special interests in socialism

[Immanuel Can]

Label it however you want.

I prefer to label it as it is.

[Skepdick]

I prefer to label it as it is.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/46/New ... aser_Sword

you are doing what Bertrand Russell called reasoning about properties of the world from the language used to describe it. This is not a reliable way of finding out how the world actually behaves. Which is why we have Science.

Dumb logocentrist.

[Immanuel Can]

I prefer to label it as it is.

you are doing what Bertrand Russell called reasoning about properties of the world from the language used to describe it.

No. I'm just using apt labels.

[Skepdick]

No. I'm just using apt labels.

In that case, I shall aptly label you "stupid".

[henry quirk]

in a capitalism (free enterprise), as you say, we each get to run our operations as we like

even in a state capitalism (what we largely have right now) this is the case

not so in a socialism or state socialism

now: what's your point (other than, as Mannie points, you're a capitalist)?

My point is that while you are bickering over categories, all that the "filthy fucking socialist" want is fucking shares in the businesses they work in.

Which is suddenly way more rational/charitable a position than Stalinism.

it's philosophies, not categories, and: capitalism, even state capitalism, can tolerate socialistic endeavors cuz, as you say, we get to run our operations as we like

capitalism, even state capitalism, promotes innovation and experimentation; socialism/state socialism squelches those things

[Immanuel Can]

No. I'm just using apt labels.

In that case, I shall aptly label you "stupid".

Ad hominem.

[Immanuel Can]

all that the "filthy fucking socialist" want is fucking shares in the businesses they work in.

Which they can't have, because Socialism has no "shares," and no actual "businesses."

They have state-funded, state-run services. That's all.

[Skepdick]

Which they can't have, because Socialism has no "shares," and no actual "businesses."

My socialism does.

[Immanuel Can]

Which they can't have, because Socialism has no "shares," and no actual "businesses."

My socialism does.

"Your" Socialism?

Do tell.

[Skepdick]

"Your" Socialism?

Do tell.

It's really not that difficult.

Take the Fortune 100 companies. Contrast against all privately-owned businesses (no shareholding).

That's my kind of socialism.

[henry quirk]

Which they can't have, because Socialism has no "shares," and no actual "businesses."

My socialism does.

and here we go...

[Skepdick]

and here we go...

You don't like it when thing change, do you henry?

[Immanuel Can]

"Your" Socialism?

Do tell.

It's really not that difficult.

Take the Fortune 100 companies. Contrast against all privately-owned businesses (no shareholding).

That's my kind of socialism.

You affirm Socialism. But there will be "no shareholding." Yet workers get "shares" in your companies.

[Skepdick]

You affirm Socialism. But there will be "no shareholding." Yet workers get "shares" in your companies.

Indeed. I confirm collective ownership in the means of production.

Shareholding.

You seem to be having trouble understanding. When you understand you'll be less shocked.

[henry quirk]

"Your" Socialism?

Do tell.

It's really not that difficult.

Take the Fortune 100 companies. Contrast against all privately-owned businesses (no shareholding).

That's my kind of socialism.

do any of these F100 companies (talkin' about the owners) formally declare themselves socialists?

no, probably not

more than likely every one of 'em believes him or her -self to be capitalists...capitalists lookin' to retain a good workforce through incentives likes shares

among these F100 companies, who holds the controlling shares?

we both know the answer to that

your socialism is just a cagey capitalism