Railroads in the US in the late 19th century.
Thatâs the only way it is sustainable. But I wouldnât call it socialism, but rather regulation. It only becomes socialism at the tipping point of the ratio.
Of course it can be.
Any totalitarian system can also be Capitalist.
That is also a fair way to put it
I donât think so. Thatâs a contradiction.
Unregulated capitalism will eat itself.
Not at all⌠itâs just that the ones who get to participate in capital accumulation is much smaller.
If you say so.
Who decides?
The poorâŚ
The ones in charge. Hence totalitarianism.
Some would call is more along the lines of State Capitalism.
Wow, and if a frog had wings his butt wouldnât hit the ground when it jumped either.
There is your contradiction. âState capitalismâ is an oxymoron. In totalitarianism, the state controls the means of production, which is the very definition of socialism.
Not necessarily.
State Capitalism can be State management but fruits of the Capital gets dispersed and concentrated creating a wealthy âownerâ class and poorer labor class.
Capital is still used for profit, but instead of the workers owning the means of production⌠the heads of the state do.
Resources.
No. The state is controlling the means of production. That is socialism.
How so? Iâm not following you.
We would agree that China can be classified as a system of Totalitarian State Capitalism?
Right?
No, for reasons already stated. âState capitalismâ is an oxymoron.
LOL.
10 Char
