7 ms·

How do you define socialism?

by sbenitoj 8y ago

opnitro 8y ago
Communal ownership of the means of production? Social democratic redistribution schemes are not socialist.
- sbenitoj 8y ago
  Social democratic redistribution (of the means of production) are in fact socialist, which is what’s going on here.
  - opnitro 8y ago
    The means of production are _not_ being redistributed via taxes and foodstamps. Apple still owns the factories, the IP, the land, the offices, etc.
    - sbenitoj 8y ago
      Yes, and they moved specific means of production to Jersey in order to sell their services from there. Now there are complaints that Apple actually owes more taxes to USG (and other govts). So which one is it — does Apple own the means of production (and thus what they did is totally legal) or do they not own the means of production (and thus this is socialism)?
      - opnitro 8y ago
        I don't think the problem is that Apple purchased an office on an island. The problem is the use of that to not pay taxes to the USG.
        sbenitoj 8y ago
        This is my point though, why can’t they open an office elsewhere and sell their services from that location? Why are they required to sell their services from the US for all of eternity?
        arcticbull 8y ago
        Honestly, it's because intent counts. There's lots of reasons a company who wants to do business in and with the US would want a US entity. They are not required to sell their services from the US for all eternity, however they are also not required to sell their services to the US either. For now, at least, the calculus is in favor of doing business both from here and to here.
  - chillacy 8y ago
    Are you really here to argue semantics? Also I'm a pretty hard core capitalist myself but plenty of people aren't actually afraid of the label "socialism", especially those outside the US, so you won't be able to convince someone by just labeling something as socialist. If I had to generalize, the problems at hand are growing the pie and distributing the pie, and the two are often at odds.
    - sbenitoj 8y ago
      You’re a rare breed in these parts! I’m not trying to argue semantics, I don’t think most people on this forum realize that the redistribution of wealth IS socialism. I’m aware that “socialist” does not carry the bad connotation I believe it deserves on this forum. Capitalist companies are first and foremost concerned with growing the pie; socialist govts are concerned with getting a bigger slice of the current pie and don’t care very much about growing it.
      - chillacy 8y ago
        > I’m not trying to argue semantics, I don’t think most people on this forum realize that the redistribution of wealth IS socialism Heh, that is literally arguing over the definition of a word ;) But yes, let's do the math trick of "Let X = Y" and say "Sbenitoj's Socialism" means wealth redistribution which I would assume to entail welfare, taxation, etc. I think that's a good jumping point to debate about what the best mix is (which would then depend on what measuring stick people are using... gdp? median happiness? min(happiness)?) and then you can get somewhere.
      - arcticbull 8y ago
        I don't think most of us agree that redistribution of wealth (the proceeds of production) is socialism (the redistribution of the means of production). The US has particularly strong property rights, and asking companies to chip in to reimburse the public for the benefits they've leveraged to become and remain successful (such as national defense, public education, public roads, public police, public fire departments, public water, courts, etc) is beyond the pail even if you choose to label that socialism. I don't think it's beyond the pail to work to build a more meritocratic than plutocratic society to ensure the next generation of businesses also.
- skookumchuck 8y ago
  Ownership rights include the right to enjoy the benefits of ownership. The more rights another has to the profits, the more ownership rights they have. Therefore, the more taxes that are extracted, the less ownership one has, and the more "communal ownership", i.e., socialistic it is.
  - opnitro 8y ago
    Sure, I don't think many would argue that social democratic schemes are further down the scales to the left. But if we define a system that explicitly exists within the context of supporting privately owned corporations socialist, I feel we've overdefined the term to where it's no longer meaningful.

How do you define socialism?

opnitro 8y ago

Communal ownership of the means of production? Social democratic redistribution schemes are not socialist.

sbenitoj 8y ago
Social democratic redistribution (of the means of production) are in fact socialist, which is what’s going on here.
- opnitro 8y ago
  The means of production are _not_ being redistributed via taxes and foodstamps. Apple still owns the factories, the IP, the land, the offices, etc.
  - sbenitoj 8y ago
    Yes, and they moved specific means of production to Jersey in order to sell their services from there. Now there are complaints that Apple actually owes more taxes to USG (and other govts). So which one is it — does Apple own the means of production (and thus what they did is totally legal) or do they not own the means of production (and thus this is socialism)?
    - opnitro 8y ago
      I don't think the problem is that Apple purchased an office on an island. The problem is the use of that to not pay taxes to the USG.
      - sbenitoj 8y ago
        This is my point though, why can’t they open an office elsewhere and sell their services from that location? Why are they required to sell their services from the US for all of eternity?
        arcticbull 8y ago
        Honestly, it's because intent counts. There's lots of reasons a company who wants to do business in and with the US would want a US entity. They are not required to sell their services from the US for all eternity, however they are also not required to sell their services to the US either. For now, at least, the calculus is in favor of doing business both from here and to here.
- chillacy 8y ago
  Are you really here to argue semantics? Also I'm a pretty hard core capitalist myself but plenty of people aren't actually afraid of the label "socialism", especially those outside the US, so you won't be able to convince someone by just labeling something as socialist. If I had to generalize, the problems at hand are growing the pie and distributing the pie, and the two are often at odds.
  - sbenitoj 8y ago
    You’re a rare breed in these parts! I’m not trying to argue semantics, I don’t think most people on this forum realize that the redistribution of wealth IS socialism. I’m aware that “socialist” does not carry the bad connotation I believe it deserves on this forum. Capitalist companies are first and foremost concerned with growing the pie; socialist govts are concerned with getting a bigger slice of the current pie and don’t care very much about growing it.
    - chillacy 8y ago
      > I’m not trying to argue semantics, I don’t think most people on this forum realize that the redistribution of wealth IS socialism Heh, that is literally arguing over the definition of a word ;) But yes, let's do the math trick of "Let X = Y" and say "Sbenitoj's Socialism" means wealth redistribution which I would assume to entail welfare, taxation, etc. I think that's a good jumping point to debate about what the best mix is (which would then depend on what measuring stick people are using... gdp? median happiness? min(happiness)?) and then you can get somewhere.
    - arcticbull 8y ago
      I don't think most of us agree that redistribution of wealth (the proceeds of production) is socialism (the redistribution of the means of production). The US has particularly strong property rights, and asking companies to chip in to reimburse the public for the benefits they've leveraged to become and remain successful (such as national defense, public education, public roads, public police, public fire departments, public water, courts, etc) is beyond the pail even if you choose to label that socialism. I don't think it's beyond the pail to work to build a more meritocratic than plutocratic society to ensure the next generation of businesses also.
skookumchuck 8y ago
Ownership rights include the right to enjoy the benefits of ownership. The more rights another has to the profits, the more ownership rights they have. Therefore, the more taxes that are extracted, the less ownership one has, and the more "communal ownership", i.e., socialistic it is.
- opnitro 8y ago
  Sure, I don't think many would argue that social democratic schemes are further down the scales to the left. But if we define a system that explicitly exists within the context of supporting privately owned corporations socialist, I feel we've overdefined the term to where it's no longer meaningful.