Nearly 40% of 2019 farm income will come from federal aid and insurance

[Ana the Ist]

How do you define “product” and “service”?

Good grief....

Are you seriously asking me for the definition of "product" and "service"? If I provide the definitions, will that really help?

I feel like this has gotten way off course for the thread. Socialist theory is not a short topic....it's not even easily explained. It's not even the same as "socialization of an industry". We can dissect the individual parts of the definition...but even that is a long long conversation about what the "means of production" are and whether or not regulations can sufficiently transfer "value" from direct ownership to collective wealth.

Is this really a conversation you want to have? Because I can start a new thread or something.

 

[rambot]

They perform a service....they don't produce a product. That may seem like a meaningless distinction to you...but it's not to those who came up with the phrase "means of production" during the industrial revolution.

The problem with taking every service like "the military" or "law enforcement" or literally anything the government spends tax money on and calling it "socialism" is that socialism then becomes a meaningless term for "government spending"....and its not.

If these things are socialism....then every government in history is socialist and so is every nation....and they always will be.

I am loathe to get too deep into this conversation as you guys all clearly have a thing going but: a couple things.
1)I don't think there is an obligation to limit socialized spending to "means of production" other than for convinience. The industrial revolution occurred at a time when services such as firefighting LITERALLY did not exist.

2) Firetrucks are owned by government. Fire fighting equipment is owned by government. As is the infrastructure that runs the water underground and out to a fire hydrants. That is more than a service.

3) I feel like the phrase "means of production" should/could be substituted for "all forms of wealth generation and preservation"

 

[Ana the Ist]

Only when you answer my questions with questions.

You asked for a definition....I agreed to one.

Then you started playing "is this socialism" because as far as I can tell....you don't understand the definition.

Is that about right?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I am loathe to get too deep into this conversation as you guys all clearly have a thing going but: a couple things.
1)I don't think there is an obligation to limit socialized spending to "means of production" other than for convinience. The industrial revolution occurred at a time when services such as firefighting LITERALLY did not exist.

Yet police, the military, and foreign aid did.

2) Firetrucks are owned by government. Fire fighting equipment is owned by government. As is the infrastructure that runs the water underground and out to a fire hydrants. That is more than a service.

What service do they provide exactly, how can I purchase that service, and can I opt out of it should I decide I don't need it?

3) I feel like the phrase "means of production" should/could be substituted for "all forms of wealth generation and preservation"

Some people make that argument...I wouldn't.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Seems like the theme here is if you can't think of anything the government spends money on that you wouldn't call socialism...you're a liberal. If you just call the things you don't want the government spending money on socialism...you're a conservative.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Good grief....

Are you seriously asking me for the definition of "product" and "service"? If I provide the definitions, will that really help?

I feel like this has gotten way off course for the thread. Socialist theory is not a short topic....it's not even easily explained. It's not even the same as "socialization of an industry". We can dissect the individual parts of the definition...but even that is a long long conversation about what the "means of production" are and whether or not regulations can sufficiently transfer "value" from direct ownership to collective wealth.

Is this really a conversation you want to have? Because I can start a new thread or something.

When you’re trying to define insurance as a product and not a service, yes, I am asking you for the definition of both. I’ll point out that defining the terms would have likely taken less effort than the response you gave.

What service do they provide exactly, how can I purchase that service, and can I opt out of it should I decide I don't need it?
.

Among other things, they spray water on your house when it’s on fire. You can purchase that service from private fire fighting companies and some municipalities allow you to opt out of government-provided coverage.

 

[Ana the Ist]

When you’re trying to define insurance as a product and not a service, yes, I am asking you for the definition of both.

It's a fund that you pay into for a share of....I don't know how it could possibly be described as a service. There's an obligation of value under certain circumstances, but a definite obligation of value that once paid into...can be extracted.

I’ll point out that defining the terms would have likely taken less effort than the response you gave.

Lol that's because you don't understand socialist theory. If I asked you to explain Linux coding to me, could you do it without having to explain a lot of other things related to it?

Among other things, they spray water on your house when it’s on fire.

Well they might....

Realistically, I won't get any value from this service if all my property is destroyed by the fire before it's put out right? What's more is that there are certainly conditions where I won't even be able to get the attempt...

