The textbook understanding of socialism/communism should be re-considered.

I agree that no one really understands what Communism or Socialism are (or even Capitalism for that matter). The common, or even current academic understandings of these terms are so convoluted as to not even resemble the philosophical ideas or even formal definitions of them.

Specifically with Socialism, it is the idea that "the workers determine the means of production." But what does that mean? It means that for any organization of people, no matter the size of the group, or the other elements of the organization, everyone has a direct say in the determination of the productive output of that group.

Socialism is an economic design model, nothing more. The problem isn't in the economic design model, the problem is the powers exerted by the decision makers (in this case the entire group) over the individuals of the group. When "determine the means of production" becomes more than, for example, "we'll vote on whether or not we should create an assembly line to streamline this process" and instead becomes "how people are allowed to live their very lives," or "what actions are people allowed to do," etc., then the "means of production" begins to infringe on individual rights.

The problem with Socialism then, is one of the scope of the application. But that is the exact same problem as every other economic design model, whether it be Communism, Capitalism, variants thereof (Fascism e.g.), or any other idea of an economic design model you can come up with. In other words, the problem is not ever really the economic design model itself, but the SCOPE of the application; what powers are We The People allowing the decision makers to make. It doesn't matter what group is making the decisions (republic, the entire public, oligarchy, dictator, etc.). All that matters is what power they have. Do we allow them to make decisions that infringe on individual Rights e.g., or do we not.

None of these economic models are good or bad. What is bad is whether or not a person's Rights are being infringed by whatever system is being employed. The solution then, is for every single individual who makes up the group to understand, to grok, in the most complete way, that we have Rights, that we are Sovereign (Ultimate Authority) of our Jurisdiction, and to understand what that Jurisdiction is. Only with broad scale understanding of these things can we have the strength, on the social scale, to insist, without compromise, that we WILL NOT allow for our Rights to be infringed by the system, no matter what system any group adopts.

The textbook understanding of socialism/communism should be re-considered.

I agree that no one really understands what Communism or Socialism are. The common, or even current academic understandings of these terms are so convoluted as to not even resemble the philosophical ideas or even formal definitions of them.

Specifically with Socialism, it is the idea that "the workers determine the means of production." But what does that mean? It means that for any organization of people, no matter the size of the group, or the other elements of the organization, everyone has a direct say in the determination of the productive output of that group.

Socialism is an economic design model, nothing more. The problem isn't in the economic design model, the problem is the powers exerted by the decision makers (in this case the entire group) over the individuals of the group. When "determine the means of production" becomes more than, for example, "we'll vote on whether or not we should create an assembly line to streamline this process" and instead becomes "how people are allowed to live their very lives," or "what actions are people allowed to do," etc., then the "means of production" begins to infringe on individual rights.

The problem with Socialism then, is one of the scope of the application. But that is the exact same problem as every other economic design model, whether it be Communism, Capitalism, variants thereof (Fascism e.g.), or any other idea of an economic design model you can come up with. In other words, the problem is not ever really the economic design model itself, but the SCOPE of the application; what powers are We The People allowing the decision makers to make. It doesn't matter what group is making the decisions (republic, the entire public, oligarchy, dictator, etc.). All that matters is what power they have. Do we allow them to make decisions that infringe on individual Rights e.g., or do we not.

None of these economic models are good or bad. What is bad is whether or not a person's Rights are being infringed by whatever system is being employed. The solution then, is for every single individual who makes up the group to understand, to grok, in the most complete way, that we have Rights, that we are Sovereign (Ultimate Authority) of our Jurisdiction, and to understand what that Jurisdiction is. Only with broad scale understanding of these things can we have the strength, on the social scale, to insist, without compromise, that we WILL NOT allow for our Rights to be infringed by the system, no matter what system any group adopts.

The textbook understanding of socialism/communism should be re-considered.

I agree that no one really understands what Communism or Socialism are. The common, or even current academic understandings of these terms are so convoluted as to not even resemble the philosophical ideas or even formal definitions of them.

Specifically with Socialism, it is the idea that "the workers determine the means of production." But what does that mean? It means that for any organization of people, no matter the size of the group, or the other elements of the organization, everyone has a direct say in the determination of the productive output of that group.

Socialism is an economic design model, nothing more. The problem isn't in the economic design model, the problem is the powers exerted by the decision makers (in this case the entire group) over the individuals of the group. When "determine the means of production" becomes more than, for example, "we'll vote on whether or not we should create an assembly line to streamline this process" and instead becomes "how people are allowed to live their very lives," or "what actions are people allowed to do," etc., then the "means of production" begins to infringe on individual rights.

