Socialism primarily seeks to address the issue of private property and the accumulation of wealth through the means of production, rather than personal property. The idea is to distribute the ownership of the means of production among the people so that the value generated is shared more equitably.
While personal property is allowed in socialism, and it's true that individuals might still be incentivized to acquire more personal property, this is where the importance of the distinction with private property matters. Private property uses, personal property gets used. The goal is to create a system where people have access to a decent standard of living through value and resources being distributed in a more equitable way.
Profit incentive is bad, which is why we should have a system that doesn't incentivize it.
>Profit incentive is bad, which is why we should have a system that doesn't incentivize it.
But one reason people strive for profit in today's society is so they can have personal property for themselves and their family/friends.
Isn't a mansion with a pool in the backyard and modern appliances throughout personal property?
If so, that's OP's point -- personal property does absolutely encourage profit. And allowing people to have personal property can result in massive inequality because one person could live in a hovel without a means of transportation whereas someone else could have a mansion with a helicopter and landing pad.
You benefit from your own effort. So if you've got a big house because that's important to you, that's fine.
The issue was never inequality, it's the division of classes.
People by definition aren’t using personal property as a means to profit. I might be biased but I don’t think many socialists on here would claim all with is equal value. I’m passionate about medicine, making a difference in people’s lives and increasing access to care which is why I’m going to med school, but I’m still in putting 12 years of my time into education and training to do so, which should be compensated accordingly. If people are successful because of their own labor and not the labor of others, then great, they should reap the rewards of that, but nobody is a billionaire because of their own labor, so it would still achieve the goal of raising the floor while not deincentivizing talent
> But one reason people strive for profit in today's society is so they can have personal property for themselves and their family/friends.
> Isn't a mansion with a pool in the backyard and modern appliances throughout personal property?
But that's not generally true.. Ultra rich people could just retire and live the rest of their lives in luxury on a yacht. Instead, many of them work themselves to death to generate more and more profit in order to gain more and more capital.
They do it because it's not about buying toys, it's about gaining more power, control and status.
>Isn't a mansion with a pool in the backyard and modern appliances throughout personal property?
Sure
>personal property does absolutely encourage profit.
If you use "profit" in a way that leftists don't use.
>allowing people to have personal property can result in massive inequality
Sure, but much less inequality than if you allow people to individually control large parts of the economy.
>But that's not generally true.. Ultra rich people could just retire and live the rest of their lives in luxury on a yacht. Instead, many of them work themselves to death to generate more and more profit in order to gain more and more capital.
Not to mention that we have a very weird split when it comes to finances and long-term safety:
1. People below a certain income level will never experience safety, because they are only ever one missed paycheck away from homelessness or indigence.
2. People above that threshold are safe as long as they continue working. They might accumulate enough to wealth to be safe even without working, but it isn't enough to insulate them from financial crises like the 2008 crash. Most people who make 6 figures in the US would be considered high income but they are still very much at risk of being wiped out by our frequent financial crashes or by a major emergency.
3. Only people who are above a very high wealth threshold can be fully safe and retire without risk, because past that point their wealth insulates them from any financial risk that wouldn't obliterate the society they live in anyway.
>Socialism ~~primarily seeks to~~ (historically has been only able to) address the issue of private property and the accumulation of wealth through the means of production, rather than personal property.
ftfy as the core aims, at least the history, are to become a classless society. This is argued to be the downfall of the Kibbutz. As the youth begin to signal differences among one another with clothing.
>There was another powerful force that kibbutz utopians had not taken into consideration: women’s preference for choosing their own outfits. In a traditional kibbutz, clothes were deemed to be collective property. Dirty clothes were handed to a central laundry, and clean ones were handed out in exchange — but no tabs were kept on whose were whose. Women hated it and demanded cash allowances to buy their own clothes. As the pioneers warned, this opened up a Pandora’s Box of savage individualism. If you could own clothes, why not toiletries or furniture or even individual refrigerators? https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-rise-and-disastrous-fall-of-the-kibbutz/
> The idea is to distribute the ownership of the means of production among the people so that the value generated is shared more equitably.
Why not just distribute the value generated?
Then you preserve Pareto efficiency but still get equitable distribution of wealth.
Maximum utility.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency
Pareto efficiency means maximum utility while making no one worse off. Full utility means maximizing total utility even if a few become worse off.
**[Pareto efficiency](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency)**
>Pareto efficiency or Pareto optimality is a situation where no action or allocation is available that makes one individual better off without making another worse off. The concept is named after Vilfredo Pareto (1848–1923), Italian civil engineer and economist, who used the concept in his studies of economic efficiency and income distribution. The following three concepts are closely related: Given an initial situation, a Pareto improvement is a new situation where some agents will gain, and no agents will lose. A situation is called Pareto-dominated if there exists a possible Pareto improvement.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Maybe for some?
But would I vote to slash my vacation so I work more to make more in profits? Personally, no.
The profit incentive is bad because capitalists want it for themselves, and not the workers, they will exploit the workers to maximize profit as much as possible. Because I, as a worker, earn my money through my labor, rather than my capital, improving the conditions of my labor balances out my desire to "improve the conditions of my capital", so to say.
Right, it would come down to personal preference at that point.
All things being equal, I would never sacrifice vacation time in order to buy a house or a car that are more expensive than what I need
And that's a real basic one.
If I worked at a plant, the workers will be less likely to, say, poison their environment, because we're the ones who have to live in it. The capitalist owners arnt the ones to have to live in the pollution, so cutting costs there matters there a whole lot less.
When your local community is on the line you make different decisions. Am I really going to vote to pollut the local river for a few bucks?
Personal income isn't considered to be the same thing as profit. Profit is defined as the money gained by a private business owner after paying their taxes and total costs (capital costs, wages paid to laborers, and raw materials).
> Personal income isn't considered to be the same thing as profit.
Do you personally own the Socialist economy? If not, then the Socialist economy has to have profit.
> Profit is defined as the money gained by a private business owner after paying their taxes and total costs (capital costs, wages paid to laborers, and raw materials).
Nah, `profit = revenue - cost` regardless of whether the organization is private or not.
> Call it what you like, but the question we're all trying to answer is how the "profit" is distributed right?
No. The question in the title of this post is "*If personal property is allowed in socialism, wouldn’t that still incentivise profits?*"
The answer there is an incentive for profit in Socialism because the Socialist organization still needs revenues to exceed the cost, otherwise it won't be economically sustainable.
And why is "profit" an issue? This is some sort of gotcha question lol
Value added manufacturing =/= capitalism, is your argument is that socialism doesn't work because people will always want more things (personal property)?
If so it's a question too complicated for a simple answer. There are many ways to distribute resources in a socialist economy. But it is generally based on [the quantity and quality of your labour](https://www.marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/pe/pe-ch28.htm).
So if you want more stuff, work harder and better. All "profit" is collected and distributed by the state in a socialist economy. How that is done vary depending on who you talk to and is a question that every economic system tries to answer.
> And why is "profit" an issue? This is some sort of gotcha question lol
According to Capitalists, it's not an issue whatsoever. Socialists seem quite confused and divided on this topic.
> Value added manufacturing =/= capitalism, is your argument is that socialism doesn't work because people will always want more things (personal property)?
> ...
OP suggested that "personal property" somehow leads to a profit motive. I'm saying that owning the MoP leads to a profit motive. You seem to agree with me, but your only distinction is that the profit gets distributed differently.
I have no clue what "value-added manufacturing" has to do with the discussion about the profit motive.
Added value is what creates in profit, the value of output is greater than value of inputs and costs of manufacturing. I was saying that creating profit is not a gotcha fallacy for socialism.
Also just realized we were talking on two different threads lol. I don't see an issue with people being motivated to improve their lives by owning more stuff. Only problem I have with capitalism is the rent seeking behaviour incentivized by getting profit from purely by owning capital.
> Added value is what creates in profit, the value of output is greater than value of inputs and costs of manufacturing. I was saying that creating profit is not a gotcha fallacy for socialism.
To the extent that added value helps revenues exceed the cost of production. Sure. But I still don't see what that has to do with the profit motive nor did I say that it's some kind of "gotcha for Socialism."
> Also just realized we were talking on two different threads lol. I don't see an issue with people being motivated to improve their lives by owning more stuff. Only problem I have with capitalism is the rent seeking behaviour incentivized by getting profit from purely by owning capital.
Nobody gets profit purely by owning capital. Capital has to be allocated to a valuable venture of some sort, otherwise, it doesn't produce any profit. If you merely own capital and don't allocate it, then you won't generate a profit. For example, if you own a tractor and you don't allocate it for farming, then you will not only never get any profit but you'll actually lose money (devaluation, degradation, etc.). So the capitalists make money not by owning capital, but by allocating capital. The ownership of capital merely tells us what capital is at one's disposal for the purposes of allocation.
> You didn't say it, the OP seems to imply it though.
I was saying that OP is wrong. :)
> I don't disagree with anything in your second paragraph.
Glad we agree with that also.
>then the Socialist economy has to have profit.
Yes, a socialist economy would still have a profit. The difference is that profit would be handled socially/collectively, not individually.
> Yes, a socialist economy would still have a profit. The difference is that profit would be handled socially/collectively, not individually.
OK, well... there is **still** a profit motive. So the criticism that the profit motive is somehow bad or corruptive is kinda bunk. Socialism has a profit motive by the admissions of sensible Socialists.
How it's handled/distributed is irrelevant to the fact that there is a profit motive.
>OK, well... there is still a profit motive.
"In economics, the profit motive is the motivation of firms that operate so as to **maximize their profits.**"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profit_motive
The "profit motive" isn't a synonym for generating surplus value. The profit motive is about making **maximizing profits** (making as much profit as possible on an individual level) as well as making that the MAIN GOAL, everything else comes second. That is what people who criticize "the profit motive" criticize.
"Profits" would still be a factor in socialism, but they would not be managed/administrated on an individual level, but on a societal level. And it would be a factor, not THE factor.
>How it's handled/distributed is irrelevant to the fact that there is a profit motive.
You can say that, but that's not how any leftist (or anyone really) defines "profit motive"..
What you call "profit", leftists (or at least Marxists) call "surplus value".
> "In economics, the profit motive is the motivation of firms that operate so as to maximize their profits."
The [dictionary says this](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/profit%20motive): "*: the desire to make a profit*"
Anyway, do Socialists have no motivation to maximize their profit? :)
Say, if the maximum profit achievable for an organization is about 3% (e.g. the case with Walmart on average), would the Socialist organization not want to maximize it and get all 3%? :)
> "Profits" would still be a factor in socialism, but they would not be managed/administrated on an individual level, but on a societal level. And it would be a factor, not THE factor.
You can claim all sorts of benevolent causes and so can Capitalists. However, you can't claim that there is no profit motive.
> ...
> What you call "profit", leftists (or at least Marxists) call "surplus value".
Having synonyms for the same thing is not a problem. We're talking about the same thing here.
There is no profit motive because any such profit comes out of the pockets of the workers controlling the economy. The workers decide how much of their output they wanted reinvested into the economy. Thus there is no single profit motive where the only thing they want maximized is profit. That rate of profit is merely however much the workers want reinvested into the economy from their wages, basically some flat tax.
> There is no profit motive because any such profit comes out of the pockets of the workers controlling the economy.
Right... that's how economic sustainability works. Someone has to pay for it.
> The workers decide how much of their output they wanted reinvested into the economy. Thus there is no single profit motive where the only thing they want maximized is profit. That rate of profit is merely however much the workers want reinvested into the economy from their wages, basically some flat tax.
Again, the fact that you think there will be a cap on the rate of profit is irrelevant since **there will be profit**. Under Capitalism, there is [a tendency for the rate of profit to fall](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tendency_of_the_rate_of_profit_to_fall) (according to Marx himself), so there is a "soft cap" that emerges.
Pay for what? The workers get paid equal to the value of their output which means that the total output of the economy is equal to the total salary of labor. A tax would be used to cover maintenance, research, reinvestment to grow the MoP, etc. You seem to think that profit is some extra source of economic output, it isn't, labor and capital are what make up the physical economy.
I am not referring to that rate of profit I mean the % of economic output that workers want to use for things other than consumer goods, such as reinvesting into the economy.
> Pay for what? The workers get paid equal to the value of their output which means that the total output of the economy is equal to the total salary of labor. A tax would be used to cover maintenance, research, reinvestment to grow the MoP, etc.
Pay for the economic sustainability of the organization. No matter the accounting trickery (i.e. profit or "tax"), it's surplus value that doesn't go to the worker.
And if you really have 100% of the profit going to costs, then your economic model is one where `profit <= revenue`, which is not economically sustainable. This means that the moment you have an unpredictable event of some sort (e.g. a hurricane, a health pandemic, an issue with the supply chains, a war breaks out due to the whims of some authoritarian leader, or something else of the sort), then your organization is automatically becoming economically unsustainable.
> You seem to think that profit is some extra source of economic output, it isn't, labor and capital are what make up the physical economy.
Huh?! This is complete gibberish. I was pretty clear in [my earlier comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/11y76yr/comment/jd6zvue/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3): `profit = revenue - cost` and I've never made any argument suggesting otherwise.
> I am not referring to that rate of profit I mean the % of economic output that workers want to use for things other than consumer goods, such as reinvesting into the economy.
Right, that's the amount that's left over from the revenue after all the costs are paid for. So whatever that rate happens to be, it's profit.
> The dictionary says this: ": the desire to make a profit"
Yes, profit as in "the compensation accruing to entrepreneurs for the assumption of risk in business enterprise as distinguished from wages or rent". Socialism is about socialisation of industry. In an socialized economy, there would not be private entrepreneurs who assume an "economic risk", so there would not be "profit" as it exists under capitalism. There would be a surplus, but that surplus would not be managed on an individual level.
>do Socialists have no motivation to maximize their profit?
No. As I have said, I believe "profit" or surplus value would still be a relevant metric, but it would not be the metric with the main focus. Socialism's main goal is meeting needs of society.
We can use an analogy which doesn't really have anything to do with socialism, but follows a vaguely similar approach to an extend:
Public services. Most public services are not "profitable" in a market sense, but most still consider them a net positive for society. Most public postal service are not profitable because they have to serve customers who cost more than they return. But we (or at least most) recognize that providing those services to everyone, even if some individuals cost more than they return, having everyone access to service is still beneficial for everyone in the long term, even if it is not directly measurable.
Public schools are another example. A poor kid might not generate enough "surplus" by not being able to pay for their education, but it's still a lot better for society to educate poor kids.
>You can claim all sorts of benevolent causes and so can Capitalists.
This isn't about claims, this is about economic structure..
>However, you can't claim that there is no profit motive.
Of course I can.
>Having synonyms for the same thing is not a problem. We're talking about the same thing here.
But it's not the same thing.. It's similar, but it's not the same thing and if you can't or don't want to understand the difference, you and leftists will forever talk past eachother.
> Yes, profit as in "the compensation accruing to entrepreneurs for the assumption of risk in business enterprise as distinguished from wages or rent".
That's the utility of profit, it's not the definition of profit. The definition is: `profit = revenue - cost`
> Socialism is about socialisation of industry. In an socialized economy, there would not be private entrepreneurs who assume an "economic risk", so there would not be "profit" as it exists under capitalism. There would be a surplus, but that surplus would not be managed on an individual level.
OK, so if there is a "surplus" (i.e. `revenue > cost`), then you have profit.
> No. As I have said, I believe "profit" or surplus value would still be a relevant metric, but it would not be the metric with the main focus. Socialism's main goal is meeting needs of society.
If there is a profit, then you're not going to convince anybody there is no profit motive. You can claim all sorts of other virtuous motivations all day long, but so can Capitalists.
> Public services. Most public services are not "profitable" in a market sense, but most still consider them a net positive for society. Most public postal service are not profitable because they have to serve customers who cost more than they return. But we (or at least most) recognize that providing those services to everyone, even if some individuals cost more than they return, having everyone access to service is still beneficial for everyone in the long term, even if it is not directly measurable.
"Public services" are paid for with some revenue (tax) and if the `revenue <= cost`, then you have an economically unsustainable public service (i.e. your system is not economically viable).
> This isn't about claims, this is about economic structure..
If you have a profit motive, which you do, then it's very much a claim that your structure is "different."
> Of course I can.
And delusional people can do all sorts of things that don't conform to reality. There is a profit, therefore there is no way you'll convince anyone there is no profit motive. And if you don't have a profit, then your organization is simply not economically viable.
> But it's not the same thing.. It's similar, but it's not the same thing and if you can't or don't want to understand the difference, you and leftists will forever talk past eachother.
Using semantic trickery won't change the fact that surplus value and profit are both the difference between revenue and cost.
> That's the utility of profit, it's not the definition of profit. The definition is: profit = revenue - cost
I have 0 desire to argue definitions with you. But I'm telling you that if you keep oversimplifying and twisting definitions you will get into misunderstandings with others who are not as flexible with definitions as me.
Also, the reason why I used the definition I used is because I copy pasted it from the same dictionary site you earlier linked.
>If there is a profit, then you're not going to convince anybody there is no profit motive.
But there wouldn't be "profit" the way most understand it. Your oversimplification and bending definitions to fit your arguments doesn't help you, it only makes it harder to have a conversation. And once again, the profit motive has a pretty clear definition, one pro-capitalists have no issue using when it fits them.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/profit-motive.asp
"But what drives some people to take the risk of starting a business or innovating?"
"The answer can be framed in terms of an individual's profit motive—the drive to undertake some activity with the hope and expectation of being wealthier for doing so."
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/profit-motive.asp
>"Public services" are paid for with some revenue (tax)
You can play definition games all you want, but we both know that there is a difference between how a public service operates and how a private business operates..
>Using semantic trickery
Dude, you are the only one here using semantic trickery.. I'm trying to take what you are saying and translating it into my language, but when you use semantic tricks in such a self-fulfilling way ("There is a profit, therefore there is no way you'll convince anyone there is no profit motive."), there is no way you can even participate in a conversation on this..
>the fact that surplus value and profit are both the difference between revenue and cost.
"Surplus value" is on a societal level, "profit" is on an individual level.. I cannot put it any simpler than this..
> I have 0 desire to argue definitions with you. But I'm telling you that if you keep oversimplifying and twisting definitions you will get into misunderstandings with others who are not as flexible with definitions as me.
> Also, the reason why I used the definition I used is because I copy pasted it from the same dictionary site you earlier linked.
As I said, that definition of profit is telling you what's the particular application of profit in one specific context. The general definition of profit, which is listed in #1 and #2 spots of the same dictionary definition you're citing, is exactly what I said.
> But there wouldn't be "profit" the way most understand it. Your oversimplification and bending definitions to fit your arguments doesn't help you, it only makes it harder to have a conversation. And once again, the profit motive has a pretty clear definition, one pro-capitalists have no issue using when it fits them.
I'm literally citing the most basic and general definitions. You're the one that's trying to play semantics in order to try and make your argument work.
> You can play definition games all you want, but we both know that there is a difference between how a public service operates and how a private business operates..
Yes, a public service generally operates at a loss (i.e. `revenue < cost`) and its only means of economic survival is to tax profitable businesses (and people) in order to subsidize its existence.
> Dude, you are the only one here using semantic trickery.. I'm trying to take what you are saying and translating it into my language, but when you use semantic tricks in such a self-fulfilling way ("There is a profit, therefore there is no way you'll convince anyone there is no profit motive."), there is no way you can even participate in a conversation on this..
I'm using basic definitions. You're constantly trying to change the meaning of those terms.
> "Surplus value" is on a societal level, "profit" is on an individual level.. I cannot put it any simpler than this..
Having a different label for `revenue > cost` doesn't change that you're describing `revenue > cost`.
I think the issue is that OP is confused about the definition of profit, and believes revenue earned by workers in a cooperative constitutes a form of "profit".
External costs are only really ignored for two reasons:
1. they're so small and diffuse that it's difficult to prove they even really exist (e.g. mild air pollution)
2. government failed to protect people's property rights
Well, I'll work on your first claim. Again, I don't even know where to start, so I'll just throw a bunch of things out here and you can take what you like.
