About Socialism

Given you don't understand socialism, that's not credible!

 

By your definitive critique of "centrists" and "neoliberals", I suspect that you are a Socialist. However, I challenge your arbitrary claim that socialism and capitalism cannot be integrated. "Accuracy" in the English language IS TEMPERED by semantics, and while this argument may be pointless, you are a participant.

 

You've said nothing. You make the same error as the right wingers: i.e. deliberately confusing socialism with the economic spectrum (from laissez faire to command economy). Rambling about semantics won't work. As you haven't bothered to refer to socialist political economy, you have guaranteed irrelevant argument. You might as well just wear a MAGA hat and be done with it.

 

How do YOU define socialism, and how is it COMPLETELY devoid of ANY of the characteristic elements of capitalism?

 

It isn't difficult: socialism is worker control and ownership of the means of production. That, by definition, is the end of capitalism.

 

DITTO.

 

Strange comment, given I pinpointed your silly error and demonstrated its similarity with the rant expected by right wingers

 

Define PURE capitalism.

 

You ALLEGE it to be a silly error. This is an opinion forum, and you and I obviously have different interpretations of capitalism and socialism, which I can substantiate as easily as you can, if you weren't so closed-minded.

 

There's no such thing.

 

We all have opinion. You're free to be pro or anti socialist. However, you have made a crass error. There's nothing to learn from crass error. You either continue to offer irrelevant argument or, admitting that error, you evolve. Up to you.

 

no socialism of Government; only free markets.

 

In other words, you are admitting that there are vestiges of socialism in every capitalistic system.

 

No, I'm stating that pure capitalism is a drivel term. We know where it derives: those confusing political economy with the economic spectrum, giving the utterly ridiculous claim that it refers to laissez faire.

As soon as I see the term, I know that I'm referring to someone ranting. That rant can be right wing (blubbering about the evils of government) or centrist (blubbering about the wonders of government)

 

. . . But narrowminded individuals such as yourself NEVER evolve, so unless I accept your rigid exclusion of ANY AND ALL interpretations other than your own, this argument IS pointless. Goodbye.

 

Tut tut! Given the chance to learn about socialism, they jog on. Hope they were playing suitable music...

 

That's right.

 

Not necessarily. Also, private corporations cannot be used for all sectors of industries because that will lead to multiple cost centers. Hence, mixed economies.

 

That isn't the reason. The reason for a mixed economy is simple: capitalism is unstable. It needs interventionism to reproduce capitalist profit.

 

Multiple cost centers refer to infrastructure like roads. In that case, with the private sector taking over, you will have a toll for each street or road. Imagine similar issues for utilities, the legal system, etc.

 

FWIW, socialism may include state capitalism, and capitalism principles in social democracies.

 

That is just a reference to public good provision.

 

Drivel! State capitalism isn't socialist. Social democracy is just a means to stabilise capitalism.

 

So the employer who provides the tools, machines, and materials is contributing to the production process. That's good to know. A lot of people claim that employers do nothing but steal the value of the workers' labor.

 

Government takes money while private industry earns money. The fact that you can't grasp the difference is very telling of how the socialist mind works. The two words are anything but interchangeable in this or any other context.