View Single Post
Old December 15 2012, 11:57 PM   #34
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Scientist declares “Earth is F**ked" --Discuss?!

Edit_XYZ wrote: View Post
newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
Davros had it right: ownership is a key part of the concept.
Still trying to change the definition of a concept, using this forced semantic interpretation to support your position, I see.
Nope.

Wikipedia wrote:
Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy,[1] and a political philosophy advocating such a system. "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, or citizen ownership of equity.[2] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.[3] They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets or planning, how management is to be organised within productive institutions, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.[4]
Merriam Webster's Dictionary wrote:
any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
The American Socialist Party wrote:
Central to the meaning of socialism is common ownership. This means the resources of the world being owned in common by the entire global population.
Nothing FORCED about that definition, that's what "socialism" actually is, and the key point of the definition is OWNERSHIP. That it is often used inaccurately by people who don't know what the hell they're talking about doesn't change this definition.

I'm really not interested in whatever fringe opinions you may want to dig up via google
Yeah, it doesn't get much more "Fringe" than the dictionary and Wikipedia.

I'm half tempted to dig up my college history textbooks on the subject which include a similar definition plus analysis plus historical examples and outlined differences with other theoretical/practicable systems -- e.g. fascism, communism, libertarianism, mercantilism, monarchism, etc -- but I doubt the twenty minutes it'll take to pull my books out of storage and transcribe all that would be worth the effort.

And, of course, there's no such thing as a pure capitalist state (nor is it desirable)
Which would be exactly what I meant when I said that capitalism always fails when it is implemented properly, which it almost never is (and is why it succeeds as often as it does).

FYI, there is no working definition -- OTHER than the lunatic fringe of the right wing -- where "socialism" is defined as "anything that limits capitalism."
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote