• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

AOC now actively hawking her own political merchandise.

Twilight Hue

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
metis said:
"Socialism" is the current version of McCarthyism and his "Red Scare". All societies today are a mix of capitalistic and socialistic programs, with a couple of examples of the latter being Social Security and Medicare as seen here in the States. But I betcha all the "sky is falling" capitalists here at RF will still collect on both if they live long enough.
Click to expand...
Cuba.
 
M

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
Revoltingest said:
By the dictionary definition, socialism does indeed oppose
capitalism, ie, private ownership of the means of production.
Click to expand...

The dictionary definition is not the way many people mean it when they say it, and that’s unfortunate that the dictionary definition hasn’t updated to reflect modern usage.

So this is a good example where people just need to be clear what they mean, I guess.

Though it should also be clear that socialism of the dictionary sort is still not completely antagonistic to capitalism: there are some “worker owned” companies that perform OK, and it seems as though they should have the right to set their companies up that way.

But in any case, many people don’t mean public ownership of the means of production when they say “socialism” (that is usually reserved for “communism”); social funding such as by taxes is what people are usually referring to in modern times. In such a case fire departments, social security, and so on are socialist by common modern usage.
 
M

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
Revoltingest said:
Too many people see economic systems as either what they
fear or what they dream.....seldom seeing they actually are.
"Capitalism exploits people!!!"
"Communism is godless!!!"

How do we evaluate them? We can't just look at the definitions.
After all, even the definition of "socialism" doesn't include human
rights or liberty. Neither does "capitalism".
So I take the empirical approach, ie, observe the emergent
properties in historical & current examples of various economic
systems under various governmental systems. What actually
happens in the real world of imperfect humans running things?
Theory must comport with observable reality, or it's bunk.

Canuckistan is a good example of "social capitalism" in a
representative democracy (IMO). Government provides the
regulatory & legal environment under which capitalism thrives.
Is there a good example of socialism (ie, a command economy
with no capitalism) under any form of government?
Click to expand...

I would say not (to your final question). I, too, like Canada’s example.
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Meow Mix said:
The dictionary definition is not the way many people mean it when they say it, and that’s unfortunate that the dictionary definition hasn’t updated to reflect modern usage.
Click to expand...
Modern usage is adding a vague tertiary definition
that would allow for capitalism it seems.
So this is a good example where people just need to be clear what they mean, I guess.
Click to expand...
Woohoo!
Detente!
Though it should also be clear that socialism of the dictionary sort is still not completely antagonistic to capitalism: there are some “worker owned” companies that perform OK, and it seems as though they should have the right to set their companies up that way.
Click to expand...
Such cooperatives can indeed operate under capitalism.
But it's not socialism in the sense that "the people" own
them...."some people" own them.
But in any case, many people don’t mean public ownership of the means of production when they say “socialism” (that is usually reserved for “communism”); social funding such as by taxes is what people are usually referring to in modern times. In such a case fire departments, social security, and so on are socialist by common modern usage.
Click to expand...
If "socialism" allowed what I'm calling "social capitalism",
then I'd be allowed to post in the Socialist Only forum.
The thread would run red if I dared try.
So I sense that either it's a very tribal group, or that
"democratic socialism" is really a path to strict socialism.
Or both.
 
Twilight Hue

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Revoltingest said:
Modern usage is adding a vague tertiary definition
that would allow for capitalism it seems.

Woohoo!
Detente!

Such cooperatives can indeed operate under capitalism.
But it's not socialism in the sense that "the people" own
them...."some people" own them.

If "socialism" allowed what I'm calling "social capitalism",
then I'd be allowed to post in the Socialist Only forum.
The thread would run red if I dared try.
So I sense that either it's a very tribal group, or that
"democratic socialism" is really a path to strict socialism.
Or both.
Click to expand...
Watch Buffalo for a preview....


How socialist India Walton won the Buffalo mayoral primary
 
M

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
Revoltingest said:
Modern usage is adding a vague tertiary definition
that would allow for capitalism it seems.

Woohoo!
Detente!

Such cooperatives can indeed operate under capitalism.
But it's not socialism in the sense that "the people" own
them...."some people" own them.

If "socialism" allowed what I'm calling "social capitalism",
then I'd be allowed to post in the Socialist Only forum.
The thread would run red if I dared try.
So I sense that either it's a very tribal group, or that
"democratic socialism" is really a path to strict socialism.
Or both.
Click to expand...

Well, I checked that box and I am fine with private ownership of the means of production; so… maybe it’s just the group if that is verboten.
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Meow Mix said:
Well, I checked that box and I am fine with private ownership of the means of production; so… maybe it’s just the group if that is verboten.
Click to expand...
Some people get very tribal, eh.
I notice that the Libertarian Only forum allows people who
identify with a prefix, eg, "left". But the Feminist Only forum
doesn't appear to be so open, eg, banning "libertarian feminism"
(supposedly one problem being pro-prostitution). Go figure.
 
M

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
Revoltingest said:
Some people get very tribal, eh.
I notice that the Libertarian Only forum allows people who
identify with a prefix, eg, "left". But the Feminist Only forum
doesn't appear to be so open, eg, banning "libertarian feminism"
(supposedly one problem being pro-prostitution). Go figure.
Click to expand...

Wait, seriously?

I am pro-prostitution, is there an individual in charge of the feminist section or something?

That is some SWERF nonsense if that is “banned.”
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Meow Mix said:
Wait, seriously?

I am pro-prostitution, is there an individual in charge of the feminist section or something?

That is some SWERF nonsense if that is “banned.”
Click to expand...
I see management here as by ad hoc committee.
And rule enforcement does evolve.

You're pleasant, agreeable, female & gay.
You fit in.
Have you tried arguing for legal prostitution in that forum?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top