On 1/24/18, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > On 24/01/2018 05:59, \0xDynamite wrote: >> The only record is that there is hardly any record. The Constitution >> does not favor capitalism in anyway, the only thing close to it is >> property law which was mostly gathered, not by the free market, but by >> fiat from the US Gov to homesteaders, etc. So early America favored >> the individual, yet nothing in the law prevents collective ownership >> of land or other resources. > > Socialism is not collective ownership. > > The joint stock corporation is collective ownership.
Okay then, we need to distinguish between "collectivism" and "socialism". Are you saying the public corporation is a "collectivist" enterprise? And then, I must amend my definition of socialism to mean collective ownership + community. Is that an acceptible defintion? > Socialism is people like you pouring gasoline over the kulak's children > and setting them on fire to force the kulak to reveal where he buried > the seed corn. That makes no sense. Are you against socialist stuctiures? marxos
