or Capitalist (ie. private capital) system.

Everyone advocates a mixed system to some degree with the amount of Socialist (collective capital) or Capitalist (private capital) sector participation differed by degree.

Republicans that don't accept that NASA, CDC or the FAA are examples of successful private/public partnership are just playing to a mythological base that doesn't accept our current reality.

I'm assuming that in this two-sector system I'd fall into the "collective capital" side because my financing was government-backed, say by the SBA, with grants for the solar equipment.

Today that means a simple loan to repay, or a grant. In a Socialist system that means I can't own my business?

Today the SBA guarantees loans. What happens when the system becomes a mixed one?

is not beyond the realm of possibility" is a reasonable premise.

The statement b) "the ONLY way a complete change from capitalism to socialism REQUIRES a total collapse of one system so the next system could be implemented" is also not accurate. The Russian system did not collapse so much as the public became apathetic to the point that a very small number of Bolesheviks took over a few points of state power and everyone simply acquiesced to a more organized small group of fanatics.

The transformation of 'capitalist' economies into state controlled Leninist/Stalinist type of governments have mostly come from either overwhelming state of public disinterest in politics or from armed intervention from foreign interests (like Eastern Europe),

The transformation of 'socialist' economies into 'western' style capitalism more accurately follows your 'total collapse of one system so the next could be implemented'.

given the amount of debt the current system is accumulating. There must be a tipping point, and I think it's just over the horizon. One of my favorite cliches is "your bulldog mouth is writing checks that your hummingbird ass can't cash" and I think we as a society have been promising things in the short term that we can't provide in the long term. I look at what's going on in Europe and wonder how we can say debt doesn't matter HERE when WE are afraid countries over there might be forced to default on the same debts we're accumulating as we're whistling past the graveyard.

All due respect... I think you're relying on historical models that have no basis in current reality.

People would be concentrating on the basics - clean drinking water, food, shelter, medicine, power, transport ... high gravity beer would come a long way down. I'd suspect you'd find more immediate uses for your solar power.

That the two large polities in which indigenous revolution produced Bolshevik/Communist states were hardly capitalist societies, but more feudal entities with some capitalist trimmings....

socialists, even though they think they are. They are capitalists at heart. When you tell them that you couldn't, say, sell a thing of Elvis Presley's at a high price on Ebay, if you would get such an item. That would be capitalism. Earning a higher wage because you go into a high demand/low supply field....that's capitalism. Upgrading to a nicer house or car because you've worked a lot of O.T. and can afford it now, but your neighbor can't...that's capitalism.

I'm a capitalist, but I don't believe in free markets past a certain point, and I don't think some things should be part of the market at all, like health care. I believe in some social programs, like Social Security, Medicare for all. And I believe in a safety net, to catch the bottom of society and prevent them from suffering too much (but not taking care of them to a middle class existence for life). Like food stamps, temporary welfare, housing assistance.

Socialism: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Which means that a person doesn't benefit from his own labor. He has to give it to someone else who needs it more. Which in turn leads that person not to work as hard. And productivity and quality of life for all goes down, as more and more people cease to work as hard. How long does a student study, when told he will get only a C, no matter what grade he earns in reality?

I'm not aware of any true socialistic society on earth that has been successful. People have pointed out the Nordic countries, but they are capitalistic countries with social programs.

If you come into a position where you are hiring workers, further development would be in accordance with decisions concerning organization of workers that at present must be hypothetical only.

Your own suggestion of profit sharing would be one quite possible 'socialist' means of handling the matter. Shares in the enterprise would be another.

Small businesses, genuinely small businesses, are not really what is envisioned in socialization of capital and capital goods.

So if it's just me; I get to make the decisions. If I hire x number of workers, someone else starts making decisions for me unless I either offer either a share of profits or shares in the company as a whole?

Where is the line drawn between small businesses and, for want of a better term, large businesses? Is it determined by the number of employees or is it determined by the value of the machinery required to make the product?

I keep getting stuck on the notion of public ownership of the means of production...

So this will be a bit short and superficial. deeper development later is possible, but not promised.

The sort of question you are asking is based on an imperfect grasp of scale, one that is very widely shared. People, by and large, simply do not appreciate what real concentrations of capital and capital goods are, and how little is left outside the major concentrations.

