“hagridden by a vast and monstrous network of restrictions, castes”
Written in 72, sure. But if it’s still like the quote above, then it’s not very socialist. How much does the Indian state regulate business in the year 2009?
Certainly you are capable of distilling the relevant information in the article…?
India is one of the most socialist countries in Asia just behind communist China.
It seems you’ve “distilled” the info into a simple statement that fits your view, but not reality. I think India has encircled a socialized capitalistic system that is far away from regular state controlled socialism.
Again, how much does the Indian state regulate business in the year 2009?
Clearly you neither know what socialism nor capitalism is. They are opposites of each other. Their cannot be capitalism and at the same time socialism.
What about voluntary socialism)
I and my kibbutznik brethren protest!
It still seems to be in conflict. Since capitalism refers to the ownership of the means of production being private and in a kibbutz nothing is owned it therefor is in clear opposition to capitalism. I agree that they can be voluntary; though I am not sure how many kiddies voluntarily decide to go off to live in one.
Either the means of production are privately owned or they are unowned. Either there is capitalism or socialism. There can be fascism too but this is socialistic in nature since government must take ownership of means and then grants privileges to use these means to favored groups.
Whoa, I thought that at least socialists had property rights.
After all the collective owns it.
That is not much different from a company, it just extends to more property.
I should be able to make business with a collective as well as with a company.
How they choose to divide in internally is really none of my business.
Yes and if they are collectively owned it is socialism.[/quote]
Corporations are socialism when they are owned by workers?