Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 338:
Line 338: + + + + + + + + + + + +
a lot of things to improve in this article
::good move--looks better there. :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 23:15, 8 December 2009 (EST)
::good move--looks better there. :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 23:15, 8 December 2009 (EST)
::: Thank you :) However I'm having trouble inserting the photo I want for the main image. Its being very uncooperative. I have it saved but it just won't convert to how I want it too. Any suggestions? --[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 18:24, 9 December 2009 (EST)
::: Thank you :) However I'm having trouble inserting the photo I want for the main image. Its being very uncooperative. I have it saved but it just won't convert to how I want it too. Any suggestions? --[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 18:24, 9 December 2009 (EST)
==Weasel words==
* but all of them are built on the premise that social control of the means of production ensures that a community's resources are used in a positive and uplifting manner.
I don't know what "social control" and "community" mean in this context, but it sounds like an assertion that under socialism ordinary members of society would run the economy, rather than (A) big, wealthy, unapproachable self-centered capitalists or (B) big, powerful, unapproachable, corrupt politicians. However, the 2 next examples specify government control, not some small "community". There is a mention (but not an example) of small communities.
Note that the Shakers succeeded, because they had a religious motive, while the leftist experiments failed. This might be significant. Perhaps there are limits on the size of a socialist community, or maybe socialism cannot succeed on a longterm basis without a religious reason for people to want to own all things in common. (My own opinion is that any unit larger than a family will have trouble; a [[family business]] is sustainable.) A monastery or convent can be self-supporting, but it requires new members from outside if all are sworn to celibacy.
A lot of these weasel-word stuff seems designed to hide the fact that socialism is unsuccessful.
Note: We need to see if Sweden is an exception, or if (like NZ and USA) socialist ideas are gradually ruining free economies. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 08:12, 5 February 2010 (EST)