ConSoc

I'd like to introduce you to ConSoc; Conservative Socialism.

To start let us define socialism in this context, least Cold War thinking take hold and the idea get rejected out of hand before being properly explored.

Socialism in ConSoc isn't tax funded welfare (that's SocDem, pro-labor capitalism, not socialism), it isn't state control and it's not a command economy. Socialism promotes the ethical pursuit of profit and the idea that success or failure should be the natural product of the free market. Where ConSoc (and market socialism in general) diverges from free market capitalism is in the idea that "Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." The hammer doesn't represent the state's power to crush dissent, it represents the strong armed factory worker building the trains, trucks, cars, ships and tools that built modern society. The sickle doesn't represent the state's power to cut down opposition, it represents the farmer spending 15 hours under the blistering sun doing the backbreaking work of harvesting the crop to feed their fellow man. Socialism holds that it's not right for the Walton Family to command over 1/3 of the total American wealth while the warehouse workers, stock clerks and cashiers that make them their money have to rely on welfare because they get min wage at part time. Socialism holds that it's not right for Jeff Bezos to be the richest man in the world while his warehouse workers, the backbone of his business, aren't allowed to use the bathroom. Socialism holds, in short, that those that do all the production, work and selling should reap the fruits of their own, honest labor. There is no dispute that investors deserve to be repaid and with interest so far as it was agreed upon but labor deserves the lion's share of any profits by virtue of doing the lionshare's effort. Socialism isn't about taking other people's money, it's fundamentally the opposite in fact.

In a ConSoc economy the shareholders and workers should be the same thing and labor either directly by democratic means or representatively by strong labor unions should control the means of production. Byond this management and business strategy would look no different than it would in a capitalist economy.

Moving on to conservatism.

There should be no real confusion here. Upholding traditional values, respecting (competent and well meaning) authority, not trying to fix social norms that aren't broken and ensuring that change where needed, is implemented in a rational and calculated manner.

I'm off to work (at an employee-owned Global 400 Company in coincidental keeping with my ideology, funny how life works out sometimes) but I'll be more than happy to go deeper into policy when I get home.

ConSoc said:

I'd like to introduce you to ConSoc; Conservative Socialism.

To start let us define socialism in this context, least Cold War thinking take hold and the idea get rejected out of hand before being properly explored.

Socialism in ConSoc isn't tax funded welfare (that's SocDem, pro-labor capitalism, not socialism), it isn't state control and it's not a command economy. Socialism promotes the ethical pursuit of profit and the idea that success or failure should be the natural product of the free market. Where ConSoc (and market socialism in general) diverges from free market capitalism is in the idea that "Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." The hammer doesn't represent the state's power to crush dissent, it represents the strong armed factory worker building the trains, trucks, cars, ships and tools that built modern society. The sickle doesn't represent the state's power to cut down opposition, it represents the farmer spending 15 hours under the blistering sun doing the backbreaking work of harvesting the crop to feed their fellow man. Socialism holds that it's not right for the Walton Family to command over 1/3 of the total American wealth while the warehouse workers, stock clerks and cashiers that make them their money have to rely on welfare because they get min wage at part time. Socialism holds that it's not right for Jeff Bezos to be the richest man in the world while his warehouse workers, the backbone of his business, aren't allowed to use the bathroom. Socialism holds, in short, that those that do all the production, work and selling should reap the fruits of their own, honest labor. There is no dispute that investors deserve to be repaid and with interest so far as it was agreed upon but labor deserves the lion's share of any profits by virtue of doing the lionshare's effort. Socialism isn't about taking other people's money, it's fundamentally the opposite in fact.

In a ConSoc economy the shareholders and workers should be the same thing and labor either directly by democratic means or representatively by strong labor unions should control the means of production. Byond this management and business strategy would look no different than it would in a capitalist economy.

Moving on to conservatism.

There should be no real confusion here. Upholding traditional values, respecting (competent and well meaning) authority, not trying to fix social norms that aren't broken and ensuring that change where needed, is implemented in a rational and calculated manner.

I'm off to work (at an employee-owned Global 400 Company in coincidental keeping with my ideology, funny how life works out sometimes) but I'll be more than happy to go deeper into policy when I get home.

Click to expand...

So basically you are copying what many socialist countries such as sweden, denmark, new zealand have now.

Nice first post; are you on the 1600 to 2400 shift?

ConSoc said:

I'd like to introduce you to ConSoc; Conservative Socialism.

To start let us define socialism in this context, least Cold War thinking take hold and the idea get rejected out of hand before being properly explored.

Socialism in ConSoc isn't tax funded welfare (that's SocDem, pro-labor capitalism, not socialism), it isn't state control and it's not a command economy. Socialism promotes the ethical pursuit of profit and the idea that success or failure should be the natural product of the free market. Where ConSoc (and market socialism in general) diverges from free market capitalism is in the idea that "Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." The hammer doesn't represent the state's power to crush dissent, it represents the strong armed factory worker building the trains, trucks, cars, ships and tools that built modern society. The sickle doesn't represent the state's power to cut down opposition, it represents the farmer spending 15 hours under the blistering sun doing the backbreaking work of harvesting the crop to feed their fellow man. Socialism holds that it's not right for the Walton Family to command over 1/3 of the total American wealth while the warehouse workers, stock clerks and cashiers that make them their money have to rely on welfare because they get min wage at part time. Socialism holds that it's not right for Jeff Bezos to be the richest man in the world while his warehouse workers, the backbone of his business, aren't allowed to use the bathroom. Socialism holds, in short, that those that do all the production, work and selling should reap the fruits of their own, honest labor. There is no dispute that investors deserve to be repaid and with interest so far as it was agreed upon but labor deserves the lion's share of any profits by virtue of doing the lionshare's effort. Socialism isn't about taking other people's money, it's fundamentally the opposite in fact.

In a ConSoc economy the shareholders and workers should be the same thing and labor either directly by democratic means or representatively by strong labor unions should control the means of production. Byond this management and business strategy would look no different than it would in a capitalist economy.

Moving on to conservatism.

There should be no real confusion here. Upholding traditional values, respecting (competent and well meaning) authority, not trying to fix social norms that aren't broken and ensuring that change where needed, is implemented in a rational and calculated manner.

I'm off to work (at an employee-owned Global 400 Company in coincidental keeping with my ideology, funny how life works out sometimes) but I'll be more than happy to go deeper into policy when I get home.

Click to expand...

This seems extremely heavy on the socialism and mere lip service with regard to the conservatism.

Con Sock?

soylentgreen said:

So basically you are copying what many socialist countries such as sweden, denmark, new zealand have now.

Click to expand...

The Danish PM Rasmussen would like a word with you, "I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy,” Rasmussen said.

Spartacus FPV said:

The Danish PM Rasmussen would like a word with you, "I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy,” Rasmussen said.

Click to expand...

The Nordic model (also called Nordic capitalism[1] or Nordic social democracy)[2][3] refers to the economic and social policies common to the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway, Iceland, the Faroe Islands and Sweden). This includes a comprehensive welfare state and collective bargaining at the national level with a high percentage of the workforce unionized, while being based on the economic foundations of free market capitalism.[4][5][6] The Nordic model began to earn attention after World War II.[7][8]

Click to expand...

More in line with what the op is suggesting rather than the typical mccarthyist propaganda we usually get from americans.

So basically economic socialism AND social conservatism together?

X Factor said:

This seems extremely heavy on the socialism and mere lip service with regard to the conservatism.

Click to expand...

Socialism needs to be explained or else "WhAt abOUT VeneZUelA!!!111!!!1" happens. Conservatism on the other hand is understood to be what it is, even among non-conservatives. As a definition, conservatism didn't need more than lip servise.

I invited a more detailed policy discussion once I got my definition out of the way to address this very concern but work prevented me from replying until now.

Skeptic Bob said:

So basically economic socialism AND social conservatism together?

Click to expand...

Yes, indeed though I'm not a Christian (but I'm absolutely a theist, that God exists is not in doubt for me) so my social conservatism doesn't line up 100% with what would be typical of an American conservative. For example I'm pro-Life, not a fan of heavy handed gun control, I'm all in for the military, etc. but I also have absolutely no issue with same sex marriage as homosexuality isn't sinful in my religion. That said, I don't want my personal religious worldview to color the perception of my ideology. I'd imagine a Christian (or otherwise Abrahamic) ConSoc would have no qualms voting for a social issues motivated Republican in the absence of a ConSoc choice.

soylentgreen said:

More in line with what the op is suggesting rather than the typical mccarthyist propaganda we usually get from americans.

Click to expand...

Please stop using words you don't understand.

ConSoc said:

I'd like to introduce you to ConSoc; Conservative Socialism.

To start let us define socialism in this context, least Cold War thinking take hold and the idea get rejected out of hand before being properly explored.

