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]

I have always felt that pure socialism is a philosophical ideal based upon an imagined perfect society that assumes the following:

1. The vast majority of the population are health able workers.

2. The vast majority of the population are willing to contribute to the whole. (i.e. willing to work)

3. Greed, selfishness, and laziness is non-existent.

4. The few people who are genuinely incapable of contributing for sincere reasons are well worth the free public assistance it takes to carry them along.

But in a real world these aren't always true, especially #3.

~~~~~~

I have personally never supported a "Pure Socialistic Economic Model" precisely because it's not realistic in a real world.

However, at that same time I'm very quick to point out that things don't need to be so black and white. I believe it is possible to have an economy that is based partly on a socialistic model and partly on capitalism. I'm certainly not against capitalism. Especially not as an option within a more diverse economy.

Where I feel that Capitalism becomes problematic is when it becomes the only way to go. Then #3 is just as detrimental to capitalism. Extremely greedy capitalists tend to try to put all competitors out of business forming monopolies that the small businesses simply can't complete with. So this ends up in a situation where the greedy rich own the wealth whilst the masses become "poor".

I think there needs to be a middle ground where some things are run in a socialism sort of way whilst capitalism is available to the ambitious (But NOT to the Greedy!) In other words, even in capitalism there needs to be limits to how big a business can become. If it becomes so large that it makes it impossible for smaller business to compete, then it actually becomes a problem.

So at the very least Capitalism needs to be controlled far more than it currently is.

~~~~~~

By the way, a good example of how utterly greedy and heartless capitalism can be is what just happened in my neighborhood. A large popular home improvement center consisting of 7 stores just now closed. This is devastating to me personally since I have always done all my own home improvements and repair work and my main source of materials and supplies has just been pulled out from under me.

These stores closed not because they were losing money but because the owner simply became sick and didn't feel that he could run the chain anymore. So he just closed them all down. This is the sort of thing that capitalism allows to happen. They are his stores if he wants to close them down he can.

This puts everyone who works at all 7 stores out of a job. I know the people at the store near me have been there for literally decades! This store has been here since 1958. All these people are just tossed aside like so much rubbish.

Plus it having a profound affect on people like myself that depend on the store economically as well.

In a socialistic economy a rich capitalist couldn't just up and shut down 7 large stores just because he can't do it it anymore. He's affecting the lives and economy of a whole lot of people just because of his decision to shut down these stores. I can't believe he couldn't find someone else to take them over. They weren't in financial trouble. He's just personally sick and can't deal with it anymore.

This is how Capitalism is in a sense very "Greedy". The capitalists don't really give a hoot about all the people who depend on their businesses.

I've been told that something like a Home Depot will probably move in to fill the vacuum created by a lack of a home improvement center in this area. But still, the whole process has clearly disrupted the lives of everyone who was depending on this business. Will Home Depot hire back the same employees who lost their jobs?

In socialism, it's unlikely that major chains like this would fail, especially due to a single capitalist becoming ill and just arbitrarily deciding to liquidate instead of trying to find someone to take over the chain.

Walmart came into the area quite a few decades ago and basically drove many of the small businesses out of business. Now what if Walmart decides to close down? Then everyone is screwed! There weren't even be any small businesses to fall back on because they are all gone.

Capitalism is dangerous in many ways.

[bluethread]

I have always felt that pure socialism is a philosophical ideal based upon an imagined perfect society that assumes the following:

1. The vast majority of the population are health able workers.

2. The vast majority of the population are willing to contribute to the whole. (i.e. willing to work)

3. Greed, selfishness, and laziness is non-existent.

4. The few people who are genuinely incapable of contributing for sincere reasons are well worth the free public assistance it takes to carry them along.

