On 1/24/18, jamesd@echeque.com <jamesd@echeque.com> 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