[cbeach]

Ending scarcity and funding UBI is uniquely possible in a capitalist society, where there is excess wealth generation. In the UK we use our capitalist excess wealth to fund socialised healthcare.

But don't mistake socialised service provision for socialism

Socialism implies state control of the means of production.

The results of socialism, we witnessed in Eastern Europe and elsewhere during the 20th century: scarcity of goods and services

Eventually a socialist state runs out of private wealth to seize, and it becomes completely corrupt and totalitarian due to its monopoly over the means of production. And then the people rise up and demand a the restoration of a free society where people can own the fruits of their labour.

[wat10000]

In all the actual examples I can think of, the totalitarianism came first. Eastern Europe mostly had socialism imposed by an occupying force, and that same force also imposed totalitarian governments. In other places, Communists took over, set up a totalitarian government, and then proceeded to implement whatever they thought socialism/communism entails.

[krapp]

>Socialism implies state control of the means of production.

Socialism literally implies the opposite. That's why it's called socialism. Under capitalism, capitalists own the means of production. Under fascism, the government and the state collaborate to own the means of production. Under socialism, the means of production are socially (collectively) owned. In the most extreme interpretation of socialism, communism, the goal is the elimination of the state entirely.

Granted, historically, communist states tended to centralize power rather than work towards their own elimination because that's the inherent evil of governments, particularly revolutionary governments. But to claim that socialism presupposes authoritarianism is to expose the fact that everything you know about socialism comes from capitalist propaganda.

>And then the people rise up and demand a the restoration of a free society where people can own the fruits of their labour.

(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ That's socialism!

[cbeach]

> Under capitalism, capitalists own the means of production

What are "capitalists" and by which rules of capitalism do they hold a monopoly on the means of production?

I live in a capitalist country (the UK), I'm an ordinary member of the public, and I'm free to start a business, own it, and therefore own a means of production.

Which UK citizens are unable to own the means of production?

[cbeach]

Since it’s unworkable, in practice, for “everyone” to own something, socialism inevitably means state ownership.

There’s no getting around this.

If everyone owns something, no one owns it.

[krapp]

Socialism inevitably means state ownership only because states make themselves inevitable, not because state ownership is an inherent property of socialism per se. Plenty of examples exist of socialism working at a smaller scale, such as with worker owned cooperatives. If you're a programmer, you might own your own means of production. Free software is socialist in principle - all of that code is collectively owned.

But when the monopoly on violence gets involved, socialism often gets co-opted to serve the interests of the state rather than the people. I would argue that authoritarianism and and the creation of an elite centralizing and controlling wealth and resources for itself is as much a fail state for capitalism as it is for socialism, that it's just a different bunch of pigs feeding at the trough.

And to refer to your earlier comment, socialized provision of services is absolutely a form of socialism. If those services aren't being run for a profit under market principles, made available only to consumers who can afford it, and that profit isn't being captured to increase the wealth of private ownership, then it's a form of socialism.

In the US we have Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, which are ostensibly socialist programs (certainly they were denounced as such when created.) One might argue that they aren't truly socialist since they don't collectivize the means of production but they certainly aren't capitalist in principle.

Of course it also helps to remember that "socialism" encompasses a wide spectrum of ideology and theory, and that if you get five socialists in a room and ask for a definition of socialism you'll wind up with seven manifestos and a fistfight. There are socialists who will argue for Soviet and Chinese style central control, and will point out (as capitalists will about capitalism) that socialism brought those states out of grinding poverty and vastly improved their peoples' quality of life, and others who abhor the violence and oppression of authoritarian socialism, believing it can only be achieved through nonviolence and voluntarism.

Point being that absolutist phrases like "socialism inevitably means state ownership" don't work as a useful critique because they don't consider the flexibility and adaptability of socialism as a concept. They tend to be thought-terminating cliches, like "capitalism is the worst system, except for all others," which serve to to normalize the premise that criticism of capitalism is futile because no useful alternatives to capitalism can possibly exist.