Random thought on Socializm

[Weevil]

Anyone ever think about how ugly a socialist society would look? What exactly is admirable about forcing people to be good? If they are born in sin and that much trouble, why are you forcing them to play nice, and wouldn't it be better to just do away with them entirely?

That's not a serious proposition (in this post,) but picture a species like the Orcs from LoTR in a little orc city, being beaten into holding hands and picking flowers for each other. How is it desirable? It's fundamentally repulsive to me somehow, like some parody of true good will, generosity etc.

Discuss repost.

 

[Aquehonga]

A little socialism does a body good.

 

[Diane]

Anyone ever think about how ugly a socialist society would look? What exactly is admirable about forcing people to be good? If they are born in sin and that much trouble, why are you forcing them to play nice, and wouldn't it be better to just do away with them entirely?

If I may, I would like to suggest that a socialist society would only invest control of (some of) the means of production---that is what socialism is. It is a sort of economic system.

As to how a socialist country would look, one need look no further than Scandinavian countries. They are very socialist, but also socially liberal. Visiting Oslo is not much different than visiting Idaho with respect to 'everyone looking the same.' And Scandinavian cultures are some of the richest in the world.

I think you are objecting to a kind of totalitarianism or perhaps even theocratic/technocratic type of society. You seem to be advocating classical democratic liberalism. As far as I know, very few people (other than those people advocating those positions above) are advocating anything different---there is disagreement about how far the collective should/has authority to interfere with individuals.

The classic statement of this is JS Mill's harm principle:

"That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

The question is 'what counts as harm'? How proximal does the harm have to be to fall under the principle, etc.

After all, laws and subsequent punishment by the collective (the State) certainly seem to use force to coerce people into playing nice and being good.

As to whether the collective should vest ownership of the means of production in itself is a different question, I think.

 

[Weevil]

If I may, I would like to suggest that a socialist society would only invest control of (some of) the means of production---that is what socialism is. It is a sort of economic system.

As to how a socialist country would look, one need look no further than Scandinavian countries. They are very socialist, but also socially liberal. Visiting Oslo is not much different than visiting Idaho with respect to 'everyone looking the same.' And Scandinavian cultures are some of the richest in the world.

I think you are objecting to a kind of totalitarianism or perhaps even theocratic/technocratic type of society. You seem to be advocating classical democratic liberalism. As far as I know, very few people (other than those people advocating those positions above) are advocating anything different---there is disagreement about how far the collective should/has authority to interfere with individuals.

The classic statement of this is JS Mill's harm principle:

"That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

The question is 'what counts as harm'? How proximal does the harm have to be to fall under the principle, etc.

After all, laws and subsequent punishment by the collective (the State) certainly seem to use force to coerce people into playing nice and being good.

As to whether the collective should vest ownership of the means of production in itself is a different question, I think.

I find it difficult to separate the economic concept of taking resources from one and redistributing to all from the moral impetus behind it.

Yes, Scandinavian countries aren't doing that poorly as far as I know, but how much better could they do under a different system?

I will have to get back to you on the rest.

 

[The Question]

A little socialism does a body good.

VERY little. I think, "Oh, yeah, they warned me about that one at the bus station. Socialism and the guy who 'just needs bus fare'." is about the right amount.

 

[Marquis De Sade]

Scandinavian Countries adopt Rhenish capitalism, which is a far cry from socialism. Do not let a few points in common with socialism lead you to the simplistic conclusion that Scandinavian countries are socialist, and that socialism, per se, can be brought to the table again.

I come across a lot of folks who give Scandinavian countries as an example in discussions like the one above. Most of them are oblivious to the fundamental dynamics of the economies of these countries, the rest are driven by a political agenda and tend to spread misconceptions on purpose.

Yes, Scandinavian countries aren't doing that poorly as far as I know, but how much better could they do under a different system?

Not likely. Their system is optimal in a post-1970 economy. Good ole' cut-throat capitalism is a blast from the past. But the main catch is, it's capitalism vs. capitalism, and not socialism vs. capitalism.

 

[Diane]

Scandinavian Countries adopt Rhenish capitalism, which is a far cry from socialism. Do not let a few points in common with socialism lead you to the simplistic conclusion that Scandinavian countries are socialist, and that socialism, per se, can be brought to the table again.

This sentence alone (and those that gave rise to you writing it) is a great example of why we need to be careful of terms. Perhaps I should have said 'socialistic' seeing as the means of production in Scandinavian countries are in part owned the State--far more of the economy than in say, the US.

