[Malatant of Shadow]

Under what system is capital NOT concentrated in the hands of a few? Democratic Socialism? Bill Gates controls $40 Billion, but that pales in comparison to Barack Obama, who controls $3.7 Trillion.

If you want to discuss democratic socialism, why mention Obama? Surely you know that the U.S. isn't a socialist country.

The answer to your question would be a decentralized socialist economy consisting primarily of worker-owned cooperatives. There would still be institutions that concentrate capital, but they would do so as a public service to provide low-interest or interest-free loans for business expansion.

Even if the economy was state-owned, which isn't the method preferred by socialists by and large, if it was truly democratic the state would answer to the demands of the people rather than acting in its own selfish interest as capitalists do.

[KPres]

The answer to your question would be a decentralized socialist economy consisting primarily of worker-owned cooperatives. There would still be institutions that concentrate capital, but they would do so as a public service to provide low-interest or interest-free loans for business expansion.

I don't see the great distinction. What's the difference between owning a large bank/corporation/etc, and being granted the position by vote? You have the same amount of economic power in both situations, and the power is just as unequally distributed in both cases. One is answerable to consumer demand, the other to voters. So it goes back to my question...which is the better way of establishing who has the power, markets or elections? That's what the discussion should be about, not distribution of power.

Also, I have questions about this decentralized socialism system....What happens to workers who are lazy and ineffective? Say they drive one of their companies to bankruptcy (I assume the companies are themselves competing in a normal market, right? If there's no central authority, how else would they coordinate their interactions? Correct me if I'm wrong). What happens to them then? Do they go work for another company and get the same percentage of ownership they had previously? Wouldn't the existing owners/workers be upset that these losers gets the same cut as them, even though they've proven themselves ineffective?

Even if the economy was state-owned, which isn't the method preferred by socialists by and large, if it was truly democratic the state would answer to the demands of the people rather than acting in its own selfish interest as capitalists do.

But capitalists don't act on their own selfish interest, although that may or may not be their motivation. There's a difference. They ACT on the demands of consumers. In a socialist societies, people still have self-interested motivations, none of that changes.

[Malatant of Shadow]

I don't see the great distinction. What's the difference between owning a large bank/corporation/etc, and being granted the position by vote?

Positions granted by vote come with strings attached. We call this "rule of law." Those in charge of the government aren't allowed to do whatever they want, they're required to do certain things and forbidden to do others. For example, the mayor of your city can't have the cops take you out and shoot you on a whim. He has the physical power to do that, but not the legal authority.

The same would be true in a worker-owned cooperative. Yes, there would still have to be executive officers making the decisions for the company, but because he would be responsible to the workers:

You have the same amount of economic power in both situations, and the power is just as unequally distributed in both cases.

Incorrect. (And by the same argument we might as well dispense with democracy and go back to a monarchy. After all, if the government is to have a certain amount of power, what difference does it make whether we get to vote on who holds it or not?)

One is answerable to consumer demand, the other to voters.

No, no, no. One is answerable to STOCKHOLDERS and the other to WORKERS. Both are answerable to consumer demand; that's a constant.

So it goes back to my question...which is the better way of establishing who has the power, markets or elections?

You're just TOTALLY wrong here, I suspect because you're thinking of a socialist economy as not being a market economy and that's not so. Markets are a constant; that's going to be the reality whether we have a capitalist or a socialist economy. The question is whether those making the allocation decisions are responsible to the shareholders of the company or to the workers.

Also, I have questions about this decentralized socialism system....What happens to workers who are lazy and ineffective?

They get fired, of course. (I assume you mean "compared to the other workers.") Let me put it this way. Suppose you were working in a worker's cooperative, and this one guy was coming into work drunk all the time and slacking off, making more work for you and others and possibly creating a safety hazard (depending on the type of work). Given that you have an owner's stake in the company, given that you regard all the people you work with as partners, do you think you would be more tolerant of that sort of crap on the part of a co-worker or less?

But capitalists don't act on their own selfish interest, although that may or may not be their motivation. There's a difference. They ACT on the demands of consumers. In a socialist societies, people still have self-interested motivations, none of that changes.

Yeah, they HAVE self-interested motivations, but they have less concentrated and unrestrained power to act on them.

Capitalists act on the demands of consumers with respect to what products they put on the market and the price. But that's not how they act towards their employees, and it's in that relationship, not the relationship they have with consumers, that the worst abuses occur. (I'm not saying capitalist-consumer relations are lily-pure, either, don't get me wrong. There are such things as monopoly and cartel exploitation, marketing of unsafe products, fraud and deception. But the consumers at least do have some say, some leverage. Most of the time, workers have none.)

[Someone5]

So 541 congressmen control 160 times the amount of money as the 400 richest people. And this is amixed economy. In a socialist country, the congress would control much more....all of it, in fact.

In a socialist country, congress would control none of it because congress wouldn't exist. This is a capitalist economy, without question.

...

That's what happens when you stop giving a few people control over everyone else; when workers control their own lives. The government will atrophy.

This isn't what history has shown.

History has shown us quite clearly that competition is inefficient. That's what's led us to the state we're in.

[Someone5]

I don't see the great distinction. What's the difference between owning a large bank/corporation/etc, and being granted the position by vote?

