Do you think socialism could work in the US?

@ArishMell They wouldn't exactly be AI overlords, if their decisions could be encapsulated by human programming alone. Give it time. No computer is "intelligent" - but what do you think is sitting between your ears?

@QuixoticSoul That's exactly my point: that any so-called "artificial intelligence" is still only something designed by human brain-power. It emulates "mechanical" decision-making that can be reduced to Boolean Logic steps to solve practical problems, and can do so much faster than a person, but that is an analogue to intelligence, far from the human brain's real power and subtlety.

The computer exceeds human speed, accuracy and memory in mathematical calculations, but has no intellect and is still only a puppet in the hands of its human programmers, who still have to tell it what chains of logic-steps to take.

For an AI computer to rule over us, would NOT be the "decision" of a non-sentient, passive box of electronics, but of the [i]people [/i]who build and operate it in such a way we become over-dependent on it - to suit those [i]people, not[/i] the computer.

In a sense, the Internet is being allowed to go that way, but neither the network and its servers, nor the individuals' computers or so-called "smart"-'phones connected to them, are at all sentient or "intelligent". The real intelligence, decision-making and power are in the handful of mainly-American*, financially-giant companies and their advertising-agency clients who now dominate the system - and they are all groups of [i]people[/i]!

+++

* (at the moment - I foresee very strong future competition from, and possibly eventual domination by, China.)

@curiosi It's called a corporation. Rich CEO's make off with loot while the workers toil on.

@TakingBackMidgard Evidence for... what exactly? That stuff is manifest.

He is stretching the definition of socialism a bit - but so are the people who describe what Europeans do or the sorts of systems Bernie is suggesting as socialism.

Basically...

@TakingBackMidgard As Quix said above, I am stretching this a tiny bit. Police protection for example is a socialist policy, not true socialism. However what Bernie and people like him want are socialist policies not socialism, so it works out.

Now if Bernie ever calls for the state to own forms of production, aka taking over industries, then perhaps we can say he wants socialism.

@TakingBackMidgard Venezuela, Cuba, Eastern Europe before the iron curtain came down- need more?

@SW-User
Thank you for explaining your views.

Unfortunately, despite any protestations to the contrary, those nations that called themselves "socialist" were anything but, by your definition.

The "means of production" (sales and all other services) were in the hands of the Government, and the employees had no more say in it than they do in a hard-line capitalist-owned company.

I think the nearest to this ideal is the "Employees' Representatives" or title meaning that, on company boards; but I think Germany is one of the few countries to establish that, and (presumably) make it work.

My definition of a "socialist country" is not only ex-Cold War. I know there are commentators in the US now who regard even an entity like the Labour Party in Britain or other European countries, as verging on Communist!

Now, some members of parties like Labour do still call for State ownership of industries like the railways* and utilities; but they have always called for a strong negotiating voice for the trades-unions, not for shop-floor staff to manage or own the company.

Their theory, or definition of "socialism", is that if it's State-owned it is axiomatically in the "workers' " hands, not directly but as citizens, i.e., members of the State as the collective population of that nation. However you define "worker": anyone who works for a living is a "worker".

Nowadays such parties usually welcome profit-sharing schemes and employee share-holdings, which do go some way to the staff owning the enterprise.

+++

I agree fully that power should be justified: I believe it was Lenin who once asked something like, "If you wish to know the purpose of a law, ask whom it benefits." If he'd have asked that in Stalin's day he'd have been whisked off the Gulag before you could "Ivan The Terrible".

More though, the power needs to be in the hands of those who actually know how to use it responsibly, and will do so.

++++

* Nationalised railways:

The UK's rail network is still State-owned but the services are run by commercial companies who lease the rolling-stock from middle-men firms.

Labour, and indeed a good many otherwise not especially political people, frequently called for the railways to be re-nationalised fully. They don't realise huge swathes of the goods and passenger services, and even managing the licencing of preserved steam-locomotives to haul "specials" on Network Rail routes, ARE nationalised... only the owning State is not the UK but Germany!

@ArishMell
Profit-sharing schemes and employee share-holdings were implemented off of research showing that when workers owned a part or all of the company, they worked harder and more efficiently. They brought out more ideas, they were more motivated, because it was their company. It's simple really, when you own something, you are more likely to care for it and work hard to maintain it. Our belief is that if workers fully owned their workplaces, they would stop polluting in rivers, stop polluting the skies and shift the company towards benefitting their own pockets, rather than the pockets of the CEO. If for example, you owned a company which polluted a lot, would you pollute your own community in exchange for a slightly higher profit margin? A handful of rich investors just might, they won't be affected, but a worker who works in those conditions and who has a family in that community might feel differently. He might invest more money into ensuring that his community might remain clean. And well, with more money in the hands of regular people, rather than an investor or CEO, the economy of the local community would be better off. This market socialism is something a lot of people could imagine without fear of it. Because like you said, we already have some forms of it.

It is indeed quite frustrating that many nations who claimed to be of a socialist nature didn't give their workers the means of production. It has always been a struggle, and it will continue to be for those of us who want the workers to own the means of production.

As for the labour party, though I do believe that there was a time when they were, in fact, socialist, that time is long past. They push for nationalization and short term fixes, but nothing really major. Yes, people love to label them as socialists and communists, and well, sometimes i find myself supporting some of their policies, but they are mostly temporary fixes or short term solutions. they do not advocate for socialism or communism. Though we socialists would love to see them back in fold, it will not happen anytime soon. Especially since the label, "socialism," is so deluded.

@SW-User I think all the main parties now, at least in the UK, have lost whatever distinctive characteristics they used to have.

I have never heard of any large, successful company under any political system that is fully "worker owned" (a curious phrase suggesting anyone above shop-floor supervisor is excluded). If any do exist, I wonder if they are successful.

Industry used to need not worry too much about environmental responsibility, but this is becoming ever more important, irrespective of ownership. Whilst the main force is the Law, helped by the International Standards Organisation*, it's also becoming the concern of customers. So too, increasingly, is the way the supplier treats its employees.

As you say, the term "socialism" is so deluded, or at least very vague. That's true now of so many political labels, with meanings those of the speaker rather than the dictionary.

+++

*ISO

The ISO is perhaps most widely known for converting the originally-French Metric and physics units into the world-wide, mathematically-coherent "SI" series (while rightly keeping the proper, French, spellings ending in [i]~tre[/i]); but it goes much further than that.

It's also widely known for its longer-established ISO9000 management-control accreditation disingenuously sold as "quality control".

Recently it introduced an environmental-protection approvals system called ISO14000, accrediting companies that meet and maintain strict, minimum requirements on avoiding pollution and undue waste.

Many major, especially Governmental, clients will buy only from companies that not only obey the increasingly strict environmental and employment laws; but also hold relevant ISO accreditations. These are before considering the specialist approvals for particular products or services.

The ISO's own web-site shows virtually every country in the world to be a full member or a passive signatory. Almost the only exceptions are Greenland and several in Africa.

@Chrisy1 No human-made social or political system can be perfect but you cannot write off something worth-while merely for that. Instead you strive to improve it.

It’s good to have some sort of balance - too strong to the left or right doesn’t seem to work, middle ground is where there seems to be some sort of reasonable compromise!@ArishMell

@Chrisy1 Indeed. Most democracies to run or at least muddle along, on that principle. Their successive governments may oscillate a bit left or right but are never far from that middle ground.