Unless you ASSUMED this, then there is NO one else I KNOW of that did.
I STILL CORRECTED what you INCORRECTLY WROTE.
Unless you ASSUMED this, then there is NO one else I KNOW of that did.
I STILL CORRECTED what you INCORRECTLY WROTE.
BUT, it has ALREADY BEEN DONE.
If you are ASSUMING this, then you are the ONLY one.
Well I CERTAINLY CAN NOT have that BELIEF. So, does that mean 'you' have that BELIEF?
I KNOW.
If you say the concept knowing knows and does not seek clarification, then so be it.
I agree that the wealthy elite are not likely to let go of their private ownership of what they own. If they did, then it would be socialism. However, since it is the wealthy elite controlling the state, it's generally called "state capitalism," not "socialism". Capitalism means ownership of the means of production, distribution, etc, by private persons. When those private individuals play the role of leaders of the state, then they run the state for themselves by themselves. It's not unlike monarchy really, except ownership in capitalism is determined by how well a person is at playing the game of accumulating wealth/power in a market. The ideal of socialism is for major industries and services to be run by the people for the people. How that is achieved is a different aspect of things altogether. Socialism doesn't just mean government ownership of industry. It means the citizens, population, or whatever you want to call everyone runs public resources as opposed to the few.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jan 18, 2022 4:24 amRead what they say.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Jan 18, 2022 2:40 amDoes it actually say "they want universal Socialism" or did you have to do a bunch of reading between the lines to get that one?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 11:53 pm I'm able, but I'm not going to do all your research for you.
They want an end to private ownership, redistribution, and no private property...you literally get to "own nothing," (Their words.) and "rent" (their words again) from the government. This, they call "stakeholder capitalism." Except that it's got no element of capitalism in it, except what the elites themselves get to practice. They also get to keep their property, of course. Everyone else becomes totally government dependent. And this, they call "social justice" and "equity."
Of course, poverty, dependency are misery are very "equalizing."
And if the Davos jerks were interested in "redistributing" their own wealth, they'd already have done it, and be living at a normal level themselves. But they have not. Instead, they're jet-setting to Davos, and "making plans for Nigel."
But don't take my word for it: go read it for yourself.
Why would we "say" something IC hasn't said? That would be ridiculous.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 1:30 am So let's say IC wants to oppose this "socialism". "We want capitalism," says IC. What you are in effect saying, IC is that you want concentrated ownership of major industries and resources.
Socialism is little more than a state of affairs whereby society is democratic and all its members are equal, not just "big government". If you're against socialism, then you are against democracy and equality, not necessarily "big government". If you're for capitalism, then you're for private ownership over economic entities big or small. So what you are saying is that you would rather fall on the side of private ownership of economic entities and not democracy and equality.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 2:03 amWhy would we "say" something IC hasn't said? That would be ridiculous.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 1:30 am So let's say IC wants to oppose this "socialism". "We want capitalism," says IC. What you are in effect saying, IC is that you want concentrated ownership of major industries and resources.
What IC says is that Socialism is monstrous, but so is laissez-faire capitalism. It's a tight-rope act in staying off those two extremes. One of the few legitimate government functions is preventing monopolies. So they will be needed for that. However, if you value freedom, and if you have to fall off the tight rope one side or the other, make sure it's not the Socialism side.
One doesn't win by advocating a particular political system, but by hedging against the natural evil that's in men. And centralizing power, whether through monopolies or though government appropriation of "means of production" is the road to disaster every time.
Small government. Not no government, but small government, is the way to go.
Would that that were true. But of course, it's not. Socialism requires government to own the means of production, and thus also to take direct, regulatory control of all aspects of civic and personal life. So it automatically means bloated and increasingly bloated bureaucracy. And because it's opposed to anything that makes people "unequal," it's opposed to personal responsibility, personal achievement and quality. And, of course, economically, it's a disaster: because it requires copious amounts of money, but produces no capital.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 2:18 am Socialism is little more than a state of affairs whereby society is democratic and all its members are equal, not just "big government".
False dichotomy, Gary.So what you are saying is that you would rather fall on the side of private ownership of economic entities and not democracy and equality.