Is It Ethical To Use Amazon?

[The Kilted Heathen]

Left-wing groups also do this, especially unions,

Firstly, do you have examples of unions lobbying for political candidates, funding their campaign on promises of legal leniency, and writing laws in such a way? Secondly unions exist to protect worker rights and workplace safety measures. Corporate lobbyists represent the interests and financial gains of the individual. This is very much comparing apples to chicken nuggets.

You would argue that paying $12 for Canadian insulin is also unethical? How much should insulin cost?

Yes, I would argue that paying even $12 for a life saving medicine is unethical. It should cost that person nothing.

This article is about how the largest carbon emitter on Earth 7 years ago was balking during climate agreement negotiations. Except that country happens to be Communist.

A Communist country that happens to do trade with a lot of Capitalist countries, one of which is the United States. "To date, Beijing has used the threat and imposition of trade-restrictive measures to punish over a dozen countries for pursuing policies deemed harmful to Chinese interests." Utilizing profit to undercut responsibility. People here in America talk about "voting with your wallet" to show Corporations what we think, and they like to think that's an effective tactic to get their way. To use Capitalism against the Capitalist. It's laughable on our level, but countries like China are able to actually do it.

And several others that fully went under.

You are still very much missing the point. A business is not a person, and people suffered while the CEOs of their jobs raked in record profits off their back, all the while calling us "essential employees" and "heroes".

Nearly all employees in the private sector are paid via negotiation at employment.

The private sector being the part of the economy that is run by individuals and companies for profit? So... the actual Capitalists. They're also not paid via negotiation, they're "paid" off direct profits from their company.

Others whose work they supervise, direct, and are ultimately responsible for, yes.

James John Liautaud (the founder of Jimmy John's) didn't supervise or direct anyone. That's what the regional managers were for. But he sure profited a ton off people slinging sandwiches with his name on them.

I'm a salaried employee, do I not "labor?"

Are you required to show up to the job?

Do hourly employees work harder than me

In my experience yes, hourly employees tend to be worked harder, and often end up doing the manager's job for them anyways.

Machines to produce them, for example.

What kind of machines? Are you running these machines?

I don't know how you could possibly have that knowledge of the future, but okay.

I'm stating what I believe (or rather don't believe) of America based off decades of lived experience in this Capitalist hellhole, not what I know will happen. I'm open to being positively surprised in that regard, but I'm not holding my breath.

Socialists, all the time.

No. It's been very clear that the goal of Socialism is for the people to have the profits of their labor. To own the means of that labor. So that's not said "all the time". Until, as ImmortalFlame said, the government actually represents the people and we truly have a seat at the table, rather than representing corporate interests and demands, this is so far away that it's not even worth mentioning at this point.

 

[Left Coast]

Erm, no.

China is state capitalist. They are further from Communism than America is.

You believe China has less command control over their economy than the US government? I'm sorry, that's just not true.

Do you have any evidence that this is true? I would be astonished to discover that the majority of people who are privately employed are in any way able to negotiate their wage at employment.

My off the cuff evidence would be anecdotal, I suppose. Are you privately employed? Have you never negotiated a wage before? It happens very routinely in business. Many people choose to simply accept the offer they are initially given, but lots don't.

Socialism is social ownership of the means of production. This CAN be done by government, but only IF that government can reasonably be said to be representative of the will of the people. This is why democracy is necessary for socialism, and why many states that claim to be socialist are in fact just state capitalist. If the government is, say, an authoritarian dictatorship or a one-party state, you cannot reasonably call such governments socialist.

This is a kind of No True Scotsman. Whenever socialism is scaled up, it inevitably uses government as the owner of the means of production. Secondly, you can't claim that because socialist countries are often authoritarian that they aren't "real" socialists. This would be like libertarians claiming that nations are not "true capitalist" economies unless they never violate the Non-Aggression Principle. Sorry, no. When ideologies move from paper to practice, unintended consequences of that implementation occur. And in socialism's case, that has meant frequent authoritarianism.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You believe China has less command control over their economy than the US government? I'm sorry, that's just not true.

