02 Jun 22
@vistesd2 saidBy the definition presented in this post, can anyone, anyone, possibly attach the socialist label to the Biden administration ?
@Metal-Brain
Interesting question. Definitions change with conventional (or sometimes limited technical) usage.
Traditionally, it has had to do with ownership of the means of production (owned by the state/collective as opposed to private/individual ownership). What does that mean in a technological age where access to information – and information exchange – is a mo ...[text shortened]... would link it to something like “social/public ownership of the means of wealth production.”
Awaiting good replies.
Even averagejoe can contribute, for a good laugh.
@mghrn55 saidYes, an interesting thread. I am the least knowledgeable of all of us as to the true definition, we may be stuck with Justice Powell's def of Pornography..."I can't define it, but I know it when I see it". There are a lot of ways to define it. How about in reverse, by saying that socialism does not allow a successful person to enjoy the fruits of his labors.
By the definition presented in this post, can anyone, anyone, possibly attach the socialist label to the Biden administration ?
Awaiting good replies.
Even averagejoe can contribute, for a good laugh.
\. All kidding aside, I do have a poignant question. Vistesd2 above quotes the phrase. "....social/public ownership of the means of wealth production". Query: In such a society, is an individual person allowed to have an invested interest in such means of production? Or only social/public.? Do we need a def of social/public to fully answer my question? I truly do not know the answer.
02 Jun 22
@averagejoe1 saidTo your last sentence .......
Yes, an interesting thread. I am the least knowledgeable of all of us as to the true definition, we may be stuck with Justice Powell's def of Pornography..."I can't define it, but I know it when I see it". There are a lot of ways to define it. How about in reverse, by saying that socialism does not allow a successful person to enjoy the fruits of his labors.
\. ...[text shortened]... .? Do we need a def of social/public to fully answer my question? I truly do not know the answer.
As someone who truly does not know, you certainly carry a strong opinion about the topic.
To me, that sounds like indoctrination.
(someone can look up indoctrination) 😛
02 Jun 22
@mghrn55 saidI do not see where I had an opinion as you suggest. Contrare' , in my first sentences I clearly state that I know the least about it of everyone here. You libs need to get a grip. So, can you answer, instead of aping the shallow minded here,,,,can you tell us if my friend who can make things and produce things have an ownership in the means of production, differently that the social/public type ownership? Is he restricted from same?
To your last sentence .......
As someone who truly does not know, you certainly carry a strong opinion about the topic.
To me, that sounds like indoctrination.
(someone can look up indoctrination) 😛
03 Jun 22
@metal-brain saidKevEleven, Sonhouse, felt like telling some stuff to. What happened to issues
I am a communist now.
@metal-brain saidAre you?
I am a communist now.
A psychiatric patient, yes. Politically savvy? Me thinks not.
@averagejoe1 saidHey, stupid.
I do not see where I had an opinion as you suggest. Contrare' , in my first sentences I clearly state that I know the least about it of everyone here. You libs need to get a grip. So, can you answer, instead of aping the shallow minded here,,,,can you tell us if my friend who can make things and produce things have an ownership in the means of production, differently that the social/public type ownership? Is he restricted from same?
Private ownership of the means of production is capitalism. Obviously.
03 Jun 22
@averagejoe1 saidThe answer is yes.
I do not see where I had an opinion as you suggest. Contrare' , in my first sentences I clearly state that I know the least about it of everyone here. You libs need to get a grip. So, can you answer, instead of aping the shallow minded here,,,,can you tell us if my friend who can make things and produce things have an ownership in the means of production, differently that the social/public type ownership? Is he restricted from same?
What he can’t do is employ people. He needs to make them joint owners and pay them their fair share.
If you have a planned economy, to a certain extent, the means which are needed have priority in production.
So, say society needs bread. If your friend is a baker, thst will sit nicely with the priority. If your friend is a gold smith, then his products have less priority.
So, instead of greed or “wanting” being the driving force of demand, “need” is that driving force. Once needs are met, then wants come into the picture.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
@metal-brain saidNo, metal. Stalinism is not communism. It's not even socialism. Don't use big words whose meaning (or meanings, you've stumbled onto a truth at that point at least) you have no idea about.
I am a communist now.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
@suzianne saidNot necessarily - obviously.
Private ownership of the means of production is capitalism. Obviously.
Guild workers in the middle ages owned their own means of production, privately. That was not capitalism.
Industrial robber barons since at least the Victorian era have privately, and even worse corporately, owned the means of other people's production. That is capitalism.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
@metal-brain saidGiven that there was socialism before Marx, this is too stupid to even debunk.
If it ain't Marxism, it ain't socialism.
@Shallow-Blue
Mondragon in Spain comes to mind too (though it's been awhile since I looked at it). In retrospect, I might change the formulation I offered (which was really just aimed at moving from physical production to something that recognizes the "information age" ) to something like "collective ownership of the means of wealth production" -- which would accomodate non-state, collective entities.
04 Jun 22
@shavixmir saidI am a communist because of what it is, not what you think it is. You are very far from politically savy unless appealing to false perceptions is politically savy. I have no interest in that. I am not running for office. I can be honest without any blowback from the ignorance of you and others who have been brainwashed into thinking communism is something it is not.
Are you?
A psychiatric patient, yes. Politically savvy? Me thinks not.
Have you learned anything from this thread?
04 Jun 22
@shallow-blue saidNobody suggested there was socialism before Marx. The only thing proven is that the idea existed before Marx, but not as Marx clarified. If you accept socialism is the transition between capitalism and communism the goal is communism, isn't it?
Given that there was socialism before Marx, this is too stupid to even debunk.
So socialists are really aspiring communists.....or fake communists that don't finish what they started. And democratic socialists are really just progressive democrats because there is no intended transition. Right?