. It is fair in that it rewards education and experience and the workers vote for who gets to manage the company.

How does socialism assure that these things do not take place?

Imagine Amazon as a cooperative. Do you think the workers are going to stand for being tagged? Or that workers are going to stand for working in a factory that is a health hazard. There are no guarantees a system is perfect but it is preferable.

So, are you saying that it is not an economic model at all, but a form of piecemeal airing of grievances?

No. There are socialisitc economics models...just not the one. There are theories like Marxism that describe those piecemeal grievances as the result of fundamental inequalities. But you don't have to be a Marxist to be a socialist.

If that is the case, how does one determine which grievances are valid and which are just factional whining?

That's down to the organisational model. Mondragon seem to have solved the problem by empowering its workers so they get to decide who is in charge. The person in charge gets to sort out the problems the workers can't sort out themselves, if the workers don't like it they can vote him out. It is a cooperative model, the workers and management are not in competition. Of course there will always be problems - that is human nature - the question is whether the model is robust, and it seems the answer is very much yes.

The John Lewis Partnership is not quite so far along the same road as Mondragon. The workers don't get to vote for the CEO. There is still a board. So their model is more hierarchical. But it is still not capitalism as there are no share holders, the workers are the partners, and the board act more like stewards. They have company councils but the model is more top down than Mondragon. I can speak about John Lewis as my mother worked there for thirty years.

So, are you saying that there is no black market in socialized societies?

of course not. Humans nature is as it is.

How is it that socialism removes the anxiety related to limited resources?

Same goes for non socialism. If resources really are limited there will always be anxiety. But other than Canada and Cuba most socialistic countries allow people to also buy private medicine. There was a problem with waiting lists in the UK a few years ago, but that was a problem of funding and government commitment to the system. I think you will probably have to wait a couple of weeks for non urgent appointments with your doctor. But that is not always true - the last time I visited a doctor I wandered in off the street without an appointment, was seen to and had a prescription for antibiotics for an ear infection and was back out the door inside half an hour. But that experience is probably rare and I was prepared to see any available doctor, not my own doctor. My mother has the same doctor, she is often able to make an appointment within a couple of days, if we visit the receptionist in person sometimes we can get an appointment later the same day. This experience may not be so general. My mother has vascular disease, one leg, hypertension, high cholesterol, scoliosis, degenerative spine disease and recently had cancer. As a consequence she is in and out of hospital. The care is excellent, there is no paperwork, and other than worrying about her the multiple operations and procedures she has had in the last couple of year have been anxiety free. And ..O...the wheelchair is supplied free and the maintenance to fix broken bits of the chair which happens because it bumps into and scrapes things...also free.

Sure one could argue that the consumer does not have to do paperwork, if that is how it is set up, and there is no out of pocket costs. However, what about the anxiety related to paying taxes and not getting a treatment due to lack of supply?

We all pay taxes anyway and there is no reason there would be lack of supply, unless the system is underfunded. And there is no good reason for that to happen.

Does socialism provide organs for everyone who will die without a transplant?

of course not. It can't magic them up.

If not, why doesn't this create anxiety over whether one will or will not get a transplant?

I suspect that would most certainly be anxious times. But there is no anxiety about whether insurance will cover the cost of the procedure or that you will lose out to someone paying a premium.

How is it not elitist when doctors make the decision?

I think most people would agree the kind if elitism that allows those qualified as doctors to make the medical decisions is fine. But the point is that however the decision is come to insurance or lack of insurance is not a factor.

Why is this in the best interests of society as a whole? Are doctors inherently more socially responsible than the "rich old guy"? What if that "rich old guy" is a doctor? Is he more valuable to society as a whole because he is a doctor and not a plumber or CEO?

Decisions are made on medical grounds. That is what doctors are trained to do. You seem to have a strangely skewed picture of socialistic healthcare. I'm not sure exactly what criteria a doctor actually employs at such times I'm not a doctor. Clearly sometimes horrible decision have to be made.....on medical grounds. Choosing one person over another for social reasons is not socialism. A health system paid for by all through taxation, and free at point of delivery is socialism. That is all it means.