I come across a lot of folks who give Scandinavian countries as an example in discussions like the one above. Most of them are oblivious to the fundamental dynamics of the economies of these countries, the rest are driven by a political agenda and tend to spread misconceptions on purpose.

Sure, but we should not ignore the fact that quite a lot (but by absolutely no means all) of the means of production in Scandinavian countries is owned by the State. How the private sector works is much different---a far more collaborative notion of business than in the US/UK/Japan, say.

Good ole' cut-throat capitalism is a blast from the past. But the main catch is, it's capitalism vs. capitalism, and not socialism vs. capitalism.

I see you've read Marquand (Sp?). But I am not really sure that we are talking at cross purposes. I certainly didn't mean to imply that all of the means of production in, say, Sweden was controlled by the collective, but that a lot more of it than in say the US. Talking about the collaborative version of capitalism as it works in Sweden is sort of beside the point with respect to the original point, but well taken nevertheless.

On the other hand, you might argue that one cannot separate these things out for sensible discussion. You might be right.

I, personally, tend to argue that flexibility in designing and managing a national (and international) economy requires more than a profound commitment to an ideology.

 

[Weevil]

Assuming my previous post covered what I've omitted in the quote...

The classic statement of this is JS Mill's harm principle:

"That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

The question is 'what counts as harm'? How proximal does the harm have to be to fall under the principle, etc.

After all, laws and subsequent punishment by the collective (the State) certainly seem to use force to coerce people into playing nice and being good.

As to whether the collective should vest ownership of the means of production in itself is a different question, I think.

I think the necessity of the State approving our daily affairs is overblown. I'll spare us the TL;DR Libertarian version but will gladly provide counterarguments to stuff like "If the American FDA didn't exist China could legally poison us with their products and nothing could stop it!!"

More as my stream of consciousness, too lazy to get into longer, more specific examples, permits.

 

[Diane]

Assuming my previous post covered what I've omitted in the quote...I think the necessity of the State approving our daily affairs is overblown. I'll spare us the TL;DR Libertarian version but will gladly provide counterarguments to stuff like "If the American FDA didn't exist China could legally poison us with their products and nothing could stop it!!"

More as my stream of consciousness, too lazy to get into longer, more specific examples, permits.

Generally speaking, I am an advocate of the Harm Principle. I just have a wider conception of action causing harm than Mill did. Not much, but some.

With respect to administrative laws, like marriage and family law, I tend to lean towards inclusiveness.

 

[Marquis De Sade]

This sentence alone (and those that gave rise to you writing it) is a great example of why we need to be careful of terms. Perhaps I should have said 'socialistic' seeing as the means of production in Scandinavian countries are in part owned the State--far more of the economy than in say, the US.

Then again, most countries in the world are socialist, when compared to the USA. The USA is not a valid benchmark to compare socio-economic models.

Sure, but we should not ignore the fact that quite a lot (but by absolutely no means all) of the means of production in Scandinavian countries is owned by the State. How the private sector works is much different---a far more collaborative notion of business than in the US/UK/Japan, say.

Yes. But "state owned" doesn't really tell much. For instance, let's take a look at the energy production in Denmark. It's 25% powered by eolic energy. The private sector cannot undertake such a colossal investment, and the state is in a de-facto natural monopoly. How does that remotely resemble state ownership in socialist models ?

In countries like Sweden, state ownership rather complements the private sector, and does not aim to "protect" the capital from the hands of the risk-takers and evil greedy people (ie:the capitalists).

 

[Diane]

Then again, most countries in the world are socialist, when compared to the USA. The USA is not a valid benchmark to compare socio-economic models.

It seems to me that that makes it a good 'benchmark'. Very little of the means of production are owned by the State in the US, so, among industrialised countries, it stands at one far end with what can be done with State ownership. If the purpose is to show State ownership worthless/wonderful, a comparison as to how that particular sector does it in the US is at least instructive.

But "state owned" doesn't really tell much. For instance, let's take a look at the energy production in Denmark. It's 25% powered by eolic energy. The private sector cannot undertake such a colossal investment, and the state is in a de-facto natural monopoly. How does that remotely resemble state ownership in socialist models?

Perfectly. Socialism is nothing more than the ownership of the means of production being vested in the hands of the collective. Nothing else need be true.

Do not mistake what i am saying for blanket approval. I do not ever recommend State ownership for its own sake (nor private ownership for its own sake).

