Those on the right, define "socialism" and "socialist"..

[L.Y.S.]

If I were still a conservative I would attempt to define my terms. I don't have a problem doing that. The words don't matter if we agree what they mean. The problem is that to do so will show inconsistency and obfuscation. You can be sure I'm going to hold people accountable in the future for failing to offer a definition. Ill bump this thread and ask them to give a definition. Let's see how it goes.

We should come up with a fair and sensible definition without either side’s biases of the fact and based on that definition hold individuals accountable who don't understand. I suspect that no one is offering a definition because they understand that they will be held responsible to their definitions. I for one support this idea.

My quick definitions are:


Socialism- shared responsibility of society. All members of society have input in the means of labor, production, and the allocation of resources. In return all members of society share these burdens in return for social health and benefits. There are a variety of economic systems utilized by social forms of government; the most commonly used is a well regulated free market economy. This would include most of Western Europe and many Anglophone nations (excluding America of course).

Communism- government controls the means of production, labor, and all national resources for a command based economy. This form of communism was created by Lenin and perfected by Stalin. All forms of labor, resources, and production are controlled on the national government level. The countries that best mirror this would be the Soviet Union (Pre 1985) and the People’s Republic of China (Pre 1976 Deng Xiaoping era).

Marxism- a system of governance where local municipalities act autonomously, share all possessions, and workforce production. These communities are guided by a group of average citizens deemed "soviets" (Russian word for council). This system matches the early Athenian democracy without all the powerful rich land owners and aristocrats. The most historically accurate form of this “original pure form” of communism was during the Russian revolution, individual cities and “soviets” made decisions based on their own needs. After Lenin consolidated power in 1921, power became concentrated at the top.

Fascism- the consolidation of privatized corporate and national government under the guise of hyper nationalism. The most famous of cases being Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy.

Again these are my working definitions of what I class as commonly misused terms by American conservatives.

 

[RandFan]

We should come up with a fair and sensible definition without either side’s biases of the fact and based on that definition hold individuals accountable who don't understand. I suspect that no one is offering a definition because they understand that they will be held responsible to their definitions. I for one support this idea.

My quick definitions are:

Socialism- shared responsibility of society. All members of society have input in the means of labor, production, and the allocation of resources. In return all members of society share these burdens in return for social health and benefits. There are a variety of economic systems utilized by social forms of government; the most commonly used is a well regulated free market economy. This would include most of Western Europe and many Anglophone nations (excluding America of course).

Communism- government controls the means of production, labor, and all national resources for a command based economy. This form of communism was created by Lenin and perfected by Stalin. All forms of labor, resources, and production are controlled on the national government level. The countries that best mirror this would be the Soviet Union (Pre 1985) and the People’s Republic of China (Pre 1976 Deng Xiaoping era).

Marxism- a system of governance where local municipalities act autonomously, share all possessions, and workforce production. These communities are guided by a group of average citizens deemed "soviets" (Russian word for council). This system matches the early Athenian democracy without all the powerful rich land owners and aristocrats. The most historically accurate form of this “original pure form” of communism was during the Russian revolution, individual cities and “soviets” made decisions based on their own needs. After Lenin consolidated power in 1921, power became concentrated at the top.

Fascism- the consolidation of privatized corporate and national government under the guise of hyper nationalism. The most famous of cases being Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy.

Again these are my working definitions of what I class as commonly misused terms by American conservatives.

Good but I'm still not clear on specific social programs, departments, regulations and policies in the US. Can we exclude a single social program from socialism in the US? If that's not clear let me know and I'll improve it.

 

[L.Y.S.]

Good but I'm still not clear on specific social programs, departments, regulations and policies in the US. Can we exclude a single social program from socialism in the US? If that's not clear let me know and I'll improve it.

