Economic Update: 3 Basic Kinds of Socialism

welcome friends to another edition of economic update a weekly program devoted to the economic dimensions of our lives and I'm your host Richard wolf I've been an economics professor all my life and that I hope has helped me prepare for these programs today I want to do a special kind of program a program devoted to a topic that is becoming more and more important in the world but particularly here in the United States I take my clue from a recent poll by NBC and the Wall Street Journal who worked together on these poles and this poll showed the 25% of voting Americans believe that socialism is an attractive quality in a candidate when they think about who they're gonna vote for well that kind of blew my mind after over half a century of endlessly demonizing anything and everything having to do with socialism that 1/4 of the American voting population feels they would be drawn to a candidate who said of himself or herself I'm a socialist tells you something about change in America beyond what a million other surveys might show so socialism is on the agenda and so I think it might be useful to become clearer than the most of the conversation has been about what socialism means I wish I could sit here and tell you that this is the definition of socialism but if I did such a thing you should turn the program off and go elsewhere because anybody who tells you that this is socialism is either ignorant or misleading you socialism has been around for 150 years it has spread all over the world and the end result inevitably is that different people mean different things by that term look capitalism is what we call the economy in the United States it's also what the leaders of Saudi Arabia call their economic system and it's also what the people in Ireland call theirs and it's also what the people in Nigeria call theirs therefore it obviously means different things to different people so I want to devote this program to going over with you the three major ways this idea of socialism is understood because those ways are relevant today those ways are fighting it out amongst themselves in terms of the allegiance and feelings and thoughts of people around the world and they're gonna shape our future so here's the first one in this view socialism has to do with the government that's right the government is to come in and regulate control a private capitalist economy that's right an economy governed by private enterprises owned by private citizens who trade with one another in an institution called the market where they buy and sell their labor their work their products their services that's why it's a capitalist economy private enterprise markets but one in which the government is brought in some people mean socialism by that and they mean particularly that the government is brought in in a in a certain way number one the government is to regulate what the private enterprises do so that they are less self-serving profit oriented and are more socially concerned that's why they minimum wage is something socialists always supported many of them want there to be limits on how much prices can be raised by corporations or how much profits can be earned by them and the second reason socialists want the government to come in is to redistribute wealth because capitalism has this tendon see to concentrate wealth in very few hands and deprive the mass of people so the Socialists want the government to come in using taxes and using government spending to do a bit of redistribution to equalize a system that turns unequal very quickly so for these people socialism means that the government comes in regulates and taxes to make what we might call capitalism because it leaves it in the leaves business in the hands of private enterprises and markets but we could call it capitalism with a humane face capitalism with a certain welfare focus welfare of all the people and here are some examples Denmark Norway Germany Italy free those countries are often referred to as socialist their governments are often governments of socialist parties and that's what those parties mean that they will have the government do this regulating and redistributing that's one concept of socialism around the world it's pretty close to what Bernie Sanders means in the United States or what Jeremy Corbyn means in Great Britain but here's the second one in the second view this first one doesn't go far enough because yes the government comes in and controls things and redistributes but it's in a perpetual war which the government often loses with those very private enterprises who try to get around the government regulation who try to get around the government taxation we're all familiar with those examples of companies for example Amazon which has earned billions in profits the last two years and paid absolutely no taxes to the United States government indeed this last year they're getting a refund in excess of a hundred million dollars so we know that private corporations do every thing in their power to use their profits to use their political power to undo to evade all of those socialistic regulations and redistributions and this has led some socialists to say you have to go further it isn't enough to regulate and redistribute the government should here we go directly take over the enterprises there shouldn't be private enterprises because those will always be run for the profit of the private owner if you want the economy to serve everybody then the agent of everybody the government that we all elect at least in theory should take over and run the businesses so they behave in the way that's good for everybody and