Bank of America To Charge $5 Monthly Fee For Debit Card Usage

[Razgovory]

One more time:  if it's done without government ownership or coercion, it ain't socialist.  I know the cooperative aspects of credit unions appeal to your socialist sensibilities, but don't get carried away.

Don't be absurd.  This definition would leave out the Kibbutz, which were explicitly socialist (and stated that's what they were).

[crazy canuck]

This is why I think you are overplaying it.  Most of the major decisions are made by the board.  Just like a bank.  This isnt a collective in the way you have described it.  Although it might make members want to be members if it is marketed that way...

In most socialist organizations in my experience, decisions are also made by a group of elected decision makers be they delegates, board members, special committees or whatever.

Do you really consider it a defining feature of socialism that all decisions are made by member/population wide votes?

What I am questioning is your characterization that a credit union a "socialist" organization.  By your wide definition a corporation is a socialist organation because decisions are made by an elected group of decision makers (The Board of Directors) and implemented through special committees or delegates of the Board - the executive team and their delegates.

You said that you thought that membership was created differently because shares had to be purchased.  But so do memberships in Credit Unions.  You raise the spectre of concentration of ownership in corporations but generally widely held corporations - the ones you love to hate - are more widely held then credit unions.

I am beginning to wonder what it is that you think Socialism is.  It is a model of government in which there is no private enterprise and all modes of production are controlled by the State.

In the post communist world people like to soft pedal what socialism is.  I aint buying.

[Jacob]

One more time:  if it's done without government ownership or coercion, it ain't socialist.  I know the cooperative aspects of credit unions appeal to your socialist sensibilities, but don't get carried away.

You keep repeating it. It doesn't make it any more correct.

It does rather highlight some of the communication difficulties around the subject. When you (and I suppose many Americans) hear the word "socialism" you think "state coercion". When I (and I think many West Europeans) hear it we think "collective organization for the good of the group with profit being at best a secondary concern."

[crazy canuck]

One more time:  if it's done without government ownership or coercion, it ain't socialist.  I know the cooperative aspects of credit unions appeal to your socialist sensibilities, but don't get carried away.

Don't be absurd.  This definition would leave out the Kibbutz, which were explicitly socialist (and stated that's what they were).

I am wondering where the Kibbutz first got the land on which it was based.  I seem to recall that some were founded by wealthy donors but I think that some where also created by grants from the government.  To the extent a Kibbutz was the creation of the State i am not sure he is incorrect.

[Razgovory]

They predate the state of Israel.  In the US, businesses get land grants.  That doesn't make them socialist.

[The Brain]

One more time:  if it's done without government ownership or coercion, it ain't socialist.  I know the cooperative aspects of credit unions appeal to your socialist sensibilities, but don't get carried away.

You keep repeating it. It doesn't make it any more correct.

It does rather highlight some of the communication difficulties around the subject. When you (and I suppose many Americans) hear the word "socialism" you think "state coercion". When I (and I think many West Europeans) hear it we think "collective organization for the good of the group with profit being at best a secondary concern."

wut

[crazy canuck]

They predate the state of Israel.  In the US, businesses get land grants.  That doesn't make them socialist.

I seem to remember that Israel not only granted land but had something to do with the establishment of some  -  but you are probably correct.

[Jacob]

What I am questioning is your characterization that a credit union a "socialist" organization.

It's a co-operative organization, and the notion of co-operatives are central to socialism. Witness how totalitarian socialist societies implemented co-operatives to replace private ownership and witness how individual socialists of non-totalitarian bent continually organize themselves into collectives and co-operatives.

In collectives and co-operatives the means of production are controlled by the workers/ residents/ users. That's one of the core tenets of socialism (more so than state control, witness the various schisms between different factions of socialists).

By your wide definition a corporation is a socialist organation because decisions are made by an elected group of decision makers (The Board of Directors) and implemented through special committees or delegates of the Board - the executive team and their delegates.

My definition does revolve around elected decision makers, but around the goals of the organization (serve the workers/ residents/ users vs generate profit for shareholders) and the distribution of power delegating power (one worker/ resident/ user has one vote vs the number of votes being determined by the amount of voting shares held, i.e being determined by capital).

So no, a corporation is not a socialist organization by my definition.

You said that you thought that membership was created differently because shares had to be purchased.  But so do memberships in Credit Unions.

But you can only ever purchase one voting share. One member = one vote.

You raise the spectre of concentration of ownership in corporations but generally widely held corporations - the ones you love to hate - are more widely held then credit unions.

I'm raising no spectres and I certainly don't hate corporations. You're mistaking me for someone else. I'm merely pointing out that credit unions and other co-operative organizations are quintessentially socialist in their organizing principles. This makes it amusing when die-hard anti-socialists laud them.

