Comments by "Aaron Okeanos" (@AaronOkeanos) on "Is It Okay If Socialism?" video.

And with that you talked about one flaw of real Socialism and Communism. That people at some point had no choice anymore. Eastern Germany had real Socialism and for some years it worked well with motivation to make things better than before. But it was a one party state and absolute power corrupts absolutely. And Planning Economy the idea to control economy centrally by the party by a "plan" (hence the name) turned out to be inefficient and wasteful. Things got worse making people leave so they build a physical wall to prevent people from leaving and at some point even started shooting at people trying to leave. The dissatisfaction about things created anger and protest so they introduced an intelligence network to not only watch other countries but to watch their own dissatisfied citizens right down to the point of neighbours snitching on neighbours. To further reduce dissatisfaction they took over the little media available (pre video pre internet time) and made them party-propaganda full of misinformation to give people false impressions. And the political party involved itself the education system. Made something like the 10 Commandsments of the Bible just for the party and socialism which kids had to recite every day once. And forced all kids to join political youth groups. Religion was not forbidden but suppressed as it was seen as undermining the believe in the party and the country. This happens when you can no longer deliver and people get dissatisfied and you try all and everything to stay in power. However not all was bad. Living was relativly cheap, everyone who needed a place to live got one, healthcare was free, childcare was free and widely available, education was free and pretty good for the time and if you ignore the political indoctrination. There was some baseline luxory but not much. No travel to western counties but you could visit eastern europe but interestingly not the Sovjet Union (without permission).
1
@happyland4524 Having private stuff has nothing to do with "freedom". And privatization for core services is a failed model. 9/10 turn examples turn out to create more problems than they solve. The profit-motive is incompatibel with core-services because a lot of them cost more than they make gains e.g. because they are in low-density areas. There is absolutely no reason why a public institution or nationalized company should not work as well or better than a private one. Quite the contrary you don't need to make profits and can concentrate on running on cost you don't need to pay a board you don't need to pay dividends. You should still pay decent managing and efficiency observers.
1
@bryaneverett9850 It makes no sense why. You can have the same incentives private companies have in national owned ones. Pay big wages for management to get good management. You can even pay them bonusses for doing better than expected. And the best of it: They are not rewarded for making maximum profits/dividends but for maximum efficiency.
1
@bryaneverett9850 It doesn't have to be. Sorry you not coinvinced me. I don't see any reason why the same reward/punishment system of private companies cannot be applied to national companies. And I don't suggest to nationalize all, only the core services of society which by extension are always problematic because they are by necessacity not always profitable and the profit-motive also have impact on the quality of service and reliability: Water, Power, Local Transport, Waste-Disposal, Mail, Communication, Education, Healthcare, Childcare, Elderly Care, Housing (partial)
1
@bryaneverett9850 Not profit ... wage and bonuses. The point is to keep the profits in the ownership of the people so it does not flow out on some tax heaven island but stay in the company for investment, maintenance, eventually bonusses for employees above performance and fair wages keeping up with inflation. And the rumor that public services are more expensive is what it is a rumor. I repeat myself: There is no conclusive argument why public owned companies cannot work the same as private owned. It's the same process ... just another owner ... and with the focus on results ... not on profits.
1
@bryaneverett9850 Workers don't get profit, they get wages. Wages are running costs for the company. It does not really matter if the company owner is public or private. What does matter is that everything above the costs the so called profits do not flow out of the company as it is the model with private companies. And I repeat myself again I do not suggesting to end market economy or to end captalism just to make all core services which makes a society continue public to ensure maintenance, expansion, full 100% coverage (even if it's unprofitable (!!!)), reliability and low-cost. All things which all other companies who can remain private rely on and are essential to their success as well and which a society needs to survive. All your arguments are shallow and lack substance and are strongly painted with a pure capitalistic doctrine. I can't help you. I pity you somewhat for being so indoctrinated on principles that you seem to be unable to consider alternatives or mixed models as I do to have the best of both worlds. Thanks for the debate.
1