there isn't this perpetual war between a regulating government and private enterprise and the same argument says we shouldn't allow the market to decide who gets what because the market always delivers whatever is scarce to the people with the most money it's a institution for those who are rich and who stay that way by using the market so these socialists go further the government should take over enterprises literally own and operate the factories stores and offices and instead of the market deciding who gets what it should be planned in terms of what we want for the society as a whole these kinds of socialists after the 1920s took the name communists to signal that they went further than the other socialists in order to take over through the government the apparatus of the economy so some people mean by socialism government regulating a private capitalism to make it more humane to make it less unequal and other people say no no socialism means for them that the government takes over the enterprise and plans the distribution of output rather than leaving it to the market and this second group of socialists often not always but often takes in the communists to show how they're different from the first group and in those kinds of examples the Soviet Union the People's Republic of China and for parts of their history Cuba Vietnam and so on are examples now let's get to the third kind of socialism that's contesting in the world today to become the important kind to become the kind believed in and followed by most people to win your interest as well and this approach is in a way an evolution out of the other two it's a kind of critical evolution because it is advanced by people who see some merits in the first kind of socialism government regulation the second kind government operating enterprises but say we don't think that's enough in one way and it's too much in the other here's how it's not enough it's not enough because it doesn't change the workplace the place where the mass of people do their economic thing using their brains and muscles to transform objects into the goods and services we all need to live the lives we want to live it doesn't change it enough meanwhile it does something too much it gives too much power to the government as a government that has this much power to regulate and redistribute let alone a government that takes over owning and operating is a government that runs us the risk that it'll do a lot more than these economic things using its power for political or cultural controls of a society that we have seen and we don't want again well then these kinds of socialists have a new focus for them what will really make a difference what will take us beyond capitalism and be a better way of organizing society focuses on the enterprise the work and it goes like this we have the economic system we have with its good points and it's bad points in large part because we don't allow democracy into the workplace and these socialists say capitalism never did that capitalism is a hierarchical way of organizing an enterprise a few people the owner the shareholders who had the big blocks of shares they run capitalist enterprises the mass of us have no control at all and they run it for them and the way to change society to make it better is to have the people who work in an enterprise all of them one-person one-vote have democratic control of the workplace as just as important as having democratic control of the community in which you live in the neighborhood in which you exist and so on this kind of socialism is micro focused it says let's not talk only about the government and private enterprise we don't mind private enterprise the government doesn't have to control everything there has to be some coordination but the big issue for us say these socialists is the transformation of the workplace the socialization of the workplace so it becomes a community run democratically rather than something run by a small number of people who put their benefits the so-called bottom-line as profits for them rather than a good life for everybody ok those kinds of socialism are arguing with one another for your attention and your allegiance to be interested in socialism doesn't mean you're necessarily the believer of one or the other most real socialist societies have mingled the control world of function of government with the ownership function of government what most experiments have not done is really tried that other kind of socialism that revolution is the workplace brings democracy to the workplace for the first time and says that's the way to get beyond the limits of capitalism its inequalities its instabilities it's in Justices so the question that's being fought out is not the question capitalism versus socialism or at least it's not only that it's also a struggle going on among these different definitions and meanings of socialism that are just as important to what's going on as the so called struggle between capitalism and socialism that was so crucial in the last hundred years we've come to the end of the first half of economic update stay with us there will be a continuation of this conversation when we come back and please remember support us on YouTube economic update needs your support there make use of our websites democracy at work dot info an RD wolf with two FS com and as always our special thanks to the patreon community that supports us with its interests and it's active encouragement for what we do our thanks welcome back friends to the second half of this special program devoted to the different kinds of socialism that are at play in the world today competing for our attention and