But in a real world these aren't always true, especially #3.

~~~~~~

I have personally never supported a "Pure Socialistic Economic Model" precisely because it's not realistic in a real world.

However, at that same time I'm very quick to point out that things don't need to be so black and white. I believe it is possible to have an economy that is based partly on a socialistic model and partly on capitalism. I'm certainly not against capitalism. Especially not as an option within a more diverse economy.

We are not talking about capitalism. We are talking about socialism and how it works. If it doesn't work "in a real world', it doesn't work period. If one can make it work, what factors make it work and how? You have stated 4 necessary conditions for socialism to work. How does one create such conditions?

In a socialistic economy a rich capitalist couldn't just up and shut down 7 large stores just because he can't do it anymore.

That is correct, and, in a socialist society, the socialist government can shut down 7 large stores just because it is determined, for whatever reason, that keeping them open is not in the interests of society as a whole.

In socialism, it's unlikely that major chains like this would fail.

Hold it. I thought you were just arguing against big business and for small business. Do the goods and services provided by the big chain just cease to exist when the chain closes? Isn't the demise of the big chain just an opportunity for small businesses to spring up, using the expertise of those displaced workers you referred to. If small business is always a better thing, wouldn't a socialist government have broken this chain up anyway?

Walmart came into the area quite a few decades ago and basically drove many of the small businesses out of business. Now what if Walmart decides to close down? Then everyone is screwed! There weren't even be any small businesses to fall back on because they are all gone.

What if the government decides to close Walmart down for being too big? Isn't the effect the same? How would socialism use the four options in the OP to solve this problem?

[Divine Insight]

We are not talking about capitalism. We are talking about socialism and how it works. If it doesn't work "in a real world', it doesn't work period. If one can make it work, what factors make it work and how? You have stated 4 necessary conditions for socialism to work. How does one create such conditions?

Actually the same things apply to capitalism. The idea behind it assumes many things that are simply not true in the real world. And so it's not working in the real world either actually.

In a socialistic economy a rich capitalist couldn't just up and shut down 7 large stores just because he can't do it anymore.

That is correct, and, in a socialist society, the socialist government can shut down 7 large stores just because it is determined, for whatever reason, that keeping them open is not in the interests of society as a whole.

This is true, but you need to be very careful here. The key point here is that the reason a genuine socialistic government would shut down these stores is precisely for the reason you gave. It's not in the interest of the society as a whole.

If you are thinking that a "corrupt dictatorship" could shut down stores when it's not in the interest of the society as whole whilst simply claiming that it is, then you are not giving socialism an honest break. Instead, you are imagining a corrupt dictatorship pretending to be socialism.

In fact, this is what we have actually witnessed in the real world historically. I don't believe there has ever been a valid example of a genuine socialistic government yet. The ones that claims to be "socialists" were actually just corrupt dictatorships that didn't truly have the best interest of the society in mind.

So you need to be very careful not to mistake ruthless dictatorships for "socialism".

In socialism, it's unlikely that major chains like this would fail.

Hold it. I thought you were just arguing against big business and for small business. Do the goods and services provided by the big chain just cease to exist when the chain closes? Isn't the demise of the big chain just an opportunity for small businesses to spring up, using the expertise of those displaced workers you referred to. If small business is always a better thing, wouldn't a socialist government have broken this chain up anyway?

Yes, in a truly socialistic economy these stores would have never been a "chain" in the first place. That's right. So actually this problem would have never existed in a true socialism.

Walmart came into the area quite a few decades ago and basically drove many of the small businesses out of business. Now what if Walmart decides to close down? Then everyone is screwed! There weren't even be any small businesses to fall back on because they are all gone.

What if the government decides to close Walmart down for being too big? Isn't the effect the same? How would socialism use the four options in the OP to solve this problem?

Well, now you are addressing extremely complex issues. Now instead of merely addressing socialism on its own merit, you are addressing the extreme problem of trying to convert over to socialism after capitalism has already corrupted things.

I believe that this process can be done, but it would need to be done slowly over a period of time. It also could be done to everyone's benefit, including those who are currently making big bucks off of capitalism.

I have actually considered this problem for many years and I have a very good idea of how to implement this. However, for it to work well, everyone would need to be on board. If we have capitalists who are totally against moving toward a socialistic society then clearly they are going to cause extreme problems.

~~~~~

Also, as I have stated earlier, we really shouldn't be looking at this from a perspective of black and white. It doesn't need to be all socialism versus all capitalism. There can actually be a happy medium where the two systems can coexist productively.

In fact, there really two different types of people. There are those who long to excel and become "richer than average", and there are those who are quite happy with living just an average lifestyle (not a poverty stricken lifestyle).

And because of this it really is wise to have a multifaceted economy that allows socialism and capitalism to co-exist. People who are ambitious and want to make more, can have that opportunity. They would simply be restricted from creating extreme monopolies which aren't beneficial to anyone.

