Industrial democracy, where workers make the decisions about how the workplace will be operated and towards which end, is an alternative to capitalism. Given modern communications and computational facilities, I see no problem in the workers of many different industries planning and coordinating with other workers in other industries.

Of course this would not be simple. It isn't simple now, but it gets done every day, more less, better and worse. — Bitter Crank

Indeed. There's many misunderstandings about this, however. Given years of indoctrination, even common sense notions become hard to see and understand. But I think discussing concrete examples can really help overcome the false consciousness that has its grip on most working and middle class people -- which prevents them from voting in this direction, joining unions, or advocating/acting for change in the workplace.

I can't wrap my head around the fact that democracy is considered the best form of government — TheMadFool

Just be happy with your plutocracy, then, and go back to sleep.

We have "free around" hospitals but our health outcomes are not better than yours honestly...
Why all the rich Spaniards go to the USA to treat their serious sicknesses as cancer? Most of them end up in Los Ángeles or Dallas. Think about it...
Everything free is not the solution. — javi2541997

The US spends more on healthcare than any country on planet earth and has some of the worst outcomes. That's just factual.

Why do some rich Spaniards go to the USA? For the same reason rich people all over the world send their kids to Harvard and Yale. The USA has some of the best schools and doctors in the world -- if you can afford it. Likewise, Beverly Hills is pretty nice -- if you can afford it. So what?

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2020/jan/us-health-care-global-perspective-2019

"Overall, while both systems produce similar results in terms of population health and service quality, there are major differences in health care cost and wait time satisfaction. This suggests that while both systems perform their functions adequately, there is still room for improvement on the part of the United States in providing higher quality health care at a more affordable cost."

https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/honors/847/

Sometimes, public and universal wealthcare can be an oasis. It is not as good as it seems. It is true that is basic right that everyone deserves. But, at the end of the day the vaccines were developed by countries which also reinforce the private sector as UK and USA. What Spain has made about the pursuing of vaccines despite the public wealthcare system? Nothing... So the public expenditure is not good at all. — javi2541997

The United States is also a much wealthier nation. Most of the technology that developed did not come out of the private sector, but the public sector. Much like computers, the internet, etc., came out of state-funded research and were later taken over and privatized by companies, large pharmaceutical companies are also in this group. They also are given massive amounts of money from the government in the form of subsidies and incentives.

Lots of nations have healthcare as a basic right. So does Germany. So does Australia. So does the UK. So does Canada, Japan, etc. I wouldn't say that has much to do with innovation or technology.

I actually looked it up. It turns out they wouldn't. They are worker-owned but not managed. — Cheshire

Many of those managers come from the workers, as I'm sure the Wikipedia article will tell you. But that's completely irrelevant. The workers run the company, democratically. No one is claiming, as I've said repeatedly, that every decision is made by majority vote. Like our politcal system in the United States, when we vote for our senators and congressman and President, no one argues that because we don't then get to vote on every decision from that point on it's somehow not democratic.

The majority of its workers voted the following rule, for example: The highest paid cannot get more than 8/9 times what the least paid person gets. I think that's a good rule. Decided democratically. Remember, too, that Mondragon is basically a holding company of many co-ops. So it differs depending on where you look. But it's run democratically.

Sure, if we construct a ridiculous straw man by defining corporate democracy as "workers vote on everything," then of course it's inefficient -- ridiculous, in fact, at least in large companies. But since this is just a fantasy and a straw man, it's not worth taking seriously. Apparently neither are you.

You may think this somewhat irrelevant, but, what I am going to flat out tell you is that who supports co-ops are anarchists and anarchist sympathizers, and, so, the only people who you are going to find who have any interest in such ideas are, well, us.

Thoughts? — thewonder

Yes: I don't think that's remotely true. Most of this is commonsensical and has nothing to do with labels -- socialist, communistic, anarchist, or anything else. For most workers, it simply makes more sense and creates a better working environment. It's better for their morale, they usually receive better compensation, and have say in the place they work.

