4 ms·

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 s

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?
      - rspoerri 5y ago
        Thank you AnimalMuppet for your point of view. I do agree that "Socialism is social ownership of the means of production" is one aspect of socialism. But its only one of many aspects that fall under socialism. Socialism has been reduced to that aspect in the recent years, but that doesnt invalidate the other aspects. (see my above post with the 4 aspects of socialism) Id argue govermental healthcare does produce something and it's govermentally owned. So especially that should, even under the "Socialism ... means of producton", be socialistic. A loan is usually a product that banks provide. Afaik usually the goverment does not give loans. So id assume even that qualifies as "Socialism ... means of producton". You could argue that the goverment is not "social ownership". But in my opinion that is exactly the base of what a democracy constitutes. I'd wonder where you dont agree.
        AnimalMuppet 5y ago
        I agree that government is social ownership. But it's mainly about the bulk of things. Does the government own 1% of the factories? Probably not really socialism. Does it own 30%? 70%? 99%? So, to your examples, the government giving out a loan might be considered socialism for that one loan. But what percentage of the banks does the government own? Or, what percentage of the loans does the government originate? Not a very high percentage. (And, when the government takes over a failing bank, they usually do it not to own the bank, but to get it off their hands as soon as they can.) So I don't see lending as being socialism, even if the government does a few loans here and there. Medicine... there's Medicare and Medicaid. That's not really socialized medicine. How many doctors' offices does the government own? How many hospitals? What's really socialized is a big section of medical insurance. Another thing that's largely (but not totally) socialized is higher education. Also airports, but not airlines. So as you look around at, say, the US, it's not really characterized by socialism. It is, to some degree in some sectors, but the whole economy is not characterized by the government owning the means of production. [Edit: This means that economies are not binary: socialist/not socialist. They are often a mix of some socialism (government ownership) and some not. We call an economy socialist when the government fraction of production (not purchasing) becomes significant, though there is no bright line (above X% it's definitely socialist).]
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]

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?
    - rspoerri 5y ago
      Thank you AnimalMuppet for your point of view. I do agree that "Socialism is social ownership of the means of production" is one aspect of socialism. But its only one of many aspects that fall under socialism. Socialism has been reduced to that aspect in the recent years, but that doesnt invalidate the other aspects. (see my above post with the 4 aspects of socialism) Id argue govermental healthcare does produce something and it's govermentally owned. So especially that should, even under the "Socialism ... means of producton", be socialistic. A loan is usually a product that banks provide. Afaik usually the goverment does not give loans. So id assume even that qualifies as "Socialism ... means of producton". You could argue that the goverment is not "social ownership". But in my opinion that is exactly the base of what a democracy constitutes. I'd wonder where you dont agree.
      - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
        I agree that government is social ownership. But it's mainly about the bulk of things. Does the government own 1% of the factories? Probably not really socialism. Does it own 30%? 70%? 99%? So, to your examples, the government giving out a loan might be considered socialism for that one loan. But what percentage of the banks does the government own? Or, what percentage of the loans does the government originate? Not a very high percentage. (And, when the government takes over a failing bank, they usually do it not to own the bank, but to get it off their hands as soon as they can.) So I don't see lending as being socialism, even if the government does a few loans here and there. Medicine... there's Medicare and Medicaid. That's not really socialized medicine. How many doctors' offices does the government own? How many hospitals? What's really socialized is a big section of medical insurance. Another thing that's largely (but not totally) socialized is higher education. Also airports, but not airlines. So as you look around at, say, the US, it's not really characterized by socialism. It is, to some degree in some sectors, but the whole economy is not characterized by the government owning the means of production. [Edit: This means that economies are not binary: socialist/not socialist. They are often a mix of some socialism (government ownership) and some not. We call an economy socialist when the government fraction of production (not purchasing) becomes significant, though there is no bright line (above X% it's definitely socialist).]
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]