Source
r/CapitalismVSocialism•
DasLegoDi

Buy Into Socialism

Let’s assume the government starts a program where you can basically opt into socialism.

You opt in at 18 and as a result the government provides you with a guaranteed standard of living- for life. This standard of living would be voted on by the socialists who have opted in but must stay within the budget of the program.

In exchange for the guaranteed standard of living you must work in a pre approved industry, that the government determines to be beneficial and in need of workers, and you will pay 100% of your income in taxes- for life.

The government will calculate the standard of living you receive by averaging out the amount of revenue it should receive from this 100% tax rate. In some individual cases the government will lose money, in others the government will make money, so overall the cost of the program is either $0 or slightly profitable for the government.

Anyone who does not opt in will live life as normal under the capitalist system.

Would you opt in and do you think that this program would be beneficial?

Posted Apr 6, 2022, 6:11 PM UTC · edited

0226
NeedYourTVStalin was Good•

What an odd post. You don't seem to understand socialism, which makes this more "would you opt into my fantasy dystopia over what you have now" rather than opting into socialism over capitalism.

12
DasLegoDiOPExchange Value Doesn’t Exist•

What makes it dystopian?

4
NeedYourTVStalin was Good•

I'm not going to play this game with you. Do you understand why it isn't socialist? IIRC you have some understanding of Marxism, so I question why you would type out this nonsense. I don't think you are being honest.

8
ODXT-X74:ancom:•

IIRC you have some understanding of Marxism, so I question why you would type out this nonsense.

That's what I was thinking. I'm pretty sure I've seen this user have a pretty decent understanding of Marxism (compared to a lot of other users in this sub). So it is weird that he would post something like this.

9
420miami:hammersickle:•

Im pretty sure he's a CIA plant

1
DasLegoDiOPExchange Value Doesn’t Exist•

No one is forcing you to play 🤷🏻‍♂️

2
NeedYourTVStalin was Good•

That's what I thought. Unless your only goal is to flaunt your intellect, you will get a lot farther being upfront and clear with what you mean and what you want to say.

7
MarcusOrlyiusMarxist Futurologist•

They don't understand shit, they just repost what other socialists say. Here's an exchange I had with them:

ME: "Socially necessary labour time is the average amount of time for a worker with average labour power to produce a product under average conditions.

DasLegoDi: "Marx defines SNLT as the average time necessary to produce a product."

ME: "Let's say you need $1000 per week to reproduce your labour and your labour is worth $100 per hour. You need to work 10 hours per week to meet your needs. This would be you personal necessary labour time. If you're forced to work more hours than that by an employer, it's surplus labour time that generetes profit."

DasLegoDi: Marx defines NLT as the time necessary to reproduce subsistence value/wages.

DasLegoDi: "you clearly don’t understand what NLT or SNLT are...not my fault that you haven’t read Das Kapital".

https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/tve9oq/snlt_vs_necessary_labor_time/i3dbihf/

They may in fact have an understanding of Marxism but they've never displayed such an understanding in any interaction I've had with them. They've only ever acted like a troll. If you showed them proof that a shape was a circle, they would insist it was square and call you an idiot that knows nothing about maths or geometry.

You and r/ODXT-X74 seem to be confusing the ability to repost other people's comments as understanding of those comments.

2
culculain•

it's not NOT socialist...

1
TheNoizeMarxist :redstar: Gentleman •

This is… really not what socialism looks like. Not sure why you’re pretending it is. I’m going to assume just ignorance

1
DasLegoDiOPExchange Value Doesn’t Exist•

You didn’t say how it was dystopian.

0
TheNoizeMarxist :redstar: Gentleman •

That was the other guy you’re waiting for. I’m a different person. Peace out

I’d probably opt in still - but it probably wouldn’t work without broad participation of all citizens

1
[deleted]•

you should hear this guys repository of knowledge on Socialism. Ever have a two year old try to explain a complex subject to you? It’s very imaginative and cute, But rarely accurate

3
[deleted]•

[deleted]

0
NeedYourTVStalin was Good•

There have been many examples of socialism in the modern world, and there are multiple that exist as we speak. None of them have ever adopted anything like what is proposed here.

5
[deleted]•

[deleted]

0
NeedYourTVStalin was Good•

Most of what you said is not true. Socialism has existed and does exist today. It exists in China, Vietnam, Cuba, North Korea, Laos, Bolivia, and Venezuela, at least. It had existed in the USSR and a handful of minor countries during the Cold War. China is socialist today, and Deng's reforms were not capitalist in nature nor did they usher in capitalism.

You would be correct to criticize an argument about imperialism killing socialism if I had made one, but I did not and would not given the fact that the continued survival of socialist countries proves that they are able to withstand aggression.

3
0WatcherintheWater0Libertarian Socialist•

No, actually, it would be exactly like ace hardware employees collectively controlling ace.

1
TheMikeyMac13•

This isn’t opting into socialism, it is opting into a taxpayer funded 100% safety net, and in the end socialism isn’t when the government does things.