I'm sure many others agree, in theory, with all of this as well. Fine. I'm glad. But this is less about abstraction than about concrete reality: there are such co-ops out there, and they should be looked to as an alternative form of corporate governance.

In larger Anarchist organizations — thewonder

Stop using "anarchist." This has nothing to do with anarchism, which has a long history, many branches, and many definitions.

These are legal and pragmatic questions and most responses are variable depending upon the particular corporation. If you're really interested, you can read up on C corps, S corps, for profit, not for profit, LLCs, mutual companies, and I'm sure there are more. Some are public and some are closely held. — Hanover

True, but as I said: "I'm talking about large-cap corporations." Mostly fortune 500 companies (Wal Mart, Amazon, Microsoft, Exxon, Boeing, 3M, Pfizer, GM, etc), and generally publicly traded. I'm familiar with the rest.

The questions were in part to see where people were in terms of knowing about the internal workings of a corporation.

All of your questions would have different answers depending upon the specific company you're asking about. — Hanover

Very true. I hope I've clarified better which specific ones I'm talking about.

(6) Would anyone say that a corporation is run democratically?
— Xtrix
No, a democracy is an inefficient form of operations management. It turns out most peoples ideas are bad and its best to ignore them. — Cheshire

Mondragon Corporation would disagree with you.

Sorry to hear you prefer dictatoriship to democracy within the workplace. False consciousness knows no bounds.

Can you please help me see how this is a philosophical topic? If so, to which category in TPF does it belong? — Alkis Piskas

Political philosophy.

If you then say, "Nope, from now on the leaders and managers are just "team members" along with everybody else and everybody together has to make the decisions", what do you think will happen? So... you vote? Or do you have to have a consensus? On what matters? Just for starters, when is someone in the workforce capable doing a decision on his or on her own? — ssu

You speak as though these were pie-in-the-sky ideas. You're aware that they already exist, and that they're often successful?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VdbFzwe8fQ

(Disclosure: I really dislike Michael Moore's tone and air of self-righteousness, but concentrate more on the actual people he's talking to -- also, the facts mentioned check out. This is only one example.)

Basically it's about making every decision collectively — ssu

Yes but this isn't what anyone is advocating. This is a straw man.

It's not about taking a collective vote if I decide to use the bathroom or exercise discretion in my role. It's not about getting rid of division of labor. It's not about abolishing managers, or coordinators, or departments, or CEOs/presidents, or paying everyone the same amount of money, or anything like that.

It's about giving everyone a vote for leadership positions and having workers elect the board of directors rather than investors. There would also be many worker council meetings (like staff meetings) where everyone voices their opinions, etc. Michael Albert has gone into details about what this may entail, some problems that may arise, how to deal with them, etc. He calls this participatory economics, and it's worth taking a look at. I don't agree with every part of it, but it gives an idea of the micro-level activity of a democratic workplace.

Democracy works basically if everybody also shares the responsibility of the actions. If voters choose bad politicians, they in the end will feel it. That is extremely hard to do in a workplace. — ssu

If workers choose bad managers, they can fire them. I don't see why you consider that "extremely hard."

Everybody simply cannot decide with a vote on every issue! Hence in real life, not the ideological fairy tale castle where these structures of companies are larger than life issues, big Cooperatives function quite as big Corporations. Many wouldn't notice the difference in ordinary life between the two. — ssu

Yes, but this is just your unfamiliarity with cooperatives I think. It's not that "everybody decides with a vote on every issue," that would be, as you rightly point out, absurd.

Not only do big cooperatives function as big corporations -- they often ARE big corporations. I'm not seeing the difficulty...

Listening to stakeholders might be a good idea. Yet in some technical question it's simply hypocrisy to assume that the young intern and the 30-year professional have equal say. — ssu

They shouldn't, any more than it's absurd to suggest that your average voter could be President, or mayor, or even councilman. Yet we all still vote nonetheless. The danger, it's true, is in the ignorance and irrationality of the majority of people. But that's always been a risk in democracy.

