Right winger that is triggered and staying! You're getting an up vote for sharing your opinions, and I hope you're 'triggering' a good and frank debate on those topics. I think you're wrong on pretty much all accounts, but appreciate your sharing them. Maybe more later ;-)
full upvote for being willing to spend time with the ill informed, to try to help them get informed
other way around actually, if you read the conversation ;)
let me guess, you can't even define socialism?
Someone doesn't agree with you so they are an idiot?
did I say that?
You kinda did ;-). Not directly. But you implied that I was unqualified for the debate by making assumptions (which turned out to be correct) about my familiarity with what you were trying to talk about
I have met a total of 2 capitalists online that could correctly define socialism, its not just an assumption at this point.
Not like a school system run by capitalists would willingly teach people anything other than propaganda.
Like I said, the term 'correctly define' is logically corrupt - the only thing that can be true or false are the claims we derive from our definitions. Definitions are made up by the definer, and they can be anything. I admit to not taking AP Socialism, but I did have a little bit of philosophy ;-)
Ok how about this, are too stupid/lazy to understand the basic definitions of words in contexts other than fox news.
Do you still claim that you're not suggesting I'm an idiot? See two posts above. Perhaps you could share your definition of idiot?
Oh please, that is absolutely what you were intending to imply with your response to his comment. Or am I to believe that you think the definition of socialism is so compelling that anyone who knows it will instantly agree with you?
can you fuck off
Typical.
Hhmm... I think socialism is hard to define. I also think that logically there are no right or wrong definitions. Statements or derivations can be true or false, but the standard for definitions is if they're useful, since the 'definer' can define them any way they want. I think socialism is difficult to define - what's your definition? I'm pretty good a defining capitalism though!
Socialism is collective ownership of the means of production.
Collective ownership of the means of production is more efficient and free in every possible way, well except for the freedom to oppress.
Communism and Socialism do not mean the same thing. Communism is an extreme of socialism. In a socialist government the means of production would typically be controlled by the government. The idea with Communism is that there is no position of power because everybody is equal and therefore the means of production are collective.
Thanks for sharing that definition. Now that we have a working definition, under that definition, who decides what gets produced?
"who decides what gets produced?"
It really depends on what the society decides at that point. Sometimes it runs purely on a command economy, where what is needed or wanted is measure and produced. That has proven to work well in the past, I forgot the country but it was able to function on 10-20% of its trucks used for moving resources, when any other countries economy grinds to a halt at that point.
The specific person or group who decides really depends. In anarchist it takes longer to adjust for demand but there is more freedom. In a mlm economy it is run by councils between the areas involved in that production and those who need what is being produced.
How does 'society' decide? Who do I call when I need to speak to 'society'? How do you 'measure' what is needed? Oh, and please do reply when you remember that one country in which socialism worked
oh here we go, this is what I was looking for:
"2000: "I can list you a ton of successful, first-world countries that practice Capitalism. Can you list a single successful Socialist country?"
1900: "I can list you a ton of successful, first-world countries that practice Imperialism. Can you list a single successful non-Imperialist country?"
1800: "I can list you a ton of successful, first-world countries that practice slavery. Can you list a single successful free country?"
1700: "I can list you a ton of successful, first-world countries that practice Monarchy. Can you list a single successful Republican country?"
1600: "I can list you a ton of successful, first-world countries that practice Mercantilism. Can you list a single successful Capitalist country?
1500: "I can list you a ton of successful, first-world countries that practice Catholicism. Can you list a single successful Protestant country?
1400: "I can list you a ton of successful, first-world countries that practice Feudalism. Can you list a single successful non-Feudalist country?"
300: "I can list you a ton of successful, first-world countries that practice Paganism. Can you list a single successful Christian country?"
1200 BC: "I I can list you a ton of successful, first-world countries that practice bronze working. Can you list a single successful iron working country?"
3000 BC: "I can list you a ton of successful, first-world countries that practice stone working. Can you list a single successful bronze working country?""
Compelling. But I take that as an admission that we haven't witnessed, to date, a socialist society that is also free?
"Oh, and please do reply when you remember that one country in which socialism worked"
well the USSR is one example, so good in fact 80% of the people voted to keep it communist. The only reason it turned capitalist is an opportunist somehow made it into the top of the party.
http://writetorebel.com/2016/11/25/the-successes-of-socialism-in-the-ussr/
Based on the article, socialism 'working' is defined as
(1) women get to fight in wars
(2) universal healthcare
(3) growing faster than Mongolia
(4) still in 2017 using railways built in 1931
Like I said, when you get to define what 'working' means, it's hard to disagree with your conclusions
others I liked was Revolutionary Spain, Cuba and Nicaragua.
" Who do I call when I need to speak to 'society'? "
it really depends. As long as the workers are in control of the means of production it is socialism. The exact structure that comes from that changes from group to group.
Can I speak to your market about prices please?
www.amazon.com
It even has a website
I did not claim that my market needs a 'decider' - it doesn't need anyone to speak to. That's the beauty of it. You claimed that in socialism 'society' decides, so that seemed like you meant some kind of organized decision process
So back to the "who do I speak to" part - what are the workers to do then, in socialism? The first Monday morning after institution of socialism, what do I do as a worker?
"How do you 'measure' what is needed? "
You mean the economic calculation problem? It has a name you know
"Firms manage to have central planning and they don't struggle with the "calculation problem" in fact the centrally planned capitalist firm is about the strongest argument you could have in favour of central planning."
not going to bother going beyond that quote
https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/comments/3fjh8g/how_could_you_refute_the_economic_calculation/
here is a post I made on anti-capitalism earlier, you might want to check it out.
https://steemit.com/economics/@anarchyhasnogods/the-basics-of-anti-capitalism-exploitation-and-imperialism-part-one