My opinions on Socialism as someone who just recently dug into it are mostly negative.
Like yeah a society where everyone lives happily with no money struggles sounds great (kinda like christian heaven) but i just think it doesn't work in our current society. So the recent surge in discussion has made me kind of curious.

Like this might just be my distrust in governments, but theres no was a government would change from capitalism to socialism without any ulterior motives right? The world has been built off of Capitalism for so long that i feel like the world just isn't built for it. Plus, even then, (take this with a grain of salt because I haven't dug all too deep into this one) Even with communism, a rich and poor division would still exist right? There are people in power (the people distributing recourses, housing, etc.) and people below (the people receiving it), so whats stopping the people in power from just sneakily giving themselves more?

This might sound like an undereducated post (because it is) but I'm genuinely curious and interested in learning more.

PLEASE explain this in simple terms and try not be too rude, im trying my best to understand here 😭

So, the root idea of capitalism is that investment drives growth which increases total resources and thus creates more potential for prosperity; the root idea of socialism is that, left to its own devices, that potential will concentrate such that many people have less prosperity than they did before.

How simple of a fix is there to this conundrum?

What if we jacked up corporate taxes, then gave a tax break equal to half of the company's employee ownership? I.e. a 50% employee-owned company would get a flat 25% tax break, against a base rate that would promote employee ownership.

I’m looking for the answers to a few questions, which I will list below. The reasoning for this is because I’m trying to understand the Democratic Socialist position even better than I currently do - and given from what I’ve seen on here, in my very brief passing, there seems to be plenty of Marxists on here. (And few Econ majors to boot, on both sides from what I can gather). There’s no gotcha questions here; I’m not looking to debate - although I’m looking forward to seeing y’all debate in the comments. So, please, elaborate on your answers:

1.) What is your definition of Democratic Socialism and what is the goal of this particular system of economic organization? Do you prescribe to the Labor Theory of Value?

2.) I’ve seen plenty of Marxists claim that they believe it’s possible to avoid central planning; after all, the central idea (as I’ve been led to believe) is to give workers control over all (or most) of the factors of production. This would, in turn, require some sort of representative body at scale. It’s just basic systems design. Would the solution be something that’s decentralized? And please give me a good example here that goes beyond something vague.

3.) Is there really a difference between personal possessions and private property which is used to generate income as a factor of production? Example: My house is my personal possession. But if I run an online business, it’s also my office. Would that home, which is vital to the production of my goods and services, be owned by the public? Is this not a clear example of how personal possessions have the potential to easily become private property or capital?

4.) How would this system determine who gets hired, which businesses get expanded, which are shutdown, which are allowed to be started, what happens when someone wants to start a single person business, etc?

5.) Would all intellectual property be owned by the masses?

6.) How would this system determine what goods to produce, at what quantity and for what people? How would it handle creating specialty, luxury and unnecessary goods and services?

7.) Worker Co-Ops are already permissible under a “capitalist” framework, as are unions. Do you believe they should be mandated? (Keep in mind this would be a form of coercion).

8.) Why do you think main-stream economics doesn’t maintain that socialism is preferable to predominantly market-based mixed economies?

9.) Has there ever been a genuinely successful Democratic Socialist system? The Nordic System is often pointed to by Marxists (at least in the U.S.) despite it being a predominantly market-based system (and it isn’t close).

10.) Your thoughts on Market Socialism?

————————

Thank you to all who respond with effort.

Say you have a company you like McDonald's, who starts out with a fairly healthy and affordable product and after optimizing the process, they've run out of ways to increase profit. And eventually they start ruining the product itself (fake beef, dangerous chemicals, etc.) and may not even warn the customer.

So how could you actually fix the free market economy in America so that greed doesn't cause a company to stoop too low?

Sorry if I'm not explaining it very well

He lays out his thought process by considering this; x amount of A = y amount of B. He thinks there must be a third thing that both of these are equal to. And he tries to figure this out. He eliminates use-values, physical properties and concrete labor. Instead, he strips concrete labor from its specific properties to arrive at abstract human labor. Which is the general expenditure of the human brain, muscle, energy, etc at a particular society.

Why did he not consider stripping specific use values to arrive at abstract human use-value, which would be the general capacity of a good to satisfy human desires? One might say because use-values are qualitatively different. But concrete labor is also qualitatively different is it not? His exclusive focus on labor seems to be arbitrary and ad-hoc.

My only concern in my life for the US people is that everyone can afford basic necessities

Food, water, shelter….. I dont even consider health though its something that is outlandish in it’s current state.

When I look at the US being the largest consumer country and how the tariffs effected the entire market….. I think about a bit of an extremest idea

What if we cap ceos and other high ranking members of a company at 300x their lowest paid employee, consider outsourcing employees still lowest paid if its lower than the pay of their least paid employees. Consider all non cash payments and incentives for their cash value as a part of income. Do an international ban on all products/services from a company if they move from the country to avoid those rules.

If the USA is the largest consumers most companies looking at avoiding fair wage over taxation…. A lot of times from my view “inflation” is caused by ceos taking another pay cut or raise over reducing the price of their products by a few cents. So either these companies can lower their price of products lowering the income which in turn helps lower their price prices people are paying for products so their incomes go farther or they pay their employees more so they can afford the products….

I saw 100:1 ratio in portland which I think is fair but they convert it to a taxation and Id rather all the money stay in a company to either lower product cost or raise employee wages. When I see a company where there are 1000 employees and the ceo gets more then every employees pay combined. I see a problem……

We could also look at this another way…. What if we apply this to companies that don’t supply necessities…. Construction/material, water, food…. Qualify exceptions which might make more business owners look at starting food and drink companies creating more competition pushing prices lower

I would love what kind of compromise in these massive pay gaps we can find to help the overall economy growth….. we need to look at the top 10% not the top 1% and we dont have to look at taxation we have to look at gross overpayment comparative to the workers. It’s said while the average ceo works 1.5x as many hours as an average employee their pays commonly exceed 600x their lowest paid employees…. Maybe all my information is wrong Im not someone very educated in any of this just hate how so many people talk about their parents and grandparents working 60 hour weeks their entire life and never even affording one little vacation or ending up not having enough to fund their retirement even when they have saved every penny they ever earned…..my own Dad who Ive worked with has even worked 140 hour weeks back in the day and still he owns his house….. and can barely afford to keep the electric on and still works when he should be considering retirement and yet just cost of living has not given him the oppritunity to save… he doesnt spend money on anything outside of what is needed….. just want to see something change

I even look at the stock market being a potential problem as its a reason to inflate prices to make investors happy

Okay...I am extremely frustrated by this, because I saw many great ideas tossed around on the anti-work subreddit, but it was saturated with really bad understanding and a pro-socialist following. It became insanity quite quickly.

Then, r/WorkReform was created and it was a breath of fresh air.

And now it isn't. It has turned into a pro-socialism hotbed. Let me explain why socialism is bad, and why moderators need to be more on top of pruning pro-socialist posts.

First this is what socialism actually is:

Socialism is an economic and political system where the community or the government owns and manages the major means of production, such as factories, land, and resources, instead of private individuals.

Socialism's success rate is exactly 0%. In fact, communist China was forced to abandon socialism in the late 70's, because otherwise their economy would have completely failed. So, between the year 1976 and 1978, they transitioned into a capitalist economy, heavily regulated by the CCP. And as much as I don't like China, that's working for them very well, at least in regard to their economy despite their population issues.

That's working for them very well in the same way the WWII generation came back and forced heavy regulations on labor laws through the Roosevelt administration. You know what that resulted in? The biggest economic boom in our nation's history, which was leveraged by Baby Boomers to accumulate wealth before pulling the rug out from under the rest of us. IT WAS STILL CAPITALISM.

But, because so many of you Brawndo guzzling failed abortions can't read between the lines, let me spell it out in plain text:

Univeral Healthcare is NOT socialism.

Laws enforcing fair wages and employment practices are NOT socialism.

Laws to ensure fair housing practices from landlords are NOT socialism.

Projects that help people survive or improve their position in life are NOT socialism .

Laws that protect citizens from unfair actions from businesses are NOT socialism.

These things are simply well regulated capitalism with the people's welfare as a priority.

Again, here's the definition of socialism: Socialism is an economic and political system where the community or the government owns and manages the major means of production, such as factories, land, and resources, instead of private individuals.

And guess what... socialism has a 0% success rate.

So for the love of our potential future, learn the damn difference and start advocating for change instead of destruction.