competing for our allegiance for those of us that are interested in doing better than capitalism I want to ask this question in our second half how do these different kinds of socialism these different ideas of what socialism means how do they affect us how would they affect us how have they affected us as individuals working and living our lives so let's start with the first one we can call it moderate socialism some people call it democratic socialism it has a lot of names but it was that kind we talked about first in the first half of this program namely when the government is called in you leave enterprises in the hands of the private owners and operators as you have in capitalism you leave the market is the basic institution to distribute goods and services but the government comes in to regulate and to redistribute the wealth because of the tendencies towards inequality that capitalism without government tends to show us over and over again I think the things I would like to stress there are that on the one hand people in that kind of a socialist society are usually quite supportive of it if you look at the Scandinavian countries in a number of the Western European countries that are kind of prime examples of this sort of thing or you look at the image of what mr. Bernie Sanders wants for the United States and he himself refers to Denmark and so on as models at least in part you get the impression that what this means is that working people have kinds of two sources of well-being on the one hand they work and earn a wage or a salary and on the other hand they have a very generous supply of public services made available to them by that socialist government if you look in Europe's history for example Scandinavia or France or Germany or Italy you will see that it was the Socialists who pushed for the National Health Service that they have the unemployment compensation system that they had the subsidized transportation the subsidized public education these were all ways for the government to come in and make life better for the average person so there's a sense of support for the Socialists in those countries and for the socialism they have which is one explanation for why it has been so durable over the last century in which it was established there the problem if you like and we have to weigh the costs and benefits of all of these the problem for this kind of socialism is that it is very insecure let me explain if you leave the ownership and operation of enterprises in the hands of private people then those private people are in all cases a very small minority of the society they sit at the top of the economic system they are the ones who own the bulk of the shares they are the ones who sit on the board of directors all of that and they are constantly struggling to use those positions they have which includes getting the surplus or profits of this society into their hands to diminish the regulations to be freer to do things their enterprises lead them to believe will be profitable they don't want to be hemmed in by regulations and they don't want their wealth taken from them by a redistributive government so they begin to push back and they have the incentive but they also have the resources to push back and so they take away the very socialist benefits that have been captured in earlier periods of their history which means this kind of socialism is fundamentally insecure here's a second problem of that kind of socialism redistribution governments that use taxes to move wealth at least in part away from those at the top and spread that wealth out more evenly across the society this leads to incredible social tensions wherever redistribution happens that is a result I use this example I'm gonna use it again if you take your child to the park and you have two children and you take them to the park and now it's time to get ice cream cones and if you get the ice cream cones and you get two of them and you give them to one child and then you say whoa this isn't fair let's redistribute and you pull one a wave one cone away from the one child to give to the other you're creating a level of tension you would never have had to deal with if you're given each child one cone at the beginning when we have a government step in to redistribute we invite intense social struggle intense social animosities amongst us as a people it's not smart and that kind of socialism is constantly bedeviled by struggles among people over a redistribution you would not have if you distribute it less unequally to begin with let's turn to the second one the communist alternative when the government takes over running and owning enterprises and plans the output well they're what we have is interesting results first these sorts of economies have been stunningly successful in achieving one of their central goals which is economic growth I mean this comes as a shock to Americans but it has to be repeated so we are not living in a fantasy world the two most spectacular stories of economic growth of a society going from poverty to wealth in record time is this Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the People's Republic of China Wow Communist China communist Russia are examples in which having one central authority the government mobilize and focus on economic growth of ending centuries of policy of poverty have been extraordinarily successful those are their achievements they can get economic achievement on a scale that other societies both capitalist and the other kind of socialism the regulatory kind have not been able to achieve that has to be faced that is a virtue of those systems but they too have their problems let's