Wall Street loves socialism for bankers – but not for ordinary people(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
Wall Street loves socialism for bankers – but not for ordinary people
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/08/wall-street-socialism-jpmorgan-jamie-dimon-bailout
11 comments
Everyone wants socialist benefits for themselves and free-market benefits for everyone else.
> Everyone wants socialist benefits for themselves and free-market benefits for everyone else.
I don't. I'm fine being self-employed and handling all my own stuff, but I do want the poor of the world to get more of the opportunities that I enjoy.
I don't. I'm fine being self-employed and handling all my own stuff, but I do want the poor of the world to get more of the opportunities that I enjoy.
I just want democratic control of the workplace and a severe reign in, if not elimination of private ownership of businesses and the tools and space used in the operation of those businesses. Putting unions in charge would be one way, but our model of how unions work and the legal frameworks around them would need some improvements.
We all have excuses why we should get those benefits.
Sadly people often afford others none of those excuses.
Sadly people often afford others none of those excuses.
While I see the humor, I want universal public health care, which means I do want socialist benefits for everyone.
Socialism means that the workplace are owned and controlled by the workers. You can still have a marketplace of such workplaces.
There are forms of socialism that do include a free market (i.e. left-wing market socialism, etc…)
There are forms of socialism that do include a free market (i.e. left-wing market socialism, etc…)
> Socialism means that the workplace are owned and controlled by the workers.
I always thought this was communism, and that socialism roughly means the workplace is owned by the government.
I always thought this was communism, and that socialism roughly means the workplace is owned by the government.
> I always thought this was communism
Communism can be slightly confusing to talk about as it describes both a specific kind of society, ideology/ideologies and a kind of state. It's certainly one kind of socialism.
Communism as society (sometimes called ”full communism”: A) Is class-less This means that there are no groups of people who hold own/power of ”means of production” (workplaces) at the expenses of those who don't. B) State-less: a society that is not organised through a state at all. (This is why the term ”communist state” is funny.) C) Resource philosophy organised along: contribute based on ability, get based on need. D) It doesn't really claim to solve any other problems. This would not be a perfect society, only one without class conflict and state violence.
Communist ideologies are ideologies whose goal it is to attain communism as society. Examples of this are Leninism (what is often meant by ”communism” in the west), various forms of Marxism, Anarchocommunism/Libertarian Communism.
Leninist and other Marxists want to attain communism through a specific kind of state, but this state is a means to an end and the state itself is meant to vanish in the transition to ”full communism”.
Libcom/Ancoms argue that you should just skip the whole state part (and that it would ruin it anyway) and just try to build a communist society (stateless, remember) directly.
(Some philosophies fall between these philosophies.)
Of course, nobody has managed to achieve a communist society (and AFAIK few if any have claimed to do so). If this is possible or not I leave to you consider.
> and that socialism roughly means the workplace is owned by the government.
State socialists (i.e. Leninists, many Marxists, many radical democratic socialists) argue that workers can own their workplaces through a state in which they hold power.
Non-state socialists (i.e. anarchists, libertarian socialists, etc, ) argue that the worker control and ownership much be more direct and that society should be organised in a decentralised fashion.
There are some that fall between these dichotomies.
-----
I'm not a political science academic by any stretch, so sorry if I got some details wrong here.
---
EDIT: One difference between communism and other forms of socialism is that the communists generally more negative to markets than others. This is most clear in anarchist circles where you'll find libertarian communists argue with left-wing market socialists and such.
Communism can be slightly confusing to talk about as it describes both a specific kind of society, ideology/ideologies and a kind of state. It's certainly one kind of socialism.
Communism as society (sometimes called ”full communism”: A) Is class-less This means that there are no groups of people who hold own/power of ”means of production” (workplaces) at the expenses of those who don't. B) State-less: a society that is not organised through a state at all. (This is why the term ”communist state” is funny.) C) Resource philosophy organised along: contribute based on ability, get based on need. D) It doesn't really claim to solve any other problems. This would not be a perfect society, only one without class conflict and state violence.
Communist ideologies are ideologies whose goal it is to attain communism as society. Examples of this are Leninism (what is often meant by ”communism” in the west), various forms of Marxism, Anarchocommunism/Libertarian Communism.
Leninist and other Marxists want to attain communism through a specific kind of state, but this state is a means to an end and the state itself is meant to vanish in the transition to ”full communism”.
Libcom/Ancoms argue that you should just skip the whole state part (and that it would ruin it anyway) and just try to build a communist society (stateless, remember) directly.
(Some philosophies fall between these philosophies.)
Of course, nobody has managed to achieve a communist society (and AFAIK few if any have claimed to do so). If this is possible or not I leave to you consider.
> and that socialism roughly means the workplace is owned by the government.
State socialists (i.e. Leninists, many Marxists, many radical democratic socialists) argue that workers can own their workplaces through a state in which they hold power.
Non-state socialists (i.e. anarchists, libertarian socialists, etc, ) argue that the worker control and ownership much be more direct and that society should be organised in a decentralised fashion.
There are some that fall between these dichotomies.
-----
I'm not a political science academic by any stretch, so sorry if I got some details wrong here.
---
EDIT: One difference between communism and other forms of socialism is that the communists generally more negative to markets than others. This is most clear in anarchist circles where you'll find libertarian communists argue with left-wing market socialists and such.
Just like congress likes pensions, government healthcare and yearly raises ( voted on by congress conveniently enough ) for themselves but not for ordinary folks.
It's strange how the elites want the best for themselves but not for the masses.
Money for me, none for thee. Rules for thee, none for me. It's good to be king.
It's strange how the elites want the best for themselves but not for the masses.
Money for me, none for thee. Rules for thee, none for me. It's good to be king.
To get to the top you have to in some way be competitive. Many of these people are hyper competitive, and while it is great in many ways, it sucks because it makes a person always want more. They don't want poor people to be poor, they just want to have more money than their other peers.
Actually they have it rigged so that they get a raise every year, unless they vote not to.
Though I'm not sure how you imagine congress could give anyone else a raise, or a pension aside from government employees.
Though I'm not sure how you imagine congress could give anyone else a raise, or a pension aside from government employees.