Socialism is the economic view that the means of production are owned and controlled in common. There is no reason to assume that if a functioning socialist economy is possible, that it would be less damaging than the current system.
-
-
-
The decision to pollute or not would be in the hands of the many rather than just a few greedy individuals
-
It actually is. They (ie: the majority of the world) still choose products that pollute because people are not willing to sacrifice convenience or cost for more environmentally friendly solutions.
-
Absolute garbage, pollutant free commodities are wildly out of reach for majority of individuals e.g. electric cars, yet we organize society to make cars invaluable
-
So you have one specific example and you think that proves your point? OK, we used to use linen diapers and now we use disposable. Guess which one was better for the environment? Same goes for concentrated detergent vs non-concentrated. Paper cups vs styrofoam. Cost isn't it man
-
that doesn't actually invalidate his point, though, which is true social policies that prioritize the needs & physical/emotional/economic well-being of human beings, instead of legal fiction that is the "person", are good
-
I’m pretty sure that “social policies that prioritize the needs of human beings” doesn’t require the government to seize the means of production
-
like, I'm not sure what's so upsetting about the concept that if there's anything that would make you die if someone decided you shouldn't have it (water, heat/electricity/housing, medical care, transportation, a means to earn cash) people should just have it, no questions asked
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Socialism is about the redistribution of wealth. Wealth is a plentiful supply of desirable things. A plentiful supply is dependent on heavy industry. Heavy industry is bad for the environment. Socialism is not environmentally friendly because the same level of production remains.
-
Yeah I don't... I don't think you've quite grasped it my dude.
-
Explain it to me then dudemeister
-
Well, point 1, it's not "redistribution" of wealth, it's the common & democratic ownership of formerly privately owned property. Fallen at the first hurdle, I'm afraid.
-
Not much in the way of explanation Lawrence. How is the transfer of formerly owned property not a redistribution? Redistribution = the distribution of something in a different way, typically to achieve greater social equality. Clue me in pal
-
In ur first tweet you said "wealth is the plentiful supply of desirable things." Collective & democratic ownership of property ≠ only a "plentiful supply of desirable things" therefore socialism is not just "redistribution of wealth," by ur own terms.
-
I think what Edward is getting at is that a socialised industrialism is still industrialism, and that such a solution is inadequate to solve the problems of industrialism.
-
To expand: he is implying that the only change a socialist society would make would be to "redistribute wealth" and that *no other social changes* (eg reduction in personal consumption, changes in manufacturing practices) would occur as a result of socialist organisation
- 10 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
"maybe millions of people died when the planet broke in half, but for some of us, that sacrifice means the dream of owning a small business that will eventually be killed off by a wal-mart opening"
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
H U M A N N A T U R E V E N E Z U E L A
-
That was the result of capitalists taking advantage of the country
-
wow even when a proud an vocal socialist system destroys a country people still find a way to blame capitalism instead a shitty system that limited private property
-
Nope, you just don't understand what happened to Venezuela, and that capitalism is the reason behind it.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
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.