Okay, nothing still about social ownership of wealth. Still fail to see the connection.
Okay, nothing still about social ownership of wealth. Still fail to see the connection.
Because that's not socialism. It can be something socialism strives for depending on the ideology but at it's must fundamental, it's labor, not social, control of the economy. The idea that socialism = collectivism is something individualistic conservatives invented in an attempt to discredit socialism (never mind that rednecks [as most of these conservatives would define themselves] were born of a socialist uprising).
The English definition of socialism is the social ownership of wealth. Labor is manual force, or action. So this makes no sense.
Because your defining a complex economic theory with a dictionary...
It'd take an econ textbook to properly define socialism at it's most basic. Then you'd have to consider the different political ideologies...
Because your defining a complex economic theory with a dictionary...
You are attempting to define it by one word that is an action, has noting to do with economy.
Labor isn't socialsium. Labor is manual work. You are out of your mind.
The dictionary isn't the best source for a lot of definitions because it doesn't have room to expand on them as would be needed for an adequate definition. Definitions can also vary depending on who you talk to and in what context. With words like socialism and capitalism, this is especially true. We've established that already.
No, we have not established that, sorry. I agree the dictionary is not a complete definition, but if you say the definition by the diction of the English language is something completely unrelated you are going to have a difficult time communicating. He is using socialism to define an economic principal (I think) if he has a unconventional meaning for that word, it is his burden to explain this.
Socialism is labor is an absurdity. That is like saying communism is friction. Or capitalism is duty. It is too philosophical of a meaning, he must explain to properly communicate.
If I don't understand a word, I look it up in the dictionary, if your definition differs than there is an issue. You have to explain why the dictionary is inadequate. I am not clairvoyant and expecting me to know non dictionary definitions is irrational especially if they are completely esoteric.
What the hell are you on about?
You claimed that socialism was about social ownership. I corrected you by saying it was labor (as opposed to capital) control of the economy.
Try responding to my point and not what you wish I'd said.
Try comprehending English. Labor is physical work, what on earth does that have anything to do with a socioeconomic philosophy.
Socialism as I understand it is social ownership of wealth. But it is such a broad term, it had many definitions none of which is "labor" sorry, you really need to do a better job of communicating.
I am a capitalist, I can subscribe to you exactly what I mean and severely narrow down that general word if you wanted me to but I could say capitalism is labor so you can't narrow down a general term with a more general term.
Don't get frustrated with me because you fail to communicate your ideas, i an sorry I can't read your mind. But when you fail to define what you mean I am forced to fall back to the dictionary, if it isn't accurate please explain. If not there can be no forward movement and continuing this is a stale mate.
please if the dictionary is inadequate at defining the socialism you are talking about, or the encyclopedia explain to me what you mean by socialism. Of you say "labor" again I reject your definition in place of encyclopedia Britannica, they have better credentials than you.
I never said labor was socialism, I said labor control of the economy was socialism. And capitalism isn't labor, capitalism is the act of using capital to drive economic activity.
What do you do when the dictionary only partially defines the word? Or when it defines it more vaguely or differently (with less contingencies, etc.) than say a textbook?
The dictionary isn't an all-inclusive definer of things- any lexicographer will tell you this. This is especially true with more technical terms including socialism.
The other thing here is that most words are created, used and defined far before the first time they are included in a dictionary.
I would go by the encyclopedia, our request the person using the word to define it, which I did, and there was a silly back and forth and finally he defined it.
I haven't looked at a text book in years, nor do i have hundreds of dollars to get one Niue am I interested. If somebody is trying to use a specific meaning of a broad term and don't state that specific meaning, it isn't rational to expect anyone to know what they are talking about.
Perhaps it is not rational- I am not making that point. But you seem to agree now that dictionaries aren't the end-all on definitions. Am I right to say that?
To an extent. With something like socialism that has a more arguable definition, then perhaps, sure. But there are other cases or within some contexts when ignorance is not an excuse for not understanding a definition. While people should adequately explain a context and framework for their argument, you can't expect them to in-detail define every single word either. I'm not saying that you are expecting that, but this is just a general statement.
I defined it clearly but you focused on the word labor for some odd reason, there were other words in my posts.
I defined it clearly but you focused on the word labor for some odd reason, there were other words in my posts.
I also defined it clearly, you disagreed with that definition and carried on about the dictionary. True the definition may fall short of your specific type of socialism but it does give a general definition, one that isn't meaningless because it is not specific enough.
your original claim was that Republican is socialism, than you defined socialism as labor controlled economy. I don't know of a Republican that supports that, name one.
Most Republican potions believe in privately controlled wealth, meaning your labor should bring you wealth, that is capitalism, our the antonym of socialism. Sorry you're statement is flawed, and hi don't follow.
I didn't say Republicans were socialists, I said they had a history with socialism. Look up the quote I gave you and you'll know who I'm talking about.
Similar threads