To take the example you are proposing for yourself. You, with a home-brewer's equipment and supplies, able to make perhaps a couple of hundred bottles a day, stand in about the same relation to Anheuser-Busch as a flea to an elephant. In no meaningful sense do you possess 'means of production' on a socially significant scale. Anheuser-Busch does. Decisions by its management directly affect the lives and well-being of thousands upon thousands of people; employees, suppliers, distributors, bar-keeps and shop-owners, scattered through-out the whole country. They can have even wider effects, where matters such as dealing with waste products, or the safe handling of ingredients, are involved. Decisions that have a wide effect on society ought not to be wholly private affairs, and ought not to be made with private gain as the sole criterion of judgement; there ought to be significant public in-put. The aim of socialism as a theory of organization is to see to it that society, the public, has control of, and enjoys the profit of, the great concentrations of capital and capital goods that are already in existence, and directs their employment and augmentation in future. The sort of enterprise you are envisioning is quite literally beneath notice in such an endeavor.

How such concentrations of capital and capital goods are put under public control can ( or could be so put ) vary widely. Systems of taxation, of regulation regarding wages and conditions of employment, and popular influence on how the proceeds are spent, represent the means that are probably most readily achieved in a society by peaceable political means, with outright nationalization being a close second. These things have certainly been managed in free, democratically organized polities. Other means, more theoretical than demonstrated in any wide practice, would be systems of employee ownership of facilities, or of resources to be extracted and processed, organizations of labor within particular industries or fields of endeavor with ownership vested in the labor body, or various forms of local collective or communal organization.

world of so-called "micro-breweries". I would hope to have enough success so as to need to expand in order to meet demand. "Socially significant scale" is a matter of relativity, is it not? What might sell like hotcakes in Southern California might not sell in Kansas at all.

Keep in mind my vision is that of a brewery wholly sustained by that greenest of energies; sunlight. Given that my vision is to offer a product whose manufacturing process involves no carbon footprint whatsoever, I would envision a quickly growing market if not for the novelty factor alone.

So at some point, I cease to be a company that "flies under the radar"... hypothetically of course. What then?

Tomorrow. Have a Wonderful Evening and Sleep Well.

under a more socially responsible system.

BTW this reminds me of Joe the Plumber and his worries about becoming his own boss and earning a lot of money.

(I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but if you become your own boss and earn mega-bucks I'm sure you'll be fine and will have other things to worry about).

"If Socialism means I can't own my "means of production", what's my incentive for going into business in the first place?"

You're thinking of communism, not socialism. Yes, you can still own your "means of production".

Question asked and answered. This is easy

Also, a move to socialism doesn't require a complete and sudden collapse of the economic system. A gradual move toward socialism and away from hyper-capitalism is what's needed and it's very feasible.

Though being rigid about that is silly--there will always be those seriously committed to the enterprise (who ought to be owners some way or another), and the less committed who are just trying the work on for size. There has to be a place for the latter also.

...that's gonna be kinda bad for business, too.

"Patented the genes of the biggest crops in America" == Monsanto. "We offer the med that helps with depression for $500 a year" Which then critically damaging your liver so that "we offer the cure for your liver for $6,000 a year" == big pharma. "Privatize the water supplies in India so everybody has to pay us to stay alive" == corporatism in India.

You're not one of these players. You won't be one of these players, unless you work through some dark networks doing dirty work for years. The fantasy is that normal people can get in and compete with these mega-corporations that exert so much control over governments, but you can't: they don't compete, they are too smart to compete.The government makes sure they win, and when they fail, they make taxpayers pick up the tab.

So when you hear about socialist resistance to corporate control, its not about you. Its about the company that has influenced the government with back room pay to privatize access to all the water in the state, to the extent that when somebody in that company decides he doesn't like your face, your company will be trying to brew beer without any water. Its about big major forces you have nothing to do with, unless you real know where the bodies the are buried, are really tied in to the status quo power structure.

Come back when you know what the word means.

Last edited Sat Mar 17, 2012, 08:12 AM - Edit history (1)

here on DU. Many DUers seem to admire the "social market economy" of Germany or the "mixed economy model" of the Scandinavian countries. These countries have strong social safety nets and the boss is paid 10 times more than the factory floor workers not 400 times more. Apart from that capitalism is a major part of their economies.