A position granted by a vote can be taken back; and usually has automatic terms established to guarantee that people occasionally get to assent to that election. There is no adequate recourse against an owner, however. You can't hold a recall election on an owner.

You have the same amount of economic power in both situations, and the power is just as unequally distributed in both cases. One is answerable to consumer demand, the other to voters.

The owner is only answerable to consumer demands if you assume that his only cause and only interest is fulfilling consumer demands. That is a very flawed assumption.

So it goes back to my question...which is the better way of establishing who has the power, markets or elections? That's what the discussion should be about, not distribution of power.

Distribution of power is an essential question here. It does not matter who is in charge if being in charge confers no great power.

Also, I have questions about this decentralized socialism system....What happens to workers who are lazy and ineffective?

You let them stay home and be lazy and ineffective rather than tortuously restructuring your economy in order to force them to work. I mean, it's not like we actually need most people to show up to work, certainly not if they're so lazy and incompetent. Why would anyone want that person to be working anyway? They would just get in the way.

Say they drive one of their companies to bankruptcy (I assume the companies are themselves competing in a normal market, right? If there's no central authority, how else would they coordinate their interactions? Correct me if I'm wrong).

Gift economies don't function on markets, or on commands from above. But again, why would you have them in a position where they would be able to drive a company under? Let them just stay home and collect their basic welfare. They don't need to work, they don't help anything by showing up to work, so why make them do it?

What happens to them then? Do they go work for another company and get the same percentage of ownership they had previously? Wouldn't the existing owners/workers be upset that these losers gets the same cut as them, even though they've proven themselves ineffective?

Why would a cooperative expand if they don't need to? You're kind of missing the point here; employment under socialism would occur only if the person wants to work and can find others who want to work with them. Without an imperative to work, people who are just so innately and incurably lazy could and should just stay out of the workforce.

But capitalists don't act on their own selfish interest, although that may or may not be their motivation. There's a difference. They ACT on the demands of consumers.

Maybe.

In a socialist societies, people still have self-interested motivations, none of that changes.

Sure, and it's in their own self interest to keep the socialist system working, otherwise they're liable to be trapped in a capitalist system.

[KPres]

Someone5,

A lot of your answers don't make sense to me. In a socialist country, there's no congress? (how do you govern?) Producers aren't answerable to consumer demand? (who gives them their money?) Let people who don't want to work not work? (who will take out the trash?). I'm not going to do point-by-point responses that grow to infinity, but if you're going to make those kinds of striking statements, I need you to expand on them more, anticipating some of what my (rather obvious) criticisms might be.

[Malatant of Shadow]

In a socialist country, congress would control none of it because congress wouldn't exist.

Why do you say that? Congress is part of our political system, not (officially) part of our economic system. (No jokes, please. I can think of them for myself.)

[Conscript]

Why do you say that? Congress is part of our political system, not (officially) part of our economic system. (No jokes, please. I can think of them for myself.)

There's no real gap between our 'political system' and our 'economic system', the latter brings the former into relevance.

Regardless, we have a bourgeois republic and socialists have no intention on emulating it.

[Someone5]

A lot of your answers don't make sense to me. In a socialist country, there's no congress? (how do you govern?)

You don't. Why do you feel a need to be governed?

Producers aren't answerable to consumer demand? (who gives them their money?)

Capitalists aren't exclusively answerable to consumer demand. They have lots of priorities, making money is only one of them. Why would you earn money if the only thing you wanted to do with it was earn more money? You want money for a reason--to do something. to have things, or to exercise control, or to feel secure. All of those things are objectives of capitalists. Capitalists are only responsive to consumer demand to the extent that consumers force them to be; which is certainly nothing like a complete submission to consumer demand.

Let people who don't want to work not work? (who will take out the trash?).

I guess you'll just have to take out your own trash. Or if you and enough like-minded people would like some sort of cooperative trash-taking-out agreement then there are plenty of ways to strike one up. You know, you and three friends work on Mondays, someone else does Tuesdays, etc. Or maybe your imagination would provide something else--and that's fine as long as your proposed method doesn't mean threatening people with starvation in order to force them into a degrading position.

I'm not going to do point-by-point responses that grow to infinity, but if you're going to make those kinds of striking statements, I need you to expand on them more, anticipating some of what my (rather obvious) criticisms might be.

I write fairly often on the socialism/communism boards. Nothing I'm writing here is new material.

[Someone5]

Why do you say that? Congress is part of our political system, not (officially) part of our economic system. (No jokes, please. I can think of them for myself.)

Political systems and economic systems are linked; if one falls, the other will as well. There is no particular reason to think that a socialist society would adopt US constitutional forms, since those forms are rather explicitly designed to empower entrenched wealth at the expense of people.

[Malatant of Shadow]

Political systems and economic systems are linked; if one falls, the other will as well. There is no particular reason to think that a socialist society would adopt US constitutional forms, since those forms are rather explicitly designed to empower entrenched wealth at the expense of people.

No, not the political forms themselves; I disagree. What's been done with them in terms of laws, yes. I see no reason we couldn't have a socialist economy within the structure of the U.S. Constitution; in fact, the main changes that would need to take place are at the state level.