• Don_alForno@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 day ago

    It’s an element of a planned economy which has been more commonly used in authoritarian socialist countries but isn’t exclusive to them.

    (Fun fact because I just looked it up: There doesn’t seem to be one generally accepted definition of “socialism”.)

    • zqps@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      22 hours ago

      Worker ownership of the means of production.

      I.e. profits from goods and services go to those who provide them rather than investors.

      • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        19 hours ago

        Social ownership (public) of production, doesn’t have to be the workers

        State capitalism exists though, ROK and CCP are the more famous examples

        • zqps@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          17 hours ago

          No it’s not. Socialism is compatible with economic and political systems beyond communism. Sorry, but you don’t know what you are talking about.

      • Madzielle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        22 hours ago

        Which is why I scream about employee ownership whenever I can. It’s the closest we can get in the states I think right now. NCEO

    • CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      23 hours ago

      I’d say a good loose definition is just ‘people pooling resources for the common good’ so basically all taxes and things paid for by taxes including the military.