That's not what communism is.

My off the cuff evidence would be anecdotal, I suppose. Are you privately employed? Have you never negotiated a wage before? It happens very routinely in business. Many people choose to simply accept the offer they are initially given, but lots don't.

Do you have any statistics that show that a significant number of people in lower-wage jobs at least attempt to negotiate their employment?

This is a kind of No True Scotsman.

No, it is not. Socialism is social control of the means of production. That does not mean the same thing as "government control". The two can be related, or serve one another, but government control does not automatically equal socialism.

Whenever socialism is scaled up, it inevitably uses government as the owner of the means of production.

So, to you, if I rounded up a bunch of people and turned them into a private militia, then used that militia to seize control a small country's government, and then I used the government to seize control of all the country's means of production and used them to personally enrich myself - that would be socialism?

Secondly, you can't claim that because socialist countries are often authoritarian that they aren't "real" socialists.

Yes I can, because not being authoritarian is kind of defining trait of actually being socialist. You cannot have a socially controlled means of production run by undemocratically elected government. That's just nonsensical.

This would be like libertarians claiming that nations are not "true capitalist" economies unless they never violate the Non-Aggression Principle.

No it wouldn't, since there is no such requirement to be libertarian. It's more like saying a country cannot be considered a democracy if they don't hold elections or actually engage with some kind of democratic, representative system. This is not some semantic game-playing. The idea that the means of production are SOCIALLY owned (i.e: either by the population and/or regulated by a government that is meaningfully representative of the population) is the central foundation of socialism.

Sorry, no. When ideologies move from paper to practice, unintended consequences of that implementation occur. And in socialism's case, that has meant frequent authoritarianism.

So, what socialist policies were implemented that lead to authoritarianism?

 

[Left Coast]

Firstly, do you have examples of unions lobbying for political candidates, funding their campaign on promises of legal leniency, and writing laws in such a way?

Unions have huge political lobbying influence, particularly in blue states. They spend millions in campaign donations every election cycle. Did you not know that?

Here's an example to which you'll likely be sympathetic:

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/20...way-over-big-us-cities-and-state-governments/

Secondly unions exist to protect worker rights and workplace safety measures. Corporate lobbyists represent the interests and financial gains of the individual.

No, not the "individual," the company. And often more broadly, the industry.

Yes, I would argue that paying even $12 for a life saving medicine is unethical. It should cost that person nothing.

Get ready for your insurance premiums to go up!

A Communist country that happens to do trade with a lot of Capitalist countries, one of which is the United States. "To date, Beijing has used the threat and imposition of trade-restrictive measures to punish over a dozen countries for pursuing policies deemed harmful to Chinese interests." Utilizing profit to undercut responsibility. People here in America talk about "voting with your wallet" to show Corporations what we think, and they like to think that's an effective tactic to get their way. To use Capitalism against the Capitalist. It's laughable on our level, but countries like China are able to actually do it.

Profit is a double edged sword. On that we can agree, I think.

You are still very much missing the point. A business is not a person, and people suffered while the CEOs of their jobs raked in record profits off their back, all the while calling us "essential employees" and "heroes".

I think this is an over-simplification. A large part of the reason people suffered is because they lost their jobs because their places of work suffered. The interests of business and workers are overlapping Venn diagrams.

The private sector being the part of the economy that is run by individuals and companies for profit? So... the actual Capitalists. They're also not paid via negotiation, they're "paid" off direct profits from their company.

Anyone employed by a privately owned business is part of the "private sector." Your Starbucks and Walmart employees are private sector workers.

James John Liautaud (the founder of Jimmy John's) didn't supervise or direct anyone. That's what the regional managers were for. But he sure profited a ton off people slinging sandwiches with his name on them.

I have no idea who that is. Who supervised the regional managers?

Are you required to show up to the job?

Of course, within reason. Salaried hours are usually more flexible as long as the necessary work is done.

In my experience yes, hourly employees tend to be worked harder, and often end up doing the manager's job for them anyways.