By the nature of the facts social programs are "socialist" in nature. We would all pay X amount of taxes from income, services, or goods and receive X benefits. That is inherently socialist. It is clear; there is no getting around that. However, I think it's much more negative to associate the positive progress of "socialism" with the poor deeds of communism. And I often hear the two getting mixed up. Through out Western Europe there are social democracies, so I fail to see the big deal in why socialism is still perceived so badly by the American right.

By definition advocating for these programs does make one socialist, but NOT communist. You see the difference? And often the two words are too closely tied with one another. And communism does refer to our ex-archrival the Soviet Union which both baby boomers and the previous generations can't seem to get over. I was born shortly before the collapse of communism in Europe so I have almost no recollection of what it meant to live during that time. I do however, remember the German flags, and I think my first real memory was the one of the Berlin Wall coming down. So there are some thoughts there, but not many.

So in my opinion, this socialism = bad thing is a fall over from the cold war which is no longer relevant, and frankly I don't view the Russians or the Chinese as bad people. There I said it; I don't view Russians or the Chinese as bad people.

I will also clarify this point. It doesn't matter if the solution is a private or public matter, once society agrees that, "there will be certain procedures taken in order to maintain our welfare," that becomes socialist. This includes institutions like Germany's mainly private UHC system, which is still considered socialist.

We have more socialist institutions in America than we actually care to describe: education, social security, Medicare / Medicaid, the public transportation system, the list goes on for miles. Bottom-line, once all individuals of a society enter into a social contract for the common health, safety, and or progress for society then the resulting institutions are and will be considered socialist. This does not make you a communist however, because you are not advocating for the government to have sole proprietorship over the institution with little or no social input, but rather share responsibility with average citizens and request that every day people have substantial input into the system.


The truth, I think all these old anti-Russian people need to get over the cold war and its rhetoric, plain and simple.


Let me know if I answered your question.

 

[L.Y.S.]

I hope I didn't kill this thread. I was actually expecting much more conversation to come out of it.

 

[RandFan]

I hope I didn't kill this thread. I was actually expecting much more conversation to come out of it.

I liked your input. I think much of the problem is those on the right simply won't touch it. It's intellectually a hot potato. It's sad really. I had a lot of friends on the right here three years ago and now they see me as a traitor. It's kinda like when I left religion.

 

[RandFan]

We have more socialist institutions in America than we actually care to describe: education, social security, Medicare / Medicaid, the public transportation system, the list goes on for miles. Bottom-line, once all individuals of a society enter into a social contract for the common health, safety, and or progress for society then the resulting institutions are and will be considered socialist. This does not make you a communist however, because you are not advocating for the government to have sole proprietorship over the institution with little or no social input, but rather share responsibility with average citizens and request that every day people have substantial input into the system.

And most people like many of those institutions. Many Republicans who campaign on ending entitlements never push for it once in office because they know how valuable they are to their state.

 

[L.Y.S.]

And most people like many of those institutions. Many Republicans who campaign on ending entitlements never push for it once in office because they know how valuable they are to their state.

The Anti-Communist mantra is one of the primary forces holding back serious reform in America today. Since in fact we can no longer avoid that many socially pertinent institutions we need are in fact socialist.

I liked your input. I think much of the problem is those on the right simply won't touch it. It's intellectually a hot potato. It's sad really. I had a lot of friends on the right here three years ago and now they see me as a traitor. It's kinda like when I left religion.

The problem is that the right has aligned themselves too closely with corporate agendas and will therefore only support policies that allow corporations to have free reign over the land.

The only way to break this grip in my opinion is major campaign finance reform. Politicians and the nation in general are too dependent on the private fund to pursue important issues in our society without bias or being bought off.

So every time I hear conservatives yell socialism I'll keep in mind to yell corporate cronyism, because that’s what modern conservatives amount to.

 

[respect]

One of the problems here is that the terms often involve overlap. We don't see true laissez-faire capitalism anywhere for example, yet the term capitalism is routinely applied to many things.

Socialism is a form of government where the government takes control, whether through purchase or force, of the means of production.

