3 ms·

10000 years ago the entire world was not socialist but communist, and none of what you mentioned happened. It was the formation of class societies of workers a

10000 years ago the entire world was not socialist but communist, and none of what you mentioned happened. It was the formation of class societies of workers and parasites 10000 years ago which led to violence, suppression of the population etc.

woodandsteel 10y ago
The term "socialism" has more than one meaning. Classically, it referred to the means of production being owned and controlled directly by the society, either through the state or workers collectives. Later the word "socialism" came to also mean a market economy in which the government intervenes to a considerable degree, as in European-style social democracy. American conservatives have also recently come to label New Deal-style liberalism as "socialism." I think it would be helpful for productive discussion if people labeled which meaning of the term they are using, and acknowledged that it also has other meanings. Let me add that the state-ownership version of socialism could be totalitarian or democratic. I am not aware of any countries in the world today that have a state-ownership version of socialism and are democracies. Venezuela, from what I understand, has a partly state-owned economy, and is semi-totalitarian. update: let me explain some why I think that discussion can be more productive if people acknowledge the term "socialism" has more than one meaning, and are clear about which one they are using. There are many different economic and governmental systems that are labeled "socialist" including, among others, the totalitarian, total state-control system of the old Soviet Union and the democratic, semi-socialist system of the UK after WWII and up until Margaret Thatcher. What is needed is to discuss how the various systems work and what are their outcomes, good or bad. This is a complicated and difficult discussion. If people insist on either labeling all of them as "socialist" or only one, then people get into endless, fruitless debates over who is right, and it greatly undermines the more factual discussion about specific different systems and why they go right or wrong. The comments to this link are a good example of what I am talking about. But if everyone agrees there are different definitions, then they can focus on the more important part of discussing the systems themselves.

woodandsteel 10y ago

The term "socialism" has more than one meaning. Classically, it referred to the means of production being owned and controlled directly by the society, either through the state or workers collectives. Later the word "socialism" came to also mean a market economy in which the government intervenes to a considerable degree, as in European-style social democracy. American conservatives have also recently come to label New Deal-style liberalism as "socialism." I think it would be helpful for productive discussion if people labeled which meaning of the term they are using, and acknowledged that it also has other meanings. Let me add that the state-ownership version of socialism could be totalitarian or democratic. I am not aware of any countries in the world today that have a state-ownership version of socialism and are democracies. Venezuela, from what I understand, has a partly state-owned economy, and is semi-totalitarian. update: let me explain some why I think that discussion can be more productive if people acknowledge the term "socialism" has more than one meaning, and are clear about which one they are using. There are many different economic and governmental systems that are labeled "socialist" including, among others, the totalitarian, total state-control system of the old Soviet Union and the democratic, semi-socialist system of the UK after WWII and up until Margaret Thatcher. What is needed is to discuss how the various systems work and what are their outcomes, good or bad. This is a complicated and difficult discussion. If people insist on either labeling all of them as "socialist" or only one, then people get into endless, fruitless debates over who is right, and it greatly undermines the more factual discussion about specific different systems and why they go right or wrong. The comments to this link are a good example of what I am talking about. But if everyone agrees there are different definitions, then they can focus on the more important part of discussing the systems themselves.