4 ms·

Socialism is when all the people of a country put theyr money together to pay for a system. Such as your taxes or a goverment healthcare. The banks have been re

Socialism is when all the people of a country put theyr money together to pay for a system. Such as your taxes or a goverment healthcare. The banks have been rescured by such money.

actually_a_dog 5y ago
No, that's called paying taxes and funding a government. I'd suggest you crack a political science textbook if you want to actually know what socialism is.
- rspoerri 5y ago
  So goverment healthcare is not a socialistic system? The public infrastructure that is built using taxes and can be used by anyone and is owned by the goverment which represents the inhabitants is not socialistic? wikipedia: While no single definition encapsulates the many types of socialism,[12] social ownership is the one common element. what, if not a socialistic system, is it then in your opinion?
  - actually_a_dog 5y ago
    No, those things are not socialist. As I said, if you want to learn what socialism is, go crack a book.
  - rspoerri 5y ago
    just because you say doesnt make it right. If you know so much better, you would be able to write down what it is instead. maybe read jcranmer's response above. citing him: "government provision of services (are) a hallmark of socialism"
    - actually_a_dog 5y ago
      "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." * Inigo Montoya
      - rspoerri 5y ago
        i'd love to hear your side, but i have to assume there is none from your explanation.
        actually_a_dog 5y ago
        I'm not here to educate you; I don't want the downvotes I'd get from attempting to do so. I just want you to stop spreading misinformation.
- jcranmer 5y ago
  Uh... The problem with socialism is that there are so many definitions of the word that it's actually rather meaningless (this is generally true of every -ism in political theory). Nevertheless, if we're discussing socialism in the context of the contest between different economic and political organizing philosophies in the 19th century, then rspoerri would in fact be correct to call what he did socialism. The demand for the government to provide various social functions (including things like healthcare or pensions), adding progressive taxation to provide some measure of wealth redistribution, and the limitation of corporate rights over workers (e.g., child labor laws, minimum wage laws, working hour laws) are all hallmarks of the socialist movement that were eventually pretty universally adopted, in contrast to the activists for capitalism. While there is definitely room for disagreement of what constitutes socialism, I would be surprised to find any political science textbook that wouldn't consider government provision of services (especially as opposed to private provision) a hallmark of socialism.
zigradett 5y ago
Someone also needs to put to rest the "The Banks were bailed out using taxpayer money!" scandal. Based on what I heard, TARP the Troubled Asset Relief Program, bought a small percentage of those hedge funds and investment banks that were in danger of going under, then let them slowly buy their own shares back over a number of years ... ..... and the "taxpayers" got all their money back.
- rspoerri 5y ago
  "Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) | U.S. Department of the Treasury Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP)" . Seems very goverment to me... It doesnt matter if its a loan. A lot of businesses would be profitable if you would give them 2 billion dollars. Just invest them in a diverse portfolio and real estates. And you are profitable in a short time. Getting that money in the first hand is whats difficult.
- throwaway2048 5y ago
  how exactly is this not using taxpayer money? It carried a ton of risk and likelyhood said companies would default and the money would never have been repaid.
InitialLastName 5y ago
The government pooling resources (collected from the people) to control an industry (either by mandate or by providing an option that out-competes the private sector) for the benefit of the people is socialism. An industry collapsing and telling the government "give us money with no strings attached or we'll take the economy down with us" is a hostage crisis.
- actually_a_dog 5y ago
  Nationalizing industries is also not socialism.
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    You know, you keep saying what socialism isn't. I agree with you that rspoerri's definition is too expansive, but we could have a more useful discussion if you supplied a definition, instead of just saying "no, that isn't it". (And "crack a book" isn't a definition.)
    - actually_a_dog 5y ago
      Sorry, but I'm not in the mood to get flagged today. I cut it off with "crack a book," because if you go one more step down the road beyond that, that leads to something you can't discuss rationally on Hacker News.
      - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
        Fine. Then I will. (Been downvoted plenty lately, what's some more?) Socialism is social ownership of the means of production. It's not government healthcare. It's not government bailouts (unless the government keeps ownership of the businesses). It's not "government doing things". It's not government using taxes to pay for doing things. It's government owning the means of production, or else the people owning it in some other way (mandatory profit sharing would qualify). Now, can we prove the parent wrong and have an actual, reasonable discussion?

