I edited my comment to clarify, because my original wording was ambigious, thats exactly what I meant there, why not use the term central planning directly in the title rather than defining socialism in an arbitrary way?
why not use the term central planning directly in the title rather than defining socialism in an arbitrary way?
Maybe because even that wouldn’t say all that much - all economies are centrally planned at a national level - even the ones peddling “free market” mythology in an attempt to prove they aren’t. The US Military-Industrial Complex is no less a product of central planning than Cuba’s healthcare system is.
If socialist means centrally planned economy, and all countries are centrally planned, then all countries are socialist.
World revolution achieved! We did it, lemmy.
Edit: Jokes aside, I don’t quite get why you two are arguing. You seem to more or less agree that the study doesn’t actually discuss socialist countries.
I edited my comment to clarify, because my original wording was ambigious, thats exactly what I meant there, why not use the term central planning directly in the title rather than defining socialism in an arbitrary way?
Maybe because even that wouldn’t say all that much - all economies are centrally planned at a national level - even the ones peddling “free market” mythology in an attempt to prove they aren’t. The US Military-Industrial Complex is no less a product of central planning than Cuba’s healthcare system is.
If socialist means centrally planned economy, and all countries are centrally planned, then all countries are socialist.
World revolution achieved! We did it, lemmy.
Edit: Jokes aside, I don’t quite get why you two are arguing. You seem to more or less agree that the study doesn’t actually discuss socialist countries.
Free headpats all around.
Because we’re leftists?
I guess that tracks.