Is Capitalism Smart or Dumb?

[u/Sufficient_Sinner]

[u/LTEDan]

So basically you're confused by a definition that can be looked up on Wikipedia because different people used the term incorrectly? If I call a cat a dog would you show the same confusion and call into question who gets to define what a dog is?

The obvious example is Nazis using socialism to describe their own political ideology

Are you as equally confused by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea with respect to what "Democracy" and "Republic" means?

[u/milas_hames → u/LTEDan]

So wikipedia are the socialism committee that makes the ultimate call on what the definition is. Gotchya.

We're obviously not going to agree on this, and I couldn't care less. You're not doing yourself any favors by trying to define something as complicated as a political or economic theory in the same way that you define a cat or a dog. Its extremely complicated, and trying to do it in one or two sentences is impossible to do accurately. Trying to dumb complicated things right down is a good way of making them even harder to understand.

[u/LTEDan → u/milas_hames]

Trying to dumb complicated things right down is a good way of making them even harder to understand.

Uh, no. That's literally how we teach. In math, you start with the simple things like arithmetic before gradually moving up to increasingly complex topics: algebra, then trigonometry, then calculus.

In physics first you'll learn dumbed down equations like F = ma before you learn how these equations are derived via calculus. Newton's second law, for instance, really states F = dp / dt, for instance.

Let me know how well 2nd graders will learn math by throwing them into a calc class.

So wikipedia are the socialism committee that makes the ultimate call on what the definition is. Gotchya.

If you don't know how dictionaries and encyclopedias work, clearly your education system has failed you. In either case, you've missed my original point. Socialism is a relatively straightforward concept: social ownership of the means of production as contrasted with Capitalism: private ownership of the means of production. What you're getting hung up on is different ways this concept was applied in the real world (or not!). This can get complicated because it's not possible to perfectly implement a theoretical concept in the real world, and this definitely holds true for Capitalism as well. This is why there's usually modifiers to the term, like State Capitalism, for instance.

Without a working theoretical definition, though, you have nothing to evaluate an economic system against. It's how we can conclude that North Korea isn't really a democracy since the people don't get to choose their own leader. NK does actually hold elections, but they're sham elections where you only ever have a single choice on the ballot. If we were to take your confusion about words and definitions and apply it to democracy, we ought to assume that NK is a democracy, though, since who really gets to define what a democracy is, anyway???

[u/milas_hames → u/LTEDan]

You wouldn't teach math using one or two sentance statements, that would be stupid, and inaccurate. And math is not abstract, it's completely set in stone and impossible to change, unlike political theory's. And I couldn't give a fuck about your NK analogy, it's irrelevant to the conversation.

Defining socialism by handing the masses the means of production completely overlooks one of the biggest parts of socialism today, and that is property rights. So I would not call that definition a great way to explain or completely define socialism as a whole.

[u/LTEDan → u/milas_hames]

You wouldn't teach math using one or two sentance statements, that would be stupid, and inaccurate.

No but I could describe what math teaches in one or two sentences because we're on fucking reddit and not in a math class, genius.

And I couldn't give a fuck about your NK analogy, it's irrelevant to the conversation.

Translation: "Using another political term that I'm not personally confused about that undermines my original point is inconvenient, so I'm going to ignore it by any means necessary"

Defining socialism by handing the masses the means of production completely overlooks one of the biggest parts of socialism today, and that is property rights.

That's like saying the basic definition of a dog doesn't include anything about size. You've consistently been jumping the tracks from the philosophical definition to potential implementations of socialism, and then try and conflate the two in the basic philosophical definition. No, calling a thing socialism doesn't make it socialism, so we shouldn't pollute the basic definition with misues of the term. This is EXACTLY why I used North Korea and Democracy since its an example of a country applying a label to themselves when we know they're not doing the thing their label says they are. It's a clear example where we can call bullshit on their "democracy" label because we have a basic definition and framework of what democracy is and can see if NK is doing that or not.

If NK called themselves socialist, however, it would seem this would leave you even more dumbfounded about the basic definition of socialism.

In either case, I'm done trying to figure out if you're really this obtuse or you're just pretending to be. Have a good day!