Please give an actual definition of public ownership of the means of production. What does it imply in a nonpartisan explanation?

TrP"Please give an actual definition of public ownership of the means of production. What does it imply in a nonpartisan explanation?" Zimbabwe.

Wj "BaldGuy you're hilarious :)" How so? But I'm glad I gave you a chuckle.

Zimbabwe allows private ownership. What about Zimbabwe?

TrP "Zimbabwe allows private ownership." Seriously? Rhodesia was the breadbasket of Africa. Zimbabwe stole the farms and now they import food. They issue 100 billion notes.

They redistributed the farms for racial reasons. It happened to be a terrible idea. Doesn't necessitate it as socialist. They gave it to private owners who happened to have no idea how to farm or else didn't care enough to farm. Also, take their diamond fields into consideration. Always privatized.

You're saying Zimbabwe stole the farms from Rhodesia?

TrP "Doesn't necessitate it as socialist." Communist, socialist. Little difference. Yes, they 'voted' to steal the farms from their owners. And now are starving with hyperinflation.

Wj "You're saying Zimbabwe stole the farms from Rhodesia?" Where have you been? let me know your dealer. He's getting you some great stuff.

"Communist, socialist. Little difference." Except that one is a political structure and the other is an economic structure. Oh, wait, that's a huge difference.
"Yes, they 'voted' to steal the farms from their owners." Lol no, Zimbabwe is an authoritarian regime. Think Russia. Zimbabwe isn't a real republic.

Also, you do realize you're talking about events in 2000, when Zimbabwe redistributed lands WITHIN ZIMBABWE from white owners to other PRIVATE owners, and Zimbabwe has been independent of Rhodesia since 1980.

TrP - Comparing Socialism and Communism is a distinction without a difference.

Yes, I know the rulers of Zimbabwe voted to take the property of others and re-distributed it.

Thank you for demonstrating how many poli sci classes you've taken.

You regard the Swedish social-democrats and the Russian bolsheviks as the same thing?

TrP"Thank you for demonstrating how many poli sci classes you've taken." How do PoliSci courses help you make a living? Have you read the Federalist Papers? deToquiville's Democracy in America? Atlas Shrugged? No I haven't been brainwashed and indoctrinated into the religion of Socialism.

It might be socialism except (by sheer coincidence no doubt) many of the farms went to Mugabe supporters.

Stef "You regard the Swedish social-democrats and the Russian bolsheviks as the same thing?" They both steal your money. The Sweds steal your money in a nicer way. . And the women more beautiful.

PoliSci is a living, and it projects one into politics. Simple enough. And PoliSci is about politics and political systems, not economic ones. While you may learn about communism in a poli sci course, you are less likely to learn about socialism. Because they are NOT the same.

Communism is one form of socialist system. All communists are socialists - not all socialists are communists.

Saying there is no difference between communism and socialism, is like saying there is no difference between conservatism and libertarianism.

Even if one assumes for a moment they are as economically similar as you describe, would you say they're politically the same thing? That private ownership of the means of production in Sweden follows patterns similar, if not identical, to Soviet Russia?

Apart from that, I'm very interested to know from whom the Swedes have been stealing for the past 70 years. No one seems to complain about it, and, well, if you assume they're just stealing from rich Swedes you'd have expected them to have run out of money like, what, 50 years ago?

Taxes are totes stealing. /sarcasm

Also, the fact that Mugabe's land reforms ended up being a catastrophe does not mean they were in any way socialistic. As pointed above, they were taken from white farmes and given to other private owner. Although the majority was curiously (or not) close to Mugabe, they were awarded their farms as private property. The huge failure, however, was much more likely caused by these people knowing near to nothing about farming, but you can't blame it on socialism or collectivization because, essentially, they were private landowners just like the white people before them.

Exactly my point, userID=17774

Stef "hey were taken from white farmes and given to other private owner." Socialists don't respect private property rights.

Yes, and Zimbabwe let these people that received the farms the right to privately own the farms. Not socialist.

Stef"because, essentially, they were private landowners just like the white people before them." So you believe government stealing property is a good thing. Amazing.

That's not even implied...

But that is what happened