look at them they generally tend to be less unequal then the other kind of socialism usually can be so they have that in their favor but in those societies you have irrigated you have taken an extraordinary amount of economic power and put in the hands of a government and the question has been and that has been answered now that putting that amount of power into the hands of the government runs the risk that such a government will use its economic power to also dominate politically and culturally and remember if the government takes over the enterprise it means that instead of the private individuals running the business of the country it'll be government officials who do it and that is still a small part of your society it means a minority in one case it's private capitalists in the other case it's government officials is calling all the shots and that is politically dangerous and we've learned that lesson so in this struggle to ask yourself what life would be like if you were in the first kind of society a socialism ala Scandinavia versus the next kind of socialism the communist variety as you had it in Russia and China working people you and I would have to ask what will life be like in that kind of arrangement we don't have mass unemployment we have government services on a scale we don't in other societies and we have economic growth but we also have the uncertainties the instabilities and the concentration of power that might be a problem now let's ask what the third kind of socialism would mean for us a socialism that focused on the enterprise in the workplace more than on the overall running of this society what would it mean for you and I to go to work every day five days a week 9:00 to 5:00 and walk into a place where we don't just have a particular assigned function do this work there live with that machine do this activity we would have a particular function but we would also be part of what owns and operates the enterprise we would have to be a leader not a choice just as it's not a choice for most people to go to work and do the particular function at the job you would not have a choice here either in the sense that a job always means both a particular activity within the division of labor at your workplace but also your participation in making all of the basic decisions what to produce how to produce where to produce and what to do with the profits that you helped to produce just like every other worker you'd be part of a community at the workplace you'd have one vote for each person decisions would be made democratically the design of the work the pace of the work how you interact with other people on the job all of those things would be decided collectively and not imposed by a minority you'd have to think is that a better way to work is that kind of workplace something that has rekted people for centuries to co-ops to worker coops to collective forms of labor what does it mean in your own life I think the idea of this third socialism is to achieve something in your daily life that the other two socialism's never did that when the first kind had the government regulation or the second kind the communist kind had the government takeover the transformation of the workplace never happened you were still the worker who comes and does what he or she is told for the eight hours and then goes home this is a new world this third kind of socialism that's why it's probably the one you're gonna hear most about in the years ahead because it is new and it doesn't have quite the problems that the other ones do but here are some problems that the new one will have to how do these worker coops these communities in each factory in each store in each office how do they interact with one another will they use markets to buy and sell from one another will they employ some kind of collective planning of how they interact with one another it will be a new world this socialism because it is composed of people who are really in charge of their economic lives in a way that was never true under capitalism and not true under other forms of socialism either because they were focused on running the system on the overall and not on the particular in each workplace will have to discover in this new socialism if and when it happens how we interact with one another when all the details of the work are collectively designed when everybody is a boss as well as a bossed person when we rotate whatever particular functions have to be in leadership so that we don't get one group that our leaders all the time and everybody else who isn't all of those things will change we will have to learn new ways of interacting with one another but if the idea of socialism real is as it was once said it would be to go beyond capitalism to do better than capitalism well then that third one is by far the most transformative for people's lives of the three that are contesting but in any case here's the bottom line the next time you hear somebody talk about socialism pro or con please be aware and make sure you enter into that conversation knowing that there are different kinds knowing that they are very important in their different implications for what it means to be a human being and to be an active member of a society socialism is on the agenda but more accurately socialism's are on the agenda and being aware of them and dealing with them puts you one step ahead of those who think there's one universal kind that hasn't been for decades and there isn't one now socialism is an important topic that's why we devoted an entire program to it I hope this has been useful and interesting to you and I look forward to talking with you again next week

