Timeline for Isn't socialism a form of democracy?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
22 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 8, 2023 at 23:41 | comment | added | CriglCragl | See 'How do I write a good answer?' philosophy.stackexchange.com/help/how-to-answer To improve your answer include relevant references & evidence for your points, relating to well regarded philosophical texts. | |
| Dec 7, 2023 at 23:41 | comment | added | user76284 | @CriglCragl "Social ownership is a type of property where an asset is recognized to be in the possession of society as a whole rather than individual members or groups within it." | |
| Dec 7, 2023 at 23:28 | comment | added | user76284 | @CriglCragl Worker co-ops are privately owned. Look up what "private ownership" means. 1: the fact of being owned by a private individual or organization, rather than by the state or a public body. 2: when a company is owned by people or organizations that are not part of the government of a country. In a worker co-op, the workers are the private owners, who run their business for profits and respond to market conditions (supply and demand). | |
| Dec 7, 2023 at 19:10 | comment | added | CriglCragl | @user76284: Capitalism has to distinguish itself from feudalism. Communism pictures ownership in common of at least most goods & the means of production. Socialism only pictures the socialising of ownership, for instance through workers cooperatives, like the syndicalist-collectives of Catalonia in the Spanish Civil War. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syndicalism | |
| Dec 3, 2023 at 22:39 | comment | added | user76284 | @CriglCragl Worker co-ops are privately owned. Look up what "private ownership" means. 1: the fact of being owned by a private individual or organization, rather than by the state or a public body. 2: when a company is owned by people or organizations that are not part of the government of a country. In a worker co-op, the workers are the private owners, who run their business for profits and respond to market conditions (supply and demand). | |
| Dec 3, 2023 at 21:55 | comment | added | user76284 | @CriglCragl By "allowed to die" you mean killed. That someone suffers does not give you the right to kill them. | |
| Dec 2, 2023 at 8:59 | comment | added | CriglCragl | @DavidGudeman: It's not a mystery which party wants to sell off the NHS twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1606223967903260673 A baby that cannot be expected to survive should be allowed to die, rather than forced into a short life of intense suffering. Of course I say that with a straight face. Parents cannot be the only & last word | |
| Dec 2, 2023 at 5:00 | comment | added | David Gudeman | @CriglCragl How far has British society fallen that a Brit can now say with a straight face that minimizing suffering requires killing a baby. Western society is returning to pre-Christian barbarism at an astounding rate, that I never would have believed even ten years ago. | |
| Dec 2, 2023 at 4:37 | comment | added | user76284 | @CriglCragl "We aim to make clinical decisions based on minimising harm & suffering" You claiming so does not make it so. Britain’s NHS was once idolized. Now its worst-ever crisis is fueling a boom in private health care. | |
| Dec 2, 2023 at 1:04 | comment | added | CriglCragl | @DavidGudeman: We aim to make clinical decisions based on minimising harm & suffering, you have a far bigger constituency with religious commitments to prevent infant death at any cost. Cultural difference, sure. There are delays & waiting lists that's true, & in the US you can skip to the front of the que if you are rich - but if you are poor your first response to getting injured may be begging onlookers not to call an ambulance you know will bankrupt you. There are ways to compare commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2021/aug/… | |
| Dec 2, 2023 at 0:45 | comment | added | David Gudeman | @CriglCragl, here in the US we keep hearing horror stories about forced euthanasia of infants against the will of the parents and long delays compared to US healthcare. I don't think there is a simple characterization whereby you can UK is better. | |
| Dec 2, 2023 at 0:25 | comment | added | CriglCragl | @user76284: Why do you think it's 'mine'? I can happily acknowledge that socialism gave us in the UK a far better, fairer & cheaper healthcare system than the US where the market has failed to deliver healthcare for many. While happily accepting that government planning of industries & union resistance to change can be problematic. I like evidence & arguments, rather than picking a team. You should try it sometime, if you can. | |
| Dec 1, 2023 at 17:48 | comment | added | user76284 | @CriglCragl Socialism, your ideology, is a failed experiment that has created more poverty and misery than any other in human history. I don't care if you whinge about "McCarthyism". | |
| Dec 1, 2023 at 12:19 | comment | added | CriglCragl | @user76284: I get that youre highly resistant to just going & reading publically available material, & are stuck in the culture-war legacy of McCarthyism & the US Cold War view, so doubtless responding is pointless. But just as Marx can't be allowed to redefine words already well in use before him, niether can US Cold War idealogues. Capitalism is economics that includes free markets. Socialism is an ownership model. All modern economies are mixed. See philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/90327/… | |
| Dec 1, 2023 at 6:37 | comment | added | user76284 | @CriglCragl "Housing coops, worker coops, food coops" all exist in capitalism. You're trying to pull a motte-and-bailey. What socialists want is something quite different. | |
| Dec 1, 2023 at 6:31 | comment | added | user76284 | @CriglCragl "Portugal not only has a socialist gov, it's constitutionally socialist." That's complete and total nonsense. Portugal has private ownership. | |
| Jul 26, 2021 at 9:18 | comment | added | CriglCragl | "in the hands of society" Housing coops, worker coops, food coops, are all socialism, with the socialisation not among society at large. So you start with a shoddy definition, showing lack of knowledge of the origin & history of. "socialism always degenerates into rule by a small number of people who use their power to extract wealth" Portugal not only has a socialist gov, it's constitutionally socialist. Do you accept it falsifies your claim? Your post is bad, ill informed, & ideological. That's why the downvotes. | |
| Jul 25, 2021 at 20:11 | comment | added | David Gudeman | @user48488 No, fascism allows for some of the means of production to be in private hands, but under orders of the government. That means that private individuals can legally take profits, they might end up in prison if they don't do what they are told. | |
| Jul 25, 2021 at 20:07 | comment | added | David Gudeman | @ChrisRogers That's not a contradiction; it's adding a detail. Obviously the community as a whole can't actually run anything. You can't have a vote of millions of people for each decision in the day to day operations. Saying that the community runs it only means that the people who actually run it are answerable (in theory) to the community. | |
| Jul 25, 2021 at 12:53 | comment | added | user48488 | You've contradicted yourself and defined fascism instead. | |
| Jul 25, 2021 at 8:00 | comment | added | Chris Rogers | I didn't downvote, but you contradicted yourself when you said "The means of production have to be controlled by an individual or a small committee". That would mean that the means of power are no longer under the control of the community as a whole and therefore socialism has failed | |
| Jul 25, 2021 at 7:04 | history | answered | David Gudeman | CC BY-SA 4.0 |