I'd like to highlight one of the previous comments on this article: >Here's some important things to think about: >First, socialism is defined as worker or pu

I'd like to highlight one of the previous comments on this article: >Here's some important things to think about: >First, socialism is defined as worker or public control of the means of production and distribution. This has been interpreted in both libertarian and authoritarian ways. >Second, if socialism is worker control, then it is fully compatible with free markets. Mondragon and Semco are both worker democracies, and operate successfully in the global market. >If socialism is public control, this does not equal totalitarianism. Social democracy is a form of democratic public control of resources. >I understand people's reasoning for preferring capitalism (ownership defined by contract) or socialism (ownership defined by use), and I respect that, but I would love to be able to have political discussions about these issues which take into account the complexity and diversity of these two very broad terms. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2315657 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2315657