Socialism is profitable.

@russ cv,

russ;71829 wrote:

Sonny, are you seriously saying Zimbabwe is not a failed state!? A state requires an economy to survive. I've lived many years in Africa, your "off to jug" description sounds quaintly academic. Chaldees? You could also choose to discuss the Smurf state, which might be okay by your standards, but that doesn't make useful for discussion. C21 states okay too? Then why didn't you just get on with that?

Don't be silly. Zimbabwe is a perfectly normal state, a robbery-machine in the hands of the rich and powerful. You chose to talk about states as opposed to businesses, but state capitalism is just an extension of monopoly capitalism. Big companies are complex enough and powerful enough to dominate or destroy weak states, and strong states are, in general, just the central committees of the big firms. Americans like, for historical reasons, to make an artificial distinction between the two, but they are all mechanisms for robbing ordinary people, and the differences between them merely technical.

1 Reply

@kynaston,

kynaston;71830 wrote:

Don't be silly.

Likewise.

kynaston;71830 wrote:

Zimbabwe is a perfectly normal state

It is not the norm, it is clearly one of the least functional. To suggest Zimbabweans should be as satisfied with their state as eg Brazilians is really quite twisted.

kynaston;71830 wrote:

You chose to talk about states as opposed to businesses, but state capitalism is just an extension of monopoly capitalism.

No, I chose to compare complexity. You're associating business and state, not me.

kynaston;71830 wrote:

Big companies are complex enough and powerful enough to dominate or destroy weak states,

And so we arrive at my original question - examples?

kynaston;71830 wrote:

and strong states are, in general, just the central committees of the big firms.

You've introduced the "big" qualifier, not me.

kynaston;71830 wrote:

Americans like, for historical reasons, to make an artificial distinction between the two,

The dictionaries of most other countries too.

kynaston;71830 wrote:

but they are all mechanisms for robbing ordinary people, and the differences between them merely technical.

Technical as opposed to what?

I'm glad that you're anti-state and enjoying your rant, but as I'm also anti-state you're wasting your energy on me - my point was a comparison of complexity.

2 Replies

@russ cv,

Zimbabwe is a ridiculously dysfunctional state but a state it is. Now Somalia on the other hand...

0 Replies

@russ cv,

russ;71831 wrote:

It is not the norm, it is clearly one of the least functional. To suggest Zimbabweans should be as satisfied with their state as eg Brazilians is really quite twisted..

I don't know about Brazilians, but I am certainly not satisfied by any capitalist state. Zimbabwe carries out the normal functions of confusing and robbing on behalf of the rich, so it is a normal - though specially unpopular - state

russ;71831 wrote:

No, I chose to compare complexity. You're associating business and state, not me..

I can't pretend that this issue is close to my heart. Americans, especially right-wing ones, have been taught to make a distinction between the state and big business (small business is just ideological decoration: it matters neither economically nor politically). Actually, for most C21 states, it is the same difference as that between cows and cattle, and about as interesting.

russ;71831 wrote:

I'm glad that you're anti-state and enjoying your rant, but as I'm also anti-state you're wasting your energy on me - my point was a comparison of complexity.

The state as such is immaterial: what matters is who controls it. At the moment it is big business, which, in effects, sets enormous unvoted taxes on all commodities to pay for such things as advertising and interference in politics. The states it uses have at least to pretend they have consent.

0 Replies

@David cv,

David cv wrote:

Socialism is profitable.

Employees work harder and more efficiently and strive to produce higher quality products when they have a direct stake in compony policy and profits, who'd of thought? :confused:

I work for a company that's worker-owned (I get a dividend check every June 1st ), debt-free and with the past year being the 1st is it's almost century long history that it saw it's profits drop (we still made a profit), something that has since reversed itself.

Worker control of the means of production = huge profits. This is indisputable and why people resist (usually being the ones most benefited by such a system) is beyond me. :no:

Firstly, the kind of socialism you are talking about is obviously not the same as the German-brand Bismarkian state-socialism that all developed nations are engaging in. They happen to have the same name, and people confuse them because both are associated with the political left, but 'worker ownership of the means of production' and 'redistribution of income and government intervention in the economy' are obviously antithetical concepts.

And secondly, you are right, worker ownership of industry has many benefits. In a free market nobody keeps you from engaging in contractual relationships of that kind. And if it is more profitable, society is going to move in that direction. If you like socialism, the best way to get it, ironically, is through support of free markets.
But implementing socialism directly, how would that work? You would have to ban private ownership of the means of production for anyone who is not the workers. Who would enforce that? Wouldn't it necessarily have to be statist and coercive?

0 Replies

Socialism is profitable.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know