Corporation Socialism

[Gary Childress]

I always thought that the difference between socialism and capitalism was in who owns the means of production. Under socialism, the means of production are owned by the state and under capitalism the means of production are owned by private individuals.

If private individuals own the means of production, then that's not democratic because private individuals can more or less do what they as individuals want with their respective industries and the rest of society has no say in how industry is run. That doesn't seem very democratic to me. However, perhaps by virtue of consumers "voting" with their wallets, capitalism can be seen as "democratic". I don't know.

If the state owns the means of production, then there are at least two possible scenarios. If the state is composed of democratically elected officials who answer to the electorate, then it's a "democratic socialism", if the state is a dictatorship or oligarchy, then it is not a "democratic" society and thus not "democratic socialism".

Most dictionaries I've seen seem to uphold those basic distinctions.

[Immanuel Can]

That is not a condition of social democracy.

There's no such thing.

You're only saying that because for you one of the defining features of socialism is millions of dead bodies.

No, I'm saying it because it's self-contradictory as a term, and thus ridiculous for anybody to take seriously...and it also remains true that Socialism kills more people than any ideology in history, but that fact is quite separate, and plays no role in my assessment of the absurdity of the idiom of "democratic Socialism," so called. It's just a silly coinage, and propagandistic in the extreme. It convinces naive dupes that Socialism is somehow "democratic."

So much so, that you preposterously include Hitler's Nazi Germany,

Nazi means "national Socialist." Look it up.

Capitalist enterprise

There's no such thing as "Capitalism." It's not a unitarian thing, not ideological, and not uninform. Only Marxists imagine it is. So you can't make legitimate claims about what "Capitalism" has done. You can complain about free markets, maybe, but they come in very different forms.

Drop the "social," and you have an idiom that makes sense.

To you. Most people have little difficulty making sense of social democracy.

I don't think that's the case at all. But I agree that people often fail to think the issue through carefully, and some may simply not notice how absurd the coinage is. That's possible. And it's fixable, too.

[Immanuel Can]

I always thought that the difference between socialism and capitalism was in who owns the means of production. Under socialism, the means of production are owned by the state and under capitalism the means of production are owned by private individuals.

Marx said that.

If private individuals own the means of production, then that's not democratic...

No, that's the ONLY democratic arrangement, because it's "life, liberty and property, " which are the sacred rights of the individual, just as Locke demonstrated...the State has no account of its "rights" at all. God never gave it any, and the State isn't capable of having "rights." So when it confiscates property from the individual, it's a case of violation of democratic rights, a case of theft.

If the state owns the means of production, then there are at least two possible scenarios. If the state is composed of democratically elected officials who answer to the electorate, then it's a "democratic socialism",

If they're answerable to the people, then it's not Socialism. Socialism does not answer to anything: it's a one-party State arrangment, and necessarily so, because Socialism cannot allow for people to choose not to be Socialists. So freedom of voting, of property, of ownership, of speech, of movement, of belief...all these are anathema to Socialism.

...if the state is a dictatorship or oligarchy, then it is not a "democratic" society and thus not "democratic socialism".

In that case, it cannot be democratic; it can, and in most cases, probably is, Socialist. Hitler, Stalin, Mao...all managed to be devoutly Socialist: none managed to be democratic.

And actually, this is the feature that makes Corporation Socialism such a natural result. The monolythic Socialist State realizes it's convenient to coordinate its purposes with Big Business and Big Media. The triad then has perfect leverage for each to gain what it most desires. The State gets power, Big Business bilks the public, and Big Media gets to control all the information. There's no conflict in their desires, so long as they don't fight with one another; and they can concentrate on extracting from the people everything each of them most desires.

[Will Bouwman]

Nazi means "national Socialist." Look it up.

Ahem!

...you preposterously include Hitler's Nazi Germany, who fail one of your key criteria:

Democracy = property ownership. Socialism = confiscation by the State.

As I have pointed out, Hitler privatised several nationalised industries. However much you believe that death is an inevitable consequence of socialism, it is not a feature that defines it, which public ownership does. If you insist that the Nazis were socialists, because it says so in their name, then you should be compelled to agree that any of the Social Democrat parties that call themselves that really are Social Democrat parties, because it says so in their name. The alternative is special pleading, a fallacy and the sign of a hypocrite, an idiot or both and an absolute guarantee of someone who can't do philosophy to any standard of competence.

[Will Bouwman]

The monolythic Socialist State realizes it's convenient to coordinate its purposes with Big Business and Big Media.

If the Socialist state is monolithic, it already controls "Big Business and Big Media".

[Immanuel Can]

As I have pointed out, Hitler privatised several nationalised industries.

And nationalized others...National Socialism, remember?

AI says, "In the early 1930s, the Nazi regime nationalized large industrial companies, commercial banks, and other businesses in Germany. However, in the mid-1930s, the Nazis privatized these businesses as a political tool to gain support."

