Society/Culture Can a purely socialist society exist?

[Power Raid]

Socialism has always failed as there has been more work than human resources available for mobilisation.

This will change over time with technology (AI being an example).

I'm not sure a pure socialist state can succeed in the next 50 years with the rise of the cold war. That said nations who don't have strong socialist policies (universal healthcare (better than medicare), universal education, better social welfare and better social housing) will be easily pulled apart by external forces during the next 50 years. Just look at nations who suffered during the last cold war and the ukraine today to see what division invites.

 

[IlovethePies]

How did you end your post advocating for a system that inevitably leads to stalinism? Within the first 6 months the bolsheviks rejected marxism because lenin realised it was impossible to implement. Thus they had to change path which could only be sustained with the gun.

This is where you missed the entire thrust of this post, and several others I have made. The Bolshevik Revolution did not inevitablly lead to Stalinism. There WAS an alternative to Stalinism. Lenin never for one moment believed that the perspective of the Bolshevik Revolution was impossible to implement. Up to his dying day, he was fighting to defend the gains of the Russian Revolution, and create correct policies within the Comintern which would then extend the world socialist revolution internationally.

Have you not heard of Lenin's Last Testament? Lenin dictated this document in 1923, sensing that his own death was approaching. In this document he warns about a split within the party between Trotsky and Stalin, and demands that Stalin be removed from his position of General Secretary. Lenin had asked Trotsky to take up a fight against Stalin at the 12th Congress of the Bolshevik Party instead of him, as he was too unwell to attend.

Lenin had grown increasingly critical and the bureaucratisation of the Bolshevik party (represented by the policies of Stalin), and Lenin had allied himself with Trotsky in the fight to oppose it.

After Lenin's death, Trotsky established the Left Opposition of those Bolsheviks who opposed Stalin's growing bureaucratic hold over the party, and the anti-Marxist policies that Stalin and his supporters were implementing.

The Left Opposition formulated Marxist economic and industrial policies within the USSR which, if adopted instead of Stalin's criminally negligent and disastrous economic policies, would have avoided the chaos, bloodshed and generalised starvation that inevitably flowed from Stalin's policies.

However, the fundamental reason why the Russian Revolution failed was because the World Socialist Revolution did not ultimately extend beyond the borders of the Soviet Union. The domestic policies of the Left Opposition were aimed only at gaining time, until the world socialist revolution triumphed. The international policies of the Left Opposition were aimed at clarifying the leaderships of the various Communist parties around the world on the political program they needed to adopt to successfully emulate the example of the Bolshevik Revoiution within their own countries.

Trotsky repeatedly explained that if the revolution did not expand internationally, the Russian Revolution would inevitably be defeated. He also predicted correctly (back in 1936) that if the Soviet working class did not overthrow the Stalinist dictatorship in a political revolution, then the bureaucracy would "devour the first workers state", and reimpose capitalism.

This was ultimately what played out in 1989 to 91.

It is totally incorrect to claim that the Russian Revolution inevitably led to the Stalinist dictatorship.

It was the path of Stalin that had to be sustained with a gun and mass murder.

The path of Lenin and Trotsky, world socialist revolution, led by the communist parties within the Communist International, was another historical pathway, possible within the objective conditions existing in the world at that time.

Trotsky and the Left Opposition were the antithesis of Stalin, and that is why Stalin sought to murder anyone associated with the Left Opposition.

If you want to understand how the Stalinists eventually usurped power from the genuine Bolsheviks, you should refer to Trotsky's masterful analysis of this process: The Revolution Betrayed.

By reading Revolution Betrayed, you come to realise that the Left Opposition and subsequently the Fourth International (founded by Trotsky in 1938) represents the continuation of genuine Bolshevism, and never has the Fourth International lost any belief in the possibility of international socialism.

The catastrophe that we see in the world today being unleashed by global capitalism (escalating war, escalating social inequality, tendency towards fascist governments, climate change, unending infection from covid) make it clearer and clearer that not only is world socialism possible, it is necessary.

