How much do socialists/Marxists think the surplus is?

Silliness from start to finish.

 

Not only for "socialists" but just about everybody in either the US or Europe.

The method of uncontrolled and diversified elections has been an integral part of "democracies" for quite some time ...

 

A COMPARATIVE EXAMPLE FOR "JACK-'N-JILL AMERICA"

From here:

What the above doesn't say is this:
*My kids go to a French-university for $1500 à year instead of $25K it would cost in a US state-university. (That fee is typical in the rest of Europe as well.)
*When I go to see a GP it costs me $25 (in Euros) in France not $100 (as it does on average in the US). All healthcare costs beyond that first-visit are subsidized by the government!
*Which is why taxation is so much higher in Europe than the US. (But, then, our lifespan here is typically three-to-four years longer than yours in the US!)
*Is an extra 3/4 years of lifespan worth the additional taxation (that subsidizes lower Healthcare Costs and Very-low-cost Post-graduate Education) worth the extra bucks?
*Methinks YES!

AND YET

Well worth reading here: How U.S. Healthcare Costs Compare to Other Countries

Excerpt:

AND SO?

It's yours to decide, Jack-'n-Jill America. Yes, tax-wise, living in the US aint-that-bad comparatively. But, those much, much higher-costs for Healthcare and Post-graduate Education fees in the US aint goin' away ... !

 

Indeed.
The collective will of groups of people made manifest.
A feature of socialism.
As also enjoyed by people in America...amongst many other features of socialism, many of which attract no criticism from Americans.
What a shame American health care isn’t more socialist.

 

I repeat very often on this forum that, living as I do in France, it costs me $24 to see a doctor, not the average $100 in the US.

And, should I be sick, it would not cost me anything to undergo major-surgery. Which is why our lifespan here in Europe is typically 3/4 years longer than in the US ...

 

Collectivism in the absence of common purse has nothing to do with socialism. A corporate partnership is a collective, but it sure as hell ain't socialism. Shareholders of a capitalist enterprise are a collective, but they sure as heck aren't socialists.

There is no socialism in America, outside of small scale private collectives. Large families, religious groups, communes, some small businesses, etc.

 

Where I live it costs $0 to see a doctor, and the same for any hospital treatment. More importantly, our public healthcare and hospitals are among the best in the world. It's the private hospitals you need to stay away from here .. they're dodgy as hell, what with being profit driven. Too many corners cut.

 

You and I have different definitions of socialism.
To me what you call collectivism is socialism.

 

Now you are just equivocating. "Collective" ownership in the relevant sense does not mean merely ownership by a group of people. It means ownership by a group whose members have equal stakes that are obtained by membership (some restrict it to those who actually work at the enterprise) and cannot be bought, sold, or accumulated.

Now that is true.

 

We certainly do. Socialism and Communism (they're the same animal) are FIRST "work to eat", and second .. economic models predicated on subsistence rather than profit.

 

Socialism (in my opinion) is different to Communism.
I see Communism as being about authoritarian imposition, but socialism as being about collective agreement and acceptance within communities.

 

No, socialism is collective ownership of the means of production, communism is abolition of private property. Communism has never been implemented on a large scale, and probably can't be. Countries that were called, "communist" during the Cold War were run by communist parties, but their actual economies were socialist. AFAIK, none of them made a serious attempt to abolish private property.

It's "production for use rather than profit." They promise workers a life well above subsistence once the depredations of the parasitic capitalist ownership class are eliminated.

 

1) Sure, but it's not CAPITALIST production, it's subsistence production. And private property is essential to that end.

2) Correct. Communism fails at about 1000 individuals (even that is pushing it), but works best when numbers are between 10 and 100. And correct again - they were communist in name only. Just as Norway is socialist in name only.

3) Socialism/Communism and 'a life well above subsistence' are mutually exclusive propositions. Collectivists toil for the material basics only. There is no surplus for the provision of choice and luxury. That's why it must ALWAYS be voluntary.

 

Yes, Socialism/Communism are absolutely 'collective agreement and acceptance', but they're agreement and acceptance that the individual will exchange the benefits of a capitalist existence (selling labour, paying rents, choices, preferences, etc) for a much more limited and much more demanding collectivist existence. They are not "I agree that taxpayers and rich people pay for stuff I can't be assed paying for".

 

What happens when a member dies?
What happens when a member wants out?
What happens when a member slacks off?

THINK!

 

They lose their membership in the collective. And your point would be....?

I've done all the thinking, thanks. Now it's time for you do do a bit. Come on! You can if you try.

 

Wrong again. Capitalism is defined by ownership of the means of production, not what the product is used for.

Animals subsist just fine with no private property.

No, that's just some silly $#!+ you made up. I've never seen it in any socialist theory or heard from any socialist.

No, that's just some more silly $#!+ you made up. The whole point of socialism is to redirect the social surplus away from the capitalist class to the working class.

Non sequitur. How many people are going to volunteer for the ascetic life of a Franciscan monk?

 

Interesting you say limiting and demanding.
How about the notion that extreme capitalism can put people in need at the mercies and vagaries of unreliable charities that may leave them abandoned?
One aspect of socialism (which I repeatedly say is different to communism) is an effort by a society not to cast people into the gutter when difficulties arise.

 

And what happens to their 'share', since shares can't be sold or transferred etc?

 

Collectivism necessarily comes with distinct limits, and it is definitely demanding. It can't worth otherwise.

And yes, that's the point of collectivism. To offer those with limited means the opportunity to exchange the 'freedoms' of a capitalist/individualist lifestyle, for the materials of survival. Lifetime access to the resources to feed and house oneself, and the strength and empowerment of a stable community. Unfortunately very few of the poor are prepared to do it - preferring to take their chances with the capitalist/individualist model.

 

And so?

Socialism exists nowhere in the developed world. It's been worn out, and Russia proved that fact by dumping it. As for China, it "thinks" it is a Communist country but all it is doing is allowing some people to amass millions whereupon they dump China and move abroad as millionaires. (Typically western Canada, I am told. With some coming to the US.)

(Social-Democracy is the proper word for capitalist-economies that "have a heart" ;^)

China has yet to hit its "upper-bound", but it will. It's a shame that India cannot get its manufacturing-act together. If it would, its competition would capture most of China's export-earnings. China already is shipping a good deal of its very-low-cost manufacturing-output to Northern Vietnam.

What is worrisome, however, is that its upper-HiTech products are doing so well.

Such is life in this Brave New World of ours - where Uncle Sam is peddling against a strong wind ...

 

It reverts to the remaining members of the collective. Duh. Haven't you ever been a member of a co-op? I thought you claimed to know something about socialism. Maybe you should actually read some socialist theory, something written by an actual socialist. Just sayin'.

 

And yet, apparently there is a reason people in some situations still feel compelled to go to these private hospitals, so apparently the national healthcare system is not perfect.

 

Sometimes people (especially those who doubt medical science) believe they know better than their doctors what treatment they should receive (and they are occasionally even right: a few years ago, some ER doctors decided to treat me for asthma after I told them I didn't have asthma and no one in my family has ever had asthma; turned out to be whooping cough, which they had apparently never seen -- and for which asthma treatments are not only absolutely ineffective, but potentially harmful).

Nothing is perfect. I've had occasion to receive or witness medical care in several countries with various mixes of public and private care. The private care can be excellent though expensive, but the public care is more reliably competent.

 

If it was written in a book, I'm going to propose they weren't actually socialists. More like intellectuals who called themselves socialists. No working socialist has that kind of spare time.