Does Socialism Have Adequate Production?


#21

Pretty much. I am opening up to the idea of universal basic income in place of all welfare systems. It is much harder to take advantage of and you can’t just live off it for long periods of time; thus the profit motive remains.


#22

Exactly, but it’s enough to cover minor expenses (debt, rent, food, etc.) or to survive on between jobs, and unlike unemployment benefits it doesn’t force you to immediately jump to the first job you see, even if said job is not a good long-term fit. Not to mention all of the bureaucracy you can cut down on


#24

The top-down structure you described is not too far removed from the way in which large corporations run either. It is because of the ability to plan and manage resources under one or few entities that make the end goal of production much more concise. The transfers of goods still occur if various smaller entities, yet the goods are distributed in a more spontaneous way, corresponding more so to profit motive. The structure is quite comparable, whether it is corporate or governmental. You do however have a point about innovation, and that is also a reason why I support non-governmental collectives as part of the economy. However, focused effort has certainly yielded much innovation in the public sector. Innovation can result through both competition and focused cooperation. Private enterprise doesn’t have a monopoly on this innovation.

Except they aren’t and never will. They will do whatever serves the profit motive, and this leads then to manipulate demand in their interests, regardless of the good of the consumer, and I wouldn’t consider exchanges and the capitalist means of production quite ethical if they lead to a system with severe inequality and human needs unfulfilled. This is all in addition to the power business interests exercise over the state if they are allowed to accumulate immense amounts of capital.

Neither am I.

Their crimes are not limited to financial crises. They exploit the working class, depriving them from adequate or rightfully earned wages. Private business puts profit before human need, and because meeting human need is not always profitable, the relative wealth of the capitalist will always supersede the relative well-being of the people in such a society. Private business is undemocratic, and unequal: it is not a system that our society should embrace.

These are the people that own and operate the means of production. They know how to work them, and people can still attain positions that oversee the work of their fellow laborers in a socialist economy run by the workers. However, this is achieved democratically, not by entitlement by wealth or serving the oppressive status quo.

Precisely, the poverty and lack of affluence under capitalism is not an unfortunate side effect that can be successfully dealt with, but is rather inherent to capitalism. Welfare is good, and brings numerous benefits to those in a capitalist economy, but we can go further. We can greatly decrease the oppression.

Perhaps it could streamline said programs, and I do agree that there are certain industries such as healthcare that should be controlled and provided by government. I myself haven’t looked too far into UBI at this point, as I feel inequality would become significantly less prevalent under socialism, but perhaps it could be viable under a capitalist, and possibly social democratic society.