Capitalism doesn't need to be totally unrestrained to be effective.

Other people, like myself as an example, would be quite happy just with an average (not poverty stricken) income. Not everyone lusts to become filthy rich.

So yes, changing over from the extreme monopolies of chains like Walmart, back over to more reasonable "Mom and Pop" stores, would require time. But these adjustments could indeed be made. And they could be made in a way where everyone benefits.

~~~~~

I can only imagine that part of what might have sparked this topic is the proposals of Bernie Sanders. I confess that I don't know precisely what he has in mind. I have no clue whether his proposals would work or not. But I am confident that we would be far better off moving forward in a direction that allows some capitalism to exist, along with socialistic principles. There's no reason why these two different economic styles can't coexist if done in a reasonable way.

[Divine Insight]

What if the government decides to close Walmart down for being too big? Isn't the effect the same? How would socialism use the four options in the OP to solve this problem?

3. Dictate behaviors by legislation

The same way they try to keep Capitalism in line right now.

After all Capitalism is legislated too. It's not just a free-for-all, even though it's very close to it. This is because the big capitalists have been "buying" the legislators.

The key point here is to get the legislators back on the side of the PEOPLE instead of being owned by the capitalists. I think this is Bernie Sander's plan. Whether he can make it work or not I have no clue.

[Divine Insight]

3. Dictate behaviors by legislation

By the way, I would like to add here that we already are being dictated by legislation in our capitalistic economy. The problem here is that this dictated legislation actually favors the big businesses in capitalism.

There are many rules, and regulations that a person needs to satisfy in order to start up a capitalistic business, not to mention having the capital to start out with as well. And these laws make it extremely difficult for the small guy trying to just start out. They actually favor the large companies that are already well-established.

So we already have laws being dictated in our capitalistic economy that favor big business and make it tough on the little guy who's just trying to start out.

So it's not like capitalism isn't already being dictated by legislation. The only problem is that it helps the big guy and hurts the little guy.

[bluethread]

We are not talking about capitalism. We are talking about socialism and how it works. If it doesn't work "in a real world', it doesn't work period. If one can make it work, what factors make it work and how? You have stated 4 necessary conditions for socialism to work. How does one create such conditions?

Actually the same things apply to capitalism. The idea behind it assumes many things that are simply not true in the real world. And so it's not working in the real world either actually.

That is not relevant to what we are talking about, unless you believe no economic model works in "the real world". If this latter is the case, how does the "real world" work?

In a socialistic economy a rich capitalist couldn't just up and shut down 7 large stores just because he can't do it anymore.

That is correct, and, in a socialist society, the socialist government can shut down 7 large stores just because it is determined, for whatever reason, that keeping them open is not in the interests of society as a whole.

This is true, but you need to be very careful here. The key point here is that the reason a genuine socialistic government would shut down these stores is precisely for the reason you gave. It's not in the interest of the society as a whole.

If you are thinking that a "corrupt dictatorship" could shut down stores when it's not in the interest of the society as whole whilst simply claiming that it is, then you are not giving socialism an honest break. Instead, you are imagining a corrupt dictatorship pretending to be socialism.

In fact, this is what we have actually witnessed in the real world historically. I don't believe there has ever been a valid example of a genuine socialistic government yet. The ones that claims to be "socialists" were actually just corrupt dictatorships that didn't truly have the best interest of the society in mind.

So you need to be very careful not to mistake ruthless dictatorships for "socialism".

I made no such mistake, I merely stated what you are concerned about could be justified in a socialist state. However, presuming your premise, how does one distinguish between what is in the best interests of society as a whole and what is simply claiming that it is?

In socialism, it's unlikely that major chains like this would fail.

Hold it. I thought you were just arguing against big business and for small business. Do the goods and services provided by the big chain just cease to exist when the chain closes? Isn't the demise of the big chain just an opportunity for small businesses to spring up, using the expertise of those displaced workers you referred to. If small business is always a better thing, wouldn't a socialist government have broken this chain up anyway?

Yes, in a truly socialistic economy these stores would have never been a "chain" in the first place. That's right. So actually this problem would have never existed in a true socialism.

Who says? Why are economies of scale contrary to "true" socialism? Also, is large government also contrary to "true" socialism?

What if the government decides to close Walmart down for being too big? Isn't the effect the same? How would socialism use the four options in the OP to solve this problem?