 

[IlovethePies]

Socialism has always failed as there has been more work than human resources available for mobilisation.

This will change over time with technology (AI being an example).

I'm not sure a pure socialist state can succeed in the next 50 years with the rise of the cold war. That said nations who don't have strong socialist policies (universal healthcare (better than medicare), universal education, better social welfare and better social housing) will be easily pulled apart by external forces during the next 50 years. Just look at nations who suffered during the last cold war and the ukraine today to see what division invites.

Socialism cannot be established in one country, and any perspective of "building socialism in one country" has proven disastrous and reactionary to the core.
The Stalinist program of "socialism in one country" was the first example, then there other variations of the same theme such as "Arab socialism"', Pol Pot's dystopia of an "agrarian socialist country", the myth of Cuba as a "socialist state", or of Nicaragua as a "socialist" state.

All of these examples have ended in a historic catastrophes of extreme violence and bloodshed, along with the total economic and social collapse of the countries involved.

This is because socialism implies a higher standard of technology and production than that of capitalism. Capitalism now consists of a massively integrated and complex set of internationally coordinated production processes involving the most advanced technologies ever in existence. No individual nation can possibly hold out against the colossal power of the world economy.

Even in Scandinavia, frequently trumpeted as examples of "socialism", we now see all of these countries tearing down the previous social arrangements, cutting back on health spending, education, and turning to policies of mass xenophobia and anti immigrant hysteria to scapegoat immigrants for the attacks on living standards being carried out by the government.

There is ample wealth , technology and productive capacity to provide a decent standard of living for every person on the planet. But it won't just "come about", because this wealth, technology and productive capacity is currently privately owned by a tiny minority, the capitalist class, which uses its ownership of mankind's productive forces for one purpose only: to extract profit, and amass wealth.

They will not willingly give up their ownership of the productive forces, and will fight to defend it with counterrevolutionary violence.

That is why the world cannot become socialist without an international world socialist revolution, in which the world working class seizes political power, and the productive forces are used for what society needs as a whole, rather than for the profit interests of a miniscule oligarchy.

 

[Seeds]

Socialism cannot be established in one country, and any perspective of "building socialism in one country" has proven disastrous and reactionary to the core.
The Stalinist program of "socialism in one country" was the first example, then there other variations of the same theme such as "Arab socialism"', Pol Pot's dystopia of an "agrarian socialist country", the myth of Cuba as a "socialist state", or of Nicaragua as a "socialist" state.

All of these examples have ended in a historic catastrophes of extreme violence and bloodshed, along with the total economic and social collapse of the countries involved.

This is because socialism implies a higher standard of technology and production than that of capitalism. Capitalism now consists of a massively integrated and complex set of internationally coordinated production processes involving the most advanced technologies ever in existence. No individual nation can possibly hold out against the colossal power of the world economy.

Even in Scandinavia, frequently trumpeted as examples of "socialism", we now see all of these countries tearing down the previous social arrangements, cutting back on health spending, education, and turning to policies of mass xenophobia and anti immigrant hysteria to scapegoat immigrants for the attacks on living standards being carried out by the government.

There is ample wealth , technology and productive capacity to provide a decent standard of living for every person on the planet. But it won't just "come about", because this wealth, technology and productive capacity is currently privately owned by a tiny minority, the capitalist class, which uses its ownership of mankind's productive forces for one purpose only: to extract profit, and amass wealth.

They will not willingly give up their ownership of the productive forces, and will fight to defend it with counterrevolutionary violence.

That is why the world cannot become socialist without an international world socialist revolution, in which the world working class seizes political power, and the productive forces are used for what society needs as a whole, rather than for the profit interests of a miniscule oligarchy.

Isnt that proof that capitalism is vastly superior?

In any case it doesnt matter what happens in the rest of the world if you run a closed economy. So your point doesnt hold. Nth korea is largely proof of that.