Again, why is management paid 6-8 times the lowest paid worker? Is this repetitive work? Isn't mastering management skills enough of a motivation?

I think most recognise that being CEO requires experiences and skills not every worker has, and some workers just don't want the responsibility. The ratio recognises the need for an incentive to be the manager. It also recognises that the incentive only needs to be 8x or so to get good results.

[Divine Insight]

Louis XV and Marie were working to benefit everyone within the society. This what "Let them eat cake." was all about. They mandated that bakers must provide bread for everyone. Yet, this thinking led to the French revolution.

Well, talk about stupidity, that has to be a prime example right there. You can't just demand that bakers must carry society on their backs. That's not socialism.

Ok, how would you implement socialism such that it works?

You've got to be kidding me if you expect me to explain something that complex in posts on an Internet Bulletin Board. There are tons of things that would need to be dealt with. And in addition to that you'd need to explain what it is I'm actually working with?

What am I starting out with? A society that already has an advanced economic system in place that I would need to convert to socialism? That would require quite a bit of extra work because in addition to implementing the socialism I would need to deal with letting the "air" out of the existing economic model in a way that it doesn't just collapse suddenly in a big crunch.

I actually do have a plan for converting our current capitalism over to socialism. But because this plan requires this conversion it would also require a very long time to implement. It would need to be done over many years. You can't just stick a pin in the Bubble we've already created.

In short, my answer to your question is that I would implement socialism "very well". But it would require time, and in our current society it would also require a lot of PR work to get people on-board.

And bringing REALITY back into the picture, let's not forget that there would be a lot of people who are die-hard capitalist who would buck the system and do everything in their power to sabotage the socialist movement. They would be pointing to every single problem along the way blowing everything way out of proportion screaming that it's never going to work, blah, blah, blah.

So converting our current society over to a working socialism would definitely be an uphill battle. There would be great resistance to it. Mainly by those who favor capitalism.

~~~~

On the other hand, if you are asking me how I would create a socialistic economy from scratch just starting out with a small community where everyone is on board and not hatefully opposed to the idea, that would be extremely easy to do and quite pleasant.

It's far easier to educate people from scratch than to try to change the minds of die-hard objectors.

~~~~~

I will be the first to suggest that any attempt to try to convert the current USA over to a socialistic model of economy would be an extreme nightmare wrought with extreme opposition. I can see, and even predict, that many powerful capitalists would actually be doing things to purposefully try to thwart that change.

And that's a real shame, because in the long haul converting over to a socialistic economy could be the best things that could ever happen to the USA.

But then again, it could be a disaster too. The would all depend on who's doing it and precisely how they implement it.

~~~~

I'm not suggesting that we should necessarily try to implement a socialistic economy in the USA. But I am suggesting that it could be made to work if implemented correctly.

In fact, the plan I have in mind is more than just economic socialism, but it's also a plan that would be extremely favorable to healing the ecology of the planet. So I would be solving two problems simultaneously if I were in charge of the project.

That's never going to happen though because I'm not even applying for the job.

And even if I did apply for the job it's extremely unlikely that I would be hired to do it. That's too bad for the USA.

But maybe someone else who can do as good of a job will come along and volunteer to do it.

[bluethread]

Your three examples are cooperatives that work to some degree in mixed economies. For it to be an example of socialism, the purchasing options of the employees would also be limited.

I think you are working within a very limited idea of what counts as socialism. Europe since WWII has been socialistic working but with mixed economies and personal freedom.

So, how does one know that the problems are not due to socialism and the good things are. If one can not even explain how the basic mechanisms work in a purely socialistic model, how can one sort out how they work in a mixed economy?

Are the employees only permitted to buy from the cooperative and/or cooperative approved products and services?

Of course not. They are not micro managed like that - that would fly in the face of what it means to be a co-operation. To be true, I expect there would be the ethos to support like minded ventures. As for suppliers I'm not sure what they do, but I imagine they give preference to other co-operatives where possible. In this sense it is a movement as much as it is a business model.

I'm not asking about cooperation within the organization. I am just saying that if socialistic cooperatives work so well, why depend on expectations? The answer should be obvious, they don't buy outside the cooperative or at least avoid products and services that the coop does not approve of. Is that indeed the case? In other words, are cooperatives just an option in a diverse economy, or are they the template for a vibrant overall economy?

Without that one can not say that the societies is really focusing the economy on what is in the best interests of society as a whole, which is the philosophical based of socialism.

One of the managers at Mondragon - maybe more in hope - points out their business model is the model of the future. They are not trying to force their business model on people, they think their success will eventual work through until the rest of society see it as a no brainer. I'd say that strategy is best for society. Legislation to promote co-operatives and help pro-social business models would help.

If They are not trying to force their business model on people and the model is the future, why legislation to promote co-operatives and help pro-social business models? Legislation is coercive by it's nature.

Also, in one of your examples, the top paid member of the cooperative is paid 8 times what the lowest paid member receives. How is this justified?

Its justified because it is a co-operative and the managers are there because they support that kind of ethos. And anyhow - how is it ever justified to pay anyone more? Co-operatives are the antidote to paying the board of directors 200x the average worker. This is not a world a few get the overwhelming slice of the reward. It is a group effort. Moreover, the managers are there to represent the workers, and may be voted out their job by the workers. The worker is far more involved in the running of the company and invest more of themselves in the ethos of the company than other business models. Co-operatives around the world have come to settle on a ratio of around 8 to 1 because it gives incentive to want to be the manager, and rewards additional experience and education.

So, again we have the less ugly daughter argument. Are you arguing that socialism is just capitalism lite?

And the final justification is that the ratio works. You don't need to pay top management more to get a successful company.

I presume you mean more than that ratio, because you just made the point that giving someone more provides an incentive for one to become a manager.

If the manager wants a pay rise he has to make sure the company is sufficiently successful that everyone gets a pay rise. He can't post a 1% increase in profit and take a 20% pay rise. Only a psychopath would do that, and that though leads us to ask what kind of qualities are encouraged if we pay top managers huge bonuses and many multiples of an average worker. Smarter people emerge or more psychopathic? This is an apt question right now given what is going on around the world.

If that is the case, why not just let the non-psychopath managed companies outperform the psychopath managed companies?

Why is it in the best interests of society as a whole for there to be this disparity of compensation?

Well that takes us back to the video I posted above in reply to WinePusher regarding inequality. Societies with lower inequality tend to have better health and less crime etcetera. But co-operative efforts which preserve a ratio between top and bottom also militate against the need for redistributive taxes and the resentment that goes with that and the tax avoidance that also goes with that resentment.

No, why is it in the best interests of society for there to by ANY disparity of compensation? You now introduce "the need for re-distributive taxes". Where does one come up with such a "need"?

