
Wall Street loves socialism for bankers – but not for ordinary people - drugme
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/08/wall-street-socialism-jpmorgan-jamie-dimon-bailout
======
joncp
Everyone wants socialist benefits for themselves and free-market benefits for
everyone else.

~~~
TorbjornLunde
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…)

~~~
tuesdayrain
> 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.

~~~
TorbjornLunde
> 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.

------
papermill
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.

~~~
maceurt
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.

