lichess.org
Donate

US socialism

#41
@Doodbro
To be short:
Telling that an economy is socialist because state in interventionnist is false, because interventionnism is more like Keynesianism than socialism.
US Economy is far less social than French economy which is juged in my country as liberal, or Neo/ultra-liberal, so it's a relative to a point of view. So as i said in my previous post, if there's not a clear definition of what is socialism, the name of socialism is nonsense and the open door to everything and anything.
US economy is a market economy, with private property, so not socialist regardless to my second definition, which is much precise.
#43
@Furo951

#41

<quote> ... Neo/ultra-liberal ... </quote>

"neoliberalism

noun
a modified form of liberalism tending to favor free-market capitalism."

Neoliberalism is less liberal.
#44
Let's clarify what socialism means:
The factors of production (all of them) are collectively organized by the community, with no private ownership of production factors.
In short, land, labor, and capital are all collectively owned and organized.

This means the original post is based off of an incorrect premise.

EDIT: Another way to think of it is that industries are controlled in a command system.
(Irvin Tucker, Microeconomics for Today 4th Edition, pg 404)
#45
@clousems

"land, labor and capital" : labor and capital are a bit unprecise, as they are fundamental categories of capitalism and have no sens without it. The precises terms are activities and "moyens" (in french, what is the english term ?) of production. but everyone's understand what you mean. So Thanks !
#47
@Furo951: We use Land Labor Capital and entrepreneurship in the US when describing the production function. Usually just labor and capital, since land is constant and entrepreneurship is disputed.

We tend to study economics differently in the US than mainland Europe, though*. I am always interested in the differences between the different studies, however, and would be interested in discussing this further.

The way its being used here, Labor refers to human input into an economy (probably the same as "activities"), while Capital refers to the machinery and tools used to make goods and services (this may be the "moyens", or means, you are talking about). Let me know if I'm mistaken on my interpretation :)

*Historically interesting note: Land as a factor of production actually originated in France, developed by the Physiocratic school of economic thought. It actually predates capitalism.
#48
@clousems
The difference I'm talking about :
Activities and means are general
Work/Labour and capital is the specific form it takes, the specific function it has in capitalism: A-M-A' : to transform money into more money through production. It has sens only in - it's the essence of - capitalism to transform money into more money.
It's the position defended by the "Wertkritik".

#49
@clousems

#44

You have previously posted that the US economy is mixed. Socialism is not as narrowly defined as the ownership of the means of production. An amateur economist should know this. Are you changing your position?
#50
@Doodbro:
"You have previously posted that the US economy is mixed. Socialism is not as narrowly defined as the ownership of the means of production. An amateur economist should know this. Are you changing your position?"
1: I'm not an "amateur" economist. I have a goddamn degree. An amateur economist, however, would indeed know what socialism is, and what Keynesianism is. And what an economy is.
2: "Socialism is an economic system characterized by government ownership of resources" (Tucker). Literal definition buddy. Not up for debate
3: I fail to see how my posting that the US economy is mixed bears any relevance on this conversation. It is true that it is mixed. It is also true that a mixed economy is not socialism. These facts are not up for debate.
4: What, pray tell, makes you think that I am changing my position? What "position" did I even take?

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.