(Untitled)

Nov 19, 2010 22:19

Socialism is not a movement for the reforming of capitalism, but for its annihilation.

Leave a comment

mothwentbad November 20 2010, 18:50:39 UTC
Hmmmm. I guess I'm not clear enough on the definitions. I think the government should guarantee basic rights and standards of living. I'm not opposed to having individuals earning and spending money within a legally regulated system.

I'm not sure how to get there, though. I'm sure what I have in mind is sort of not on the bargaining table as it is, as it's "radical socialist freedom-hating" or whatever already. :-P

Reply

pope_guilty November 20 2010, 18:57:40 UTC
It sounds like you're wanting to reform capitalism and make it less painful for the working class. That's liberalism. I'm not sure why people think it's socialism.

Reply

mothwentbad November 20 2010, 19:10:37 UTC
I'm sort of with wring on this one, but I haven't actually studied economics and political theory in any focused way. If you can clarify, I'd appreciate it. I thought all government aid was somewhat socialistic. And aren't there always twelve or more different theories trying to claim the same name anyway?

Reply

pope_guilty November 20 2010, 19:27:50 UTC
I thought all government aid was somewhat socialistic.

No. That is nothing but right-wing propaganda combined with liberals who want to think of themselves as somehow less complicit in capitalism.

Reply

(The comment has been removed)

matgb November 20 2010, 20:35:44 UTC
Exactly. The necessity of a state to intervene and regulate being one of the fundamental points.

Reply

wring November 20 2010, 21:08:50 UTC
lip service

Reply


Leave a comment

Up