• ChonkyOwlbear
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    The definition of socialism is literally state ownership of means of production and state administration of the market.

    Are you saying this is capitalist state ownership and market administration?

    • timdrake@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      The dictionary can be wrong about what a concept is (see: God). Regardless of any formal definition (and there isn’t just one formal definition of socialism), capitalism (capital-ism) requires state ownership and market administration to some degree in order to be what it is.

      • ChonkyOwlbear
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        22 hours ago

        The problem is you are thinking of capitalism and socialism as a binary. An economy can incorporate elements of both (and usually does). Most capitalist economies incorporate some amount of socialism with utilities and essential services. Most socialist economies incorporate some amount of capitalism with entertainment.

        • timdrake@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 hours ago

          You can’t “incorporate” with capitalism “elements” that are necessarily immanent to it, that constitute an aspect of what capitalism is. State regulation, ownership is not some other to capitalism. Capitalism cannot be what it is without these elements (ex. capitalism requires contract law and the protection of private property rights, which requires a state, state-operated courts and police forces, whose existence cannot be subject to market forces as with private companies). This is not capitalism taking elements from socialism.