And here's a better authority: Freidrich Pollock, himself an extremist Socialist (associated with the Frankfurt School, if you recognize that) and a staunch critic of Fascism, writing in 1941 gave the following analysis:

"I agree that the legal institution of private ownership was maintained, and that many attributes characteristic for National Socialism begin to manifest themselves, albeit still vaguely, in non-totalitarian countries. But does this mean that the function of private ownership did not change? Is the “increase of power of a few groups” really the most important result of the change which took place? I believe it reaches far more deeply and should be described as the destruction of all the essential traits of private ownership, saving one exception. Even the mightiest concerns were denied the right to set up new fields of business in areas where the highest profits were to be expected, or to interrupt a production where it became unprofitable. These rights were transferred in their entirety to the ruling groups. The compromise between the groups in power initially determined the extent and direction of the production process. Faced with such a decision, the title of ownership is powerless, even if it is derived from the possession of the overwhelming majority of the share capital, let alone when it only owns a minority." (Underlines mine)

However much you believe that death is an inevitable consequence of socialism, it is not a feature that defines it...

Well, except in 100% of cases. If you're suggesting that Socialism-in-theory presents as less homicidal that Socialism-in-practice, I can agree. But it raises the immediate question of why Socialism inevitably kills so many people.

If you insist that the Nazis were socialists, because it says so in their name, then you should be compelled to agree that any of the Social Democrat parties that call themselves that really are Social Democrat parties, because it says so in their name.

Not at all. The Nazis not only claimed to be Socialists, they socialized vast swaths of the economy. There's no inherent contradiction between the words "Nazi" and "Socialist".

But the words "Socialist" and "democrat" simply contradict each other. No such thing is even possible. To be a "democrat" one cannot seize all the means of production (which Socialism demands you do), and cannot allow rival political parties (which Socialism makes absolutely indispensible) and cannot confiscate property (which Socialism praises)...

[Immanuel Can]

The monolythic Socialist State realizes it's convenient to coordinate its purposes with Big Business and Big Media.

If the Socialist state is monolithic, it already controls "Big Business and Big Media".

Socialism politically has discovered it has a problem: it cannot generate value. It goes bankrupt. It's found it can power itself far more effectively by parasitizing on "capitalism" (as you'd call it). So it's found it much better to sell out its own principles, in that regard, and allow much more freedom to Big Business to pull in the money that the system requires. That's Corporation Socialism.

A good exemplar is China, which nowadays runs under what it calls, "Red Capitalism." Under old-style Socialism, it was backward and bankrupt. It isn't, anymore.

[Belinda]

The monolythic Socialist State realizes it's convenient to coordinate its purposes with Big Business and Big Media.

If the Socialist state is monolithic, it already controls "Big Business and Big Media".

Socialism politically has discovered it has a problem: it cannot generate value. It goes bankrupt. It's found it can power itself far more effectively by parasitizing on "capitalism" (as you'd call it). So it's found it much better to sell out its own principles, in that regard, and allow much more freedom to Big Business to pull in the money that the system requires. That's Corporation Socialism.

A good exemplar is China, which nowadays runs under what it calls, "Red Capitalism." Under old-style Socialism, it was backward and bankrupt. It isn't, anymore.

Maybe your problem, Immanuel, is that you think socialists don't compete for profits.

[Immanuel Can]

If the Socialist state is monolithic, it already controls "Big Business and Big Media".

Socialism politically has discovered it has a problem: it cannot generate value. It goes bankrupt. It's found it can power itself far more effectively by parasitizing on "capitalism" (as you'd call it). So it's found it much better to sell out its own principles, in that regard, and allow much more freedom to Big Business to pull in the money that the system requires. That's Corporation Socialism.

A good exemplar is China, which nowadays runs under what it calls, "Red Capitalism." Under old-style Socialism, it was backward and bankrupt. It isn't, anymore.

Maybe your problem, Immanuel, is that you think socialists don't compete for profits.

They don't. Not without abandoning Socialist economics.

Don't imagine Socialists aren't hypocrites. They are that, for sure: the elites especially. While they crow that they are champions of "the worker" and "the People," they invariably are angling to milk the poor to death. It's what they always do. They'll take whatever they can get...and compete with the People and each other to get it...and shoot their enemies into a ditch, if necessary. But boy, do they ever compete, alright.

[Will Bouwman]

As I have pointed out, Hitler privatised several nationalised industries.

And nationalized others...National Socialism, remember?

Better than you remember this:

Socialism, by definition, requires government ownership of all the means of production...

AI says...

If you think AI is any sort of authority, you might be persuaded by this AI overview:
"Adolf Hitler was the leader of the Nazi Party, a fascist political party in Germany from 1933 to 1945. Hitler's political philosophy was based on fascism, and the Nazi regime was a fascist government." and this follow up: "Fascism is a far-right political ideology that opposes liberalism, communism, and socialism."

And here's a better authority: Freidrich Pollock, himself an extremist Socialist...