 

[IlovethePies]

Isnt that proof that capitalism is vastly superior?

In any case it doesnt matter what happens in the rest of the world if you run a closed economy. So your point doesnt hold. Nth korea is largely proof of that.

Seeds, you're still not understanding what I am saying.

No individual nation can ever be socialist, whatever its government says about itself.

The world capitalist economy is a vast, technological, industrial colussus which dominates every national economy - including both that of the USA and of China.

The world economy is the sum of all the national economies, and it is far more powerful than any economy within any single country.

Capital passes at the speed of light around the world, and can make or break entire nation states.

However, this gigantic and amazing world economy is mortally wounded by two basic contradictions:

a) production is a massive, social and international process, but how this process is carried out is determined not by the world's population, but by a miniscule layer of society - the capitalist class - who do so entirely for their own private profit interests.

b) production is an interconnected international process, but the world economy is continually disrupted, spun into chaos, even partially destroyed, by the rivalry between competitor nation states.

Socialism, as meant by Marx, Lenin, Trotsky and all genuine Marxists today, is a higher level of production than capitalism. It is the next stage of human civilisation. It has not yet been achieved.

To be achieved, there must be a world socialist revolution, in which the international working class takes political power in all countries. Once the owners of massive transnational corporations, banks, hedge funds, social media platforms, are expropriated, all this colossal social wealth can be harnessed by the working class to use it not for private profit, but for the needs of society as a whole, in a co-ordinated and democratic manner.

None of the problems now facing mankind: climate change, future epidemics, the escalating threat of nuclear war, can be solved within a single country.

This is the true meaning of socialism. Any national government claiming to be "socialist" necessarily is lying. Naturally, the mass media plays a major role in sowing confusion about the meaning of the word "socialist".

The very existence of world capitalism after World War 2 was guaranteed by the massive historical lie that the Soviet Union represented "socialism". This grotesque lie served to create a myriad of confusions and political impasses:
a) socialism could exist within a single counry
b) socialism always leads to a monstrous dictatorship


among the worst. These two political misconceptions served ideologically to stabilise capitalism aftert he horrors of World War 2.

 

[Seeds]

Seeds, you're still not understanding what I am saying.

No individual nation can ever be socialist, whatever its government says about itself.

The world capitalist economy is a vast, technological, industrial colussus which dominates every national economy - including both that of the USA and of China.

The world economy is the sum of all the national economies, and it is far more powerful than any economy within any single country.

Capital passes at the speed of light around the world, and can make or break entire nation states.

However, this gigantic and amazing world economy is mortally wounded by two basic contradictions:

a) production is a massive, social and international process, but how this process is carried out is determined not by the world's population, but by a miniscule layer of society - the capitalist class - who do so entirely for their own private profit interests.

b) production is an interconnected international process, but the world economy is continually disrupted, spun into chaos, even partially destroyed, by the rivalry between competitor nation states.

Socialism, as meant by Marx, Lenin, Trotsky and all genuine Marxists today, is a higher level of production than capitalism. It is the next stage of human civilisation. It has not yet been achieved.

To be achieved, there must be a world socialist revolution, in which the international working class takes political power in all countries. Once the owners of massive transnational corporations, banks, hedge funds, social media platforms, are expropriated, all this colossal social wealth can be harnessed by the working class to use it not for private profit, but for the needs of society as a whole.

This is the true meaning of socialism. Any national government claiming to be "socialist" necessarily is lying. Naturally, the mass media plays a major role in sowing confusion about the meaning of the word "socialist".

The very existence of world capitalism after World War 2 was guaranteed by the massive historical lie that the Soviet Union represented "socialism". This grotesque lie served to create a myriad of confusions and political impasses:
a) socialism could exist within a single counry
b) socialism always leads to a monstrous dictatorship


among the worst. These two political misconceptions served ideologically to stabilise capitalism aftert he horrors of World War 2.

