"Capitalism" is a floating abstraction to these people. When they use the term, it's not the same concept an informed is thinking of. An informed person is thinking something like: private/owner making most business decisions, economic incentives, losses for bad decisions, etc. But people at that conference are not thinking about the mec…
"Capitalism" is a floating abstraction to these people. When they use the term, it's not the same concept an informed is thinking of. An informed person is thinking something like: private/owner making most business decisions, economic incentives, losses for bad decisions, etc. But people at that conference are not thinking about the mechanics, just something like: "a system where some people have more than others"
Of course, most commie countries have inequality reminiscent of feudal monarchies, but that's besides the point. These "socialists" are not even thinking about mechanisms and structures: i.e. not actually thinking about socialism as the concept is properly understood by educated folk.
They're a disgrace to the socialists of the past. Those people could describe how decisions would be made, and how incentives would work, when one removed most private ownership. Their arguments were wrong, as proven repeatedly, but at least they actually made arguments about socialism.
But, in their defense: when people feel the system is unfair, and they don't understand how or what can be changed, they grasp at some populist-sounding idea. The conference attendees may be wrong about the cure, but we should also ask if their vague feeling that "the system ain't right" has some merit. Because, if it does, the only solution to bad solutions are good solutions.
"Capitalism" is a floating abstraction to these people. When they use the term, it's not the same concept an informed is thinking of. An informed person is thinking something like: private/owner making most business decisions, economic incentives, losses for bad decisions, etc. But people at that conference are not thinking about the mechanics, just something like: "a system where some people have more than others"
Of course, most commie countries have inequality reminiscent of feudal monarchies, but that's besides the point. These "socialists" are not even thinking about mechanisms and structures: i.e. not actually thinking about socialism as the concept is properly understood by educated folk.
They're a disgrace to the socialists of the past. Those people could describe how decisions would be made, and how incentives would work, when one removed most private ownership. Their arguments were wrong, as proven repeatedly, but at least they actually made arguments about socialism.
But, in their defense: when people feel the system is unfair, and they don't understand how or what can be changed, they grasp at some populist-sounding idea. The conference attendees may be wrong about the cure, but we should also ask if their vague feeling that "the system ain't right" has some merit. Because, if it does, the only solution to bad solutions are good solutions.