Socialism vs Capitalism is a stupid Dichotomy

Author: Theweakeredge

Posts

Total: 141
#91
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
The same faults as FEUDAL HIERARCHY.

CAPITALISM = FEUDAL HIERARCHY

OWNER = GOD-KING

SOCIALISM = DEMOCRACY

SOCIALISM = EMPLOYEE OWNERSHIP
What are the faults with a "feudal hiearchy"? How do you equate Capitalism and feudal hierarchy? If you're equating socialism with democracy, would the faults of democracy extend to socialism?

You'd first have to understand Capitalism and Socialism. Capitalism is the production and dissemination of goods and services by private [INDIVIDUAL GOD-KINGS] entities.
More like sovereign individuals.

Socialism is the regulation of production and dissemination of the aforementioned by a collective [EMPLOYEE OWNERS] (typically a State
Employee-owners are prone to syndicalist cooperation and regulations, which mimics the State.

[REGULATION BY THE STATE IS CALLED "STATE CAPITALISM" WHICH IS WHAT CHINA CURRENTLY HAS].)
"State Capitalism" is akin to an oxymoron because the State by definition is a public entity. Once the State enters and "regulates," then production and dissemination of goods and services cannot be regulated by private entities. Hence, it's not Capitalism. And China is very much communist. China as an EME may gradually become more lax in its micromanaging, but loosening the leash does not get rid of the leash.

As it happens, Capitalism and Socialism are [NOT] diametrically opposed.
Yes, they are. "Employee-ownership" is very much the same as "public" ownership, unless we're talking about a single employer having a single employee (not unheard of I guess.)


#92
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
Employee Ownership and or even simple profit sharing is a quite effective productivity incentive.
Evidently not
Profit Sharing 101

U.S. businesses have a variety of ways to share their gains with workers, from offering cash profit sharing to giving them the opportunity to purchase stock at a large discount. Another recourse is the Employee Stock Ownership Plan, known as an ESOP, which allows companies to use credit to buy shares that are later distributed for free to employees.

Past research has shown the benefits for workers. A survey that has tracked 5,504 younger men and women since 1997 – when they were in high school – found that participants who worked at companies that gave employees some ownership reported higher wages and wealth and better benefits and job quality than their peers, regardless of industry or the person’s demographics.

When interviewed in 2013 – when the workers were aged 28 to 34 – their wages were a third higher and their median household wealth was about double. A followup study in 2018 showed that the employee share-owners continued to have better jobs, benefits, earnings and wealth.

And a 2018 survey by the National Center for Employee Ownership found that workers in ESOPs reported an average retirement balance of US$170,326, more than twice the national average of $80,339.

Businesses that are majority- or part-owned by employees cover a wide range of industries, such as supermarkets like Publix, clothing makers like Gore and consumer goods company Procter & Gamble. Others, such as automaker Ford and airlines Delta and Southwest, offer generous profit sharing programs.

The U.S. government’s General Social Survey reported that 38% of employees said they received a share of their comany’s profits in 2018. Although that seems like a lot, the average payout is just $2,000. And smaller businesses – which make up the majority of U.S. enterprises – are much less likely to engage in profit or equity sharing with employees. [**]
#93
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
What are the faults with a "feudal hiearchy"? How do you equate Capitalism and feudal hierarchy?
When you have a command structure where each level ONLY listens to those ABOVE THEM, there are some systemic problems that tend to crop up.

For example, since nobody listens to the lower levels, many problems (and potential problems) go unreported.

This leads to executive overconfidence.

Also, good ideas are rarely acknowledged, except when they are stolen by a superior.

AND since executives are guaranteed "golden parachutes", they tend towards reckless pursuit of short-term gains.
#94
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
More like sovereign individuals.
I guess some individuals are more sovereign than others.
#95
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Employee-owners are prone to syndicalist cooperation and regulations, which mimics the State.
Individual-Owners are prone to syndicalist cooperation and regulations, which mimics the State.

In-fact, the State has become a naked puppet of these syndicates of Individual-Owners.
#96
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
the State by definition is a public entity.
Nope.
#97
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
And China is very much communist.
By what definition?
#98
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
"Employee-ownership" is very much the same as "public" ownership,
Employee-Ownership is more like a private-club.
#99
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
There is no aspect of socialism (EMPLOYEE OWNERSHIP) that makes socialism incompatible with a FREE-MARKET.
#100
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
When you have a command structure where each level ONLY listens to those ABOVE THEM, there are some systemic problems that tend to crop up.

