Current Events > CE socialists how would society's resources be allocated in your ideal world

(+) Yeah! (+)

And how well do you think we'd be doing after 4 years of a Trump-run bureau of resource allocation
---

Everyone gets everything 50/50

I get half, you get half, your friends get half, your parents get half

50/50

---

Like do you want a centrally planned economy?

If not, how does a new business get start-up resources?
---

g980 posted...

Like do you want a centrally planned economy?

If not, how does a new business get start-up resources?

bootstraps you lousy commie!

99% taxes on any profits/assets over $10mil

99% reduction in military spending

---

Colorahdo posted...

99% taxes on any profits/assets over $10mil

99% reduction in military spending

Im trying to ask who would decide how to allocate resources, and how would they make that decision
---

go read Theory

https://twitter.com/dril/status/1339862050776915968

---

Its not a hard concept, pay a living wage to workers

Kingbuffet posted...

Its not a hard concept, pay a living wage to workers

Ok so you are otherwise okay with private ownership of capital?
---

g980 posted...

Ok so you are otherwise okay with private ownership of capital?

Are you conflating socialism with communism?

---

Colorahdo posted...

Are you conflating socialism with communism?

I think a lot of people conflate welfare capitalism with socialism.

---

g980 posted...

Ok so you are otherwise okay with private ownership of capital?

Guess what, that already exist in todays America

g980 posted...

Ok so you are otherwise okay with private ownership of capital?

I may be wrong but I'm pretty sure socialists are generally ok with private ownership of capital, just with a bunch of government oversight. Communists are the ones who want everything to be state run.

---

Capitalism has a place in the world. It's the reason the United States is the #1 economy. However, it needs to be moderated by some socialism. Healthcare and higher education are two areas everyone must have access to regardless of income.

---

Socialism can be centrally planned, or they can not be centrally planned

I am curious what the CE socialists consider their ideal

I am also genuinely curious what the process of what starting and growing a business looks like in a non-centrally planned socialist state would look like

Damn_Underscore posted...

I think a lot of people conflate welfare capitalism with socialism.

Yea as a big fan of welfare capitalism, i am specifically asking socialists this question
---

Colorahdo posted...

Are you conflating socialism with communism?

Possibly a little

I probably should have said "means of production" instead of "capital"
---

Notice how intricately planned and explained these socialist platforms are. Kudos!

Everyone gets exactly the same things, and I'll take on the burden of living in the presidential house to ensure that happens like a true socialist.
---

I think i am doing a bad job of asking this question so maybe i try a concrete example?

- i want to start making and selling pizzas, but i do not have enough money to buy a pizza oven. How do i get a pizza oven?
-- who owns that pizza oven?

- i am a pizza maker and i hire someone to help make pizzas. Who now owns the pizza oven?

- i am hit by a car and die with $100 in pizza sauce bills left unpaid. What happens to that debt?
---

Lets try once more
---

Most modern day socialists just want less taxes going to military programs and more going to social programs, healthcare and education. Also force the megarich to pay more of what they owe.

Barely anyone wants a completely pure socialist/communist state just like nobody wants a pure oligarchy or authoritarian rule.

AP3Brain posted...

Most modern day socialists just want less taxes going to military programs and more going to social programs, healthcare and education

If thats all they want, would they really qualify as socialists?
---

Kingbuffet posted...

Its not a hard concept, pay a living wage to workers

That's a very hard concept when you actually start thinking about how to implement it.

g980 posted...

If thats all they want, would they really qualify as socialists?

Does it really matter what they "really qualify" as? Most self-described socialists (especially democratic socialists) in America aren't droning on about workers completely owning the means of production. They usually just go on about how unfair workers are being treated and how money is constantly being funneled to the top despite huge production gains.

People in general seem to overly focus on labels instead of thinking about policies and how they affect them or others.

I'm on the fence about making an effort post about this but I dont recognize TC...

---

Broseph_Stalin posted...

That's a very hard concept when you actually start thinking about how to implement it.

No it's not lol, it's the 21st century we could easily implement living wages.

---

g980 posted...

And how well do you think we'd be doing after 4 years of a Trump-run bureau of resource allocation

And please elaborate on this?

---

ncsonic posted...

No it's not lol, it's the 21st century we could easily implement living wages.

Just print more money 4head


---

ncsonic posted...

it's the 21st century we could easily implement living wages.

Price controls didn't suddenly stop being terrible, last I checked.

Wages are a function of productivity, not an arbitrary number.

MedeaLysistrata posted...

And please elaborate on this?

This was me being snarky about centrally planned governments being vulnerable to incompetent leadership

Which in retrospect was probably not a great way to solicit serious responses
---

CasualGuy posted...

Just print more money 4head

Yeah.... cause that's exactly what I said. /s

---

Broseph_Stalin posted...

Wages are a function of productivity,

???

Explain what you mean by this

If someone introduces a new machine that cuts working time and raises productivity, do wages go up?

---

g980 posted...

