Not Capitalism nor Socialism

[Sunstone]

What specifically do you disagree with?

Your notion of how the definitions I've used were arrived at is poppycock.

As for your Marxist definition -- You seem unaware that Marx is not the only thinker among socialists. Nor is he some god-like being who has the authority to dictate what socialism is. Marx has every right to his opinion, but his opinion is one among others.

I will say it again, my definitions are straight from the book.

 

[Duke_Leto]

Your notion of how the definitions I've used were arrived at is poppycock.

As for your Marxist definition -- You seem unaware that Marx is not the only thinker among socialists. Nor is he some god-like being who has the authority to dictate what socialism is. Marx has every right to his opinion, but his opinion is one among others.

I will say it again, my definitions are straight from the book.

Right, and which book? Because it isn't a book written by anyone with a socialist background.

I used Marx because his works are foundational to socialist thought, his works are typically accepted by socialists, and because as far as I'm aware most socialists don't use an appreciably different definition -- except for Lenin and socialists influenced by him, the definition of which still isn't the same as yours.

 

[Watchmen]

You are of course free to understand socialism and capitalism in whatever ways you wish, but your views are not shared by economists, political scientists, or most other informed people. The definitions I gave of socialism and capitalism were straight out of the book.

Those “rough” definitions?

 

[Sunstone]

Those “rough” definitions?

You can find socialism and capitalism defined in very similar ways to how I defined them in this thread in dictionaries, encyclopedias, and university textbooks in economics.

For instance, the Encyclopedia Britannica defines socialism as a "social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources." While it defines capitalism as an "economic system, dominant in the Western world since the breakup of feudalism, in which most of the means of production are privately owned...." Those are very similar to how I defined the terms earlier in this thread.

As an economic system, the crucial difference between socialism and capitalism is who owns what?

People are free to define terms anyway they want. There is no god nor law of man or nature that states the "correct" or "proper" use of a word. To argue that you have the one and only true definition of a word is poppycock. In this thread I am going with the most common meanings of the terms socialism and capitalism.

 

[Watchmen]

You can find socialism and capitalism defined in very similar ways to how I defined them in this thread in dictionaries, encyclopedias, and university textbooks in economics.

For instance, the Encyclopedia Britannica defines socialism as a "social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources." While it defines capitalism as an "economic system, dominant in the Western world since the breakup of feudalism, in which most of the means of production are privately owned...." Those are very similar to how I defined the terms earlier in this thread.

As an economic system, the crucial difference between socialism and capitalism is who owns what?

People are free to define terms anyway they want. There is no god nor law of man or nature that states the "correct" or "proper" use of a word. To argue that you have the one and only true definition of a word is poppycock. In this thread I am going with the most common meanings of the terms socialism and capitalism.

Not a big deal. I was just confused because you first said “roughly speaking” when describing the terms then later said what you had said was “straight out of the book.” Seemed a bit inconsistent is all. Would you describe Bernie as a socialist?

 

[Sunstone]

Would you describe Bernie as a socialist?

I'm sure Bernie is as much of a socialist as most Americans in that he's probably for public schools, police and fire departments, roads, and so forth. But so far as I know, he's not anymore socialist than most Americans.

His two big ideas -- free tuition at public universities and medicare for all -- are not socialist ideas since they have nothing to do with designating who owns the means of production. They are merely social programs, not socialism. Eisenhower's interstate highway program was much more of a socialist program (public ownership of the interstate highways) than anything Sanders has proposed.