If a Leftist Government controls, rather than owns means of prod. is it Socialism?

It's a simple enough question.

I mean, is worker ownership of the means of production really necessary to establish a socialism or is worker control of the means of production, say through a leftist Government that regulates every major decision that a business owner can make, socialism?

Since the US Constitution protects private property rights, and taking away the ownership of the means of production by workers is pretty much legally impossible. It seems to me that using the Government to regulate virtually every single major decision a business owner(or corporate board) could make is a pretty good substitute for outright ownership.

After all, if labor unions could elect a majority government that is amenable to regulating away the control of the means of production from ownership in all but name, that would be socialism.

This is what angers Republicans so much because we know that socialism doesn't necessarily imply that workers own the means of production. All they have to do is control it through a sympathetic Government that has been permanently taken over by a center left/socialist coalition. Say, the Democratic Party.

What say you socialists/liberals? Is worker ownership necessary to establish a socialism or is worker control close enough to call it socialism?

 

Technically, no, it's not. But at the same time...what's the real difference?

I'm surprised, Silicon. This is actually a good question. I'll give it some thought.

 

"Employee-owned businesses" and "employer-owned businesses" are both capitalism, assuming all membership in both is voluntary.

Government owning business is authoritarianism, but I don't know about "socialism" specifically. Socialism is more about employees forcefully overtaking employers, rather than the government. Socialism differs from "employee-owned businesses" if said EOBs got that way by individual consent by all individuals involved.

 

If a super wealthy corporate CEO owns all the assets of a community, and hires and fires at his whim, is that a dictatorship? Of course, your answer would be to have unlimited wealth, via unlimited and uncontrolled practices. The bully should be allowed to punch the other kids in the face everyday, and take their lunch money. They do so because they can. What's wrong with that?

 

"Every major decision" is a very vague term.

It would take a very, very heavy level of regulation before you approach the effects of socialism. Once the government is making production and pricing decisions, you might be getting close. But even that's not a great measure: government has regulated certain aspects of pricing and production forever, and it's not socialism. It has to be a very heavy hand indeed.

 

But this implies that the workers themselves can't overreach and be bullies in their own right. Seriously, are even employed at all? Because with your attitude I fail to see how you could ever work for anyone at all. You seem to be so anti-business that you would refuse to work for anyone except the Government. Period.

Are your a social worker or some other public sector employee? Because with your crappy attitude you'd last about 3 days at any of the jobs I've ever worked in my life.

 

My attitude Sir, is a product of the corporate hacking, stripping and stealing policies corporate types have developed over the years. I see employers for what they are by their actions, and in the corporate world, their actions indicate that they consider profit the only thing they want, and at the expense of whomever. Corporations play the death march of America, and I'll highlight their destructive characteristics so long as I breath, or until it changes.

 

If you are complaining about your country being run by elite socialists such as Bushes, Clintons and Obama Bin Bidenses, I am on the boat with you, but if you want to swing it and pretend that portion of these elite socialists (like the right and the fox) are not elite socialists, and deceive me in that way, then I must say you are a joker.

 

Ownership is ultimately about control. So, yes. If the workers controlled the means of production, that would be practical socialism, I think, regardless of whomever technically owns the means of production.

Good question, Silicon!

 

I disagree it has to be all that heavy handed.

In Europe for instance, labor may not make production and pricing decisions, but it does have an outrageous level of control over labor relations to the point that the owner literally has virtually no control over hiring/firing. In many industries, especially in places like the Spain, Italy and Greece. Price controls and taxation are implemented to the point that profit for the business owner beyond a bare essentials standard of living is impossible.

What other major decisions are there besides labor cost controls and price controls that really matter? As far as I"m concerned. If Government regulation is so heavy handed that profit is de factorily capped then it's pretty (*)(*)(*)(*) close to socialism.

 

How can the CEO exercise this ownership without government force backing his claim?

 

Our government does make "production and pricing decisions". They've centrally planned the money supply for quite some time.

 

When it comes to unionization, that's more of a state thing than a federal thing.

Unions have a lot of pull in certain states, but ultimately, whether or not a state becomes a "right-to-work" state isn't determined by the feds. So, the Constitution's application here is limited.

Most federal regulations are limited to environmental protection, safety standards, and a few labor rights. Among our peers, we actually have fewer regulations than most.