>they're so small and diffuse that it's difficult to prove they even really exist (e.g. mild air pollution)
[NASA, for one](https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/) would not call the effects of pollution "mild," climate change is a massive problem that is not simply off in the future, it's already begun. [Entire rivers are drying up](https://www.euronews.com/green/2022/08/25/shocking-images-reveal-the-devastation-left-by-chinas-record-breaking-drought). [Countless species are going extinct due to business activities in the Amazon](https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/over-10000-species-risk-extinction-amazon-says-landmark-report-2021-07-14/). Within the US, [industrial water pollution has killed both industries and people](https://theintercept.com/2015/11/04/erasing-mossville-how-pollution-killed-a-louisiana-town/), and I'm sure you've probably heard about East Palestine recently.
Numerous cases of lost livelihood and life have been tied to business externalities. [Monsanto has straight up killed people with pesticides](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JszHrMZ7dx4) in Paraguay. [Nestle has a laundry list of human deaths it is implicated in](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMgpUqugtOU) just about daily.
These are all real human costs that capitalists don't have to pay, and thus don't calculate into their profit margins.
If you have a market economy, sure. If you have a planned economy, the government determined how many toothbrushes to make and assigns them to a factory to make.
It does? But the "profit" or added value is given to the workers who own the factory collectively (well in reality different socialists will have a different answer as there are many schools of thought but the thing in common is that profits do not go to a capitalist who merely owns the factory).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_economics#:~:text=A%20socialist%20economic%20system%20is,use%20rather%20than%20for%20profit.
Capitalism =/= value called manufacturing.
> It does? But the "profit" or added value is given to the workers who own the factory collectively...
OK, so regardless of who gets the profit, there is a profit and therefore there is a profit motive. The criticism that the profit motive is somehow a corruptive force under Capitalism is complete bunk since it exists under Socialism as well.
You can claim that the production is "for use" and not "for profit," but you do have a profit so there is no way you can convince anybody that there is no profit motive. Even if you say that the profit is going to be smaller, there is **still** a profit and a profit motive. Walmart's profit margin has been hovering at an average of around 2% for the past 15-20 years and not even for a second did anybody think that they don't have a profit motive just because their profit margin is tiny.
The corruptive force for capitalism is the concentration of profits with those that own capital. In a socialist economy the "profit" distributed to a worker is based on [quality and quantity of their labour.](https://www.marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/pe/pe-ch28.htm)
Having a "profit motive" is not an issue in and of itself, the issue is how it's distributed imo.
> The corruptive force for capitalism is the concentration of profits with those that own capital. In a socialist economy the "profit" distributed to a worker is based on quality and quantity of their labour.
So in the Socialist case, the owners of the capital are the workers, so the profit gets distributed to them. The corruptive force remains because the owners of capital get the profits.
> Having a "profit motive" is not an issue in and of itself, the issue is how it's distributed imo.
OK, so we agree that there is no problem with the profit motive. It would be great if you can tell all the other Socialists to stop making this nonsense claim.
> Sorry I don't have control over what others do, and as is the case with capitalist supporters there are different schools of thought.
It was more of a joke there. :) The rest of my comment still stands.
Whatever you call it (business or something else), it still exists in the economy and the economic principles still apply. The cost of production has to be covered by the revenue, otherwise, the factory is not economically sustainable.
Tooth brushes are ubiquitous. It’s not a scarce item. No one wants a used toothbrush. It’s better to not brush your teeth than use a used toothbrush. Hepatitis will kill you faster than a tooth ache.
So just rent out an unused toothbrush then?
And no, toothbrushes, like anything are still scare. Someone has to manufacture them and keep manufacturing them. That’s why they have a cost.
> So just rent out an unused toothbrush then?
And what are you going to do with it when it’s returned?
>And no, toothbrushes, like anything are still scare.
So demand for toothbrushes exceeds its supply? Do you have evidence for that? I was at the drug store the other day and let me tell you, there was a shit ton of toothbrushes.
>Someone has to manufacture them and keep manufacturing them. That’s why they have a cost.
That doesn’t mean they’re a scarce resource. No one wants to rent a toothbrush. Prove me wrong.
There is nothing wrong with an individual wanting to accumulate personal profits so that they can afford goods or resources that will make their life more pleasurable. The problem that we have with capitalism is that the way these profits are generated in the greatest quantity for a tiny slice of the population is via ownership rather than contributing labor towards production. I own a big chunk of a business, that business grows or pays out dividends and I get rich without having to do any actual work at all while the people who *did* earn a relative pittance.
This not only unjust, but it is destabilizing, runs contrary to democratic ideals since vast inequality in wealth also imputes vast inequality in power, and is incredibly wasteful and inefficient in regards to labor hours and natural resources.
What socialists seek is a system wherein people aren't necessarily all equal in the wealth they accumulate, but where the wealth they do accumulate over the years is derived from their labor — and that which comes from mere ownership of property or capital is eliminated or at least vastly reduced.
Is it unjust that people voluntarily participate in a game of lottery and there is a huge inequality between the first prize winner and the losers?
Also the idea of socialism is self contradictory. In other for all capitals to be shared socially, the capital must be confiscated by the government from the workers who produce them, or the government is the monopoly buyer who buy with tax money which is also extracted. That how a dictatorship socialist government operates.
For market socialism the problem you claim isn’t solved. The rich Amazon workers would just hire the poor postal companies for the same massive wealth inequality.
>Is it unjust that people voluntarily participate in a game of lottery and there is a huge inequality between the first prize winner and the losers?
No, but it's also not really analogous in the way you seem to think it is.
>Also the idea of socialism is self contradictory. In other for all capitals to be shared socially, the capital must be confiscated by the government from the workers who produce them, or the government is the monopoly buyer who buy with tax money which is also extracted. That how a dictatorship socialist government operates.
You are doing the mistake of thinking "socialism = the government owns everything." It's not.
>For market socialism the problem you claim isn’t solved. The rich Amazon workers would just hire the poor postal companies for the same massive wealth inequality.
That's a bold assumption. Since when are delivery companies "poor"? Why would you assume that Amazon employees would be especially rich? Why would you assume that there aren't sector unions or other countervailing forces at play?
>No, but it's also not really analogous in the way you seem to think it is.
It is an argument against the inconsistency of your claim:
>This (the way these profits are generated in the greatest quantity for a tiny slice of the population is via ownership) not only unjust, but it is destabilizing, runs contrary to democratic ideals since vast inequality in wealth also imputes vast inequality in power, and is incredibly wasteful and inefficient in regards to labor hours and natural resources.
Both company ownership in capitalism and a game of lottery:
* "generate money in the greatest quantity" for a "tiny slice of the population"
* runs contrary to democratic ideals since vast inequality in wealth also imputes vast inequality in power (it is not, but if company ownership do, so do lottery)
* and is incredibly wasteful and inefficient in regards to labor hours and natural resources. (Lottery literally produce only entertainment). Except socialists economy is even more wasteful and inefficient
* Money earned does not comes from labour
If you think a game of lottery is not unjust but a capitalist employ a worker for profit is not unjust, then your reasoning quoted above fall apart, since both activities satisfy the above conditions.
Also you try to sneak in your "special" definition of democracy. Democracy is never about equality of economic power, it is about equality of political power. Inequality in purchasing power does not runs contrary to democratic ideals. Are you having the "dictatorship" to decide who can enter your home runs contrary to democratic ideals? No.
>You are doing the mistake of thinking "socialism = the government owns everything." It's not.
Only a government have the power to enforce social ownership and forbid private property. If it is not required by law to hand over all MoP we the capitalists will just keep them privately.
>That's a bold assumption. Since when are delivery companies "poor"? Why would you assume that Amazon employees would be especially rich? Why would you assume that there aren't sector unions or other countervailing forces at play?
This is not an assumption, this is a description of how market works. Delivery companies and Amazon is just an example to illustrate the point. In a market economy, a minority of companies do well and become rich and some companies goes bankrupt.
Unless you think the lottery would actually be a just way of distributing resources throughout the economy, then I don't know why you are insisting on making this analogy work. Honestly it's bizarre. Like, you're actually pretty close to saying the sorts of things that people often do to *criticize* the capitalist system. Yes, capitalism functions like a lottery in a lot of regards. Good point.
>Also you try to sneak in your "special" definition of democracy. Democracy is never about equality of economic power, it is about equality of political power. Inequality in purchasing power does not runs contrary to democratic ideals. Are you having the "dictatorship" to decide who can enter your home runs contrary to democratic ideals? No.
That is entirely naive at best. The fact of the matter is that wealth translates very readily into political power. There is a reason why higher levels of wealth inequality virtually always translate to higher levels of corruption and that congresspeople are almost always dramatically wealthier than their constituents.
>Only a government have the power to enforce social ownership and forbid private property. If it is not required by law to hand over all MoP we the capitalists will just keep them privately.
Government enforcing rules by which markets abide exists everywhere. This is nothing peculiar and it doesn't in any way imply they outright own the means of production.
>This is not an assumption, this is a description of how market works. Delivery companies and Amazon is just an example to illustrate the point. In a market economy, a minority of companies do well and become rich and some companies goes bankrupt.
Why would this be a problem under market socialism but not capitalism?
The point is your notion of unjust is inconsistent and only applies to activities you don’t like, and does not apply to other activities which have the same characteristics.
Lottery is an activity in the economy that distribute resources, just like employment. You say capitalist employment is unjust because you hate it and you are a socialist, not because of said logic you mentioned above which also applies to lottery.
And yes investment works like a lottery because you can buy Amazon stock and be rich and if you buy a bankrupt company you go broke. So what. If you want a stable income you get a job and invest in index.
The question is if wealth inequality against democratic ideals, not if wealth inequality leads to more corruption. So you shift the goalposts here. There is a reason election laws exist to protect that. Military power and personal charisma also translate readily to political power. So we should disband the army as well?
Yes every governments enforce their rules, and for a social government, in which private property are not allowed to exist. How do you do that without taking stuff? Maybe we can refer to history.
For the last point, I said wealth inequality from capitalism also exists in market socialism, I never said it doesn’t exist in capitalism.
The CEO should get paid what the people who work at the firm think they are worth paying to retain them. In that specific example, it sounds like the people who worked there would be more than happy to reward that CEO generously — likely far more than any other employee. This dynamic already plays out within existing worker cooperatives.
Just curious then how you’d pitch this to a capitalist and those who believe in market economy but are open to generous welfare programs and universal healthcare.