Socialism is when all the people of a country put theyr money together to pay for a system. Such as your taxes or a goverment healthcare. The banks have been rescured by such money.

actually_a_dog 5y ago

No, that's called paying taxes and funding a government. I'd suggest you crack a political science textbook if you want to actually know what socialism is.

rspoerri 5y ago
So goverment healthcare is not a socialistic system? The public infrastructure that is built using taxes and can be used by anyone and is owned by the goverment which represents the inhabitants is not socialistic? wikipedia: While no single definition encapsulates the many types of socialism,[12] social ownership is the one common element. what, if not a socialistic system, is it then in your opinion?
- actually_a_dog 5y ago
  No, those things are not socialist. As I said, if you want to learn what socialism is, go crack a book.
- rspoerri 5y ago
  just because you say doesnt make it right. If you know so much better, you would be able to write down what it is instead. maybe read jcranmer's response above. citing him: "government provision of services (are) a hallmark of socialism"
  - actually_a_dog 5y ago
    "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." * Inigo Montoya
    - rspoerri 5y ago
      i'd love to hear your side, but i have to assume there is none from your explanation.
      - actually_a_dog 5y ago
        I'm not here to educate you; I don't want the downvotes I'd get from attempting to do so. I just want you to stop spreading misinformation.
jcranmer 5y ago
Uh... The problem with socialism is that there are so many definitions of the word that it's actually rather meaningless (this is generally true of every -ism in political theory). Nevertheless, if we're discussing socialism in the context of the contest between different economic and political organizing philosophies in the 19th century, then rspoerri would in fact be correct to call what he did socialism. The demand for the government to provide various social functions (including things like healthcare or pensions), adding progressive taxation to provide some measure of wealth redistribution, and the limitation of corporate rights over workers (e.g., child labor laws, minimum wage laws, working hour laws) are all hallmarks of the socialist movement that were eventually pretty universally adopted, in contrast to the activists for capitalism. While there is definitely room for disagreement of what constitutes socialism, I would be surprised to find any political science textbook that wouldn't consider government provision of services (especially as opposed to private provision) a hallmark of socialism.

zigradett 5y ago

Someone also needs to put to rest the "The Banks were bailed out using taxpayer money!" scandal. Based on what I heard, TARP the Troubled Asset Relief Program, bought a small percentage of those hedge funds and investment banks that were in danger of going under, then let them slowly buy their own shares back over a number of years ... ..... and the "taxpayers" got all their money back.

rspoerri 5y ago
"Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) | U.S. Department of the Treasury Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP)" . Seems very goverment to me... It doesnt matter if its a loan. A lot of businesses would be profitable if you would give them 2 billion dollars. Just invest them in a diverse portfolio and real estates. And you are profitable in a short time. Getting that money in the first hand is whats difficult.
throwaway2048 5y ago
how exactly is this not using taxpayer money? It carried a ton of risk and likelyhood said companies would default and the money would never have been repaid.

InitialLastName 5y ago

The government pooling resources (collected from the people) to control an industry (either by mandate or by providing an option that out-competes the private sector) for the benefit of the people is socialism. An industry collapsing and telling the government "give us money with no strings attached or we'll take the economy down with us" is a hostage crisis.

actually_a_dog 5y ago
Nationalizing industries is also not socialism.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  You know, you keep saying what socialism isn't. I agree with you that rspoerri's definition is too expansive, but we could have a more useful discussion if you supplied a definition, instead of just saying "no, that isn't it". (And "crack a book" isn't a definition.)
  - actually_a_dog 5y ago
    Sorry, but I'm not in the mood to get flagged today. I cut it off with "crack a book," because if you go one more step down the road beyond that, that leads to something you can't discuss rationally on Hacker News.
    - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
      Fine. Then I will. (Been downvoted plenty lately, what's some more?) Socialism is social ownership of the means of production. It's not government healthcare. It's not government bailouts (unless the government keeps ownership of the businesses). It's not "government doing things". It's not government using taxes to pay for doing things. It's government owning the means of production, or else the people owning it in some other way (mandatory profit sharing would qualify). Now, can we prove the parent wrong and have an actual, reasonable discussion?