I have had the opposite experience, wherein hourly workers punch in and punch out and do as little work as possible because their pay is not contingent on their productivity, simply their hours. I suppose there are ways for lazy people to exploit pretty much any system.

What kind of machines? Are you running these machines?

Wait a minute, the kind of machine matters as to whether it's ethical? Or whether I'm engaging in capitalist enterprise for profit? Cmon now.

I'm stating what I believe (or rather don't believe) of America based off decades of lived experience in this Capitalist hellhole, not what I know will happen. I'm open to being positively surprised in that regard, but I'm not holding my breath.

That's fair. I guess my experiences here have been different.

No.

Yes. If you're not aware of socialist efforts to nationalize industries, for example...I dont know what to tell you?

It's been very clear that the goal of Socialism is for the people to have the profits of their labor. To own the means of that labor. So that's not said "all the time". Until, as ImmortalFlame said, the government actually represents the people and we truly have a seat at the table, rather than representing corporate interests and demands, this is so far away that it's not even worth mentioning at this point.

As I said to him, you don't get to claim that when your ideas are taken from paper to practice and they don't work out as planned, that they weren't really your ideas. (I don't mean that "you" personally.) This is part of the issue with socialism. It has very lofty, admirable goals, but in execution it doesn't pan out. You can't just hand wave that away as "not real socialism."

 

[Revoltingest]

China is state capitalist.

Nah, China allows private ownership.
State capitalism - Wikipedia

Do you have any evidence that this is true? I would be astonished to discover that the majority of people who are privately employed are in any way able to negotiate their wage at employment.

Unlike government employment, which sets rates in stone,
the private sector allows negotiation. One variation on this
is that low wage jobs are usually "negotiated" by the market.
This is why wages are rising, ie, the labor market is in short
supply, & so they demand more.

Socialism is social ownership of the means of production.

"Social" is without specific meaning.
By definition, the "people" own the means of production.
And being always represented by a government, tis
government that does the owning & controlling.

This CAN be done by government....

History shows that government ownership is
an inexorable emergent property of socialism.

...but only IF that government can reasonably be said to be representative of the will of the people.

This tends to not happen. Socialist regimes
have been dictatorial authoritarian systems.

This is why democracy is necessary for socialism...

Let us all know when it happens de facto,
not merely de juro.

 

[Left Coast]

That's not what communism is.

Well that's fascinating. So the Chinese Communist Party...isn't Communist?

Do you have any statistics that show that a significant number of people in lower-wage jobs at least attempt to negotiate their employment?

No, because that's not really how it works. In lower wage jobs, the people applying generally have less education and less work experience and are engaging in lower skill work, thus have less negotiating power. As you gain education and experience and start applying for higher skill jobs, your negotiating power increases.

No, it is not. Socialism is social control of the means of production. That does not mean the same thing as "government control". The two can be related, or serve one another, but government control does not automatically equal socialism.

Again, in practice, yes it does mean government control when scaled up. Time after time after time this has occurred.

Yes I can, because not being authoritarian is kind of defining trait of actually being socialist. You cannot have a socially controlled means of production run by undemocratically elected government. That's just nonsensical.

Democratically elected governments can be authoritarian, too. Socialist countries also have a long history of "democratic" elections that are not so.

No it wouldn't, since there is no such requirement to be libertarian.

Ohhhhh my friend lol. You haven't talked to enough of them. The Non-Aggression principle is central to their ideology.

It's more like saying a country cannot be considered a democracy if they don't hold elections or actually engage with some kind of democratic, representative system. This is not some semantic game-playing. The idea that the means of production are SOCIALLY owned (i.e: either by the population and/or regulated by a government that is meaningfully representative of the population) is the central foundation of socialism.

As I've said, there is a difference between socialist rhetoric or ideals and how such systems play out in the real world.

So, what socialist policies were implemented that lead to authoritarianism?

That's a sort of chicken and egg question. Did the socialism lead to authoritarianism, or did the authoritarianism lead to socialism?