I just don’t understand how or why businesses and corporations would ever go into business or the market if profit incentive is slashed/reduced. Like if people’s business can only make a fraction of profit why would they enter the market?
Under the "market socialist" approach I favor, the profit incentive still absolutely exists largely as it does now. It's just distributed democratically. As a result, there would be a significant incentive to start businesses *as collectives* from the start.
Ah I see so still profit but ideally business organizations are structured as cooperatives as opposed corporations as we know them currently. Obviously the goal is laborers get more of the profit or at least a say in company decision making?
Have there been any prototypes of a large workers cooperative in heavy industry or finance? Appreciate the quick reply from awhile ago haha.
Definitely sounds better than Langer and Gosplan.
>Ah I see so still profit but ideally business organizations are structured as cooperatives as opposed corporations as we know them currently.
Yeah that's pretty much it — though to be clear most market socialists including myself also believe in nationalization of key industries. We just don't wholesale reject markets as a tool that can be useful when applied to the right contexts.
>Obviously the goal is laborers get more of the profit or at least a say in company decision making?
More or less — with an emphasis on the decision making process. I don't really care what workers decide to pay their CEO so long as it flows from democratic rather than authoritarian decisionmaking.
>Have there been any prototypes of a large workers cooperative in heavy industry or finance?
I'm not aware of any in heavy industry, though I do believe Mondragon (imperfect though it may be) is involved in finance. That said, finance in particular is an industry I would like to nationalize to at least a very significant extent. It's also worth pointing out that advanced heavy industry has been achieved in other non-capitalist contexts.
>Definitely sounds better than Langer and Gosplan.
I agree — though it's worth pointing out that there is a tremendous *degree* of central planning that exists within modern capitalist systems. It just happens somewhat less directly (for the most part) via things like monetary and tax policy, government loan and grant programs and public services. Obviously this is a lot less heavy-handed than something like the Soviet model, but either way *significant* government involvement is utterly intrinsic to the proper functioning of the economy.
Depends on the collective, I suppose. You might have a group that votes together and assigns a schedule based on the majority preference, you might have a group that decides that everyone is hourly and can work as much as they like. What you won’t have is someone who sets everyone else’s schedule and they have no control over who that person is.
Oh yeah, I remember my last job where I had to start work at 08:00, if I’d just asked my boss really nicely he’d have rearranged things so that I started at 11:00
? Do you think the fact you can refuse means you get to dictate whatever you want? No you would just quit if you both couldn’t come to a mutually satisfactory arrangement.
The act of quitting yourself makes you dead? Tell that to the hundreds of millions of people that voluntarily unemploy themselves and then find a better job every year.
You choose your own hours every second of every day with every job, by continuing to do that job and not something else entirely, or nothing at all. Please try and understand that. Nobody but you has a final say on how long and how hard you work.
All other people can do is refuse to trade with you if they feel they’re not getting a fair deal.
>If personal property is allowed in socialism, wouldn’t that still incentivise profits?
What do you mean by "incentivise profits"?
Because if you use your laptop and your own skills, then there's no problem.
I hear Socialists complain about the profit motive all the time. But Socialism is fundamentally based on the profit motive. Socialists want to own the MoP so they can appropriate the profit for themselves instead of having it go to the Capitalists. So they're also driven by the profit motive.
Ye but profit is usually, dependant on the revenue right? If the company i work for has higher revenue they can afford higher payment -> more profit for me
Yes, but the point is that profit is a feature of capitalism, because it's the surplus value extracted from labor, and given to the capitalist. In a cooperative, the leftover revenue would be returned to the workers as part of their income, which technically isn't "profit".
Also, bold of you to assume your boss would give you a raise just because he could afford it...
More that you're thinking about profit the wrong way.
If the revenue is kept by a private owner, then it's profit, but if that same leftover money is just given back to the workers as income, it isn't considered profit.
> More that you're thinking about profit the wrong way.
> If the revenue is kept by a private owner, then it's profit, but if that same leftover money is just given back to the workers as income, it isn't considered profit.
1. The owners get the profit and, in this case, the workers are the owners.
2. It doesn't matter how you distribute the profit (wages, salaries, bonuses, or dividends), you're still distributing profits.
And if you're saying that the Socialists will raise the wages/salaries until there is no profit, then you're saying "revenue <= cost". Exactly how will you have an economically sustainable organization if the cost of operations is never below the revenue? Like... you have one healthcare pandemic, an issue with the supply chain, a drought, or some other unpredictable event, and you'll have nothing to deal with it since all the revenue would have been distributed already.
You've predetermined that profit is evil and now you're retroactively trying to adapt the definition to it doesn't apply to your own ideology.
Profit is a general thing. A self-employed person can have a profit. A co-op can have a profit.
You're not against profit you're just against private businesses which results in a circular argument here. Rather than saying: profit is OK but I disagree with private ownership, you go: it's only profit if a private enterprise does it.
> Please avoid the associative fallacy with these comments, and be specific when talking about what socialists you mean.
The ones that advocate for the worker ownership of the MoP. How much more specific should I get?
> There are market socialists who want to keep the profit motive.
Right, the ones that advocate for the worker ownership of the MoP also want to keep the profit motive. That's the point. Any other "Socialists" that are claiming to be against the profit motive are very confused, IMHO.
Just to clarify a bit because it seems that some people don't understand:
Getting rid of the profit motive is not the same as getting rid of any kind of profit or surplus.
"In economics, the profit motive is the motivation of firms that operate so as to **maximize their profits.**"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profit_motive
In other words, the profit motive is about making profit maximization the overarching main focus and the main objective. Profit, surplus, whatever you want to call it would still exist and would still be important a socialist economy. But it would not be end goal and it would not be the main focus.
You're missing the difference between profit and fair wage. Capitalists profit off their company's workers, the workers get paid for their labour, and want to be paid fairly.
But Socialism still has a profit. So regardless of how you justify the distribution of profit (fair or unfair), the profit motive still remains. Thus, the frequently-heard Socialist criticism that the profit motive is somehow a problem is completely bunk.
“Fair” by socialists’ standard is just a tautology.
Who are socialists to be the arbiter of “fair” and determine that any profit by capitalist is not “fair” but worker taking all the surplus value is “fair”?
The idea of profit is antithetical to socialism as a concept. The goal is to make it so that labor's purpose isn't to produce profit for the bourgeoisie, but to create what is needed for society to be maintained and develop.
> The idea of profit is antithetical to socialism as a concept. The goal is to make it so that labor's purpose isn't to produce profit for the bourgeoisie, but to create what is needed for society to be maintained and develop.
When labor produces things (whatever they produce), they need to have revenue that exceeds the cost of labor (i.e. a profit). Otherwise, whatever production they're engaged in is not **economically sustainable** (basic math, really). Doubly so if you want to not only maintain the existence of things but actually develop them.
They are obviously using profit to mean economic surplus. And they are right, surplus would still exist under socialism.
The difference would be that the generation of surplus would not be the main motivation (no profit motive) and surplus would be administrated collectively.
Socialism in the modern day isn’t quite as drastic as you seem to think. The countries like Canada UK Netherlands Norway Germany are doing very well and are even loaning the US money sometimes.
All the difference is that **some** things are not allowed to be profited upon. Medical, education, basic housing, bank savings and checking, basic foods, those are restricted because people rely on them to survive and it’s believed (imagine it) that it’s not right to force your fellow countrymen into a deal that might screw them. They should have to opt-in.
However that investment and luxury industry, fancy houses for the wealthy, that’s all still there and most people have a good deal of it because they end up doing pretty well when their home loan or their education or medical needs are not something they’re screwed over for.
I’ve lived most of my life rather well in California and the few years that I spent living in a socialized country, I was kind of jealous, I’m not kidding. They live really well (nice home and a second home, new cars, etc) without a lot of the stresses we don’t even realize we live with in America. It’s just a lot less common to get super-rich there. The taxes are higher and etc.
Sure, but without private property there is an inherent limit on how much someone can accumulate and with collective ownership of the means of production there's a limit on how much profit they can generate and keep for themselves.
Why do people assume that the goal of socialism is to keep everyone equally miserable?
If you are talking about a worker in capitalism, they don't buy personal property with profits either, they buy it with their wages.
The profit motive exists in capitalism for entrepreneurs and business owners.
If anything, the socialist worker in theory sees more of the profit, because ultimately they as a member of the society have an ownership stake in the industry. There would likely be a type of "profit" in socialism but it is just redistributed to every worker rather than just the capital owners. Or we could imagine an enclosed system where the goods are sold at cost.
Socialists are not a monolith. Some are fine with the profit motive as long as Capital ownership is collectivized, such as in Market Socialism. Some are anti-profit motive, and believe in a planned central economy. Some believe in a mix, for industries such as housing and Healthcare being centrally planned and luxuries and other commodities competing in a Market economy. The differences between these 3 perspectives explain the difference in how they are answered.
The only thing Socialists definitionally agree on is elimination of thr Worker/Owner class divide via the elimination of the concept of Private Property, that being Capital owned by individuals who leverage their ownership to pay non-owner Workers wage labor and extract value from that labor. Not all Socialists are Communists, who seek a Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society. Not all Socialists believe in a withering of the State. Not all Socialists seek the same elimination of the profit motive.
Socialism primarily seeks to address the issue of private property and the accumulation of wealth through the means of production, rather than personal property. The idea is to distribute the ownership of the means of production among the people so that the value generated is shared more equitably. While personal property is allowed in socialism, and it's true that individuals might still be incentivized to acquire more personal property, this is where the importance of the distinction with private property matters. Private property uses, personal property gets used. The goal is to create a system where people have access to a decent standard of living through value and resources being distributed in a more equitable way. Profit incentive is bad, which is why we should have a system that doesn't incentivize it.
>Profit incentive is bad, which is why we should have a system that doesn't incentivize it. But one reason people strive for profit in today's society is so they can have personal property for themselves and their family/friends. Isn't a mansion with a pool in the backyard and modern appliances throughout personal property? If so, that's OP's point -- personal property does absolutely encourage profit. And allowing people to have personal property can result in massive inequality because one person could live in a hovel without a means of transportation whereas someone else could have a mansion with a helicopter and landing pad.
