Socialism is profitable.

Venezuela has some good examples of closed down capitalist run companies on the grounds of unprofitability.When the workers occupied these closed firms saving them from beeing sold for scrap and revived them some became profitable again and product quality improved.
These firms are enterily run by the workers who otherwise would be unemployed.
In some form ironically the capitalist shareholding implemented by the workers owning shares is socialistic and encouraged by the most fervent opponents of socialism.
Loyal workers,profit share,common interest etc are the positives.
It did fail in a state run quota system controlled by technocrats.
Direct involvement of the worker is the key.
My guess is the socialist enemy picture is deeply embedded in the capitalist mind and totally misunderstood.
With the prospect of mass unemployment the picture changes.
Capitalist Reds under the bed isn't that bad.

A socialist company and socialist country are two different things.

"No, they're not."
That's not an argument.

"Do you understand the concept of soviets?"
Neither is that.

A company and a country are different things, therefore a socialist company and a socialist country are different things.

Presumably you wouldn't implement unemployment benefits in a company?

A socialist company and socialist country are two different things.

David, I was thinking of a socialist-style company in a capitalist environment. Irrelevant, a very clear post, thanks. Are you describing Marx's supposedly inevitable socialism? Does this not ignore the tendencies of man toward power and greed? It seems to assume a humble and unambitious populace. Without the profit incentive progress would slow which would be fine internally, but other countries would advance into dominance.

Hang on, I've gone off-topic...
Topic: Socialism is profitable
"Socialism, ..... not for-profit organizations." ...?

Also, "The next steps our community organization and finally the election of a gov't to rule it all. "
Isn't that last bit where it all falls apart? How big a government are we talking?

Kynaston, a state is a far more complex system than a company.

Socialism is profitable.

Employees work harder and more efficiently and strive to produce higher quality products when they have a direct stake in compony policy and profits, who'd of thought? :confused:

This works here where there is real ownership of land and business or should I say in a capitalistic society. Employees have a stake but they are also taxed within a livable rate.

In a socialist country the opposite occurs. Because there are so many economic entitlements, employees are taxed to the point that working extra hours becomes counter productive. This has been the case for decades in Europe. They are not properly compensated because of government re-distribution of funding programs leaving them next to nothing.

I work for a company that's worker-owned (I get a dividend check every June 1st ), debt-free and with the past year being the 1st is it's almost century long history that it saw it's profits drop (we still made a profit), something that has since reversed itself.

That is great for you but it is not designed for the whole country. That would demand everyone who wanted to work to make a financial investment. What about those who cannot contribute?

Now, if it "give away program" and they receive ownership rights without having to invest then, what entrepreneur would want to do that? Why would I want to risk my money just to give it away to a group of employees if that business was my sole source of income?

By the way, offering partial investment benefits has been around for a long time. But when companies offer 100% of the business for employee ownership, it usually means the company is financially failing.


Worker control of the means of production = huge profits. This is indisputable and why people resist (usually being the ones most benefited by such a system) is beyond me. :no:

I think I answered this one.

Did you?

No, in a socialist society, taxes would be irrelevant (no money and all that at it's most advanced stages). The more you work, the more you get. Same concept as in a capitalist society, except it's goods instead of money (or more money at 1st) and it's related to how much profit is gained rather then some arbitrary amount.

The company I work for does give it away. I can buy the stuff if I want but I get payed in stock regardless.

No money? Or no fiat? Double coincidence of wants?

Who are the main proponents of this system?

Well, I need to know how taxes would not be involved in a socialist society. The only system I know is barter which is a very healthy system around the world. But, money has to be generated somewhere.

Again, there is no incentive for anyone to start a business and then give it away if it is their only form of income. Businesses at the brink of bankruptcy are usually the ones that offer ownership in lieu of wages. If the business gets back on track, the employees receive huge benefits. (Good for You)

So, if their is something different, I would like to know.

Why do you mean taxes? As I said, no money and at the early stages taxes would be collected as they are now.

You're thinking like a capitalist arguing socialist economics. No wonder you're confused. :rollinglaugh: In a socialist society, the profit-motive (at least profit as you think of it) isn't what drives the economy, efficiency, quality and need are. Supply and demand without the greed.