We Asked A.I. to Create the Joker. It Generated a Copyrighted Image.::Artists and researchers are exposing copyrighted material hidden within A.I. tools, raising fresh legal questions.
Socialism is still capitalism. It’s just regulated and we use taxes to fund social programs.
Tell me you don’t know the definition of socialism without telling me you don’t know the definition of socialism.
While Socialism may not be against Free Markets, Capitalism /= Socialism.
Socialism is when the workers collectively own the means of production.
So like in a factory, everyone employed there also has ownership stake in the company, and they can vote on leadership internally. Instead of relying on government regulations to be able to have things like paid lunches and guaranteed sick days, instead they can come to collective agreement on those things, with the vote of every worker/owner. They can still sell products on a free market, but the “capital” part of the equation has been removed.
In capitalism, in a factory, the factory has been purchased by a Capitalist who, by definition, is someone with a lot of Capital (money/wealth) and they bought the factory whole with the capital. Now, they are going to hire workers with the capital as well, and the workers have to follow any and all their rules, like a little fiefdom of a dictatorship and nobody gets an opportunity to vote on leadership. They have no control over pay, working conditions, or much else, and they rely on the Government to enforce it otherwise.
Socialism really doesn’t have anything to do with government regulation, taxation, or social safety nets.
So like in a factory, everyone employed there also has ownership stake in the company,
Nope.
That’s not socialism.
In socialism there’s still private ownership of companies.
Maybe you’re specifically thinking of Communist Russia which allowed for small businesses to have private ownership, or perhaps you’re thinking of Anarcho-Communism?
But the reality is, private ownership is the antithesis of collective ownership, so most socialists aren’t really on board with that.
Via Wikipedia, which makes the point numerous times, with a plethora of scholarly references:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
Socialists view private property relations as limiting the potential of productive forces in the economy. According to socialists, private property becomes obsolete when it concentrates into centralised, socialised institutions based on private appropriation of revenue—but based on cooperative work and internal planning in allocation of inputs—until the role of the capitalist becomes redundant. With no need for capital accumulation and a class of owners, private property in the means of production is perceived as being an outdated form of economic organisation that should be replaced by a free association of individuals based on public or common ownership of these socialised assets. Private ownership imposes constraints on planning, leading to uncoordinated economic decisions that result in business fluctuations, unemployment and a tremendous waste of material resources during crisis of overproduction.
But don’t worry, I fully expect a response that keeps arguing the same thing with no evidence to support it. That’s what I usually get here, it’s like the world has become illiterate.
Here’s the summary for the wikipedia article you mentioned in your comment:
Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production, as opposed to private ownership. It describes the economic, political, and social theories and movements associated with the implementation of such systems. Social ownership can take various forms including: public, community, collective, cooperative, or employee. No single definition encapsulates the many types of socialism, but social ownership is the common element. Traditionally, socialism is on the left-wing of the political spectrum.
