Führer Trump

[oops_ur_dead]

I'll answer this even though I'm not a socialist.

a) why aren't co-ops and shit like jewish kibbutzim discussed in the context of socialism? i think theyre the most compelling and successful examples and yet hardly anyone talks about them

They are. Especially worker coops, people talk about them all the time.

b) why aren't socialists advocating for 'personal socialism' or in any event a socialism that comes from people rather than the government? i mean i dont think the government can grant 'true' socialism for a variety of reasons, and even if it did, it would come through coercion since not everyone wants to partake in a socialist society.

Isn't this the charity vs welfare debate? The reason that this isn't advocated for as much by socialists is because private determination of where funds go potentially results in conflicts of interest and coercion and lobbying of charities by the wealthy. Additionally, charities that people donate to are often not in line with what a nation might need. People donate for big, glamourous causes such as disasters like hurricanes, but the scale of donations to end poverty and hunger in America are severely dwarfed by what the government does (which is still not enough, at least in the US, since there's still a large amount of poverty). Almost 1/3 of charity dollars in the US are donated to religious institutions, which is conflicting on its own because it ties aid for people to religiousness.

The "coercion" you're talking about is commonly referred to as "taxes". If we look at this in the context of America, what you'll find is that historically charity giving has remained at 2% of the GDP of the US. This is despite any tax cuts. It doesn't seem that lowering taxes gives people "more money" to donate to charity, thus any cuts to government social welfare won't be redirected through charities due to less taxes, and just results in less social welfare overall even if charities are effective.

my idea of 'personal socialism' is that a group of people agree to live in a socialist manner, and form a company thats based on equal pay. when the company gets rich enough they start buying welfare for everyone and shit.
why isnt that ever discussed? isn't that a 'freer' and even 'truer' form of socialism than the social liberalism thats usually promoted and advocated for nowadays? why wait for the government to give you things when you can just do it yourself?

So, a worker's coop? Those already exist.

[Oberon]

I'll answer this even though I'm not a socialist.



They are. Especially worker coops, people talk about them all the time.



Isn't this the charity vs welfare debate? The reason that this isn't advocated for as much by socialists is because private determination of where funds go potentially results in conflicts of interest and coercion and lobbying of charities by the wealthy. Additionally, charities that people donate to are often not in line with what a nation might need. People donate for big, glamourous causes such as disasters like hurricanes, but the scale of donations to end poverty and hunger in America are severely dwarfed by what the government does (which is still not enough, at least in the US, since there's still a large amount of poverty). Almost 1/3 of charity dollars in the US are donated to religious institutions, which is conflicting on its own because it ties aid for people to religiousness.

The "coercion" you're talking about is commonly referred to as "taxes". If we look at this in the context of America, what you'll find is that historically charity giving has remained at 2% of the GDP of the US. This is despite any tax cuts. It doesn't seem that lowering taxes gives people "more money" to donate to charity, thus any cuts to government social welfare won't be redirected through charities due to less taxes, and just results in less social welfare overall even if charities are effective.



So, a worker's coop? Those already exist.

"isn't this the charity vs welfare debate"
possibly although not necessarily since i wasn't referring to private charity (IMO private charity isn't really socialism, any more than welfare in an otherwise capitalist society is).
"the coercion you're talking about is taxes"
i suppose it would be in a largely capitalist society with welfare although there are other forms of coercion that would go along with it such as having to sign up for social security.

"those already exist"
i'm happy to hear that but they never get talked about, and many of the most popular socialist politicians seem to ignore them or advocate ideas/policies that have essentially nothing to do with worker co-ops.

[oops_ur_dead]

"those already exist"
i'm happy to hear that but they never get talked about, and many of the most popular socialist politicians seem to ignore them or advocate ideas/policies that have essentially nothing to do with worker co-ops.

Because socialist politicians deal with national policy, while worker coops are a private concern. National policy on worker coops is just... regular socialism.

All my socialist friends talk about how worker coops are great all the time. It's not an ignored thing at all.