Bipartisan health care forum

[chuck schmidt]

Originally Posted by Dirk

I disagree. That is an aspect of one vision of socialism.

I am a libertarian socialist. I'm actually a very staunch socialist, and, to tell a secret, an ex-communist. I agree with workers' ownership of the means of production. I also agree with social ownership of utilities and services.

However, I do not believe the state is necessary, or even desirable. I see it as only serving bourgeois interests and responding to the demands of large concentrations of capital. I also agree with the abolition of private property, but that isn't entirely relevant.

Socialism can be achieved through the use of the state - which is what "authoritarian" (they are usually actually very socially liberal" socialists wish. Most I know of want to achieve that through implementing participatory or direct democracy, along with soviets to exercise social control of the means of production, utilities and services. They are often also called state socialists, though it almost always involves huge decentralisation.

There are other socialists - I can't remember what the name for them is - like our dear comrade David, who wish for workers' ownership of the means of production and social control of services (i've no idea about utilities - comrade, care to enlighten us?) through a small state and - in some cases - soviets.

Could you decipher that to where a person can see a practical example?

[Dirk]

Originally Posted by chuck schmidt

Could you decipher that to where a person can see a practical example?

Catalonia, Cuba and EZLN.

Only to an extent in each.

[David]

Originally Posted by Dirk

There are other socialists - I can't remember what the name for them is - like our dear comrade David, who wish for workers' ownership of the means of production and social control of services (i've no idea about utilities - comrade, care to enlighten us?) through a small state and - in some cases - soviets.

Utilities would be run by the gov't, do you really want larger and/or ricer neighborhoods monopolizing garbage pick up and getting priority power? The gov't, not bound by the daily whims of the people, is better. But they need to stay out of the general economy. State-Capitalism doesn't work, regardless of wether or not the economy in geared toward capitalism or socialism as the US and Soviet Union have both proven. I support Soviets in that area as the people know what they need/want better then some corporate owned politician 3,000 miles away.

[chuck schmidt]

Originally Posted by Dirk

Catalonia, Cuba and EZLN.

Only to an extent in each.

So Europe and Canada aren't socialist?

[dave]

Originally Posted by Dirk

No. I'm saying political science trumps popular usage.

Same with socialism. Socialism is "workers' or social ownership of the means of production". The popular understanding is "the state owns industry". It's simplistic and false.

Again with the "workers owning the means of production".

Exactly, how does that work for someone like a farmer? Does "owning the means of production" mean that society owns his tractors, land, seeds, water, fertilizer? What if some people think that land is better spent being converted to a WalMart, others want it to be used to grow corn, others to raise cows. How do people decide what to do with the land? What about the farmers time, who owns and controls that? If "society" says to grow corn, the farmer says he will only grow wheat, what now? Kick him to the side and bring in a new farmer? And farming is hard work, what incentive does the farmer have for doing all that work instead of getting a nice government job sitting at a desk shuffling paper?

Or does "owning the means of production" mean that society owns the profit? Again with the farmer, what does he get out of it? What exactly is the "profit"? The entire crop he grows, or just a portion of the crop, or the money made when the crop is sold? What if "society" says the profit needs to go to provide universal health care, but the farmer says he needs a new tractor or there won't be a crop next year?

What is the mechanism used to make all of these decisions? National voting? Committees selected to make these decisions? Who selects the committee members?

[Dirk]

Originally Posted by David

I support Soviets in that area as the people know what they need/want better then some corporate owned politician 3,000 miles away.

Yah.

Originally Posted by chuck schmidt

So Europe and Canada aren't socialist?

Social democratic, I'd say? I wouldn't say a mixed economy is automatically socialism. Anyway, if they did count as socialist, then just about every single liberal democracy in the world would. Including the US.

Originally Posted by dave

Again with the "workers owning the means of production".

Yep.

Oh, now you change the subject...

Exactly, how does that work for someone like a farmer? Does "owning the means of production" mean that society owns his tractors, land, seeds, water, fertilizer?

Depends who buys them, I should think. So far as i know, the farm itself would be in social ownership. I'm not entirely clued up on that version.

What if some people think that land is better spent being converted to a WalMart, others want it to be used to grow corn, others to raise cows. How do people decide what to do with the land? What about the farmers time, who owns and controls that?

Democratically decided i should think.

If "society" says to grow corn, the farmer says he will only grow wheat, what now? Kick him to the side and bring in a new farmer?

Depends on what the owners decide. Just as in capitalism.

And farming is hard work, what incentive does the farmer have for doing all that work instead of getting a nice government job sitting at a desk shuffling paper?

Getting paid? It'll be necessary to have all areas producing, so no doubt there'd be some incentive.

Or does "owning the means of production" mean that society owns the profit? Again with the farmer, what does he get out of it? What exactly is the "profit"? The entire crop he grows, or just a portion of the crop, or the money made when the crop is sold? What if "society" says the profit needs to go to provide universal health care, but the farmer says he needs a new tractor or there won't be a crop next year?

I think the main theme is a central treasury. I would imagine he gets a decent wage too, though. The farmer, as a part of society, would no doubt be valued enough - considering he/she's an expert through experience - to be heard justifying it. As well as voting for their opinion themselves.

What is the mechanism used to make all of these decisions? National voting? Committees selected to make these decisions? Who selects the committee members?

Well, in practical terms, national voting seems like pure idiocy to me. Honestly, i've not much idea about this form of socialism. I'd think that firstly, in practice, there'd probably be a very non-interventionist stance adopted by society. Especially since most people value civil liberty, so that'd probably be emphasised. Secondly, all socialists want power to the people, so i should think extreme localist direct democracy. Or even consensus decision-making, for that matter.

I'll also mention that since the farmer doesn't own the land solely (he would own it), it's not just his decision to make. The system does, however, give the worker (or in this case farmer) more power. And more money would be available for social projects (like, to use your example, to provide healthcare).

It's different, but it's far less restrictive than your post suggests you imagine - or indeed the current system generally is. Not my preferred method of socialism, mind.

[chuck schmidt]

Originally Posted by dave

Again with the "workers owning the means of production".

Exactly, how does that work for someone like a farmer? Does "owning the means of production" mean that society owns his tractors, land, seeds, water, fertilizer? What if some people think that land is better spent being converted to a WalMart, others want it to be used to grow corn, others to raise cows. How do people decide what to do with the land? What about the farmers time, who owns and controls that? If "society" says to grow corn, the farmer says he will only grow wheat, what now? Kick him to the side and bring in a new farmer? And farming is hard work, what incentive does the farmer have for doing all that work instead of getting a nice government job sitting at a desk shuffling paper?

Or does "owning the means of production" mean that society owns the profit? Again with the farmer, what does he get out of it? What exactly is the "profit"? The entire crop he grows, or just a portion of the crop, or the money made when the crop is sold? What if "society" says the profit needs to go to provide universal health care, but the farmer says he needs a new tractor or there won't be a crop next year?

What is the mechanism used to make all of these decisions? National voting? Committees selected to make these decisions? Who selects the committee members?

There are many models. A good argument can be made on economic criteria that the US is a corporate welfare state with the military and military industrial complex being the primary means of distribution. Reagan's Secretary of the Navy (his name escapes me) described it as such in his book 600 Ship Navy.