Those are great questions and I applaud you for asking the most appropriate questions related to socialism I have ever seen on this site.
...
I have so much renewed confidence in socialism because I have yet to meet a person who understands socialism and is against it. Most people against it are against it because capitalists have tricked them into believing it is necessarily authoritarian, it eliminates personal property, eliminates personal freedom, the USSR revived, or is just welfare for everything.
...
You are for it because you don't understand it.
If you lived under the socialist system you would understand it.
Humans are all different, different skills, personalities, and ambitions. When you equalize the outcomes, you kill incentives to work harder than the guy next to you. This leads to poor productivity, and the economy eventually collapses on its own weight.
Smart people leave and go elsewhere and you are left with idiots who cannot tie their own shoes never mind run a complex economic system.
Be careful what you wish for.
Where did you get the idea that socialists want to
equalize outcomes? Definitely not in my platform or any of the other links I posted. Sounds like the same old straw man and further affirms my quoted point. I argue for democratic socialism, post platforms, and ideological explanations and capitalists STILL argue against the stalinist model.
People who don't understand socialism also seem to believe in a one dimensional political compass which means they are unaware of about half of all political ideologies.
You are even not sure about what you really want.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism"Democratic socialism is defined as having a socialist economy in which the means of production (including wealth) are socially and collectively owned or controlled alongside a politically democratic system of government"If you own the factory collectively with all the drunks that don't show up for work, but who control the factory as much as you, no matter how hard you work, how is this not the equality of outcome?
Collective ownership does not mean equal salary and your share of the wealth would likely depend on your share of the work. There is no specifically prescribed way that this would be done, as workers would vote on it democratically, but most cooperatives have rules and penalties in place for showing up to work. Keep in mind the entire purpose it to give the wealth to the people who produced it and not some lazy person who isn't even there. That is how we feel about capitalism.
Sooner or later you end up stratifying the socialist society and you end up either with a centralized system with a Politburo at the top or a decentralized commune style of Columbian guerrillas.
Guess what? It takes intelligence to accumulate wealth, make it productive and grow. If you just distribute (by confiscation) the wealth owned by capitalists to people who know nothing about the capital, you are going to waste a lot of resources and in the end, everybody will be hungry and willing to rob their neighbor or sell their 14-old daughter for a bag of rice. Check out Venezuela, or Cuba.
You really have not thought it through.
There is a reason why most rich people are intelligent and most poor people are simpletons.
You still end up with more educated people accumulating more wealth
In a democracy decisions are made upwards. The government is not dictating downwards how company decisions must be made. Its hard for our minds to grasp how true democracy works because we have only seen governments where decisions made at the top are enforced downwards.
Perhaps there are still socialists who want to confiscate wealth but that is a very fringe type of socialist. We simply want to make sure no new wealth is confiscated.
You are advocating for the destruction of a social structure that worked for hundreds of years and replacing it with your idea of a fair system? How are you going to reward entrepreneurs, doctors, engineers and punish lazy workers who screw up the costly production lines?
Giving everyone their fair say and fair share doesn't mean talented people cannot be rewarded more for their work.
Worker cooperatives already exist and some are very successful. Most cooperatives vote on a salary structure and many have rules where the person at the top can only make x times the person at the bottom. They all vote on x and they vote in the interest of making the company function because if they vote in a way that runs away the rare talent, then their own job will not be sustainable.
Any system in place for penalizing lazy workers in a capitalist company could still be implemented in a cooperative. The difference is that they have democratically agreed to these systems. Again, people don't want to work while lazy people next to them benefit, so they wouldn't vote on measures to structure the company that way.
Large cooperatives vote on board members but always have the ability to call a vote to replace them or overrule an unpopular decision. Cooperatives that make "bad" decisions will end up with less money to share while more successful cooperatives that make "good" decisions will be the ones that attract and reward talent, make more money, and end up with more wealth to share.
Entrepreneurs who do not have people working under them would not be affected at all as they are the "workers" and already own the means of production.
Are you going to force brilliant surgeons to work for minimum wage (decided by the hospital maintenance workers)? Are you going to kill or imprison all the intellectuals? If not, your system will fall apart as the intellectuals will expose the obvious inefficiencies and faults in it. No brilliant doctor or engineer would want voluntarily stay in your system. Why? because they will not be able to start their own businesses and run them the way they envision them.
If someone knows of an obvious inefficiency or fault in a company, then they will bring it up at a stakeholder meeting, propose what they are recommending, and people would vote on the change because at the end of the day, they have vested interest in the success of the company they work for and own. Any company that offered highly skilled professionals minimum wage, would not have any highly skilled professionals and would not have a company.
If one cooperative fails, it doesn't mean the entire system fails just like if I open a business and that business fails, the economy doesn't crash. The important thing about a bottom up democratic system is that the largest level of decision making is done at the local community level. It seems you are thinking about the entire economy running as one cooperative instead of thousands of small ones.
I don't like the doctor example because healthcare is a controversial sector, but lets say its any other sector because your point still stands. If a brilliant engineer has his own ideas, he could propose them to other cooperatives, become a consultant, or start his own company with these core ideas. Workers woul flock to join his cooperative and invest their labor because of his great ideas.
Who is going to invest in your made-up system if you eliminate the private ownership?
What we mean by social ownership is that ownership of the means of production is never attached to one person. The key is to distinguish between personal property and private property. Each person has thier personal property. Their home and belongings but no ownership over the personal property of others. You cannot have a large factory or apartment building owned by a single person.
For cooperative companies, the workers of the company all own the company together. Ownership and decision making is only made by the people affected by the actions of the company. No external shareholders. This means no one person should own another person nor should they own another person's personal property which is required to live (labor, home, etc) .
Workers invest their labor by working