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

[Razgovory]

I suppose 19th century American business was socialist as well.  We never had a capitalist economy.  Business got free stuff from the government (like railways getting land), and often could coerce people with their own police.

[derspiess]

I suppose 19th century American business was socialist as well.  We never had a capitalist economy.  Business got free stuff from the government (like railways getting land), and often could coerce people with their own police.

[Razgovory]

Never heard of the Coal and Iron Police?  Hell Union Pacific has a police force.  My mom got a ticket from them once.  Judge threw it out because he had never heard of a Union Pacific police before.

[Barrister]

Never heard of the Coal and Iron Police?  Hell Union Pacific has a police force.  My mom got a ticket from them once.  Judge threw it out because he had never heard of a Union Pacific police before.

We still have the CP Police (Canadian Pacific Railway) and CN Police.  Very odd outfits, since they're the only legally recognized private police force that I know of in this country.  That is to say they're not mere security guards - they have full peace officer status.

[crazy canuck]

Never heard of the Coal and Iron Police?  Hell Union Pacific has a police force.  My mom got a ticket from them once.  Judge threw it out because he had never heard of a Union Pacific police before.

We still have the CP Police (Canadian Pacific Railway) and CN Police.  Very odd outfits, since they're the only legally recognized private police force that I know of in this country.  That is to say they're not mere security guards - they have full peace officer status.

Dont forget about the Port Police - you inlander.

[Jacob]

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.

I don't see how that is relevant to what I'm talking about.

If the the residents of a housing organization all have equal power in determining the governance of their group, by virtue of being residents, then I'd consider the organization to be organized along socialist lines. Whether they deal with a bank or not isn't really relevant. If some NPO (or a credit union) runs social housing and the NPO determines how the housing is managed that's nice and charitable, then that housing project is not run along socialist lines.

Similarly, if all the workers of a farm benefit equally from the production of the farm and have an equal say in how it's run, then it's organized along socialist lines in my view; this is true even if the farm collective engages in non-socialist activities.

That's my view, anyhow. I get that you don't agree with it and that's cool, but the example you gave above is sort of orthogonal to my point: the members own the credit union, everyone has one vote, capital is not priviliged in the decision making -> socialist principles.

[crazy canuck]

If the the residents of a housing organization all have equal power in determining the governance of their group, by virtue of being residents, then I'd consider the organization to be organized along socialist lines. Whether they deal with a bank or not isn't really relevant. If some NPO (or a credit union) runs social housing and the NPO determines how the housing is managed that's nice and charitable, then that housing project is not run along socialist lines.

Similarly, if all the workers of a farm benefit equally from the production of the farm and have an equal say in how it's run, then it's organized along socialist lines in my view; this is true even if the farm collective engages in non-socialist activities.

That's my view, anyhow. I get that you don't agree with it and that's cool, but the example you gave above is sort of orthogonal to my point: the members own the credit union, everyone has one vote, capital is not priviliged in the decision making -> socialist principles.

Well first you differentiated groups that are set up to benefit others as not being socialist.  I pointed out that Credit Unions fall neatly into that category and told you why.  Now you seem to be making the argument that Credit Unions only benefit their members.  But they dont - for the reasons I already gave.  If Credit Unions were to only benefit their members then they would pool their money and only lend to members or at the very least maximize their profits from lending to outsiders so as to benefit their members.  Credit Unions do neither of these.

[Jacob]

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

And that's the crux of our different perceptions, I think. For you socialism apparently must be instituted on a state level (and must be coercive?). For me, the principles of socialism can be applied on a smaller scale than state level (and does not need to be coercive).

On the substance of the matter we actually agree; it can be a very useful form of organization on a smaller scale (i.e. credit unions). You don't consider it socialism, I do. Oh well, it's not the first time semantics have triggered differences like this

Anyhow, it's not just the kibbutzim that were the exception - Europe (and even North America - though there they're better known as "hippy communes" - not that all "hippy communies" were/ are organized along socialist lines, but some of them are) was rife with those sort of groups though the kibbutzim were some of the most successful ones.

[Jacob]

Well first you differentiated groups that are set up to benefit others as not being socialist.  I pointed out that Credit Unions fall neatly into that category and told you why.  Now you seem to be making the argument that Credit Unions only benefit their members.  But they dont - for the reasons I already gave.  If Credit Unions were to only benefit their members then they would pool their money and only lend to members or at the very least maximize their profits from lending to outsiders so as to benefit their members.  Credit Unions do neither of these.

Are you saying that if a socialist organization participates in a capitalist economy in any way, or if it engages in charity, it is no longer socialist? Then of course it's impossible for an organization to be socialist except in a pure socialist society. But I don't think that's the case.

If the means of production - say a herd of cows - are controlled jointly by a community of milk drinkers and cow-herds that's organized along socialist lines, and it doesn't become less socialist because they sell some of the excess milk to a neighbouring town or because they lend some of the cows to a race-cows-for-charity event.

If the profit from selling the excess milk is distributed according to capital investment, and if the primary shareholders are neither cow-herds nor drinkers of the milk in question then that's not organized along socialist lines, but rather capitalist lines. This is true whether or not the milk company is engaged in charity events or not.

I don't know, I think that distinction is pretty clear, and I think credit unions are much closer to the first than the second. Hence "organized along socialist lines".

[Admiral Yi]

The important distinction to me Yakie is that the majority of credit union members can't coerce any behavior from a minority.   If a member doesn't like the way loans are being made or profits distributed they can yank their money and take it to a competitor.

[Razgovory]

So?

[Admiral Yi]

State socialism does rely on coercion. 

[Martinus]

State socialism does rely on coercion.

Yes and no. Anything done at the state level relies on coercion. The same is true for a typical capitalist state - you are coerced by a number of laws and restrictions (e.g. you are punished for taking something the state considers someone else's property).

But you are free to leave the state and move elsewhere whether it is a socialist or a capitalist one.

[The Brain]

But you are free to leave the state and move elsewhere whether it is a socialist or a capitalist one.

[citizen k]

But you are free to leave the state and move elsewhere whether it is a socialist or a capitalist one.

Cuba has a rubber raft ferry service to the Florida Keys.