What is often called socialism these days doesn't fully fit that though, governments often dictate the distribution of production without taking control of the means of it, any form of taxation can be seen as that, but in a broader sense, this has given rise to the relatively new term "social democracy". Which is fitting, it isn't fully capitalism or socialism but does require at least some popular support among the populace.

Also, when a government allows private ownership of business but dictates their behavior the correct term to describe it is "corporatism" (sometimes called national corporatism in extreme examples like fascist Italy). I have seen this term used incorrectly here on occasion when the user really meant cronyism, capitalist cronyism or corporate cronyism.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

<snip>

By intention none were actually "evil" either. It's the vulnerabilities in consolidating certain governmental powers that they have which make them easier to exploit. At least that's the way I interpret the conservative ideology.

I think respect actually made my point clearer than I've ever done it so far here..

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I liked your input. I think much of the problem is those on the right simply won't touch it. It's intellectually a hot potato. It's sad really. I had a lot of friends on the right here three years ago and now they see me as a traitor. It's kinda like when I left religion.

I guess I don't see it the same way as the people you're asking definitions from... Once I tried to rationalize my biases I found it impossible to really define "socialism" the way that this thread asks... Since the US is based on a mixed system as it is it's easier to define the negatives of politics through the effect of policy decisions... one-liners just don't do justice to those issues

 

[RandFan]

I guess I don't see it the same way as the people you're asking definitions from... Once I tried to rationalize my biases I found it impossible to really define "socialism" the way that this thread asks... Since the US is based on a mixed system as it is it's easier to define the negatives of politics through the effect of policy decisions... one-liners just don't do justice to those issues

Cool. Thanks.

 

[respect]

By intention none were actually "evil" either. It's the vulnerabilities in consolidating certain governmental powers that they have which make them easier to exploit. At least that's the way I interpret the conservative ideology.

I think respect actually made my point clearer than I've ever done it so far here..

Thanks, one of the reasons is that some terms and concepts are relatively new compared to others. For example, the rise of modern welfare states is indeed modern and has happened much later than the introduction of the concepts of capitalism and socialism. The welfare state is not truly either as it is the governmental redistribution of production rather than the government control of production like pure socialism or the the absence of governmental regulation like true capitalism. Hence the need for new terms like "social democracy" but that is still very broad, perhaps more unique terms will emerge in the future.

 

[RandFan]

For example, the rise of modern welfare states...

Could you define that and give us an example? Do you mean the textbook definiton? Is America a welfare state or moving to become a welfare state? Not very good for an epithet is it?

... true capitalism.

Definition, example? Why "true"? Why not "Laissez-faire"? "Free market"? My poli-sci textbook doesn't have "true capitalism".

 

[respect]

Could you define that and give us an example? Do you mean the textbook definiton? Is America a welfare state or moving to become a welfare state? Not very good for an epithet is it?

As the term is generally used and understood, America has a welfare state. Some countries have a larger welfare state, some countries have a smaller welfare state. The general usage of the term refers to a government enforced wealth transfer that is not universal in consumption. For example, anyone can use a public park, but if your income is taxed and given to me to buy food, only I consume the food. The general usage of the term "welfare state" would cover you being taxed for me to buy food but not the public park which we can both use. That the government created both required redistribution of wealth but the government took no control of the means of production for either required both new terms, the "welfare state" and "social democracy".

Definition, example? Why "true"? Why not "Laissez-faire"? "Free market"? My poli-sci textbook doesn't have "true capitalism".

I meant laissez-faire capitalism, it does not exist, it has never existed, it almost certainly will never exist. However, the word capitalism is still useful even if its pure form will never happen, but the usage of that word and others like "socialism" does breed some confusion as real countries bleed the concepts together.

Clearer?

