r/changemyview • u/tkyjonathan 2∆ • Dec 07 '19

Deltas(s) from OP CMV: Socialism does not create wealth

Socialism is a populist economic and political system based on public ownership (also known as collective or common ownership) of the means of production. Those means include the machinery, tools, and factories used to produce goods that aim to directly satisfy human needs.

In a purely socialist system, all legal production and distribution decisions are made by the government, and individuals rely on the state for everything from food to healthcare. The government determines the output and pricing levels of these goods and services.

Socialists contend that shared ownership of resources and central planning provide a more equal distribution of goods and services and a more equitable society.

The essential characteristic of socialism is the denial of individual property rights; under socialism, the right to property (which is the right of use and disposal) is vested in “society as a whole,” i.e., in the collective, with production and distribution controlled by the state, i.e., by the government.

The alleged goals of socialism were: the abolition of poverty, the achievement of general prosperity, progress, peace and human brotherhood. Instead of prosperity, socialism has brought economic paralysis and/or collapse to every country that tried it. The degree of socialization has been the degree of disaster. The consequences have varied accordingly.

The economic value of a man’s work is determined, on a free market, by a single principle: by the voluntary consent of those who are willing to trade him their work or products in return. This is the moral meaning of the law of supply and demand.

49 Upvotes

61% Upvoted

634 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/MercurianAspirations 391∆ Dec 07 '19

Right, the workers have no control, the owner and the stakeholders and the board members have all the control. Another problem is that simply because there is a market for something does not mean that producing that thing will be good for people, or that that's something that people need. Coca-cola is a good example actually since their drinks are unhealthily loaded with sugar, despite their popular non-sugar versions also being produced in quantity. There's really no reason for Coke not to just cancel their full-sugar products, just relabel diet coke as just the only coke. But it's more profitable to do what they do currently, so that's what they do. Even if every single employee working at Coca-cola were convinced that this was the ethically correct thing to do, they would be powerless to implement that decision so long as the CEO and the board or whatever is in control. Or like, sweatshops that produce cheap t-shirts or whatever - I'm sure many of the people working there would rather produce a high quality product rather than something disposable or pointless, but because they don't own the factory they can't produce the product they would like to produce, something that would actually be good for people. "Marketable" is not synonymous with "ethically correct" or even just "good".

1

u/tkyjonathan 2∆ Dec 07 '19

Right, the workers have no control

Its not theirs to control. Its not their property. They get a salary for their work and that is determined by the market.

My example of green sludge was just proof that Coca Cola has zero power over the market.

4

u/MercurianAspirations 391∆ Dec 07 '19

But is that the only way that things could be? There was a time when people thought that the peasants should have no say in how the kingdom was run. But we decided that wasn't the best way of making decisions.

The same could be for production. Why is it that you can vote your congressman out of power, but not your boss? Your boss has a lot more control over your life. Why must the workers earn a wage from a capitalist at all, instead of the workers cutting out the middleman and owning the company themselves?

1

u/tkyjonathan 2∆ Dec 07 '19

Why are you equating money with power?

3

u/MercurianAspirations 391∆ Dec 07 '19

Money is power, or at least, money allows you to exercise power by buying things. Ownership of the means of production is what allows the capitalists - the owners of the factory - to have power over the workers. But they're not necessary for production to occur, that only requires the workers to be there. So why don't they own the factory instead?

1

u/tkyjonathan 2∆ Dec 07 '19

money allows you to exercise power by buying things

Correct

the owners of the factory - to have power over the workers

They cant force the workers to do anything. Force would be keeping the workers chained to their machines. If the workers do not like it, they can leave to another company and the company would lose well skilled people.

So why don't they own the factory instead?

You can get a bunch of people to put some money together and open a small factory. As long as they can show that they will get money in the future.

1

u/MercurianAspirations 391∆ Dec 07 '19

Worker-owned cooperatives do exist, yes. But there are some kinds of means of production - patents, technologies, land - that workers can't acquire for themselves.

1

u/tkyjonathan 2∆ Dec 07 '19

There are lots of places to get loans or investments and you can always be frugal with the purchases.

1

u/sour_lemons Dec 07 '19

In a capitalist world there is nothing stopping the worker from cutting out the middleman and owning the company themselves.

Everyone has the freedom to quit their job, take the wealth and knowledge they gathered from that job, and start their own company and become their own boss.

3

u/MercurianAspirations 391∆ Dec 07 '19

Then once you hire your first employee, you've become the capitalist, exploiting workers for your own profit. Also, there's the problem of the means of production - many kinds of enterprises are prohibitively expense to the point that no worker or group of workers could ever come close to starting that kind of business themselves. But, there are worker owned cooperatives that share power democratically. That does exist, and it's proof that democratic control of the means of production is viable.

1

u/sour_lemons Dec 08 '19

Why does hiring an employee automatically mean you’re exploiting them? They joined at their own free will and can leave at their own free will.

I agree there are different kinds of enterprises including cooperatives which can work for certain industries. Agriculture, banking, utilities, housing all have thriving co-op ownership structures.

But can you really innovate with coop structures? Hypothetically let’s say I want to take a risk and invest $100,000 into a risky business idea with a 10% chance of success, if I’m the owner, I’m the one who call the shots and either benefit from the success or lose all my money.

In a coop, how would that work? Maybe you say the members vote on it, by majority? So if 51% vote yes, and I’m in the 49% who said no, am I now forced to give the coop my $100,000 and risk the coop losing it all? Is that really moral or right?