But why in your view cant a socialist economy be closed? And if its closed then what happens in the rest of the world is irrelevant is it not? Unless you think trade is necessary for socialism?

And how does trade even work in a socialist economy? Trade is important for capitalism. I dont see how it even fits into socialism.

 

[IlovethePies]

But why in your view cant a socialist economy be closed? And if its closed then what happens in the rest of the world is irrelevant is it not? Unless you think trade is necessary for socialism?

And how does trade even work in a socialist economy? Trade is important for capitalism. I dont see how it even fits into socialism.

A socialist economy cannot be closed because no nation state or set of nation states can insulate themselves from the world economy.

Just think about what would happen, as a clear example, if Australia and New Zeland decided to unify in some kind of "socialist nirvana" where everything would be created and supplied within Australia and NZ, independent of anywhere else. The productivity of labor of Australia and nZ would be far lower than that of the entire world economy: the technological advances that Australia and NZ would need to make progress would be cut off from them.
Foreign investors would almost overnight withdraw their capital from Australian and New Zealand banks, recognising that such an economic perspective would be totally catastrophic for their investment profits within Australia and NZ.

The immediate withdrawal of capital would be enough to crash both economies virtually overnight.

Socialism means a world planned economy, or it means nothing at all.

Here is an article which explains how socialist planning might look:

An exchange on socialist planning

The following is a letter from a reader about socialist planning and a reply from World Socialist Web Site editorial board member Nick Beams.

www.wsws.org

 

[Seeds]

A socialist economy cannot be closed because no nation state or set of nation states can insulate themselves from the world economy.

Just think about what would happen, as a clear example, if Australia and New Zeland decided to unify in some kind of "socialist nirvana" where everything would be created and supplied within Australia and NZ, independent of anywhere else. The productivity of labor of Australia and nZ would be far lower than that of the entire world economy: the technological advances that Australia and NZ would need to make progress would be cut off from them.
Foreign investors would almost overnight withdraw their capital from Australian and New Zealand banks, recognising that such an economic perspective would be totally catastrophic for their investment profits within Australia and NZ.

The immediate withdrawal of capital would be enough to crash both economies virtually overnight.

Socialism means a world planned economy, or it means nothing at all.

Here is an article which explains how socialist planning might look:

An exchange on socialist planning

The following is a letter from a reader about socialist planning and a reply from World Socialist Web Site editorial board member Nick Beams.

www.wsws.org

But there is no foreign investment in a socialist economy. As foreign investment is private. So foreign investors withdrawing cant be a roadblock of socialism. As socialism doesnt want foreign investors.

 

[Seeds]

Socialism has always failed as there has been more work than human resources available for mobilisation.

This will change over time with technology (AI being an example).

I'm not sure a pure socialist state can succeed in the next 50 years with the rise of the cold war. That said nations who don't have strong socialist policies (universal healthcare (better than medicare), universal education, better social welfare and better social housing) will be easily pulled apart by external forces during the next 50 years. Just look at nations who suffered during the last cold war and the ukraine today to see what division invites.

I disagree with your point on ai. There is always more work that needs to be done until suddenly there isnt (when robots can do everything for free). But when there isnt any work to be done socialism does not take over. When there is no more work to be done there cant be socialism as socialism involves work. The notion of capitalism and socialism becomes redundant. The world is purely one of leisure and without any money. Goods and services are infinite.

 

[IlovethePies]

But there is no foreign investment in a socialist economy. As foreign investment is private. So foreign investors withdrawing cant be a roadblock of socialism. As socialism doesnt want foreign investors.

It is a roadblock on the path to establishing socialism

The capitalist class will do everything it can to defend its political power and wealth.

It is true that foreign investment will not exist under socialism. But socialism springs from within capitalism itself, and therefore, the fight for socialism initially requires the fight against capitalism.

In the article i cited above,

"Where are we to find in society as it is the material foundations for the development of the necessary mechanisms and information systems which would make possible the development of economic planning and the progressive replacement of the market as the organizer of economic life?