9
ODXT-X74:ancom:•

But you completely forgot about this...

3
MightyMoosePoopanti "Ignorance is Strength" mantra•

socialism isn’t when the government does things.

Your version of socialism isn't when the government does stuff.

Wikipedia first sentence says the following:

Socialism is a political, social, and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership[1][2][3][4] of the means of production,[5][6][7][8]

It only takes a little effort to look at those citations which are the following for the "means of production"

5: Socialism is an economic system characterised by state or collective ownership of the means of production, land, and capital.

6: Socialist systems are those regimes based on the economic and political theory of socialism, which advocates public ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.

7: Pure socialism is defined as a system wherein all of the means of production are owned and run by the government and/or cooperative, nonprofit groups.

1
MarcusOrlyiusMarxist Futurologist•

5 is an obviously bullshit definition. If a state controls the means of production for the benefit of a single person who is tyrannical dictator in every sense of the phrase, how could you possibly call that socialism?

State control of the means of production can only be socialism if that society also has universal suffrage.

1
MightyMoosePoopanti "Ignorance is Strength" mantra•

Hey, I get why you guys on the various spectrums of authority to libertarian dislike/favor various definitions but they are there for reasons. There is soviet democracy for an example of extreme case (if you want to look it up). There is socialist democracy that bridges Soviet to the people who want a state and what you are probably arguing. The reality is socialists have disagreed on how much state to have because of need to distribute the equality of means of among people.

Tl;;dr history is not on your side with this topic

1
MarcusOrlyiusMarxist Futurologist•

Soviet democracy is just an attempt at implementing direct democracy in a large society where it would be logistically impossible to do so. How is it any less democratic than representative democracy? If anything it's more democratic as the delegates can be replaced by thosethey represent at any time.

These are all different forms of universal suffrage but each can be abused by those in power. As the saying goes,"Actions speak louder than words."

1
gabbath•

As a socialist, no and no.

7
[deleted]•

Uhhh No and no

Also. Not socialism lol

7
watson7878:rose:•

This doesn’t sound like socialism at all

6
DasLegoDiOPExchange Value Doesn’t Exist•

Maybe not your idea of socialism but the question is whether you would opt in or not.

1
watson7878:rose:•

I think this is epic

But socialism is the worker ownership and control of the means of production and the abolition of the commodity form

This is the government subsidizing your income in return for you giving them your labor to do whatever they want.

You still don’t own or control the means of production, you still live in a market with commodities paid for with currency (though some argue market socialism is still socialism so this isn’t exactly necessary)

4
DasLegoDiOPExchange Value Doesn’t Exist•

Yes there are limitations when setting it up within a capitalist economy.

1
watson7878:rose:•

you could make joining a worker coop a public option, where the government sets up independent coops and you can choose to work at one of those or work at a traditional business.

5
wintermuet•

Socialism always has markets and currency. "market" socialism is just referring to one kind of market.

0
watson7878:rose:•

What the fuck did you just say

1
Sovereign_UsurperSupervenient Supratagonist•

This sounds like a description of military enlistment.

5
ODXT-X74:ancom:•

That sounds less like socialism and more like Social programs with some slight variations. Like an alternative model for welfare.

4
jazzgrackle•

Yeah it sounds more or less like a pension fund, but some how more economically efficient? Which yeah, sounds great.

2
DasLegoDiOPExchange Value Doesn’t Exist•

What would make it more like socialism?

1
ODXT-X74:ancom:•

Well, the rest of the economy in the country is generally Capitalistic (other than this experiment), right? If that's the case then the issues that socialist have with Capitalism still stand.

The other issue is that the industries probably probably run competitively and for profit. Also, I'm not sure how each one is structured internally.

Then there's the 100% tax thing, which I understand why you would think to include it, but that's not Socialism.

But the worst bit here is the "government calculates what everyone gets based on stuff". I understand why you would think to add it, but once again it's not Socialism.

The entire thing is just a different model for welfare.

1
DasLegoDiOPExchange Value Doesn’t Exist•

Seems like it just doesn’t suit your idea of socialism, OK, that’s fine. So would you not opt in then?

1
ODXT-X74:ancom:•

Well, it's less that it's not "my idea of socialism" and more that I'm confused why you would think it is.

I've talked with you before, and you've had a better grasp of Marxist ideas than some other users in this sub. So why the weird post?

If I'm honest, there's a couple of things that stand out to me which make it seem like a trick question.

3
Arkelseezure1•

What I’m getting from your comment is that socialism cannot exist. The things OP mentioned like the government calculating what resources are required for an individual standard of living, as well as a 100% tax to be redistributed by the government according to aforementioned calculations are absolutely necessary in a socialist society. Or are you suggesting that each individual would come up with their own standard of living independently and then the resources would just magically appear?

0
Bloodshed-1307:ancom: Anarcho-Syndicalist•

How is a 100% tax rate required for socialism? Some forms don’t have governments who tax their citizens

4
ODXT-X74:ancom:•

This comment is perfect, because it demonstrates exactly the issue that I was telling OP about. About details, and misunderstanding what Socialism is.

