Why can't socialism emulate capitalism?

[USA4ME]

Oregone

Why can't socialism emulate capitalism?
 
Now, I am not talking about 'socialism', as defined lately by the media. That being, anything 'liberal', like Obama, and his wanting to 'spread the wealth' around. Nor am I talking about the extreme Stalin style 'attempt' we saw in Russia, that resulted in oppression and poverty.

Rather, I mean Socialism, the system in which the means of production are primarily owned by the government.

Now, let us just suppose the government bought 100% of the shares in a company, and then did nothing different to that company (except perhaps cutting waste, limiting golden parachutes, regulating illegal/unethical/dangerous activities, and controlling ridiculous pay for executives). Instead of massive change, the government lets the company work exactly like it always had before, except they were the board of directors. The only difference is, when everything gets paid off, and the workers are paid, the company profits are distributed to the government (rather than private shareholders). Then, the government could decide how to use those profits (either they could reward the company workers, distribute the funds into other government programs, or some combination). Perhaps a share of the profits would go to a People's Permanent Fund, used to guarantee a living wage, or at least health care for all.

What if socialism was done in such a way that everyone still had different wages, and the company acted exactly as a normal company would (just diverting profits from private bank accounts to the public funds)? Well, on a small scale, with a single company, could anyone explain how this would be wrong or disadvantageous?

Since Ive been in BC, Ive noticed a few Crown Corporations, one of the most popular being BC Hydro ($417 million in income). So up here, North of the border, they have seen both successes and failures of government run companies, and a lot of government revenue has been generated from them.

Now, what if the government started buying up companies with the intention of letting them operate the same. Although owned by the same entity, similar companies become competing subsidiaries (who are subsequently rewarded for their competition with bonuses, as many subsidiaries are today in the private sector). All profits generated could then be directed to the public sector to either build up all of society, or be used by the workers of the particular source generating the income. It would almost seem that with such increased income, tax revenue would not be as badly needed to fund the government activities.

So ask, how much could the US benefit from this? What if 33% of what is now private, is owned by the public but operates the same as before? What if 50% was? And 100%? At some point, does the government buying the means of production become ineffective (should it only buy the most efficient companies, and let the others privately compete)? Would limiting private income of potential shareholders limit private investors from creating new, innovative startups (or could the government sponsor their own startups effectively as other countries do)?

I don't know, but it these wouldn't be unreasonable questions to ask. If a 100% government owned company operated exactly like a private company (besides unethical practices), would that be 'wrong' and 'break' capitalism? Who could ever have a problem with that? What if it were more than 1 company...and what if the government could grab a significant amount of income this way (income for education, health care and infrastructure).

I think that this is a good time for people to bring this up to the government, who not only needs income, but has seen the results of letting private enterprise run amok. The people, and the workers, want a piece of the pie, so why not start buying and owning it?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4288533

Breaking it down...

Now, I am not talking about 'socialism', as defined lately by the media. That being, anything 'liberal', like Obama, and his wanting to 'spread the wealth' around. Nor am I talking about the extreme Stalin style 'attempt' we saw in Russia, that resulted in oppression and poverty.

Huge disconnect with the primitives understanding that "spread the wealth" is Marxist (From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs), whether you want to break it down to its various subsets of socialism, communism, or fascism, it makes no difference.  "Spread the wealth," like Il Duce has said he wants to do, over time leads to "extreme Stalin style."  Whether that would eventually happen or not is not even up for discussion, because it would in time.

Now, let us just suppose the government bought 100% of the shares in a company, and then did nothing different to that company (except perhaps cutting waste, limiting golden parachutes, regulating illegal/unethical/dangerous activities, and controlling ridiculous pay for executives). Instead of massive change, the government lets the company work exactly like it always had before, except they were the board of directors. The only difference is, when everything gets paid off, and the workers are paid, the company profits are distributed to the government (rather than private shareholders).

An inefficient gov't running a corp??   

