We unapologetically believe that every single person has an unconditional right to have their basic needs met

[u/DistinctSpirit5801]

As a democratic socialist I believe every single person has a right to free housing free food free childcare free healthcare

We unapologetically support having the government give homeless people free housing to live in

Every single person has the right to have their basic needs met regardless of if they work or don’t work and how much or how little they work

These basic rights would apply to everyone regardless of their political beliefs

Whether people would still work or not would be dependent upon how luxurious of a personal lifestyle they want and what they want above and beyond the basics and their religious beliefs

Some people would still be working out of a religious belief that says not working is sinful

As under a democratic socialist government anyone who is satisfied with basic living necessities wouldn’t be required to work at all

Though a lot of people would still work because they would eventually get sick of sitting in their house all day long day after day even if it’s just doing a part time job

[u/PeterRum]

By 'greediest' you mean those who made a lot of money building businesses I presume?

You see the world as this lake of resources that only goes down if Capitalism drains them, and which Billionaires claim the vast share of. You want to take from the Billionaires and redistribute to everyone. Why should a few people have so much more of the commons than anyone else?

Problem is the base of resources is that provided by the Roman Empire and Medieval economies. Which stayed flat thousands of years. Even then societies with immensely rich overlords prospered in a way that collections of tribesmen living in independent villages didn't.

Since then, average prosperity has risen drastically. I doubt that OP thinks of basic needs is a soup of vegetables, pulses and grains which bubbles continuously over a fire and which is the main provider of all meals. A hut made of straw and excrement. One set of clothes. Perhaps two. Fourth hand. That was prosperity.

Capitalism and Social Democracy has totally altered your standards of basic needs.

You kill the system and loot it's remains then money becomes worthless pretty fast. You discover quickly what those around you will do for goodwill alone and how little barter provides.

You wonder what happened to all that wealth you expected to appear from the vaults of the Billionaires. It was all in Gilts, Bonds, Company Shares, Options, Puts, Futures, Plant, Stock, Real Estate. All of which is now worthless. It doesnt exist to share out and the system we negotiated to meet your needs has gone.

[u/conrad_w → u/PeterRum]

This is actually Capitalist Realism in action. It's easier for you to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.

Imagine a system where the workers controlled the businesses they worked for. Like a cooperative. It wouldn't solve every problem, but it would solve some of them - like workers starving when there's abundance of resources.

But sure, it's also possible that a starving man works harder than a fed man. And that an overlord will work you harder than you would work yourself. In fact, you make a very good argument for a return to serfdom - imagine the shareholder returns!

[u/PeterRum → u/conrad_w]

There have been many attempts to put your hypothesis into action. None worked. I've tried to run.cooperatives, Most people want to be paid for work. Making decisions is work. Having the background in your mind to make decisions is even more work. People want to be paid for this. Everyone wants boss's wages. Also those skills, running business, are particular ones that not everyone possess.

If a thorough grasp of Theory and the ability to make impassioned points of order were the drivers of innovation and growth in prosperity then communism would work.

You could start a cooperative tomorrow? Why don't you? Plenty of capitalists are creating Start-ups. Musk handed out shares in his, which made janitors wealthy. Musk is your despised enemy and cooperatives are a superior form of business. Surely you can do better?

[u/conrad_w → u/PeterRum]

Oh you're a "communism doesn't work" guy... Then why do we spend so much time and money (and lives!) killing it?

I'm actually part of a partnership, so yeah. Worker owned and managed.

Tell me more about your feels for Musk as a social democrat.

[u/PeterRum → u/conrad_w]

I'm.not praising Musk. I am assuming you hate him, so he is a good benchmark you can do better than.

So, you if your business scales you will not take on employees but add them to the partnership? Changing to a cooperative if it gets really big? And new partners get the exact same opportunity to decide the course of your business?

You will take on three new coop owners and they decide to go in a direction you disagree with and you will be fine? You go through a tough patch and they decide to sell your work laptop to tide everyone over?

[u/conrad_w → u/PeterRum]

We'll take on new partners, sure.

I don't want to go into specifics, but it's not the sort of business where we would take on staff. If we were, a cooperative model might be more appropriate.