 

[RandFan]

As the term is generally used and understood, America has a welfare state. Some countries have a larger welfare state, some countries have a smaller welfare state. The general usage of the term refers to a government enforced wealth transfer that is not universal in consumption. For example, anyone can use a public park, but if your income is taxed and given to me to buy food, only I consume the food. The general usage of the term "welfare state" would cover you being taxed for me to buy food but not the public park which we can both use. That the government created both required redistribution of wealth but the government took no control of the means of production for either required both new terms, the "welfare state" and "social democracy".

I meant laissez-faire capitalism, it does not exist, it has never existed, it almost certainly will never exist. However, the word capitalism is still useful even if its pure form will never happen, but the usage of that word and others like "socialism" does breed some confusion as real countries bleed the concepts together.

Clearer?

Yes. Very. Thank you very much.

 

[RandFan]

The general usage of the term refers to a government enforced wealth transfer that is not universal in consumption.

I would take issue with the use of the words "govt enforced". I think it is loaded terminology but I understand its use. Having grown up a staunch conservative I understand that mindset. It's like Daffy Duck screaming "mine mine mine all mine". And I realize that you are just trying to answer my question and I apologize if I seem to be contentious. But I have real issues with that kind of thinking as I believe it has caused serious problems for America. As I'm sure many on the right believe that the welfare state has caused serious problems for America. The thing is I don't think the facts bear that out. It was finding out the facts that lead me to reconsider my previous dogmatic views of socioeconomics.

We live in a society. By and large we sink or swim together. Wealthy people don't make money in a vacuum. If a person were born in the desert and lived his entire life there in solitude and somehow amassed a fortune it could reasonably be argued that he or she had no responsibility to anyone else. That can't be said of people who live in a society. We stand on the shoulders of giants who stood on others shoulders. The wealth of society is the knowledge held by that society, the infrastructure, the ability of the people to labor and the national good will (very, very important). If a person living in society avails themselves of these assets to become wealthy (or inherit the wealth) then they have a responsibility to assist the society to ensure others and future generations can also avail themselves of the assets.

The problem I have with rhetoric like "govt enforced redistribution" is that it ignores so many realities to simply frame an idea for the benefit of a few of the many who live in a society. I'm a follower of Locke, Hume and Rand. I like the idea of personal property rights. By allowing citizens the right to keep the fruits of their labor society benefits from their talents. That's seemingly win win. That's a good thing. But those rights do not come without additional responsibility to society because their wealth is impossible without society. It's not enough to simply trade your talents for a return because without the assets of society the return would be ever so much smaller.

I find that many who are wealthy want the privilege of society (which is why they don't move to the wilderness) without the responsibility. I don't care if resources go to individuals. Societies with the highest HDI are the societies who make a concerted effort to take care of all of their citizens. Welfare intrinsically has utility for us all. We shouldn't do it simply because our fellow citizens need help. We should do it because it makes all of us better. A rising tide lifts all boats.

 

[L.Y.S.]

Socialism is a form of government where the government takes control, whether through purchase or force, of the means of production.

That is not the inherent definition of socialism. Socialism strictly means when all members of society come together in order to pool certain costs.

A direct dictionary definition- a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

It never states the government having control over anything simply that all members of society will collectively work together for some common cause.

What is often called socialism these days doesn't fully fit that though, governments often dictate the distribution of production without taking control of the means of it, any form of taxation can be seen as that, but in a broader sense, this has given rise to the relatively new term "social democracy". Which is fitting, it isn't fully capitalism or socialism but does require at least some popular support among the populace.

Yes I would agree with this assertion.

Oh, by the way, the dictionary definition of communism is as follows: a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.

I stand true to my definitions. They had merit to them, and they were pretty close to actual and or best practices. Again, I stand by my claims that socialism and communism are not the same things but are two different things. They two practice very different forms of social remedies and my point is that the two are often mixed and should not be. They are not the same form of government and have drastically different social consequences that are often ignored by individuals marketing blanket terms like, "Obama is a socialist communist who loves fascism." People seriously don't hear themselves speak sometimes.

