HOME | DD
Party9999999 β Socialism Explained
Published: 2013-01-19 23:37:19 +0000 UTC; Views: 9393; Favourites: 71; Downloads: 149
Redirect to original
Description
Hope that clears things up.Related content
Comments: 153
Common owner ship and privet owner ship is two different type of owner ship.
π: 0 β©: 0
A very basic and intentionally shallow definition.
π: 0 β©: 0
Correction, socialism is big government controlling everything. Ownership of the citizens having their own property, that is capitalism.
π: 1 β©: 1
Hidden by Commenter
π: 0 β©: 1
Wrong again. You can't have major redistribution of wealth without big government.
π: 0 β©: 1
Hidden by Commenter
π: 0 β©: 1
That's socialism.
π: 0 β©: 1
Hidden by Commenter
π: 0 β©: 1
Not all of them.
π: 0 β©: 1
Hidden by Commenter
π: 0 β©: 1
Japan and South Korea? Seriously? Canada and USA under Obama would definitely have been socialist. The military isn't a socialist institution.
π: 0 β©: 1
Hidden by Commenter
π: 0 β©: 1
Yes it was. It's the very definition of socialism.
π: 0 β©: 1
Hidden by Commenter
π: 0 β©: 1
And they are all failed nation states.
π: 0 β©: 0
Finally, someone with a sense of history!
π: 0 β©: 0
"The common ownership of property". By that you mean big government controlling everything that the people have to own.
π: 1 β©: 1
That is state capitalism, my friend.
π: 2 β©: 1
Capitalism allows businesses to own their own profit and redistribute that profit into the economy.
π: 1 β©: 1
And it allows the consolidation of wealth by the elite
π: 1 β©: 1
That's capitalism, you work for what you think you're worth.
π: 0 β©: 1
no, you work for what they think you're worth. Your employer decides your salary, not you. There are very few professions in which you actually get to work for what you would like to be paid. At best it is a negotiation between you and your employer, although in practice this is almost never actually the case.Β
This is why I'm a big fan of bringing back the guild system: workers in the guild set their salaries based on their experience in the trade, others have to hire them at that salary (with perhaps a little room for negotiation, because sometimes people have compelling reasons not to pay you your normal worth). The guild enforces the contract between worker and company, with legal action when necessary, just to ensure compliance. Worker gets what they need: a decent wage. The company gets what they need: a worker. Most of the time, everybody wins. While there's no such thing as a perfect system: this would be my ideal.Β
π: 1 β©: 0
Maybe he's British, or maybe britain's government does a little more than America's government does.
π: 0 β©: 0
You can justify anything like that: e.g. war is achieving military goals, not anything soldiers do, or Islam is a religion of peace, not anything those who interpret Quran actually do. It is more important what the real life consequences are, not what it was meant in theory (and in real life socialist governments have done so many stupid things). The problem with socialism is that in it the government exists and is much more powerful than in capitalist systems (even in anarcho-socialist systems common decisions are made which bind every individual - this is still some form of central power). So you can't just turn blind eye on the bad deeds of government in a socialist system - that inevitably comes in package.
π: 0 β©: 0
Well you idolize Castro and Mao and Lenin, so I'm not sure how consistent you're being.
π: 0 β©: 1
You do know that those countries are State Capitalism and not socialist, correct?
π: 0 β©: 1
I know they're not true socialism but they're definitely NOT state capitalism, especially given state capitalism is a bit of an oxymoron.
π: 0 β©: 1
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_caβ¦
π: 0 β©: 1
Like I said oxymoron
www.merriam-webster.com/dictioβ¦
www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGPa5Oβ¦
π: 0 β©: 1
I presented you with a page loaded with information on State Capital, and you provide me with a Youtube link from an unreliable source and a dictionary definition of capitalism.
You have greatly achieve the fallacy of "Protecting the thesis"
π: 0 β©: 3
O yes, because wikipedia is the alltrustworthy information given to us by god himself.
π: 0 β©: 0
I never said state capitalism wasn't an existing term. I've heard it be used several times before. I'm saying that it's an oxymoron because it means something that completely contradicts what capitalism is, and anyone who knows what capitalism is knows that.
And unreliable source? Please. The guy is a Harvard professor on economics.
π: 0 β©: 0
The very definition of capitalism has nothing to do with the state, and I sent that to you to prove that state capitalism is an oxymoron. Now let me ask you this. How in the hell is Cuba and China state capitalist?
π: 0 β©: 1
Because of dictatorship rule of resources. True Communism requires democratic elections and democratic ideals. This is in the introduction of the Communist Manifesto, if you have read it. In Soviet Russia and Cuba, you still had privately owned companies; en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan
The heads of these companies were basically people who reported to the government, thus creating a State Capital system. Nowhere in the equation does the worker vote on business decisions nor elect the party.
Have I proved my point?
π: 0 β©: 1
I know what communism is and I know what capitalism is and I'm telling you those countries are neither. I'm not saying those countries aren't "State capitalism. I'm saying "State capitalism" is no capitalism. Do you know what capitalism is?
π: 0 β©: 1
It is when a company or resource is owned by a single private owner. Now with that said, was the soviet government owned by the commons, or was it a dictatorship?
π: 0 β©: 1
It was a dictatorship and it wasn't capitalist, nor are any of those "state capitalist" countries. Here's the definition of capitalism again, in case you didn't catch it at first www.merriam-webster.com/dictioβ¦
π: 0 β©: 1
If it was a dictatorship, then it is State Capitalism; because there is a single owner of the production of the country. There is no democratically elected representatives in those countries who allow the people to operate business, hell, there isn't even a labor union in those countries!Β
Look at these links, they cite information contrary to your belief of what Capitalism is.
www.marxists.org/archive/panneβ¦
www.foreignaffairs.com/articleβ¦
www.merriam-webster.com/dictioβ¦
Even Merriam-Webster can define State Capitalism. I think it's fair to say your argument is invalid.
π: 0 β©: 1
How many times do I have to tell you? I'm not arguing against the existence of the term "state capitalism." I'm saying the term doesn't make sense. I'm saying the term is an oxymoron. Before saying my argument is invalid, first figure out what my argument is.
π: 0 β©: 1
It's not oxymoronic when the term can be defined and makes sense in context. It exists and is very real, it's the basic idea on what fascism is partly based off of.
π: 0 β©: 1
This definition of capitalism makes as much sense as communism being defined as dictatorships that control everything, so my advice to you is do some research on the original idea of capitalism.
π: 0 β©: 1
www.troll.me/images/confused-jβ¦
I already performed my research on Capitalism. It seems you have been ignoring my posts.
π: 0 β©: 1
No I haven't been. I've done my research on capitalism as well, and I'm not just talking about state capitalism. You however think communists know more about what capitalism is than capitalists like myself who are trying to get you to understand the very simple idea that State Capitalism doesn't make sense as a term. It exists as a term but it doesn't make sense. It's a very easy concept to grasp, bit instead you troll me with that jackie chan face instead of actually listening to what I'm trying to tell you.
π: 0 β©: 1
Karl Marx was the first person to define Capitalism in his book Das Kapital. If you actually performed your research you would have known that Marx defined Capitalism.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Das_Kapiβ¦
π: 0 β©: 1
I'll need to do more research on the subject but from what I gather Marx was one of the earliest people to use the term, but Adam Smith was the one who invented the modern market system that capitalism was later used to describe.
π: 0 β©: 1
| Next =>