• @Dasus
    -1•6 months ago

    “I never came close to saying that”

    The fact that you don’t understand your own implications is pretty much the problem here. Whether consciously or not, you conflate the terms “market economy” and “capitalism”, which is quite as silly as thinking cell growth = cancer.

    I’ve read actual literature on this, and I’ve this exact “discussion” literally hundreds of times. Stomp your foot and cry all you want, that’s not going to change the actual literature of economic theory.

    Are people able to use capital to buy into those companies and be in charge and reap the profits?

    See, this is exactly the implication that all socialism is somehow some authoritarian communism. You just can’t understand how poorly you’ve perceived this. So you write things which argue that using currency makes a place capitalist in some way? That’s the real name for what people used to buy things; currency. Not capital, as when you’re living from paycheck to paycheck, you don’t have capital.

    “My source, Communist Manifesto”

    Your source for what? The modern definition of social democracy? You’ve never even held a copy of Das Kapital let alone have read it. I can assure you, Marx does not write “oh and social democracies are forms of capitalism, bruv”.

    Because they aren’t. And you’re arguing that modern actual literature on the subject, which is quoted on the very first sentence on the article about social democracy actually don’t matter, but your haphazard pretentious Lemmy comments should be taken as fact?

    Thanks for the laughs, big guy. :D

    • @[email protected]
      1•6 months ago

      I’ve read actual literature on this

      Sure, yet all you could do was copy past the wiki sources. You sound very well read!

      I’ll make simpler so you can understand - hell, I’ll even play the wiki game with you!

      Socialism :

      Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems[1] characterised by social ownership of the means of production,[2] as opposed to private ownership.

      Here are all the sources for that according to the wiki:

      spoiler

      Busky (2000), p. 2: “Socialism may be defined as movements for social ownership and control of the economy. It is this idea that is the common element found in the many forms of socialism.”

      Arnold (1994), pp. 7–8: “What else does a socialist economic system involve? Those who favor socialism generally speak of social ownership, social control, or socialization of the means of production as the distinctive positive feature of a socialist economic system.”

      Horvat (2000), pp. 1515–1516: “Just as private ownership defines capitalism, social ownership defines socialism. The essential characteristic of socialism in theory is that it destroys social hierarchies, and therefore leads to a politically and economically egalitarian society. Two closely related consequences follow. First, every individual is entitled to an equal ownership share that earns an aliquot part of the total social dividend… Second, in order to eliminate social hierarchy in the workplace, enterprises are run by those employed, and not by the representatives of private or state capital. Thus, the well-known historical tendency of the divorce between ownership and management is brought to an end. The society—i.e. every individual equally—owns capital and those who work are entitled to manage their own economic affairs.”

      Rosser & Barkley (2003), p. 53: “Socialism is an economic system characterised by state or collective ownership of the means of production, land, and capital.”;

      Badie, Berg-Schlosser & Morlino (2011), p. 2456: “Socialist systems are those regimes based on the economic and political theory of socialism, which advocates public ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.”

      Zimbalist, Sherman & Brown (1988), p. 7: “Pure socialism is defined as a system wherein all of the means of production are owned and run by the government and/or cooperative, nonprofit groups.”

      Brus (2015), p. 87: “This alteration in the relationship between economy and politics is evident in the very definition of a socialist economic system. The basic characteristic of such a system is generally reckoned to be the predominance of the social ownership of the means of production.”

      Hastings, Adrian; Mason, Alistair; Pyper, Hugh (2000). The Oxford Companion to Christian Thought. Oxford University Press. p. 677. ISBN 978-0198600244. “Socialists have always recognized that there are many possible forms of social ownership of which co-operative ownership is one…Nevertheless, socialism has throughout its history been inseparable from some form of common ownership. By its very nature it involves the abolition of private ownership of capital; bringing the means of production, distribution, and exchange into public ownership and control is central to its philosophy. It is difficult to see how it can survive, in theory or practice, without this central idea.”

      Interesting, uh?

      Wiki says Soc-Dem = Socialism

      Wiki says all parties that have governed my country are Soc-Dems

      Wiki says Socialism = socialy owning the means of production, opposed to private ownership

      In my countrie most companies are privatly owned, and the government has actually privatized previous national companies

      MFW the Wiki just contradicted it self

      It’s almost like you have to use critical thinking and can’t just take things you read on Wikipedia at face value!

      I’d say thanks for the laughs as well, but arguing with extremely ignorant but simultaneously extremely arrogant people is anything but fun.

      Now, quit acting like you’ve ever read anything other than the Wiki, and go to your local library to pick up a book. I’ma ignore you from now on, because there’s clearly nothing left to be gained for this conversation.

      • @Dasus
        0•6 months ago

        When you won’t agree with the most basic of definitions by going “no, not true, I know better but I don’t have cite anyone just trust me bruv”, then me citing who thinks that the very basic definition is actually the very basic definition, but you then continuing to disagree with it without being able to provide any sources at all… what use is trying to have a discussion? You’re not ready for one. You’ve made up your mind and you just haphazardly try to equivocate. Like I said, I’ve had this exact same conversation hundreds of times.

        So, to address your link… “maybe keep reading”?

        Types of socialism vary based on the role of markets and planning in resource allocation, and the structure of management in organizations. Socialist systems divide into non-market and market forms.

        Almost as if market economies weren’t all capitalist. Almost as if equating market economies to capitalism was as silly as equating cell growth to cancer. As established by me earlier, and the link you provided, modern socialism includes market socialism. Of course you might be oblivious to something like that if say, you were just pretending to understand the subject.

        So now that you realise that you can’t possibly back up your “social democracy is actually capitalism” garbage, you start shifting the goalposts, trying to equivocate on what socialism is in general. (Again, been here, done this, 2000000x)

        You’re now making the exact argument that I said you were, the entire time. You’re directly saying that there is no private ownership under socialism.

        Do us a service. Go to Google and type in “define socialism”.

        a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned OR REGULATED by the community as a whole.

        Again, thanks for the laughs.

        Edit, oh right, please do cite a source or any support for this “social democracy is capitalism” bullshit, why don’t you? I’ll wait here. :)