They are to be discovered, Marx explains, in the institutions and organizations of the world market itself."

Capitalism has created the foundations of a world planned economy with the incredible developments of information technology and telecommunications as well as robotization, AI, etc

The embryo of socialism exists within the world economy.

But it must be extracted, and that process will elicit the resistance of the capitalist class.

Therefore, it is imperative that we think through how socialism will be achieved. It can only be achieved through the political action of an international class - a class which has no interest in preserving national borders, nor in private profit accumulation.

That force is the international working class.

 

[Seeds]

It is a roadblock on the path to establishing socialism

The capitalist class will do everything it can to defend its political power and wealth.

It is true that foreign investment will not exist under socialism. But socialism springs from within capitalism itself, and therefore, the fight for socialism initially requires the fight against capitalism.

In the article i cited above,

"Where are we to find in society as it is the material foundations for the development of the necessary mechanisms and information systems which would make possible the development of economic planning and the progressive replacement of the market as the organizer of economic life?

They are to be discovered, Marx explains, in the institutions and organizations of the world market itself."

Capitalism has created the foundations of a world planned economy with the incredible developments of information technology and telecommunications as well as robotization, AI, etc

The embryo of socialism exists within the world economy.

But it must be extracted, and that process will elicit the resistance of the capitalist class.

Therefore, it is imperative that we think through how socialism will be achieved. It can only be achieved through the political action of an international class - a class which has no interest in preserving national borders, nor in private profit accumulation.

That force is the international working class.

Numerous countries have broken free of trade and foreign investment. China under mao. Russia under stalin and lenin. Cuba. Venezuela etc. This has been achieved numerous times. And yet socialism keeps failing despite breaking free of these so called shackles.

You cant blame capitalism in the rest of world for socialism failing.

 

[IlovethePies]

Numerous countries have broken free of trade and foreign investment. China under mao. Russia under stalin and lenin. Cuba. Venezuela etc. This has been achieved numerous times. And yet socialism keeps failing despite breaking free of these so called shackles.

You cant blame capitalism in the rest of world for socialism failing.

Seeds, for the last time, China under Mao, the USSR under Stalin, Venezuela are/were NEVER socialist.
Their failure does not prove the failure of socialism.
Rather, their failure proves the inevitable failure of any national program.

The failure of all national programs flows from the inner fundamental contradiction of capitalism between a world planned economy and rival nation states.

I can blame capitalism for:

a) the current escalation of war across the world, threatening a nuclear armageddon,
b) the inability to respond to climate change, threatening a planetary catastrophe over the next century,
c) the criminal refusal to sustain public health measures against epidemics. When the next epidemic hits, and it could be more lethal than covid, what response do you expect from governments which have already allowed millions of people to die world wide from covid?
d) the resurgence of fascism across the world, accompanied by the most venomous anti immigrant xenophobia

I definitely don't blame capitalism for the "failure of socialism" because, as I keep repeating, socialism has never yet existed.

 

[peetoo]

Seeds, for the last time, China under Mao, the USSR under Stalin, Venezuela are/were NEVER socialist.
Their failure does not prove the failure of socialism.
Rather, their failure proves the inevitable failure of any national program.

The failure of all national programs flows from the inner fundamental contradiction of capitalism between a world planned economy and rival nation states.

I can blame capitalism for:

a) the current escalation of war across the world, threatening a nuclear armageddon,
b) the inability to respond to climate change, threatening a planetary catastrophe over the next century,
c) the criminal refusal to sustain public health measures against epidemics. When the next epidemic hits, and it could be more lethal than covid, what response do you expect from governments which have already allowed millions of people to die world wide from covid?
d) the resurgence of fascism across the world, accompanied by the most venomous anti immigrant xenophobia

I definitely don't blame capitalism for the "failure of socialism" because, as I keep repeating, socialism has never yet existed.