Socialism in ConSoc isn't tax funded welfare (that's SocDem, pro-labor capitalism, not socialism), it isn't state control and it's not a command economy. Socialism promotes the ethical pursuit of profit and the idea that success or failure should be the natural product of the free market. Where ConSoc (and market socialism in general) diverges from free market capitalism is in the idea that "Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." The hammer doesn't represent the state's power to crush dissent, it represents the strong armed factory worker building the trains, trucks, cars, ships and tools that built modern society. The sickle doesn't represent the state's power to cut down opposition, it represents the farmer spending 15 hours under the blistering sun doing the backbreaking work of harvesting the crop to feed their fellow man. Socialism holds that it's not right for the Walton Family to command over 1/3 of the total American wealth while the warehouse workers, stock clerks and cashiers that make them their money have to rely on welfare because they get min wage at part time. Socialism holds that it's not right for Jeff Bezos to be the richest man in the world while his warehouse workers, the backbone of his business, aren't allowed to use the bathroom. Socialism holds, in short, that those that do all the production, work and selling should reap the fruits of their own, honest labor. There is no dispute that investors deserve to be repaid and with interest so far as it was agreed upon but labor deserves the lion's share of any profits by virtue of doing the lionshare's effort. Socialism isn't about taking other people's money, it's fundamentally the opposite in fact.

In a ConSoc economy the shareholders and workers should be the same thing and labor either directly by democratic means or representatively by strong labor unions should control the means of production. Byond this management and business strategy would look no different than it would in a capitalist economy.

Moving on to conservatism.

There should be no real confusion here. Upholding traditional values, respecting (competent and well meaning) authority, not trying to fix social norms that aren't broken and ensuring that change where needed, is implemented in a rational and calculated manner.

I'm off to work (at an employee-owned Global 400 Company in coincidental keeping with my ideology, funny how life works out sometimes) but I'll be more than happy to go deeper into policy when I get home.

Click to expand...

There is no dispute that investors deserve to be repaid and with interest so far as it was agreed upon but labor deserves the lion's share of any profits by virtue of doing the lionshare's effort.

well then...that is mighty nice of you

the person that created the job, took the risk with their capital, and set everything up gets a small amount of profit, but the lions share goes to the workers.

thanks but no thanks

those workers can pool all their money...risk all their combined capital...and go into business for themselves...and then they can decide how they want to divvie up the profits

until then, leave it to the professionals

ConSoc said:

I'd like to introduce you to ConSoc; Conservative Socialism.

To start let us define socialism in this context, least Cold War thinking take hold and the idea get rejected out of hand before being properly explored.

Socialism in ConSoc isn't tax funded welfare (that's SocDem, pro-labor capitalism, not socialism), it isn't state control and it's not a command economy. Socialism promotes the ethical pursuit of profit and the idea that success or failure should be the natural product of the free market. Where ConSoc (and market socialism in general) diverges from free market capitalism is in the idea that "Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." The hammer doesn't represent the state's power to crush dissent, it represents the strong armed factory worker building the trains, trucks, cars, ships and tools that built modern society. The sickle doesn't represent the state's power to cut down opposition, it represents the farmer spending 15 hours under the blistering sun doing the backbreaking work of harvesting the crop to feed their fellow man. Socialism holds that it's not right for the Walton Family to command over 1/3 of the total American wealth while the warehouse workers, stock clerks and cashiers that make them their money have to rely on welfare because they get min wage at part time. Socialism holds that it's not right for Jeff Bezos to be the richest man in the world while his warehouse workers, the backbone of his business, aren't allowed to use the bathroom. Socialism holds, in short, that those that do all the production, work and selling should reap the fruits of their own, honest labor. There is no dispute that investors deserve to be repaid and with interest so far as it was agreed upon but labor deserves the lion's share of any profits by virtue of doing the lionshare's effort. Socialism isn't about taking other people's money, it's fundamentally the opposite in fact.

In a ConSoc economy the shareholders and workers should be the same thing and labor either directly by democratic means or representatively by strong labor unions should control the means of production. Byond this management and business strategy would look no different than it would in a capitalist economy.

Click to expand...

Too many contradictions to deal with all of them, but here goes on a few.