Yet some have top-down structures simply exist to coordinate the actions of everybody. — ssu

There's nothing inherently wrong with top-down structures, with giving people compensation for work, with making a profit, or with structures of power, control, and authority -- provided it's legitimate. The current organization of most corporations is illegitimate, in my view. A cooperative is a better model than a capitalist one. The former is democratic, the latter is explicitly un-democratic (despite their being some very nice CEOs and very good companies to work for). The capitalist model is illegitimate and thus immoral -- just as slavery was illegitimate and immoral, despite their being benevolent slaveowners.

An essential feature of cooperatives is that the workers run the enterprise democratically. They're their own board of directors. Rather than the board of directors being voted in by investors, they're voted in by everyone who works in the company. The system we have now, predominantly, is this: one share, one vote; 1,000,000 shares, 1,000,000 votes, etc. This is rigged in favor of those with enough wealth to buy more shares and more votes. Thus, they control the board of directors, who both can hire and fire CEOs, distribute profits, and decide what to produce and where -- by law.

That's the problem, at bottom: it's undemocratic. The capitalist model of corporate governance doesn't even pretend to be democratic. Yet there's no good reason why it should exist, any more than there's reason why a plutocracy or oligarchy or monarchy should exist -- I think we're moved past that as a people. If we haven't, then we should stop professing our love for freedom, liberty, democracy, and autonomy. True, throughout history the beneficiaries (the winners) of any system will vehemently resist changes, and will employ intellectuals and all other resources at their disposal to control public opinion, but that doesn't mean we have to be stuck in it. If we can't question it, it's simply another kind of religion.

Democracy isn't an answer to everything, it works extremely well in some areas, not on others. Hence one should be careful just how to implement it. Practical thinking is far better than just ideological perseverance. — ssu

Which is why this has been tried and has succeeded in many cases. Examples are all over. I mentioned Mondragon because it's one of the biggest, but there are others as well. I like to include Ocean Spray, because they're close to where I live. Very successful, very well known brand. Run as a co-op.

When you look into the structures of these companies, you find many interesting facts. There's a trial and error that goes on, and mistakes which are made and learned from, but the basic idea is correct. Remember that forming the United States wasn't an easy and smooth endeavor either, but the underlying justification survived. Likewise the transition from a slave system -- very difficult, still ramifications to this day.

About the famous corporation: Basque Country signed a very important deal with the spanish government in 2002 where they let them have their own “taxation system”. Thanks to this, they develop an own work and economic plan, completely apart from Spain.
I am not saying with this Mondragón is a fake issue. I believe a lot in Basque people, they are heavy and responsible workers. But... we have to admit they have some advantages that other regions don’t. — javi2541997

Sure, sure. All very true and interesting. I use them only to demonstrate what's possible. They have their advantages, flaws, and their own (perhaps very convenient) conditions.

But it happens in the states as well. Ocean Spray is a good example. Very successful. Also a co-op. They contract in distribution with Nestle, I think, but still...

Sometimes I feel is not worthy at all. It is true that here any hospital will leave you in the street for not having an insurance but at the same time there are many folks who are using the healthcare system everyday without working. — javi2541997

You're from Spain?

True, you get free healthcare -- and some people who don't work also get it. But isn't that how it should be, as a basic right?

Remember, too, that we don't turn people away in the US. So people who don't work and are without insurance, and can't pay a dime, still get treatment. The taxpayer has to make up that price anyway. This is often overlooked. Better to just make it free all around, and so you have far less debt, far better health outcomes, and far less expensive treatments.

You make it sound attractive, but democracies are messy and making and moving on decisions can be ordeals. Look at the problems with the infrastructure bills. But I'm naive on the subject. — jgill

Quite right: they are messy. There are problems, there are setbacks, there are dead ends, mistakes, wrong turns, infighting, even corruption. Some enterprises fail, some succeed. Etc.

But we wouldn't argue that because democracy in the United States is messy, that we shouldn't have it. It strive instead to make it better. Likewise, let's start with the same basic principle of democracy -- and apply it to the CORPORATION (which, after all, wouldn't even exist without gifts from the state, legal and otherwise). I think it would transform our society, and for the better.

