Piker and that scottish dude does some decent short takedowns of loons like that Tawny Larper or whatever her name is, bleached outrage queen on fox now. The Damage Report is ok too. https://www.youtube.com/use...
Again, thanks for the feedback. Your take is very accurate. However, I was going less for academic accuracy and more for using words to make a point. Kirk used "capitalist" and I followed up on that.
Also, while your description fits economic systems, it still leaves a gap when describing individual parts that make up an economy. This is especially an issue when an economic system contains both capitalist and socialist factors. Britannica has a broader definition of socialism that is more in line with my usage.https://www.britannica.com/...
I am not an economic expert, but I know a lot about words. When I was a technical writer I was more interested in properly instructing our customers on the use and maintenance of a product than I was on using the correct engineering term or jargon (no one can understand engineers anyway).
Quality can be described as "fitness for use." In this sense a McDonald's hamburger is high-quality (cheap, fast, widely available) even though it's not a particularly good hamburger. I believe that my wording met the quality requirements for what I wanted to say. If I were writing an economic thesis I probably would have chosen differently.
First, you made me google Hasan Piker, and O.M.G. Thank you.
Second, we've got to find a way to rid ourselves of outrage marketers like the one this article describes. (I don't want to use his name.) They say stupid stuff to get a reaction. Why do we play into it? I'm not sure there's an answer.
When political scientists and economists use the term "means of distribution" they don't mean "roads". They MIGHT mean railroads (since that's traditionally done by corporations), but for the most part they mean shipping companies, warehousing, etc.
Like if Trump nationalized Wal-Mart and their entire distribution system (and put someone horrible like Ivanka in charge), that would be a form of socialism. Kinda (you could make a good case that it's just plain old kleptocracy in that case).
It's a good rule of thumb to think: "is this something that governments did before industrialization?" If the answer is "yes", then it's probably not "socialism".
I mean, a functioning legal system is pretty necessary to an economy, but the government running courthouses isn't socialism. The government running, say, airlines: socialism (in fact, government stakes in airlines and trains tend to be some of the last vestiges of real socialism in most European countries).
Roads and the military are typical roles for the government. There's nothing Marxist about the government building and maintaining a road. You CAN privatize roads, but it's the exception to the rule, which is that roads tend to be for public use and historically were owned by the crown or local community and maintained by local labor and/or public revenue.
As for the military: the state controlling the military is less a definition for a socialist state and more a definition for a state at all. Having a monopoly on violence is kinda the whole point of being a government.
Thanks for the feedback. I was stretching the terms some by referring to individual things rather than to an overall governmental system, but I think there is validity in that. This is one definition of socialism:"socialism. noun. an economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state."
Roads are certainly a means of distribution. And they are owned by the public through the state. The military is a bit more of a stretch, but defense is certainly a part of our economy.
I don't know of any government that is purely capitalistic or socialistic. They combine the two. Some things are publicly owned and some are privately owned.
I certainly don't think of our system as capitalism. For one thing, risk has been removed from the risk-takers and transferred to the public, as we saw in 2008. We're getting to be more of an oligarchy.
What word would you use to refer to roads, which are publicly owned, as opposed to Apple, which is privately owned? Serious question. I'd love to know a more accurate term. In this case I went with capitalism and socialism because Kirk started it that way.
Charlie Kirk is a regular "conservative youth commentator" on Fox News which would explain why many of the good, smart folx in this thread have never heard of this entitled moron.
And you were doing okay till you dropped the S-bomb. Old dude (roughly our age) already admitted he surfed YouTube, so you know he's getting some bad information.Let's just ladysplain to him that Nancy, schooled from her Baltimore birth in the ways of all things political, has forgotten more about leadership than any young upstart will ever know. Besides, her years in the House have taught her where all the bodies are buried and, we all know, leverage is everything...right? Get a clue, subliberal.
Trump used to tell his mob to reject 'the elites'; now, he tells them they ARE the elites. Kirk is what happens when Cheeto's beloved 'poorly-educated' think they've chosen someone to look 'smart' on their behalf. Idiocracy reigns supreme. VOTE, or we are doomed. (We may be anyway, but let's go down in a hail of ballots...)
You might want to do a quick Google to find definitions of those terms yourself.
Roads or the military aren't the means of production. By that silly standard the freaking Roman Empire and most other governments throughout human history were "socialist", rendering the word effectively meanungless (anything besides anarcho-capitalism would be Socialism, effectively).
Just because Kirk is a giant idiot doesn't mean we need to be. Just because stupid Republicans act like any government action is "socialism" doesn't mean that it is.
Socialism would be the government taking over the auto industry, not the government running a health insurance program or paying for public education or roads or whatever.
Piker and that scottish dude does some decent short takedowns of loons like that Tawny Larper or whatever her name is, bleached outrage queen on fox now. The Damage Report is ok too. https://www.youtube.com/use...
Again, thanks for the feedback. Your take is very accurate. However, I was going less for academic accuracy and more for using words to make a point. Kirk used "capitalist" and I followed up on that.
