All I'm saying is that you have a different definition of "socialism" than what thinkers like Noam Chomsky, Rosa Luxemburg and other classic leftist political thinkers have. Few serious intellectual proponents of socialism would say when they talk of socialism they are referring to "big government and totalitarianism. They're referring to a society where there's equality and democracy for its members. How to get there is a question that is difficult for socialists to agree on.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 4:28 amWould 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".
It has nothing whatsoever to do with "democracy," because equality of opportunity, rather than equality of outcome, is the democratic option. If you opt for equality of outcome, it means the use of force and compulsion are required. To create equality of outcome, one has to prevent success, achievement, distinction, hierarchy and so on, and drive everything down to the lowest common denominator.
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.
Democracy and equality of opportunity are not related to Socialism. Big-government totalitarianism, and equality of outcome are. So yes, I would most certainly rather lean to the side of small government, equality of opportunity, non-racism, private property, free speech, and so on. Those are all very good things...things that going too far toward laissez-faire capitalism can ruin, of course; but things which Socialism is guaranteed not even to permit.
As far as socialism requiring government, that is not necessarily the case. There are anarcho-socialists who believe that the way to socialism is the elimination of all hierarchy in society. It's really a matter of definitions and your definitions just aren't the same as theirs and you're always going to talk past one another.