In countries like Sweden, state ownership rather complements the private sector, and does not aim to "protect" the capital from the hands of the risk-takers and evil greedy people (ie:the capitalists).

Very well put. But then even Marx thought that the trend from (19th century style) capitalism to socialism would take an inevitable path like this naturally, albeit a very slow one. Socialism wasn't really thought of (by Marx) as a remedy for the evils of capitalism any more than adolescence is thought of as a remedy for childhood. Marx was simply impatient and believed (falsely) that the trend had a naturally uniform rate in all societies and (perhaps not so falsely) that one could hurry the process artificially.

So, Scandinavian style capitalism might be the cat's ass, but that means nothing with respect to whether it would work anywhere else, as you suggest. It strikes me that the US still has a kind of romantic notion of the brave industrialist set against the faceless and heartless monolithic government. I personally think that this myth arises out of the specific political history of the US.

Myths are good... until they get in the way of real progress.

 

[The Question]

Mildly off-topic: Calling socialism "progress" is cute. It implies that any ol' change is an inherently positive change. By that same reasoning, the Dark Ages was "progressive" too at some point.

 

[Diane]

Mildly off-topic: Calling socialism "progress" is cute.

Well, I can't find where any one in this thread said that. Though you might be referring to:

So, Scandinavian style capitalism might be the cat's ass, but that means nothing with respect to whether it would work anywhere else, as you suggest. It strikes me that the US still has a kind of romantic notion of the brave industrialist set against the faceless and heartless monolithic government. I personally think that this myth arises out of the specific political history of the US.

Myths are good... until they get in the way of real progress.

What I am calling real progress is anything that improves a 19th century style laissez faire capitalism (better productivity, respect for human beings, creation of wealth, more equitable distributions of opportunities, etc.). I was referring to the Rhenish capitalism to which our BDSM aficionado suggested. We can debate whether it is actually progress, but do not mistake my praise in these paragraphs as unqualified praise of socialism, as you do here:

It implies that any ol' change is an inherently positive change.

In fact, I specifically anticipated and rejected that implication here:

Do not mistake what i am saying for blanket approval. I do not ever recommend State ownership for its own sake (nor private ownership for its own sake).

By that same reasoning, the Dark Ages was "progressive" too at some point.

Not to be pedantic and for fear of taking us even further afield, but the term was originally intended to refer to Roman literature after the Fall of Rome. While the Church was indeed a force for conservatism and interference, there was quite a lot of progress in all sorts of fields of human endeavour and they progressed in very real terms in the early middle ages. If you consider only mathematics, metaphysics, and agriculture, there's a lot to be said for it. Nothing like the Renaissance and the various Enlightenment periods, but improvement is improvement.

 

[Weevil]

Now, if we could convince more people that socialism can complement capitalism, we'd be all set.

I am open to being convinced, as I subscribe to the myth you spoke of.

 

[Diane]

I am open to being convinced, as I subscribe to the myth you spoke of.

Well, the Health Care system in Canada is socialised to a very large degree. The state owns most of the hospitals and the physicians are private contractors.

We have more people coming to Canada to have medical procedures than Canada has going south primarily because the level of care is slightly better, it is cheaper, we have better outcomes in general, no one goes into bankruptcy for the treatment for illness or injury.

The marginal tax rate (both industrial and individual) is just a bit higher than in the US; it's affordable. I saw a study that somewhere around 17% of a average US citizen is dedicated to health care. Less than 8% of the average salary in Canada funds health care.

That's one.

The wind generation industry in Denmark was mentioned in the thread.

South Africa has a number of very profitable state owned enterprises.

PetroCanada was a Canadian Crown Corporation that was very profitable in the 70s and eraly 80s in Canada. It was privatized by ideologues.

Manitoba Telecom Systems was a Manitoba Crown Corporation that was very profitable until privatised by ideologues. The company became a terrible service provider that has lost many customers.

I could go on, but I don't want to give anyone the impression that I think that any sector or enterprise be State owned without very good reason, but to exclude it on ideological grounds is cutting your nose off to spite your face.

 

[Diane]

Weevil: Of course

 

[The Question]

I think 'ideological grounds' does cover some actual valid reasoning, but I'd need to know from you whether the companies you mention had private-sector competition. See, that's a strength of Capitalism which Socialism (or socialism as I understand it) lacks. Maybe you can clear that up for me. There are state-run companies, which is sounds like these are, and that's fine. But then there are state-held monopolies, and monopoly tends to screw the consumer royally.