Say I lived 15 blocks from the WTC and my apartment was on fire on 9-11....it's certainly possible, even likely, that no one will show up to even make the attempt to save my property....right? They may not show until long after my property is gone, my neighbors' property is gone, etc....

Given this reality....what exactly do I have collective ownership of?

 

[Ana the Ist]

When you’re trying to define insurance as a product and not a service, yes, I am asking you for the definition of both. I’ll point out that defining the terms would have likely taken less effort than the response you gave.



Among other things, they spray water on your house when it’s on fire. You can purchase that service from private fire fighting companies and some municipalities allow you to opt out of government-provided coverage.

While you're considering the question above and the fact that you're going to try to argue some really abstract idea about "collective ownership" of an "expectation" of "service" which I may not receive and may not be of any "real value" to me....

....try to think of the difference between that and an actual socialist program like social security.

 

[Moral Orel]

Then you started playing "is this socialism" because

Because I knew you couldn't stick to that definition. You didn't stick to the other qualifications you used before. That's why you won't answer my question: because you want to call it a socialist program, but no part of that definition works to do so. So you're doing everything you can to distract from the question so that you don't have to address your inconsistencies. You want to keep shuffling around how you apply the term and hope none of us notice you're playing Three Card Monte. (pssst! We all noticed!)

 

[Ana the Ist]

Because I knew you couldn't stick to that definition.

I can stick to that definition lol. In regards to my earlier statements about the police, military, foreign aid, and yes....even the firefighters....you don't "own" them, you have no guarantee of a real value for any products or services they provide, nor can you necessarily opt out of them lol. That alone puts them well outside the realm of socialism...

See? That wasn't nearly as hard as you made it sound lol.

 

[Ana the Ist]

That's why you won't answer my question: because you want to call it a socialist program, but no part of that definition works to do so.

Also, don't just assume that you know what I'm thinking. Remember my reply when you asked that?

What are you looking for here? You want me to explain all of socialist theory to you as I understand it?

I didn't ask that as a distraction....I asked that because I can't possibly explain the socialization of an entire industry without going into all the political theory and philosophy that resulted from Marx's ideas about socialism.

You said you didn't want that (frankly, I didn't either) so that leaves us with the bare bones definition of socialism.

It's worth pointing out that serious examination of the definition is pretty basic as Marx describes it. When we get into political philosophy and theory about the real meaning of phrases like "collective ownership" and "means of production"...we're really talking about socialist theory.

So to give you the short answer....no, the entire healthcare industry cannot be socialist (not in my opinion anyway) but it can be socialized.

Feel better now?

 

[iluvatar5150]

It's a fund that you pay into for a share of....I don't know how it could possibly be described as a service.

Because it’s providing something of value that isn’t a physical good.

There's an obligation of value under certain circumstances, but a definite obligation of value that once paid into...can be extracted.

And whether or not those conditions are met in a given situation is often up to the discretion of the insurer, which leads to those horror stories we all have heard.

That’s not terribly dissimilar from the situation you described where the firemen decide to not save your house given the circumstances.

Lol that's because you don't understand socialist theory. If I asked you to explain Linux coding to me, could you do it without having to explain a lot of other things related to it?

Yes, quite easily. “Coding” is the act of giving a set of instructions to a computer to cause it to perform a certain task. “Linux coding” is that coding designed to function on a computer running a Linux OS, in accordance with the nuances and specific instruction set of that environment.

 

[Ricky M]

So why does that same answer not apply to healthcare? There are far more sick people than there are fires.

MOUNTAIN MAN BOB: I see you didn't answer this question. Can't find one that fits your platform?

Again if the size and job descriptions of the fire department lend themselves to be socially funded, why doesn't healthcare qualify?

 

[Moral Orel]

I can stick to that definition lol.

Can you?

In regards to my earlier statements about the police, military, foreign aid, and yes....even the firefighters....you don't "own" them, you have no guarantee of a real value for any products or services they provide, nor can you necessarily opt out of them lol. That alone puts them well outside the realm of socialism...

Who does own the means of production for the services they provide?

And why do you keep mentioning "opting out" of things? I don't see anything in that definition about opting out of things. Now I'll admit, I haven't studied socialist theory in depth, but thankfully, we aren't talking about that. We're talking about the definition provided. Are you sticking with that, or do you want to give me a more specific definition based explicitly on Marx?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Because it’s providing something of value that isn’t a physical good.

It's a physical asset...you might argue that it's all on paper but it starts as a fund and ends up as money in the hands of the medical provider.

And whether or not those conditions are met in a given situation is often up to the discretion of the insurer, which leads to those horror stories we all have heard.

Oh...you're correct that insurers try to bend the obligation along the lines of technical wording. It is a legal obligation though, and you do have legal recourse.

That’s not terribly dissimilar from the situation you described where the firemen decide to not save your house given the circumstances.

I'm about 99% certain that if firemen are busy....you don't have any legal recourse for them showing up late, or possibly not even at all. You certainly don't have any recourse if they cannot save your property.

So what exactly do you collectively own?

Yes, quite easily. “Coding” is the act of giving a set of instructions to a computer to cause it to perform a certain task. “Linux coding” is that coding designed to function on a computer running a Linux OS, in accordance with the nuances and specific instruction set of that environment.

No offense but that doesn't explain anything....how does a computer learn a language? How does it read the language? Is there a tiny magic fairy inside that reads the instructions and flips switches? What do the specific instructions mean?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Can you?

I did.

Who does own the means of production for the services they provide?

I would argue that no one "owns" it. Ownership is, at it's core in this context, a legal term that refers to legal possession of property. I don't know of any property that has no real value (that is, it's not countable or even personally valuable) which I cannot use, or sell, or otherwise extract the value therein.

Also, what's this "service" they provide? Some abstract philosophical notion of "justice"? Is there a real value for justice? How do I get my share of justice? It's not as if they are obligated to even show up if I call them....and if they do, it's not as if I have any say on what they do.

I'm if you paid that surgeon to perform a surgery....and he doesn't, you'd get your money back wouldn't you? If he performed the wrong surgery, you'd be entitled to recompense. At the very least, you'd be entitled to the correct attempt at the service and you'd have to sign a legal waiver for all the risks therein.

And why do you keep mentioning "opting out" of things? I don't see anything in that definition about opting out of things.

Well, it's part of a later argument in socialist theory....you can ignore it for now, but if you ever get around to making that argument we can come back to it.

 

[Moral Orel]

I would argue that no one "owns" it. Ownership is, at it's core in this context, a legal term that refers to legal possession of property. I don't know of any property that has no real value (that is, it's not countable or even personally valuable) which I cannot use, or sell, or otherwise extract the value therein.

Ok, I guess I need to take the question back a step to understand. What are the means of production for the services a fire department produces, for example?

 

[iluvatar5150]

It's a physical asset...you might argue that it's all on paper but it starts as a fund and ends up as money in the hands of the medical provider.

Okay so if cash payouts qualify as a product and not a service, then we still have to deal with @Moral Orel's question about whether or not government-owned hospitals constitute "socialism" since they're providing a service.

Oh...you're correct that insurers try to bend the obligation along the lines of technical wording. It is a legal obligation though, and you do have legal recourse.

I'm about 99% certain that if firemen are busy....you don't have any legal recourse for them showing up late, or possibly not even at all. You certainly don't have any recourse if they cannot save your property.

So what exactly do you collectively own?

This strikes me as an argument that doesn't really matter. By living in the FD's jurisdiction, I have (or "own", if you will) some claim to the firemen's time and effort. If I call them for service, there are laws and policies that require them to respond to my call in some fashion. No, I don't have a universal claim on their time and effort - within those laws and policies, my claim is subject to certain conditions and discretion on the part of the firemen, e.g. they're allowed to prioritize human safety over property and they're not liable for damages.

That isn't terribly dissimilar from my consumer-grade Comcast service. I pay for internet access with an advertised speed and "own" a claim to that service. But buried in the contract are conditions that let Comcast off the hook if there's heavy congestion or an outage. Because I'm on a consumer plan, there is no guaranteed up/down speed, no guaranteed up-time, and they bear no liability in the case of an outage. If I was on a business plan, that might be different. But I'm not.

No offense but that doesn't explain anything....how does a computer learn a language? How does it read the language? Is there a tiny magic fairy inside that reads the instructions and flips switches? What do the specific instructions mean?

That isn't what you asked.

But to answer your question: all computers are just complicated combinations of transistors, which are, essentially, microscopic switches that can be turned on or off. In a properly designed circuit, turning those switches on and off in certain combinations can trigger behaviors in other sets of switches or, (more importantly for human interaction) in peripheral devices like displays and printers. Because one set of switches can trigger another set of switches, the first set of switches can be thought of as "instructions" for the second set. Now that we have a very basic, very simple set of instructions, we can use it to build ever more sophisticated and abstract sets of instructions that, when layered on top of each other, ultimately allow us to type into a computer something resembling a hybrid of English and Algebra that the computer understands as instructions to do everything from launching a missile to modeling a financial transaction to pwning n00bs.

That's the basics of what "coding" is and how it works.

So, what's a "product" and what's a "service"?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Ok, I guess I need to take the question back a step to understand. What are the means of production for the services a fire department produces, for example?

Wouldn't it just be easier to explain why law enforcement isn't socialism? Because I feel like you're trying to force some weak argument for the vague expectation of service from firefighters into the socialist framework just to make some easily destroyed argument that law enforcement and the military are the same.

If that's not your goal here....fine, let's continue with firefighters. If it is your goal...I feel like just explaining why law enforcement and military are never socialism.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Okay so if cash payouts qualify as a product and not a service, then we still have to deal with @Moral Orel's question about whether or not government-owned hospitals constitute "socialism" since they're providing a service.

I answered that in post 171.

This strikes me as an argument that doesn't really matter. By living in the FD's jurisdiction, I have (or "own", if you will) some claim to the firemen's time and effort. If I call them for service, there are laws and policies that require them to respond to my call in some fashion.

Laws and policies are not the same. What law are you referring to here? Can you link it?

No, I don't have a universal claim on their time and effort - within those laws and policies, my claim is subject to certain conditions and discretion on the part of the firemen, e.g. they're allowed to prioritize human safety over property and they're not liable for damages.

Then what exactly do you have collective ownership of? A claim of a possible maybe service which may not have any real value?

Does that seem remotely similar to the definition of socialism lol?

That isn't terribly dissimilar from my consumer-grade Comcast service. I pay for internet access with an advertised speed and "own" a claim to that service. But buried in the contract are conditions that let Comcast off the hook if there's heavy congestion or an outage. Because I'm on a consumer plan, there is no guaranteed up/down speed, no guaranteed up-time, and they bear no liability in the case of an outage. If I was on a business plan, that might be different. But I'm not.

That's a legal contract....that you willingly entered....and a bad one at that. My internet went down for 2 days once and my bill was adjusted accordingly. All I had to do was call the company and notify them. You entering a bad legal contract isn't the same.

That isn't what you asked.

Sure it is. I'm just doing what you and Morel are doing.

But to answer your question: all computers are just complicated combinations of transistors, which are, essentially, microscopic switches that can be turned on or off. In a properly designed circuit, turning those switches on and off in certain combinations can trigger behaviors in other sets of switches or, (more importantly for human interaction) in peripheral devices like displays and printers. Because one set of switches can trigger another set of switches, the first set of switches can be thought of as "instructions" for the second set. Now that we have a very basic, very simple set of instructions, we can use it to build ever more sophisticated and abstract sets of instructions that, when layered on top of each other, ultimately allow us to type into a computer something resembling a hybrid of English and Algebra that the computer understands as instructions to do everything from launching a missile to modeling a financial transaction to pwning n00bs.

That's the basics of what "coding" is and how it works.

How does the computer know what's on the screen? How did it already know Linux before someone wrote the computer language? How does it flip switches and how does it ever learn more words in the language? Can you give me an example of Linux coding and a step by step example of what happens when you type it in?

So, what's a "product" and what's a "service"?

In Marx's understanding....products were the things or goods (material objects) created by the means of production (factories and their machinery) which can then be exchanged for capital.

A service would be work someone is obligated to perform for you for capital....like a chimney sweep or someone painting your house.

In Marx's definition, which is the one you all seem concerned about, we are entitled to collective ownership of the means of production (socialism) but not so for the work of services.