• Cowbee [he/they] ( Cowbee@lemmy.ml ) 
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    I appreciate the sentiment, but the public sector supporting the private is not “socialism.” Socialism describes an economic formation where public ownership is primary in an economy, ie where large firms are publicly owned and controlled. Segments of an economy cannot be Socialist or Capitalist just like an arm cannot be a human, it can only exist in the context of the whole.

    Socialism, in reality, refers to a broader economy where public ownership is primary, while Capitalism refers to a broader economy where private ownership is primary. All Socialist societies have had public and private Capital, and all Capitalist societies have had public and private Capital, it matters most which one has the power.

    I recommend reading my post here on common problems people run into when determining Modes of Production.

    • eurisko ( eurisko@lemmy.ca ) 
      link
      fedilink
      Français
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 years ago

      Original commenter: jokes in class solidarity

      Response: « I appreciate the attempt, but what you said was wrong on sooooo many levels, in this essay, I will… »

        • eurisko ( eurisko@lemmy.ca ) 
          link
          fedilink
          Français
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 years ago

          I understand what you mean, really. I just think the methods of circulating that info can sometimes seem or feel ecclesiastic.

          In my opinion, context and rhetoric matter. That’s why I joked a little. But I don’t mean no harm, truly. And I appreciate what you do.