Socialism is when people own the means of production. I’d argue that’s different than infrastructure, though it is a murky line between infrastructure and capital.
Last time someone dropped “you don’t understand socialism” on me I asked them for their definition and I got a youtube video of a professor giving me the definition I gave above.
Is that not the definition you use of socialism? How do you define it?
I’ll remind you that bones enable faster locomotion, and they accomplish it by their inflexibility. Clear, non-fluid concepts can do that too. We need a solid, simple definition of socialism to make any progress here don’t you think?
Light is a spectrum, and the ends of that spectrum are defined: 0 frequency at one end and infinite frequency at the other. A spectrum covering an infinite number of points ranging between two precise, simple definitions.
I define socialism as: joint ownership of the means of production by the people
I like the definition of capitalism as this, from wikipedia:
Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. Central characteristics of capitalism include capital accumulation, competitive markets, price systems, private property, property rights recognition, voluntary exchange, and wage labor.
My short snarky definition is: Capitalism is the economic system where cooperation requires consent.
Socialism is when people own the means of production. I’d argue that’s different than infrastructure, though it is a murky line between infrastructure and capital.
Socialism is a range. It’s a tough concept to understand, but once you do, you become more…flexible
Last time someone dropped “you don’t understand socialism” on me I asked them for their definition and I got a youtube video of a professor giving me the definition I gave above.
Is that not the definition you use of socialism? How do you define it?
I’ll remind you that bones enable faster locomotion, and they accomplish it by their inflexibility. Clear, non-fluid concepts can do that too. We need a solid, simple definition of socialism to make any progress here don’t you think?
I agree, but that isn’t reality. Even Richard Wolff agrees that there is a spectrum.
But what’s at one end of the spectrum here?
Light is a spectrum, and the ends of that spectrum are defined: 0 frequency at one end and infinite frequency at the other. A spectrum covering an infinite number of points ranging between two precise, simple definitions.
I define socialism as: joint ownership of the means of production by the people
I like the definition of capitalism as this, from wikipedia:
My short snarky definition is: Capitalism is the economic system where cooperation requires consent.
No no, socialims is when I have two cows and the government eats one of them (or something like that, I didn’t advance much in my theory)