Not quite, nothing has been said about the ownership of the organization. It could be a private company.
Pooling for a pension is community of ownership is it not?
No, your employer controls your pension.
I wouldn’t consider that Socialism if you are infering that your employer controls your pension. It is not under public or worker control.
the very essense of socialism is not its socialisticness or its collectivism, those are its external characteristics. it is a though up system. capitalism happened naturally, it was another type of a market economy- just like feudalism and slavery that preceded it. the origin of socialist though that of the contemporary intellectuals’ personal vision of justice. they essentially thought up a world according to their own standarts of justice (LTV, worker supremacy, etc.) in contrast no one though up capitalism. it happened because of flow of history. mises actually has a section devoted to the origins of socialistic though in his book “Socialism”.
Communism, as a form of organization, is in the broad spectrum of socialism. Likewise, facism (National Socialism) is in that same spectrum. I believe that Hayek discusses this subject in The Road to Serfdom.
So in my example, if the pension fund was government owned, then I think everything else fits into place definition wise. Do you think so Stranger?
That is a valid point, perhaps I spoke without thinking it through fully.
Well as long as this book brings up all in the title of this thread I’ll probably make a read of it. It sounds like a more introductory read, cause I do want to read Rothbards’ “History of Economic Thought” but that is very long and I don’t know if I understand enough basics to get a good handle on what it has to offer. I know “Economics In One Lesson” is a good introductory read as well, but I wouldn’t mind getting a handle on the title of this threads terms so I don’t know if this latter book brings up history as much. I’ve read the short digest version of “Road to Serfdom”. It was very good. I probably ought to get the full book version cause I think it did bring up all or close to all of these terms in the short version, but being that it was very short I’m sure I would have benefited from the much longer book.
Does this seem like a good course to start out with on my quest to understand the economics side more proficiently?
thanks everybody [:)]
But it is nevertheless out of your control.
All you need to know about economics:
There are Two Sectors, Government Sector and Free Market Sector.
There are no others, but these do not have to be absolute. You could have Schools, Parks, and Cars in the Government Sector while you have Food, Clothing, and Buildings in the Free Market sector. As for the terms Communism, Socialism, Capitalism, and Mercantilism, they mean the following:
“Capitalism” typically means a pure Free Market system. It is not to be confused with Corporatism.
“Communism” typically means a pure Government Sector System. This creates a monopoly, and, thus, this system usually fails.
“Socialism,” not to be confused with Classical Socialism (a system based on the voluntary exchange of goods and services), is often considered a midpoint between Government Sector and Free Market. In reality, the Socialized goods or Services REMAIN in the Free Market. However, Regulation of these services goes to the Government Sector. Contrary to popular belief, there are Free Market regulators. Before the “Progressive” era, Muckrakers in the Free Market Sector controlled the Regulation.
“Mercantilism” is a mostly Free Market system, but the Government controls regulation and, most importantly, foriegn trade. In Mercantilism, colonists are expected to trade EXCLUSIVLY with the motherland. Thankfully, this system has died off.
Also, Since I mentioned “Corporatism” and “Classical Socialism”:
“Corporatism” A natural product of Socialism. Since bussinesses now answer to the Government, not the Comsumer, they seek to appeal to the Government, and not the consumer.
“Classical Socialism”, since this system relied on voluntary exchange, I’d say this is Free Market, since no one can force you to volunteer your aid to others.
And thats Political Economics in a nutshell.
Yes, Mercantilism is all about increasing national wealth through exporting in exchange for bullion, it is heavily regulated by the “state”
It was a post feudal policy, but I remember seeing somewhere that the US did it around the GD, basically demanding gold bullion to settle the trade deficits with other nations…
Socialism was actually created as a synonym to Communism in the early to mid 1800’s to placate the atheists that followed this economic philosophy (England) as they had an issue with the closeness with the word communion, trite and arbitrary, but true…
This was why “socialism was respectable on the continent, while communism was not.” ~ Engels