Society/Culture Can a purely socialist society exist?

[barreness]

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?

Pretty sure the govt can run a mine. Why would they not simply employ the same people on a similar pay packet and put the profits back into the govt coffers

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

I mean this would be a reasonable outcome but I'm not seeing it. Royalties are tiny and most of the big ones pay minimal company tax(most of the time)

 

[Power Raid]

Pretty sure the govt can run a mine. Why would they not simply employ the same people on a similar pay packet and put the profits back into the govt coffers

I mean this would be a reasonable outcome but I'm not seeing it. Royalties are tiny and most of the big ones pay minimal company tax(most of the time)

If you look at Kazakhstan and Russia you'd suggest otherwise

but yes I agree we should tax mining better by increasing royalties, focusing on the low risk mining assets such as coal, iron ore and gas

 

[Seeds]

Why?

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

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

Leadership incentives tend to be short term. In both democracies and party based socialism. Ironically dictatorships with leaders for life are the exception here but those have so many other economic problems it's not even worth considering.

Investing resources on things that may fail (risk) and at best not provide any benefits to well into the future past a leaders date often provides little incentives for leaders to properly undertake exploration. There are likely exceptions. But not a lot.

Ps. Why do jobs and taxes matter in a socialist society? Everyone already works and there are no taxes. And by royalties I'm assuming you mean revenue since the socialist government owns the future mines .

 

[Power Raid]

Why?

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

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

The exploration incentive scheme is $7.5M, with exploration investment by private enterprise in WA being $2.6B. that's not quite "most exploration is govt funded" is it?

 

[kranky al]

Social ownership of the means of production (as opposed to private ownership).

Land, Labour and Capital (including capital goods, and infrastructure) are now owned by the State. Banks, finance, stock markets etc cease to exist.

In Scandinavia all of those things are in private hands. Calling the Danes, Norwegians and Swedes 'Socialist' is a furphy that really needs to stop.

That be communism brosef

 

[kranky al]

A purely socialist society has no means to allocate resources. You take away the price system then resource allocation collapses and thus so does the system. How long this takes depends on how long the leaders are willing/able to hold guns to everyone heads.

Socialism and communism are two different ideologies that have similarities in their practices. Communism eliminates private property in the hopes of creating equality. Socialism seeks greater equality by creating more equal distribution of wealth.

 

[kranky al]

This is completely illogical to me. I cant reason with it. It appears to be nonsense. Can only provide a couple of comments.

Jails existed before capitalism. They arent a capitalist construct and they tend to be employed in much greater use in non capitalist societies.

Capitalism isnt national. Its international. Anti capitalist policies constrain capitalism to be national.

The housing crisis and social equities that result isnt a function of capitalism. Its a function of dumb govt policies constraining land. Nothing about capitalism advocates for resources to be constrained.

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.

Reducing inequality involves redistribution of unearned wealth (inheritance, capital gains obtained through luck etc) and free high quality education. Not eliminating the price system and taking choice away from the people.

While the United States represented about 4.2 percent of the world's population in 2020, it housed around 20 percent of the world's prisoners.

You were rambling something about “They arent a capitalist construct and they tend to be employed in much greater use in non capitalist societies.”

 

[barreness]

If you look at Kazakhstan and Russia you'd suggest otherwise

Are we talking now or under the Soviet Union? Russia is currently a major producer of a whole bunch of minerals, Gazprom pumps out a shitload of gas by any standard. There are many privately owned companies and also some state ones

but yes I agree we should tax mining better by increasing royalties, focusing on the low risk mining assets such as coal, iron ore and gas

Cool

 

[barreness]

Leadership incentives tend to be short term. In both democracies and party based socialism. Ironically dictatorships with leaders for life are the exception here but those have so many other economic problems it's not even worth considering.

So quarterly profits aren't a major driver in private companies?

Investing resources on things that may fail (risk) and at best not provide any benefits to well into the future past a leaders date often provides little incentives for leaders to properly undertake exploration. There are likely exceptions. But not a lot.

