Is socialism actully bad and can you explain why?

Let me show you an example of Market Socialism in the US. Maybe then you will get a clearer picture.
The Highway Departments are State owned businesses. The market mechanism is utilized for the allocation of capital goods and the means of production. In this case the planning, building and maintenance of roads, bridges and tunnels. The market mechanism being the demand within a given State for various projects. The planners are paid well, as are the road workers. The vendors charge market value for tools equipment and material. These projects are paid for by public funds. In this case the people of the State receive the benefit of the enterprise in the form of passable roads and safe bridges and tunnels.
Where in this equation does any one " get to do all the work without the benefit."?

“There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation.”

― William Paley

I'm giving you an example that does not rely on the "good will" of anyone, at least no mare than pure capitalism does.

 

Without individual paying customers, the state owned business cannot know whether it is making profits or losses.

 

Socialism: Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.
*Sigh*

 

Presumably the means of production are currently owned by individuals. How is social ownership acquired?

 

The means of production are currently owned by capitalists who utilize them for personal profit, how is social ownership acquired? Many different ideas on how to do this and many different real world examples that have occurred to look to, such as the anarchists in spain..

 

I presume the anarchists were some subset of society, in which case whatever the anarchists owned could not be considered to be socially owned. So that is an example of private ownership?

 

If you mean an entire community owning the means of production, sure..

 

So what is the community? Spain? A town? Several people? The entire population of the world? A married couple? An individual person? When you say "social ownership", who, specifically, are the owners?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qH43YHaUGyQ
The community, the working people.

 

Earlier, you said the entire community. Now you're saying only the working people? Hm.

So you're proposing a system in which only certain private individuals own the means of production.

So let's say that I am the owner of a small machine shop. How do these private individuals come to own what I currently own?

 

Well, the capitalist minority who once held the production obviously won't be welcome
If you mean the majority, sure.
No need to jump into discussing pointless examples that have no relevance. Giant factories, the backbone of small businesses like the machine shop, are what matters.

 

The question addresses the OP: Is socialism bad?

Okay, so when you say "the community", you mean the majority of people in the community. That's revealing.

I own a machine shop. I am a capitalist. How exactly does "society" (or more accurately, the majority of people in the community) come to own what I currently own? Do they offer to buy me out? Or do they kill me?

 

you couldnt be further from the truth

 

Explain Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden as examples and even Germany and Switzerland have socialist elements usually regarding a safety net. I agree were it was done to the extreme as in China and Soviet Russia there were serious problems but it also was true both had tyrants without Communism many Emperors and Czars were not nice people.

 

Do you rely on extracting surplus value from laborers and do you honestly think the proletariat would be interested in harming you and not the massive factory? Be realistic, in spain when the anarchists acquired control, small business capitalists usually joined them or left.

 

So, under socialism, I would continue to own my machine shop unless or until I voluntarily sold it to "the community"?

 

Continuing with the Highway Depts example. The Highway Departments are concerned primarily with accomplishing their projects with minimum waste and maximum efficiency. Those are the equivalents of profits and losses. They are answerable to the funding agencies for every dime they spend and must account for every dime. I have a son-in-law who works for the Illinois Highway Department. They somehow manage the scant resources they get to accomplish far more than a private road builder can. I know this because one of my daughter-in-laws brother has such a firm also in Illinois. It costs him considerably more to accomplish what the Highway Department can. Part of this has to do with the Highway Departments ability to negotiate as a major customer of course. But that is only part of it. The staff of full time surveyors, costing far less per hour than a private surveyor would charge for the same service... Full time planners, engineers etc. etc.

 

The highway dept knows its costs. But it doesn't know what customers are willing to pay. Thus, it can't know whether it is making a profit or a loss.

 

Sure they are.

If the government controls to means of production, they control supply and demand.

This removes efficiency and profit and mechanisms.

 

Please provide a link where I did that. You can't.

<Mod Edit>

 

I posted your comment on socialism in the post you are responding to.

Do not blame me that you can not remember your own posts.

 

Probably the same way that ownership of land was established in the first place. You point a gun in someones face and tell them “this is mine, now move along before I pull the trigger”.

Ownership of land is grounded in violence. When you use violence to make something your property you cannot really object when violence is used to remove that property.

 

????What does "what the customer is willing to pay" have to do with whether they are making a profit???
1.) What the customer is willing to pay is a reference point used for balancing costs to maximize profit margin. Not a measurement of profit.
2.) As I stated earlier, the profit is not to the publicly owned business. The profits go to workers, vendors and suppliers. The benefits go to those using the roads, bridges and tunnels. We are the customers.
3.) If we tried to accomplish these projects using privately owned firms, the costs would be truly breath taking.

 

So we finally learn that the plan is to use violence to achieve social ownership of the means of production. So, to answer the OP, that is why socialism is bad.

 

The point of producing a product is to combine inputs (land, labor, and capital) in such a way as to produce something that is valued more than the inputs. Without paying customers, there is no way of knowing if the product being produced is more or less valuable than the inputs going into it.