Sanders' Paradise: Cuba

[simplicio]

1.)Insofar as you are participating in a meaningful way, that is socialism.

I disagree, that (the 401k and their ilk) is an example of the democratization of the stock market, the barriers to participation in the market has fallen over the last half century. Capitalism is about the (free) flow of capital to certain entities. Socialism is harder to define and describe, it is usually described in comparison to capitalism, and not on its own terms.

2.)

My guess is your vote is irrelevant because there will be majority shareholders whose vote overrides you and the 100,000 others like you who own an irrelevant number of shares.

Its not just the raw number of votes, even when Warren Buffet has a small holding, when he speaks, people pay attention. Some capitalists have more influence than others. Buffet is seen as a long term investor, he is (generally) not seen as a predator

3.) It can vary depending on the details. Often the top positions would be subject to yearly voting by the rest of the employees, so the people at the 'top' would have less job security than the rest because they might be voted out. Another way of doing it might indeed be to give people ownership relative to their position in the company, so the CEO might have 5x the voting power of the lowest paid worker (as opposed to say the 1000x earnings and infinitely more control that is commonly seen in a capitalist framework that has a purely top-down management hierarchy).

4.) No. Commonly a socialist cooperative would vote to set a wage ratio for CEO vs lowest earning worker, and then the other wages of people in the company would fall within that range. In cooperatives I've seen numbers for, those ranges tend to be 3x through to 9x.

Any of the options you list are different types of socialist economies. There isn't only one type of socialism.

5.) No, the word capitalism refers to the presence of people called 'capitalists' in the economy, who are individuals with lots of $$$ which they use to buy and control companies in order to make profits for themselves. The 'free market' or lack of it is a independent thing, and you can have free or unfree markets in both socialism and capitalism.

6.) Only in a few types of socialism that are no longer particularly popular. The lack of a free market, or the government controlling the economy, are not part of the definition of socialism. Neither was advocated by Marx. Neither is advocated by most socialists today.

7.) No, how the companies are owned, by definition, tells you whether the economy is socialist or capitalist. That is literally what the words 'capitalist' and 'socialist' refer to - whether the companies are owned by rich individuals who are profiting from that ownership (capitalist) or whether the ownership is distributed in some way (e.g. among employees, among the wider community, etc) amongst people the society (socialist). If, as you note, in current society, some companies are privately owned and some are cooperatives, then that tells you that the US economy is currently a mix of socialism and capitalism. Because it is more one than the other, we would generally call it capitalism, but it's not a purely capitalist economy.

8.) No. In many views of socialism the government does very little and largely isn't involved in anything 'socialist'. Karl Marx had no interest in the government and wrote all about which people owned the companies. His goals were more democracy and more empowerment to the average worker in having a say about how their workplace was run. It was Lenin/Stalin in Russia who decided in the 20th century that it was a really great idea for the government to run everything (and, in Stalin's case, for the government to become a dictatorship), which became known as 'bolshevism' or 'communism' in contrast to the previous / western "democratic socialist" tradition. Most socialists in the West were and are against bolshevism/communism/Stalinism because it doesn't empower the average employee, it doesn't bring more freedom or democracy, and it just replaces one set of bosses with another. George Orwell's Animal Farm, a critique of Stalinism written by a Democratic Socialist, ends with the line that the new bosses were identical to the old, effectively arguing that there was no meaningful difference for the average worker between Western capitalism and Stalin's communism. Most western democratic socialists continue to reject the ideas of bolshevism/communism. The democratic socialist tradition continues to emphasize the goals of 1. More democracy, 2. More human rights and freedoms, 3. More employee influence in how the businesses they work for are run and ownership of them. Any idea that the government control the economy is neither common nor popular.

There's a lot here, I'll add the problems of how a firm is structured, profit v non profit, corporation or cooperative, closely held or publicly traded, are major questions, along with how managers are incentivized. Michael Milliken built the leveraged buy outs and junk bonds. A book written about him chronicled how money influenced all decisions surrounding him, his assistants were in a tizzy when he took and hour off to watch his son's Little League game, his time was valued around a million dollars a minute. He eventually landed in jail, now he is a lauded philanthropist and business leader (recently pardoned).

Predatory capitalism and related problems are an issue we face, regulations are needed to maintain any system. Regulation is seen by conservatives today as socialist in that it represents a centralized planning, which has an element of truth in it. But some of the problems in our economy arise from types of predatory capitalism. 401k investors generally want stability, the candy company or grocery chain is invested in to insure retirement income. If the companies are flipped several times and the assets stripped leaving an insolvent company, investors (generally small capitalists with middle class income) are left with little on the balance sheet, pension funds are left insolvent, creating a problem for taxpayers.

Adam Smith's invisible hand cannot distinguish immoral from moral actions of management.

Paragraph 8 brings in importance of philosophies which support the worldview or system.

[Sparko]

Insofar as you are participating in a meaningful way, that is socialism. My guess is your vote is irrelevant because there will be majority shareholders whose vote overrides you and the 100,000 others like you who own an irrelevant number of shares.

