News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:My Venezuela Nightmare: A 30-Day Hunt for Food in a Starv... by AnimalMuppet on Monday July 18, 2016 @01:12PM (#12116452)
Depends on your definition of socialism. If you mean "all the means of production are owned by the state", then yes, that probably counts as collectivist.

But if by "socialism", you mean "what goes by that label in Scandanavia", then probably no, "collectivist" doesn't fit. It's just somewhat more government services than the US has, at the price of somewhat higher taxes.

Re:My Venezuela Nightmare: A 30-Day Hunt for Food in a Starv... by JoeAltmaier on Monday July 18, 2016 @01:14PM (#12116467)
"Somewhat higher" as a euphemism for "half again more"
Re:My Venezuela Nightmare: A 30-Day Hunt for Food in a Starv... by danielweber on Monday July 18, 2016 @01:28PM (#12116583)
He used "somewhat higher" twice. While I'd personally prefer smaller government, paying 50% more for 50% more services isn't nuts.
Re:My Venezuela Nightmare: A 30-Day Hunt for Food in a Starv... by awt on Monday July 18, 2016 @01:32PM (#12116614)
Right which is why I prefer to use collectivism which is prioritizing the group over the individual and would seem to subsume any definition of socialism you could ever reasonably give.
Re:My Venezuela Nightmare: A 30-Day Hunt for Food in a Starv... by AnimalMuppet on Monday July 18, 2016 @01:45PM (#12116739)
You sound like you think you're agreeing with me, but you're not.

I'm saying that socialism, as practiced in Scandanavia, is not collectivist. That means that, no, collectivism does not "subsume any definition of socialism you could ever reasonably give".

Re:My Venezuela Nightmare: A 30-Day Hunt for Food in a Starv... by zo1 on Monday July 18, 2016 @05:31PM (#12118164)
Taking X% of an individual's outcome and putting it into a pool for the collective good sure sounds pretty close to: "Collective ownership of the means to production". Doubly-so if that X is more than 50, as that means you are working more for others or the collective than you are for yourself.

Any who, I really think the definition of "Socialism" and "Socialist" require an overhaul in our current societal climate. I'd say that back when that ideology was conceived, people saw people in general and themselves as barely more than "resource" cogs, and that the rulers or state had some sort of "effectively-divine" right to rule them. I would argue that civilized and connected society has moved past that, to the point that anything remotely close to actual socialism or communism would be equivalent to totalitarianism in people's minds. It would be seen as barbaric, and contrary to people's right to exist.