Well, if you describe anyone as an "extremist Socialist", you have conceded that there are socialists who are not extreme. Social democrats would be an example.

...the words "Socialist" and "democrat" simply contradict each other. No such thing is even possible.

Can you describe a functional democracy in which electing a socialist government is not an option?

To be a "democrat" one cannot seize all the means of production (which Socialism demands you do)

Back to the top:

As I have pointed out, Hitler privatised several nationalised industries.

And nationalized others...National Socialism, remember?

If you maintain that a 'socialist government' can include nationalised and privatised industries, as you do for National Socialism, you really have no grounds for insisting that democratically elected governments cannot.

[Immanuel Can]

As I have pointed out, Hitler privatised several nationalised industries.

And nationalized others...National Socialism, remember?

Better than you remember this:

Socialism, by definition, requires government ownership of all the means of production...

I told you: that's Socialism's aspiration. That doesn't mean they always get what they want.

They're pretty darn inept, especially in economic matters.

And here's a better authority: Freidrich Pollock, himself an extremist Socialist...

Well, if you describe anyone as an "extremist Socialist", you have conceded that there are socialists who are not extreme. Social democrats would be an example.

No such thing. There are only people who don't understand either "democracy" or "Socialism." And there are plenty of those, it seems.

...the words "Socialist" and "democrat" simply contradict each other. No such thing is even possible.

Can you describe a functional democracy in which electing a socialist government is not an option?

Yes, it would be a sane one. It would stipulate, from the get-go, that whatever people voted for, it could never be a totalitarian option, an option that takes away the ability to vote for an alternative in the future. No kings, no dictators-for-life, no one-party systems. Always, there must be a multiplicity of parties and options, so a meaningful vote can be had.

Socialism would be ruled out automatically, then.

As I have pointed out, Hitler privatised several nationalised industries.

And nationalized others...National Socialism, remember?

If you maintain that a 'socialist government' can include nationalised and privatised industries, as you do for National Socialism, you really have no grounds for insisting that democratically elected governments cannot.

When a Socialist government, like China's, realizes it cannot survive without capital, and thus finds it necessary to revert to allowing that which Socialism itself forbids, such as "Red Capitalism," it simply reminds us of what a total failure Socialism always is.

And it tells us to stay well away from an ideology that works so ill in the real world.

[iambiguous]

When a Socialist government, like China's, realizes it cannot survive without capital, and thus finds it necessary to revert to allowing that which Socialism itself forbids, such as "Red Capitalism," it simply reminds us of what a total failure Socialism always is.

And it tells us to stay well away from an ideology that works so ill in the real world.

On the other hand, it's not like Xi Jinping is able to send all the infidels to Hell.



Of course, this is the part where IC will insist that life under socialism is worse than Hell.

[Immanuel Can]

When a Socialist government, like China's, realizes it cannot survive without capital, and thus finds it necessary to revert to allowing that which Socialism itself forbids, such as "Red Capitalism," it simply reminds us of what a total failure Socialism always is.

And it tells us to stay well away from an ideology that works so ill in the real world.

On the other hand, it's not like Xi Jinping is able to send all the infidels to Hell.

That's not the picture that Jesus Christ makes of it. He uses a different metaphor.

“Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is narrow and the way is constricted that leads to life, and there are few who find it."

"Entering" is what people choose. And they're responsible for what they choose. They pick the gate because it seems pleasing and serves their own turn, because they want to. They choose the path that takes them where they go.

Fortunately, we've been warned: our choices do make a difference. And the Biblical exortation is to choose very, very carefully.

But Mike doesn't believe in choice, of course: he thinks everything is predetermined -- not a safe belief, if Jesus Christ is speaking the truth to us.

[Will Bouwman]

Socialism, by definition, requires government ownership of all the means of production...

I told you: that's Socialism's aspiration. That doesn't mean they always get what they want.

If Hitler aspired to own all the means of production, why did he privatise any?

[promethean75]

Yeah, this thread is so weird. When self described socialists allow for private businesses, it doesn't matter that the government regulates and controls the private businesses (as in corporatism) or that the government has drastically increased the benefits of the working class by raising wages, creating employment and providing public education and health-care and all the other perks.

The workers still have no administrative or executive control over the means they use to produce goods and services. They are still paid a wage that is less than the value of what they produce... what is sold by a third party who earns capital. That capital is private.

Nazi germany, China, Cuba, Vietnam, Italy and Russia post-lenin, none of that was marxist socialism. All that shit was corporatism and state capitalism.

But back to that essential difference. A collective ownership of business would put earned capital back into the collective's pocket rather than in the pocket of an individual owner. The capital wouldn't be private. Ah.

Phuck man did i have to explain this to you, though?

Okay, phuck it. We'll do a little essay project. Each of you write a small paper describing to the best of your ability what 'owning' something like Facebook or Ford Motor would be like if that ownership was split between all the employees of each conpany.

A bonus assignment if you choose: explain how wages would be set in a socialist economy. How is a plumber and a brain surgeon's wage determined?