Why can't socialism emulate capitalism?

[Oregone]

Now, I am not talking about 'socialism', as defined lately by the media. That being, anything 'liberal', like Obama, and his wanting to 'spread the wealth' around. Nor am I talking about the extreme Stalin style 'attempt' we saw in Russia, that resulted in oppression and poverty.

Rather, I mean Socialism, the system in which the means of production are primarily owned by the government.

Now, let us just suppose the government bought 100% of the shares in a company, and then did nothing different to that company (except perhaps cutting waste, limiting golden parachutes, regulating illegal/unethical/dangerous activities, and controlling ridiculous pay for executives). Instead of massive change, the government lets the company work exactly like it always had before, except they were the board of directors. The only difference is, when everything gets paid off, and the workers are paid, the company profits are distributed to the government (rather than private shareholders). Then, the government could decide how to use those profits (either they could reward the company workers, distribute the funds into other government programs, or some combination). Perhaps a share of the profits would go to a People's Permanent Fund, used to guarantee a living wage, or at least health care for all.

What if socialism was done in such a way that everyone still had different wages, and the company acted exactly as a normal company would (just diverting profits from private bank accounts to the public funds)? Well, on a small scale, with a single company, could anyone explain how this would be wrong or disadvantageous?

Since Ive been in BC, Ive noticed a few Crown Corporations, one of the most popular being BC Hydro ($417 million in income). So up here, North of the border, they have seen both successes and failures of government run companies, and a lot of government revenue has been generated from them.

Now, what if the government started buying up companies with the intention of letting them operate the same. Although owned by the same entity, similar companies become competing subsidiaries (who are subsequently rewarded for their competition with bonuses, as many subsidiaries are today in the private sector). All profits generated could then be directed to the public sector to either build up all of society, or be used by the workers of the particular source generating the income. It would almost seem that with such increased income, tax revenue would not be as badly needed to fund the government activities.

So ask, how much could the US benefit from this? What if 33% of what is now private, is owned by the public but operates the same as before? What if 50% was? And 100%? At some point, does the government buying the means of production become ineffective (should it only buy the most efficient companies, and let the others privately compete)? Would limiting private income of potential shareholders limit private investors from creating new, innovative startups (or could the government sponsor their own startups effectively as other countries do)?

I don't know, but it these wouldn't be unreasonable questions to ask. If a 100% government owned company operated exactly like a private company (besides unethical practices), would that be 'wrong' and 'break' capitalism? Who could ever have a problem with that? What if it were more than 1 company...and what if the government could grab a significant amount of income this way (income for education, health care and infrastructure).

I think that this is a good time for people to bring this up to the government, who not only needs income, but has seen the results of letting private enterprise run amok. The people, and the workers, want a piece of the pie, so why not start buying and owning it?

[shraby]

1. One problem I see with it and it's a big problem,

non government owned companies cannot compete with government owned ones because the pockets of the government owned one are very deep and can squash competition. Competition is what makes the economy robust and encourages innovation. Maybe a ratio of executive pay to the worker's pay can be worked out and made a law and there are other changes that might be made but when the government is in competition with private industries/businesses, it's a totally unfair field.

[Oregone]

3. And why should the pockets be deep?

Shouldn't the annual budget be limited to what the company would of spent when it is privately owned? As I said, the company should be made to operate the same, and that should include a reasonable budget based on the size of the company.

Another thought, what if this was only done in major sectors everyone depended on (energy for example), and therefore, didn't care about a level playing field (but the stability and security of the product). The point in that scenario is to provide the cheapest, best product, not allow a free market to gouge people or set up a system that could fail.

[King Coal]

2. You would tend to lose the value of competition and labor would become complacent.

[Oregone]

4. Then why do similar subsidiaries compete? They are owned by the same parent corporations

I know a concrete driver in Oregon who works in a valley with 3 other companies. They all used to compete, and they still do. The only difference now is that all of them are owned by a company called Knife River. Well, all these companies fight for business, develop specialized services to carve niches, offer different rates, etc....

The more successful the businesses are, the better the workers are paid (being that they generate more profits). Its almost like Knife River is simulating competition among the companies they own to continue to have them innovate and strive. I am suggesting a model like this, but instead of a private company owning all the smaller companies, the government does, and the government reaps the profits.

[melonkali]

5. We have a "free market" heavily regulated IN FAVOR OF robber barons. Cry foul!

You don't hear repubs (or anyone these days) talking about rescinding Taft-Hartley or any of the countless other measures which have obliterated basic rights of workers and crippled their theoretical power in a true "free market" economy. Not to mention all the government funded (federal contracts) outrageous CEO bonuses, plus corporate perks and billions in government funded "economic incentives", paid with workers' tax dollars, which PAY these companies to outsource our jobs.

How is this fair?

[Thothmes]

6. Will the employees be able to strike

the air traffic controllers tried that and see what happend, or like some of the attorneys in the Justice Department. Government can decide to lower the reimbursement rate for services to the company, much like they do with medicare. Government can decide because of political contributions to the right party, you get promoted and the other guy does not. Would this business be operated like the DOD, FEMA. or the VA. It will not operate like a private company because it is not. It does not have to. It does not have to make a profit to stay in business.

[fascisthunter]

7. Wouldn't There Be a Conflict of Interest?

If board members are all government employees...? How then would that effect competition and growth?