21–30 of 108 posts
- The US American arms industry
- Welfare and other benefits for veterans
I think when it comes to citizens and industries somehow related to military the US has a history of applying (some) socialist principles, which is interesting, because it actually was used to "fight socialism".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They seem to 'know' their audience- the NYT isn't an academic economics journal, so playing a bit loose with terminology is OK- the simple fact is amongst the people at large socialism=government controlled as opposed to worker owned.... or some other academic definition I'm ignorant of.
I understand ... I just don't want the idea of being fiscally prudent and economically responsible with municipal resources at a structural level to be stigmatized as a form of socialism. It's just an act of diligence and paying attention.
One should in my opinion not forget about two things here: - The US American arms industry - Welfare and other benefits for veterans I think when it comes to citizens and industries somehow related to military the US has a history of applying (some) socialist principles, which is interesting, because it actually was used to "fight socialism".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They seem to 'know' their audience- the NYT isn't an academic economics journal, so playing a bit loose with terminology is OK- the simple fact is amongst the people at large socialism=government controlled as opposed to worker owned.... or some other academic definition I'm ignorant of.
Actually, socialism is a broad enough term to encompass state ownership as well as worker ownership or control. That's true in academia as well as in non-academic discourse. State ownership of major industries, without worker control, often accomplished through nationalization of pre-existing industries, has been a characteristic policy of socialist political parties and governments throughout the 20th century. For e…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand ... I just don't want the idea of being fiscally prudent and economically responsible with municipal resources at a structural level to be stigmatized as a form of socialism. It's just an act of diligence and paying attention.
Were you under the impression that the author intends to stigmatize anything, or believes that socialism is a bad thing? He is clearly in favor of public ownership.
But if I wanted more of something, calling it "socialist" is probably not a winning strategy to help convergence numbers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, socialism is a broad enough term to encompass state ownership as well as worker ownership or control. That's true in academia as well as in non-academic discourse. State ownership of major industries, without worker control, often accomplished through nationalization of pre-existing industries, has been a characteristic policy of socialist political parties and governments throughout the 20th century. For e…
I feel like a doofus asking this- I was always under the (false?) impression that socialists and fascists were diametric opposites- how is a nation asserting rule over an industry socialist, but not fascist?
State-managed capitalism and socialism are not the same thing. Putting a state-run monopoly in private hands (which is what's usually done), instead in state-run hands ... where the risks and profits are held by the same entity instead of the public bearing the risk and the private sector getting the profits? That's socialism? No... This guy's a professor of political economy ... what a terrible word choice he's usin…
I don't see a very significant distinction between "a state-run monopoly in private hands" and "a state-run monopoly in state-run hands." Each person is still an individual, after all, with "private" incentives. Whether their title is technically a government job is irrelevant, as long as their money is coming from government either directly (from the government budget) or indirectly (thanks to a government-enforced…
The incentive structure of the two systems are different. This changes the outcome.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand ... I just don't want the idea of being fiscally prudent and economically responsible with municipal resources at a structural level to be stigmatized as a form of socialism. It's just an act of diligence and paying attention.
It feels like 'socialism' (which is actually closer to an optimum model than free markets for some types of problem) needs to undergo the same identity shift in the US that started for black & gay people after the Second World War. It's the stigma that's a problem, not the 'socialism'
Replacing any class of duality based thinking with multiplicity based ones seems to be really hard for people. The capitalism/socialism false binary is pretty ingrained
State-managed capitalism and socialism are not the same thing. Putting a state-run monopoly in private hands (which is what's usually done), instead in state-run hands ... where the risks and profits are held by the same entity instead of the public bearing the risk and the private sector getting the profits? That's socialism? No... This guy's a professor of political economy ... what a terrible word choice he's usin…
Most of the examples in the article are about state-owned, state-operated enterprises, such as sovereign wealth funds, utilities, oil and mineral extraction, etc. In fact, I could not find any example of "putting a state-run monopoly in private hands" anywhere in the article. Did you even read it? > According to him, not blindly gifting away the collectively-held public commons into the hands of private capital to se…
That's combined with pedantry about the term "socialism", which has confused some readers of the comment.
So kristopolous appears to approve of certain things being run by the state, and would prefer that not to be described as socialism, as it might put people off who immediately dismiss anything with that label, and lead to more economically silly privatization or public subsidy of private profit.