Well, now you are addressing extremely complex issues. Now instead of merely addressing socialism on its own merit, you are addressing the extreme problem of trying to convert over to socialism after capitalism has already corrupted things.

I believe that this process can be done, but it would need to be done slowly over a period of time. It also could be done to everyone's benefit, including those who are currently making big bucks off of capitalism.

I have actually considered this problem for many years and I have a very good idea of how to implement this. However, for it to work well, everyone would need to be on board. If we have capitalists who are totally against moving toward a socialistic society then clearly they are going to cause extreme problems.

No, I am not. It is you who is trying to introduce capitalism into this discussion and arguing that large corporations are contrary to "true" socialism. How are large corporations contrary to "true" socialism?

Also, as I have stated earlier, we really shouldn't be looking at this from a perspective of black and white. It doesn't need to be all socialism versus all capitalism. There can actually be a happy medium where the two systems can coexist productively.

In fact, there really two different types of people. There are those who long to excel and become "richer than average", and there are those who are quite happy with living just an average lifestyle (not a poverty stricken lifestyle).

And because of this it really is wise to have a multifaceted economy that allows socialism and capitalism to co-exist. People who are ambitious and want to make more, can have that opportunity. They would simply be restricted from creating extreme monopolies which aren't beneficial to anyone.

Capitalism doesn't need to be totally unrestrained to be effective.

Other people, like myself as an example, would be quite happy just with an average (not poverty stricken) income. Not everyone lusts to become filthy rich.

So yes, changing over from the extreme monopolies of chains like Walmart, back over to more reasonable "Mom and Pop" stores, would require time. But these adjustments could indeed be made. And they could be made in a way where everyone benefits.

Your the one who is bring up capitalism here, not me. I am asking about socialism and how it works. If socialism needs certain factors that can also be found in capitalism, that is fine. State what those factors are and let's discuss them. There is no reason to even discuss capitalism. This is a thread about socialism and how it works.

I can only imagine that part of what might have sparked this topic is the proposals of Bernie Sanders. I confess that I don't know precisely what he has in mind. I have no clue whether his proposals would work or not. But I am confident that we would be far better off moving forward in a direction that allows some capitalism to exist, along with socialistic principles. There's no reason why these two different economic styles can't coexist if done in a reasonable way.

What does it matter why I asked the question? Can't I just ask how socialism works and how one sees it as inherently compassionate? Unless you believe that a socialist society only works in conjunction with a capitalist society, there is no reason to even be mentioning capitalism. If that is indeed what you believe, what are the factors that must exist and why must they exist separate from socialism?

[Furrowed Brow]

Socialism is drawn from a critique of capitalism. Various forms of socialists have been tried out. Some have been a disaster. But then various forms of capitalism have been a disaster for some poor group somewhere. Germany is socialistic and it works well there. For example, by law unions are represented on boards of directors.

Once a person notices that Adam Smith's invisible hand of the market is false it is pretty easy to develop socialistic thinking. Whilst fee market can do good they can also do a lot of harm, are irrational and and have a tendency to seek out greater efficiencies based on short term calculations at the expense of robustness, and without a care to the social costs. So many examples but the cigarette industry's decades long denial of cancer is an obvious example. Whilst the new vape technology may or may not be less harmful, it seems to be attracting new smokers. So lets's hope the long term effect are not more harmful. If it is you can be sure the vape industry will resist admitting that.

Socialists could also point to the banking industry as an example of an industry in a headlong irrational rush towards messing up society in its favour.

And there is the irony, capitalism needs a fungible and liquid money supply, presently money is debt and so to grow an economy requires ever larger debt. Of course we could all go back to silver and gold but watch the gains to standards of livings evaporate if and when that happens. Alternatively the government could produce the money supply without debt....but that is socialism is it not?

And we can't get away from the fact that under capitalism labour is a cost and there is the inherent drive to minimise that cost. Capitalism has a long history of being disinterested regarding the health and safety of its workers.The number of death in the UK building industry for example has dramatically reduced through legislation, not free markets. Capitalism also has a long history of seeking out nations less careful about protecting its workers. There are too many examples to even begin to scratch the surface but the Bhopal disaster and recent collapses of factories in Bangladesh make the point. To think as a socialist is to just look at the facts of where the capitalistic drive takes us.