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Secondly, you can't claim that because socialist countries are often authoritarian that they aren't "real" socialists.

Addressing this first. Yes, we absolutely can, when it's well documented that Socialism does not do well because America does not let it. Authoritarianism is entirely antithetical to Socialism

Unions have huge political lobbying influence, particularly in blue states.

Allow me to be more specific; do you have any examples of worker's unions lobbying for political candidates? Because "Police Unions" ain't it. Yet regardless, a union is there to protect workers against companies that would gladly trample their rights further for a profit. These two efforts are not the same.

No, not the "individual," the company. And often more broadly, the industry.

They lobby to protect their profits and their investments. Companies like AT&T and Facebook lobbying to protect their interests in selling user information for profit. "The Company" does not include the workers or the consumers, it is in the interest of Capitalist gains off them.

Get ready for your insurance premiums to go up!

The common theme, as though healthcare costs are not already outrageous. $1,000+ to lie in a bed and $40 to be able to hold your baby. Never mind that universal healthcare would actually reduce healthcare spending by around $450 billion a year with the removal of such ridiculous and predatory charges to patients. While properly allocated taxes would raise to cover this cost, the result would be that Americans would be saving money by having no deductible or out of pocket cost.

So yes, I still think very strongly that healthcare should not be a For Profit endeavor by the corporations that currently own said healthcare.

I think this is an over-simplification.

It really isn't, and I'm not talking about the people who lost their job. I'm talking about the people who still had to risk their lives during a global pandemic for a minimum wage, all while their CEO raked in an obscene amount in profit.

Anyone employed by a privately owned business is part of the "private sector." Your Starbucks and Walmart employees are private sector workers.

Starbucks is public and Walmart is mixed; the Blue Vests you see walking around are publicly employed, the financial advisors and bank employees are not.

Who supervised the regional managers?

Irrelevant to the point; we can chase the line all the way up to the president, yet the fact remains that the executive board directly profits off other people's work. An hourly employee can do everything right, work their fingers to the bone, and still never see a larger payout than their wages allots. But the CEO sure will.

Wait a minute, the kind of machine matters as to whether it's ethical? Or whether I'm engaging in capitalist enterprise for profit? Cmon now.

You're too focused on ethics, lose that thought for now. We're determining the exact nature of your hypothetical business as it's grown from you simply selling me something.

So again, what kind of machine are you using for your product? Who's working that machine?

 

[Left Coast]

Addressing this first. Yes, we absolutely can, when it's well documented that Socialism does not do well because America does not let it. Authoritarianism is entirely antithetical to Socialism

So you're blaming capitalism for the failures of socialism? Any time socialism gets implemented, time and time again with negative results, it's either because a) the capitalists ruined it or b) they weren't "real" socialists.

At a certain point, the excuses have to stop being made.

Allow me to be more specific; do you have any examples of worker's unions lobbying for political candidates? Because "Police Unions" ain't it. Yet regardless, a union is there to protect workers against companies that would gladly trample their rights further for a profit. These two efforts are not the same.

So when unionization occurs among a group of laborers whose work you don't like, they're not "real" unions. Are you noticing the pattern here? Whenever the ideas you're promoting are applied to deleterious effect, you claim an exception.

As far as political lobbying by other unions, here are a couple of examples:

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/service-employees-international-union/recipients?id=d000000077

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/national-nurses-united/recipients?id=D000062602

They lobby to protect their profits and their investments. Companies like AT&T and Facebook lobbying to protect their interests in selling user information for profit. "The Company" does not include the workers or the consumers, it is in the interest of Capitalist gains off them.

Of course the company includes the workers. If the company goes out of business, guess who loses their jobs?

The common theme, as though healthcare costs are not already outrageous. $1,000+ to lie in a bed and $40 to be able to hold your baby. Never mind that universal healthcare would actually reduce healthcare spending by around $450 billion a year with the removal of such ridiculous and predatory charges to patients. While properly allocated taxes would raise to cover this cost, the result would be that Americans would be saving money by having no deductible or out of pocket cost.

