4 ms·

This is too broad and abstract to be actionable, let alone analyzable. What is "democratic" control? If people elect representatives who try to run the economy

by eudox 10y ago

This is too broad and abstract to be actionable, let alone analyzable. What is "democratic" control? If people elect representatives who try to run the economy as if it were a diesel engine, is that democratic control? Or does it mean a plurality of worker's owned corporations? Furthermore, "state capitalist" is about as pitiable a phrase as "late capitalism". Venezuela is populated by Communists and run by Communists who ran their political campaigns on Communist promises, therefore, Venezuela is a Communist country.

danharaj 10y ago
That's ridiculous. Then the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a democracy, a republic, and for the people. Capitalism is a form of economic organization based on markets, private property, the accumulation of capital, and exploitation in the "neutral" sense of extracting property from investment. Capitalism comes in many different forms just as socialism does. Just because welfare capitalism and laissez-faire capitalism are distinct does not mean capitalism as a concept is devoid of content. Just because "market" and "private property" are abstract terms that need to further instantiated to be analyzed does not mean capitalism isn't a coherent concept. State capitalism is when the state owns all the property and administers or directly controls the means of production through a bureaucracy, exactly like a corporation at the scale of a nation. > This is too broad and abstract to be actionable, let alone analyzable. What is "democratic" control? Well that's why there are so many different flavors of socialism. A lot of socialists would say you cannot simply elect socialism into office. Are they wrong? You're the one who wants to lump all people who call themselves socialists together, even though that sort of reasoning leads to absurdities like considering both North Korea and the United States of America democratic countries. If defining socialism as an empirically verifiable condition of the relationship between people and the means of production is too abstract to be analyzable, lumping everyone together based on intent and self-labeling is even worse.
caseysoftware 10y ago
> This is too broad and abstract to be actionable, let alone analyzable. Yes, that's the point. When a phrase, concept, or ideal is so broad and abstract as to incorporate anything and exclude little, then when it is time to analyze the results, you can (in)validate all of it based on the whims of the people in power. It's really a neat trick.

by eudox 10y ago

danharaj 10y ago

That's ridiculous. Then the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a democracy, a republic, and for the people. Capitalism is a form of economic organization based on markets, private property, the accumulation of capital, and exploitation in the "neutral" sense of extracting property from investment. Capitalism comes in many different forms just as socialism does. Just because welfare capitalism and laissez-faire capitalism are distinct does not mean capitalism as a concept is devoid of content. Just because "market" and "private property" are abstract terms that need to further instantiated to be analyzed does not mean capitalism isn't a coherent concept. State capitalism is when the state owns all the property and administers or directly controls the means of production through a bureaucracy, exactly like a corporation at the scale of a nation. > This is too broad and abstract to be actionable, let alone analyzable. What is "democratic" control? Well that's why there are so many different flavors of socialism. A lot of socialists would say you cannot simply elect socialism into office. Are they wrong? You're the one who wants to lump all people who call themselves socialists together, even though that sort of reasoning leads to absurdities like considering both North Korea and the United States of America democratic countries. If defining socialism as an empirically verifiable condition of the relationship between people and the means of production is too abstract to be analyzable, lumping everyone together based on intent and self-labeling is even worse.

caseysoftware 10y ago

> This is too broad and abstract to be actionable, let alone analyzable. Yes, that's the point. When a phrase, concept, or ideal is so broad and abstract as to incorporate anything and exclude little, then when it is time to analyze the results, you can (in)validate all of it based on the whims of the people in power. It's really a neat trick.