I'm all for them and all, but I don't think that workers determine their pay grades and ratios all that often, for instance. I could be wrong, though. I don't know too much about them. — thewonder

Who does, then? If the workers are their board of directors, they can decide these things -- just as a board of directors in a capitalist corporation decides how much to compensate a CEO.

The OP refers to a particular manifestation of the general project of economic democracy, or stakeholder socioeconomics as an alternative to shareholder capitalism (e.g. Mondragon Corporation or any network or federation of viable cooperatives). — 180 Proof

Exactly right. I think both the accurate articulation of the problems of society (income inrequality especially, but also healthcare, education and student debt, general debt, stagnant real wages, environmental degradation, externalities, worker layoffs, etc), a keen understanding of how a corporation really works, and real world examples (like Mondragon) that embody the more abstract solutions -- these three things together can lead us forward perhaps to economic democracy. To add to this: labor unions.

This is only on the economic front. On the political front, which is equally important (if not more so), it likewise requires education, alternatives, examples of how to organize and what tactics work, etc.

Maybe a common feature of both is the simple fact that people need to wake up. I've referred to this in my Global Awakening thread, and this in part is what I meant. It means overcoming dogma and propaganda, and coming together with others for collective action.

Who said I have nothing left to say. No anger, it's just a simple sentence I typed out whilst eating a lemon pepper tuna. I'm either wrong or you are, what does it matter really? See.. your own lack of faith betrays you. As it usually does. — Outlander

Lack of faith in what?

Oh not a complete one I see. You're chock full of insults and passive aggression, but logic? That's for the readers to decide. I'm going back to my tuna. Have fun making it known you're above others while complaining about those who do the same. Good Lord I feel like I need a shower after this. — Outlander

There's nothing to decide. There was a simple question with a simple answer. The answer was: the board of directors. Your answer, "the consumers," was simply wrong. Sorry that this upset you -- but grow up and get thicker skin. I'm not here to baby people.

2+2 = ?

Your answer: 3.

Real answer: 4.

"Well, I guess we'll just have to leave it to the readers to decide."

why not just go all the way to workers' self-management? — thewonder

That's what a co-op is, in part. But most importantly is this: they're their own board of directors. They hire and fire CEOs and managers, set pay grades and ratios, decide whether to expand, decide whether they want to bring in private investment and issue stocks, etc. etc. Run very much like companies now -- only difference is that it's worker-run, and run democratically. Shouldn't be a shocking or difficult notion -- except for the propaganda of the United States.

Occupy Wall Street was a broad-based anti-capitalist movement that became popular in 2011. — thewonder

I'm aware of what Occupy Wall Street was. I was there.

Slavoj Zizek was sort of involved with it, but it wasn't communist by any stretch of the imagination. — thewonder

I never said it was communist, so I don't understand this comment.

As for Zizek -- he's a complete imbecile, in my view, and I have no idea why you'd invoke him in this discussion. But carry on as you will.

the markets, supply and demand
— Xtrix

So why produce something with zero demand. Where does the demand come from? — Outlander

I never once said anyone should or would produce something without a demand. That's not the point at all. The question was: who makes the decision about what to produce, how to produce, how much to produce, where to produce (the US? Mexico? China?), and how to allocate the profits of this production?

The answer to this question just simply isn't "the consumer," or "the market." That's ridiculous as soon as you look at how corporations are run. The answer, rather, is simple and straightforward: the board of directors.

Of course it is. Because if not, that means you and your entire life choices are stupid. Which is impossible, clearly. — Outlander

So getting upset at being politely contradicted, and having nothing left to say except to angrily remark that I've "drank the anarchist kool-aid" -- a complete non-sequitur -- is not a stupid remark, but rather my psychology and ego not allowing me to realize how true it is?

Fine -- I've wasted my life on anarchist stuff. Happy? Now let's get back to the real world, and the real questions about corporate structure, and the simple fact that the board of directors makes the decisions about where to allocate profits and how the company should be run (along with choosing the CEO, etc).

his entire reply is a service to others who may be reading at this point. — Outlander

And an informative and well-argued reply it was. At least you're not making a complete laughingstock of yourself.

pretty good Occupy agitprop and bid for co-ops. — thewonder

It's not communist propaganda, and it's not a bid for co-ops. It's simply the factual structure of the corporation and the simple fact of where profits go. Not a word about Occupy. You're just making that up.