For example, since nobody listens to the lower levels, many problems (and potential problems) go unreported.

This leads to executive overconfidence.

Also, good ideas are rarely acknowledged, except when they are stolen by a superior.

AND since executives are guaranteed "golden parachutes", they tend towards reckless pursuit of short-term gains.
What does this have to do with Capitalism? How is any of this speculation as to what "could" happen an inherent flaw of Capitalism? Wouldn't that be like my saying, "people tend to rob liquor stores when they have ease of access to firearms; therefore, guns are inherently flawed"?

I guess some individuals are more sovereign than others.
Perhaps (depending on the context,) but sovereign nonetheless.

Individual-Owners are prone to syndicalist cooperation and regulations, which mimics the State.
In which case, they cease to be "Individual" owners.

In-fact, the State has become a naked puppet of these syndicates of Individual-Owners.
Syndicates of individuals which do not operate on the autonomy of each individual owner is not "Individual."

Nope.
Define "State"; define "public";  define "private."

By what definition?
With respect to the description of Communism where the means of production and the dissemination of goods and services are subject to public control/regulation. The State is a public entity.

Employee-Ownership is more like a private-club.
Or a microcosm of the "public."

There is no aspect of socialism (EMPLOYEE OWNERSHIP) that makes socialism incompatible with a FREE-MARKET.
Employee-Ownership-->Worker Unions-->Wage Regulations-->Price Regulations-->Non/UN-Free market.
#101
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Individual-Owners are prone to syndicalist cooperation and regulations, which mimics the State.
In which case, they cease to be "Individual" owners.
Fellow conspirators in a syndicate do not share ownership.
#102
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
The State is a public entity.
No.  It most certainly is NOT.

The State is a public enemy.
That's better.
#103
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Employee-Ownership-->Worker Unions-->Wage Regulations-->Price Regulations-->Non/UN-Free market.
Workers negotiating wages and individual internal company policy is no more "anti-free-market" than Private-Individual-Owners setting wages and individual company policy.

Internal corporate policies are NOT "REGULATIONS".
#104
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Define "State"; define "public";  define "private."
STATE = MONOPOLY ON FORCE

PUBLIC = FREELY AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE

PUBLIC = NOT OWNED OR OWNABLE

PRIVATE = REQUIRES EXPRESS PERMISSION FROM OWNER TO ACCESS
#105
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
Fellow conspirators in a syndicate do not share ownership.
"Conspirators"? If their perpetuated cooperation regulates the management, acquisition, as well as the alienation of their respective properties, then they either "share" ownership (which undermines the principles of ownership) or they "own" nothing. Properties not subject to this cooperation is irrelevant.

No.  It most certainly is NOT.
How would you then characterize the State? How are its functions certainly NOT public?

The State is a public enemy.
That's better.
Haha.

Workers negotiating wages and individual internal company policy is no more "anti-free-market" than Private-Individual-Owners setting wages and individual company policy.

Internal corporate policies are NOT "REGULATIONS".
Worker unions will manifest in order to sustain "employee-ownership." Wages will be dictated by either an abitrary standard of equity or contribution to the company's production, both standards which are dictated by the worker union. That is not negotiable. Even if the standards are reworked and subject to a periodical referendum, the worker union will dictate how the standards are reworked. Prices will be regulated in order to reflect the regulation of wages.

STATE = MONOPOLY ON FORCE
True. How does the State's monopoly on force exclude it from being a public entity?

PUBLIC = FREELY AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE
Not true. Case in point: public libraries. You can take a book out which typically necessitates a library card. In the event that one returns a book late, or doesn't return the book at all, one is charged. The manner in one may access a public good may be easier, but not necessarily "free."

PUBLIC = NOT OWNED OR OWNABLE
So then who effectively controls public goods?

PRIVATE = REQUIRES EXPRESS PERMISSION FROM OWNER TO ACCESS
I suppose that's a part of it in that it extends the proprietary claim of an owner.
#106
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Worker unions will manifest in order to sustain "employee-ownership."
There are no "worker unions" in EMPLOYEE-OWNED companies.

The workers are the management.