Also, while your description fits economic systems, it still leaves a gap when describing individual parts that make up an economy. This is especially an issue when an economic system contains both capitalist and socialist factors. Britannica has a broader definition of socialism that is more in line with my usage.https://www.britannica.com/...
I am not an economic expert, but I know a lot about words. When I was a technical writer I was more interested in properly instructing our customers on the use and maintenance of a product than I was on using the correct engineering term or jargon (no one can understand engineers anyway).
Quality can be described as "fitness for use." In this sense a McDonald's hamburger is high-quality (cheap, fast, widely available) even though it's not a particularly good hamburger. I believe that my wording met the quality requirements for what I wanted to say. If I were writing an economic thesis I probably would have chosen differently.
First, you made me google Hasan Piker, and O.M.G. Thank you.
Second, we've got to find a way to rid ourselves of outrage marketers like the one this article describes. (I don't want to use his name.) They say stupid stuff to get a reaction. Why do we play into it? I'm not sure there's an answer.
When political scientists and economists use the term "means of distribution" they don't mean "roads". They MIGHT mean railroads (since that's traditionally done by corporations), but for the most part they mean shipping companies, warehousing, etc.
Like if Trump nationalized Wal-Mart and their entire distribution system (and put someone horrible like Ivanka in charge), that would be a form of socialism. Kinda (you could make a good case that it's just plain old kleptocracy in that case).
It's a good rule of thumb to think: "is this something that governments did before industrialization?" If the answer is "yes", then it's probably not "socialism".
I mean, a functioning legal system is pretty necessary to an economy, but the government running courthouses isn't socialism. The government running, say, airlines: socialism (in fact, government stakes in airlines and trains tend to be some of the last vestiges of real socialism in most European countries).
Roads and the military are typical roles for the government. There's nothing Marxist about the government building and maintaining a road. You CAN privatize roads, but it's the exception to the rule, which is that roads tend to be for public use and historically were owned by the crown or local community and maintained by local labor and/or public revenue.
As for the military: the state controlling the military is less a definition for a socialist state and more a definition for a state at all. Having a monopoly on violence is kinda the whole point of being a government.
Sounds as though he may already have contracted Mad Cow disease.
Thanks for the feedback. I was stretching the terms some by referring to individual things rather than to an overall governmental system, but I think there is validity in that. This is one definition of socialism:"socialism. noun. an economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state."
Roads are certainly a means of distribution. And they are owned by the public through the state. The military is a bit more of a stretch, but defense is certainly a part of our economy.
I don't know of any government that is purely capitalistic or socialistic. They combine the two. Some things are publicly owned and some are privately owned.
I certainly don't think of our system as capitalism. For one thing, risk has been removed from the risk-takers and transferred to the public, as we saw in 2008. We're getting to be more of an oligarchy.
What word would you use to refer to roads, which are publicly owned, as opposed to Apple, which is privately owned? Serious question. I'd love to know a more accurate term. In this case I went with capitalism and socialism because Kirk started it that way.
That politicon is a shit show. I always get the ads for it and, just, hard fucking pass.
Charlie Kirk is a regular "conservative youth commentator" on Fox News which would explain why many of the good, smart folx in this thread have never heard of this entitled moron.
He's not a capitalist. He doesn't know what one is. He's merely a hired hand confused with the concept. Like all deplorable Republicans.
He'd better steer clear of that mall/hospital/stadium/casino underwritten by tax breaks.
And you were doing okay till you dropped the S-bomb. Old dude (roughly our age) already admitted he surfed YouTube, so you know he's getting some bad information.Let's just ladysplain to him that Nancy, schooled from her Baltimore birth in the ways of all things political, has forgotten more about leadership than any young upstart will ever know. Besides, her years in the House have taught her where all the bodies are buried and, we all know, leverage is everything...right? Get a clue, subliberal.
Trump used to tell his mob to reject 'the elites'; now, he tells them they ARE the elites. Kirk is what happens when Cheeto's beloved 'poorly-educated' think they've chosen someone to look 'smart' on their behalf. Idiocracy reigns supreme. VOTE, or we are doomed. (We may be anyway, but let's go down in a hail of ballots...)
Um.
You might want to do a quick Google to find definitions of those terms yourself.
Roads or the military aren't the means of production. By that silly standard the freaking Roman Empire and most other governments throughout human history were "socialist", rendering the word effectively meanungless (anything besides anarcho-capitalism would be Socialism, effectively).
Just because Kirk is a giant idiot doesn't mean we need to be. Just because stupid Republicans act like any government action is "socialism" doesn't mean that it is.
Socialism would be the government taking over the auto industry, not the government running a health insurance program or paying for public education or roads or whatever.
No doubt he was the kid that picked his nose & flicked boogers at his classmates, if he didn't eat them first.
This no-talent twerp needs to go back to freshman civics after getting a slap upside the head. What a complete loser.
I mean, TYT having these "debates". It just seems really contrived to me. Silly me, it's all there is now.