I think co-ops serve as a good alternative model. Whether they should be pushed, or whether we should return to a more Keynesian era of regimented capitalism -- the era of managerialism -- is another question. I'm inclined to think the latter is a more viable option temporarily, while also encouraging alternative forms of corporate governance (like co-ops or 20% of board seats going to workers, or strong labor unions).

The consumer does not decide these things within a corporation.
— Xtrix

So we have corporations making products people don't like, buy, need, or use. And are still in business. Ok. — Outlander

The question was: who decides what to produce, how to produce it, and what to do with the profits. That's not the business of "consumers," because that's absurd. The answer is: the board of directors decides these matters. These people, within the corporation, makes these decisions based on all kinds of factors: the markets, supply and demand, fiscal and monetary policies the government is enacting, and so on. But the internal decisions are in their hands alone. The consumer has zero input in this.

See folks this is what happens when you drink the anarchist kool aid. — Outlander

This is a stupid comment. Sorry your feelings were hurt by pointing out that you're wrong. I thought I did it nicely.

This question has nothing to do with anarchism. Nothing. It has to do with corporate governance and its structure.

What is your alternative? — Outlander

Alternative to what?

Not so surprised by the lack of response, so I'll give them myself and see if others find them accurate.

(1) Who "owns" the corporation? Private and public? — Xtrix

A corporation is a legal person. Because slavery is illegal, a corporation is not owned. It owns itself.

(2) What is the most powerful position within a corporation? — Xtrix

I would argue the board of directors. So the chairman of the board, or even the CEO.

(3) Who decides what to produce, how to produce, where to produce? — Xtrix

The board of directors.

(4) Who decides what to do with the profits? — Xtrix

The board of directors.

(5) Where do the profits mostly go, in today's typical fortune 500 company?

(a) Infrastructure (factories, buildings, equipment)
(b) Workers wages, benefits
(c) Expanding the workforce (hiring)
(d) Dividends
(e) Stock buybacks
(f) Paying taxes
(g) Advertising
(h) Lobbying
(i) Research and development (creating new products) — Xtrix

The answer is (e), stock buybacks. At least in the last few years. That's worth dwelling on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-5UVxoThfQ

Stock buybacks shouldn't be allowed anyway. It all comes down to the silly Freidman Doctrine -- shareholder primacy. I'm glad that's beginning to end.

Shareholders are not the owners of the company, and the company does not need to prioritize them. They should be dealt with after the employees, the infrastructure of the company, and the community at large has also been taken care of. What's left can go to dividends if the board of directors so desire -- as was the case for decades (40s, 50s, 60s, 70s).

What happened was the ideology changed to shareholder primacy, thanks in part to guys like Milty, and the boards of directors started getting voted in/pressured to make moves to encourage directing more of the profits to the shareholders in the form of dividends and maximizing share price (through stock buybacks), at the expense of other profit investment -- which is why we've seen worker wages stagnate and companies investing less in R&D, factories and equipment. They did this in part by linking CEO pay with quarterly stock price -- paying a large portion of their salaries with company stocks, or with bonuses that are contingent on share price increases per quarter.

(6) Would anyone say that a corporation is run democratically? — Xtrix

Not how they're run now. They can be run democratically, and a good model of that is the cooperative model, but that's not how major corporations are run today. In terms of corporate governance, the form of government could best be described as totalitarian or tyranny. Top-down structure, where orders are passed down, and at the bottom a majority of wage slaves who rent themselves (their time, energy, labor -- i.e., the better part of their adult life) in order to live.

These corporations are the major employers in the world, and they have positioned themselves to essentially own the state. Of the corporate world, the most powerful by far has become the financial sector -- banks, investment firms, asset managers, etc. In other words: Wall Street.

But, when you do the research, how many people have actually died from nuclear power? — Shawn

Right. It's extremely rare. But people don't want it in their back yard. I think that's the problem. Understandable, but ultimately mistaken -- when you have a far greater chance of dying in a car accident or in your tub.

