Why is socialism becoming increasingly popular in the United States?

Good questions. I too am curious as to the answer.

 

I didn't say they were.

 

I think it can work for small employee-owned operations. Consider what I wrote about oil refineries and Amazon.

I'm okay with trying worker-ownership, but revolutionary socialists always screw it up. My concerns are around scaling up the model.

I doubt anyone can make communism work.

Is your socialist government democratic? Can the people reject socialism with a democratic vote?

 

You, LM, don't know whether communism will ever happen. I have often said it will require a very long time and a great number of changes to society and the thinking of people for it to happen and so I'm not confident it ever will. But in 100 years we could all be surprised if we were here to witness it. To me, it sounds just a bit too good to be true/possible. But I don't know everything.

You're not understanding the most likely path for transition to socialism. The immediate change would be that the government would be populated by people who intend to provide for the society in a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people". That, along with maybe some changes to tax law that would begin the process of leveling the playing field and an end to lobbying would be about it. Then, as need and solutions to other problems like healthcare costs, climate change, systemic racism, and availability of education are hashed out, those conditions would improve along with incomes and price reductions resulting from tax policy. Other than that you wouldn't find much changing right away. Markets would remain for the foreseeable future as that is how goods would be distributed. IOW much as it is now. So yes, it would be a market economy. "Lenin and his Bolshevik buddies never figured out how to run an economy" and Samuel Adams never figured out how to get goods delivered coast-to-coast overnight either.

You go on to ask ...

Your question is how workers' co-ops function. They will begin with small businesses of less than 100 workers I suspect. If you want to know specifics about how they are organized and operate I encourage you to ask me, but I think you're more interested in businesses the size of major industries like energy producers and the steel industry. They are businesses that would be kept as they are in the beginning. However, as time passes and conditions advance such high-capitalization businesses would be funded by the government. The government MUST be prohibited from running any business and must instead, according to a new Constitution, be dedicated to facilitation of worker management or the workers' own place of work as well as being required to protect and guide business viability financially and operationally without controlling or managing business. This will obviously have to be worked out during the decades following the seating of the socialist government. Again, I said above and repeat again, I don't have all the answers and that is why we must rely on public leadership to work it out. Cultivating that leadership right from within the working class will be one of the jobs of government as it facilitates worker control and management.

As to your question of how a worker will become a worker-owner and employment of non-owner workers, today we have to look at worker co-ops to see how they do these things and then all we can do at this time from within this capitalist system is to imagine how the conditions of workers' co-ops might be adapted and changed to accommodate an advancing economy and growing the socialist model.

BTW, there is no "socialist dogma" since there is no Handbook of the Creation of Socialist Society. Nor is there any rulebook or other set of requirements. Most of the development of socialist society will be due to the input and work of the public. Socialism is to be the people's system, and therefore it would be a cruel and destructive joke to have a "Central Committee" in government dictating everything. It MUST all originate from among the people to be sanctioned by the people.

Anything else?

 

See my other reply above.

That is because in the past there were always government "managers" and "experts" dictating how it's to be done. That would be anti-socialist and banned. Once a small business which is controlled and managed by the workers who work there have grown the business and continue to grow it, lessons will be learned and solutions will be realized. No communist party in the past did it that way. That, I'm convinced, was the problem or a good part of it. Incremental growth with all necessary problem-solving along the way is the means.

Not an issue, is it? If you know what communist society would be by the definition, and if you think about how such a thing would develop, you will realize two things about it. 1. communist society cannot be imposed on society, and 2. the development and appearance of communist society will take a long, long time after socialism has finally become the world-wide system, everywhere. So there will be so much change that we cannot foresee that any discussion of communist society is pointless. And I'm not even convinced it can ever happen. It seems too good to be true.

I don't have a socialist government nor does anyone else. And yes, it must be democratic or it is not socialism.

Reject? In favor of what? -exploitation by a wealthy and greedy capitalist for his own profit? Why wouldn't people want to make changes they want, collectively and democratically, for the benefit of all? Are you suggesting changes might be wanted for the benefit of a few?

 

So we disagree.

 

Government is going to supply the money and capital but not tell the company/industry what to do???? Dream on, Leon.

Nonetheless, very thoughtful overall post albeit it somewhat wrong.

 

But you can't know it is wrong. All you can do is to have your own opinion.

 

No they don't.

 

The profit motive of capitalists provides major benefits to society in the form that society wants and likes

As a side effect.

 

No it doesn't.

 

We seem to be able to go on arguing for days back and forth when I reply with brief, unelaborated one or two liners that can be spun and twisted into something that can be ridiculed. But if I post a detailed explanation grounded in logic and reasonable concepts like I did for @LangleyMan and @Lil Mike above in post 679, there's silence. I guess detail is persuasive.

 

Yes they do if they don't they go broke. You can't sell stuff no one wants unless the government forces people to buy it. And if you don't keep your prices reasonable no one will buy it. Note 1/2 to 2/3 of the price of everything you buy is because of government rules and regulations.

 

Wrong. Reagan did not defund mental health centers. They were put out of business by an ignorant cabal of trial lawyers and patients rights advocates. They wished to replace state mental health institutes with group homes never mind that many of the patients were ill suited to the group home environment. And that nimby meant there were never going to be enough homes. You are correct about one thing though, as much as 80 to 90% of the homeless population in some areas are either mentally ill or drug addicted and of course the overlap between those two populations is, to put it mildly substantial.

 

STOCK MARKET.

 

What the market will bear is dependent on the amount of competition they have. Nothing is immortal. Everything breaks eventually. The more moving parts it has the sooner it will break down. If you don't believe in God entropy is the most powerful force in the universe.

 

Say the guy who knows nothing about how the stock market operates. Tell me what are the two types of stock and what are the differences.

 

I would also bet you that is had far fewer moving parts and considerably less idiot proofing.

 

I do know you don't have to provide a service or goods to make money from it.

 

Reagan's administration did oversee significant changes to mental health policy and funding during the 1980s. One of the most notable actions was the enactment of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, which included substantial cuts to federal funding for social welfare programs, including mental health services. These cuts were part of broader efforts to reduce government spending and address budget deficits during Reagan's presidency.

Additionally, Reagan's administration supported the philosophy of deinstitutionalization, which aimed to transition individuals with mental illnesses out of large, state-run psychiatric hospitals and into community-based care settings. While the goals of deinstitutionalization were presented and defended as including the provision of more humane and individualized care for people with mental illnesses, the process was often criticized for inadequate funding and support for community-based services, leading to concerns about homelessness, incarceration, and inadequate access to mental health treatment for some individuals.

Overall, it's accurate to say that Reagan's administration implemented policies that resulted in cuts to mental health services and supported the broader shift toward community-based care which led to homelessness, incarceration, and inadequate access to mental health treatment for some individuals.

 

Prove it.

 

FINALLY you have no actual answer! Thanks for the surrender!

 

WOW! Two non-answers in one day! I'm on a roll!

 

Are you talking about common stock, preferred stock, Type A stock, and Type B stock?

Or do you mean issued stock, treasury stock, authorized stock, and outstanding stock?

 

Yes and no, but mostly no.

I think the question is whether people who want Communism (or Socialism) can organize themselves into voluntary groups to begin making it happen.
(I think most prefer for someone else to make it all happen for them)

If we look at the history of utopian socialistic communities, pretty much they were all dismal failures, with the exception of several religious communities.

Democratic decision-making typically isn't very economically efficient for private businesses, which is another problem.

Marx did give consideration to the co-op model, but didn't put a huge amount of analysis into it.