maxstep wrote:I just have a couple of questions about socialism.
What prevents somebody from leaching off the state?
The state would prevent that, via its laws. Contrary to what many have been told, socialism doesn't mean "giveaway to everyone". It merely means that the country's land, resources and industrial capacity are every citizen's birthrigh. It means that you are the rightful owner and beneficiary of the output of your work. That's socialism.
How will we move forward without any personal incentives?
Maybe the media portray socialism as taking away individual incentives, but socialists don't offer removal of incentives in their platforms and proposals.
Prosecuting crime, instead of rewarding it--Doesthat take away some personal incentives? You be it does.
The people who actually do the work would (as I said above), be the owners and beneficiaries of the output of their work. Do you think that isn't incentive? Working people would be fairly and rightfuly rewarded for a change. That's a lot better incenive to work than today's exploitation of the working poor. Socialism wouldn't have working poor.
How can a government effectively take control of the lives of each of its citizens?
You're implying that socialism would do that. On the contrary, workplaces would have much more democratic management, with the employees having a large role in operating the workplace. And, on the larger scale, the public, via vastly expanded and improved initiataive powers, and via referenda, and newly genuinely democratice election of (immediately majority-recallable) representatives--the public would have a degree of control of the economy that is unheard-of today.
Who told you that socialism would control the lives of each of its citizens? Socialism would let citizens, in their workplaces, and in their neighborhoods, and in their government, directly control their lives at every level. That includes public ownership and control of the economy, as described above.
Is there any form of private property or ownership of anything?
Of course. Socialists don't want to take away your right to own your clothes and personal effects. But someone who wants to own what others can't afford, someone who want special privileged ownership that isn't available to everyone--That person would be disappointed.
As for exactly how much you could own, various socialist proposals differ on that matter. Many socialist parties wouldn't object to Mom-&-Pop corner grocery-stores or genuine family-farms (No outside employees. No use or owneship of assets greater than what is available to everyone).
Private cars? Private cars are an environmental abomination, in addition to unfairly making transportation unnecessarily difficult for those who can't afford them, or who don't qualify for a driver's license. Most or all democratic socialist parties, and probably most communist paraties too, would probably not seek to ban private cars. But I'd suspect that every socialist party would incentivize public transportation and walking.
Certainly true-cost-pricing shoul be applied to private cars. Drivers, and purchasers of shipped goods, should pay the full cost of driving and hauling. That would include road construction, maintenance and policing. Highway emergency-services. Rent on the land occupied by roads and parking-spaces. Payment for the full cost of automotive-air-pollution-caused illnesses, and other pollution harm caused to people, directly or indirectly, by the use of private cars. That includes compensation to every pedestrian injured by a car--if the driver himself/herself can't afford to pay the compensation, then it should be paid by drivers as a group.
A good way to collect this money is via fuel-taxes.
You asked about private possessions, and I wanted to say something about cars.
Speaking for myself, I'd require the strictest feasible emission-controls, if it were up to me. For a start, no car should be allowed on the road if it doesn't meet the emission-standards currently required for new cars (or maybe for cars of some specified age of one, two or three years, or whatever). If you can't afford a car that desn't harm, than you can't afford to drive.
Retrofitted emission-controls would be offered. You'd be surprised how much emission-cleanup could be accomplished by adding air-injection (if there are still any cars allowed on the road that don't have it), or better catalytic conversion or afterburning.
Some people object that public transportation is govt-subsidized. But not as heavily as car-driving (see above). Public transportation could pay for itself if we stopped subidizing cars, and permitting the harm that they do.
Things like that are said by people who aren't socialists too, like the nonsocialist Greens.
Anyway, in general, I don't think that any socialist wants to take away everyone's possessions, provided that your possessions aren't doing harm, and that they're things that are equally available to all.
Is there room for a private sector?
Tha depends on which socialism proposal you're referring to. As I was saying, I suspect that all or nearly all democratic socialist parties, and at least most communist parties too, would permit Mom-&-Pop corner grocery stores, and genuine family farms (As I said, provided that no outside employees are used, and that the business not use assets in value, amount, or nature, not available to everyone).
That said, there might be some communist parties that would want to nationalize even the corner stores, eventually, with the former owners becoming employees who would have as high a lifestyle as all working people can afford. But maybe it would depend on those particular owners' history in business. Maybe if they'd always conducted business equitably and humanely, they could keep running and owning the business.
Speaking for myself, though, I don't think they should be allowed to amass profits beyond what is earned by others who work as hard as they do.
People whose "incentive" depends on being able to live better than others who do as much work as they do--I don't feel a need to provide them that incentive.
How do government jobs provide economic growth when employees are all paid in tax money?
[/quote]
What's the difference? There could be a lot of jobs in the area of making people's lives better, in lots of different ways. The money that we waste, to kill families in small poor countries could instead provide jobs that deliver necessary services and environmental improvements at home.
As i said, there are many diverse socialism proposals. In some proposals, the public-owned economy is a player in a free marked. The existing forces that influence wages and prices would still exist. The only difference would be that we the public would be, collectively, the owner of the ecomomy--as well as its employees.
"Economic grownth" is taken as necessary, in capitalism. ...even if it requlires ridiculous unnecessary military spending--just to provide an assured, guaranteed customer for corporations. ...even if it requires committing attrocities around the world, to satisfy capitalism' voracious appetite for more cheap labor, and more rescources (never mind if they're someone else's resources).
That need for "economic growth" is a diastrous result of capitalism, and we all pay for it in one way or another, as do our victims everywhere.
Populus