Yep. Socialist stuff is what we want. Not full blown textbook socialism.
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Tbf a lot of us leftists use much more specific terms when talking amongst ourselves, if we don't just ignore labels in favor of stating our policy positions. I've tried to talk about this in the past but am always confronted with "socialism is still socialism" talking points.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Precise words matter.https://twitter.com/avyfain/status/1045700616293560321 …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Let me try my hand. Socialists understand that capital is not just a factor of production but, as it is owned, also a factor of distribution. Think: somebody inheriting a lot of stocks. But also: slaves used to be 'capital', too.
-
2) Now, ownership can be by individuals (or families). It can also by by the state. or collectivities, like societies or churches. Liberals have a strong tendency to argue that individual ownership of capital is best.
-
3) Socialists doubt if individual ownership is always best. Should we really have Texan style ownership of subsoil assets by individuals? Or Alaskan (or european: code Napoleon) ownership by the state? Should land underlying houses always be private property?
-
4) Also, should ownership rights be very extensive (as with the elements of TTIP which extended the rights of capital owners vis a vis states)? Or should ownership rights be somewhat tempered and should communities or the state have rights to appropriate part of capital income?
-
5) Socialists tend to restrict private ownership in some cases. Think also of patents and the like! Or ownership of scientific articles of over one hundred year old... Some socialists would like more rights for communities (Kropotkin, underrated). Some facor a democratic state.
-
6) And some wanted total ownership by a state controled by the one and only political party. Bad. Anyway - it does help to think in terms of ownership. Protestant revolution disowned the catholic church, the lands were transfered to governments and charities.
-
7) USA civil war disowned slave holders. More examples abound. At this moment, ownership of information is of course a hot topic. Should information be socialized? Or individualized? End.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The welfare state isn't socialism, it's social democracy. Real socialism, as espoused by the DSA, is unequivocally bad.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Growing up constantly hearing "get a job!", capitalism above all else connotes the valorizing of work for work's sake for the poor and wealth born of passive income for the rich.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Liberals in favor of a welfare state ought to be more vocally and explicitly pro-capitalist, rather than cowering in the face of growing "anti-capitalist" sentiment on the far Left which, I think for most, is just a way of declaring tribal loyalties.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
some of us are responding that sweden 1975 is good which is another case the CEA gave
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
