> Capitalism vs. socialism is not markets vs. a planned economy. It's about who owns the means of production. Yes, and dictating the rules of ownership that ot

> Capitalism vs. socialism is not markets vs. a planned economy. It's about who owns the means of production. Yes, and dictating the rules of ownership that others must follow is a feature of central planning. > but you can't do socialism within a capitalist country. The entire system's function is dictated by capitalism - a co-op, for example, is still competing with all the other capitalist companies and has to follow the rules set up for them or perish. Yes, they can't compete on a purely material basis. Thats why you don't see them. > Depends on what that stuff is. Private property is distinguished from personal property in a socialist view. yes that's it. Your willingness to disregard my opinions about what constitutes my property on a dogmatic basis is the source of conflict here. > If socialists weren't socialist this wouldn't happen? This doesn't make any sense and it doesn't address the point. The point being that insofar as expropriation is synonymous with socialism, socialism is a crime. > So the story goes. The expropriation of value from the Global South has something to say about that, though. colonialism and neocolonialism are special cases of a command economy.