This is essentially the point of Richard Wolf. A video of wolf also posted above. His point is that if we just change legislation or a tax regime it may take a few years but the elite class will eventual have that undone and the law and tax written in their favour. He recognises the resentment caused by high tax regimes. So he advocates an economic model based on worker directed partnerships.

What is to keep the "elite class" from having those "co-operative efforts" undone and the law and tax written in their favor. It appears that government unions have done just that.

[Furrowed Brow]

So, how does one know that the problems are not due to socialism and the good things are.

Evidence based decision making I guess. But I don't really understand what you mean until you name something you have in mind. The questions is like asking how do we know that ill health is not due to modern medicine the question makes little sense until you name some specific illness or side effect that might be caused by a medicine. Clearly this sometimes happens and we would know because someone will do the research and the statistical analysis to point out more people die if they take medicine x. The same goes for socialistic policy. If it does not have the desired effect or it makes things worse we respond to the evidence. But the point to a socialistic model is that it recognises there often needs to be a rational response and that markets are irrational and do not always lead to optimal results, and sometimes reinforce socially negative results like poor housing quality or disabled people left amongst the permanently low paid.

So for example, if tighter housing regulation to improve the quality of housing stock leads to less housing stock being built and there were a housing shortage, the socialistic response is to build more houses as a social effort, not lower the bar on housing regulation hoping the market will solve the problem of better housing stock. It just proved it couldn't.

If one can not even explain how the basic mechanisms work in a purely socialistic model, how can one sort out how they work in a mixed economy?

Well you keep pushing towards this ideal of a pure form of socialism but as has been reiterated there is not one pure form of socialism. The point has already been made in a reply (not to you specifically) that socialism might mean centralisation or it might be decentralisation. The companies John Lewis Partnership and Mondragon do not have the same business model yet both are socialistic organisations. Socialism might try to put a band-aid on capitalism or it might try to replace capitalism.

If you ask what form of socialism would I prefer it would be an economy dominated by the Mondragon business model or something very similar. But there would be room for the John Lewis business model, there would also be room for privately owned companies. But legislation, tax regimes etcetera would favour co-operatives. There would be socialised healthcare, socialised energy utilities, and railways. But with co-operative type organisation structures. As a result the size of the number of companies listed on the stock market would dwindle because the majority of business would be owned by their workers. Thus the surplus wealth generated by an economy would have less places to park itself, and would instead find itself reinvested back into business on things like R&D, starting new ventures, improving infrastructure, improving schools etcetera.

I'm not asking about cooperation within the organization. I am just saying that if socialistic cooperatives work so well, why depend on expectations? The answer should be obvious, they don't buy outside the cooperative or at least avoid products and services that the coop does not approve of.

That would be one answer. But it is not the only answer. If socialism is to provide an economy that produces wealth we also have to try to not rebuild North Korea. Innovation requires flexibility. There has to be room for personal liberty. And your question suggest you are still looking at this from a top down perspective. Co-ops are bottom up. The co-op does not do what the workers do not approve, not the other way around.

In other words, are cooperatives just an option in a diverse economy, or are they the template for a vibrant overall economy?

Both I'd say. They are the preferred template. Put it this way I'd expect an economy that was 60% co-operatives to change the nature of society and the expectations of people. Private companies would have to respond to the better deal and greater respect the worker finds in the co-operative model. As co-operatives tend to look after their workers well this is an upward pressure on expectations and standards and the way we treat each other and interact as a whole.

If They are not trying to force their business model on people and the model is the future, why legislation to promote co-operatives and help pro-social business models? Legislation is coercive by it's nature.

Legislation is coercive true. But we all accept a degree of legislation in our lives unless we prefer some form of philosophical anarchism. I look at it this way, legislation is good when it promotes a social good. Moe can't just walk in Joe's house and take his TV. Most of us accept there ought to be laws against that kind of thing. Co-operatives are clearly pro-social business models. I'd say that alternatives that fall short of that are to some degree anti social. Maybe the effect is subtle and indirect. Like Joe hooking up to Moe's electricity supply and draining off some of Moe's electricity at Moe's expense, but not enough for Moe to notice on a day to day basis, only that he struggles to pay the bill at the end of the quarter and can't figure out why it is so much. I think most people might think there ought to be laws against that too. But what if Joe is the name of the company that supplies Moe's electricity. That is an apt analogy for how I look at things. Economic models that reward a few highly, that are structured to favour corporations, and at the same time leave the rest facing a lifetime of debt, average to poor education, uncertain healthcare, and when they go to work they essentially work in an authoritarian regime that says do as you are told, don't complain or you are out, is draining the juice. The fact that it is anti social ought to be reflected in law. But that does not mean we turn the place into North Korea either.

