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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.)
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.
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?
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 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).]
Id never assume that usa is socialistic. Neigther is switzerland where the goverment might own 3% of the industry, which is where im from. Id assume only kuba might be considered a socialistic country if you look at these values.
My original point was, that rescuing the banks by the goverment was a socialistic act. Thats where the discussion started and i still need to see an explanation why this is not the case. But i think you might even agree to this.
For all other points i fully agree with you. The goverment does only parts of these functions (healthcare insurance, etc.) . Which doesnt make the country socialistic, but these functions the goverment provides are. (In my point of view)
My key takeaway from this discussion is that in europe socialism is defined broader then in the usa. At least for an average of the people. The part of „govermentally controlled production“ has never really a been part of what i assume to be socialism. I think of it much more in the way as our second largest party the sozialdemokraten do (sp schweiz). But describing that would blow this topic completely.