I tend to be on your side in terms of nuclear. While I appreciate arguments against nuclear power, like the fact that they occasionally explode, like the problems of extracting uranium (or whatever), and the problems of storage -- it's still clean energy in terms of carbon emissions. It should therefore be a big component of future targets. But that'll require, above all, rehabilitating its reputation.

It's your thread, — thewonder

I agree with everything you said except this. I don’t consider it “mine” — someone had to start a thread on climate change and it happened to be me. But it’s a general repository for discussions.

I was still typing. I don't feel a need to keep debating this, but, that may or may not be possible as Xtrix's solution to the ecological crisis, like mine, though I'm willing to exit this thread, as they have taken a disliking to me, may involve some sort of alternative to Liberal democracy. — thewonder

It’s a disliking with your ideas, perhaps. No one knows each other here. We’re all using screen names after all.

Depends on what you mean by liberal democracy. I’ll be clear as to what I want: democracy though and though, including within corporate governance. As it stands now, we have very limited democracy in the political sphere (structurally and through legislation and court decisions— and continually right up to the present), and when it comes to how corporations are organized and run, literally zero.

I think this is related to climate change, but it’s several steps removed from the more immediate solutions available and so perhaps a stretch to argue it should continue on this thread.

Personally I'd hold such views to the math & logic section in PF. There it can be so. — ssu

I think it can extend to history and economics as well, but…

Let's get back to the topic. — ssu

Agreed.

Be just in your fantasies about what "true socialism" is and rewrite history to what you want it to be. — ssu

Boring.

So you're unable to defend yourself, I take it.

Right -- it's hilariously funny for those with a shallow understanding of the socialist tradition and who apparently have never read a word of Marx.
— Xtrix
Actually I was taught Marxist economics in the University. Along with mainstream economics, perhaps I should add. — ssu

They had you read Marx in university? I know you're not in the US, but I can guarantee you didn't go to an American university. Glad to hear.

But I guess you never did visited East Germany or the Soviet Union. — ssu

I did not. I never visited the Moon, either. But I can still understand it.

I had opportunity to do so, even lived for a short time with a Russian family in Moscow during the Gorbachev era. Pretty interesting to compare that experience to the few years I was in the US as a child. — ssu

I'm sure Russia was a shithole and the US was much nicer. That would be my guess.

The fact that you think this proves something is exactly what I'm driving at when I mention your indoctrination. But again, indoctrination doesn't mean you're a bad human being, in my view. You're just mistaken. I would fault you for being unwilling to learn and listen, however.

Of course, with mainstream socialism (in the West) one could argue to be talking about social democracy, not communism. That would have a point. But I don't think that people here are making that argument. — ssu

No, I'm talking about 19th century socialist and Marxist thought, which advocated worker control. Not top-down state control, not socially beneficial state legislation, and certainly not autocratic rule. There were socialists that were statist and anti-statist, for example.

That workers control the factories they work in goes way back. Being their own board of directors. Basically eliminating "owners" and employers. That's the mainstream socialism in the 19th century. I didn't say that was mainstream today. If what's mainstream today is "democratic socialism," then that's a different story.

The core of socialism was understood to be workers control over production. That was the core. That's where you begin, and then you go on to other things. The beginning is control by the workers over production. That's where it begins.

What does this have to do with what the USSR and China? They can call themselves "socialist" or "communist," and maybe they represent some deviation of the mainstream thought, or maybe it's a pretense. But it doesn't matter much when you look at how they run their societies.

I think you are living proof of how shallow and nonexistent historical knowledge is and how people pick just what they want to hear. — ssu

Yeah, that's what I just said about you. Good response, Donald Trump.

To demonstrate how accurate my statement is:

Oh yes, USSR and Communist China weren't mainstream socialist thinking!

That is hilariously funny. — ssu

Right -- it's hilariously funny for those with a shallow understanding of the socialist tradition and who apparently have never read a word of Marx.

But Chomsky speaks about it more succinctly:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsC0q3CO6lM

Soo...↪Xtrix tells us that USSR was "non-mainstream socialism" and we (or I) should read, among others, Rosa Luxembourg. — ssu

You should read Rosa Luxemburg. You haven't so far, and I urge you to.

Apparently you don't understand even what you quoted. You also fail to cite the source (relevant, given the very fluid circumstances of the revolution) -- which is from 1918. Not once is "mainstream socialism" (which is my wording) mentioned -- so that remark is irrelevant, but yes there is a spirit of solidarity -- of course. Lenin endorsed many aspects of mainstream socialism at first-- and that almost immediately changed. (Trump talked a populist game -- so what?)

Where, for example, is the mention of a "labor army" in Luxemburg? What happened to worker control over production? Luxemburg criticized Lenin for this, and the "opportunistic vanguardism" as Chomsky mentions above, and Lenin himself justified his policies as only "temporarily necessary" as a holding action until the real revolution happened in Germany.

But I'm sure you know all that, given your very nuanced views.

Well, after reading that praise of Lenin and the bolsheviks above from Rosa Luxembourg herself, I think it's obvious that one of us doesn't know history, or what people actually wrote, and in this case it isn't me. — ssu

No -- it's exactly that.

Leninism, Stalinism, and Maoism, were not in the mainstream socialist tradition. The mainstream socialists/Marxists advocated for worker control over production. There's none of that in the above mentioned policies.

So I repeat: your view of socialism is a weird one. But very much in line with pop culture and average, mainstream opinion -- which is very superficial, and which is a result of indoctrination in the educational and media systems. Sorry! That's ultimately no real fault of your own, in my view.

I don’t think we have to look in the shadows, really. It’s right there in front of us. No sinister plot, no conspiracy. Not as exciting perhaps, but we’re interested in how things really work, yes?

I would say (e) and (h). — javi2541997

You’re partially right!

(3) Who decides what to produce, how to produce, where to produce?
— Xtrix

The consumer. — Outlander

The consumer does not decide these things within a corporation.

Apparently if you assert there is an answer and appear to be interested in it, you may as well share it with us. — Outlander

To the above question, there is a clear answer — when dealing with fortune 500 companies. The answer is the board of directors.

You think corporations are bad? Ha! You clearly haven't been around non-governed human nature. Watch Lord of the Flies for a minuscule taste. — Outlander

Why watch it when you can read it?

Regardless— no, corporations are not inherently “bad”, nor did I say this. Any more than a hammer is inherently bad.

This has nothing to do with “governed human nature.”

:lol:

Who would equate socialism with the USSR and Communist China (or Cuba, Venezuela or North Korea)? — ssu

As I said: those who know very little about the socialist tradition. Kind of like modern usage of “conservative”, or “libertarian.”

If socialism is central planning, then the US has major elements of that— look at the central bank, for example. (To say nothing of fiscal policy, which also interferes on a massive scale.)

China’s GDP growth is far more than ours. Yet your strategy is to either dismiss that or attribute it to capitalism (by which you apparently mean free markets).

This alone should tell you that your concepts aren’t serving you well. In my view, you’re yet another victim of years of indoctrination on this matter. So much so that it seems ludicrous to suggest the USSR and China aren’t in line with mainstream socialist thinking at all (which is true). National socialism had the word right in it— are we convinced that was socialism?

It helps to know the tradition and the varying strands that developed. First and foremost, of course, is to actually read Marx. But then Rocker, Bakunin, Luxemburg, etc. Otherwise — begging your pardon— your understanding of these matters is very superficial.

Perhaps I'll add one more:

"Would you want to work in one of these institutions?"

Just for fun, this gem from David Hume:

NOTHING appears more surprizing to those, who consider human affairs with a philosophical eye, than the easiness with which the many are governed by the few; and the implicit submission, with which men resign their own sentiments and passions to those of their rulers. When we enquire by what means this wonder is effected, we shall find, that, as Force is always on the side of the governed, the governors have nothing to support them but opinion. It is therefore, on opinion only that government is founded; and this maxim extends to the most despotic and most military governments, as well as to the most free and most popular. The soldan of Egypt, or the emperor of Rome, might drive his harmless subjects, like brute beasts, against their sentiments and inclination: But he must, at least, have led his mamalukes, or prætorian bands, like men, by their opinion. — David Hume, On The First Principles of Government

This is what I've tried to say much less eloquently.