We live in a world that is presently highly capitalistic, in which methods of funding and investment suit a different kind of business model. it is going tot take a degree of legislation to nudge people into recognising co-operatives are a better idea, and as Divine Insight has pointed out there is going to be a backlash from reactionary forces who are going to hate the idea of bottom-up models because it spells the potential demise of Walmart style fortunes.

So, again we have the less ugly daughter argument. Are you arguing that socialism is just capitalism lite?

Well the kind of socialism I would prefer is a world far more socialistic than the one in which I live or is seen across Europe.

If that is the case, why not just let the non-psychopath managed companies outperform the psychopath managed companies?

Well yes, but that only works if the legislation, tax regimes, methods of oversight work and are tilted towards a pro-social result. The banking industry is an egregious example of how things go wrong, and yet they are not out of business because the kind of wealth and power that goes with those organisations is able to tilt the table in their favour. And along with the banking industry also goes just about every major corporation. And even without all that tilting capitalism does not ensure the psychopath does not outperform the competition. Maybe there is even an argument to be made it rewards it. I'm sure Amazon are more profitable because they tag their workers who have to keep up a keen pace running around their warehouses. But whoever signed off on that policy has low levels of empathy.

No, why is it in the best interests of society for there to by ANY disparity of compensation? You now introduce "the need for re-distributive taxes". Where does one come up with such a "need"?

Well if we lived in a perfect world there wouldn't. But until we discover a perfect world there is going to be the need for higher rewards to encourage talented people to step forward. But as the video about work and reward explained the additional reward does not have to be huge. The modern co-operative movement seems to be settling on a ratio of about 8 to 1 as both meeting the ethos of the co-operative and being practical.

What is to keep the "elite class" from having those "co-operative efforts" undone and the law and tax written in their favour.

Firstly our consciousness of the problem and our vigilance. This is the nature of class war.

It appears that government unions have done just that.

There is no perfect answer but the answer requires a greater sense of unity amongst the working classes and a consciousness that their best interested is not served by the interests of wealth and power, and the belief they are empowered to do something about it, and practical solutions like co-operatives that allow them to exercise greater power over their working environment and their lives.

[Bust Nak]

How does that work? Which combination or combinations of the options above provide the best outcomes for society as a whole, while showing compassion for the individual?

1. Dictate behaviors that increase good outcomes for society, with special attention to compassion for the individual, by legislation. While allowing some consequences of personal actions that does not have serious implication for society follow without interference.

2. Provide and withhold goods and services based on needs.

Is that what you are after?

[bluethread]

How does that work? Which combination or combinations of the options above provide the best outcomes for society as a whole, while showing compassion for the individual?

1. Dictate behaviors that increase good outcomes for society, with special attention to compassion for the individual, by legislation. While allowing some consequences of personal actions that does not have serious implication for society follow without interference.

2. Provide and withhold goods and services based on needs.

Is that what you are after?

Thank you. I understand that economies are complicated things, and DI and FB wish to support particular kinds of socialism. However, rather than navigate nuance, I would like to being at first principles and test them to see which ones, if any, work and which do not.

Now, acknowledging that the first principles you have presented are not necessarily Socialism, with a capital S, lets accept them as the basis of our discussion.

1. Dictate behaviors that increase good outcomes for society, with special attention to compassion for the individual, by legislation. While allowing some consequences of personal actions that does not have serious implication for society follow without interference.

This model appears to depend on legislative dictate, good outcomes for society and compassion for the individual, limited to only those area that have serious implication for society. Without getting into specific versions is this a correct summary of the socialist economic model we are to examine?

2. Provide and withhold goods and services based on needs.

Is this an alternative model, or a general clarification of the means by which legislative dictate seeks to achieve good outcomes for society and compassion for the individual, in the model we are considering?

