Socialism doesn’t preclude the end of Private Business.
If the government controlled all private businesses where would they get money to operate? How woukd they collect taxes? How do you encourage innovation? philanthropy?
Like in health care, the businesses continue to make money. The government can continue to tax its businesses or use all profits.
Innovation is usually the argument against government healthcare. If that is not a problem for you, why should there be one in other areas? However, most research is publicly funded anyway.
Philanthropy would also have to shift to the state. The state funds theaters and museums. It could take care of more causes.
Companies can still pay taxes if they are owned by the government.
If it is socialism without money, taxes are not needed but the country has to sell something on international markets to buy needed raw materials and services.
It appears you’re arguing from a fundamental misunderstanding of the system you’re defending. You’re describing expanded government programs inside a market economy. That is not socialism. That is social democracy.
Under actual socialism, the state owns the means of production. There is no private sector to tax. There is no flow of revenue from independent businesses because those businesses no longer exist as independent entities. Your points about taxation, profit collection, and philanthropy only make sense inside a mixed economy, precisely the system you claim to be replacing.
In other words, you’re defending a model that isn’t the one under discussion. You’re arguing for more public services, not socialism. These are completely different frameworks, and conflating them is why your reasoning keeps circling without connecting.
You’re question is nonsensical and does not rebut any of my statements.
Socialism has nothing to do with value. The value of something is intrinsic to itself and has nothing to do with any kind of governmental system.
I have explained to you what socialism is in comparison to capitalism corporatocracy and social democracy and you still don’t even understand what socialism is. Do you understand that you don’t understand the definition of the word?
Socialist systems are divided into non-market and market forms.[15][16] A non-market socialist system seeks to eliminate the perceived inefficiencies, irrationalities, unpredictability, and crises that socialists traditionally associate with capital accumulation and the profit system.[17] Market socialism retains the use of monetary prices, factor markets and sometimes the profit motive.
I understand that you limit socialism to non-market socialism.
Socialism does not work. It has never worked. No nation has prospered under socialism, and none will as long as scarcity remains.
Without markets, scarcity is indeed much more difficult to handle. But there is also scarcity in a single payer healthcare system. If it can be handled there, why does it not scale to the entire economy?
Why should only healthcare work if run by government? Government could run all industries.
I can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic or not… If you’re not that’s the most brain dead thing I’ve ever heard in a long time.
Why can’t the government serve the public and provide all needed goods and not just healthcare? Where is the limit that prevents socialism?
Socialism doesn’t preclude the end of Private Business.
If the government controlled all private businesses where would they get money to operate? How woukd they collect taxes? How do you encourage innovation? philanthropy?
Like in health care, the businesses continue to make money. The government can continue to tax its businesses or use all profits.
Innovation is usually the argument against government healthcare. If that is not a problem for you, why should there be one in other areas? However, most research is publicly funded anyway.
Philanthropy would also have to shift to the state. The state funds theaters and museums. It could take care of more causes.
Where do you see problems?
The system you describe only works when it is exporting goods and services.
Can you explain why, please? If the state sets the prices correctly or allocates enough resources, it should work.
Where do the taxes come from? Has to be more than government funding otherwise the government is paying itself.
Companies can still pay taxes if they are owned by the government.
If it is socialism without money, taxes are not needed but the country has to sell something on international markets to buy needed raw materials and services.
It appears you’re arguing from a fundamental misunderstanding of the system you’re defending. You’re describing expanded government programs inside a market economy. That is not socialism. That is social democracy.
Under actual socialism, the state owns the means of production. There is no private sector to tax. There is no flow of revenue from independent businesses because those businesses no longer exist as independent entities. Your points about taxation, profit collection, and philanthropy only make sense inside a mixed economy, precisely the system you claim to be replacing.
In other words, you’re defending a model that isn’t the one under discussion. You’re arguing for more public services, not socialism. These are completely different frameworks, and conflating them is why your reasoning keeps circling without connecting.
How would socialism keep track of value? The USSR had money.
You’re question is nonsensical and does not rebut any of my statements.
Socialism has nothing to do with value. The value of something is intrinsic to itself and has nothing to do with any kind of governmental system.
I have explained to you what socialism is in comparison to capitalism corporatocracy and social democracy and you still don’t even understand what socialism is. Do you understand that you don’t understand the definition of the word?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
I understand that you limit socialism to non-market socialism.
Without markets, scarcity is indeed much more difficult to handle. But there is also scarcity in a single payer healthcare system. If it can be handled there, why does it not scale to the entire economy?