Socialism = More Welfare

[CoconutCream]

@Lord-Arthur_17 Basically I solved what socialism would realistically look like: An overall capitalist-like society, but with more welfare that is paid by the government. For example, a base income guarantee, free (or heavily cost-reduced) college, or free (or cheaper) healthcare.

 

[Lord-Arthur_17]

While a welfare state may provide some temporary relief to the working class, it ultimately doesn't address the fundamental problem of capitalism, which is the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few at the expense of the majority.

The real solution to this problem is for the workers to take control of the means of production and run society democratically for their own benefit.

In a truly socialist society, there would be no need for a welfare state, because the workers would control the wealth they produce and distribute it according to their own needs.

 

[Raskolnikovpilled]

Marxists strongly oppose social welfare, and especially universal income. Please stop writing about shit you have no clue of.

 

[CoconutCream]

While a welfare state may provide some temporary relief to the working class, it ultimately doesn't address the fundamental problem of capitalism, which is the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few at the expense of the majority.

The real solution to this problem is for the workers to take control of the means of production and run society democratically for their own benefit.

In a truly socialist society, there would be no need for a welfare state, because the workers would control the wealth they produce and distribute it according to their own needs.

If we argue in good faith, you are assuming that workers are willing to share the wealth amongst eachother? Due to the fact that humans are a naturally a community species. Would you consider socialism an optimistic economic ideology?

 

[Hero of the Imperium]

stop falling for the "free healthcare" meme

Money doesn't come from nowhere except for the rulers, and they don't give a shit about you

 

[CoconutCream]

Marxists strongly oppose social welfare, and especially universal income. Please stop writing about shit you have no clue of.

Marxism? I'm talking about socialism. Even still, if a BASE (as in a baseline for living) universal income is not what you want, would that mean there is still competition for higher pay?

 

[Lord-Arthur_17]

If we argue in good faith, you are assuming that workers are willing to share the wealth amongst eachother? Due to the fact that humans are a naturally a community species. Would you consider socialism an optimistic economic ideology?

This has already been achieved. In prehistory. The example is hunter-gatherer societies.

In the communist primitive society, work was done by everyone who was capable of it, and its fruits - food obtained through hunting and gathering - were available to the entire community.

There was no private property and the means of production (tools, buildings, etc.) were publicly owned. Now humanity is heading back to communism, but with the difference that it is technologically advanced.

While it is true that no modern society has achieved a stateless, classless society on the scale of prehistoric communism, it serves as evidence that human societies have been able to organize themselves around principles of cooperation and mutual aid.

 

[CoconutCream]

This has already been achieved. In prehistory. The example is hunter-gatherer societies.

In the communist primitive society, work was done by everyone who was capable of it, and its fruits - food obtained through hunting and gathering - were available to the entire community.

There was no private property and the means of production (tools, buildings, etc.) were publicly owned. Now humanity is heading back to communism, but with the difference that it is technologically advanced.

While it is true that no modern society has achieved a stateless, classless society on the scale of prehistoric communism, it serves as evidence that human societies have been able to organize themselves around principles of cooperation and mutual aid.

Okay thank you, but now I want to know what is the difference between socialism, and what Bernie proposed, a Social democracy.

 

[Deleted member 23286]

While a welfare state may provide some temporary relief to the working class, it ultimately doesn't address the fundamental problem of capitalism, which is the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few at the expense of the majority.

The real solution to this problem is for the workers to take control of the means of production and run society democratically for their own benefit.

In a truly socialist society, there would be no need for a welfare state, because the workers would control the wealth they produce and distribute it according to their own needs.

Written and phrased just like a ChatGPT prompt.

 

[Lord-Arthur_17]

Okay thank you, but now I want to know what is the difference between socialism, and what Bernie proposed, a Social democracy.

Social democracy is capitalism with higher taxes, which is supposed to build a welfare state.

Socialism is the transfer of the means of production (buildings, tools, enterprises) into the hands of workers - worker self-management.

stop falling for the "free healthcare" meme

Money doesn't come from nowhere except for the rulers, and they don't give a shit about you

A money is "fiction" - it does not have any inherent value in and of itself, but rather it is given value through social agreement. The current monetary system is based on scarcity and competition, and is not sustainable in the long term.

In communism, the focus would be on creating an abundance of resources and ensuring equitable distribution of goods and services, rather than on the accumulation of money and property. This would allow for a more sustainable and equitable society, where access to resources and opportunities is not determined by one's wealth or social status.

Zeitgeist Addendum - Money Creation and Fractional Reserve Banking

 

[CoconutCream]

Social democracy is capitalism with higher taxes, which is supposed to build a welfare state.

Socialism is the transfer of the means of production (buildings, tools, enterprises) into the hands of workers - worker self-management.


A money is "fiction" - it does not have any inherent value in and of itself, but rather it is given value through social agreement. The current monetary system is based on scarcity and competition, and is not sustainable in the long term.

In communism, the focus would be on creating an abundance of resources and ensuring equitable distribution of goods and services, rather than on thee accumulation of money and property. This would allow for a more sustainable and equitable society, where access to resources and opportunities is not determined by one's wealth or social status.

Zeitgeist Addendum - Money Creation and Fractional Reserve Banking

We started off as Hunter-Gatherer societies, but that is false equivalence, for the simple reason that back then humans had a common fear: Nature. Without a common fear, people won't band against anything. The fear of nature was apparent in their lifetimes, the fear of nuclear war is the scare of today, and most (if not All) people would rally against nukes. But that is more of a fear of the human choice to do start nuclear war, the fear of ourselves...I digress.

American Individualism would never let true socialism happen. Moreover, radical capitalism is just an after effect of individualism. The fear of competition, the loss of freedom and boldness is ingrained in the American collective. You would need to warp the very culture of American society to even let social democracy happen. Let alone "workers owning the means of production" soon enough, a worker, or a union of them will just be the head of the people again, then hoard the money once more. Look at early bolsheviks to modern day Russia, and they had a collectivist culture!

 

[Raskolnikovpilled]

Marxism? I'm talking about socialism. Even still, if a BASE (as in a baseline for living) universal income is not what you want, would that mean there is still competition for higher pay?

I personally do not want anything on that level. But sure, let's talk socialism specifically. Universal income would be frowned upon by many socialists in current economical climate because it just means that the government taxes the bourgeoise and redistributes some of the wealth downward, IE the bourgeoise still owns everything and they just drop crumbs down to the proletarians to keep them docile. Those who wish to replace this system with Proletarian ownership of means of production would of course oppose to this.

In a socialist system(what a broad term, damn), in a system where the workers own the means of production, no matter if through the state (arguable how much they own them), communes or syndicates, such universal basic income would be obsolete because everyone would work and get either money (in market socialist economies) or resources directly. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

 

[Lord-Arthur_17]

We started off as Hunter-Gatherer societies, but that is false equivalence, for the simple reason that back then humans had a common fear: Nature. Without a common fear, people won't band against anything. The fear of nature was apparent in their lifetimes, the fear of nuclear war is the scare of today, and most (if not All) people would rally against nukes. But that is more of a fear of the human choice to do start nuclear war, the fear of ourselves...I digress.

Nowadays, there is something to be afraid of, and these are climate change and its consequences:

The Last Hours of Humanity - Warming the World to Extinction
Guy McPherson on RT News - Human Extinction in our Lifetime 1/2

American Individualism would never let true socialism happen. Moreover, radical capitalism is just an after effect of individualism.

Maybe not so much individualism as the superpower position of an empire like the US. America's wealth is built on the dead bodies of Indians, black slaves, and imperialist wars in the Middle East. The collapse of the US would be a serious blow to the world bourgeoisie.

The fear of competition, the loss of freedom and boldness is ingrained in the American collective.

Freedom?

You would need to warp the very culture of American society to even let social democracy happen.

It is not without reason that Marxists talk about the need for a cultural revolution.

Let alone "workers owning the means of production" soon enough, a worker, or a union of them will just be the head of the people again, then hoard the money once more.

In the long run, money will be abolished.

Look at early bolsheviks to modern day Russia, and they had a collectivist culture!

I live in a country that experienced liberation by the Soviets. They helped us a lot. Before the war, most people in my country were illiterate and barefoot, and millions of my compatriots were starving. After the war, when we started to build socialism, all these problems disappeared.

Even today, many aspects of life fare worse than under socialism. Old people remember those times well. I'm not surprised, the boomers got free of charge from the state: houses, land, education, health care, transport...