@matrix But thats not what communism is, your describing socialism (redistributions of wealth) not communism (the elimination of individual wealth)

@freemo
I guess, but for the people who believe in it (not Goldman and Sachs, they are just trying to appear virtuous), the goal is communism.

@matrix Thats simply not true of the majority. The vast majority of people who support socialism from day to day (the vast majority of europe) have absolutely no intention of progressing to a communism. Most in fact actively oppose communism if you were to ask.

@freemo
They support welfare programs and taxpayer funded health care. I wouldn't really call that socialism.

@matrix Thats not what makes them socialism. As you said socialism is wealth redistribution. In other words, progressive tax structures (higher percentage of tax for the richer). They are by your own definition socialist.

@freemo
I wouldn't call it socialism, because the wealth redistribution of socialism is done by some form of social ownership of the means of production, not simply higher taxes.

@matrix Goldman sachts is literally saying they will only fund a "means of production" if and when it is owned by a cross section of the community. So however you want to dice it it represents socialism more so than communism. It absolutely isnt communism (elimination of wealth) as you originally suggested is the point.

@freemo
Socialism is a step towards communism though.
But Goldman Sachs just want good PR and money. They don't want socialism or communism. They are a private company after all.
The mostlikely scenario is that some ideologically driven organizations (who believe that through social engineering and pressure, they can achieve communism) convinced Goldman Sachs that decisions like this are good for business.

@freemo
Or they are trying to get people like that off their backs.

@matrix Probably some of this yea.

@matrix Saying Socialism is a "step towards communism" is riddled with bias, it is more fair to say "Socialism is closer to communism", which I'd say is true but not really suggestive that it is bad (it can be, depends). As a general rule anything taken to its utmost extreme is bad, that means communism, anarchism, or pure capitalism are all bad as they all represent extremism. Solutions that are nuanced and dont take to one extreme or the other (such as some forms of socialism) are probably the way to go.

GS is almost certainly doing this for the PR of it. In all likelihood they wont carry through but if they do it will just be more PR id imagine.

@freemo
Sitch's law in action. Just arguing definitions.

Yeah I agree with that. Moderation is the key.

@matrix