[thinkski]

Organized by an employer, capital, and management. The orchestration, decision making, done well, is the difference between a highly valuable well functioning company, and dysfunctional paralysis. There are now multiple examples in history (pre-1989 Poland, Soviet Union, DPRK, etc.) that show the communal ownership of industry by labor does not create a high standard of living, enabled by plentiful goods, services, and innovation.

[tsimionescu]

At what point was labor communally owning industry in the Soviet Union or DPRK? Did Stalin or Kim ever ask a laborer for their opinion on how a factory should be run? Or give them a penny of the work they were doing?

The Soviet block and DPRK was exactly as close to socialism as it was to democracy: 100% in their propaganda, 0% in reality. Or would you say democracy doesn't work because the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a shit show country despite being "democratic"?

[jacobn]

The problem with collectivism is less with collectivism as platonic ideal (which has a lot of romantic appeal), and more with the inevitable concentration of power it requires and thereby enables.

The reason there has been no successful implementation of it is that the process of enacting it is inherently fragile. And some bastard is going to exploit that fragility.

Then you're screwed and we end up with the bountiful historical examples that people love to cite & then others refute as "that's not real xyz-ism".

You're absolutely correct that they're not "real" xyz-ism. And that should make you very worried about supporting something that has the same or similar end goals as those initiatives once had.

[tsimionescu]

We have little to no idea if this is indeed inevitable. The same kind of arguments could have been made, and were in fact made, about democracy and capitalism before the American and French revolutions. And some attempts at democratic revolutions have indeed fallen into authoritarian rule - Cromwell's being one of the most well known.

Socialism is nothing more than extending democracy beyond the state to the workplace. It is no more collectivist than democracy is in any other economic system. And like any other form of democracy, it is naturally opposed to authoritarian rule, not conducive to it.

As such, the problem with socialism is not at all that it's easy for it to fall into dictatorship. The problem is that it is hard to convince the rich to allow it to form without aggression, since it necessitates them losing much of their power. The same problem that democracy faced: kings rarely step down, and bloody revolutions are typically worse than the status quo (and you can never be sure what will happen after one).

[jacobn]

Establishing democracy is indeed also a fragile process, but one that has numerous successful implementations (~140 democracies in the world?).

Social democracy has numerous successful implementations (eg Scandinavia).

But the more “hardcore” collectivist -isms have from what I can recall basically zero successes, despite numerous attempts.

[AndrewKemendo]

Exactly this

This concept that there is a well defined polar opposite to western “freedom” capitalism is so far from reality in literally any economic history understanding

Not only that but the USSR was in no sense Marxist Communist. It was well known that the Lenin-Trotskyist Bolshevism was the core, specifically the command economy part.

That regime coopted the philosophy of Marxism well after his death.

That’s what happens when both sides are spinning the same propaganda.

BTW I’m equally not a fan of Marxist material dialectic as I am the trotsy-lenin unholiness or the American oligopolies.

We need a true state-free attempt at anarcho socialism but that’s nearly impossible as such a concept fundamentally threatens the basic structure of the modern state.

[vacuity]

While I am sympathetic to the idea that we need to burn e everything down, baby steps, first. If we're talking halfway realistic changes, let's get stuff like this wealth limit in place first, and once those been established for a while, we may have a better picture of the ideal state.

[AndrewKemendo]

I can understand how you can assume catastrophic intent on my part however, that’s not the case.

In no revolution are the poorest and weakest persons ever benefited it’s only typically been to the benefit of some small group they just recycles hands so in fact, the last thing I want is some kind of hard break.

No, I’m an anarcho syndicalist. Which is a gradual reappropriation of the means to worker collectives slowly and peacefully.

[vacuity]

Sorry for the mischaracterization. Your position sounds interesting. When it comes to how the means of production should be structured, I envision a microkernel kind of model: enforce strict protections for worker pay, fairness, and whatever, and let the dice fall where they may. If it's worker collectives that result as the optimum, so be it.

[AndrewKemendo]

No worries, most people see “anarchist” and think violence because propaganda works unfortunately. Anyway…

“enforce strict protections for worker pay, fairness, and whatever“

This assumes a lot about the foundational structure of the environment these agents are operating within

Unless you address who reaps the benefits of commerce then its just the same situation with slightly different tyrants

What you describe is precisely the structure of what exists now - but you’re not satisfied with the rates

[FredPret]

East Germany, North Korea, and the USSR are wonderful examples of how this idiotic idea fares in real life.

Unless people there somehow have much lower IQs than their neighbours, who do vastly better, the difference in outcome must lie in the system that co-ordinates their work.

[avgcorrection]

I mean the value leeches are also present.