Did anyone watch Jon Stewart on Chris Wallace?

[dreVol]

What about the US postal service? - people can choose to send their mail through Fedex, UPS, ect.

The USPS has a federally protected monopoly. FedEx and UPS can't deliver non-urgent mail and can't deliver mail to personal mailboxes.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[n_huffhines]

A cooperative. A collectively owned entity that is run for the benefit of its members, like a credit union.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Huh? I'm pretty sure I have no ownership with my insurance provider.

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Socialism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

 

[dreVol]

Huh? I'm pretty sure I have no ownership with my insurance provider.

I don't believe that's what I said. I was pointing out that there are many forms of socialism and not all of them require the public/private dichotomy.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[volinbham]

I still question the credit union analogy - yes there are member owners but the assets of the individuals are still individually owned. Deposits are not owend by the collective/they are individually owned. It's not as if everyone through their money into a big pot and gets some predetermined share. The big feature of member/ownership is the not-for-profit feature where org earnings are redistributed to member/owners. The same would be true of a traditional bank if the stockholders were also patrons of the bank.

On farmer coops the same logic applies. If the coop is basically a group buying function/coordinating function where each farmer maintains ownership of his individual farm then it is not socialism since the property and capital is not owned by the collective - it is owned by individuals in the collective.

 

[n_huffhines]

I don't believe that's what I said. I was pointing out that there are many forms of socialism and not all of them require the public/private dichotomy.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

I guess I just misunderstood you then.

But if it's private, it's not socialism. You already used the right word for it when it's private. It's called a co-op. Any member of a co-op can choose to not participate and leave at any time. Socialism is government force.

 

[volinbham]

I guess I just misunderstood you then.

But if it's private, it's not socialism. You already used the right word for it when it's private. It's called a co-op. Any member of a co-op can choose to not participate and leave at any time. Socialism is government force.

I would say the hallmark is not necessarily government involvement but public ownership of the assets (with public meaning members).

If I join a commune and give all my productive assets to the collective for use then we have socialism. If I belong to a co-op either via fees, dues, sweat equity etc. but maintain ownership of the assets that I allow the collective to use then it's still private ownership and not socialism.

 

[dreVol]

I still question the credit union analogy - yes there are member owners but the assets of the individuals are still individually owned. Deposits are not owend by the collective/they are individually owned. It's not as if everyone through their money into a big pot and gets some predetermined share. The big feature of member/ownership is the not-for-profit feature where org earnings are redistributed to member/owners. The same would be true of a traditional bank if the stockholders were also patrons of the bank.

On farmer coops the same logic applies. If the coop is basically a group buying function/coordinating function where each farmer maintains ownership of his individual farm then it is not socialism since the property and capital is not owned by the collective - it is owned by individuals in the collective.

I see what you're saying. The underlying principle is collective ownership of the entity (here the credit union or farming resources) for the mutual benefit of the individuals.

Edit: Pooling resources is probably more accurate than collective ownership in these contexts.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[dreVol]

There are degrees of socialism just like there are degrees of libertarianism.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[volinbham]

I see what you're saying. The underlying principle is collective ownership of the entity (here the credit union or farming resources) for the mutual benefit of the individuals.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

What is collectively owned in a credit union? The vast majority of capital/assets (real means of production) are individually not collectively owned.

Same is true in farming - if I deed my land to the collective then we have collective ownership. If I coordinate with a group of farmers to rotate crops and we share the proceeds then it's not really socialism provided I still own my land individually.

Couldn't tell if you were agreeing or disagreeing.

If it's simply a bunch of individuals with aggregated ownership then corporations are socialist since they are owned by shareholders.

 

[dreVol]

What is collectively owned in a credit union? The vast majority of capital/assets (real means of production) are individually not collectively owned.

Same is true in farming - if I deed my land to the collective then we have collective ownership. If I coordinate with a group of farmers to rotate crops and we share the proceeds then it's not really socialism provided I still own my land individually.

Couldn't tell if you were agreeing or disagreeing.

If it's simply a bunch of individuals with aggregated ownership then corporations are socialist since they are owned by shareholders.

See my edit. Pooling resources, not transferring ownership which I've been saying incorrectly, for the benefit of a co-op's members is still socialism.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[volinbham]

See my edit. Pooling resources, not transferring ownership which I've been saying incorrectly, for the benefit of a co-op's members is still socialism.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

So is a joint venture between two companies socialism?

