Somewhat correct, but let me fix it

The state doesnt control the econony

Yes it does in a socialist economy

In todays world

Capitalism has existed

well thats debatable, but we'll save that for after

It does exist

When?

I don't see a free market

feel free to point one out tho

There are markets

But those are not capitalist

a market economy is not a capitalist economy

Capitalism has been tried and failed.

Socialism is an economic model where the workers have control over the means of production. This can be achieved through any means, but it is not achieved through the state ACTING ON BEHALF of the worker. In order for state socialism to be socialism, the worker must have control of the state

This is socialism

Usa, hong kong, france, germany, etc

Not real capitalism.

Not what you just said

I haven't seen it been tried

USA hong kong etc aren't capitalist

all have state intervention

Muh but that isnt REEEL capitalism

I haven't seen socialism been tried either.

Let's grab a wide range of definitions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

wikiepedia

@The Big Oof It's actually workers or state ownership

@Kazimir Malevich we have

No, you are WRONG

we've seen the State own the mop

and the workers in some cases

"communes"

state ownership is ONLY socialism when it's the workers who run the state

all have failed

But workers run the state

Capitalism, from the very beginning, has allowed state intervention

I think mises even said this

Nope

The USSR in that sense was not socialist, but it is the closest thing we will ever get to it

No he didn't rofl

Mises is an Austrian

He did

the defintion I used is directly from him LOL

And?

You think like socialists to, ironic that you're arguing against them

Finna show

USSR was socialist , the state owned the Mop

"Anything I don't like is capitalism"

"Anything I don't like is socialism"

No

It's just that it's that any state intervention is socialist

@sɪᴅɪsɴᴏᴛʜᴇʀᴇ I just explained why you're wrong with your definition. At this point you are resorting to circular reasoning in an attempt to avoid addressing the poiunt

You didn't say anything such

you just gave your own

🤦

Trump is a communist.

lol

Stalin was a capitalist.