  1. so the 3 types are 1. govenment planned economy. 2. government owned economy. 3. direct democracy in the workplace which may be government owned or.privately owned.. There is a fourth idea, and that is community owned and controlled via direct democracy, which is the type of socialism I support.

  2. Redistribution of wealth doesn't have to be done in such a literal way that tends to cause such tensions. Instead, the redistribution can be directed into public entities, where ownership is changed from private hands to government ownership. The newly government owned resources can then either be used directly by the public or be used by the government to generate revenue for the government treasury.

  3. My observation is this, a socialist will hold the ladder whilst someone more in need climbs , a right winger ( English Tory/ Republican American ) pulls up the ladder after themselves once they have climbed , A capitalist makes sure there's not enough ladders.

  4. You can't think critically if the foundation of your process is based on how your were raised, educated, and what the establishment authority defines normal, taboo, good and evil, and how it enforces them.

    This foundation of thinking is called social condition, aka indoctrination. Ever organized society does it, from the "primitive" to the advanced, from some degree or another. That by it's nature is not a foundation of critical thinking.

    A critical thinking common citizenry cannot be controlled by an exploitive establishment authority.

    The 5 Steps to Critical Thinking:

    What is critical thinking?
    In general, critical thinking refers to actively questioning statements rather than blindly accepting them.

    Critical thinking results in radical free will.

    1. The critical thinker is flexible yet maintains an attitude of healthy skepticism.

    Critical thinkers are open to new information, ideas, and claims. They genuinely consider alternative explanations and possibilities. However, this open-mindedness is tempered by a healthy sense of skepticism (Hyman, 2007).

    The critical thinker consistently asks, “What evidence supports this claim?”

    2. The critical thinker scrutinizes the evidence before drawing conclusions.

    Critical thinkers strive to weigh all the available evidence before arriving at conclusions. And, in evaluating evidence, critical thinkers distinguish between empirical evidence versus opinions based on feelings or personal experience.

    3. The critical thinker can assume other perspectives.

    Critical thinkers are not imprisoned by their own points of view. Nor are they limited in their capacity to imagine life experiences and perspectives that are fundamentally difference from their own. Rather, the critical thinker strives to understand and evaluate issues from many different angles.

    4. The critical thinker is aware of biases and assumptions.

    In evaluating evidence and ideas, critical thinkers strive to identify the biases and assumptions that are inherent in any argument (Riggio & Halpern, 2006). Critical thinkers also try to identify and minimize the influence of their own biases.

    5. The critical thinker engages in reflective thinking.

    Critical thinkers avoid knee-jerk responses. Instead, critical thinkers are reflective. Most complex issues are unlikely to have a simple solution. Therefore, critical thinkers resist the temptation to sidestep complexity by boiling an issue down to an either/or, yes/no kind of proposition. Instead, the critical thinker expects and accepts complexity (Halpern, 2007).

    Critical thinking is not a single skill, but rather a set of attitudes and thinking skills. As is true with any set of skills, you can get better at these skills with practice.

    In a nut shell, critical thinking is the active process of minimizing preconceptions and biases while evaluating evidence, determining the conclusions that can be reasonably be drawn from evidence, and considering alternative explanations for research findings or other phenomena.

    >Why might other people want to discourage you from critical thinking?

    >In what situations is it probably most difficult or challenging for you to exercise critical thinking skills? Why?

    > What can you do or say to encourage others to use critical thinking in evaluating questionable claims or assertions?

  5. i litsten this to 9min and 50s and can't make it over, bcz as always Dr Wolff. U R seriously , deadly wrong on every single word , on china.
    if u say , a "socialism/ communism "country is use the second redistribution to equalize the distribution of wealthe and products of the entire country.
    then , why in china, the gini-coefficient AFTER 2nd redistribution INCREASED after 1st redistribution?
    i'm not sayying this out of my feelings but it's STATISTICALLY PROOVED! WITH several years of STUDY!
    in china , between the farmers , between the regualr citizen's and the"communist" inner party memeber's gap increase .
    if u say sweden is more "communism" while "america" is very much less "communism" , bcz the gap between rich and poor significantly / slightly decrease.
    but in china, this gap is bigger, thus , make china " anti- communism"!
    i'm not sure when this video filmed but i've watched tons of your vids everywhere but none of them , u made a right say on china. that makes me lost all trust in your quality of your study!