Example: If Manitoba Telecom Systems were forced to compete with private companies on the fields of reliability, affordability and quality, both the private companies and MTS could be expected to continually innovate, refine and expand the quality of their product. The company or companies which fail to do this are punished by the market through lack of patronage. If, on the other hand, MTS holds a monopoly, they have no reason to improve their services -- in fact, they have no reason not to let their services go to shit, for the most part. People have to have telephone service in the 21st century, and if there's no one else to choose from, the state-run service has no incentive to provide service that even measures up to 'mediocre', really.

 

[The Question]

I guess what I really can't understand about socialism is how so many individuals are conned into giving up even the smallest bit of the power of choice which is due them for some abstract "greater good." Buncha dupes, the lot of ya.

 

[Diane]

I guess what I really can't understand about socialism is how so many individuals are conned into giving up even the smallest bit of the power of choice which is due them for some abstract "greater good." Buncha dupes, the lot of ya.

Well, I can say that Canadians have chosen to give up the freedom to choose between corporations that fund our health care for a single payer system in order to see lower costs, better medical results, and a generally healthier citizenry. Our system isn't really all that socialist because the physicians are not employees of the state.

I get to see whatever physician will see me and receive the treatments that she prescribes for me. My taxes are comparable to what I would pay if I lived in California. Our highest federal tax rate is 29% for people making over $129k. The highest tax rate in the US is 35% for >373K, 33% for 171k-372k, and 28% for 88k-171k. That looks to me like you collect more taxes than we do from people who have a medium to large income.

If I take the average Canadian taxpayer, she pays approximately $4500 for health care costs. I understand that the average taxpayer in the US pays approximately $12000 for a comparable insurance policy. So, I get better care, better access, better results, and I won't go bankrupt if my spouse gets cancer. All those Canadians going to the US for treatment? They aren't people who cannot get treatment, or get it in time to save their lives, but those who do not wish to wait for non-life saving treatments. As it turns out, we have a very large medical tourism industry in Canada, seeing as we are cheaper and have generally better results, Americans come here quite a lot for treatment.

Take public works as an another example. The city in which I live owns the electric and natural gas utilities and has for 100 years. The company has always been profitable and returns dividends to the city coffers keeping property taxes low.. The rest of the province has private corporations delivering power. My rates are much much lower than the provincial, federal, and US national averages.

Besides, you give up quite a lot of choice when you submit to the State controlled penalty system we call the criminal law. The benefits of giving up that freedom for the security that comes from a collective is substantial.

The choice to vest control of the means of production fro any sector of the economy is a big deal and should never be done for ideological reasons (nor rejected for ideological reasons). If it can work better, then do it. If it can't, don't. But the proof of concept for certain medical systems and public works is in and they work.

 

[Diane]

I think 'ideological grounds' does cover some actual valid reasoning,

Yes, but if the fact do not comply, so much the worse for the theory. Theories answer to facts... even when they turn their eyes away.

but I'd need to know from you whether the companies you mention had private-sector competition. See, that's a strength of Capitalism which Socialism (or socialism as I understand it) lacks. Maybe you can clear that up for me. There are state-run companies, which is sounds like these are, and that's fine. But then there are state-held monopolies, and monopoly tends to screw the consumer royally.

MTS was a state-owned monopoly. Within 18 months of privatisation, it had about 20% customer satisfaction down from 92% 2 years before.

Example: If Manitoba Telecom Systems were forced to compete with private companies on the fields of reliability, affordability and quality, both the private companies and MTS could be expected to continually innovate, refine and expand the quality of their product. The company or companies which fail to do this are punished by the market through lack of patronage. If, on the other hand, MTS holds a monopoly, they have no reason to improve their services -- in fact, they have no reason not to let their services go to shit, for the most part. People have to have telephone service in the 21st century, and if there's no one else to choose from, the state-run service has no incentive to provide service that even measures up to 'mediocre', really.

Well, the MTS example undermines your example. As soon as the company was sold (and other competing technologies were available), profitability was the order of the day, not service. MTS became slightly more profitable, but lost customers to the cable companies and other competitors.

SaskTel (the Saskatchewan Telephone Company) is a Crown Corporation and was very good before the introduction of competing technologies and afterward.

PetroCanada was a better example of your thesis; it competed with the other oil companies and was profitable. A government made an ideological decision and sold it denying Canadians the dividends of the operation of that competitive company.

So, basically, sometimes they work---even when they are monopolies, like my city's Utility Company.