Let's dissect it...

the government calculating what resources are required for an individual standard of living

What does "government" mean here? Is it the Capitalist government that has this program, or is there an independent organization based on the people buying in? You see, you're tying together a few separate things, and not understanding why I would be against it.

as well as a 100% tax

Not sure where this is coming from. In combination with giving everyone some standard calculation thing, makes it sound like you don't understand Socialism.

Or are you suggesting that each individual would come up with their own standard of living and then the resources would just magically appear?

Here's a question, if I want you to have control over the full value of your labor... Why would I tax you at 100%?

You seem to have a weird idea about what Socialism is, what Socialist advocate for, and even how past experiments operated.

2
hnlPLI have opinions i guess •

Would be interesting to observe, we don't get a lot of natural economic experiments that are very different from the normal

4
saintex422•

This isn’t what socialism is lol

4
DasLegoDiOPExchange Value Doesn’t Exist•

So you wouldn’t opt in?

0
saintex422•

No.

3
NascentLeft•

You need to save face and delete this, or be know for being a bigger troll and/or dope than we knew.

3†
DasLegoDiOPExchange Value Doesn’t Exist•

This is trolling or dopey how?

2
26Jul:hammersickle:•

mfw you critique socialism without knowing wtf it is

3
DasLegoDiOPExchange Value Doesn’t Exist•

This isn’t even a critique.

1
26Jul:hammersickle:•

what is it? a genuine question? i dont mean to be rude but you should learn what socialism is before you talk about it.

3
DasLegoDiOPExchange Value Doesn’t Exist•

I understand socialism perfectly well. You seem to be the one struggling through a simple thought experiment.

-1
26Jul:hammersickle:•

no you dont. your thought experiment shows a lack of understanding of capitalism, socialism and how those two systems have historically interacted with eachother.

4
Elman89•

This isn't socialism.

3
NotAuberonHerbert:ancap: Hans-Hermann Hoppe Private Law Society•

No, but it would be beneficial. If the commies starve each other, we can work towards a free market!

3
chrispd01•

You need to put some flesh on this

2
DasLegoDiOPExchange Value Doesn’t Exist•

I considered doing so and might in a future OP.

0
chrispd01•

Well if you aren’t prepared to give us enough detail, then why should we play this game ?

Have you ever seen those studies where they show people various facts about different countries - tax rate, income distribution, government benefits, level of education, availability of health care etc ? The participants aren’t told what each country is but asked where they want to live. Know where everyone (including self identified conservative Americans ) wanted to live ?

2
DasLegoDiOPExchange Value Doesn’t Exist•

I gave you enough detail to play. If you don’t want to then that’s fine.

1
chrispd01•

Do you know the answer ?

-1
mnpt77:hammersickle: Socialist :redstar:•

A situation like this is just impossible.

2
DasLegoDiOPExchange Value Doesn’t Exist•

Why?

1
mnpt77:hammersickle: Socialist :redstar:•

There is no reason for a capitalist state to do something like this, also the 2 systems existin gin the same time will contradict each other and one will become dominant.

2
DasLegoDiOPExchange Value Doesn’t Exist•

Those are reasons to consider it unlikely, not impossible.

1
Some_Guy223:redstar:Transhuman Socialism•

A lifetime pledge to be entirely beholden to the whims of neoliberal capitalists is now buying into socialism.

2
onepercentbatmanClassical Liberal•

It would be unethical. I don’t think the average 18-25 year old would have the needed intelligence and experience to make a life long choice like that in all good conscience and ethics. If such a thing were to happen, the opt in age would need to be 25. This really is in the same bane of letting an 18 year old sign up for 200k in student loan debt to get a degree in liberal arts or art or philosophy or English. No experience to lend foresight. People in this age, and I include myself when I was that age, think they are smarter than everyone and know everything but really have no idea how the world is, how people really are. When I was in my early 20’s I was a socialist. Now I’m not. People can change, and even if they wanted to permanently choose socialism as you presented, many will change out of that mindset and not want it anymore, and it would be unethical not to give them the opportunity to choose a different path.

2
fistantellmore•

This isn’t socialism it’s missing several key elements

2
DasLegoDiOPExchange Value Doesn’t Exist•

Socialism is a political, social, and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems.

1
fistantellmore•

Certainly, but what is described here doesn’t encompass what it describes.

I’m curious, which writers did you draw from?

Any?

1
DasLegoDiOPExchange Value Doesn’t Exist•

It’s just a question I had, it’s not based on anything.

0
fistantellmore•

So you modelled your socialism on nothing?

Makes sense.

What you’re describing isn’t socialism, it’s a straw person.

1
OtonaNoAjii am robbery•

This isn't socialism, this is just the government being a landlord. It's literally paying your wages to the government so that you can use government land at your expense in exchange for a bed. Literally describing why landlords are leeches.

2
Kadbebe2372k•

To quote the honorable Morty Smith, “that’s just slavery with extra steps”.

2