  6. I'm glad to see more people are favoring social programs now. most people that run around demonizing socialism have a poor definition of socialism and generally lump democratic socialism in with fascism and communism

  7. So, basically, there is Corporate Socialism, Government Socialism, and Work-Place Socialism. The problem(s) I see with the latter has to do with personalities. We are going to have to have a complete re-education of the populace in order to not have dominating personalities trying to take over wherever they are. Males (and some females as well) are hard wired to be successful, be #1, be the one "calling the shots". This will result in a lot of in-fighting until we can come to a place where the whole society has learned mechanisms for getting along (like Finland and what they are currently teaching their children.) It will be a bumpy transition, but in the long run, it will produce a society that is less prone to imperialism and being war-faring. That being said, China and Russia may be Communist but they have been becoming more and more capitalistic as time has gone on. It would have to be taken into account that if a country like America ever did get to a place of equality, that that homeostasis would be surveyed by emerging corporate enhanced societies as ripe for the picking. People world over would have to do a lot of evolving and growing up to make all of this work.

  8. I read the World Socialist Web Site. The contributors there would not think highly of Prof. Wolff's definitions. They would label most of it as pseudo-leftist.

  9. I am glad Wolff has a similar perspective as Chomsky. This is really the best way to go IMO. We are not going to get rid of the major corporations. And it is not necessary to do so. But if half of the US economy were worker cooperatives of one type or the other then people will have REAL political power.

    I also think cooperatives will be better business in many sectors. Many Food service industries would be better as collectives because everyone would get paid more and well cared for employees make well cared for servers and cooks etc.

    Small industries of high quality labor would be better collectivized, because profit motive often sacrifices quality.

    A right of first refusal could have collectivized the auto industry. But there will be more cases like that in the future.

    I don't think a collective will beat Bill Gates, or Amazon.

  10. The problem is that all westerners belong to God worshipping civilisation. They can think in black and white only. When I ask them if Jesus Christ were to decide, he will choose Socialism or Capitalism, all of them will be stuck and don't know what to say.

  11. when socialism is in the game then you know your society progress had come to it s end , socialism is the precursor of collapse it just tells you this is the end of your country/society and all this bullshit with redistribution of wealth is absurd the wealth must be concentrated in at most 1% of population and for the rest 99% only but a few must be given at an exact rate such that overconsumption does not occur logic of history shown us what happens when you run out of resources and you gonna run out very fast if you allow everybody higher consmuption levels even at this current levels there won t be enough at the end the human problem is freedom of consumption the root of all evils

  12. makes the same mistake we've been making since World War II that it's an either/or between capitalism and socialism:
    capitalism and socialism are both improvements on the old world of feudalism – and like fire both make good servants but poor masters
    the notion that the common person could own a share of an enterprise, or that capital could be raised without moneylenders, is just as innovative as the notion that every person's basic needs (food, clothing, shelter, medicine and education) are essential
    both capitalism and socialism preach meritocracy as a best case scenario; however, both fail in this essential way: they concentrate wealth and/or power too much – leading to robber barons under capitalism or totalitarianism under socialism
    democracy is a poor management system, but it is a very good way to dispense with poor managers: it is the only non-violent way to remove corrupt or inept leaders
    the Rule of Law is essential: without it there is no democracy. the notion that the same law shall apply to the greatest as well as the least has been purchased with much blood and the last payment has not yet been made
    the Market serves more than the rich, the "invisible hand" still provides better results than boards, committees, analysts and algorithms. where it fails, as Adam Smith himself noted, is where there is collusion, cheating, monopolies, abuse – all signs not of capitalism or socialism but of the failure to maintain the Rule of Law
    I envision a socialist foundation and a capitalist infrastructure all under the rule of law – we are not equal, those who are capable should be able to act on their intellect and ambition to rise in both authority and wealth – while maintaining those basic needs for everyone (indeed that has to be part of the calculus of "merit") and with limits: no robber barons, no totalitarian dictators, no criminal oligarchies.
    term limits are an obvious element to control the concentration of power – as are limits on the influence of the democratic system (particularly election spending – if spending limits on the electoral process are an issue, you've already got too much concentration of power or the wealthy would not be bidding for it)
    wealth limits – systems that curtail personal ambition will fail – some must be permitted – but I can think of ways to limit the accumulation of wealth and still allow for wealthy people to live at a much higher level than "basic" for instance: at a certain size one third of any corporation must be made public and at a certain greater size two thirds, with the proviso that only the founder might hold the remaining one third – and upon his death 90% of the company would be made public with 10% to the heirs and thereafter no single owner could control more than 3% of any corporation. there's more, but you get the idea: many who inherit wealth misuse it but these laws would not leave them destitute by any means – just no longer in control. you would have to forbid any sort of workarounds, combines, collusion between families, adulteration of the laws (particularly through trusts and foundations) so that rewards and opportunities are constantly regenerated.
    wise billionaires already do this – thinking particularly of the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation 1) he left his children more money than most of us would dream of but still only a small portion of the Microsoft empire 2) the foundation is focused on the charity and humanity – in other words it is giving back to those "basic needs" even though the capital has been taken out of the tax stream.
    there would be resistance – there is a reason one third of the US Congress is millionaires and billionaires: they aren't there to look after the "basic needs" of the people, they're looking out for schemes like progressive taxation and limits on the new feudal system they have found themselves benefiting from. and yet I think we could look after basic needs while still allowing the ambitious to prosper – indeed we need the large projects, the innovation.
    would there be parasites? of course – we have them now, those who would rather steal or simply play games and imbibe mind-altering substances. but I believe (there has been some experimentation) that many would go back to school, many would grow tired of the basic food, shelter and clothing and medicine if given just that slight relief
    I don't see anything in my proposal that would stop someone from building a marble palace except their own ingenuity and industry – no longer could it be built on the bones of children and prostitutes and drug addicts

