Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion
So let me get this straight:
English Wikip is wrong, [ .. ]
Merriam-Webster on Socialism:
"a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/socialism on Socialism:
"1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which the means of production are collectively owned but a completely classless society has not yet been achieved.
English Wikip is wrong, [ .. ]
Merriam-Webster on Socialism:
"a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/socialism on Socialism:
"1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which the means of production are collectively owned but a completely classless society has not yet been achieved.
Well, only today I learned that in English the word "socialist" means something quite different than what it means in other languages. So you are right an I am wrong, sorry.
I must now go back and translate my posts into italian or something else.
As a lame of excuse: besides the French wikipedia that I quoted, in several European countries including Italy and France there used to be both a Communist Party and a Socialist Party, who were often bitter rivals. While the Communist parties AFAIK never got in power, except as part of broader coalition, and went extinct after the collapse of the USSR, the Socialists were often in power, and are still strong today -- and yet they never tried to "own the methods of production".
Well, that must be the reason why there has never been a significant Socialist Party in the US.
I was aware that a similar thing happens with the word "liberal", which has quite a different meaning in English (in politics) than it has elsewhere. So much so that King Bush I was fond of saying "the L-word" to refer to leftist things like social security, whereas elsewhere the terms means generally "tolerant" or "supportive of individual freedoms" -- and here in Brazil it even came to mean what "conservative" means in English (so that Reagan and Thatcher were labeled "neo-liberal" down here).
Quote
USSR mistakenly called itself Socialist,
I did not say that it was mistaken. Even in the non-English sense it is correct, since communism is a radical type of socialism.
Quote
And you're gonna go and play wikipedo and fix up pages so that they say what you think they should say?
Who do you think writes those Wikipedia articles, huh?