No that's just Democratic Capitalism. And just like any other voting situation, if enough people vote the same way, they can affect the company. But sure, the guys with the most shared usually have the biggest voice. And that is usually the people who started the company. After all, they took the risk, they provide the plan and the direction of the company. Why shouldn't they have the largest chunk of ownership?

It can vary depending on the details. Often the top positions would be subject to yearly voting by the rest of the employees, so the people at the 'top' would have less job security than the rest because they might be voted out.

Public companies do the same thing. They vote on a board of directors who run the company, hire the CEO and other officers, which can change depending on how well the company is doing, which is ultimately determined by the market: If they fill a need and the consumer likes it and buys the product, then the company does well. If they don't then the company suffers and the leaders will be voted out. It's a bit of a microcosm of a countries government.

Another way of doing it might indeed be to give people ownership relative to their position in the company, so the CEO might have 5x the voting power of the lowest paid worker (as opposed to say the 1000x earnings and infinitely more control that is commonly seen in a capitalist framework that has a purely top-down management hierarchy).

No. Commonly a socialist cooperative would vote to set a wage ratio for CEO vs lowest earning worker, and then the other wages of people in the company would fall within that range. In cooperatives I've seen numbers for, those ranges tend to be 3x through to 9x.

That basically just mirrors what happens in any capitalist company. Each worker gets a share of the profits, paid as wages, and their wages go up as they have higher positions in the company. Many companies will also offer stock incentives or profit sharing. There is incentive to work harder and move up in the company, getting more and more ownership and shares of the profit paid as wages.

But isn't it better for someone to be able to choose which companies they wanted to own stock in, rather than just the people who work there? Or am I misunderstanding again? Who owns company XYZ in a socialist economy? The workers at XYZ or the whole "public" which is really the government elected by the people

?
Any of the options you list are different types of socialist economies. There isn't only one type of socialism.

Buying and selling stock isn't socialism, it's capitalism. You can buy ownership in various companies, of your own choosing. You can sell those shares and make a profit. Or lose money. But I am not sure I understood your answer. Who owns XYZ in a socialist economy? Or your preferred version of socialism?

No, the word capitalism refers to the presence of people called 'capitalists' in the economy, who are individuals with lots of $$$ which they use to buy and control companies in order to make profits for themselves. The 'free market' or lack of it is a independent thing, and you can have free or unfree markets in both socialism and capitalism.

There are also capital goods and assets.

And it doesn't take a lot of $$$ to be a capitalist. Anyone can start and own their own business. A kid could start a lemonade stand and it is capitalism. He buys lemons and sugar and creates a good that he sells for a profit. He risks no one buying of liking his product, or the next door neighbor creating competition. If he does well, people will buy his lemonade and he will make a profit. If his business gets large enough, he can hire other kids to help him make and sell the lemonade. He pays them out of the gross profits.

Only in a few types of socialism that are no longer particularly popular. The lack of a free market, or the government controlling the economy, are not part of the definition of socialism. Neither was advocated by Marx. Neither is advocated by most socialists today.

You can't have a really free market without allowing companies to succeed or fail without government interference. Look at that video in the OP, where the grocery store has only one brand of garbanzo beans filling the shelves. Socialist governments determine that the people need certain things like garbanzo beans and assigns a factory to produce them, but there is no need to have competing brands because the government controls it all. So you have no competition, or very little, and you also have no innovation, and no free market.

No, how the companies are owned, by definition, tells you whether the economy is socialist or capitalist. That is literally what the words 'capitalist' and 'socialist' refer to - whether the companies are owned by rich individuals who are profiting from that ownership (capitalist) or whether the ownership is distributed in some way (e.g. among employees, among the wider community, etc) amongst people the society (socialist). If, as you note, in current society, some companies are privately owned and some are cooperatives, then that tells you that the US economy is currently a mix of socialism and capitalism. Because it is more one than the other, we would generally call it capitalism, but it's not a purely capitalist economy.

You keep sticking in the adjective "rich" -- are you trying to poison the well? Most businesses and companies in the USA are small businesses, where the owners are just making a living. They are not rich, and they pay workers what ever they can. Usually pretty well. Partnerships are not socialist. Public stock ownership is not socialist. It is a separate free market, where people can buy and sell ownership in companies. Far from socialist.

No. In many views of socialism the government does very little and largely isn't involved in anything 'socialist'. Karl Marx had no interest in the government and wrote all about which people owned the companies. His goals were more democracy and more empowerment to the average worker in having a say about how their workplace was run. It was Lenin/Stalin in Russia who decided in the 20th century that it was a really great idea for the government to run everything (and, in Stalin's case, for the government to become a dictatorship), which became known as 'bolshevism' or 'communism' in contrast to the previous / western "democratic socialist" tradition. Most socialists in the West were and are against bolshevism/communism/Stalinism because it doesn't empower the average employee, it doesn't bring more freedom or democracy, and it just replaces one set of bosses with another. George Orwell's Animal Farm, a critique of Stalinism written by a Democratic Socialist, ends with the line that the new bosses were identical to the old, effectively arguing that there was no meaningful difference for the average worker between Western capitalism and Stalin's communism. Most western democratic socialists continue to reject the ideas of bolshevism/communism. The democratic socialist tradition continues to emphasize the goals of 1. More democracy, 2. More human rights and freedoms, 3. More employee influence in how the businesses they work for are run and ownership of them. Any idea that the government control the economy is neither common nor popular.