There is absolutely no reason to form a completely new organization to "negotiate with management".
#107
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
eir perpetuated cooperation regulates the management, acquisition, as well as the alienation of their respective properties, then they either "share" ownership (which undermines th
Corporations cooperate all the time.

They can make and break these non-contractual alliances at will.
#108
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
How would you then characterize the State? How are its functions certainly NOT public?
Almost everything about the STATE is functionally PRIVATE.
#109
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
STATE = MONOPOLY ON FORCE
True. How does the State's monopoly on force exclude it from being a public entity?
The STATE owns property that is not available to all people.

The STATE controls resources that are not available to all people.

The STATE controls services that are not available to all people.

The absolute best possible STATE acts like a "benevolent" corporation that is funded by "subscriber fees" (taxes).
#110
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
PUBLIC = FREELY AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE
Not true. Case in point: public libraries. You can take a book out which typically necessitates a library card. In the event that one returns a book late, or doesn't return the book at all, one is charged. The manner in one may access a public good may be easier, but not necessarily "free."
You've just managed to prove that STATE run libraries are NOT PUBLIC.
#111
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
PUBLIC = NOT OWNED OR OWNABLE
So then who effectively controls public goods?
#112
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,923
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
Socialism (EMPLOYEE OWNERSHIP) doesn't "solve" this "problem".
False.  You lacking rational, logical common sense on this issue.

Capitalism is more unfettered than socialism on all issues.  You dont seem to get that.

Socialism in its best form has more checks and balances.  Spirituality has to be part of the checks and balance's of any operating system that wants to survive the longest term.

Fettered is better operationally except in emergencys, when basic needs, need to be met sooner rather than later because of risk of leg or life.


#113
Conway
Conway's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 278
1
2
5
Conway's avatar
Conway
1
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
Both of the posts you replied to were further edited prior to your response.  Do you have some sort of question for me?
#114
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
There are no "worker unions" in EMPLOYEE-OWNED companies.

The workers are the management.

There is absolutely no reason to form a completely new organization to "negotiate with management".
And the concept of hierarchy wouldn't apply to "worker management"?

Corporations cooperate all the time.

They can make and break these non-contractual alliances at will.
Yes, they do. But Corporations aren't necessarily "private" or "individual."

Almost everything about the STATE is functionally PRIVATE.
How so?

The STATE owns property that is not available to all people.

The STATE controls resources that are not available to all people.

The STATE controls services that are not available to all people.

The absolute best possible STATE acts like a "benevolent" corporation that is funded by "subscriber fees" (taxes).
The State "owns" nothing; the State in effect assumes control through, as you correctly surmised, the monopolization of (deadly) force. But even by the State's inconsistent legal rubric, the State doesn't exercise abusus (alienation) of its property. It in effect "rents" in all cases.

You've just managed to prove that STATE run libraries are NOT PUBLIC.
How? Why does "public" necessarily mean "freely available to everyone"?

I don't quite understand the application of this citation. Are you citing it to convey that there will always be a threat of overuse and "selfish" interests countermanding the "common good"? Are you suggesting that examples of commons in the article serve as an example of regulated public goods? What is the "common good"?
#115
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ebuc
Capitalism is more unfettered than socialism on all issues.  You dont seem to get that.
CAPITALISM = INDIVIDUAL PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF BUSINESS

SOCIALISM = EMPLOYEE OWNERSHIP OF BUSINESS
#116
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
And the concept of hierarchy wouldn't apply to "worker management"?
HOLACRACY.
#117
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Corporations cooperate all the time.

They can make and break these non-contractual alliances at will.
Yes, they do. But Corporations aren't necessarily "private" or "individual."
Most corporations are controlled by a 51% stakeholder.
#118
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Almost everything about the STATE is functionally PRIVATE.
How so?
You can get arrested for sleeping in a "public" park.
#119
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
The State "owns" nothing; the State in effect assumes control through, as you correctly surmised, the monopolization of (deadly) force. But even by the State's inconsistent legal rubric, the State doesn't exercise abusus (alienation) of its property. It in effect "rents" in all cases.
Who does the State rent from?

Who does the State rent to?
#120
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
You've just managed to prove that STATE run libraries are NOT PUBLIC.
How? Why does "public" necessarily mean "freely available to everyone"?
Please present your personally preferred definition of "public".