There is no such thing as a mixed economy, either the principal mode of production benefits the working class or the bourgeois. It’s impossible to have a 50/50 and any other mix inevitably collapses towards one or the other.
It’s a concept, that makes no sense and deludes the meaning of the term socialism and capitalism so much that they become meaningless. It’s propagandistic newspeak.
At the end of the day according to marxist political theory (AKA the guy who established the meaning of the term capitalism, so this carries some important weight), that doesn’t make sense, either the principal owner of the means of production is the working class, or not.
Anything inbetween? completely capitalist, according to any socialist who has ever read theory.
it does exist but all the concept does is sully discussions, make terms meaningless, and make you feel like a superior centrist.
Socialism is simply democratization/worker ownership over the means of production. Mixed economies pretend that socialism is when the government does stuff, which is wildly inaccurate.
here’s a cambridge PhD discussion saying what I said is a major problem with the notion. economics professors don’t actually agree with you.
the impossibility of the mixed economy is itself an actual position within professional economics.
So, why do you disagree with me?
Economics professors don’t actually unanimously agree with you. So why are you presenting your position as though it is simply what “the profession of economics” believes?
I also want to point out the smug boldness on display here. You read a wikipedia page and think you know more than someone who disagrees with you. This is why communists find liberals embarrassing to argue with.
edit: even more embarrassing, you didn’t even read the wikipedia
“Numerous economists have questioned the validity of the entire concept of a mixed economy when understood to be a mixture of capitalism and socialism. Critics who argue that capitalism and socialism cannot coexist believe either market logic or economic planning must be prevalent within an economy” is written there.
There is no such thing as a mixed economy, either the principal mode of production benefits the working class or the bourgeois. It’s impossible to have a 50/50 and any other mix inevitably collapses towards one or the other.
Of course there’s such a thing as a mixed economy. They made a whole Wikipedia article about it.
It’s a concept, that makes no sense and deludes the meaning of the term socialism and capitalism so much that they become meaningless. It’s propagandistic newspeak.
At the end of the day according to marxist political theory (AKA the guy who established the meaning of the term capitalism, so this carries some important weight), that doesn’t make sense, either the principal owner of the means of production is the working class, or not.
Anything inbetween? completely capitalist, according to any socialist who has ever read theory.
it does exist but all the concept does is sully discussions, make terms meaningless, and make you feel like a superior centrist.
Socialism is simply democratization/worker ownership over the means of production. Mixed economies pretend that socialism is when the government does stuff, which is wildly inaccurate.
Take it up with the profession of economics. They think it makes sense. I think it makes sense. You’re the only one confused by it.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/modern-intellectual-history/article/architects-of-the-mixed-economy-assar-lindbeck-ingemar-stahl-and-gosta-rehn/33574238F379F23C0C35B3F24D2A43F1
here’s a cambridge PhD discussion saying what I said is a major problem with the notion. economics professors don’t actually agree with you.
the impossibility of the mixed economy is itself an actual position within professional economics.
So, why do you disagree with me?
Economics professors don’t actually unanimously agree with you. So why are you presenting your position as though it is simply what “the profession of economics” believes?
I also want to point out the smug boldness on display here. You read a wikipedia page and think you know more than someone who disagrees with you. This is why communists find liberals embarrassing to argue with.
edit: even more embarrassing, you didn’t even read the wikipedia
“Numerous economists have questioned the validity of the entire concept of a mixed economy when understood to be a mixture of capitalism and socialism. Critics who argue that capitalism and socialism cannot coexist believe either market logic or economic planning must be prevalent within an economy” is written there.