In practice, any true socialist government will end up moving more and more towards communism. At first it begins with socialist people electing a socialist government who they put in charge of regulating businesses to control the production and output. Eventually the government decides it's better to actually own the companies (in the name of the people of course) and completely control the means of production. At that point it is full blown communism.

Democratic Socialism is just a buzz word for how it starts. The people elect the government to "run the socialism" and give them free stuff.

The things you claim you want (public ownership of companies) we already have. You want the companies to share the profits? They already do. It's called wages. And if someone doesn't like their wages, they can go someplace else, or train to know more and be more valuable.

[simplicio]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/26/world...ntl/index.html

Seems Cuba is helping other countries out in this emergency. And the article even notes that they are extremely effective at disaster relief.

I know, I know. Only a commie would note the fact that Cuba is sending medical brigades.

[simplicio]

And even medical aid from......Russia.

[JimL]

Not to mention they've come up with a vaccine for lung cancer, as well as other types of cancer, the cure for yellow fever which saved millions of lives, and is now working together with U.S. scientist to improve further in the treatment of cancer. Unfortunately the embargo re-imposed by Trump is making the combined efforts difficult.
http://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cuba-cancer-vaccine/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article...cer-treatment/

[simplicio]

Not to mention they've come up with a vaccine for lung cancer, as well as other types of cancer, the cure for yellow fever which saved millions of lives, and is now working together with U.S. scientist to improve further in the treatment of cancer. Unfortunately the embargo re-imposed by Trump is making the combined efforts difficult.
http://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cuba-cancer-vaccine/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article...cer-treatment/

I think the label of vaccine is a misnomer; instead they have developed a promising treatment, but it is still under testing.

But it is interesting that Cuba has made an important step forward, which is at odds with the general view of Cubans under the communists. We have a US Navy ship sitting idle in New York harbor; Cubans are sending much needed health care workers.

[rogue06]

I think the label of vaccine is a misnomer

It more than implies that it is contagious.

[simplicio]

It more than implies that it is contagious.

I was think more along the lines of a prophylactic. The anti smoking crusade is premised in part on the view that it is contagious, Joe Camel was analogous to a virus. To the extent that smoking is contagious, so is lung cancer.

[JimL]

I think the label of vaccine is a misnomer; instead they have developed a promising treatment, but it is still under testing.

I think they've labeled it a vaccine because, though it is not a preventative drug, it manipulates the immune system into attacking and destroying the tumor.

But it is interesting that Cuba has made an important step forward, which is at odds with the general view of Cubans under the communists. We have a US Navy ship sitting idle in New York harbor; Cubans are sending much needed health care workers.

It is still in testing, but has already had positive results in destroying tumors. U.S. scientists were so impressed with the science that they wanted to team up with the Cubans to see if they can improve upon it. I just wanted to put that out there in defense of Bernie Sanders who when saying something good about Cuba and their healthcare system was attacked for being a communist lover by conservatives.

[Sparko]

Not to mention they've come up with a vaccine for lung cancer, as well as other types of cancer, the cure for yellow fever which saved millions of lives, and is now working together with U.S. scientist to improve further in the treatment of cancer. Unfortunately the embargo re-imposed by Trump is making the combined efforts difficult.
http://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cuba-cancer-vaccine/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article...cer-treatment/

And you think this is all thanks to Fidel Castro? Or did you lose track of the conversation again? Praising Castro for what he did to Cuba.

[JimL]

And you think this is all thanks to Fidel Castro? Or did you lose track of the conversation again? Praising Castro for what he did to Cuba.

The OP says "this is the country Sanders is praising." Sanders was praising certain successful policies that Cuba put into effect, not the country per se. That's the distinction you conservatives either can't or just don't want to recognize.

[Watermelon]

And you think this is all thanks to Fidel Castro? Or did you lose track of the conversation again? Praising Castro for what he did to Cuba.

What do you think Cuba needs to do for you to be happy about US-Cuba relations?

[Sparko]

What do you think Cuba needs to do for you to be happy about US-Cuba relations?

Good relations are fine. We have those with NK right now. That doesn't mean that Cuba is a socialist paradise. Watch the video at the opening post.

[KingsGambit]

The misplaced apostrophe in this thread title really bothers me. Sorry.

[JimL]

Good relations are fine. We have those with NK right now. That doesn't mean that Cuba is a socialist paradise. Watch the video at the opening post.

Yeah, except no one, including Sanders, has praised Cuba as a socialist paradise. He praised their healthcare system. That's a distinction that you hardliners don't seem capable of understanding.

And what! We have good relations with N. Korea?