Daily reminder that complaining about people who call Venezuela socialist because "The workers don't own all of the...

Daily reminder that complaining about people who call Venezuela socialist because "The workers don't own all of the means of production, which is the definition of socialism!" is fundamentally no different from a voluntarist saying that "Capitalism has never been tried before, since no country has had all of the means of production privately owned, which is the definition of capitalism!".

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=zIddCEBCKHQ
en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/capitalism
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

1- wage labor
2-industrual society
4-Capitalists owning the factories

If these check then it is capitalists


Why is this so hard to understand ?

There are means of productions other than factories you know.
There has never been a society in existence where all means of productions were privately owned.

youtube.com/watch?v=zIddCEBCKHQ

Let me simplify it for him nigga.

All capitalist countries produce exchange valued commodities. This actually is the core of capitalism more than private ownership of MoP, it's just that the former makes the latter useful to the owners.

Socialist societies will eliminate exchange valued commodities and production will go entirely towards use-valued goods that have no exchange value.

You responded to me, the OP.
For example, roads are an infrastructural instrument of labor, therefore a means of production.
If there is public roads, then there isn't private ownership of the means of production.
Unless I'm mistaken, there has never been a country in existence where this wasn't the case.

All of the examples in the video are cases which dissolved very quickly, so I don't see how this is a good argument for socialism.

en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/capitalism

They can define Capitalism as a system of perfectly voluntary free trade and Socialism as anything the government does and we can define Socialism as a society where the MoP are directly owned and operated by the workers without any state intervention and Capitalism as a historical era where the state enforces property rights. There's nothing wrong with that because the underlying philosophy is opposite.

The way to fix this is to force Social Democrat back into Burger vocabulary by pushing the comparison between figures like Pinochet and Chaves whose governments both had State Owned industries but one killed Socialists while the other claimed to be one.
And by pointing out how Socialist enterprises (Coops) can operate and prosper under a free voluntary market.

Oh shit, a dictionary. I guess the definition of the Economists (who were mostly Proto-Socialists since Liberals just called it "free market economics" or "trade" or "free trade") who coined term is meaningless now.

That doesn't address what I said at all.

The concept of commodity production is far more relevant to a serious economic discussion on what it means to accumulate capital than privately-owned or State-owned enterprises, despite what most people on this board claim.

To more clearly illustrate, a worker-owned business will retain private property. The MoP owned by the workers there will still be held as a private, self-owned set of property held against the society at large that must be economically exchanged with through valued commodities. All you've really done here is mix the concept of the capital-owner and capital-worker together, but you've retained the concept of the private property held against the public. The worker-owners will still be caught in the same destructive cycle as the capitalists they took from, it's just going to be a lot slower.

Yeah, for us it's all or nothing, a "mixed economy" still enforces the commodification of labour and is Capitalist, see China.
also calling roads MoP is stretching it a lot.

Yes, that's how the English language works.

That may be the case, but it's not the the point surrounding definition use that I'm trying to make in the OP.

Not according to the modern definition of capitalism.
The same could be said about claiming that Venezuela isn't socialist.

Fair enough. It's an incredibly shitty meme-tier definition to start with though.

fuck the English language.
philosophy isn't democratic and I won't conform to your already popularized newspeak.
We define terms on the spot and argue concepts, not semantics.


The same could be said about claiming that Venezuela isn't socialist.
Read my reply to OP you sleazy bastard.
Venezuela is a heavily regulated market economy which doesn't suit any Socialist's definition of Socialism. There isn't a "compromise" to be made here, we have definitions which come from different philosophies and will never meet.
One of them was constructed by hundreds of years and dozens of thinkers and the other is ultra-simplified political propaganda with the clear goal to maintain the status quo and create false dichotomies, eventually one will prevail as it best describes reality.

Why do you guys defend shit that isn't socialist? Pretty much everyone here does that in a "the enemy of your enemy is your friend" way.

Bump

Who's defending Venezuela? The conversation is literally going

But that isn't the definition of capitalism

Provide example of socialist, successful country.

...

Define success.

There is always an excuse, isn't there leftits?


Economic growth, thriving society, thriving industries, rational investments, a place in the modern world. I'm sure you can do it.

ML "socialist" countries aren't socialist. The anarchist "countries" aren't countries.

Kurdistan is the most successful country in the middle east.

Do you not understand the concept of a radically different society?

...

Not to mention giving Chavez cancer isn't the only shit The CIA is the only thing they did there.

Ownership of the MOP as a class is what matters.

If you want an example of a successful society building socialism then look up Marinaleda in Spain. Their economic situation is, last I heard, doing much better than the surrounding region.

Not in this conversation, but usually there's at least one retard that does that.

but the means of production are owned by private hands, the goverment is a tool of the bourgeoise