I'll just leave these here for you

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Geological_Survey
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoscience_Australia
AGSO's predecessor organisation the Bureau of Mineral Resources, Geology and Geophysics[5] (BMR) was established in 1946; with the name changing to AGSO in 1992.

The BMR was a geological survey with the main objective was the systematic geological and geophysical mapping of the continent as the basis for informed mineral exploration.

Ps. Why do jobs and taxes matter in a socialist society? Everyone already works and there are no taxes. And by royalties I'm assuming you mean revenue since the socialist government owns the future mines .

Lol. That's not how it works in any real world example, I thought we were supposed to be the utopians

 

[barreness]

The exploration incentive scheme is $7.5M, with exploration investment by private enterprise in WA being $2.6B. that's not quite "most exploration is govt funded" is it?

The ground work was done by govts. Who mapped the sea floor for the north west shelf for instance? Yes now companies have proven profits they are willing to further expand and as you note it's still subsidised(let's not forget the tax cuts)

 

[Malifice]

That be communism brosef

noun: socialism

1. a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Definition of socialism.

Every time it's been attempted (we hand over ownership and control of the means of production, distribution and exchange to the State) it's turned into a stagnant, unitary party, totalitarian tyranny.

If you're happy living in a State where your every move and action is controlled and regulated by that State, be my guest.

 

[kranky al]

Definition of socialism.

Every time it's been attempted (we hand over ownership and control of the means of production, distribution and exchange to the State) it's turned into a stagnant, unitary party, totalitarian tyranny.

If you're happy living in a State where your every move and action is controlled and regulated by that State, be my guest.

The concepts of socialism and communism have similarities and differences. As theoretical ideas, they are more alike than they are opposing, but put into practice these two concepts garner distinctly different results.

Socialism is a philosophy based in social and economic sciences that strive to lessen inequalities by creating more equal distribution systems of a society's resources. Communism is also a social and economic philosophy that seeks to create greater equality, however, it does so through the elimination of private property. Both theories seek to lessen inequalities in the societies they function in.

 

[barreness]

Definition of socialism.

Every time it's been attempted (we hand over ownership and control of the means of production, distribution and exchange to the State) it's turned into a stagnant, unitary party, totalitarian tyranny.

If you're happy living in a State where your every move and action is controlled and regulated by that State, be my guest.

It's increasingly becoming that but by corporations instead of the state.

Yes yes, you have the option to opt out etc. Most don't though, does a child brought up amongst this culture really have the ability to resist?

 

[barreness]

The concepts of socialism and communism have similarities and differences. As theoretical ideas, they are more alike than they are opposing, but put into practice these two concepts garner distinctly different results.

Socialism is a philosophy based in social and economic sciences that strive to lessen inequalities by creating more equal distribution systems of a society's resources. Communism is also a social and economic philosophy that seeks to create greater equality, however, it does so through the elimination of private property. Both theories seek to lessen inequalities in the societies they function in.

This freaks a lot of people out but it should be noted private property and personal property is different under marxist thought(and most anarchists stuff too). Personal: your house, couch, car, guitar, sweet family heirloom. Private: Factory, farm, mine, something that generates profit from someone else's labour

 

[Malifice]

Socialism is a philosophy based in social and economic sciences that strive to lessen inequalities by creating more equal distribution systems of a society's resources...

...by handing control and ownership of the means of production to the State.

Which invariably leads to a tyranny.

We're talking a purely socialist society here remember.

 

[Malifice]

It's increasingly becoming that but by corporations instead of the state.

How do Corporations control you?

What do they stop you from doing that you want to do, what do they stop you from owning that you want to own?

Jeff Bezos has billions of dollars but he doesnt control me or affect me one iota in my daily life and the choices I make.

 

[barreness]

How do Corporations control you?

What do they stop you from doing that you want to do, what do they stop you from owning that you want to own?

Jeff Bezos has billions of dollars but he doesnt control me or affect me one iota in my daily life and the choices I make.

At least quote me in full, I mostly answered this previously

They control all the data and use it to advertise to me, are we underestimating marketing/propagandas influence?