This was me being snarky about centrally planned governments being vulnerable to incompetent leadership

Which in retrospect was probably not a great way to solicit serious responses

I see

---

TC, I'd encourage you to look elsewhere if you're interested in quality conversations.

---

MedeaLysistrata posted...

If someone introduces a new machine that cuts working time and raises productivity, do wages go up?

Machines aren't paid for their work.

Broseph_Stalin posted...

Machines aren't paid for their work.

So wages aren't universally a function of productivity, only a conditional one. Be more clear.

---

g980 posted...

If thats all they want, would they really qualify as socialists?

They do in America where conservatives think anyone that doesn't protect the unchecked capitalism that doesn't exist is a socialist commie.

---

MedeaLysistrata posted...

So wages aren't universally a function of productivity, only a conditional one.

I don't think productivity levels are why the machine isn't being paid.

I think it is a machine.

Broseph_Stalin posted...

I don't think productivity levels are why the machine isn't being paid.

I think it is a machine.

I'm sorry but even a simpleton such as myself knows things like textile machines still need people operating them.

---

That's complicated, but one thing I'd like to see is much higher investment in logistics and auditing. We waste boatloads of money on the military, and I mean waste, not use. I'm not advocating cutting down on anything, but there's an awful practice involved with the budgeting.

Basically, if they don't use up the budget, their budget will shrink, on account of "well you're not using it, must not need it". So they will blow hundreds of millions of dollars in surplus, just for sake of being able to say they used the whole budget.

Friend of mine told me an admittedly cool example: Skeet shooting, but with stinger missiles and drones.

---

MedeaLysistrata posted...

I'm sorry but even a simpleton such as myself knows things like textile machines still need people operating them.

In which case having the skills to operate such a productive machine would indeed increase your wage! Far more than you would earn making the same goods by hand, anyway.

EnvoyOfTheLight posted...

That's complicated, but one thing I'd like to see is much higher investment in logistics and auditing. We waste boatloads of money on the military, and I mean waste, not use. I'm not advocating cutting down on anything, but there's an awful practice involved with the budgeting.

Basically, if they don't use up the budget, their budget will shrink, on account of "well you're not using it, must not need it". So they will blow hundreds of millions of dollars in surplus, just for sake of being able to say they used the whole budget.

Friend of mine told me an admittedly cool example: Skeet shooting, but with stinger missiles and drones.

Capitalism is the most productive and efficient concept in human history. Any rumours of waste or bad spending is a pinko psyop

---

Broseph_Stalin posted...

In which case having the skills to operate such a productive machine would indeed increase your wage! Far more than you would earn making the same goods by hand, anyway.

Is that a fact?

Suppose an assembly plant has 10 workers and then a machine comes along to get rid of 2 workers and speed up the process, but it's a no skill machine

Does the boss
A) fire the two workers and not shorten the workday while not increasing wage
B) not A

Which does the capitalist choose? It's always more profitable to keep wages down and hours worked up, and people have to work, after all

---

MedeaLysistrata posted...

Is that a fact?

It is. In fact for most of human history people would have made and repaired their own clothing, only artisans making goods for the wealthy would have been productive enough to make money from it. Then the industrial revolution happened.

Broseph_Stalin posted...

It is. In fact for most of human history people would have made and repaired their own clothing, only artisans making goods for the wealthy would have been productive enough to make money from it. Then the industrial revolution happened.

That as a fact has nothing to do with operating machinery and getting paid the exact same amount to work the exact same amount of time as industry develops


---

there are lots of reasons why wages might not rise as productivity does, and I'm sure it will solve resource allocation as soon as we can figure them all out

---

MedeaLysistrata posted...

Suppose an assembly plant has 10 workers and then a machine comes along to get rid of 2 workers and speed up the process, but it's a no skill machine

Does the boss
A) fire the two workers and not shorten the workday while not increasing wage
B) not A

Which does the capitalist choose? It's always more profitable to keep wages down and hours worked up, and people have to work, after all

If the workers productivity hasn't changed then the wage wouldn't change, the machine makes no difference.

If the machine requires skilled workers to operate it, then their wages could increase based on the increased productivity the machine creates.

If the machine is totally autonomous and more productive than the workers, they could be replaced entirely. In which case their wage is still a function of their (now greatly lowered) productivity.

Broseph_Stalin posted...

If the workers productivity hasn't changed then the wage wouldn't change, the machine makes no difference.

If the machine requires skilled workers to operate it, then their wages could increase based on the increased productivity the machine creates.

If the machine is totally autonomous and more productive than the workers, they could be replaced entirely. In which case their wage is still a function of their (now greatly lowered) productivity.

The workers and the machine are symbiotic here. The machine makes the work easier and faster. Are you really less productive because you type shit on a computer over saying it out loud? The overall factory profit goes up but you still need people to use the machine.

---

MedeaLysistrata posted...

The workers and the machine are symbiotic here.

They might be. They might not be.

Like I said if a machine requires a skilled worker to operate it the worker would be able to bargain for higher wages based on the higher productivity the machine creates. If a worker isn't required at all to operate it then what productivity gains do they create for the factory?