Do socialist systems adequately produce for the needs and well-beings of the people under said system?
not at all, many people have redundent produce but some have nothing
Socialism actually has been shown to allocate resources for human need better than capitalism, and I have seen little evidence that a properly executed socialist economy doesn’t support the general populous in terms of need.
Because governments react so much better to ever changing economic climates than corporations with actual incentive driven individuals managing them?
Government isn’t the only way the public can lay claim to the means of production, but regardless, to claim that the community lacks incentive to take care of its collective needs is ludicrous. Within corporations, you have a very top down structure, essentially planning within the company, not terribly unlike that of governmental structure. With modern technology, planning an economy is actually quite possible.
What you call driven individuals are driven by profit, not for human need, and because of this resources will be distributed on said basis. So not only are corporations and governments comparable in their ability to react to changing economic conditions (except socialist governments and cooperatives have to worry about such much less due to a lessened fluctuation of the capitalist business cycle), but the government, given it is sufficiently democratic, will serve the needs of the people, as they are the ones who operate that collective apparatus. Corporations on the other hand will exploit economic fluctuation in a variety of ways: corruption and subsequent utilization of the state when business interests are allowed to run rampant will allow the corporations to be bailed out when crisis strikes while the masses are left to their own devices, as well as exploitation of job insecurity and the army of reserve labor to drive down wages and working conditions.
The issue with that kind of system is excessive bureaucracy, which creates severe inefficiency. While modern AI could help alleviate some of that, it’d still be a problem. When things are spread out amongst several competing companies however there is a lot less to get tangled increasing efficiency through competition
Humans are individualistic by nature, and, beyond a family, cannot truly effectively structure in a “give back to the community” way as you are describing. Just look at how the entire Kibbutz system failed in Israel.
True, but we are also social creatures, willing to make sacrifices for our group. It all depends on the person and scenario I suppose
True, but constant sacrifice that is not a life or death situation becomes irritating
Agreed, hence why individuals need to be rewarded for their work, even if the majority of the proceeds go to the whole of the community. Altruism alone is not an effective motivator
While I would say governments, while comparable, aren’t always exactly as efficient in raw production as corporations, government isn’t often given for it’s effectiveness. The state has the potential to be a massive innovator, and develop the economy very rapidly, and has been used for such in essentially all successful developed country. The government often provides goods and services more efficiently than the private sector, and even if some products must be “rationed,” this in reality means that even with marginally less production, more use can be made out of those goods and services. Even so, the government doesn’t have to have total control of the economy. Workers cooperatives have actually proven to be more productive than traditional business.
Humans aren’t entirely individualistic or collectivist by nature. We often adapt and reflect the circumstances and situations we are brought up and exist in. Part of the fall of the Kibbutz system was dissatisfaction and subsequent problems with growing divisive capitalist practices within the system. In a sense, it was the corruption, individualism, and injustice that is so inherent to capitalism that eroded a well functioning cooperative collective system.
Please provide some evidence of this.
I would debate you on this point, because, as someone with many relatives who were at kibbutzes at its time of failure, I can say that it was rather a lack of incentive as well as people not wanting to give their children up for collective parenting that cause the collapse of kibbutz, rather than these capitalist practices you are referring to.
I know I’ve cited this study in a previous post, but I’ll put it here again.
In the USSR, there were a variety of improved and very good indicators of prosperity and human development. You had high calorie consumption, higher than that of the US at the time. Great strides were made in education and industrial production. Today, you see developed countries with larger public sectors far outperforming other developed countries by various metrics. Human development in much higher in Scandinavian countries that lead the world in the public sector, even with very comparable GDP per capitas when contrasted against countries with larger private sectors, such as the US.
Simply put, human needs are met more efficiently when your system is more geared towards directly addressing such.
But the USSR’s economy crumbled under its own weight while the US was led into a new golden age (until everyone’s Least favorite 43rd fucked it up. Thanks Bush). Clearly the USSR was not sustainable in the long term. As for how culture effects the situation, I call bullshit. The USSR had massive issues with corruption and bribery, directly contradicting your statement about capitalism
Events may have not turned out well for the USSR, however if instead of an unjustly authoritarian institution, but a sufficiently democratic state apparatus, free from the grips of capitalism. was instead in place, then I find it much more likely that the economics policies of socialism could have continued.
I was stating how situation can affect how people perceive themselves in relation to others. I don’t see how people rising to meet the needs of the situation they are raised in is such a far out concept.
Correct, I am not defending the USSR’s extreme and unjust authoritarianism. I am merely using the success of it’s collectivized economy, along with other sources, to substantiate my claim that a socialist economy can work well.
Which claim and how so?
Blockquote Which claim and how so?
Blockquote Humans aren’t entirely individualistic or collectivist by nature. We often adapt and reflect the circumstances and situations we are brought up and exist in. Part of the fall of the Kibbutz system was dissatisfaction and subsequent problems with growing divisive capitalist practices within the system. In a sense, it was the corruption, individualism, and injustice that is so inherent to capitalism that eroded a well functioning cooperative collective system.
You also have yet to rebuke my statement about inefficiency. When you scale up a communal system (through a federal/confederal govt, Congress of Unions, or otherwise) you create more steps for resources to get from point A to point B. With federally funded and regulated corporations on the other hand you have a series of smaller, self-managing entities which are able to compete with each other. If one of them starts getting lazy and falling behind, another will come in to take their place and do a better job. Competition is not a bad thing. It is what drives innovation. As long as people and corporations are forced to remain ethical and honest in their dealings then I see no problem.
As for bailouts, not I’m not a fan of them. We should have arrested the individuals responsible for the debt crisis, or at least taxed them greatly. But that doesn’t mean we should go off on a witch hunt against private businesses, nor does it mean that giving the resources to the masses would necessarily work. You need to see what caused the problem and solve that, find a cure, rather than just treating the symptoms.
Personally, I support abolition of most current welfare programs (welfare for poverty/unemployment, govt. housing, food stamps, etc.) in favor of a UBI. A UBI is less restrictive than the aforementioned welfare programs and drastically cuts down on bureaucracy. Social programs I would keep include Healthcare (which should be expanded and the prices need to be regulated) and Social Security (which if a UBI comes into play could be cut down on, though not gotten rid of entirely).
Thanks for copying me m8. Jokes aside, I’m glad to see you spicing up this thread with some good ol’ Curry
It was too good of timing, and I’ve given up try to debate this dude, so it is always nice to poke fun at him.
Funny thing, I think we’re pretty much the same economically (I’m a bit more left than you, but not much) but completely different socially when it comes to politics