• Worker control of industry is fundamentally incompatible with the continued existence of speculation capital. The ability of capital investors to simply move money out of a business or out of a country that implements the democratic control of industry means that unless your proposed system was global, or unless you stopped the free movement of capital out of a country, capital would simply collapse your industries. That would indeed negate your assertion that "Socialism isn't about taking other people's money". It is. It has to be otherwise you are giving up on the fundamental socialist premise of greater equality.
• "I'm all in for the military." How could this be remotely compatible with socialist aims? It would be the military-indistrial complex that would fight the hardest to ensure your democratic industrial economy would fail. And to what end is the existence of a bloated, inefficient, unproductive military? Socialism requires a peaceful world free of militarism, imperialism and respectful of worker democratic sovereignty. In what respect does support for current attitudes to military spending and involvement around the world contribute to an almost universal socialist objective of demilitarisation, nuclear disarmament and conversion of military spending into peaceful investment in R&D, infrastructure, sustainability and countering climate change?

Okay, there's two nuggets to chew on. There are dozens more, including the complete incompatibility of a pro-life stance if you respect the freedom of the individual to control their own body and their right to secure the full fruits of their own labour.

I have a feeling you haven't thought this through very well or haven't explained it in a way that makes rational sense. Perhaps someone else has, in which case, could you please refer us to some theorists or academics who have written on the subject and share your ConSoc ideology?

Spartacus FPV said:

Please stop using words you don't understand.

Click to expand...

Try actually debating instead of pretending you know hat others understand.

Your previous post demonstrated quite ell your lack of comprehension of socialism

Andalublue said:

Too many contradictions to deal with all of them, but here goes on a few.

• Worker control of industry is fundamentally incompatible with the continued existence of speculation capital. The ability of capital investors to simply move money out of a business or out of a country that implements the democratic control of industry means that unless your proposed system was global, or unless you stopped the free movement of capital out of a country, capital would simply collapse your industries. That would indeed negate your assertion that "Socialism isn't about taking other people's money". It is. It has to be otherwise you are giving up on the fundamental socialist premise of greater equality.
• "I'm all in for the military." How could this be remotely compatible with socialist aims? It would be the military-indistrial complex that would fight the hardest to ensure your democratic industrial economy would fail. And to what end is the existence of a bloated, inefficient, unproductive military? Socialism requires a peaceful world free of militarism, imperialism and respectful of worker democratic sovereignty. In what respect does support for current attitudes to military spending and involvement around the world contribute to an almost universal socialist objective of demilitarisation, nuclear disarmament and conversion of military spending into peaceful investment in R&D, infrastructure, sustainability and countering climate change?

Okay, there's two nuggets to chew on. There are dozens more, including the complete incompatibility of a pro-life stance if you respect the freedom of the individual to control their own body and their right to secure the full fruits of their own labour.

I have a feeling you haven't thought this through very well or haven't explained it in a way that makes rational sense. Perhaps someone else has, in which case, could you please refer us to some theorists or academics who have written on the subject and share your ConSoc ideology?

Click to expand...

I will tackle those two as well.

Firstly, worker controlled business already happens. This is not a speculation but something that is.
https://www.thenation.com/article/worker-cooperatives-are-more-productive-than-normal-companies/

There are far fewer co-0ps in the United States than in the established French and Spanish co-op sectors, with only an estimated 300 to 400 US worker cooperatives “employing around 7,000 people and generating over $400 million in annual revenues,” according to the United States Federation of Worker Cooperatives (USFWC).......New York City, for example, recently launched a $1.2 million initiative (update: now raised to $2.1 million) to develop and network local co-ops. Last year California enacted legislation to streamline the legal framework for founding a co-op.

Click to expand...

And the rest on speculative capital is based on assumptions that are not quite clear. Why would a coop not be able to reinvest capital in any way they choose including speculation?

You should note that countries such a sweden denmark and new zealand all have armies. You should also note that these countries employ their armies as peace keepers rather than the style of countries such as america, china , russia an australia which create war based armies.

The idea of an army is not incompatible with socialism. The idea of spending much of the tax dollar to be prepared to invade a country is.

And yes, the pro life ideology is really one that any individual person can hold to, but as the arguments for it all are just an attempt to force a questionable morality on others then it has no place as a law of the country.

And again if you want written testimony then you only need to look around the world where your questions have been answered. There is nothing in the op that does not already exist.

gdgyva said:

There is no dispute that investors deserve to be repaid and with interest so far as it was agreed upon but labor deserves the lion's share of any profits by virtue of doing the lionshare's effort.

well then...that is mighty nice of you

the person that created the job, took the risk with their capital, and set everything up gets a small amount of profit, but the lions share goes to the workers.

thanks but no thanks

those workers can pool all their money...risk all their combined capital...and go into business for themselves...and then they can decide how they want to divvie up the profits

until then, leave it to the professionals

Click to expand...

Your referring only to small business or individual owned business.

Corporations face no liability and are usually speculative investments. Which means someone conned another into loaning them their money so that that person could profit from it. Risk to self is minimal.

Professionals??? Is it the case in america that a person needs to get a degree or qualification to start a business? Or is it possibly that you are just idolising the wealthy?

soylentgreen said:

Try actually debating instead of pretending you know hat others understand.

Your previous post demonstrated quite ell your lack of comprehension of socialism

Click to expand...

What? Yeah okay bro. Enjoy the soy.

Spartacus FPV said:

What? Yeah okay bro. Enjoy the soy.

Click to expand...

Laughable Question my use of words and then run away with a lame comment.

gdgyva said:

the person that created the job

Click to expand...

This was the only real point in your comment, the rest was emotionally driven drivil so this is the only part that I'll respond to.

The simple fact is that 'job creator' is total nonsense. A buzz word invented by Depression Era politicians to make their meaningless platitudes to the huddled masses sound like sound economic policy.
The Venture capitalist doesn't create jobs. That's the LAST thing they want, the overhead cuts too deeply into their profits.
The manager doesn't create jobs, in addition to the issue of profits it introduces too many points of failure (theft, incompetence, bad CS, etc.).
The workers don't create jobs either, they don't go rioting in the streets until someone gives them a mind numbing, soul crushing day job. If money was no option the lazy would kick back and the industrious would pursue labors of love. For those that aren't independently wealthy, money IS an option and day jobs are the easiest (legal) way to come into money.

There is no entity with agency 'creating jobs'. It's a natural, unintentional and undesirable consequence of doing business beyond the sole proprietorship. An abstract thought, incidental line item, mathematical constrict. Needed man hours>available manpower-automated solutions=jobs. If you're going to go on about 'job creators' you may as well go on about 'customer creators', 'inventory creators', 'utility bill creators', 'thief creators', etc. for all the sense you'll be making.

Andalublue said:

[*]Worker control of industry is fundamentally incompatible with the continued existence of speculation capital. The ability of capital investors to simply move money out of a business or out of a country that implements the democratic control of industry means that unless your proposed system was global, or unless you stopped the free movement of capital out of a country, capital would simply collapse your industries. That would indeed negate your assertion that "Socialism isn't about taking other people's money". It is. It has to be otherwise you are giving up on the fundamental socialist premise of greater equality.

Click to expand...

There are 2, context dependent definitions for capitalist.
1. The owner or controller of capital. This kind of capitalist has existed for as long as standardized currency has.
2. Someone of the belief that a capitalist of the 1st kind has the right to grow their wealth by financing the labor of other and than reaping the fruits of said labor. This kind of capitalist hasn't even existed 3 centuries.

These 2 types of capitalist go hand and hand and this is obviously the thinking you're working under. Fair enough however capitalists of the 1st kind have existed for several millennia longer than capitalists of the 2nd kind. A capitalist of the 1st kind operating outside a capitalist economy may not be your preference but to say they can't operate outside a capitalist economy in demonstrably false. A venture capitalist in a capitalist economy is a shareholder, in a socialist economy they'd be financieres entitled to an agreed upon profit but having no direct stake in the companies they invest in.

"I'm all in for the military." How could this be remotely compatible with socialist aims? It would be the military-indistrial complex that would fight the hardest to ensure your democratic industrial economy would fail. And to what end is the existence of a bloated, inefficient, unproductive military? Socialism requires a peaceful world free of militarism, imperialism and respectful of worker democratic sovereignty. In what respect does support for current attitudes to military spending and involvement around the world contribute to an almost universal socialist objective of demilitarisation, nuclear disarmament and conversion of military spending into peaceful investment in R&D, infrastructure, sustainability and countering climate change.

Click to expand...

The military industrial complex is the product of imperialism. Being pro-military doesn't mean I want to blow up brown people the world over.
Internationalist socialism needs a peaceful world free of militarism, imperialism and respectful of worker democratic sovereignty. That's certainly the ideal but ConSoc is inherently nationalist in it's worldview. As such socialism only needs to work in the nation it's being attempted in (America in my case), the world at large can do whatever it pleases (in economic terms) so long as free trade is respected.
As I said, support for the military doesn't mean I want to blow up brown people the world over. I'm more than happy to make America an unassailable fortress, our military the technological marvel of the world and ensure our warriors get paid top dollar and receive top notch benefits (all of this could be done with about 1/2 the current military budget) while taking a purely defensive stance.