About Socialism

Inequality is our problem in the US. Some on the left are trying to solve simple poverty by solving for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment via existing legal and physical infrastructure in our Republic.

 

It is the left that keeps trying to redefine what socialism is and has currently created a sort of neofascist state in most of the west in which the façade of private ownership exists but the fact is that everything and every one is increasingly hemmed in by rules and regulation covering virtually every aspect of human behavior. Please note the reason the façade of private ownership exists is so that the government has some one else to blame for it's excesses when things run off the rails as they not infrequently do.

One should understand communism is not socialism is not neofascism, they are related but they are not the same. At no time in human history has communism ever held complete sway for any length of time. Communism is a complete lack of central governing authority. That makes it inherently unstable because in the end there is no way to adjudicate disputes and if human beings are involved there will always be disputes.
Neofascism is indirect control of the means of production by the government through an increasingly draconian and comprehensive set of rules and regulations that eventually wind up with more and more people spending ever increasing amounts of time making sure all the t's are crossed and all the i's are dotted to the exclusion of actual sound economic expansion. As a side note neofascism differs from fascism in that the strong man - Hitler Mussolini etc, is replaced by a nameless, faceless, unelected and therefore all but unaccountable bureaucracy.

Socialism is the direct control of the means of production by the government as was done in the Soviet Union, post WWII Britain, N. Korea Cuba and Venezuela

 

My point is taking 60% of everyone's stuff is unnecessary. Plenty of nations provide a solid social safety net on 27% or thereabouts.

 

That's one definition, but 'socialism' is not only 'the direct control of the means of production by the government as done by the Soviet Union," which statement is a bunch of hooey. That was the USSR model and is not mandatory on any other nation.

If your local library is a tax-supported, government run operation, then you have a local form of socialism.

Even by Gary D.'s flawed definition or the actual definition of socialism, single-payer is not socialism, for it only affects the financing and cost control of national health care.

 

NOt technically no and I never claimed it was. But that doesn't make it a good idea.

 

I disagree, but thank you for stating that single-payer is not socialism.

 

As I said I never claimed it was. IN fact it is a neofascist approach. In indirect control though regulation and control the purse strings.

 

Some of us are trying to convince the right wing to merely use capitalism for All of its capital worth in modern capital times.

 

No, replace government with social conventions and common law, enforced at the local level by the community. Yes, privatize everything, especially the police.

Here is a little thought experiment to illustrate the point. You have the option to hire one of two security firms. Firm A will provide you with a group of people that will be contracted at an agreed upon price to guard your stuff during agreed upon time limits. All the details of the service are agreed upon in a contract and if the firm or any member of the firm fails to meet those requirements they can be fired. Firm B will provide you with the number of people they choose, at the price they choose to charge, and may guard your stuff if they consider that to be a goal they find worthwhile on a time schedule they choose or they may choose to inflict rules and limitations on you that you have no control over. All of the terms of their service are controlled by them and can change anytime they choose. You can't fire Firm B or any of its members for any cause. Which firm do you choose?

 

We have a mixed-market political economy. Government is the public sector public means of production part that is "owned and operated by the People".

 

I have no objection to a modest, proportional state. I oppose excessive state control as exercised in Scandanavia.

I prefer what we have in Australasia - universal health care, unemployment entitlements, capped university tuition, AND a reasonable share of the economy in private hands - 73% of it no less.

Nobody dies due to medical costs. Anyone who can pass admissions can get into university. If you're down on your luck we'll temporarily keep you above water. But at the end of the day, we value a strong work ethic and want people to keep what they've earned - or at least a majority of it.

 

Sounds good; can you send a contingent of subject matter specialists to educate our elected representatives to see what may work here?

 

Guaranteeing sub-optimal public good provision and the assorted inefficiencies and inequities associated with natural monopoly.

 

Monopolies are not natural.

 

Natural monopolies are well understood, referring to substantial economies of scale stopping multiple provision (eg utilities).

 

Utilities are government mandated monopolies, meaning they are not natural because they exist by government fiat and the government sets the price.

 

Sounds like you're completely unaware of basic economics and how economies of scale operate.

 

Sounds like you prefer jargonistic codswallop rather than a rational discussion of the actual facts.

 

Facts? We only know one here. Someone denying natural monopoly, and just blaming the government, has decided to give up on facts.

 

I told you what the facts are. You responded with jargon wholly unrelated to the subject. Economies of scale are in fact limited. In the long run it does not matter if it is cheaper to make a million of an item than it is to make a thousand of the same item, if you can only sell or use fifty a year. The storage costs will eat you alive.

 

You're blaming me for knowing more basic economics than you. Its cute, but its not going to wash. Wait a sec! I'm sitting here and I can hear the flush. Water from a natural monopoly no less. I won't go into details. Its my boy and he's got a dicky tummy. I'll just state the obvious: fixed costs are so large that I only have one water supplier. Even when we do have semi-competition (e.g. my electricity supply), its an oligopoly well known for firms abusing their position (and we focus on the failures of government regulation).

 

And again government established regulated and operated agencies are not natural.

 

Who said it was? Reply to what is said. Utilities are typically natural monopolies. Even those which aren't are forced into the mire of government regulation.

 

Utilities, for instance water, are entirely a function of government or partially a function government. If government is required to establish or maintain it then it is not natural whatever the text books say. The closest we've ever been to a natural monopoly was standard oil back in the twenties and it only had eighty percent of the market.

 

Water supply is a natural monopoly and natural monopolies should be nationalised. Bit bleedin obvious really.

What frustrates me is that there isn't even an effort to understand basic economics. If you don't achieve that, how are you to critique it?