It doesn’t need to be an alternative. It’s a really effective way to regulate capitalism by standardizing and socializing private industries like education, police, fire, roads, internet access, healthcare, etc.
Socialism is the workers collectively owning the means of production, everything else is just details. (Well, the anti-heirarchy bit is important too, especially to keep the means from falling into something that isn’t just capitalism with extra steps, but complicated)
It is innately opposed to capitalism as a result. What it isn’t innately opposed to is a market economy.
The problem would start when you start organizing the service provision into company heirarchies. Especially if the main thing someone provides is owning the company. In that case, the “means of production” include the organization itself.
I could see a really idealized gig economy model working, though. Or just everything being organized as worker co-ops.
And, of course, then you have to start asking questions about how the service economy is actually procuring resources to function. Sure, you’re trade based, in theory, but who are you trading with? One of the reasons socialism tends to be globalist in nature is that it doesn’t do a whole lot of good for the idea if that “socialist economy” is actually supported by imperialism or someone else doing the ruthless exploitation of labor and then selling you those resources for cheap.
How socialist is your worker owned co-op, really, if you’re buying your food from a slave plantation?
The means of production would not just be yourself but also other work tools. A basic desk job wouldn’t really fall under this condition, since you usually don’t have control over your computer or the software running in it, for example. I couldn’t think of any example of a service job where all the work tools are worker controlled right now.
Socialized industries, like the ones stated above, are collectively paid for by all citizens and provided to all citizens equally. You don’t pay every time you need the police because their salaries are socialized by taxes. It’s an effective way to ensure quality of life for all citizens, with payments proportional to their income. Adding industries to tax socialization is an effective way to bring balance to capitalism, and improve the quality of life for vulnerable members of society, without the need of a full system overhaul.
Socialism does not need to be regulated by a government. It’s a form of economy. However, we currently socialize many industries in a capitalist nation, and by socializing more industries, we can improve the lives of poor people at the expense of the wealthy, effectively keeping capitalism more equitable.
It’s okay to be a social democrat, buddy, welfare states are perfectly acceptable forms of ideological liberalism.
One might even call it a step on the path to actual socialism. Someone should write a book about these transitionary states, perhaps leading to the eventual withering of the state entirely.
Weird idea, I wonder if there’s literally millions of pages of thought on how to do that, or if some state somewhere just, like, didn’t let individuals own factories and such
I would argue that the alternative is important even if you don’t do it. The USSR increased standards of living in capitalist powers by leaps and bounds, just by standing, even only on paper, for an alternative.
It doesn’t need to be an alternative. It’s a really effective way to regulate capitalism by standardizing and socializing private industries like education, police, fire, roads, internet access, healthcare, etc.
Socialism is the workers collectively owning the means of production, everything else is just details. (Well, the anti-heirarchy bit is important too, especially to keep the means from falling into something that isn’t just capitalism with extra steps, but complicated)
It is innately opposed to capitalism as a result. What it isn’t innately opposed to is a market economy.
Is a service economy inherently socialist? The person is the means of production and is self owned.?
🤔
The problem would start when you start organizing the service provision into company heirarchies. Especially if the main thing someone provides is owning the company. In that case, the “means of production” include the organization itself.
I could see a really idealized gig economy model working, though. Or just everything being organized as worker co-ops.
And, of course, then you have to start asking questions about how the service economy is actually procuring resources to function. Sure, you’re trade based, in theory, but who are you trading with? One of the reasons socialism tends to be globalist in nature is that it doesn’t do a whole lot of good for the idea if that “socialist economy” is actually supported by imperialism or someone else doing the ruthless exploitation of labor and then selling you those resources for cheap.
How socialist is your worker owned co-op, really, if you’re buying your food from a slave plantation?
The means of production would not just be yourself but also other work tools. A basic desk job wouldn’t really fall under this condition, since you usually don’t have control over your computer or the software running in it, for example. I couldn’t think of any example of a service job where all the work tools are worker controlled right now.
Socialized industries, like the ones stated above, are collectively paid for by all citizens and provided to all citizens equally. You don’t pay every time you need the police because their salaries are socialized by taxes. It’s an effective way to ensure quality of life for all citizens, with payments proportional to their income. Adding industries to tax socialization is an effective way to bring balance to capitalism, and improve the quality of life for vulnerable members of society, without the need of a full system overhaul.
Honey socialism is an economic system. A socialist economy is socialism.
Like, a honeydew melon is a honeydew.
Socialism is when the government does stuff, huh
Socialism does not need to be regulated by a government. It’s a form of economy. However, we currently socialize many industries in a capitalist nation, and by socializing more industries, we can improve the lives of poor people at the expense of the wealthy, effectively keeping capitalism more equitable.
It’s okay to be a social democrat, buddy, welfare states are perfectly acceptable forms of ideological liberalism.
One might even call it a step on the path to actual socialism. Someone should write a book about these transitionary states, perhaps leading to the eventual withering of the state entirely.
What do you propose as an alternative way to address the wealth inequality without completely redesigning capitalism?
Have you considered… Abolishing capitalism?
Weird idea, I wonder if there’s literally millions of pages of thought on how to do that, or if some state somewhere just, like, didn’t let individuals own factories and such
Sure. I was 20 once. I’m asking realistically. How would you propose addressing the wealth inequality within the means of our current system?
I would argue that the alternative is important even if you don’t do it. The USSR increased standards of living in capitalist powers by leaps and bounds, just by standing, even only on paper, for an alternative.