Can Socialism save Canada?

[Delusio Cogno]

I read an interesting history of economics that describes the path we are on.

https://systemicdisorder.wordpress.c...ot-the-future/

In the comments afterward the author shared his solution to the problem:

The concentration of capital allows a small number of people to acquire vast power, so that they can control society to their own benefit and at the expense of all of us. Competition within capitalism inevitably leads to bigger corporations and attacks on wages and benefits because if you don’t grow, your competitor will and put you out of business. So to sum up, what the world needs is cooperation, not competition.

My solution to pull the world out of its crisis is to transcend the system that has put the world into crisis. That is, a socialism in which banking is a public utility, there are no more stock and bond markets, critical industries of universal social importance such as energy or the water system are state-owned and subject to public accountability, and enterprises are collective owned by their workers. In the cooperative enterprises, workers would vote on all major business decisions, elect their management from their own ranks and be accountable to the communities in which they operate.

[FFX-ME]

Originally Posted by Delusio Cogno

I read an interesting history of economics that describes the path we are on.

https://systemicdisorder.wordpress.c...ot-the-future/

In the comments afterward the author shared his solution to the problem:

That's all well and dandy but the fact of the matter is that socialism doesn't lead to increases in people's quality of life. I think we can provide social services, like healthcare, etc but full socialism is stupid and would be ignoring the past. Competition is the only proven thing that leads to increases in standards of living, which is why capitalism reigns supreme, or why Europe, rather than Asia, was the most technologically advanced area. We need more competition, not less!

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by FFX-ME

That's all well and dandy but the fact of the matter is that socialism doesn't lead to increases in people's quality of life. I think we can provide social services, like healthcare, etc but full socialism is stupid and would be ignoring the past. Competition is the only proven thing that leads to increases in standards of living, which is why capitalism reigns supreme, or why Europe, rather than Asia, was the most technologically advanced area. We need more competition, not less!

People in Scandinavia would disagree with you.

Canada’s tragedy is being adjacent to the USA. For too many Canucks that’s their only exposure to other countries. They visit the bright shiny parts and think the American system has created all this-wow. Of course they rarely see the seemy underbelly of American capitalism. I’d choose any “socialist” European country over the USA in a heartbeat.

[1overcosc]

I think some people in here are forgetting the distinctions between social democracy, democratic socialism, socialism, and communism.

[KevN]

Originally Posted by Delusio Cogno

I read an interesting history of economics that describes the path we are on.

https://systemicdisorder.wordpress.c...ot-the-future/

In the comments afterward the author shared his solution to the problem:

I think corporations are the problem because they concentrate power a great deal and subvert their employees' will. This happens when employees work towards societal goals that hurt them, their families and everyone else. They do so because the short term rewards the company gives them is seen as greater than the long term, slow and not well understood detrimental effects of the things corporations (i.e. their employees) often lobby for. As well, corporations often take inordinate risks because the people behind them are somewhat shielded. Another problem is the short term quarterly thinking inherent to most publically owned corporations.

I think the answer is to eliminate corporations but keep private companies where employees and owners are personally responsible and answerable. Competition is maintained but irresponsible risk taking and short term thinking are curtailed.

[Xelebes]

The article you linked to is six years old. How is the article relevant today?

[headhorse]

^ capitalism is hundreds of years old, how is it relevant today?

[headhorse]

Originally Posted by FFX-ME

That's all well and dandy but the fact of the matter is that socialism doesn't lead to increases in people's quality of life. I think we can provide social services, like healthcare, etc but full socialism is stupid and would be ignoring the past. Competition is the only proven thing that leads to increases in standards of living, which is why capitalism reigns supreme, or why Europe, rather than Asia, was the most technologically advanced area. We need more competition, not less!

lol you realize that by all measures China is now much more technologically advanced than any European nation/colony? Europe was never the most technologically advanced area, Mesopotamia and China were much further ahead.. people confuse mass industrialization with technology..

and if it doesn't lead to increases in quality of life, why does a place like Cuba have way better health indicators than the US and even Canada?

[headhorse]

also, why do people think socialism means people aren't competing? all socialism means is that you are entitled to the profit you produce... and that you are guaranteed the basics of life even if you can't work (for whatever reason). the whole point is that no one should die/be homeless/be starving because of competition.

[headhorse]

good thing we have so much competition that all of our telecom services offer poor, expensive service in collaboration with each other and the grocery stores fix our bread prices... while the executives are paid millions. and we should be so happy, just because they all have different names?

the free market is a myth, literally one of the biggest cons ever.

[Xelebes]

Originally Posted by headhorse

^ capitalism is hundreds of years old, how is it relevant today?

Is there a point? The article shows its age, coming from the tail end of the Occupy movement which has not really produced anything other than a ring of things not working out. There has been new fresh ideas since then (Piketty, etc.) as well as differing circumstances (the rise of Trump) that has made this mostly an artifact more than a commentary on today and what we could feasibly achieve.

[Doady]

In capitalism, the wealth and pwoer doesn't get concentrated forever. There are always chances to disrupt it.

For example, look at Donald Trump: went up against a rigged presidental election, took on the elites, and he still won. Now he's continuing to fight for the people, taking on the establishment, not just on a national scale but also international scale. Here in Ontario, we now Doug Ford as another voice for the little guy, another on a crusade against the elites and the establishment.

The wealth and power doesn't get concentrated forever, the little guy conquers eventually, and Donald Trump and Doug Ford are good examples of that.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by headhorse

good thing we have so much competition that all of our telecom services offer poor, expensive service in collaboration with each other and the grocer stores fix our bread prices...

That's precisely because there isn't proper competition.

Capitalism with strong regulation is the bedrock of a prosperous, fair society. But there are numerous add-ons which aren't incompatible with a capitalist market, yet still might be called 'socialist', like universal healthcare.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Doady

The little guy conquers eventually, and Donald Trump and Doug Ford are good examples of that.

And you're arguing in favour of capitalism?!?!?!???

A blended economy is always best. State control is best in some areas (health care, education). Private control is better in others (industry and manufacturing).

Socialism run amok = communism........

[KevN]

Originally Posted by headhorse

lol you realize that by all measures China is now much more technologically advanced than any European nation/colony? Europe was never the most technologically advanced area, Mesopotamia and China were much further ahead.. people confuse mass industrialization with technology..

and if it doesn't lead to increases in quality of life, why does a place like Cuba have way better health indicators than the US and even Canada?

The free market is a spectrum stretching from full on communism to oligopolies where a few people own everything and everyone else. Both ends of the spectrum are terrible. If Cuba really does have better health indicators than the US and Canada, it's probably because of a combination of free competent health care and the better work life balance afforded by the socialist economy. I would balance this argument by saying that if Cuba can afford free effective healthcare for their population in spite of their socialist economy, this is an indictment of the inefficiencies of the oligopolistic health care system we live with but NOT of the free market itself. We're probably too far toward the other end of the spectrum.

Finally, even though Cubans arguably enjoy better health than North Americans, this is not the be all and end all of happiness (although it's clearly important). I always like to consider Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Socialism works to ensure that everyone's basic needs are met, but unfortunately this comes at a cost whereby no one can ever hope to reach the top of the pyramid. As someone who's lived under socialism, I can attest that it breeds a type of hopelessness in people, a constant yearning for what could be. The system takes away people's motivation to do more and better. Actually, the competition becomes about who can get away with doing less. The economy inevitably takes a nosedive until some form of market economy is restored.