So yes, I still think very strongly that healthcare should not be a For Profit endeavor by the corporations that currently own said healthcare.

Canada has a single payer system already. So even that, it seems, would not be ethical to you.

It really isn't, and I'm not talking about the people who lost their job.

But I am. If you want to talk about workers suffering due to COVID, layoffs are an unavoidable component of that discussion.

I'm talking about the people who still had to risk their lives during a global pandemic for a minimum wage, all while their CEO raked in an obscene amount in profit.

Incidentally I'm one of those people who has worked in person for the entirety of the pandemic, seeing patients face to face. Very few people (relative to the whole work force) risking their lives working during the global pandemic were making the federal minimum wage. Characteristics of minimum wage workers, 2020 : BLS Reports: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Starbucks is public and Walmart is mixed; the Blue Vests you see walking around are publicly employed, the financial advisors and bank employees are not.

Starbucks is a publically traded company, but that doesn't make it part of public sector employment. Those are still private sector jobs. Same with Walmart, as far as I know.

Irrelevant to the point;

It's entirely relevant. Your statement that started this was that CEOs don't labor. But they do, though.

we can chase the line all the way up to the president, yet the fact remains that the executive board directly profits off other people's work. An hourly employee can do everything right, work their fingers to the bone, and still never see a larger payout than their wages allots. But the CEO sure will.

Most people don't stay in the same job at the same wage for their entire careers. As people gain experience and perform well, they get promotions, move to other companies/jobs, and their income increases. I do think you can make the argument that CEO pay has disproportionately increased in the last few decades. I'm not sure what the policy solution is for that aside from an arbitrary cap.

You're too focused on ethics, lose that thought for now.

Ethics is the entire point of the thread. If that's not your focus, we should refocus instead of you trying to argue that small business owners aren't "real" capitalists because...they have the wrong kind of machine?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Nah, China allows private ownership.
State capitalism - Wikipedia

A state capitalist country can still allow private ownership. This wiki page even explicitly says this and lists China as an example of a state capitalist society.

Unlike government employment, which sets rates in stone,
the private sector allows negotiation. One variation on this
is that low wage jobs are usually "negotiated" by the market.
This is why wages are rising, ie, the labor market is in short
supply, & so they demand more.

This isn't what I asked. I am aware the private sector CAN allow for negotiation, I'm just wondering how much negotiation actually happens. Also, if wages really were negotiated by the market, then how come wages regularly fail to meet or exceeded inflation? You'd think that, in a market-driven economy, the need for the worker's wages to meet inflation at the very least would be met. Instead, most people seem to be getting poorer.

"Social" is without specific meaning.

So is "private" when we give a broad definition of capitalism, but we understand what it means when we are talking in certain contexts. The exact specific meaning of "social" in this context is often determined by the flavour of socialism we're discussing, but I would argue that "social" definitely does not mean "in the hands of a controlling class", whether that be the landowners, monarchs, oligarchs or the political class.

By definition, the "people" own the means of production.
And being always represented by a government, tis
government that does the owning & controlling.

So, even an authoritarian, autocratic government that nationalises all industry for private profit is, by your definition, socialist?

History shows that government ownership is
an inexorable emergent property of socialism.

No, it doesn't.

This tends to not happen. Socialist regimes
have been dictatorial authoritarian systems.

Then they're not socialist.

Let us all know when it happens de facto,
not merely de juro.

Socialist policies have been enacted in countless countries with nary an authoritarian takeover on the horizon.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Well that's fascinating. So the Chinese Communist Party...isn't Communist?

Yes.

In other news, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea... is not democratic.

No, because that's not really how it works. In lower wage jobs, the people applying generally have less education and less work experience and are engaging in lower skill work, thus have less negotiating power. As you gain education and experience and start applying for higher skill jobs, your negotiating power increases.

Cool. So your statement "Nearly all employees in the private sector are paid via negotiation at employment" is not true?

Again, in practice, yes it does mean government control when scaled up. Time after time after time this has occurred.