I guess I don't see it the same way as the people you're asking definitions from... Once I tried to rationalize my biases I found it impossible to really define "socialism" the way that this thread asks... Since the US is based on a mixed system as it is it's easier to define the negatives of politics through the effect of policy decisions... one-liners just don't do justice to those issues

Again, I left my biases out; I've defined socialism pretty damn close to what the official dictionary does. So I ask how is my definition not viable?

 

[respect]

I would take issue with the use of the words "govt enforced". I think it is loaded terminology but I understand its use. Having grown up a staunch conservative I understand that mindset. It's like Daffy Duck screaming "mine mine mine all mine". And I realize that you are just trying to answer my question and I apologize if I seem to be contentious. But I have real issues with that kind of thinking as I believe it has caused serious problems for America. As I'm sure many on the right believe that the welfare state has caused serious problems for America. The thing is I don't think the facts bear that out. It was finding out the facts that lead me to reconsider my previous dogmatic views of socioeconomics.

We live in a society. By and large we sink or swim together. Wealthy people don't make money in a vacuum. If a person were born in the desert and lived his entire life there in solitude and somehow amassed a fortune it could reasonably be argued that he or she had no responsibility to anyone else. That can't be said of people who live in a society. We stand on the shoulders of giants who stood on others shoulders. The wealth of society is the knowledge held by that society, the infrastructure, the ability of the people to labor and the national good will (very, very important). If a person living in society avails themselves of these assets to become wealthy (or inherit the wealth) then they have a responsibility to assist the society to ensure others and future generations can also avail themselves of the assets.

The problem I have with rhetoric like "govt enforced redistribution" is that it ignores so many realities to simply frame an idea for the benefit of a few of the many who live in a society. I'm a follower of Locke, Hume and Rand. I like the idea of personal property rights. By allowing citizens the right to keep the fruits of their labor society benefits from their talents. That's seemingly win win. That's a good thing. But those rights do not come without additional responsibility to society because their wealth is impossible without society. It's not enough to simply trade your talents for a return because without the assets of society the return would be ever so much smaller.

I find that many who are wealthy want the privilege of society (which is why they don't move to the wilderness) without the responsibility. I don't care if resources go to individuals. Societies with the highest HDI are the societies who make a concerted effort to take care of all of their citizens. Welfare intrinsically has utility for us all. We shouldn't do it simply because our fellow citizens need help. We should do it because it makes all of us better. A rising tide lifts all boats.

Do you have a preferred term which differentiates it from voluntary charity?

 

[respect]

That is not the inherent definition of socialism. Socialism strictly means when all members of society come together in order to pool certain costs.

A direct dictionary definition- a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

It never states the government having control over anything simply that all members of society will collectively work together for some common cause.




Yes I would agree with this assertion.

Oh, by the way, the dictionary definition of communism is as follows: a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.

I stand true to my definitions. They had merit to them, and they were pretty close to actual and or best practices. Again, I stand by my claims that socialism and communism are not the same things but are two different things. They two practice very different forms of social remedies and my point is that the two are often mixed and should not be. They are not the same form of government and have drastically different social consequences that are often ignored by individuals marketing blanket terms like, "Obama is a socialist communist who loves fascism." People seriously don't hear themselves speak sometimes.



Again, I left my biases out; I've defined socialism pretty damn close to what the official dictionary does. So I ask how is my definition not viable?

Definition of SOCIALISM
1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2
a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3
: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Dictionary.

Your definition is so broad that it is almost meaningless, corporations, churches and little league baseball teams would be socialist under your standard. Fortunately, the dictionary does support an actual meaningful definition. The Marxist stage is largely irrelevant as it only exists in fantasies and has no place in discussions about the real world.

 

[RandFan]

Do you have a preferred term which differentiates it from voluntary charity?

Given the problem of equivocation I'd say that "socialism" is out. I thought it was a good idea to embrace it but that's clearly not a good idea.. Social program. Welfare. FWIW: I'm very much against simply relying on voluntary charity.