3 ms·
Since they didn’t say that you are presenting a false dilemma. Suggesting two binary extremes and ignoring the possibility of a spectrum of outcomes in a multi
by rolltiide 7y ago
Since they didn’t say that you are presenting a false dilemma.
Suggesting two binary extremes and ignoring the possibility of a spectrum of outcomes in a multifaceted problem
We aren’t toddlers so try not use juvenile logic
- wayoutthere 7y agoBut muh strawman!
- tomp 7y agoSocialism is just a word that's used as "not capitalism". The point is, though, if the ownership of capitals (means of production) is so concentrated (1% own 90% of capital), then pretty much the only "solution" is effectively disowning them, consequences be damned. That's clearly in contrast to the spirit (and law) of capitalism, hence many (even capitalists) would simply call it "socialism" (or "communism"), even if it's completely different in the details (e.g. not everyone is paid the same).
- rolltiide 7y agoI see, so is there a better word instead of this misappropriated colloquialism? Its impossible to talk nuances of resource appropriation with an evocative term used inaccurately
- flmontpetit 7y agoI'm personally hoping "post-capitalism" takes off
- AstralStorm 7y agoThere are multiple ways to disown companies. One time tested way is nationalization, explicit by making the owner officials or by making the company leadership national government. (Slightly different effects.) Authoritarian governments prefer former, market based ones the later. (Second example is Korean Chaebols and their big influence.) The other is directly bestowing workers with ownership or equity, in the extreme converting companies into cooperatives. This is not socialism, but communism. (Not to be mistaken with stalinism or maoism.)