 

There are Federal collective bargaining laws that prevent private companies from doing a great number of things. Just look at what the NLRB did to Boeing.

 

That is a good example of federal intervention. The NLRB's power does seem to hinge on which administration is in power, so that is something that can be associated as a partisan problem with the Democrats.

Boeing unfortunately is held back by unions in many states (particularly Washington), so it's sad to see their investment in South Carolina blocked by them.

 

Technically, I think a privately owned economy in which business decisions were controlled by the government would be fascism, not socialism, but fascism is such a highly charged and politically incorrect term you are probably better off just calling it socialism. When I talk about it, I just refer to it as the economic system that cannot be named.

 

I was just noticing something about the thread title ...

If it's socialism if a left-wing government controls (without necessarily owning) the means of production, then it's also socialism for a right-wing government to do the same.

Correct?

 

If the workers have more direct control of the Government and the government runs the means of production then there isn't a difference really. But huge government regulation isn't really needed, all that needs to happen is the government encouraging and supporting people to start their own worker-controlled businesses, and when there's enough of these businesses the original capitalist ones will wither away naturally as people want to move into the "workplace democracy" businesses because of the advantage in pay and working conditions etc. Once this has happened the government can outlaw capitalist businesses (though they wouldn't really need to, who would want to join one?). After this reforms can slowly change the economy from being competitively controlled to cooperatively controlled.

 

I would argue that a democratically controlled business is inherently less competitive than one with a solid CEO at the had directing operations.

 

If you've got good job satisfaction then you're probably going to work better. There are people directing these types of companies, but they are elected from the workers and by the workers (they're also paid no more than anyone working as long/contrubuting as much as them) - I'd argue that elected leaders have more chance of doing better. One of the greatest promises of socialism is that it greatly reduces waste, which means you work for much less a day for significantly increased pay. So socialism doesn't need the obsession with competition to be more efficient than capitalism.

 

Good question. This is why some say right-wing capitalism is not true liberty, even if most self proclaimed libertarians are right winger capitalists. I say geo-libertarianism is still better and more liberated than right wing capitalism.

Not to say that capitalism necessarily disagrees with geoism or vice versa, but right wing economics definitely disagrees with geoism.

 

You cannot have private property except through armed force. And any property nat owned by some one or some entity soon ceases to be worth anything to anyone because it will be trashed. That which is everyone's responsibility is simultaeously and exactly no one's responsibility cause it's always easier to let the next guy clean up.

 

Including clean water, air, land, sunlight, naturally growing plants and animals etc. right? The only things that can be useful to humans are necessarily created by humans?

The truth is that some things should not be privately owned, or at least not strictly privately owned. That does make me more central on the left-right scale than Right, even though I believe in private enterprise as well as public ownership of some things.

 

Great response!

 

What is WRONG with your thinking, that you will not see that there MUST be a balance for things to work out for the best? Do you not realize that making money and/or being wealthy does not excuse one or many human beings from their overall responsibilities to humankind at large?

That is the problem with some wealthy people (certainly not all), they think that their wealth truly 'elevates' them. They have a kind of "attitude" which leads them to a manner of irresponsibility. So often, they either cannot or refuse to see themselves; that is VERY human.

That is a might broad thought there, Silicon. Just because someone is a "worker", does not mean they MUST be the equivalent of a paid-slave... in order for a society or nation to be prosperous. I'm a capitalist, but I'm all for leveling the playing field A LOT MORE than it is today. We should not move forward as a nation, purposing to exponentially increase the wealth of those already wealthy; that would be BOTH stupid and immoral. It just wouldn't make sense and would be unjust. And as you surely know, the nation will not prosper if injustice and stupidity are components within its foundation. For too long, we have allowed the very same, and that is directly related to why we are enduring the very problems which plague us today.

People are generally not "anti-business", but they definitely have a right to be anti-ripoff.

That's just a bigoted and silly comment overall. (Climb down off of that high-horse you ride so proudly; better yet, maybe you'll FALL off of it.)

Your arrogance, generally reflect the worth of you commentary. People know how to temper the credibility and value of what people communicate, by the very TONE of their communication. If you haven't learned that, you really need to.

Some elements of what you say (within your opinion) make sense, but what you are communicating overall... causes me to reject your ideas. Period.