Americans who believe in Socialism, if you were given the opportunity to immigrate to a country with socialist policies, would you?

Doesn't any country with cooperatives have workplace democracy?

Norway is cheating because they have many natural resources to sell.

Yes, they have a tiny, insignificant amount.

An entire country has to have workplace democracy for the country to be socialist.

This is kinda like saying "doesn't any country with a slice of bread have food"
- What would change if every company would be democratic?
  
  To begin with, there wouldn't be an unspoken agreement between companies to keep wages as low as they can be because more than half of the companies in that market agree that the best they can do is starvation wages.
  
  Y'know how totalitarian regimes are incentivized to be shitholes because of the keys to power problem?
  
  https://invidious.asir.dev/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
  
  at the very least, that goes away. But there's many more other things.
  
  autistic people could actually get hired
- You think a co-op only has a tiny amount of democracy? I think it's the best form of workers owning the means of production - the definition of socialism.
  
  I believe they meant that worker cooperatives are a small, almost insignificant part of the overall economy in every country that has them. Often co-ops end up serving a small niche market because they really can't compete with the anti-competitive nature of capitalist big business.
  
  That's not what I said, my point is that co-ops make up a tiny fraction of a percentage of the economy. If they made up all of it, that would be socialism.
  
  Ah - I misunderstood. My mistake.

What is workplace democracy? Would love to finally hear some socialist philosophy from someone that isn't a goddamn Hexbear user.

Yeah, they're really indoctrinated by chinese propaganda, I can't stand them, and I'm a damn communist.

Workplace democracy can work a vast number of ways, and I can't claim to have figured out what the best way of doing it is, and this is one of the most contentious areas in socialist theory, but I'll give a relatively easy to understand example:

A business running democratically, instead of having a CEO who decides everything, could have weekly meetings where everyone gets together and decides what is needed, pay structure, schedules, etc, building decisions through consensus, and then falling back to a vote if people disagree, they could also work like a modern democratic republic and have the workers elect people to various positions, and then maintain heirarchy, if the business is far too large for consensus building to work.

The way a business works currently, under capitalism, is often with a CEO at the top, who controls a group of people directly below him, and so forth, this results in bad divergent incentives, due to the keys to power problem (if you're not familiar, watch this: https://invidious.asir.dev/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs ). One such example is if i'm a walmart employee, do I give a fuck if walmart does well? No. As long as they don't go out of business, i'll be paid the same, who gives a fuck how well the business does if I'm not a partial owner and have no say?
- "and I'm a communist--"
  
  "Today, the bourgeoisie and the opportunists within the labor movement concur in this doctoring of Marxism. They omit, obscure, or distort the revolutionary side of this theory, its revolutionary soul. They push to the foreground and extol what is or seems acceptable to the bourgeoisie. All the social-chauvinists are now “Marxists” (don’t laugh!)."
  
  Yes, that is exactly what hexbear does.

cuba is quite close to real socialism

In what way? I have yet to hear of a single socialist policy from cuba.

Do note: socialism is worker ownership over the means of production.
- afaik, in cuba the means of production isn't directly controlled by the workers but is controlled by the government which acts as a middle man between the workers and the means of production
  
  That's state capitalism, and has nothing to do with socialism.
  
  The workers control the means of production under socialism, not the government, this makes it in no way socialist by any commonly used definition of socialism by philosophers.
  
  You seem to know what you are talking about. Can you ELI5 the difference between communism and sosialism, in the shortest possible words?
  
  Okay, first, to lay some groundwork, there have been many modes of production throughout history
  
  first, there was hunter/gatherer societies, then feudalism, then capitalism
  
  Then we have theories as to what could come next, according to the marxist viewpoint, the next thing will be socialism, and then after that, communism.
  
  So, communism is a post-socialist ideology, the only requirement for it to be socialism is that instead of a bourgeois class and a worker class, they will become unified (doesn't matter how for the purposes of explaining this, but usually through violent revolution)
  
  So, a socialist place would have the workers self-manage, people who work in a place would also have democratic control over that place in some way.
  
  After that happens, for various reasons outside of the scope of an eli5, communism comes, communism is a post-socialist society in which the workers own the means of production (hence the socialist prerequisite), currency has been abolished, the state has been abolished (but not government, these are two distinct entities in socialist thought), and there are no class divisions whatsoever.
  
  Part of the problems with discussions about these topics is that communist philosophers of old used terms in very different ways than the colloquial ways we use them today. I can expand upon this if you have any followup questions!
  
  In the spirit of knowledge, I've tried to understand them by reading some sources but I never could get around it. It's like me, a non-physicist, trying to understand quantum theory and theory of relativity. Anyway, your explanation is good enough for me to be able to different between the two terms. Thanks.
  
  No problem, feel free to PM or message on matrix if you want any elaboration or have any questions!
  
  Just Google it u lazy little shit
  
  Google is extremely insufficient for this due to the insane level of propaganda on BOTH sides of the issue. The only way to get this information is to read theory from the actual philosophers, IMHO, and that's asking a lot.
  
  And that's not even getting into the terminology you have to learn just to understand the philosophers.
  
  For example: most people are under the impression that private property is things that normal people own... but that's not even a little bit what marx means when he says abolish private property, you'll note, that would be insane.
  
  So what does he mean by "private property" if he's not talking about the things normal people own?
  
