you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (43 children)

Socialism is government ownership of buisness. All forms of government have taxes and government institutions.

If what you listed were socialism then the socialists should STFU because they already have it, right?

[–]IamCleaver[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (42 children)

"Socialism is government ownership of business." That is a narrow deffiniton. That isn't what I mean when I say "socialism". The businesses can be owned by anyone (unless it is a strategically important business, in which case the government should indeed have the majority of the shares), but the government should make sure that they are producing as much taxes as possible and that those taxes are benefiting the whole society and providing help for the needy.

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (41 children)

but the government should make sure that they are producing as much taxes as possible

So basically take all the money and redistribute it. 🙄🤭 How is that NOT the government owning the buisness?

[–]IamCleaver[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (40 children)

Because it isn't taking ALL the profit. Just as much as it can get away with while still making the business a valuable asset for its owner. Let me clarify if: I was probably a bit too harsh. A business can provide benefit for a society in multiple ways. Taxes is the most obvious one but others include providing jobs, providing necessary services that a government is unable to effectively provide, etc. The point is: business should exist for the benefit of the society, not the other way round. If the business is not socially valuable in any other way, then at least it should be milked for taxes. Just because somebody is making a profit doesn't mean the business is socially valuable.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (39 children)

It is so vague and subjective that all your claims are lies. You have no grounds to claim "its not all profit". There are no limits set in your system, and everyone knows that if the government has the power to take everything then they will take everything.

All businesses provide a benefit or they go out of buisness. But what leftists want is to have control over buisness on the pretext that they are serving the community when they are just being tyrants. Just like all the social media giants censor ideas they don't like on claims of hate speech, and community guidelines violations.

[–]IamCleaver[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (38 children)

"here are no limits set in your system" There is: if you take too much the business will go bankrupt. That benefits nobody.

"everyone knows that if the government has the power to take everything then they will take everything" I don't "know" that. That is just libertarian bullshit.

"All businesses provide a benefit or they go out of buisness." If by benefit you mean somebody wants them then yes. This is not how I define "benefit". A drug dealer is a beneficial business by your definition. I say that the community has the right to decide whether a particular business is beneficial and therefor has the right to exist. If it benefits a minority at the expense of the majority then it should cease existing.

Of cause we should control business. Without tight government control, private enterprise is just a merciless money-making machine that stops at nothing to increase its profit. May I remind you that social media giants are businesses and require VERY tight government control.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (37 children)

if you take too much the business will go bankrupt.

That is not a limit so much as the inevitable conclusion. A limit would be something like a constitution protecting the rights of buisness owners and limiting the amount the government can take.

[–]IamCleaver[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (36 children)

Of cause you need that. Nobody says that the government should be able to come and take your property... just tax you out of existence if it deems so necessary.

As long as business has no say in politics, pays its taxes and adheres to government policies it should be left to its own devices.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (35 children)

Property and buisness rights are inherently in conflict with socialist and communist principles. At that point the conversation isn't about what form our economy should take, but how much welfare should the state be providing.

And if that is the conversation you are trying to have then don't start a conversation about socialism, because it isn't relevant.

The only apparent difference in what we have and what you want is the amout of welfare and wealth redistribution.

[–]IamCleaver[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (34 children)

"The only apparent difference in what we have and what you want is the amount of welfare and wealth redistribution." Of cause. Welfare is key. How the wealth is created is irrelevant. Free healthcare, free (yet meritocratic) education, accessible housing, high quality (preferably free) public transport. What is the point in supporting the state if it doesn't support you back as best it can?

I am not sure what you were trying to say in your first paragraph. Are you saying that what I want isn't socialism but some form of capitalism? In which case, I really don't care how someone calls it - I care about the substance. What would you call it?