 

[n_huffhines]

So is a joint venture between two companies socialism?

Clearly.

 

[volinbham]

Any two people that form a company then would an example of socialism since they are pooling their resources.

 

[n_huffhines]

Any two people that form a company then would an example of socialism since they are pooling their resources.

Marriage is socialism.

 

[dreVol]

In theory the pooling of their resources to achieve the common good is socialism. Co-ops and corporations are similar in principle. As a general point of difference, corporations operate with profit as the motivating factor whereas co-ops operate with the common good as the motivating factor and profit behind that.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[volinbham]

In theory the pooling of their resources to achieve the common good is socialism. Co-ops and corporations are similar in principle. As a general point of difference, corporations operate with profit as the motivating factor whereas co-ops operate with the common good as the motivating factor and profit behind that.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

That's the distinction? The motivation? I ain't buying it.

How are you defining common good? I presume what serves the collective right? So in a credit union I get banking services and dividends. Now how about a corporation. The collective is the group of shareholders and the corporation exists for the common good of the shareholders.

Let's take the pooled farm resources - what is the common good the farmers are attempting to achieve if not to make money/resources for themselves?

I think you were right with "ownership" being the key word - is it private property (individuals in the group maintain ownership of their contribution) or publice (the property/capital is owned by the collective group). The latter is socialism.

Otherwise, any form of cooperation with outcomes being distributed in some way to the cooperators is socialism.

 

[n_huffhines]

In theory the pooling of their resources to achieve the common good is socialism. Co-ops and corporations are similar in principle. As a general point of difference, corporations operate with profit as the motivating factor whereas co-ops operate with the common good as the motivating factor and profit behind that.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

I don't believe that for a second. Maybe profit isn't the top motivating factor (perhaps stability), but there is no way in hell that it's the common good. Nobody joins a co-op just to help others. They do it cause they need it.

 

[volinbham]

I don't believe that for a second. Maybe profit isn't the top motivating factor (perhaps stability), but there is no way in hell that it's the common good. Nobody joins a co-op just to help others. They do it cause they need it.

Yes the definition of common good is pretty fluid.

Besides not-for-profit doesn't mean no profit. Credit unions are not-for-profit but they make profits - those profits are reinvested or distributed to owners via dividends. Likewise, for-profit doesn't mean profit. Lot's of companies (and shareholders) find this out the hard way.

 

[dreVol]

Yes the definition of common good is pretty fluid.

Besides not-for-profit doesn't mean no profit. Credit unions are not-for-profit but they make profits - those profits are reinvested or distributed to owners via dividends. Likewise, for-profit doesn't mean profit. Lot's of companies (and shareholders) find this out the hard way.

Correct. Common good is a fluid concept. If farmers pool their money to buy a tractor for the co-op's use, they've transferred ownership for the purpose of benefitting the collective. The co-op owns the tractor. Now all the farmers get to use the tractor and make their farming practices more efficient. Co-ops also work through economies of scale. When a group of farmers buy resources in bulk, the prices are much lower than if the individual farmers bought the same resources at market price.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[volinbham]

Correct. Common good is a fluid concept. If farmers pool their money to buy a tractor for the co-op's use, they've transferred ownership for the purpose of benefitting the collective. The co-op owns the tractor. Now all the farmers get to use the tractor and make their farming practices more efficient. Co-ops also work through economies of scale. When a group of farmers buy resources in bulk, the prices are much lower than if the individual farmers bought the same resources at market price.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

The tractor is collective owned - that qualifies a bit depending on how the rest of the operation is run.

Buying groups don't unless all the farmers throw their money into one big pot that does the purchasing and the collective buys the product and distributes. If like in many buying clubs/co-ops the individuals buy separately but get discounts because combined individual purchases are large then it does not.

Even in the tractor situation if the only jointly owned asset is a tractor I'd be hard pressed to say the farmers are practicing socialism assuming they own their own land, buy their own seed and own the goods they sell.

Surrendering individual ownership of capital and assets to collective ownership is the key distinguishing factor.

That does not occur in credit unions, many buying co-ops, and various other co-ops.

 

[dreVol]

The tractor is collective owned - that qualifies a bit depending on how the rest of the operation is run.

Buying groups don't unless all the farmers throw their money into one big pot that does the purchasing and the collective buys the product and distributes. If like in many buying clubs/co-ops the individuals buy separately but get discounts because combined individual purchases are large then it does not.