Whether the corporate sector or the state, there are human beings making decisions. These decisions happen against the background of attitudes, beliefs, perceptions — which are shaped by culture, but especially the educational and media systems. — Xtrix

I want to add something a little less broad and abstract to fill this in: the present day.

What's really happening in the world today? How does it function? How is it organized?

It seems to me that when looked at from a perspective that highlights class, there is little question that the political and economic ruling class are nearly all of one ideology: we deserve to be in power, and deserve even more power.

The nation state has replaced the monarchy and separated from the church. But there's no separation from the religion of the ruling class, which has a similar relation to the state that the church had to the monarchy during the height of their powers in the middle ages. They have hijacked the political power through ideas and communication -- and so all political parties must declare loyalty to capitalism as they declared belief in God, the rest being mostly incidental.

I think the reason their propaganda worked so well was because of the opportunistic use of stagflation during the 1970s and the unhappiness with the Carter administration. But also because it was theoretically more sophisticated (honed since the New Deal), and because the push was harder than the prior 25-30 years. Why? Because the threat was seen as much larger -- namely, the movements of the late 60s, and in particular the questioning of the economic system.

Even without the convenient backdrop of the Cold War and the easy comparison to "communism," these movements alone would have been enough to awaken the dragon. Right after these movements you have the Powell memorandum (1971) to the Chamber of Commerce, which essentially identifies the problem (too much democracy, too much questioning, too socialistic, too adversarial to the "free enterprise system") and outlines a strategy for pushing back against it, but also the Trilateral Commission (1975) -- which does the same (notice the symbol of the flag in the crosshairs).

All this leads to, in my view, the third most consequential election of the last 50 years: the 1980 election. Reagan was a smart choice -- a well-known actor, former candidate (with an enthusiastic base), governor of California, and perfect puppet. The time was apparently right to overtake the government and inaugurate a new era -- one completely determined by the masters of the universe: the neoliberal era, embodied in Reagan's inaugural speech as the slogan "Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem."

This was simultaneously done, electorally, by hijacking the Republican party since Nixon, forming a coalition of evangelicals, southern racists (the so called "Southern Strategy"), etc., bonded by social issues like abortion, affirmative action, "welfare queens," and an intense fear of communism.

With Reagan in the Whitehouse, and with the Friedman Doctrine dominating corporate governance, what Marx called the bourgeois now controlled both the corporation and the state.

In the present day, there are still those who cling to the failed, destructive neoliberal policies and the political and economic philosophy that underlies them, even after 40 years of this experiment. We should try our best to educate, but also remember that we have the majority.

Simply repeating "market mechanism" ad nauseam means absolutely nothing.
— Xtrix
And if you don't understand how socialism worked in Soviet Union or China... — ssu

I haven't made any claims about how "socialism" worked in either, because it's a ridiculous notion. Completely meaningless until we say what we mean by "socialism." Turns out what you mean by it is very strange indeed, at least for anyone who's familiar with the intellectual tradition, if you equate socialism with the USSR or China.

So (1) what is meant by "socialism," and (2) if socialism is "central planning," then where does socialism end and capitalism begin in China? (Likewise for the United States -- who are in many ways a socialist country as well -- but socialist for the wealthy. for multinational corporations, and for the finance sector.)

I have no idea what you're talking about here.
— Xtrix
Seems so. And that's why you use socialism and communism as synonyms. — ssu

No, it has nothing to do with either. A fatuous remark.

I have no idea what you're talking about because it's poorly written. If you wrote better, then I would understand what you mean. Unlike you, who apparently values feigning understanding for some reason, I will admit when I have no idea what you're saying. But I deeply suspect, given this interchange, that the fault is with you. I'm happy to be proven wrong. A comment like the above isn't leading me to lean that way.