That’s not really Socialism, though. Segments of an economy cannot be Socialist or Capitalist by themselves, just like an arm cannot be a human. They all exist in their contexts. A worker cooperative in an economy dominated by private Capital is not an instance of Socialism, as it depends on the broader Capitalist system.
A worker cooperative in an economy dominated by private Capital is not an instance of Socialism, as it depends on the broader Capitalist system.
I’ve already addressed how this absolutism doesn’t track with logic, I just hope people stop repeating it so we can get some actual socialism in this world.
It’s the opposite of absolutism, actually. The PRC has a Socialist Market Economy, where large firms are held in public control, and smaller firms that aren’t are often formed in cooperative structures. A cooperative in a Socialist economy exists in a different context than a cooperative in a Capitalist economy.
Advocacy for Socialism isn’t necessarily based in mystical properties of participating in a collectivized structure, but more of a materialist question of efficiency. As firms grow to large sizes, it becomes more efficient to publicly own and plan them.
No they don’t, they have a capitalist economy. Absolutely nothing about China is socialist. You are eating up and regurgitating their propaganda without question.
Advocacy for Socialism isn’t necessarily based in mystical properties of participating in a collectivized structure, but more of a materialist question of efficiency.
This is more of that vague word salad I referred to earlier. You didn’t say anything here. “mystical properties of participating in a collectivized structure”, “materialist question of efficiency”, these phrases don’t mean anything. You’re just stringing polysyllabic words together to sound smart.
Can you elaborate beyond saying “nuh uh?” If the primary aspect of production in an economy is in the Public Sector, as it is in the PRC, it’s Socialist.
Moreover, the concept that production gets complex, and that as this increases it becomes more effective to plan from above with a view of the whole economy, is not “word salad.”
That’s not really Socialism, though. Segments of an economy cannot be Socialist or Capitalist by themselves, just like an arm cannot be a human. They all exist in their contexts. A worker cooperative in an economy dominated by private Capital is not an instance of Socialism, as it depends on the broader Capitalist system.
I’ve already addressed how this absolutism doesn’t track with logic, I just hope people stop repeating it so we can get some actual socialism in this world.
It’s the opposite of absolutism, actually. The PRC has a Socialist Market Economy, where large firms are held in public control, and smaller firms that aren’t are often formed in cooperative structures. A cooperative in a Socialist economy exists in a different context than a cooperative in a Capitalist economy.
Advocacy for Socialism isn’t necessarily based in mystical properties of participating in a collectivized structure, but more of a materialist question of efficiency. As firms grow to large sizes, it becomes more efficient to publicly own and plan them.
No they don’t, they have a capitalist economy. Absolutely nothing about China is socialist. You are eating up and regurgitating their propaganda without question.
This is more of that vague word salad I referred to earlier. You didn’t say anything here. “mystical properties of participating in a collectivized structure”, “materialist question of efficiency”, these phrases don’t mean anything. You’re just stringing polysyllabic words together to sound smart.
Can you elaborate beyond saying “nuh uh?” If the primary aspect of production in an economy is in the Public Sector, as it is in the PRC, it’s Socialist.
Moreover, the concept that production gets complex, and that as this increases it becomes more effective to plan from above with a view of the whole economy, is not “word salad.”