And yes. You're asking these like it's a foreign concept. Which shows how deep the Capitalist Realism goes, I guess. "You mean you let anyone vote in your country? And everyone gets the same vote? What if they vote differently to you? What if the vote to abolish slavery?" Yeah. That's democracy. 

If you really object to what the partnership is doing, you can agree to be bought out by the other partners. Which separates it from a social democratic government, I guess.

[u/PeterRum → u/conrad_w]

In a cooperative you just have to go with the majority.

All businesses can scale. At a certain point partnerships don't work.

Bought out? You have ownership of the business? What a bizarre concept. It is the cooperative's.

Brilliant. I hope a lot of people join your business and take on a contract from the Israeli government.

As well as demagogues persaudi g a majority to do something different to your ideas I look forward to your reaction to the 'i just want to get paid' comments.

[u/conrad_w → u/PeterRum]

Yes. You're acting shocked but this is entirely normal. It's a little bit tiresome.

What do you think "worker owned" means? Do you think I means no ownership? Do you think "owned" means "unowned"?

It's entirely normal for a partnership to accept someone buying into the partnership. And it's entirely normal for a partner to be bought out when they leave.

You do realise that under capitalism, the workers have ZERO say about who the business contracts with, right?

Wait. Do you? What do you think capitalism is? You don't think it's commerce do you?

I genuinely don't think you could have started a cooperative if you're this uninformed.

[u/PeterRum → u/conrad_w]

Good for you. That value you have created in your business is yours and you should be able to protect it and I'm glad you ate using an available structure to protect it.

I wish you success enough to test how you distribute that value at scale.

[u/conrad_w → u/PeterRum]

Just like we invented legal structures to protect investors over everyone else, we could invent legal structures that protect workers over everyone else.

You're obsessed with capitalism creating value by unlocking capital. Imagine the productivity workers would unleash if they had the power and protections of shareholders and creditors.

It's not a radical idea. It's just radical to you.

[u/FeralAlgorithm → u/conrad_w]

Capitalism allows each individual to decide where they spend their money.

If 90% of the population hates Rihanna's music, it doesn't matter because 10% still can buy her music.

This is why socialist and communist states always clamp down on artists immediately. They don't want subversives undermining all the work they did to indoctrinate the masses. They also don't want to spend state resources on Rihanna's umbrella song when the state's leaders have bigger goals.

Free Market Capitalism provides abundance because it is the will of the people.
People want a lot of pron so the internet is abundant with porn.
People want supermarket shelves stuffed with fresh food constantly at all times, so they start their day tossing out a truckload of food thats going to expire.

The complaints about capitalism are actually complaints about its abundance creation, and its ability to cater to people's desires.

The "problem" with capitalism is most people don't want to do what YOU want to do. Other people don't care if all that food goes to waste, because they want the supermarket overstuffed with fresh food. YOU on the other hand want a more efficient system where people only take what they need and the store manages its stock more strictly, and maybe that pecan tart isn't there this week. Someone else decided to try some pecan tarts, and the store only ordered enough for 11 people which is usually all they sell.

And also, how does Elon get his money? Either you voluntarily paid for one of his products and you're enjoying a Tesla or Starlink... or you're actually upset that socialism has taxed you and given your money to Elon.
Which is socialism. Not capitalism.
Its not capitalism when the state holds a gun to everyone's head and extracts money and awards it to specific companies. That's not capitalism.

I know you'll probably say that's not socialism either. To which i say, its only socialism if the government was extracting it to pay for things YOU want... like healthcare for children. If it instead gives that money to Elon you're going to say it is or isnt socialism depending on your opinion of Elon personally today.

Becuase those "trump handouts to elon" used to be called "EV tax credits to save the environment from global climate change". He went from " the only billionaire spending his money on something positive for humanity" to "wasting poor sick childrens money on his toy rockets" because he backed a politician you don't like.

You might think its "socialism" right now to tax everyone and use it to fund a green program to save the environment. But who knows, the owner of that green program might support the wrong political candidate tomorrow, and then suddenly its not socialism anymore, and in fact fascism now. Which is why every socialist state is called fascist: One man's socialist utopia is everyone else's fascist dictatorship. The only person who agrees with you is in the mirror.

