3 ms·

There’s an old saying that in America we have socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor. Maybe cronyism is a more correct term, but I don’t see why it

There’s an old saying that in America we have socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor. Maybe cronyism is a more correct term, but I don’t see why it’s such a problem to use the above phrasing.

0xcde4c3db 7y ago
The main point of socialism -- broadly construed -- is to secure self-determination for the working class by ending the dominance of the capitalist class. Redistribution of money is just one possible mechanism that might be employed to that end. In that sense, it's no more "socialist" to bail out or give generous tax incentives to powerful corporations or wealthy people than it is "open source" (let alone "free software") to release source code under a restrictive license.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> There’s an old saying that in America we have socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor. Yes, and it's an extremely dumb saying that only makes sense within a particular misunderstanding of what “socialism” means that derives from hostile mischaracterization by capitalists. (Socialism about collective, rather than private, ownership of the means of production, whereas capitalism is about private ownership of the means of production. The rich in America very much enjoy the benefits of private ownership of the means of production.)
- hollerith 7y ago
  Socialism has another meaning that fits better into the old saying: namely, the provision by the government of economic security to the individual.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    That's the exact misunderstanding of socialism that derives from hostile capitalist mischaracterization. If true that socialists believe that socialism has that effect, but “socialism” is not, outside of capitalist propaganda, a general term for any system which has or seeks that effect, any more than “capitalism” is a generic term for any system which has or seeks the effect of enslavement of the mass of the population to a narrow elite (even though socialists believe that capitalism has—and seeks—that effect.)
- rhizome 7y ago
  If you want to prescriptivize me that's your option, but you know what I meant.

0xcde4c3db 7y ago

The main point of socialism -- broadly construed -- is to secure self-determination for the working class by ending the dominance of the capitalist class. Redistribution of money is just one possible mechanism that might be employed to that end. In that sense, it's no more "socialist" to bail out or give generous tax incentives to powerful corporations or wealthy people than it is "open source" (let alone "free software") to release source code under a restrictive license.

dragonwriter 7y ago

> There’s an old saying that in America we have socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor. Yes, and it's an extremely dumb saying that only makes sense within a particular misunderstanding of what “socialism” means that derives from hostile mischaracterization by capitalists. (Socialism about collective, rather than private, ownership of the means of production, whereas capitalism is about private ownership of the means of production. The rich in America very much enjoy the benefits of private ownership of the means of production.)

hollerith 7y ago
Socialism has another meaning that fits better into the old saying: namely, the provision by the government of economic security to the individual.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  That's the exact misunderstanding of socialism that derives from hostile capitalist mischaracterization. If true that socialists believe that socialism has that effect, but “socialism” is not, outside of capitalist propaganda, a general term for any system which has or seeks that effect, any more than “capitalism” is a generic term for any system which has or seeks the effect of enslavement of the mass of the population to a narrow elite (even though socialists believe that capitalism has—and seeks—that effect.)
rhizome 7y ago
If you want to prescriptivize me that's your option, but you know what I meant.