Talk about taking the 100 lane freeway to America becoming a fourth-world country.

A few answers...

shraby

1. One problem I see with it and it's a big problem, non government owned companies cannot compete with government owned ones because the pockets of the government owned one are very deep and can squash competition. Competition is what makes the economy robust and encourages innovation. Maybe a ratio of executive pay to the worker's pay can be worked out and made a law and there are other changes that might be made but when the government is in competition with private industries/businesses, it's a totally unfair field.

King Coal
 
2. You would tend to lose the value of competition and labor would become complacent.

A couple of them point out that competition and complacent labor would be a problem.  But they don't have the mental capacity to connect that same truth to the ultimate outcome of what "spread the wealth" will cause to take place, that is, less willingness to invest by those who have capital which will result in a reduction of competition and complacency of labor.

They didn't achieve the name DUmmies for nothing, folks.

.

[jukin]

Rather, I mean Socialism, the system in which the means of production are primarily owned by the government.

I stopped there.

[Carl]

What the idiots either can`t grasp or just simply refuse to is that power and wealth would still be concentrated with those controlling the government and despite their delusions that won`t be them.

[DumbAss Tanker]

As actually applied, most "Socialism" (e.g. in Europe) isn't, but has generally meant the central government not so much OWNS the means of production, as CONTROLS the means via various central production planning schemes like production control boards, or government control of a critical choke point in the production ranging from strict control of essential resources, labor allocations, or wage and price controls.  The efficiency is much higher than in the 'Communist' states where the government both owns and controls the means of production, but still not nearly on a par with Capitalist productivity.  The Nazis weren't particularly more Socialist than Brit Labour goverrnments in purely economic terms, though where they took their respective societies ideologically in other ways were obviously poles apart.

Mostly when people are talking about Socialism in the current political discourse, they are talking about the Euro version, not the pure theoretical version.

[franksolich]

The primitives are half-baked, as usual.

Socialism, otherwise known as communism, is more than just where the government owns all of the means of production.

It also means the government controls the distribution of goods too.

I have a whole lot of people I know, who can explain what happens with that.

And the primitives, being meaningless unimportants, would be on the bottom of the list for "distribution" of such goods.

[Chris_]

"Why can't socialism emulate capitalism? "

Why can't Kabbalah emulate Catholicism?

Why can't dogs emulate cats?

Why can't The Red Sox emulate The Yankees?

Why can't Atlanta emulate Los Angeles?

Why can't Schade emulate Mother Theresa?

Why can't Rebel emulate Ron Paul?

So many questions, so little time.

[Lord Undies]

(except perhaps cutting waste,

There is no waste in givernment!!!!!

limiting golden parachutes,

I guess the Little Goons have never heard about congress members retirement plan.   

regulating illegal/unethical/dangerous activities,

Harry Reid?  Barney Frank??   William Jefferson (D-La.)????

and controlling ridiculous pay for executives)

Why is it that millions of dollars paid to a CEO is wrong, but Julie Roberts could demand $20 million per film and that is just Okie Dokie? 

[TheSarge]

Oregone

Why can't socialism emulate capitalism?

[PatriotGame]

Socialism is great if you are in charge and living in the castle.
Think about that you little basement dwelling Dummies.

[Vagabond]

One three letter word: Corruption.  It would generate profound and unbridled corruption.  The executives would rapidly become cronies of powerful congessmen.  Any "profit" would be diverted to take care of the politically connected. 

At some point the corruption would become unsustainable, likely when the company is unable to recapitalize after it's profits have been squandered.  Then of course, the congressmen would don their "alas, I hardly knew ye" stance and have their former cronies sent to the gulag while putting up some new cronies.

[jukin]

Capitalism still the worst, except for every other system.

[Ptarmigan]

Well gees that's because socialism is the opposite of capitalism.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Perhaps Socialism can emulate Capitalism after all.  Of course, like all emulations, it will run slower, the system will occasionally crash, and a lot of important applications won't work under it.