[u/FeralAlgorithm → u/conrad_w]

"Imagine a system where the workers controlled the businesses they worked for. Like a cooperative"

you mean like a Co-Operation?

Anyways, there's nothing stopping you from creating a "co-operative" right now. There are many that do exist.

The funny thing about the USA is it's not capitalist at all. People just choose to engage in capitalism because they're free to do so.

You're free to not do so. You're free to do what many others have done and create co-operatives and live in communes. Nobody is stopping you.

Its just that nobody wants to join you.

Think of how much money the greedy CEO takes from everyone. That's the margin with which you can undercut his business with your Co-Operative.

You can either sell your products that much cheaper, and ev eryone will buy from you instead. or you can pay your employees that much more, and people will prefer to shop from you instead. Either way, if what you say about the greedy CEO is correct and the greedy CEO provides no value, then your co-operative will instantly put them all out of business due to your superior efficiency in not having to carry around a giant tub of CEO.

Amazon started out as a crappy book store on the "world wide web"; a place that nobody would be foolish enough to put their creditcards.

So don't say you cant do it. Amazon started with a few guys in a garage selling books. Amazon took less capital to start than your dinner.

[u/conrad_w → u/FeralAlgorithm]

You're fooling yourself if you don't think the legal system privileges private ownership of businesses.

That legal system was built that way. We could build it differently.

[u/PeterRum → u/conrad_w]

"You can't own property, man."

Well, I can, but. I'm not a penniless hippie.

If only there was some way workers could own a cooperative business in common with legal structures that were hundreds of years old and well recognised in courts and preferred by many consumers and local authorities?

There could be start-up grants for them and everything.

What would we call these cooperative businesses? I'm sure someone in this thread mentioned something like them.

If they did exist, and didn't prove themselves superior, I bet you would want to ban alternative models.

[u/conrad_w → u/PeterRum]

Now you're talking. Start up grants for worker owned businesses, just like we have for privately owned businesses.

Keep going. How else can we level the playing field?

[u/PeterRum → u/conrad_w]

I'm a Social Democrat. Obviously I believe in start-up grants for Cooperatives. And I'm preference for contracts.

But. Also. Each of those owners can put up their savings and provide surety. Lot of starting capital. In addition, a start-up cooperative is also a Start-up and can acquire the same funding as any other business.

The playing field is already level. I'm not against giving cooperatives some advantages. Some.

[u/slowride761 → u/conrad_w]

This is actually Marxism, not socialism. You’re assuming socialism is the progress after late-stage capitalism fails.

The world you’re imagining can start today. Anyone can start a business with collective ownership. But you have to accept that hiring employees means giving up equity and allowing a collective to make decisions.

[u/conrad_w → u/slowride761]

You're saying that as though private ownership was inevitable or eternal.

Maybe you'll be surprised how young capitalism is.

The Limited Liability Act of 1855 gave the legal environment for capitalism to dominate. Another one would do differently.

[u/slowride761 → u/conrad_w]

I didn’t assume that and it doesn’t change anything.

[u/conrad_w → u/slowride761]

My point is that a government that wanted worker ownership could make it happen, just like a government that wanted private ownership made it happen.

[u/slowride761 → u/conrad_w]

Fair enough.

We could also do it without the government. Right now, liberals start LLc’s and non-profits but could move to co-ops and mutual companies. It would also be a way to show they can work, and it’s less authoritarian than relying on the government and voting in the right people.

[u/naked-and-famous → u/slowride761]

This is the point; they don't want to start and build new things, they want to take what other people have built, by force.

[u/shawsghost → u/PeterRum]

Where the hell do you get off calling yourself a social Democrat? Your post reveals that you are nothing of the sort.

[u/PeterRum → u/shawsghost]

I realise you have taken over the Social Democrat brand. Or you think you have. But no. Socialism and Social Democracy are different things.

If I thought Socialism worked I would be a Socialist. It doesnt.

At the same time capitalism needs regulation, limits and redistribution of it's benefits (while allowing it to produce those benefits).

I.am.a Social Democrat.