How many more?

[catherine]

What's the difference between "social ownership of the means of production" and government control of the means of production?

Social ownership is private ownership--at least that's how I understand it. Here's another good article on the difference from The Atlantic:

In a social democracy, individuals and corporations continue to own the capital and the means of production. Much of the wealth, in other words, is produced privately. That said, taxation, government spending, and regulation of the private sector are much heavier under social democracy than would be the case under pure capitalism.

The debate over Senator Sanders’ socialism is rich with paradoxes. Senator Sanders is not a proponent of socialism, and that is a good thing, for true socialism, whenever and wherever it has been tried, ended in disaster. Nor is America the bastion of capitalism that some make it out to be. In fact, U.S. taxes, spending, and regulation are quite high when compared to truly economically free countries. America’s is a mixed economy and so are Scandinavian countries’. It is the mixture that differs.

[LDAHL]

This is no difference, really. It is just phrased to make it sound less Marxist. Call it re-branding.

So "If we control something then it really doesn't matter whose name is on the title"?

It does seem like a pretty fine distinction.

[Ultralight]

Social ownership is private ownership--at least that's how I understand it. Here's another good article on the difference from The Atlantic:

So if social ownership is private ownership then what is a social democrat? A private democrat?

[catherine]

So if social ownership is private ownership then what is a social democrat? A private democrat?

A social democrat believes in government control of some basic services and regulation of some private enterprises, but within a capitalist framework. The article can explain it much better than I can!

[Ultralight]

Seems mealy-mouthed.

[ApatheticNoMore]

I don't think the article is very good, ok I think everyone who reads the article is made stupider by reading it, the Atlantic has really jumped the shark.

Although I don't disagree with this, although it's very broad and so could apply to most ideologies (but not socialism):
A social democrat believes in government control of some basic services and regulation of some private enterprises, but within a capitalist framework.

[iris lilies]

Catherine... I am not sure you got the memo. This is a sign of success to the GOP. This inequality of wealth and lack of social mobility is what they wanted and they want it to go even further.

Lack of social mobility? There are fewer households now in the middle class. Thats because 2/3 of those who moved out of the middle class moved up.

[Ultralight]

Lack of social mobility? There are fewer households now n the middle class. Thats bdcause 2/3 of those who moved out ofmthe middle class moved up.

Yup, now the upper class in America is huge!

[bae]

Lack of social mobility?

I grew up in a single-wide in the woods. Now I have a mansion and a yacht. Well, several, actually.

[iris lilies]

I wasn't implying it at all. I've said it quite explicitly before.



Racism doesn't require "hatred or unacceptance". And guess what, we're *all* racist. The key is to see that, and use that awareness in a useful manner.

And here I thought the Right REv. UL would be the first to take us all to task on that issue.