Replying to Avatar Low Information Voter

We already agreed on definitions of Capitalism, and its very clear that describes small business (much of the time), not Wall Street.

Capital ipso facto is one form of power, there are many and entertwined.

Socialists love Big Business. It crushes and exploits them, but their horizons are so narrow they can dream of nothing but riding the machine.

They dream of being Conservatives.
4a
TheOneWithAReallyLongName 1y ago

I still disagree that it doesn't describe Wall Street. It's inherently capitalist to its core, even in the way it perverts and exploits government.

What do you think socialism actually is? Since you insist so strongly on getting a definition, let's check Britannica.

"socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members."

https://www.britannica.com/money/socialism

Sure seems to me like actual socialists would be against big business. Ironic that you can realize how conservatives label anything they don't like as communism but then proceed to do the exact same thing, just with socialism instead.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
Low Information Voter 1y ago

Actual socialists SHOULD be, but the Western world is full of "Euston Road Declaration"-type sellouts.

All of that Socialism definition except the last paragraph applies to the modern Wall Street.

And that last paragraph, I'm sorry to say, has never applied to Socialism anywhere more than briefly...

4a
TheOneWithAReallyLongName 1y ago

What? Wall Street *privately* owns things. They perform no labor but still take a share of the profits simply for having owned capital. And we agree that the last sentence doesn't apply, so basically none of this definition applies to Wall Street.

As for parts of it supposedly never happening (not fully versed, can't say for sure either way), I think that's more an issue with the supposed implementation not living up to the ideal or theory. It's not an indictment of socialism itself to say systems didn't properly embody it.