Then there is the way capital has a bloody history of co-opting governments to work in its favour in what may be called mercantilism or neo-colonialism. John Perkins has written on this subject and you can find many videos on YouTube. Across South America, Africa, Asia capital has bought governments, had governments removed, and supported dictators in order to assert strip and keep labour costs low.

As for legislation, if there were no law against it someone will invent strawberry flavoured heroin and sell it to children. Actually that is not so far from the truth. Back in the 90s UK alcohol industry invented alcopops. Brightly coloured and sweat tasting alcohols clearly marketed at juveniles.

Though the industry denied it, it was clear they were losing a generation of young drinkers who were now embracing drugs. This was the industry fighting back.

And though illegal in most countries the drug trade is capitalism. Some think it should be decriminalised, and maybe it should, but I think most might wince at the thought of drugs being sold from an ice cream van or next to a sweet stand.

As the food industry has proved unless there is legislation against it they will dose our food with salt and sugar.

Supermarkets in the UK used to keep the till areas stacked with sweets knowing that was when the parent was most vulnerable to the protestations of child demanding sweets. This practice stopped only when legislated against.

Trading times in the Uk have been increased as legislation has been reduced. There are advantages to this but it has been at the expense of family life. But capitalism does not care about family life.

Housing regulations is be another example. Social housing or rather the lack of it is seeing the cost of housing becoming punitive in the UK. We have lost "generation rent". Maybe free markets will solve this problem eventually...I doubt it. And it is only through legislation have wee seen a rise in the quality off the housing stock. The housing industry proving unwilling to make those movies on its own.

On another point one of the few major companies in the UK still paying tax is John Lewis..a socialistic organisation. Most of its competitors have off-shored. Capital does what it does and that is look for the greatest returns and most beneficial tax regimes.

So what do we mean by socialism? I don't think legislation against free trade is socialistic other than in the most general sense that it tries to hamper the anti social drives of capitalism. This socialistic urge simply notes where capitalism fails us.

Socialism strives for equality because it knows inequality is harmful as shown by a plethora of negative indicators associated with inequality. We are not all equal but we are all better off if inequality is militated against. Minimally we can say capitalism does not care about inequality it is not its problem. More assertively we can say unfettered capitalism increases inequality.

Does this means everything ought be centralised? No. I've mentioned John Lewis. A billion £ blue ribbon UK company. Probably the UK's premium retailer and it is a workers partnership. Socialism does not always mean more government.

But sometimes state industries are equally good if not better. there is a myth that state is somehow more inefficient than private. Corporations and state all seem to suffer from the problem of bureaucracy. I think the problem is size, and hierarchical management structures. Take the UK railway system. Now near entirely privatised and the most expensive in Europe.

Anecdotally, I once worked for a government department, the DWP. The private companies I've worked for never treated people of disability anywhere near as well. In fact private mostly tries to skirt around legislation protecting disabilities. The drive for efficiency and profit is not kind to workers with disabilities. Though often it pretends to be notice. Companies I've worked for advertised themselves as equal opportunities employers whilst binning applications from disabled workers.

At the other end of the scale I know workers in an Amazon warehouse who are electronically tagged to record their average speed, and they are worried for losing their jobs if they are unable to keep to a minimum pace. Seriously how is that ever allowed?

I'd say that the motivation for socialism is that an economy and markets should work to the benefit of the whole population and not just a few. Tagged workers in Amazon is a potent symbol of how the worker serves capitalism.

Socialism that works: socialised healthcare, co-operatives and worker directed companies, and union representation on boards of directors where not a worker directed project, robust legislation to protect workers health hand well being, and some nationalised state industries like healthcare and railway. Also socialised housing.

Most of these are in place somewhere around the world.

[Divine Insight]

That is not relevant to what we are talking about, unless you believe no economic model works in "the real world". If this latter is the case, how does the "real world" work?

Most people don't believe that the real world works very well. Religious people in particular believe that the "real world" is extremely flawed and they believe in imagined "perfect heavens", or "Kingdoms of Gods".

I think most naturalists would also agree that our "real world" is far from prefect. Therefore when we say something "works" in the real world what does that even mean? Apparently, all it means is that it appears to be surviving for the time being.

Because of this I don't believe any idealized philosophical economic system could ever "work" in the real world in the same way it is imagined to work in an ideal imaginary philosophical world.

So typically when we're talking about the "real world", it's best to talk about things that are most likely to have the best results over a long term. An economy based on "True Socialism" would necessarily have the best results for any society because "True Socialism" has places the interest of the society in the forefront. Any other economic system would only be good for society if it just happened to have an unintentional side-effect of coincidentally being good for society.

I made no such mistake, I merely stated what you are concerned about could be justified in a socialist state. However, presuming your premise, how does one distinguish between what is in the best interests of society as a whole and what is simply claiming that it is?

That's simple. If the active economy is benefiting society then it's "True Socialism", if it's not then it's not "True Socialism".

That seems pretty self-evident to me.

Who says? Why are economies of scale contrary to "true" socialism?

What do you mean by "economies of scale"? There is no reason why socialism cannot create "economies of scale". The key factor here is not the scale of he economy, but the number of people who are responsible for it and running it.

I don't see how I can not compare with an economy of capitalism because the comparison is both enlightening and worthy of note.

Take a large corporation like say, Microsoft. In capitalism there is basically one individual (i.e. Bill Gates) who can decide what the large corporation does next. And the choices of that one individual have a profound effect on the millions of employees and consumers who might depend on Microsoft.

However, if Microsoft was a socialistic organization then it would be far more like a democracy where to make changes would require a consensus of a large portion of the society. Especially the people who depend on the company for their livelihood.

So when you say, "economies of scale" what exactly are you talking about? There is no reason why socialistic economies cannot be large.

Also, another thing to take notes on here is that a socialistic corporation that happened to become large would not have done this by ruthlessly putting other socialistic smaller companies out of business.

This is another very important thing. You can't look at today's capitalistic society and say, "How could THAT work under socialism". Well it couldn't! But that's totally irrelevant because socialism and unrestrained capitalism are two entirely different beasts.

I might also add here that well-restrained capitalism could actually be a part of a 'socialistic economy". And because of this I think it's important to point out that "capitalism" in and of itself is not the anti-thesis of socialism. Nor the other way around. But unrestrained capitalistic monopolies are the anti-thesis of socialism, and these are what we tend to see around us in today's economies.

So capitalism isn't a "dirty word" in a socialistic economy. Capitalism can be achieve with a socialistic agenda actually. It's unrestrained mega-capitalism that becomes anti-socialistic.

Also, is large government also contrary to "true" socialism?

What do you mean by "large" government? I have no clue what you mean by that. Large in what way?

I don't think the size of government has anything to do with how it operates.

No, I am not. It is you who is trying to introduce capitalism into this discussion and arguing that large corporations are contrary to "true" socialism. How are large corporations contrary to "true" socialism?

The size of a corporation is irrelevant. What is relevant is how it became the size it is, and how many people have control over it.

When I spoke about Walmart being a mega example of capitalism I was pointing out the behavior and philosophy behind the mega-structure, not so much it's size.

If Walmart was based on socialism it wouldn't be a problem. Instead of all the wealth going to a few owners at the top, the wealth would be spread around the society.

It's a totally different system. The physical size doesn't matter. Also, if Walmart had always been based on socialism it wouldn't have been so cut-throat in the way that it became so large.

So you can't look at an existing Capitalistic Dragon, and say, "How would that dragon work in socialism?". Well to begin with it would be a Dragon in the first place. If it was large it would just be a large pussy cat instead and the society would benefit from the proceeds rather than just a few filthy rich people who live in the head of the Dragon as it is now under Capitalism.

I definitely need to compare the differences here between socialism and capitalism. I think it would be grossly unfair to demand that I don't point out the differences.

Your the one who is bring up capitalism here, not me.

And rightfully so, because many of the good points of socialism are best made by comparing them with the bad points of the alternative which is unrestrained capitalism.

I am asking about socialism and how it works. If socialism needs certain factors that can also be found in capitalism, that is fine. State what those factors are and let's discuss them. There is no reason to even discuss capitalism. This is a thread about socialism and how it works.

With socialism the people who are actually doing the work are also benefiting from the profits.

With socialism no business tries to cut the throat of another business. This doesn't mean that they can't offer better services and products for fair prices. If they just happen to do better than another business then it's up to the failing business to catch up.

In fact, this is a very important point here. And again, comparison with unrestrained cut-throat capitalism is important to note here. In capitalism business patent everything, suing other companies if they use the same designs, ect. That would never happen in socialism.

