Timeline for Can socialism and capitalism coexist in the same country?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 7, 2019 at 13:14 | comment | added | didymus | In my opinion, a strict enough definition of socialism, one that will not allow for the inclusion of arbitrary states or empires or groups, will have to do with things like the abolition of market economy, classless society, the abolition of private property of the means of production, etc... If we don't have at least one of this things, we are playing a post-ironic parody of Reagan's campaign against the introduction of a public health care service in the USA (which in my opinion is what many self-proclaimed socialists appear to be doing in America) | |
| Dec 7, 2019 at 13:14 | comment | added | didymus | @Keinicke, I appreciate that, to the point that it was the very first thing I wrote in my answer. What I'm trying to say is that this American definition of socialism is so vague that it can be used to argue that Ancient Rome and my employer are socialist institutions or that, at least, they have some socialist traits, which is either absurd or useless. The only way in which I can answer your question is by assuming a definition of socialism that doesn’t allow for arbitrary organisations to be categorised as socialist, the American definition doesn’t have this property. | |
| Dec 6, 2019 at 23:23 | comment | added | Keinicke | Also, just because you have some socialist traits doesn't make you a full on socialist country. | |
| Dec 6, 2019 at 23:22 | comment | added | Keinicke | @didymus First of all, the thing that this Q&A should teach you(certainly tought me), is primarily that socialism has a vague definition and americans tend to think that socialism incapsulates way more than danish people think, because to americans, Denmark is socialist, i even heard that some americans think we are communists. However Denmark is not a socialist country, as explained by our last prime minister, but you might think that, thats fine. And second, if you say that for example public education is a socialist trait, then i can say that NOT having it is the opposite of socialism | |
| Dec 4, 2019 at 19:07 | comment | added | didymus | If things like monopoly regulation, pensions, looking after the poor or public education are socialism, which is usually the definition of “socialism” used by Americans, then there is no country in the history of humanity that wasn’t socialist, so this definition is useless. Any definition of “socialism” restricted enough make sense, a definition that allows for a state to have no trace of socialism, is not compatible with market economies, ie capitalism. | |
| Dec 4, 2019 at 14:51 | comment | added | Keinicke | Yes, "rodents" did, but we are talking about terms, so as socialism didn't exist before safety nets and labour laws, the term "rodents" did in fact not exist before the rat. I can also find examples of something that isn't socialism. | |
| Dec 4, 2019 at 14:38 | comment | added | didymus | @Keinicke, (1) rodents did indeed exist before the rat, which is not the first species of the Rodentia order. (2) I can easily find examples of animals that are not rodents, so it is a useful definition. If all animals had the property of being a "rodent", then the word "rodent" would have been a synonym of "animal". | |
| Dec 4, 2019 at 14:21 | comment | added | Keinicke | @didymus yea well group of rodents didn't exist before the rat, but it still inherently includes the rat. So the tearm socialism is probably something we came up with, exactly to label some ideas or implementations in our society, which might or might not be safety nets and labour laws. | |
| Dec 4, 2019 at 10:25 | comment | added | didymus | It is useless because it can be applied to anything, and so “can socialism and capitalism coexist” is equivalent to “is it possible to exist and to be a capitalist country?” which ultimately is a question about the existence of capitalism. Safety nets and labour laws are not inherently socialist because they existed long before the word “socialism” even existed. | |
| Dec 4, 2019 at 9:52 | comment | added | Jontia | That doesn't mean the definition is invalid. Just because the label applies to all countries doesn't make it useless. And it only applies to all "human organisations" because labour laws based on socialist ideals make it apply. I'm sure you could very quickly find employers in relatively recent history that did not provide any social safety net for their workers. | |
| Dec 4, 2019 at 9:34 | comment | added | didymus | I’m claiming that if the existence of public infrastructure or welfare institutions in a social organisation make that organisation socialist or confer such organisation with a degree of socialism, then I can’t think of any human organisation, let it be a country or an empire or a book club, that doesn’t have the property of being socialist. So this definition of socialism is devoid of any meaning, because it is a synonym of “human organisation”. | |
| Dec 4, 2019 at 9:04 | comment | added | Jontia | This makes the same mistake as the question assuming socialism and capitalism are two entirely mutually exclusive philosophies, when the answers already present show that this is not the case. | |
| Dec 4, 2019 at 0:04 | history | edited | didymus | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 97 characters in body
|
| Dec 3, 2019 at 21:45 | review | First posts | |||
| Dec 3, 2019 at 22:42 | |||||
| Dec 3, 2019 at 21:40 | history | answered | didymus | CC BY-SA 4.0 |