Putin is a nazi

```Socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members.```

here's another

XinJing Ping is a Fascist

@Kazimir Malevich Seize the means of reproduction!

Putin is a liberal, stop slandering him pls.

LMAO

@The Big Oof They're both wrong

I am right and you are wrong

Dictionary is just communists infiltrating our speech.

I don't believe in definitions.

@sɪᴅɪsɴᴏᴛʜᴇʀᴇ You never explained why they are wrong, and you never do. you just say they are wrong, and then use your lolbert definition of capitalism to keep the argument going in circles. Like bearer said, you are literally saying

"I'm right, and you're wrong. I'm right, and you're wrong. I'm right, and you're wrong. I'm right, and you're wrong. I'm right, and you're wrong. "

You never said anything either

You can make this same argument without incorrectly using the term "socialist"

Argue that they aren't capitalist without using that term

it's easy

I can't, any state intervention is socialist

Circular reasoning

You never told me why my definition was wrong. I have, however, explained the problem with yours.

No you haven't

you just listed your own

You're a dumbass

I don't even mind telling you that

You can still say what something isn't without having to say what it is

I'm not a communist or a socialist, but I know what the terms mean

you don't

I do

I told you it's MoP state or worker owned

simple as that

If you disagree with me you're a goshdarn COMMIE

Same crop

yes

@sɪᴅɪsɴᴏᴛʜᴇʀᴇ "One thing more must be noted. If within a society based on private ownership of the means of production some of these means are publicly owned and operated, this still does not make for a mixed system which would combine socialism and private property. As long as only certain individual enterprises are publicly owned, the remaining being privately owned, the characteristics of the market economy which determine economic activity remain essentially unimpaired." - Ludwig von Mises, in Interventionism: An Economic Analysis

It's not as simple as the state owning the MOP. The state CAN OWN THE MOP, but it must be the workers who control the state

Was the communist party comprised of workers in the USSR?

>using the word "crop" in a socialism debate

That is the point of

@Ghost of Descartes Wheres the context of that

"collective ownership"

you dunce

becausr that goes against the entire Austrian school

collectivt ownership yes

and governmental

No

lol

it literally says

You're not reading it. I will mute you until you learn to read

I said worker **or** government ownership

you will be unmuted

@sɪᴅɪsɴᴏᴛʜᴇʀᴇ https://fee.org/media/22117/interventionismaneconomicanalysis.pdf

Collective ownership and governmental ownership are not mutually exclusive

They can be the same thing

Collective ownership through the state is socialism

Governmental ownership on its own, is not

Mental gymnastics

it quite clearly says government or

collective (worker)

You're making a fool out of yourself

You can't avoid that

You have convinced nobody

How so?
I'm not the one failing here

Can we abolish government please? I am definately a capitalist I promise.

(hail Lenin)

@Ghost of Descartes "mmarket economy"

Not making an adpopulum fallacy, but part of the purpose of the argument is to convince your opponent

Nobody has been convinced

is not the same thing as a capitlaist economy

In that sense, you have failed

You're clearly being dishonest, it says government or collective ownership

in the defintion I posted

There are other types of capitalism besides an-capism.

Nope

there is nothing such

@sɪᴅɪsɴᴏᴛʜᴇʀᴇ So tell me why is it you stick to one definition and ignore the others that have a much broader context?

Why pick and choose?

Why not debate the defintion, instead of playing these retarded games

of

Because this defintion is correct?

"I'm right, and you're wrong"

How am I supposed to explain that

YOU NEVER FUCKING EXPLAINED HOW IT WAS CORRECT

omg

I'd guarentee you'd say that aswell

I'm yet to see an explanation from you

"I;m right, I'm right, I'm right, I'm right,I'm right,I'm right, I'm right, I'm right"

"I;m right, I'm right, I'm right, I'm right,I'm right,I'm right, I'm right, I'm right"

"I;m right, I'm right, I'm right, I'm right,I'm right,I'm right, I'm right, I'm right"

"I;m right, I'm right, I'm right, I'm right,I'm right,I'm right, I'm right, I'm right"

"I;m right, I'm right, I'm right, I'm right,I'm right,I'm right, I'm right, I'm right"

Looks like we got someone mad here

it happens when an argument is lost

Getting mad is often the result of the other person's stupidity.

Or one's own

I have made my point, you have yet to give a counter argument

Give me a counter argument, I will restate it again

I have, I told you the defintion

you just tried to make a dishonest interpretation

which failed badly

But anyways, socialism wants the market forces to be abolished. To do this the state intervenes in the market.

If it failed badly, you would have no problem explaining why it's wrong.

@sɪᴅɪsɴᴏᴛʜᴇʀᴇ OY
MORON
STOP MAKING LIBERTARIANS LOOK BAD.

Because the defintion said government or collective ownership

JESUS. STOP BEING RETARDED. NOT EVERYTHING YOU DON'T LIKE IS SOCIALISM.

it's the consensus of most here that you look like a dumbass

I never said that

lolol

yes you did

Please remove Trump the Commie from your profile picture. @sɪᴅɪsɴᴏᴛʜᴇʀᴇ

Most in a server of edgy socialists

🤔

Corporatism is not socialism.

I am a corporatist

Dude I don't care what randoms here say but the point is any market intervention is socialist

A capitalist economy is a free market with 0 state intervention

@sɪᴅɪsɴᴏᴛʜᴇʀᴇ let's debate our definitions

@sɪᴅɪsɴᴏᴛʜᴇʀᴇ You are a commie because you live in a governed country.

Socialism relies on social ownership, right? hence the meaning of the word

Social ownership as in workers owning the mop?

@sɪᴅɪsɴᴏᴛʜᴇʀᴇ Social ownership means it is owned or controlled by the collective

Not really no

it can be state aswell

Stop thinking

State ownership is not the same as collective ownership

What

lol

....

No. Socialism means that the state regulates and owns the means of production. The state does not own the means of production anywhere outside of maybe North Korea. Hell, even "socialist" countries aren't socialist because in almost every case they don't own the means of production. When we say socialism we invariably mean "attempted socialism" (socialism in reality is actually not even possible to achieve in any large group; it goes directly against human nature).

I never said the economy was socialist

wut

I said the market intervention was a socialist policy

which is the case

...no.

@sɪᴅɪsɴᴏᴛʜᴇʀᴇ Let me explain to you since apparently you don't get it

if the workers

It's not.

as socialism activly tries to get rid of market forces

control the government

yes it is.

if they form unions

and the unions make up the government

If the workers control the government

they are no longer workers

dumbass

That is collective ownership through the state

It's not owning the means of production. It CAN be an ATTEMPT at socialism but it is not sociaalism.

Jesus.

"you can't work and be in government at the same time" <:brainlet:508484031625691156>

El gringo

You're misreading

take time to read up

So any government owners are workers

cool

so socialism is state control

Misreading what, precisely?

My point was proven

Anyways, you've succeeded in making yourself look retarded.

So much for everyone else losing the argument

@(((El Gringo Narigón))) That's only according to marxist socialism

@(((El Gringo Narigón))) Any market intervention is socialist, socialist policy. While the economy may not be socialist, that policy is. Because socialism also tries to abolish the market, by removing market forces.

Marxist socialism sees state socialism as the transition phase

This guy is relying on Marx's definition, and strictly so

or really

"Anyways, you've succeeded in making yourself look retarded.
So much for everyone else losing the argument"

Marxist-leninism does

Well looks like you guys did lose

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You're using the Marxist-Leninist definition of socialism...

Is the USSR the only example of socialism? Surely not

according to you

it isn't

So why rely on their single definition?

No it isn't

theres many others

IT IS

I can give a huge list

oh, okay

I thought you were going to argue it wasn't their definition

@sɪᴅɪsɴᴏᴛʜᴇʀᴇ Unless the policy is actually the government taking over an industry, it's more a move towards fascism as it's indirect regulation, not actual takeover.

@The Big Oof so wait...how are you defining socialism?

No el gringo

Any intervention is removing the market forces

Any intervention is a socialist policy

@(((El Gringo Narigón))) Socialism is collective ownership, be it directly by the workers or through it by the workers operating the state

taxation, subsidies, regulations, anti trust laws, tarrifs etc etc

it's the literal

meaning

"Social + ism"

of the work

it's the etymology...

You're trying to justify your defintion over the word looking like that?