In socialism if you find a better way to do something you share it with the entire society and everyone upgrades to the better way of doing things. In a truly socialistic society there's far more to it than just providing products to the consumers. It's about sharing with all the other socialistic companies as well.

The society is always helping itself, not competing with itself.

In short, Socialism =Cooperation. Capitalism = Competition.

Making this comparison between socialism and capitalism is paramount. I refuse to be told that I can't compare socialism with capitalism, especially when unrestrained capitalism is a major world problem as we speak.

What does it matter why I asked the question? Can't I just ask how socialism works and how one sees it as inherently compassionate? Unless you believe that a socialist society only works in conjunction with a capitalist society, there is no reason to even be mentioning capitalism. If that is indeed what you believe, what are the factors that must exist and why must they exist separate from socialism?

I don't think that socialism actually "needs" capitalism to exist.

What I am saying is that in the real world it would simply be more practical if they were permitted to coexist to some degree. It would simply make more people happier. Some people actually enjoy the competitive nature of capitalism.

However, it is true that capitalism as we currently know it would need to be highly restrained.

As the example I gave earlier Capitalism is extremely competitive, to the point of being cut-throat. When a capitalist comes up with a new invention or way of doing things, instead of sharing this with all of society (which is the heart and soul of socialism), the capitals instantly tries to "capitalize" on it, by patenting the new invention and dictating legislation that no one else can copy it or they will be heavily sued!

In true socialism this would be unheard of.

So capitalism would need to be highly "restrained" in a socialistic society.

When I say that "capitalism" should be permitted to coexist with socialism, I'm actually saying that if some individuals would like to run their own private businesses, they should be permitted to do so. But I don't think they should be permitted to use the traditional competitive means of trying to force the "competition" from competing.

I confess that this is a deep topic here, and the reason being is that there are actually many businesses that can be run in a "capitalistic" way, without the need for things like patent rights, or suing other people for copying ideas, etc.

To get into precisely how every detail of all levels of a socialistic economy would work is far beyond the scope of Internet forum posts. But it can be made to work. And it can even be made to work in a way where everyone would benefit, even those who enjoy the ability to make more money on their own due to their own ambition.

They just wouldn't be permitted to use the unrestrained capitalistic cut-throat competition that our current capitalistic economy is infamous for.

We would be far better off moving over to a socialistic based economy.

Socialism can be much better than capitalism, IMHO.

Assuming that it's truly done in favor of the society and isn't just ruthless dictatorship posing as a "socialistic government" when it truth it's not.

[bluethread]

Socialism is drawn from a critique of capitalism.

So, are you saying that it is a reactionary movement and not a true economic model? If that is the case, isn't socialism just a form of capitalism? If that is true, what kind of capitalism is it? If not, what's with all this ranting about capitalism? I never even mentioned capitalism.

Socialism strives for equality because it knows inequality is harmful as shown by a plethora of negative indicators associated with inequality. We are not all equal but we are all better off if inequality is militated against.

What do you mean "it knows"? Do you mean it takes into account? I acknowledge that egalitarian socialism has that as one of it's tenets. However, is that the only form of socialism, or is it the only one you believe is workable or compassionate?

I'd say that the motivation for socialism is that an economy and markets should work to the benefit of the whole population and not just a few.

OK, how specifically does it do that? I'm not interested in how capitalism does not do that, or what socialism does not do. Please, tell me how specifically socialism makes the economy and markets work to the benefit of the whole population and not just a few.

Socialism that works: socialised healthcare, co-operatives and worker directed companies, and union representation on boards of directors where not a worker directed project, robust legislation to protect workers health hand well being, and some nationalised state industries like healthcare and railway. Also socialised housing.

Finally, you make a statement about socialism. First, given limited resources and unlimited demand, how does socialized healthcare work to the benefit of the whole population and not just a few? For example, if there are ten people who will die without a heart transplant and there are five hearts available, how would socialism help in deciding who gets a transplant. Second, it appears that you are saying socialism encourages companies run by the customers and/or the workers. Under that model, who innovates? Are the customers going to raise their own prices to speculate on new products and services? Are the workers going to forgo increased pay to finance R&D? Also, who gets the new and better products and services first? Is there a lottery?