The rub is the religions sucking up to capitalism which outwardly hand whinging over the ‘poor’ of the breakdown of gods beautiful creation through over exploitation

 

[Power Raid]

Socialism cannot be established in one country, and any perspective of "building socialism in one country" has proven disastrous and reactionary to the core.
The Stalinist program of "socialism in one country" was the first example, then there other variations of the same theme such as "Arab socialism"', Pol Pot's dystopia of an "agrarian socialist country", the myth of Cuba as a "socialist state", or of Nicaragua as a "socialist" state.

All of these examples have ended in a historic catastrophes of extreme violence and bloodshed, along with the total economic and social collapse of the countries involved.

This is because socialism implies a higher standard of technology and production than that of capitalism. Capitalism now consists of a massively integrated and complex set of internationally coordinated production processes involving the most advanced technologies ever in existence. No individual nation can possibly hold out against the colossal power of the world economy.

Even in Scandinavia, frequently trumpeted as examples of "socialism", we now see all of these countries tearing down the previous social arrangements, cutting back on health spending, education, and turning to policies of mass xenophobia and anti immigrant hysteria to scapegoat immigrants for the attacks on living standards being carried out by the government.

There is ample wealth , technology and productive capacity to provide a decent standard of living for every person on the planet. But it won't just "come about", because this wealth, technology and productive capacity is currently privately owned by a tiny minority, the capitalist class, which uses its ownership of mankind's productive forces for one purpose only: to extract profit, and amass wealth.

They will not willingly give up their ownership of the productive forces, and will fight to defend it with counterrevolutionary violence.

That is why the world cannot become socialist without an international world socialist revolution, in which the world working class seizes political power, and the productive forces are used for what society needs as a whole, rather than for the profit interests of a miniscule oligarchy.

I agree with you but add some failures in our current capitalist system:

- for every dollar increase in pay of the ordinary man, property prices go up $13. That means a person is enslaved 13 years, to pay off that last $13 of a mortgage, every time he gets a pay rise when entering the property market.

Simple "socialist" fixes on this problem is not wholesale capital gains tax adjustments (rather just tweak the years 50% discounts is achieved) and certainly not removing negative gearing (as this actually makes the rich richer) but rather introducing a properly design property tax blended into income tax (with a threshold of $10M before it kicks in).



ie Twiggy will say some bullshit like "FMG paid $1B in taxes". When in reality his dividend is paid into a charity thus he gets the full franking credit back. So both FMG and twiggy pay zero tax.

What should happen is his wealth should be taxed, something like this:

wealth $30B
5% being a tax estimate of total return on capital (ie he could have generated 7% in dividends alone if he put it into CBA shares)
estimated taxable income base $6B
$6B multiplied by 30% tax = $1.8B wealth tax

now if he paid $0.1B income tax, then this off set against the $1.8B wealth tax leaving him with a $1.7B bill



We tax income too hard for ordinary people but have a system too easy to get around if one is wealthy. A sensible wealth tax makes income tax impossible to avoid.

 

[barreness]

Numerous countries have broken free of trade and foreign investment. China under mao. Russia under stalin and lenin. Cuba. Venezuela etc. This has been achieved numerous times. And yet socialism keeps failing despite breaking free of these so called shackles.

You cant blame capitalism in the rest of world for socialism failing.

Think it's pretty obvious that a nation without all it's required resources will fail under exclusion from global trade, at least from a modern living standards position

Why has most of Africa failed though it's under the capitalist model?

Is Cuba better than Haiti? I suppose you could ask the Dominican republic too, are there factors beyond the allocation of capital?

 

[barreness]

I agree with you but add some failures in our current capitalist system:

- for every dollar increase in pay of the ordinary man, property prices go up $13. That means a person is enslaved 13 years, to pay off that last $13 of a mortgage, every time he gets a pay rise when entering the property market.

Interesting maths

Simple "socialist" fixes on this problem is not wholesale capital gains tax adjustments (rather just tweak the years 50% discounts is achieved) and certainly not removing negative gearing (as this actually makes the rich richer) but rather introducing a properly design property tax blended into income tax (with a threshold of $10M before it kicks in).

Or just you know, house people

ie Twiggy will say some bullshit like "FMG paid $1B in taxes". When in reality his dividend is paid into a charity thus he gets the full franking credit back. So both FMG and twiggy pay zero tax

true

What should happen is his wealth should be taxed, something like this:

wealth $30B
5% being a tax estimate of total return on capital (ie he could have generated 7% in dividends alone if he put it into CBA shares)
estimated taxable income base $6B
$6B multiplied by 30% tax = $1.8B wealth tax

now if he paid $0.1B income tax, then this off set against the $1.8B wealth tax leaving him with a $1.7B bill

Just nationalise the mines, skirting the issue with economics

We tax income too hard for ordinary people but have a system too easy to get around if one is wealthy. A sensible wealth tax makes income tax impossible to avoid.

Sure, it's not relevant in a socialist society. Twiggy is persona no grata and the mine is owned by the workers/state

 

[Seeds]

Interesting maths

Or just you know, house people

true

Just nationalise the mines, skirting the issue with economics

Sure, it's not relevant in a socialist society. Twiggy is persona no grata and the mine is owned by the workers/state

If you nationalise mines then new mines dont get found and invested in.

Governments dont take on exploration risk. There is simply no incentive for governments to do so.

 

[Gethelred]

If you nationalise mines then new mines dont get found and invested in.

Governments dont take on exploration risk. There is simply no incentive for governments to do so.

Can you categorically state that we need more mines, Seeds?

 

[Chicken Treat]

Only is the population of that society is small and that society is culturally homogenous.

 

[Seeds]

Can you categorically state that we need more mines, Seeds?

We will in the future as wealth rises across the world and previously poor people can aquire more stuff (cars, homes, infrastructure, power etc). We also need them to transition our infrastructure to new technologies such as green technologies which require certain metals that werent previously mined in high quantities.

 

[Seeds]

Only is the population of that society is small and that society is culturally homogenous.

Can you elaborate?

 

[btdg]

If you nationalise mines then new mines dont get found and invested in.

Governments dont take on exploration risk. There is simply no incentive for governments to do so.

I think everyone would acknolwedge that you can't just change one thing about society and leave everything else the same.

Right now, governments are happy to leave risk (and reward) to private business. That wasn't always the case. There's no reason why a) socialist governments can't invest in exploration and capital investment or b) firms can't operate independently but the gains be socialised in various ways.

Under the latter model, the Norweigian Government Pension fund currently owns 1.5% of all the shares on earth. Meanwhile our governments run deficits and can't fund education properly while Gina Rinheart and Tiwggy Forrest are swimming around in giant Scrooge McDuck style hoards of gold they pilfered from taxpayers.

We don't have the balance right and it is only getting worse.

 

[Chicken Treat]

Can you elaborate?

It requires everybody to want to work together to make it work. Which means people need to have a lot of shared values/opinions on a lot of things.

Otherwise you are going to need to force the population by establishing a dictatorship.

 

[Power Raid]

Interesting maths

Or just you know, house people

true

Just nationalise the mines, skirting the issue with economics

Sure, it's not relevant in a socialist society. Twiggy is persona no grata and the mine is owned by the workers/state

would you prefer to risk 100% of capital, have zero competency management, cost plus contracts etc all for the potential of 100% of the profit or loss?

or risk no capital and get 50 to 85% of the profit risk free?

 

[barreness]

If you nationalise mines then new mines dont get found and invested in.

Why?

Most exploration is govt funded, especially in the early stages and then subsidised later

Governments dont take on exploration risk. There is simply no incentive for governments to do so.

This is the most incorrect take I've heard from you, they are the ones with incentives to do so; jobs, royalties, industry, taxes