The pros of capitalism have far outweighed the cons at this point. I attribute 99% of the conveniences of my modern lifestyle to capitalism, including my computer
fresh tap water (which is delivered efficiently and safely to my faucet)
I wouldn't quickly dismiss Capitalism and say it's on its way out just because of a few crooks in the financial realm. Imagine if we dismissed capitalism after the 1929 crash?
Sure it's the same thing. Why else would you mention the construction companies that build schools if not to make the argument that the school system wasn't a form of socialism?
Actually, you need not explain. Your dishonesty of your argument has already been revealed
The construction company that built the school is privately owned, it is not owned in commons or by the workers.
The materials that is supplied to the school, is not owned in commons or by the workers.
Private industry has it's hands all over the "education" system.
It defies any argument that it is socialism, unless your one of those fundie republicans.
The school system is publicly owned. The construction company is not a part of the school system. Even if the school system buys products from private sources, the school system is publicly owned and controlled.
The school system, which is publicly owned and controlled, is a socialist institution.
Then why are teachers unionized?
If they "owned" it, they wouldn't have a reason to unionize.
Another inane argument. Teachers don't own the school system, and no one said they did.
Your arguments are so desperate, you've been reduced to fantasizing that teachers own the school system
Then it is not socialism, as they would own it in commons.
Do you even know what socialism is?
Wrong. Socialism doesn't mean "teachers own the schools".
Try again
Uhh, that is the definition.
It's were workers own and control the means of production.
You don't know what socialism is.
Your arguments have thus far been like those conservatives, who call Obama a socialist at every turn.
Uhh, that is the definition.
It's were workers own and control the means of production.
You don't know what socialism is.
Your arguments have thus far been like those conservatives, who call Obama a socialist at every turn.
Well Adolf Hitler was a socialist and obama is in the same vein dude. He's more of a modern age Hitler. I thought it was hilarious that people called me racist for not voting for him yet voting for him because he is black isn't racist? Just a thought.
About 22 years ago socialism gave up and started disintegrating. Do you think it could have succeeded if capitalism wasn't standing on the way? You know, if capitalism didn't oppose and let it be?
We're all "the workers". That's the point. No one gets left in the cold. Also, Marx is not the be-all end-all of socialism. Theories can evolve over a century, you know? We don't do democracy anything like they did two centuries ago.
Then why are teachers unionized?
If they "owned" it, they wouldn't have a reason to unionize.
To be fair, the public school system is publicly owned. So the teachers do technically own the public institutions as they are a part of the community too. It's not a self managed, democratically operated system, but it is publicly owned.
They're unionized to protect themselves from the authority of the state and the management of the institution. The management doesn't own the school. Granted that it isn't a charter school, the state owns the school.
So then it defies the definition of socialism, as the teachers would not need a union to protect themselves, if it were actually owned and controlled by the public.
The closest it could possibly be is state socialism, not democratic socialism.
The public isn't limited to just the teachers, if it were, the teacher unions would be obsolete. If only the teachers owned the institution and not the entire community, there would be no need for the unions. However, as the state owns the institutions, the unions act as a collective defense on behalf of the workers. If there were no unions, it wouldn't be democratic, the state would simply call the shots regardless of the will of the teachers.
It's not really an example of socialism, otherwise the need to unionize wouldn't exist.
The unions and their membership are pitted against the public quite often.
That doesn't even get into the fact that the schools are compulsory, which would defy the notion of free will in socialism.
It's not an example of socialism, it's an example of public ownership.
Either way, unions are an important aspect to libertarian socialism. "Syndicalism" is a French word for "trade unionism". They would be used to negotiate and plan the larger economy.
What?
Yea I know they evolve.
What sangha erroneously refers to as socialism, is actually economic fascism.
That's the evolution.
To be fair, the public school system is publicly owned. So the teachers do technically own the public institutions as they are a part of the community too. It's not a self managed, democratically operated system, but it is publicly owned.
They're unionized to protect themselves from the authority of the state and the management of the institution. The management doesn't own the school. Granted that it isn't a charter school, the state owns the school.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?