The problem with Socialism then, is one of the scope of the application. But that is the exact same problem as every other economic design model, whether it be Communism, Capitalism, variants thereof (Fascism e.g.), or any other idea of an economic design model you can come up with. In other words, the problem is not ever really the economic design model itself, but the SCOPE of the application; what powers are We The People allowing the decision makers to make. It doesn't matter what group is making the decisions (republic, the entire public, oligarchy, dictator, etc.). All that matters is what power they have. Do we allow them to make decisions that infringe on individual Rights e.g., or do we not.

None of these economic models are good or bad. What is bad is whether or not a person's Rights are being infringed by whatever system is being employed. The solution then, is for every single individual who makes up the group to understand, to grok, in the most complete way, that we have Rights. That we are Sovereign (Ultimate Authority) of our Jurisdiction. To understand what that Jurisdiction is. Only with broad scale understanding of these things can we have the strength, on the social scale, to insist, without compromise, that we WILL NOT allow for our Rights to be infringed by the system, no matter what system any group adopts.

The textbook understanding of socialism/communism should be re-considered.

I agree that no one really understands what Communism or Socialism are. The common, or even current academic understandings of these terms are so convoluted as to not even resemble the philosophical ideas or even formal definitions of them.

Specifically with Socialism, it is the idea that "the workers determine the means of production." But what does that mean? It means that for any organization of people, no matter the size of the group, or the other elements of the organization, everyone has a direct say in the determination of the productive output of that group.

Socialism is an economic design model, nothing more. The problem isn't in the economic design model, the problem is the powers exerted by the decision makers (in this case the entire group) over the individuals of the group. When "determine the means of production" becomes more than "we'll vote on whether or not we should create an assembly line to streamline this process" and instead becomes "how people are allowed to live their very lives," or "what actions are people allowed to do," etc., then the "means of production" begins to infringe on individual rights.

The problem with Socialism then, is one of the scope of the application. But that is the exact same problem as every other economic design model, whether it be Communism, Capitalism, variants thereof (Fascism e.g.), or any other idea of an economic design model you can come up with. In other words, the problem is not ever really the economic design model itself, but the SCOPE of the application; what powers are We The People allowing the decision makers to make. It doesn't matter what group is making the decisions (republic, the entire public, oligarchy, dictator, etc.). All that matters is what power they have. Do we allow them to make decisions that infringe on individual Rights e.g., or do we not.

None of these economic models are good or bad. What is bad is whether or not a person's Rights are being infringed by whatever system is being employed. The solution then, is for every single individual who makes up the group to understand, to grok, in the most complete way, that we have Rights. That we are Sovereign (Ultimate Authority) of our Jurisdiction. To understand what that Jurisdiction is. Only with broad scale understanding of these things can we have the strength, on the social scale, to insist, without compromise, that we WILL NOT allow for our Rights to be infringed by the system, no matter what system any group adopts.

The textbook understanding of socialism/communism should be re-considered.

I agree that no one really understands what Communism or Socialism are. The common, or even current academic understandings of these terms are so convoluted as to not even resemble the philosophical ideas or even formal definitions of them.

Specifically with Socialism, it is the idea that "the workers determine the means of production." But what does that mean? It means that for any organization of people, no matter the size of the group, or the other elements of the organization, everyone has a direct say in the determination of the productive output of that group.

Socialism is an economic design model, nothing more. The problem isn't in the economic design model, the problem is the powers exerted by the decision makers (in this case the entire group) over the individuals of the group. When "determine the means of production" becomes more than "we'll vote on whether or not we should create an assembly line to streamline this process" and instead becomes "how people are allowed to live their very lives," or "what actions are people allowed to do," etc., then the "means of production" begins to infringe on individual rights.

The problem with Socialism then, is one of the scope of the application. But that is the exact same problem as every other economic design model, whether it be Communism, Capitalism, variants thereof (Fascism e.g.), or any other idea of an economic design model you can come up with. In other words, the problem is not ever really the economic design model itself, but the SCOPE of the application; what powers are We The People allowing the decision makers to make. It doesn't matter what group is making the decisions (republic, the entire public, oligarchy, dictator, etc.). All that matters is what power they have. Do we allow them to make decisions that infringe on individual Rights e.g., or do we not.

None of these economic models are good or bad. What is bad is whether or not a person's Rights are being infringed by whatever system is being employed. The solution then, is for every single individual who makes up the group to understand, to grok, in the most complete way, that we have Rights. That we are Sovereign (Ultimate Authority) of our Jurisdiction. To understand what that Jurisdiction is. Only with broad scale understanding of these things can we have the strength, on the social scale, to insist, without compromise, that we WILL NOT allow for our Rights to be infringed by the system, no matter what system we adopt.