You're not really understanding what I'm writing. Do you not understand the difference between "government control" and "social control"?

Democratically elected governments can be authoritarian, too. Socialist countries also have a long history of "democratic" elections that are not so.

Then they are not democratic - they're just calling themselves democratic.

See, by this logic, the fall of the USSR is as much an indicator that democracy is bad as it is socialism, because they called themselves democratic. If you want to argue that the USSR, China and North Korea are actual democracies, go ahead. But maintaining an autocratic dictatorship while using the guise of a democracy is not the same thing as actually following democratic principles.

Ohhhhh my friend lol. You haven't talked to enough of them. The Non-Aggression principle is central to their ideology.

Perhaps I should talk to more. Though I have also met plenty of people who called themselves libertarian who seemed to have no issue with aggression.

As I've said, there is a difference between socialist rhetoric or ideals and how such systems play out in the real world.

I agree. Often a country or government will call itself a thing while not actually doing anything that makes them said thing. This is why I believe the USSR, China and North Korea are not socialist or communist.

That's a sort of chicken and egg question. Did the socialism lead to authoritarianism, or did the authoritarianism lead to socialism?

Neither. Because they didn't actually do anything socialist.

 

[Revoltingest]

...if wages really were negotiated by the market, then how come wages regularly fail to meet or exceeded inflation?

Market response isn't instantaneous or precise.
This doesn't mean there's no negotiation on an
individual or market level.

You'd think that, in a market-driven economy, the need for the worker's wages to meet inflation at the very least would be met. Instead, most people seem to be getting poorer.

No, there are other factors, eg,
automation, resource scarcity,
labor supply, recession.

So, even an authoritarian, autocratic government that nationalises all industry for private profit is, by your definition, socialist?

This hypothetical scenario makes no sense.
Do you claim that it happened some time somewhere?

No, it doesn't.

I've offered examples, eg, NK, USSR, PRC, Cuba.
You've offered no counter-examples.

Then they're not socialist.

You've fallen victim to the No True Scotsman fallacy.
Belief that "socialism" isn't as defined in dictionaries,
but rather by your personal utopian ideals is wrong.

Certainly, you wouldn't let me define capitalism as...
Economic liberty wherein anyone can start a business
& make a fortune, & government wisely uses reasonable
taxes to provide wonderful social programs that result
in everyone being honest, happy, prosperous, & pretty.

 

[Left Coast]

Cool. So your statement "Nearly all employees in the private sector are paid via negotiation at employment" is not true?

Here. I shall amend it to, "in general, negotiation for wages at employment occurs in the private sector." Is that satisfactory?

You're not really understanding what I'm writing. Do you not understand the difference between "government control" and "social control"?

I do. Do you not understand that when you scale up "social control" that it typically involves the government? This is why socialist societies the world over have used the government, as the representative of "the people," to enact and enforce socialist policy.

Then they are not democratic - they're just calling themselves democratic.

No. They're elected democratically, but then enact policies that are not democratic.

I agree. Often a country or government will call itself a thing while not actually doing anything that makes them said thing. This is why I believe the USSR, China and North Korea are not socialist or communist.

Which countries are, or have been, socialist or communist in your mind?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Market response isn't instantaneous or precise.
This doesn't mean there's no negotiation on an
individual or market level.

No, there are other factors, eg,
automation, resource scarcity,
labor supply, recession.

I suppose that makes sense.

This hypothetical scenario makes no sense.
Do you claim that it happened some time somewhere?

There are a lot of countries which have used socialist policies and not become authoritarian. Review this list:
List of socialist states - Wikipedia

I've offered examples, eg, NK, USSR, PRC, Cuba.

None of which are socialist.

You've offered no counter-examples.

Review the wiki. As I have said before, I would hesitate to outright call any extant state a "socialist" state.

You've fallen victim to the No True Scotsman fallacy.
Belief that "socialism" isn't as defined in dictionaries,
but rather by your personal utopian ideals is wrong.