Even in the tractor situation if the only jointly owned asset is a tractor I'd be hard pressed to say the farmers are practicing socialism assuming they own their own land, buy their own seed and own the goods they sell.

Surrendering individual ownership of capital and assets to collective ownership is the key distinguishing factor.

That does not occur in credit unions, many buying co-ops, and various other co-ops.

The credit union, as an institution, is collectively owned by its member/owners. Similarly, the co-op's resources being used for the co-op's benefit, be it shared land or collectively bought instruments, are collectively owned by its members.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[lawgator1]

So is a joint venture between two companies socialism?

You are leaving out the government component.

The argument as to entitlements, or Medicare, or Medicaid, farm subsidies, or the military, or public roads is that the government collects tax dollars and redistributes them for the greater good. The pooling of resources is compelled, as is their redistribution.

An agreement in private enterprise is done for the mutual benefit of the two companies, voluntarily.

So the answer to your questions is no.

On the flip side, to further illustrate the point, the aspects of the Obama health care plan that Bachmann says are socialist are identical in all relevant respects to farm subsidies, to wit, collection of mandatory revenues, involuntarily, and then redistribution of those revenues to further society-wide goals.

In fact, a compelling argument can be made that farm subsidies are, by definition, far more socialist than the health care plan because there are multiple options available to you on how to pay in for your share of the revenue whereas in the case of farm subsidies it taken from general revenue and no one has a choice on how to participate on that end of the equation.

 

[n_huffhines]

Correct. Common good is a fluid concept. If farmers pool their money to buy a tractor for the co-op's use, they've transferred ownership for the purpose of benefitting the collective. The co-op owns the tractor. Now all the farmers get to use the tractor and make their farming practices more efficient. Co-ops also work through economies of scale. When a group of farmers buy resources in bulk, the prices are much lower than if the individual farmers bought the same resources at market price.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

But ultimately the motive is profit. Without pooling their resources they have no tractor access. You can call it the common good, but they cooperate because each individual entity wants partial use of the tractor to maximize productivity.

 

[milohimself]

I would suggest you read up on agrarian socialism (spoiler alert: that's a cooperative). For a more interesting perspective on socialism and cooperatives, please read Socialism 101 | It's About The Money
Posted via VolNation Mobile

What you are saying would probably be true except for one critical factor. Individuals have neither the right to opt out or choose another option. Gov't in this case owns the "means of producing" payment for all medical services. As such, they also dictate the terms of service to both the patient and the provider.

There is no "means of production" for payment. When people talk socialized medicine, they are talking about a system in which the doctor's actual take home check comes from the province or state in which they live. If you are a physician and move to Canada, you are allowed to practice whatever you want and set up shop wherever you like. The practice you set up is entirely owned by you and the government cannot give you specific directives as to what to do with it. You see and treat people who see you of their own free will, and if there's a doctor across town who is better at the same thing, they will probably go to him instead. Just because you receive a pre-determined fee for your service is not enough to make the system you work within categorically socialist.

Again, this is not me talking, this is the working definition from the health care administration class I took just last term and the PhD Econ/MPH KP exec that spoke to my class directly about this issue.

I still question the credit union analogy - yes there are member owners but the assets of the individuals are still individually owned. Deposits are not owend by the collective/they are individually owned. It's not as if everyone through their money into a big pot and gets some predetermined share. The big feature of member/ownership is the not-for-profit feature where org earnings are redistributed to member/owners. The same would be true of a traditional bank if the stockholders were also patrons of the bank.

On farmer coops the same logic applies. If the coop is basically a group buying function/coordinating function where each farmer maintains ownership of his individual farm then it is not socialism since the property and capital is not owned by the collective - it is owned by individuals in the collective.

This is a key concept of socialism (at least in the Marxian sense) that people have a tough time wrapping their brains around -- the abolition of private property

There are degrees of socialism just like there are degrees of libertarianism.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Not really. In any given industry, if the means of production for a good or service are owned by the government, then the production of that particular good or service is socialist. Merely paying for that good or service with public money is a lot of things, but socialism isn't one of them.

Marriage is socialism.

Tell me about it. My chicks already putting pressure on me to pop the question. Yeeesh. :crazy:

 

[milohimself]

But ultimately the motive is profit. Without pooling their resources they have no tractor access. You can call it the common good, but they cooperate because each individual entity wants partial use of the tractor to maximize productivity.

Depends entirely on the purpose of the co-op.