Because this isn’t what socialism is. State ownership/price regulation by itself isn’t necessarily socialist or capitalist. It can be used to expand/reinforce market freedom or to undermine it.
The dictionary can be wrong about what a concept is (see: God). Regardless of any formal definition (and there isn’t just one formal definition of socialism), capitalism (capital-ism) requires state ownership and market administration to some degree in order to be what it is.
The problem is you are thinking of capitalism and socialism as a binary. An economy can incorporate elements of both (and usually does). Most capitalist economies incorporate some amount of socialism with utilities and essential services. Most socialist economies incorporate some amount of capitalism with entertainment.
You can’t “incorporate” with capitalism “elements” that are necessarily immanent to it, that constitute an aspect of what capitalism is. State regulation, ownership is not some other to capitalism. Capitalism cannot be what it is without these elements (ex. capitalism requires contract law and the protection of private property rights, which requires a state, state-operated courts and police forces, whose existence cannot be subject to market forces as with private companies). This is not capitalism taking elements from socialism.
Regulation is not separate from capitalism, but we aren’t talking about regulation. We are talking about state control, which is explicitly socialist. State ownership vs private ownership is literally the fundamental distinction between socialism and capitalism. In a fully capitalist system there can be no state ownership of means of production
capitalism requires contract law and the protection of private property rights, which requires a state, state-operated courts and police forces, whose existence cannot be subject to market forces as with private companies
Incorrect. Many corporations include arbitration clauses in contracts. This stipulates that disputes do not use government courts, rather using private third party arbitrators to litigate disputes. These courts are capitalist. Government courts are not capitalist (not saying they are socialist either).
From the first two sentences it’s clear you didn’t read what I said, where I explicitly mentioned state control. For the third, it’s clear you’re not willing to let go of your arbitrarily chosen formal definition (which sits among several others) as the one and only, presupposing it prior to reality and therefore making discourse impossible.
For arbitration clauses, how do you think corporations are able to do this? Because of contract law devised/clarified and enforced by government courts; arbitration clauses require contract law sitting above private actors.
No, it isn’t.
Why?
Because this isn’t what socialism is. State ownership/price regulation by itself isn’t necessarily socialist or capitalist. It can be used to expand/reinforce market freedom or to undermine it.
The definition of socialism is literally state ownership of means of production and state administration of the market.
Are you saying this is capitalist state ownership and market administration?
The dictionary can be wrong about what a concept is (see: God). Regardless of any formal definition (and there isn’t just one formal definition of socialism), capitalism (capital-ism) requires state ownership and market administration to some degree in order to be what it is.
The problem is you are thinking of capitalism and socialism as a binary. An economy can incorporate elements of both (and usually does). Most capitalist economies incorporate some amount of socialism with utilities and essential services. Most socialist economies incorporate some amount of capitalism with entertainment.
You can’t “incorporate” with capitalism “elements” that are necessarily immanent to it, that constitute an aspect of what capitalism is. State regulation, ownership is not some other to capitalism. Capitalism cannot be what it is without these elements (ex. capitalism requires contract law and the protection of private property rights, which requires a state, state-operated courts and police forces, whose existence cannot be subject to market forces as with private companies). This is not capitalism taking elements from socialism.
Regulation is not separate from capitalism, but we aren’t talking about regulation. We are talking about state control, which is explicitly socialist. State ownership vs private ownership is literally the fundamental distinction between socialism and capitalism. In a fully capitalist system there can be no state ownership of means of production
Incorrect. Many corporations include arbitration clauses in contracts. This stipulates that disputes do not use government courts, rather using private third party arbitrators to litigate disputes. These courts are capitalist. Government courts are not capitalist (not saying they are socialist either).
From the first two sentences it’s clear you didn’t read what I said, where I explicitly mentioned state control. For the third, it’s clear you’re not willing to let go of your arbitrarily chosen formal definition (which sits among several others) as the one and only, presupposing it prior to reality and therefore making discourse impossible.
For arbitration clauses, how do you think corporations are able to do this? Because of contract law devised/clarified and enforced by government courts; arbitration clauses require contract law sitting above private actors.