What are you talking about? My definition fits perfectly with the dictionary definition you adhere to.

Certainly, you wouldn't let me define capitalism as...
Economic liberty wherein anyone can start a business
& make a fortune, & government wisely uses reasonable
taxes to provide wonderful social programs that result
in everyone being honest, happy, prosperous, & pretty.

No. But I already defined socialism as "social control of the means of production", so I have no idea where this strawman comes from. I've already agreed that what "social" means can vary depending on the school of socialism we are discussing, but it certainly does not include states where the means of production are controlled by a ruling class.

 

[Revoltingest]

There are a lot of countries which have used socialist policies and not become authoritarian. Review this list:
List of socialist states - Wikipedia

You offer a link, but how about a specific example
of a country that bans private ownership of the
means of production, ie, socialism.

None of which are socialist.

That True Scotsman is getting a real workout today.
At this point, it's clear that you use a personal
definition of socialism so radically different from
any dictionary that we've no common ground.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Here. I shall amend it to, "in general, negotiation for wages at employment occurs in the private sector." Is that satisfactory?

Yeah, I can accept that. Actual statistics on this kind of thing are fairly scant and complicated anyway.

I do. Do you not understand that when you scale up "social control" that it typically involves the government?

It may. But that does not mean that social control means the same thing as state control. It doesn't just mean that ANY state put in control of the means of production can necessarily be called socialist.

This is why socialist societies the world over have used the government, as the representative of "the people," to enact and enforce socialist policy.

And yet you would agree that not all of these governments genuinely DID represent the people, and if we accept the definition of socialism as "social control" it cannot reasonably be said that a government that acts in spite of - or in direct contradiction to - the will of the people is "socialist". At the very least, adherence to basic democratic principles is necessary in socialism.

No. They're elected democratically, but then enact policies that are not democratic.

You already agreed that the "democratic elections" weren't democratic in your examples:

"Socialist countries also have a long history of "democratic" elections that are not so."

Now you're saying they WERE democratic? Um, okay...

Yes, I can accept that a government can be democratically elected and then do a bunch of things against the interest of the people who voted for them. That can happen. But what does that have to do with socialism?

Which countries are, or have been, socialist or communist in your mind?

I struggle to think of a single state that actually enacted pure socialism, but there are countless states that have utilized socialist policies. This is why I advocate for socialism as an ideal and as a basis for policy, not for a country to just drop what it's currently doing and adopt socialism. The fact that people seem to not realize that this is a possibility indicates to me that people don't really know what socialism is.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You offer a link, but how about a specific example
of a country that bans private ownership of the
means of production, ie, socialism.

As I've said before, I can't. I don't think any state, to my knowledge, has truly enacted statewide socialism.

That True Scotsman is getting a real workout today.

It's not a no true Scotsman. As per the very definition you claim to adhere to.

At this point, it's clear that you use a personal
definition of socialism so radically different from
any dictionary that we've no common ground.

I've provided you my definition. If you think an autocratic, non-democratically elected government controlling all of a state's business is socialism, then you need to seriously educate yourself.

Try reading something other than a dictionary, maybe? There's a lot of those, apparently.

 

[Revoltingest]

As I've said before, I can't. I don't think any state, to my knowledge, has truly enacted statewide socialism.


It's not a no true Scotsman. As per the very definition you claim to adhere to.


I've provided you my definition. If you think an autocratic, non-democratically elected government controlling all of a state's business is socialism, then you need to seriously educate yourself.

Try reading something other than a dictionary, maybe? There's a lot of those, apparently.

I've nothing to add.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I've nothing to add.

Sorry. Maybe just buy a bigger dictionary?

 

[Revoltingest]

Sorry. Maybe just buy a bigger dictionary?

I've surveyed many.
Your definition is a bizarrely utopian personal one.
Again, no common ground.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I've surveyed many.
Your definition is a bizarrely utopian personal one.
Again, no common ground.

"Social ownership of the means of production"?

Does it really distress you this much that "socialism" might not be as scary as you've been convinced it is?