Bezos probably does control you to some small extent. I mean many of us try to avoid it, have you ever bought something from amazon? Do you use any kind of data centre? Streaming service?

 

[barreness]

...by handing control and ownership of the means of production to the State.

Which invariably leads to a tyranny.

We're talking a purely socialist society here remember.

Why does it lead to a tyranny? Because all states are bad?

Or that ownership leads to tyranny? Why would private ownership be any different? Have you ever voted for your boss?

 

[kranky al]

...by handing control and ownership of the means of production to the State.

Which invariably leads to a tyranny.

We're talking a purely socialist society here remember.

That’s communism.

 

[kranky al]

How do Corporations control you?

What do they stop you from doing that you want to do, what do they stop you from owning that you want to own?

Jeff Bezos has billions of dollars but he doesnt control me or affect me one iota in my daily life and the choices I make.

Throwing their money around so the minimum wage falls relative to inflation, unions are busted, rights to strike are reduced.

Profiteering means people live shit lives.

Avoiding taxes en masse leading to services being cut.

Ffs there’s a thousand ways.

 

[Malifice]

Throwing their money around so the minimum wage falls relative to inflation, unions are busted, rights to strike are reduced.

The minimum wage is a creature of Legislation; Corporations don't control that. They also don't control Unions.

They can throw money around, but ultimately Workers have more votes.

Profiteering means people live shit lives.

Quite the opposite. Profiteering (shifting manufacturing to 'third world former Socialist countries' like Vietnam etc) has actually resulted in the standards of living for literally billions of people drastically improving.

Look at every single former Socialist nation, that has now embraced capitalism. You'll see a sudden and dramatic spike in standard of living, and a booming middle class.

Quality of life improves under (liberal) capitalism. It stagnates under Socialism.

Avoiding taxes en masse leading to services being cut.

I agree more should be done to stop tax havens existing, and to ensure everyone pays a fair amount of tax.

The reality of globalization and competition means that it's a hard thing to pin down. Treaties would go a long way to fix it, but no-one wants that because large Corporations (like Amazon) generate trillions of dollars of economic activity in the places where they operate (making life better for everyone that lives in those places).

Tax them harder, and that economic activity slows down making life worse for everyone. There are fewer jobs, more competition for the jobs that do exist, which leads to lower wages and so on.

Low corporate tax rates actually has a net positive impact for workers.

Of course, the Companies themselves then want to pay CEO's tens of millions per annum, and that's what needs to be stopped.

 

[kranky al]

The minimum wage is a creature of Legislation; Corporations don't control that. They also don't control Unions.

Corporations own politicians. Politicians set the minimum wage.

They can throw money around, but ultimately Workers have more votes.



Quite the opposite. Profiteering (shifting manufacturing to 'third world former Socialist countries' like Vietnam etc) has actually resulted in the standards of living for literally billions of people drastically improving.

I’m talking profiteering like the oil companies and woolies and Coles have been doing the last few years

Look at every single former Socialist nation, that has now embraced capitalism. You'll see a sudden and dramatic spike in standard of living, and a booming middle class.

Communist.

Quality of life improves under (liberal) capitalism. It stagnates under Socialism.

Swedish style democratic socialism does just fine.

I agree more should be done to stop tax havens existing, and to ensure everyone pays a fair amount of tax.

The reality of globalization and competition means that it's a hard thing to pin down. Treaties would go a long way to fix it, but no-one wants that because large Corporations (like Amazon) generate trillions of dollars of economic activity in the places where they operate (making life better for everyone that lives in those places).

They also use our infrastructure whilst not contributing to its upkeep.

Tax them harder, and that economic activity slows down making life worse for everyone. There are fewer jobs, more competition for the jobs that do exist, which leads to lower wages and so on.

Low corporate tax rates actually has a net positive impact for workers.

Of course, the Companies themselves then want to pay CEO's tens of millions per annum, and that's what needs to be stopped.

 

[Malifice]

Corporations own politicians. Politicians set the minimum wage.

No, voters own Politicians.

See also: Workchoices.

I’m talking profiteering like the oil companies and woolies and Coles have been doing the last few years

Yet we have the ACCC, the ACL and a raft of legislation, Trade and corruption watchdogs keeping an eye on them.

If the Corporations truly owned the State, we wouldn't have those agencies or those Acts.

Swedish style democratic socialism does just fine.

Sweden is not Socialist. It is a capitalist State, with a capitalist economy, that is not very different to ours.

Nordic countries are often used internationally to prove that socialism works. It’s true that social democratic parties are enjoying success in this part of the world. Yet while Nordic countries are seeing a partial comeback for social democratic parties, their policies aren’t in fact socialist, but centrist.

Nordic nations—and especially Sweden—did embrace socialism between around 1970 and 1990. During the past 30 years, however, both conservative and social democratic-led governments have moved toward the center. Today, the Nordic social democrats have adopted stricter immigration policies, tightened eligibility requirements for welfare benefit systems, taken a tougher stance on crime, and carried out business-friendly policies.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/10/27/nordic-countries-not-socialist-denmark-norway-sweden-centrist/

The means of production in Sweden are in private hands (mostly). In Sweden, I or my corporation (a private entity) can raise capital, own its own property, and conduct a business, for a profit.

In a purely socialist State, I couldn't do any of that.

 

[kranky al]

No, voters own Politicians.

See also: Workchoices.



Yet we have the ACCC, the ACL and a raft of legislation, Trade and corruption watchdogs keeping an eye on them.

If the Corporations truly owned the State, we wouldn't have those agencies or those Acts.



Sweden is not Socialist. It is a capitalist State, with a capitalist economy, that is not very different to ours.



https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/10/27/nordic-countries-not-socialist-denmark-norway-sweden-centrist/

The means of production in Sweden are in private hands (mostly). In Sweden, I or my corporation (a private entity) can raise capital, own its own property, and conduct a business, for a profit.

In a purely socialist State, I couldn't do any of that.

You keep getting socialism mixed up with communism.

They are two separate things.

And if you think corporate Australia don’t own the politicians you haven’t been paying attention.

Look at the royal commission into banking. They found enough evidence to jail hundreds of people. Yet no one has gone to jail.

No one has been even charged.

 

[Malifice]

You keep getting socialism mixed up with communism.

No, I'm not.

We're talking about a purely socialist society here. See the thread title.

The State own and control most (if not all) the means of production. Private property ownership is severely curtailed (if it's allowed at all).

To do the above, the State requires oppressive and all-encompassing legislation and powers. Powers to stop you from doing things, owning things, forming groups with like-minded people etc.

Leaving aside the invariable tyrannical nature of such a State (and we Liberals have been warning everyone for centuries about what happens when a State has too much power) there is the unavoidable fact that as you increase the amount of 'Socialism' your Nation becomes more stagnant, innovation is stifled, and personal liberty is curtailed.

When you get all the way to full blown Communism, you wind up with... well look around at literally every Communist nation that has actually existed ever. You can see what you wind up with.

Conversely, every single time a Communist/ Socialist State has gone the other way and wound back Socialist practices and laws (Vietnam, China, East Germany, Poland, much of the former USSR) its economy (and the quality of life for its people) drastically improve.

You can literally see the difference with East Germany vs West Germany, China v Hong Kong/ Taiwan, North v South Korea and other examples.

Same country, same people, same starting economies side by side. In every example the Capitalist versions produced better outcomes (economic development, personal freedoms, Human development, purchasing power, etc) for the people of the Capitalist countries over the Socialist versions, and it wasn't even close,

Socialism doesn't work. Marx is right up there with Freud as a great thinker who is often cited (and looked on with a level of reverence) but his theorems (like those of Freud) have been widely debunked and falsified with time.

And if you think corporate Australia don’t own the politicians you haven’t been paying attention.

Explain what happened with Workchoices then.

Landslide election victory, Government booted from office, now the Coalition are too scared to even say the 'W' word in public.

Corporations might have the money, but we have the vote, and Politicians answer to us, not the Corporations.