[WinePusher]

So in this quote you assert that "in a truly socialistic economy these stores would have never been a chain." And in the quote above you claim that socialist economies can produce economies of scale.

Do you see how you contradicted yourself? Everything you've been saying is wrong.

I don't see where I'm wrong about anything. A "chain" would have totally different meanings in capitalism and socialism.

In capitalism a "chain" is a collection of many stores own by one capitalistic entity be it a single person or an entire group of people.

In socialism, I'm not sure if the term "chain" could even apply. What would it mean for a stores to be a "chain" in socialism? That they simply share common suppliers and distributors?

? You said that socialist economies could produce economies of scale. I explained to you what economies of scale are. I'll do it one more time. Economies of scale refers to the decline in long run average costs as output increases. Only LARGE businesses experience economies of scale, SMALL businesses do not see a reduction in long run average costs as their output increases. So, please explain why you believe that socialist economies can produce economies of scale.

In capitalism individuals own business, usually but not always, the individuals who own the businesses don't even work at the actual business location.

In socialism the society owns the business.

Under capitalism ANY form of business enterprise may emerge, whether it be a sole proprietorship, a partnership, a corporation OR a worker cooperative. The reason why worker cooperatives are not pervasive in our economy is because they are poorly managed.

Yes, absolutely. Central planning can indeed work. Why would you suggest that it can't?

Because highschool economics and AP government students learn about prices and how prices facilitate exchange and efficiently coordinate supply and demand such that markets are cleared of shortages and surpluses. Which is why free market economies do not suffer from massive shortages of goods, unlike centrally planned economies.

I don't claim to be an economist, nor do I have any formal education in economics. But I do claim to be able to think rationally and logically.

K, so you admit that you don't have any formal education in economics and yet you think you are qualified to pontificate on how the economy should be organized and managed?

Also, the main thesis of all modern day capitalism is based on a need for GROWTH. Their economic models demand growth and without they can't be sustained. That is destined to failure. Any economy that is based entirely on growth is doomed to fail.

Please explain what you mean by growth and please cite these economic models you referenced.

Is your understanding of growth consistent with the actual economic definition? In economics, growth refers to an increase in real output, otherwise known as GDP. When GDP doesn't GROW we have this thing called a recession, which is bad.

And fyi, most of the models economists are currently using are DSGE (Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium) representative agent models and the DSGE model doesn't "demand growth" whatever that's supposed to mean. So here you are wrong again.

I'm not claiming that socialism LEADS to cooperation. I'm saying that good cooperation is essential for good socialism.

You've got it exactly backwards.

Do I really need to explain how you're wrong once again?

You claim that it is better for businesses to cooperate with each other rather than compete. What you fail to realize is that cooperation and collusion between businesses is a BAD thing, and that the government has actually implemented these things called antitrust laws to prevent business from cooperating with each other. Your ideas have no merit.

Also I had already address this in my first post. Any economy that we are going to discuss is going to have two different aspects to it.

1. How it could work in an ideal society.

And

2. How it might go awry in a real world society where people insist on being selfish, greedy, and competitive instead of being cooperative.

If you go and read Adam Smith you'll realize that Smith assumed the worst scenario, wherein all individuals in an economy pursued only their own self interests and behaved selfishly, and he conjectured that even though everybody in the economy was behaving selfishly, an invisible hand would guide all of these selfish actions to generate socially optimal outcomes.

Smith's conjecture was later modeled mathematically by Leon Walras, who introduced a notion of a general/Walrasian equilibrium and this general equilibrium model was later formalized by Kenneth Arrow and Gerard Debreu.

So, as you can see all your questions have already been answered in great detail. And you really need to stop saying that cooperation is better than competition. You have been shown the facts and your claim that cooperation is better than competition has been s hown to be flat out wrong, so stop repeating this false claim.

[bluethread]

In economics, growth refers to an increase in real output, otherwise known as GDP. When GDP doesn't GROW we have this thing called a recession, which is bad.

I acknowledge that you have better credentials than me. However, isn't GDP just an artificial estimate of real output and thus growth? Also, I am not sure that recession is necessarily bad. It does create a strain on the individual, but doesn't that strain serves as a restraint on speculative inflation? Is recession actually stopped, or is it only masked to look like growth by regulation and currency manipulation by governments that use indicators like GDP as triggers, as socialist governments would?