  13. Yeah but… is the earth’s biosphere even gonna be around by the time we get enough people on board? The capitalists won’t stop until there’s nothing left.

    That 25% needed to be 51% like 10 years ago.

  14. The idea is to leave nothing to chance if possible (too many steps removed from personal choice to policy enactment). The more direct participation is, the less chance choice gets lost in translation. Smaller scale means tigher control with "high tolerance" outcomes. Larger scale leads to sluggish and unresponsive control with a high chance that what you want will not be or requires massive comprimise. Type 1 and 2 socialism leaves the element of chance open by the potential for political corruption and bribery (no democracy). The chain of command is too far afield and oversight is next to impossible. Type 3 is the way to go because it scales back the economy to the local level primarily, dramatically shortens the distance between personal choice and policy enactment and optimizes the process of oversight. Once this type of socialism is shown to be successful as it has, this then can be "scaled" up while losing nothing in the process of scaling up. Chances that scaling up will fail is not likely since the system works like a charm in the trenches (i.e. people that do the work are genuinely secure, happy and contented). If everyone that pulls their weight (participation) isn't benefitting equally, what's the point?

  15. what happens when system two doesnt start with a cult personality i.e Mao, Stalin, Kim? Is Cambodia (Khmer Rouge) an extreme example of Communism or middle of the road. I feel there have been constant examples of the "Party is everyone but not everyone is In the Party".

  16. The American version of Socialism is the USSR, North Korea or Venezuela! They don’t know that Western Europe is full of socialist policies.

  17. Mr. Wolf , have you made your self familiar with former Yugoslavia socialist system , from the era after 1974 till unfortunate destruction and dismantled 1991 , Yugoslavia had one of the most advanced social system in the World , called self govern socialist system .
    Cheers 🙂

  18. It'll blow your mind even more to learn most of this 1/4 is young enough and uneducated enough to think that "socialism" just means "free stuff & services."

  19. The biggest problem in all the systems are the egoism of the people. Even in a socialist group there is the egoism of the people, there will be some with more and some with less (ego). And the ones highest ego will ruin the system. There cannot be a truly equalitarian system. You need some leader to coordinate, like in an orchestra. And these leaders, even socialists one, will be more egoistic than others (that's why they are leaders). And they will ruin the system.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *