| ▲ | AtlasBarfed 12 hours ago | |||||||
It's part of modern double speak Capitalism is really centralized monopolistic oligarchical control in modern media parlance. Distributed empowering democratic grassroots level capitalistic allocation of resources that don't provide centralized control and administration is "socialism". | ||||||||
| ▲ | Avicebron 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||
I think this is really insightful definition, username aside, I think forcing the conversation to include "oligarchical control" (the part people usually have issue with) prevents the lazy "but muh free market!" arguments when discussing our modern economic system | ||||||||
| ▲ | manoDev 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |||||||
If the value is staying with local workers (social ownership) instead of being captured by some multinational, that's closer to a textbook definition of socialism than capitalism. How's that double-speak? | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| ▲ | onraglanroad 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||
You're attempting to be sarcastic but that's actually accurate: > Capitalism is really centralized monopolistic oligarchical control in modern media parlance. Of course, because the Capitalists try to control the industry they've invested in. > Distributed empowering democratic grassroots level <word> allocation of resources that don't provide centralized control and administration is "socialism". Yes, it is. When the people who actually do the work own it. | ||||||||
| ||||||||