I am beginning to wonder what it is that you think Socialism is.  It is a model of government in which there is no private enterprise and all modes of production are controlled by the State.

I'm glad you're wondering; I'll endeavour to explain.

There's more than one strain of socialism. Social Democrats aren't not-socialists because they don't believe in total state control of all modes of production.

Like I've stated previously, I think the core of the socialist organizing principle is egalitarian control of the means of production by the workers and users (as opposed to control by capital).

Now, if you're a totalitarian socialist you believe that the socialist organizing principle should be applied across society completely (and you run into the problems that comes with delegating total power); if you're a revolutionary, you think that socialist organization should be implemented through revolutionary change. But it's entirely possible to believe that worker/ user control is a good thing without requiring either revolution nor totalitarianism, and that's still socialism; maybe it isn't in your text book, but it is by the lived experience of millions.

If we start a farm (lets call it... say... a kibbutz) and everyone on it has an equal vote in how the place is run and how the resources are employed (though they may delegate decision making power) and have an equal share in the fruits of production, that is a socialist organization even if we refrain from trying to influence how the state at large is run. Similarly, if we found a housing co-operative where every resident has a say in how the place is run and how resources are managed, that is socialist. And if we found a credit union where every member can have only one share and profits are redistributed to members and workers then that is socialist. Even if we're not trying to bring about totalitarian socialism in the state through means of revolution.

In the post communist world people like to soft pedal what socialism is.  I aint buying.

Even in the pre-post-Communist world there were socialists who disagreed with totalitarian socialism (i.e. Communism).

There's a long history of workers co-operatives, communes and collectives that considered themselves socialist, that were (and is) considered socialists by the society around them; there is a long history of socialist organizers who focused on creating these sorts of organizations. There are strains of socialism that's all about organizing like this because they believe that's how to transform society into the kind of state controlled Socialism you describe (because everyone will be convinced by the example, natch).

I can see why you dismiss it as "not-socialism", since unlike revolutionary totalitarian socialism it actually kind of makes sense. But it doesn't actually make it not-socialist.

But you know what, I don't really care whether you agree that collectives, co-operatives and unions (credit or otherwise) are socialist. If you think they're rational and that they make sense, that's good enough to be honest. There are other useful and rational ways to organize economic activity than to focus purely on capital generating more capital (Capitalism); if we agree on that there is no substantial argument to be had (though we can go on about definitions of socialism at length on Languish because it's entertaining).

[Jacob]

wut

Okay maybe not. Maybe only some socialist Western Europeans.

[Zanza]

It does rather highlight some of the communication difficulties around the subject. When you (and I suppose many Americans) hear the word "socialism" you think "state coercion". When I (and I think many West Europeans) hear it we think "collective organization for the good of the group with profit being at best a secondary concern."

No idea about other countries or languages, but in German, the word "Sozialismus" is exclusively used for the political ideology.

[Jacob]

No idea about other countries or languages, but in German, the word "Sozialismus" is exclusively used for the political ideology.

Yeah, but the political ideology that is Socialism in Germany is not solely about state control of the means of production is it?

[crazy canuck]

Jacob, I think I am just going to have to leave at you have a very different idea about what socialism is than I do.

There are a lot of volunteer non profit organizations in our society most of which would reject the notion they are socialist.

[Jacob]

Jacob, I think I am just going to have to leave at you have a very different idea about what socialism is than I do.

Fair enough.

There are a lot of volunteer non profit organizations in our society most of which would reject the notion they are socialist.

Well, if the volunteer NPOs aren't there for the sake of the members but to serve others, then I don't think they're socialist either (unless there are other reasons to call them that).

[crazy canuck]

Well, if the volunteer NPOs aren't there for the sake of the members but to serve others, then I don't think they're socialist either (unless there are other reasons to call them that).

Then you should rethink your view of Credit Unions - much of their mandate is not to serve their members but the community at large.  For example one of the major credit unions in this city is heavily involved in the financing of social housing.  The people who live in those social housing units are not members (or at least I would be very surprised if they were) and the social housing is run by a number of other non profit organizations.  I know for a fact that at least one of the people on the board of one of those organiziations is not a member of the credit union but deals with a bank.

[derspiess]

One more time:  if it's done without government ownership or coercion, it ain't socialist.  I know the cooperative aspects of credit unions appeal to your socialist sensibilities, but don't get carried away.

Don't be absurd.  This definition would leave out the Kibbutz, which were explicitly socialist (and stated that's what they were).

Kibbutz members can call themselves socialists and it can be a "socialist organization" in the sense that it reflects their beliefs or even operating principles.  But unless you consider a kibbutz itself to be a state or quasi-state (which maybe some were/are, dunno) it's still a private organization as long as it's not government owned or controlled.

If I'm wrong, then the kibbutz would be the exception to the rule