- Capitalism and Alternatives -

One has to wonder

Posted by: Samuel Day Fassbinder ( Citizens for Mustard Greens, USA ) on July 20, 1999 at 10:53:04:

In Reply to: Re: Yes it would. posted by DonS on July 20, 1999 at 01:27:00:

: (Don): Socialism is the common ownership of the means of production. State ownership is one form of "common ownership". I fail to see why socialism must be moneyless, democratic, or international.

SDF: Well, since Don has already told us it's stupid to equate the state with the people, we've got to wonder what to think of this above definition of "state ownership" as "common ownership". Let's go over the facts. State ownership is by Don's own definition NOT ownership by the people. And, presumably, ownership by the people (as opposed to ownership by a few people) is "common ownership". So, transitively, state ownership is not common ownership, unless one is stupid. Or maybe it's a good thing to be stupid, by Don's estimation.

One REALLY has to wonder, therefore, where this propaganda-definition of "socialism" comes from. Shall we define "socialism" as ONLY being this bogeyman form of obsolete Stalinist dictatorship, that's mostly died out in the world since the Soviet regime collapsed, while at the same time pretending that it's ruining the world?

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup