The definition of being “Woke”

ralfy

Member
I'm sure there are others who can give a much better legal definition of "incorporation," but it is a legal term.

Small businesses are not "incorporated". We are a small business and thus are not.

I have another business. It's called The Everlasting Companies, Inc. It is not a legally registered corporation, but by definition it is one. It consists of Everlasting Films, Everlasting Word Publications, and Everlasting Dreams Real Estate. I'm certain there are a thousand things wrong with all that, so I hope no one will clog the thread by pointing all them out.

But there's the quick-and-dirty difference.

My understanding is that an unincorporated business may be registered or otherwise. If it's the former, then it's technically not a business: rather the one operating it is a business. That means any profits and losses are usually included in one's personal tax returns.

If it's registered, then it's still an unincorporated business but has advantages similar to that of an incorporated one, such as ownership of the business name, the ability to sell it to a third party, ease of incorporation, etc. But like the latter, it may have similar requirements, such as getting business licenses, various permits, etc.

The point is that all legally registered businesses require legal systems (hence, "legally registered") and the purposes are practical. Since these businesses are part of capitalist systems, then the latter require legal systems for obvious reasons. The same applies for even non-registered businesses, which still need fiat currencies, legalization of ownership of the means of production, etc. All that is part of government regulation, which in turn is part of socialism.

The counter-claim raised in this thread is that capitalism is the opposite of socialism, which makes no sense at all as (a) capitalism employs regulations for reasons given above and (b) socialism isn't against capitalism but private ownership of the means of production.

Both "wokes" and their critics appear to be unaware of these points.
 

DEFCON Warning System

Director
Staff member
. The same applies for even non-registered businesses, which still need fiat currencies, legalization of ownership of the means of production, etc. All that is part of government regulation, which in turn is part of socialism.
I think this may be a simple case of different definitions of "socialism".

To the purist, the dictionary definition is "A political theory advocating state ownership of industry (or capital)."

There is an acceptable difference between a government regulating a business and a government "owning" a business.

We all live under some sort of law. Yet we don't call that "socialism". And government does do some "socialism" things that we find to be acceptable. The fire department, police, and social security just to name three. We don't call those socialism even though it fits the definition. (The big bugaboo about social security is that it is unconstitutional, not that it is evil.)

So when someone brandishes the word "socialism" about, it is important to understand what they mean by the word first.
 

ralfy

Member
I think this may be a simple case of different definitions of "socialism".

To the purist, the dictionary definition is "A political theory advocating state ownership of industry (or capital)."

There is an acceptable difference between a government regulating a business and a government "owning" a business.

We all live under some sort of law. Yet we don't call that "socialism". And government does do some "socialism" things that we find to be acceptable. The fire department, police, and social security just to name three. We don't call those socialism even though it fits the definition. (The big bugaboo about social security is that it is unconstitutional, not that it is evil.)

So when someone brandishes the word "socialism" about, it is important to understand what they mean by the word first.

A limited definition of "socialism" is collective ownership of the means of production, but if that involves abolition of private ownership, and that's Communism. That applies to countries like North Korea and Cuba.

A more logical definition would be the desire to have collective ownership, which means no abolition of private ownership. That's the case for countries like China and Vietnam. But the same can be seen in many mixed economies, where some businesses are privately owned and others publicly: in short, mixed economies. At the same time, I'd be hard-pressed to find countries that are wholly run by private corporations.

That implies that socialism refers to society imposing on individuals and private corporations in different ways, which is why there's not so much different definitions of socialism but a term that encompasses several meanings:


And the common denominator is regulation, or imposition by the state on individuals and corporations. That includes not only nationalizing industries or forming public corporations but also imposing rules on individuals and corporations, such as registering businesses.

One reason why I have to stress this is because critics of socialism include free market capitalists, or those who want less regulation, and likely because they argue that in place of regulation market forces should prevail.

For example, in one forum, some conservatives argued that a bottling company was stealing water from one community. They quickly argued that the government should step in and stop that company. But that's what a socialist or even a left-leaning liberal would support: government intervention. In contrast, a conservative who supports deregulation would argue that market forces should prevail: those who think theft is wrong won't patronize that company and will instead buy from a company that doesn't. Of course, reality shows otherwise, especially if many of the customers of the company reside outside that community and are thus not affected by the theft.

I see similar even among pro-free market capitalist conservatives who like Trump: it barely occurred to them that some of Trump's views call for restricting free trade and closing off borders, which require government intervention and are similar to what countries like China had been doing for decades. In contrast, free market capitalists would argue that U.S. businesses should do as they please in terms of trade and bringing in foreign workers, and that market forces should determine their success or failure.
 
Top