ETA: In fact, think about what *prevented* the collapse of the global financial system?

That's right - corporate socialism. Taxpayers all chipped in to help out the failing banks and corporations. Now it's time to help each other a little more to keep the economy moving.

Spot-on post.

reduces to: What is my incentive to be a part of a group?

I'll answer that with a question: What is the incentive for a pack of lionesses to hunt if their kill is going to be shared with the members of the group that didn't hunt?

So your question is advocating humanity to become a solitary species and disband the relationship we've had for thousands of years.

Last edited Sat Mar 17, 2012, 09:07 AM - Edit history (1)

there has been an economic restructuring in the past couple of decades so that virtually all new wealth is being siphoned to a few at the top.

This country has moved so far to the freaking right that a lot of people start screaming "Eek! Socialism!" when people merely mention moving our party back to the principles that defined it a few decades ago.

You know, all that "living wage" stuff, and not having to fear destitution in your old age, and access to health care that you can actually afford, and all that...

It's not too much to expect our party to stand up and fight consistently for these things.

perhaps you shouldn't start a business. My advice is to actually look up both terms on the INTERNET and or look in an encyclopedia.
That you would even ask such a question shows a lack of initiative and drive; two important ingredients for success in ANYTHING!

My best guess is that you have been indoctrinated by right wing propaganda machines like Faux News and the ( now hobbled) Rush Limbaugh show. The right does, indeed tend to distort the meaning of words.

on what you mean by "full-blown socialism". There are many different theories of socialism. I will assume we are discussing the Marxist variety, since you refer to the Marxist term "means of production".
It sounds like you have in mind the Soviet model, which is really communism rather than socialism; under communism, all private ownership of the means of production is prohibited. Whether this is actually what Marx had in mind is highly debatable. I personally don't think that Marx would have banned all private business.
I have to go on memory here (I'd prefer to be able to pin down exact quotes from Marx, but unfortunately I'm at work), but Marx actually was only opposed to businesses that exploited labor; that is, that did not pay workers the true value of their work. Self-employed individuals, what Marx called "small bosses", were actually admired by Marx, though he thought they were doomed to eventual failure in competition with larger businesses under capitalism (like how the Wal-Marts of the world crushed the local "mom-and-pop" stores). A self-employed person, one without employees, by definition exploits the labor of no one. It sounds like the type of business you are talking about would be permissible under the kind of socialism I am describing.

There will be people who say "Well, we've never tried it! How do you know?" The reason it's never been tried is because it's impossible - it would fail from day one.

Most people, when they speak of "Socialism," actually mean a European style of Socialism - For example, taxes paying for social programs, while the freedom to own businesses is still intact.

Not having the freedom to start your own business is actually a form of authoritarianism. I challenge anybody to tell me how it's not.

Luckily, our current system won't collapse. This is just the usual internet talk.

You and your workers would be equal for the most part and you wouldn't be a monopoly. Socialism mainly concerns itself with state ownership of the commons, public financing, and preventing capitalistic relations. Profit does not equal "how I make my living" unless you are a capitalist. Capitalism is an entire economic and social relationship that encourages exploitation of workers and anarchistic production that actually can ruin businesses.

Anyway, long story short: your beer would be fine. Coors won't be allowed to happen.

Socialism depends on revenue paid by the population so you can actually get all those things you need like health care, an education and a guaranteed place to live and grow your little business.

What the collapse of the monetary system will cause is the rise of bartering. You could barter with your beer to pay for your doctor's visits, the food you eat and other things you might need. In either case your business is safe, and so are you.

It's pretty obvious you don't quite understand the underpinnings of Socialism.

The scenario he's describing with the collapse of the monetary system would probably lead to something like in Somalia right now. Libertarian paradise.

I think people in general have a hard time with grasping how our economic systems have historically developed.

what kind of beer are you going to brew?

That is the only really important issue here.

Even the Soviet Union collapsed. It was a pretty big deal. Most economies (even China) are now mixed economies.

Here's why I think your fears are unfounded. My Vietnam Vet father stops listening to any argument that relies on stoking baseless fears of Communism. It's a rational response by someone who was fooled by this rhetoric as a young, 19 year-old. Oh, and the guy is one of the only self-made men (capitalist/business owner) I've ever met.

If you need a place to land your worries, my vote is on global warming.