From: Technotranscendence (neptune@mars.superlink.net)
Date: Fri Oct 25 2002 - 19:41:13 MDT
On Friday, October 25, 2002 7:27 PM Samantha samantha@objectent.com
wrote:
>> Then you added, "Interestingly, many of these "socialist"
>> groups also had strong beliefs about private property. In some
>> areas they were quite competitive, and perhaps more properly
>> described by the term "capitalist", but again, without a good
>> definition, it's hard to know."
>
> I read him as asking for your working definition. You keep not
> giving one. How about it?
I can offer two working definitions for socialist society.
One, the government controls the means of production. Under this sort
of situation, individuals might still have private property and make
some economic decisions for themselves, such as what to buy, but they
cannot start or run private businesses.
Two, a society where private property has been forbidden. (I use
"forbidden" here because in a socialist society it can't just be by
default, else private property might arise -- or re-arise -- and that
must be prevented for it to be this kind of socialism.) Under this
condition, all economic decisions are made by the government.
I offer up these up as working definitions. If there are any people
proclaiming themselves to be socialists on this list, it might be better
to ask them what they mean by the term -- i.e., for them to define it.
(I haven't been closely following the discussion, so I don't know if any
have.)
My two cents worth!
Dan
See more of my writings at:
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/
"You wanna get high?" -- Towelie from "South Park"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:47 MST