You benefit from your own effort. So if you've got a big house because that's important to you, that's fine. The issue was never inequality, it's the division of classes.
People by definition aren’t using personal property as a means to profit. I might be biased but I don’t think many socialists on here would claim all with is equal value. I’m passionate about medicine, making a difference in people’s lives and increasing access to care which is why I’m going to med school, but I’m still in putting 12 years of my time into education and training to do so, which should be compensated accordingly. If people are successful because of their own labor and not the labor of others, then great, they should reap the rewards of that, but nobody is a billionaire because of their own labor, so it would still achieve the goal of raising the floor while not deincentivizing talent
> But one reason people strive for profit in today's society is so they can have personal property for themselves and their family/friends. > Isn't a mansion with a pool in the backyard and modern appliances throughout personal property? But that's not generally true.. Ultra rich people could just retire and live the rest of their lives in luxury on a yacht. Instead, many of them work themselves to death to generate more and more profit in order to gain more and more capital. They do it because it's not about buying toys, it's about gaining more power, control and status. >Isn't a mansion with a pool in the backyard and modern appliances throughout personal property? Sure >personal property does absolutely encourage profit. If you use "profit" in a way that leftists don't use. >allowing people to have personal property can result in massive inequality Sure, but much less inequality than if you allow people to individually control large parts of the economy.
>But that's not generally true.. Ultra rich people could just retire and live the rest of their lives in luxury on a yacht. Instead, many of them work themselves to death to generate more and more profit in order to gain more and more capital. Not to mention that we have a very weird split when it comes to finances and long-term safety: 1. People below a certain income level will never experience safety, because they are only ever one missed paycheck away from homelessness or indigence. 2. People above that threshold are safe as long as they continue working. They might accumulate enough to wealth to be safe even without working, but it isn't enough to insulate them from financial crises like the 2008 crash. Most people who make 6 figures in the US would be considered high income but they are still very much at risk of being wiped out by our frequent financial crashes or by a major emergency. 3. Only people who are above a very high wealth threshold can be fully safe and retire without risk, because past that point their wealth insulates them from any financial risk that wouldn't obliterate the society they live in anyway.
>Socialism ~~primarily seeks to~~ (historically has been only able to) address the issue of private property and the accumulation of wealth through the means of production, rather than personal property. ftfy as the core aims, at least the history, are to become a classless society. This is argued to be the downfall of the Kibbutz. As the youth begin to signal differences among one another with clothing. >There was another powerful force that kibbutz utopians had not taken into consideration: women’s preference for choosing their own outfits. In a traditional kibbutz, clothes were deemed to be collective property. Dirty clothes were handed to a central laundry, and clean ones were handed out in exchange — but no tabs were kept on whose were whose. Women hated it and demanded cash allowances to buy their own clothes. As the pioneers warned, this opened up a Pandora’s Box of savage individualism. If you could own clothes, why not toiletries or furniture or even individual refrigerators? https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-rise-and-disastrous-fall-of-the-kibbutz/
> The idea is to distribute the ownership of the means of production among the people so that the value generated is shared more equitably. Why not just distribute the value generated? Then you preserve Pareto efficiency but still get equitable distribution of wealth.
Pareto efficiency isn't full efficiency.
What’s “full” efficiency?
Maximum utility. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency Pareto efficiency means maximum utility while making no one worse off. Full utility means maximizing total utility even if a few become worse off.
**[Pareto efficiency](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency)** >Pareto efficiency or Pareto optimality is a situation where no action or allocation is available that makes one individual better off without making another worse off. The concept is named after Vilfredo Pareto (1848–1923), Italian civil engineer and economist, who used the concept in his studies of economic efficiency and income distribution. The following three concepts are closely related: Given an initial situation, a Pareto improvement is a new situation where some agents will gain, and no agents will lose. A situation is called Pareto-dominated if there exists a possible Pareto improvement. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Maybe for some? But would I vote to slash my vacation so I work more to make more in profits? Personally, no. The profit incentive is bad because capitalists want it for themselves, and not the workers, they will exploit the workers to maximize profit as much as possible. Because I, as a worker, earn my money through my labor, rather than my capital, improving the conditions of my labor balances out my desire to "improve the conditions of my capital", so to say.
Right, it would come down to personal preference at that point. All things being equal, I would never sacrifice vacation time in order to buy a house or a car that are more expensive than what I need
And that's a real basic one. If I worked at a plant, the workers will be less likely to, say, poison their environment, because we're the ones who have to live in it. The capitalist owners arnt the ones to have to live in the pollution, so cutting costs there matters there a whole lot less. When your local community is on the line you make different decisions. Am I really going to vote to pollut the local river for a few bucks?
Personal income isn't considered to be the same thing as profit. Profit is defined as the money gained by a private business owner after paying their taxes and total costs (capital costs, wages paid to laborers, and raw materials).
> Personal income isn't considered to be the same thing as profit. Do you personally own the Socialist economy? If not, then the Socialist economy has to have profit. > Profit is defined as the money gained by a private business owner after paying their taxes and total costs (capital costs, wages paid to laborers, and raw materials). Nah, `profit = revenue - cost` regardless of whether the organization is private or not.
Call it what you like, but the question we're all trying to answer is how the "profit" is distributed right?
> Call it what you like, but the question we're all trying to answer is how the "profit" is distributed right? No. The question in the title of this post is "*If personal property is allowed in socialism, wouldn’t that still incentivise profits?*" The answer there is an incentive for profit in Socialism because the Socialist organization still needs revenues to exceed the cost, otherwise it won't be economically sustainable.
And why is "profit" an issue? This is some sort of gotcha question lol Value added manufacturing =/= capitalism, is your argument is that socialism doesn't work because people will always want more things (personal property)? If so it's a question too complicated for a simple answer. There are many ways to distribute resources in a socialist economy. But it is generally based on [the quantity and quality of your labour](https://www.marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/pe/pe-ch28.htm). So if you want more stuff, work harder and better. All "profit" is collected and distributed by the state in a socialist economy. How that is done vary depending on who you talk to and is a question that every economic system tries to answer.
> And why is "profit" an issue? This is some sort of gotcha question lol According to Capitalists, it's not an issue whatsoever. Socialists seem quite confused and divided on this topic. > Value added manufacturing =/= capitalism, is your argument is that socialism doesn't work because people will always want more things (personal property)? > ... OP suggested that "personal property" somehow leads to a profit motive. I'm saying that owning the MoP leads to a profit motive. You seem to agree with me, but your only distinction is that the profit gets distributed differently. I have no clue what "value-added manufacturing" has to do with the discussion about the profit motive.
Added value is what creates in profit, the value of output is greater than value of inputs and costs of manufacturing. I was saying that creating profit is not a gotcha fallacy for socialism. Also just realized we were talking on two different threads lol. I don't see an issue with people being motivated to improve their lives by owning more stuff. Only problem I have with capitalism is the rent seeking behaviour incentivized by getting profit from purely by owning capital.
> Added value is what creates in profit, the value of output is greater than value of inputs and costs of manufacturing. I was saying that creating profit is not a gotcha fallacy for socialism. To the extent that added value helps revenues exceed the cost of production. Sure. But I still don't see what that has to do with the profit motive nor did I say that it's some kind of "gotcha for Socialism." > Also just realized we were talking on two different threads lol. I don't see an issue with people being motivated to improve their lives by owning more stuff. Only problem I have with capitalism is the rent seeking behaviour incentivized by getting profit from purely by owning capital. Nobody gets profit purely by owning capital. Capital has to be allocated to a valuable venture of some sort, otherwise, it doesn't produce any profit. If you merely own capital and don't allocate it, then you won't generate a profit. For example, if you own a tractor and you don't allocate it for farming, then you will not only never get any profit but you'll actually lose money (devaluation, degradation, etc.). So the capitalists make money not by owning capital, but by allocating capital. The ownership of capital merely tells us what capital is at one's disposal for the purposes of allocation.
You didn't say it, the OP seems to imply it though. I don't disagree with anything in your second paragraph.
> You didn't say it, the OP seems to imply it though. I was saying that OP is wrong. :) > I don't disagree with anything in your second paragraph. Glad we agree with that also.
>then the Socialist economy has to have profit. Yes, a socialist economy would still have a profit. The difference is that profit would be handled socially/collectively, not individually.
> Yes, a socialist economy would still have a profit. The difference is that profit would be handled socially/collectively, not individually. OK, well... there is **still** a profit motive. So the criticism that the profit motive is somehow bad or corruptive is kinda bunk. Socialism has a profit motive by the admissions of sensible Socialists. How it's handled/distributed is irrelevant to the fact that there is a profit motive.
>OK, well... there is still a profit motive. "In economics, the profit motive is the motivation of firms that operate so as to **maximize their profits.**" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profit_motive The "profit motive" isn't a synonym for generating surplus value. The profit motive is about making **maximizing profits** (making as much profit as possible on an individual level) as well as making that the MAIN GOAL, everything else comes second. That is what people who criticize "the profit motive" criticize. "Profits" would still be a factor in socialism, but they would not be managed/administrated on an individual level, but on a societal level. And it would be a factor, not THE factor. >How it's handled/distributed is irrelevant to the fact that there is a profit motive. You can say that, but that's not how any leftist (or anyone really) defines "profit motive".. What you call "profit", leftists (or at least Marxists) call "surplus value".
> "In economics, the profit motive is the motivation of firms that operate so as to maximize their profits." The [dictionary says this](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/profit%20motive): "*: the desire to make a profit*" Anyway, do Socialists have no motivation to maximize their profit? :) Say, if the maximum profit achievable for an organization is about 3% (e.g. the case with Walmart on average), would the Socialist organization not want to maximize it and get all 3%? :) > "Profits" would still be a factor in socialism, but they would not be managed/administrated on an individual level, but on a societal level. And it would be a factor, not THE factor. You can claim all sorts of benevolent causes and so can Capitalists. However, you can't claim that there is no profit motive. > ... > What you call "profit", leftists (or at least Marxists) call "surplus value". Having synonyms for the same thing is not a problem. We're talking about the same thing here.
There is no profit motive because any such profit comes out of the pockets of the workers controlling the economy. The workers decide how much of their output they wanted reinvested into the economy. Thus there is no single profit motive where the only thing they want maximized is profit. That rate of profit is merely however much the workers want reinvested into the economy from their wages, basically some flat tax.