  Private property used by marxist philosophers refers to property that generates capital. An example would be a factory.
  
  When marx said abolish private property, what he was really saying is, make it so that factories are owned by the people who work in them, rather than by some rando who has nothing to do with working in them. He was not saying that you shouldn't have the right to own a toothbrush.
  
  Your toothbrush, according to marx, would be PERSONAL property.
  
  So, folowing your theory, if ... I have a coat - it's "PERSONAL" property; I wash my coat myself - it's still "PERSONAL"; I rent my coat - it now becomes "PRIVATE" property; I ask someone to clean my coat for money - it's "PRIVATE" property (remember I'm still renting it); Somebody wears my coat, whilst gathers mushrooms (uses my coat in process of making value) to sell them latter - it (the coat) is "PRIVATE" property;
  
  Questions:
  
  Why should we abolish my coat? Wheres logic in that? And how, at the same time, does it magicaly can be mine PERSONAL, mine PRIVATE, and (in sugested future) a collectives property?
  
  I mown someones lawn and they clean my coat (barter exchange) - my coat is PERSONAL or PRIVATE? How does that differ if money involved?
  
  Now change the "coat" into the "factory" (a "garage", a "hammer", a "boat"), what's the diference?
  
  if the government functions as a worker's union is that state capitalism or socialism?
  
  State capitalism.

What does a "workplace democracy" mean?

I'm envisioning that's the janitor having a vote in where the brain surgeon makes the next cut.

That's a possible interpretation of "the people control the means of production", but that's just ridiculous.

Well, that is a pretty ridiculous interpretation.

Workplace democracy would most likely and most broadly refer to all employees of a company having a say in how the company is run. Either by voting on policies and changes, or by electing people to various executive/representative roles, much the same way that current Western democracies work.

An example of the janitor voting on where the surgeon makes a cut makes about as much sense as us voting on where the president flies in his helicopter. At best, it doesn't pass the make sense test, and at worst is a bad faith interpretation of what people mean when they say "workplace democracy"
- I'd settle for just having a labor representative in the C-suite at this point.
  
  They will give you less than you ask, everytime. So better ask for much more.
hat's a bad faith interpretation of "the people control the means of production".

I want you to consider the difference between the work needed to complete a task, and the work needed to manage a workplace: for one of those tasks, only the experts in that task can meaningfully contribute to the outcome, whereas for the other, everybody who is part of the workplace has meaningful input.

I don't know about your experience, but everywhere I've worked there have been people "on the ground" who get to see the inefficiencies in the logistics of their day to day jobs; in a good job a manager will listen and implement changes, but why should the workers be beholden to this middleman who doesn't know how the job works?

I've also had plenty of roles where management have been "telling me where to cut".
It's quite simple, right now businesses are structured in a totalitarian manner, socialism seeks to overthrow that totalitarian regime within your workplace, there's a number of ways to do this, nobody is suggesting the janitor should decide how a surgeon does his job, we just want to eliminate the useless position of CEO, and replace it with democratic systems managed by the people who work the jobs.

An easy to understand version of this would be if every company was transformed into a worker co-op, but that of course is only one of many models for socialism.

It is important to note that the government is not the worker, and therefore government control over the means of production DOES NOT COUNT.
It means the janitor has a vote on how their duties are done
- So..what if they decide their duties are brain surgery?
  
  Like the nonsense a peer post to yours is spewing. From a person who's handle is "communist".
  
  They could have reasonable points, but if your philosophy suggests that brain surgeons can get told what to do by janitors, that's a problem. I wouldn't call that "totalitarian". I would call that sane.
  
  Now, what do we do about brain surgeons and the cost of healthcare (which is and will always be phenomenal, no matter who is paying and how it is being paid for)?
  
  Are you being outrageous and arguing in bad faith on purpose?
  
  I genuinely can't tell, in the event that you're not, nobody has ever suggested that janitors should be allowed to do the duties of brain surgeons. Furthermore, even if a single absolutely insane janitor decided he should be allowed to do the duties of a brain surgeon... nobody else would agree with them, because we live in a society with vaguely reasonable humans... and that janitor would likely be democratically FIRED for suggesting something so outrageous, or put in a mental institution.
  
  Or are you worried about the janitor uprising in which janitors decide they can do all jobs known to man? Perhaps nothing can stop the janitor uprising, and we are all doomed.
  
  At the very least, they'd keep the streets clean! I, for one, welcome our janitorial overlords.
  
  Do you know any janitor that are willing to take the risk of killing someone and face the consequences of that? If so, I would recommend to keep your distance of that person.
  
  What kind of idiot workplace would allow that? Perhaps if you don't assume the people you talk to are literally brain-dead, you might understand what they're saying.
  
  what if they decide their duties are brain surgery?
  
  In your world the only thing keeping janitors from doing brain surgery is the current corporate structure?
  
  Like the nonsense a peer post to yours is spewing
  
  Which parts are nonsense
  
  but if your philosophy suggests that brain surgeons can get told what to do by janitors,
  
  It can't.
  
  Now, what do we do about brain surgeons and the cost of healthcare
  
  The government pays for it like in most wealthy nations
  
  The first part reminds me of religious people who can't fathom ethics existing outside of religion.
  
  "If there's no hell what's to stop people from doing bad things?"
  
  You make my brain hurt.