= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
A-Lurker comments on AALWA: Ask any LessWronger anything - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (611)
No not really. Like I said I think it can play a role along side and in conjunction with capitalism/private ownership. Even if the government didn't own any companies or what not, socialism can still exist in the form of taxation and social spending. It's more about regulation and distribution of a societies wealth. Once the state starts owning and controlling everything, that's when I would start to call it 'communism' or something around those lines. I am not for this total control and ownership concept as I think capitalism does play a role in innovation and economic growth. To be communist would be to destroy all the benefits of capitalism.
I did not say "complete and total government ownership and control". As you yourself point out in contemporary societies the government owns and controls a lot. For example, the army, as you said.
Under your definition, is there anything government-controlled that you would not call "socialist"? And in reverse, do you think there is anything socialist that is not connected to the government?