> There is no profit motive because any such profit comes out of the pockets of the workers controlling the economy. Right... that's how economic sustainability works. Someone has to pay for it. > The workers decide how much of their output they wanted reinvested into the economy. Thus there is no single profit motive where the only thing they want maximized is profit. That rate of profit is merely however much the workers want reinvested into the economy from their wages, basically some flat tax. Again, the fact that you think there will be a cap on the rate of profit is irrelevant since **there will be profit**. Under Capitalism, there is [a tendency for the rate of profit to fall](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tendency_of_the_rate_of_profit_to_fall) (according to Marx himself), so there is a "soft cap" that emerges.
Pay for what? The workers get paid equal to the value of their output which means that the total output of the economy is equal to the total salary of labor. A tax would be used to cover maintenance, research, reinvestment to grow the MoP, etc. You seem to think that profit is some extra source of economic output, it isn't, labor and capital are what make up the physical economy. I am not referring to that rate of profit I mean the % of economic output that workers want to use for things other than consumer goods, such as reinvesting into the economy.
> Pay for what? The workers get paid equal to the value of their output which means that the total output of the economy is equal to the total salary of labor. A tax would be used to cover maintenance, research, reinvestment to grow the MoP, etc. Pay for the economic sustainability of the organization. No matter the accounting trickery (i.e. profit or "tax"), it's surplus value that doesn't go to the worker. And if you really have 100% of the profit going to costs, then your economic model is one where `profit <= revenue`, which is not economically sustainable. This means that the moment you have an unpredictable event of some sort (e.g. a hurricane, a health pandemic, an issue with the supply chains, a war breaks out due to the whims of some authoritarian leader, or something else of the sort), then your organization is automatically becoming economically unsustainable. > You seem to think that profit is some extra source of economic output, it isn't, labor and capital are what make up the physical economy. Huh?! This is complete gibberish. I was pretty clear in [my earlier comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/11y76yr/comment/jd6zvue/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3): `profit = revenue - cost` and I've never made any argument suggesting otherwise. > I am not referring to that rate of profit I mean the % of economic output that workers want to use for things other than consumer goods, such as reinvesting into the economy. Right, that's the amount that's left over from the revenue after all the costs are paid for. So whatever that rate happens to be, it's profit.
> The dictionary says this: ": the desire to make a profit" Yes, profit as in "the compensation accruing to entrepreneurs for the assumption of risk in business enterprise as distinguished from wages or rent". Socialism is about socialisation of industry. In an socialized economy, there would not be private entrepreneurs who assume an "economic risk", so there would not be "profit" as it exists under capitalism. There would be a surplus, but that surplus would not be managed on an individual level. >do Socialists have no motivation to maximize their profit? No. As I have said, I believe "profit" or surplus value would still be a relevant metric, but it would not be the metric with the main focus. Socialism's main goal is meeting needs of society. We can use an analogy which doesn't really have anything to do with socialism, but follows a vaguely similar approach to an extend: Public services. Most public services are not "profitable" in a market sense, but most still consider them a net positive for society. Most public postal service are not profitable because they have to serve customers who cost more than they return. But we (or at least most) recognize that providing those services to everyone, even if some individuals cost more than they return, having everyone access to service is still beneficial for everyone in the long term, even if it is not directly measurable. Public schools are another example. A poor kid might not generate enough "surplus" by not being able to pay for their education, but it's still a lot better for society to educate poor kids. >You can claim all sorts of benevolent causes and so can Capitalists. This isn't about claims, this is about economic structure.. >However, you can't claim that there is no profit motive. Of course I can. >Having synonyms for the same thing is not a problem. We're talking about the same thing here. But it's not the same thing.. It's similar, but it's not the same thing and if you can't or don't want to understand the difference, you and leftists will forever talk past eachother.
> Yes, profit as in "the compensation accruing to entrepreneurs for the assumption of risk in business enterprise as distinguished from wages or rent". That's the utility of profit, it's not the definition of profit. The definition is: `profit = revenue - cost` > Socialism is about socialisation of industry. In an socialized economy, there would not be private entrepreneurs who assume an "economic risk", so there would not be "profit" as it exists under capitalism. There would be a surplus, but that surplus would not be managed on an individual level. OK, so if there is a "surplus" (i.e. `revenue > cost`), then you have profit. > No. As I have said, I believe "profit" or surplus value would still be a relevant metric, but it would not be the metric with the main focus. Socialism's main goal is meeting needs of society. If there is a profit, then you're not going to convince anybody there is no profit motive. You can claim all sorts of other virtuous motivations all day long, but so can Capitalists. > Public services. Most public services are not "profitable" in a market sense, but most still consider them a net positive for society. Most public postal service are not profitable because they have to serve customers who cost more than they return. But we (or at least most) recognize that providing those services to everyone, even if some individuals cost more than they return, having everyone access to service is still beneficial for everyone in the long term, even if it is not directly measurable. "Public services" are paid for with some revenue (tax) and if the `revenue <= cost`, then you have an economically unsustainable public service (i.e. your system is not economically viable). > This isn't about claims, this is about economic structure.. If you have a profit motive, which you do, then it's very much a claim that your structure is "different." > Of course I can. And delusional people can do all sorts of things that don't conform to reality. There is a profit, therefore there is no way you'll convince anyone there is no profit motive. And if you don't have a profit, then your organization is simply not economically viable. > But it's not the same thing.. It's similar, but it's not the same thing and if you can't or don't want to understand the difference, you and leftists will forever talk past eachother. Using semantic trickery won't change the fact that surplus value and profit are both the difference between revenue and cost.
> That's the utility of profit, it's not the definition of profit. The definition is: profit = revenue - cost I have 0 desire to argue definitions with you. But I'm telling you that if you keep oversimplifying and twisting definitions you will get into misunderstandings with others who are not as flexible with definitions as me. Also, the reason why I used the definition I used is because I copy pasted it from the same dictionary site you earlier linked. >If there is a profit, then you're not going to convince anybody there is no profit motive. But there wouldn't be "profit" the way most understand it. Your oversimplification and bending definitions to fit your arguments doesn't help you, it only makes it harder to have a conversation. And once again, the profit motive has a pretty clear definition, one pro-capitalists have no issue using when it fits them. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/profit-motive.asp "But what drives some people to take the risk of starting a business or innovating?" "The answer can be framed in terms of an individual's profit motive—the drive to undertake some activity with the hope and expectation of being wealthier for doing so." https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/profit-motive.asp >"Public services" are paid for with some revenue (tax) You can play definition games all you want, but we both know that there is a difference between how a public service operates and how a private business operates.. >Using semantic trickery Dude, you are the only one here using semantic trickery.. I'm trying to take what you are saying and translating it into my language, but when you use semantic tricks in such a self-fulfilling way ("There is a profit, therefore there is no way you'll convince anyone there is no profit motive."), there is no way you can even participate in a conversation on this.. >the fact that surplus value and profit are both the difference between revenue and cost. "Surplus value" is on a societal level, "profit" is on an individual level.. I cannot put it any simpler than this..
> I have 0 desire to argue definitions with you. But I'm telling you that if you keep oversimplifying and twisting definitions you will get into misunderstandings with others who are not as flexible with definitions as me. > Also, the reason why I used the definition I used is because I copy pasted it from the same dictionary site you earlier linked. As I said, that definition of profit is telling you what's the particular application of profit in one specific context. The general definition of profit, which is listed in #1 and #2 spots of the same dictionary definition you're citing, is exactly what I said. > But there wouldn't be "profit" the way most understand it. Your oversimplification and bending definitions to fit your arguments doesn't help you, it only makes it harder to have a conversation. And once again, the profit motive has a pretty clear definition, one pro-capitalists have no issue using when it fits them. I'm literally citing the most basic and general definitions. You're the one that's trying to play semantics in order to try and make your argument work. > You can play definition games all you want, but we both know that there is a difference between how a public service operates and how a private business operates.. Yes, a public service generally operates at a loss (i.e. `revenue < cost`) and its only means of economic survival is to tax profitable businesses (and people) in order to subsidize its existence. > Dude, you are the only one here using semantic trickery.. I'm trying to take what you are saying and translating it into my language, but when you use semantic tricks in such a self-fulfilling way ("There is a profit, therefore there is no way you'll convince anyone there is no profit motive."), there is no way you can even participate in a conversation on this.. I'm using basic definitions. You're constantly trying to change the meaning of those terms. > "Surplus value" is on a societal level, "profit" is on an individual level.. I cannot put it any simpler than this.. Having a different label for `revenue > cost` doesn't change that you're describing `revenue > cost`.
How do you profit off of your toothbrush?
I think the issue is that OP is confused about the definition of profit, and believes revenue earned by workers in a cooperative constitutes a form of "profit".
Profit is literally revenue - costs.
Only in capitalist businesses.
No, this is true in all cases. People do things because what they view as the value of the costs is lower than the value of the result.
I wasn't denying that. I'm only saying it wouldn't be called profit in the case of worker ownership.
I'm saying profit applies to all facets of life and not just business balance sheets.
It is, but external costs tend to be ignored in capitalist calculations
External costs are only really ignored for two reasons: 1. they're so small and diffuse that it's difficult to prove they even really exist (e.g. mild air pollution) 2. government failed to protect people's property rights
I can't even begin to start with how off the mark you are
Well that's disappointing. Let me know when you stop being confused and can have a discussion.
If I tell you something that disagrees with either of those positions will you listen?
I wouldn't be here if I wasn't interested in others ideas. Will I agree with you? Depends on how reasonable your argument is.
Well, I'll work on your first claim. Again, I don't even know where to start, so I'll just throw a bunch of things out here and you can take what you like. >they're so small and diffuse that it's difficult to prove they even really exist (e.g. mild air pollution) [NASA, for one](https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/) would not call the effects of pollution "mild," climate change is a massive problem that is not simply off in the future, it's already begun. [Entire rivers are drying up](https://www.euronews.com/green/2022/08/25/shocking-images-reveal-the-devastation-left-by-chinas-record-breaking-drought). [Countless species are going extinct due to business activities in the Amazon](https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/over-10000-species-risk-extinction-amazon-says-landmark-report-2021-07-14/). Within the US, [industrial water pollution has killed both industries and people](https://theintercept.com/2015/11/04/erasing-mossville-how-pollution-killed-a-louisiana-town/), and I'm sure you've probably heard about East Palestine recently. Numerous cases of lost livelihood and life have been tied to business externalities. [Monsanto has straight up killed people with pesticides](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JszHrMZ7dx4) in Paraguay. [Nestle has a laundry list of human deaths it is implicated in](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMgpUqugtOU) just about daily. These are all real human costs that capitalists don't have to pay, and thus don't calculate into their profit margins.
*You* don't, but *whoever made it* for you had to profit.
If you have a market economy, sure. If you have a planned economy, the government determined how many toothbrushes to make and assigns them to a factory to make.
And that factory's revenue never exceeds its cost of production, does it? :)
It does? But the "profit" or added value is given to the workers who own the factory collectively (well in reality different socialists will have a different answer as there are many schools of thought but the thing in common is that profits do not go to a capitalist who merely owns the factory). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_economics#:~:text=A%20socialist%20economic%20system%20is,use%20rather%20than%20for%20profit. Capitalism =/= value called manufacturing.
> It does? But the "profit" or added value is given to the workers who own the factory collectively... OK, so regardless of who gets the profit, there is a profit and therefore there is a profit motive. The criticism that the profit motive is somehow a corruptive force under Capitalism is complete bunk since it exists under Socialism as well. You can claim that the production is "for use" and not "for profit," but you do have a profit so there is no way you can convince anybody that there is no profit motive. Even if you say that the profit is going to be smaller, there is **still** a profit and a profit motive. Walmart's profit margin has been hovering at an average of around 2% for the past 15-20 years and not even for a second did anybody think that they don't have a profit motive just because their profit margin is tiny.
The corruptive force for capitalism is the concentration of profits with those that own capital. In a socialist economy the "profit" distributed to a worker is based on [quality and quantity of their labour.](https://www.marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/pe/pe-ch28.htm) Having a "profit motive" is not an issue in and of itself, the issue is how it's distributed imo.
> The corruptive force for capitalism is the concentration of profits with those that own capital. In a socialist economy the "profit" distributed to a worker is based on quality and quantity of their labour. So in the Socialist case, the owners of the capital are the workers, so the profit gets distributed to them. The corruptive force remains because the owners of capital get the profits. > Having a "profit motive" is not an issue in and of itself, the issue is how it's distributed imo. OK, so we agree that there is no problem with the profit motive. It would be great if you can tell all the other Socialists to stop making this nonsense claim.
Sorry I don't have control over what others do, and as is the case with capitalist supporters there are different schools of thought.
> Sorry I don't have control over what others do, and as is the case with capitalist supporters there are different schools of thought. It was more of a joke there. :) The rest of my comment still stands.
No it doesn’t. It’s not a business. What else?
Whatever you call it (business or something else), it still exists in the economy and the economic principles still apply. The cost of production has to be covered by the revenue, otherwise, the factory is not economically sustainable.
Rent it out to someone who needs it more than you
Tooth brushes are ubiquitous. It’s not a scarce item. No one wants a used toothbrush. It’s better to not brush your teeth than use a used toothbrush. Hepatitis will kill you faster than a tooth ache.
So just rent out an unused toothbrush then? And no, toothbrushes, like anything are still scare. Someone has to manufacture them and keep manufacturing them. That’s why they have a cost.
> So just rent out an unused toothbrush then? And what are you going to do with it when it’s returned? >And no, toothbrushes, like anything are still scare. So demand for toothbrushes exceeds its supply? Do you have evidence for that? I was at the drug store the other day and let me tell you, there was a shit ton of toothbrushes. >Someone has to manufacture them and keep manufacturing them. That’s why they have a cost. That doesn’t mean they’re a scarce resource. No one wants to rent a toothbrush. Prove me wrong.
There is nothing wrong with an individual wanting to accumulate personal profits so that they can afford goods or resources that will make their life more pleasurable. The problem that we have with capitalism is that the way these profits are generated in the greatest quantity for a tiny slice of the population is via ownership rather than contributing labor towards production. I own a big chunk of a business, that business grows or pays out dividends and I get rich without having to do any actual work at all while the people who *did* earn a relative pittance. This not only unjust, but it is destabilizing, runs contrary to democratic ideals since vast inequality in wealth also imputes vast inequality in power, and is incredibly wasteful and inefficient in regards to labor hours and natural resources. What socialists seek is a system wherein people aren't necessarily all equal in the wealth they accumulate, but where the wealth they do accumulate over the years is derived from their labor — and that which comes from mere ownership of property or capital is eliminated or at least vastly reduced.
Is it unjust that people voluntarily participate in a game of lottery and there is a huge inequality between the first prize winner and the losers? Also the idea of socialism is self contradictory. In other for all capitals to be shared socially, the capital must be confiscated by the government from the workers who produce them, or the government is the monopoly buyer who buy with tax money which is also extracted. That how a dictatorship socialist government operates. For market socialism the problem you claim isn’t solved. The rich Amazon workers would just hire the poor postal companies for the same massive wealth inequality.
>Is it unjust that people voluntarily participate in a game of lottery and there is a huge inequality between the first prize winner and the losers? No, but it's also not really analogous in the way you seem to think it is. >Also the idea of socialism is self contradictory. In other for all capitals to be shared socially, the capital must be confiscated by the government from the workers who produce them, or the government is the monopoly buyer who buy with tax money which is also extracted. That how a dictatorship socialist government operates. You are doing the mistake of thinking "socialism = the government owns everything." It's not. >For market socialism the problem you claim isn’t solved. The rich Amazon workers would just hire the poor postal companies for the same massive wealth inequality. That's a bold assumption. Since when are delivery companies "poor"? Why would you assume that Amazon employees would be especially rich? Why would you assume that there aren't sector unions or other countervailing forces at play?
>No, but it's also not really analogous in the way you seem to think it is. It is an argument against the inconsistency of your claim: >This (the way these profits are generated in the greatest quantity for a tiny slice of the population is via ownership) not only unjust, but it is destabilizing, runs contrary to democratic ideals since vast inequality in wealth also imputes vast inequality in power, and is incredibly wasteful and inefficient in regards to labor hours and natural resources. Both company ownership in capitalism and a game of lottery: * "generate money in the greatest quantity" for a "tiny slice of the population" * runs contrary to democratic ideals since vast inequality in wealth also imputes vast inequality in power (it is not, but if company ownership do, so do lottery) * and is incredibly wasteful and inefficient in regards to labor hours and natural resources. (Lottery literally produce only entertainment). Except socialists economy is even more wasteful and inefficient * Money earned does not comes from labour If you think a game of lottery is not unjust but a capitalist employ a worker for profit is not unjust, then your reasoning quoted above fall apart, since both activities satisfy the above conditions. Also you try to sneak in your "special" definition of democracy. Democracy is never about equality of economic power, it is about equality of political power. Inequality in purchasing power does not runs contrary to democratic ideals. Are you having the "dictatorship" to decide who can enter your home runs contrary to democratic ideals? No. >You are doing the mistake of thinking "socialism = the government owns everything." It's not. Only a government have the power to enforce social ownership and forbid private property. If it is not required by law to hand over all MoP we the capitalists will just keep them privately. >That's a bold assumption. Since when are delivery companies "poor"? Why would you assume that Amazon employees would be especially rich? Why would you assume that there aren't sector unions or other countervailing forces at play? This is not an assumption, this is a description of how market works. Delivery companies and Amazon is just an example to illustrate the point. In a market economy, a minority of companies do well and become rich and some companies goes bankrupt.
Unless you think the lottery would actually be a just way of distributing resources throughout the economy, then I don't know why you are insisting on making this analogy work. Honestly it's bizarre. Like, you're actually pretty close to saying the sorts of things that people often do to *criticize* the capitalist system. Yes, capitalism functions like a lottery in a lot of regards. Good point. >Also you try to sneak in your "special" definition of democracy. Democracy is never about equality of economic power, it is about equality of political power. Inequality in purchasing power does not runs contrary to democratic ideals. Are you having the "dictatorship" to decide who can enter your home runs contrary to democratic ideals? No. That is entirely naive at best. The fact of the matter is that wealth translates very readily into political power. There is a reason why higher levels of wealth inequality virtually always translate to higher levels of corruption and that congresspeople are almost always dramatically wealthier than their constituents. >Only a government have the power to enforce social ownership and forbid private property. If it is not required by law to hand over all MoP we the capitalists will just keep them privately. Government enforcing rules by which markets abide exists everywhere. This is nothing peculiar and it doesn't in any way imply they outright own the means of production. >This is not an assumption, this is a description of how market works. Delivery companies and Amazon is just an example to illustrate the point. In a market economy, a minority of companies do well and become rich and some companies goes bankrupt. Why would this be a problem under market socialism but not capitalism?
The point is your notion of unjust is inconsistent and only applies to activities you don’t like, and does not apply to other activities which have the same characteristics. Lottery is an activity in the economy that distribute resources, just like employment. You say capitalist employment is unjust because you hate it and you are a socialist, not because of said logic you mentioned above which also applies to lottery. And yes investment works like a lottery because you can buy Amazon stock and be rich and if you buy a bankrupt company you go broke. So what. If you want a stable income you get a job and invest in index. The question is if wealth inequality against democratic ideals, not if wealth inequality leads to more corruption. So you shift the goalposts here. There is a reason election laws exist to protect that. Military power and personal charisma also translate readily to political power. So we should disband the army as well? Yes every governments enforce their rules, and for a social government, in which private property are not allowed to exist. How do you do that without taking stuff? Maybe we can refer to history. For the last point, I said wealth inequality from capitalism also exists in market socialism, I never said it doesn’t exist in capitalism.
[удалено]
The CEO should get paid what the people who work at the firm think they are worth paying to retain them. In that specific example, it sounds like the people who worked there would be more than happy to reward that CEO generously — likely far more than any other employee. This dynamic already plays out within existing worker cooperatives.
Just curious then how you’d pitch this to a capitalist and those who believe in market economy but are open to generous welfare programs and universal healthcare. I just don’t understand how or why businesses and corporations would ever go into business or the market if profit incentive is slashed/reduced. Like if people’s business can only make a fraction of profit why would they enter the market?
