Search results

No, It's more an analogy for arbitrary authoritarianism system. There really isn't anything capitalist about them. I'd have them be pretty up there on the socialist system myself, all of the machines working for the common good (of the machines, not the people).

I don't think this is correct. People do lie about who they are. There are white supremicists who lie about being white supremicists. There are also socialists who lie about being socialists. The second one is worse, because the lies happen in both directions. There are people who think that the...

This. In a normal world, I'd be on the left liberal side, with lasiez-faire economics and leave me alone social policies. That's usually a vote for the liberals. But it no longer is. This is because a) the leave me alone stuff has basically won all it can vs. the right, so there is no incentive...

The saddest thing about Dirtbag's 'arguments' is that there is a good argument that can be made that the Nazi's weren't socialist. There wasn't collective ownership, etc, like you see with the USSR. It's honestly closer to America's WW2 economy than socialism. But if you don't acknowledge state...

I repeatedly have. And you seem to ignore it. Again, socialism is the collective ownership of the means of production. This was done in the USSR in a process called... Collectivization. 1) Those quotes don't prove anything, by your own admission in your first post that labels don't matter. If...

No. Public ownership means that the government owns it. This is a well used definition. From DIctionary.com: A public company is one that private citizens can purchase stock in. You have no control over it, sure, but you do own and make a profit off of it. This is decidedly different than...

Public ownership means government ownership. That's well established and normal definition for the word. Use the phrase 'publicly traded company'/'public company' to mean a company on a public stock exchange. I just got thru complaining at @DirtbagLeft for making up definitions to already...

First, you are using public in directly the opposite way it is usually used. Public ownership of a company is a euphamism for government control of a company. Second, the reason the distinction matters between state capitalism and state socialism is that it tells a huge amount about where the...

Oddly, I actually disagree that the Nazi's were socialists though. I do think there is a large difference between state capitalism and State Socialism, and the Nazi's fall under state capitalism. Crucially, the companies were mostly privately owned. If we allow state control of factories to...

I'd actually say the opposite is true. If you ask a plll of people if the USSR was socialist, you'd get a near unanimous yes. Hence if you don't, you are on the outside. Let's look at all the redefinitions you proposed: Your definition of socialism doesn't include the USSR, your definition of...

... Because no one outside of socailists use that definition, so it's jargony and useless in a general conversation. Even though North Korea would deny it, it is a monarchy, because it fits that definition. It doesn't matter that all of the North Korean philosophers define it using Juche, which...

I would argue that in a capitalist system, the selfish desires are actually harnessed for good. You are rewarded in money for being as good as possible at providing goods and services to others. That doesn't matter. If you allow that nazi's can deny being nazi's you must allow that socialists...

Not really. Reactionary just means 'radically' anti-left to most people. @ShieldWife is not acting in bad faith here, nor are most people. Ultimately, using socialist terminology outside of socialist enclaves just won't work. It's like expecting non members of a faith to use faith specific...

I really disagree that hitler was building a socialist state. His allowance of private enterprise puts that in doubt. Was he required to demand all production be war focused? Sure, but that doesn't make him a socialist. It just means he wanted to win the war.

I'm pretty sure much of Europe are social democracies. As for Democratic socialism, maybe Venezuela a few years ago? I don't know enough to say, but they did have elections, and the leaders were socialists, but I don't know if they went full socialist.

There is no business class in state socialism. That's the major difference. The people in power in the oligarchy basically get dramatically smaller in state socialism, limited only to the political class. The nice thing about the business class is that anyone has the (small) chance to enter it...

It doesn't matter what leaders say, it matters what they do. For the same reason that Communist Party of China is not communist anymore, but they still claim to be. And what those countries do is collectivize production and economics (in this case, thru means of the state). That's the...

I think this is the second time we have done this! Great minds think alike.

I haven't read a lot of socialist economics, but I have listened to people argue for it, and I've generally disagreed with their arguments. One of the chief ways in which I differ is that I value efficency much more than equity, because I generally don't see a huge problem with income...

I disagree with this. FIrst, any practical definition of socialism ought to include China under Mao, the USSR, Cuba, Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, and North Korea. If your definition does not consider these to be socialist, then the definition fails. Some of these countries were statist as...