3 ms·
> Socialism is the fundamental reordering of society to benefit the lowest wrung. That is not the definition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism https://e
by slothtrop 3y ago
> Socialism is the fundamental reordering of society to benefit the lowest wrung.
That is not the definition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
> You can have socialism with markers still, which is what is done in syndicalist style socialism.
Co-ops have never operated outside the bounds of a democracy with a State. Notwithstanding, they don't appear to scale very well. The most common use case is related to agriculture, though there's a single mid-scale company in Spain that ancoms like to tout.
No one wants to take on all the risk of starting a business while socializing all the profit, hence, we don't usually see these spring up. But if the model is so good for workers, naturally, you'd expect popularity to rise. They've been around a long time and we're still waiting for that to happen.
> You can have limited social programs as a form of socialism as per social democrats.
That's just mixed economy, part of the fabric of Liberalism. Socialism necessitates the elimination of Capitalism.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ecshafer 3y agoCapitalism is not markets. Liberalism is says nothing about social programs, liberalism is about unrestricted markets and decoupling people from castes and traditions. Did you read your link to socialism? It agrees with what I said.
- slothtrop 3y ago> Capitalism is not markets. Capitalism is markets + the right to private property and gains. It's not a philosophy. > Liberalism is says nothing about social programs Social Liberalism does, which is the prevailing Liberal school of thought today. > Did you read your link to socialism? ctrl+f "lowest rung"= 0 results. Redistribution isn't just about "the lowest rung" or most impoverished, social ownership is intended to be utilitarian. Not unlike Liberalism.