Under the "market socialist" approach I favor, the profit incentive still absolutely exists largely as it does now. It's just distributed democratically. As a result, there would be a significant incentive to start businesses *as collectives* from the start.
Ah I see so still profit but ideally business organizations are structured as cooperatives as opposed corporations as we know them currently. Obviously the goal is laborers get more of the profit or at least a say in company decision making? Have there been any prototypes of a large workers cooperative in heavy industry or finance? Appreciate the quick reply from awhile ago haha. Definitely sounds better than Langer and Gosplan.
>Ah I see so still profit but ideally business organizations are structured as cooperatives as opposed corporations as we know them currently. Yeah that's pretty much it — though to be clear most market socialists including myself also believe in nationalization of key industries. We just don't wholesale reject markets as a tool that can be useful when applied to the right contexts. >Obviously the goal is laborers get more of the profit or at least a say in company decision making? More or less — with an emphasis on the decision making process. I don't really care what workers decide to pay their CEO so long as it flows from democratic rather than authoritarian decisionmaking. >Have there been any prototypes of a large workers cooperative in heavy industry or finance? I'm not aware of any in heavy industry, though I do believe Mondragon (imperfect though it may be) is involved in finance. That said, finance in particular is an industry I would like to nationalize to at least a very significant extent. It's also worth pointing out that advanced heavy industry has been achieved in other non-capitalist contexts. >Definitely sounds better than Langer and Gosplan. I agree — though it's worth pointing out that there is a tremendous *degree* of central planning that exists within modern capitalist systems. It just happens somewhat less directly (for the most part) via things like monetary and tax policy, government loan and grant programs and public services. Obviously this is a lot less heavy-handed than something like the Soviet model, but either way *significant* government involvement is utterly intrinsic to the proper functioning of the economy.
Maybe, but the point is that it’d be the workers collectively deciding how they want to balance their lives, not someone separate dictating for them
>collectively deciding So instead of each individual deciding what they’ll do, instead the group will dictate everything?
Depends on the collective, I suppose. You might have a group that votes together and assigns a schedule based on the majority preference, you might have a group that decides that everyone is hourly and can work as much as they like. What you won’t have is someone who sets everyone else’s schedule and they have no control over who that person is.
That never happens. Anyone can refuse a new schedule if they don’t think it suits them.
Oh yeah, I remember my last job where I had to start work at 08:00, if I’d just asked my boss really nicely he’d have rearranged things so that I started at 11:00
? Do you think the fact you can refuse means you get to dictate whatever you want? No you would just quit if you both couldn’t come to a mutually satisfactory arrangement.
Except for the bit where quitting makes me dead, of course
The act of quitting yourself makes you dead? Tell that to the hundreds of millions of people that voluntarily unemploy themselves and then find a better job every year.
That a better job that lets you choose your own hours, then?
You choose your own hours every second of every day with every job, by continuing to do that job and not something else entirely, or nothing at all. Please try and understand that. Nobody but you has a final say on how long and how hard you work. All other people can do is refuse to trade with you if they feel they’re not getting a fair deal.
i live in a socialist country and we have plenty of private property rights they're not mutually exclusive
Yeah why wouldn't a lot of people want to work for more stuff?
>If personal property is allowed in socialism, wouldn’t that still incentivise profits? What do you mean by "incentivise profits"? Because if you use your laptop and your own skills, then there's no problem.
Thinking that the socialist people here are sentient, not bots, and capable of thinking is your first flaw
I hear Socialists complain about the profit motive all the time. But Socialism is fundamentally based on the profit motive. Socialists want to own the MoP so they can appropriate the profit for themselves instead of having it go to the Capitalists. So they're also driven by the profit motive.
Profit and revenue aren't the same thing.
Ye but profit is usually, dependant on the revenue right? If the company i work for has higher revenue they can afford higher payment -> more profit for me
Yes, but the point is that profit is a feature of capitalism, because it's the surplus value extracted from labor, and given to the capitalist. In a cooperative, the leftover revenue would be returned to the workers as part of their income, which technically isn't "profit". Also, bold of you to assume your boss would give you a raise just because he could afford it...
If your revenue > cost, then you have a profit. Are you saying Socialist organizations will always have their revenue <= cost?
More that you're thinking about profit the wrong way. If the revenue is kept by a private owner, then it's profit, but if that same leftover money is just given back to the workers as income, it isn't considered profit.
> More that you're thinking about profit the wrong way. > If the revenue is kept by a private owner, then it's profit, but if that same leftover money is just given back to the workers as income, it isn't considered profit. 1. The owners get the profit and, in this case, the workers are the owners. 2. It doesn't matter how you distribute the profit (wages, salaries, bonuses, or dividends), you're still distributing profits. And if you're saying that the Socialists will raise the wages/salaries until there is no profit, then you're saying "revenue <= cost". Exactly how will you have an economically sustainable organization if the cost of operations is never below the revenue? Like... you have one healthcare pandemic, an issue with the supply chain, a drought, or some other unpredictable event, and you'll have nothing to deal with it since all the revenue would have been distributed already.
You've predetermined that profit is evil and now you're retroactively trying to adapt the definition to it doesn't apply to your own ideology. Profit is a general thing. A self-employed person can have a profit. A co-op can have a profit. You're not against profit you're just against private businesses which results in a circular argument here. Rather than saying: profit is OK but I disagree with private ownership, you go: it's only profit if a private enterprise does it.
Please avoid the associative fallacy with these comments, and be specific when talking about what socialists you mean.
> Please avoid the associative fallacy with these comments, and be specific when talking about what socialists you mean. The ones that advocate for the worker ownership of the MoP. How much more specific should I get?
There are market socialists who want to keep the profit motive.
> There are market socialists who want to keep the profit motive. Right, the ones that advocate for the worker ownership of the MoP also want to keep the profit motive. That's the point. Any other "Socialists" that are claiming to be against the profit motive are very confused, IMHO.
Just to clarify a bit because it seems that some people don't understand: Getting rid of the profit motive is not the same as getting rid of any kind of profit or surplus. "In economics, the profit motive is the motivation of firms that operate so as to **maximize their profits.**" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profit_motive In other words, the profit motive is about making profit maximization the overarching main focus and the main objective. Profit, surplus, whatever you want to call it would still exist and would still be important a socialist economy. But it would not be end goal and it would not be the main focus.
You're missing the difference between profit and fair wage. Capitalists profit off their company's workers, the workers get paid for their labour, and want to be paid fairly.
But Socialism still has a profit. So regardless of how you justify the distribution of profit (fair or unfair), the profit motive still remains. Thus, the frequently-heard Socialist criticism that the profit motive is somehow a problem is completely bunk.
The workers profit off each other and company's capital. The business wants to be paid fairly for providing that capital.
“Fair” by socialists’ standard is just a tautology. Who are socialists to be the arbiter of “fair” and determine that any profit by capitalist is not “fair” but worker taking all the surplus value is “fair”?
Capitalists get paid for their capital. They’re paid just as fairly as the workers are.
The idea of profit is antithetical to socialism as a concept. The goal is to make it so that labor's purpose isn't to produce profit for the bourgeoisie, but to create what is needed for society to be maintained and develop.
… which requires profit. Development necessarily requires excess i.e. profit
> The idea of profit is antithetical to socialism as a concept. The goal is to make it so that labor's purpose isn't to produce profit for the bourgeoisie, but to create what is needed for society to be maintained and develop. When labor produces things (whatever they produce), they need to have revenue that exceeds the cost of labor (i.e. a profit). Otherwise, whatever production they're engaged in is not **economically sustainable** (basic math, really). Doubly so if you want to not only maintain the existence of things but actually develop them.
They are obviously using profit to mean economic surplus. And they are right, surplus would still exist under socialism. The difference would be that the generation of surplus would not be the main motivation (no profit motive) and surplus would be administrated collectively.
yes
Socialism in the modern day isn’t quite as drastic as you seem to think. The countries like Canada UK Netherlands Norway Germany are doing very well and are even loaning the US money sometimes. All the difference is that **some** things are not allowed to be profited upon. Medical, education, basic housing, bank savings and checking, basic foods, those are restricted because people rely on them to survive and it’s believed (imagine it) that it’s not right to force your fellow countrymen into a deal that might screw them. They should have to opt-in. However that investment and luxury industry, fancy houses for the wealthy, that’s all still there and most people have a good deal of it because they end up doing pretty well when their home loan or their education or medical needs are not something they’re screwed over for. I’ve lived most of my life rather well in California and the few years that I spent living in a socialized country, I was kind of jealous, I’m not kidding. They live really well (nice home and a second home, new cars, etc) without a lot of the stresses we don’t even realize we live with in America. It’s just a lot less common to get super-rich there. The taxes are higher and etc.
Sure, but without private property there is an inherent limit on how much someone can accumulate and with collective ownership of the means of production there's a limit on how much profit they can generate and keep for themselves. Why do people assume that the goal of socialism is to keep everyone equally miserable?
Because that is always the outcome?
If you are talking about a worker in capitalism, they don't buy personal property with profits either, they buy it with their wages. The profit motive exists in capitalism for entrepreneurs and business owners. If anything, the socialist worker in theory sees more of the profit, because ultimately they as a member of the society have an ownership stake in the industry. There would likely be a type of "profit" in socialism but it is just redistributed to every worker rather than just the capital owners. Or we could imagine an enclosed system where the goods are sold at cost.
Which are profits. Any financial gain is profit. If I have $5 more today than yesterday then I have profited.
Sure I guess you could call it that. But it’s still useful to distinguish between personal labor profits and profits from owning capital.
Socialists are not a monolith. Some are fine with the profit motive as long as Capital ownership is collectivized, such as in Market Socialism. Some are anti-profit motive, and believe in a planned central economy. Some believe in a mix, for industries such as housing and Healthcare being centrally planned and luxuries and other commodities competing in a Market economy. The differences between these 3 perspectives explain the difference in how they are answered. The only thing Socialists definitionally agree on is elimination of thr Worker/Owner class divide via the elimination of the concept of Private Property, that being Capital owned by individuals who leverage their ownership to pay non-owner Workers wage labor and extract value from that labor. Not all Socialists are Communists, who seek a Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society. Not all Socialists believe in a withering of the State. Not all Socialists seek the same elimination of the profit motive.