Socialism in the US

[Corsair 115]

Socialism = government owns the means of production.

The definition of socialism according to the online Oxford English Dictionary (emphasis added):

a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Those two little bolded words change things a bit, wouldn't you say?

The OED entry also contains this: The term ‘socialism’ has been used to describe positions as far apart as anarchism, Soviet state Communism, and social democracy; however, it necessarily implies an opposition to the untrammelled workings of the economic market. The socialist parties that have arisen in most European countries from the late 19th century have generally tended towards social democracy.

 

[SezMe]

The definition of socialism according to the online Oxford English Dictionary (emphasis added):

a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Those two little bolded words change things a bit, wouldn't you say?

Indeed they do. By that definition, every government in the world is socialist. By that definition, all but the most extreme libertarian advocates for socialism.

IOW, adding your bolded phrase turns the definition meaningless. (I realize that is not YOUR definition.)

 

[Corsair 115]

Indeed they do. By that definition, every government in the world is socialist. By that definition, all but the most extreme libertarian advocates for socialism.

IOW, adding your bolded phrase turns the definition meaningless. (I realize that is not YOUR definition.)

Or is just means the word has a broad meaning, as opposed to the narrow meaning others have ascribed to it.

 

[Halfcentaur]

I was under the impression America was founded to have elements of a socialist democracy. These days that seems like an oxymoron if you listen to some people. Promote the common welfare? The issue was intended to be balanced, not to do away with or completely embrace either end of the spectrum.

For some reason as a child in the 1980s I thought McCarthyism was looked back on as an embarrassment which we had outgrown.

 

[SezMe]

Or is just means the word has a broad meaning, as opposed to the narrow meaning others have ascribed to it.

Or, in politics of the USA today, it has no meaning. As Tricky implied, it is used by those on the far right as a simple bludgeon to express disdain for nearly all concepts of using governmental resources to influence the shape of American culture. It's a red-meat word to rally the base; any meaning it might have is nearly superfluous.

 

[Muldur]

I dont understand the strong aversion to socialism in the US. I dont have any strong thoughts one way or the other.

Does it have to do with the Soviet Union? Like socialism=communism=Soviet Union? I have never been to Europe, but I get the impression that its nothing like the USSR was.

Whats the deal?

Which version do you want:

The Myth: America is a magic place where if you only work hard enough, long enough, and well enough you will become anything you chose to be and be successful. The story of America is the story of the success of the "self made man", whether he be the railroad tycoon, or the simple farmer who set off into the wilderness with a gun, an axe, a sack of seed and a dream.

That is, as long as the government gets out of his way and lets him do so.

This is the answer as spoon-fed to us almost from birth by society.

The Reality: The Industrial Revolution irrevocably destroyed the balance of power in society that empowered individuals equally in favor of empowering a handful of people who understood how to manipulate the system to transfer in bulk the value of the average man's labor to themselves.

These individuals understand that money=power in real terms, and hoard both against the rightful claims of the true owners of said value: the laborers who created it to begin with. They justify this to themselves by assuring themselves that as "self made men", they are a superior sort of man only receiving their "just due" from society.

Anything that would return money, power, or both to the masses is therefore "socialist" and "evil".

 

[Muldur]

What's to like about socialism?

The USSR was certainly socialist.

We really should christen this as the Russian version of Godwin's Law. "Ivan's Law" perhaps?

 

[Muldur]

Socialism = government owns the means of production. Everything from the factory that makes bread to the factory that makes cars to the grocery store down the street.

Wrong. That is "central planning" and pure communism.

"Socialism" is the middle ground between the pure extremes of capitalism and communism.

It's been a complete failure wherever it's been tried.

History shows otherwise, as most developed economies are in fact varying degrees of socialist.

 

[Muldur]

Stop lying all of the time.



Your question was answered several times in that thread.

Assuming we accept your definition as accurate, what then is the 'middle ground' to be called?

 

[Muldur]

I was under the impression America was founded to have elements of a socialist democracy. These days that seems like an oxymoron if you listen to some people. Promote the common welfare? The issue was intended to be balanced, not to do away with or completely embrace either end of the spectrum.

The problem is that the Constitution is a pre-Industrial document, written by people who lived in a world where powerful natural forces served to regulate human behavior and where the ownership of "stuff" (in particular land) was the lynchpin of individual success and prosperity.

Along comes the Industrial Revolution, and the ability of a few to leverage technology to their benefit, and those natural balancing mechanisms were irrevocably destroyed

A simple example: Pre IR, every town had to have it's own mill, to grind the wheat/corn/etc produced by the local farmers. This was because it was impractical to bring in grains from out of town.

In practical terms that meant that the miller could only charge so much for his services or else the farmers simply did without them and did for themselves. The miller had natural curbs on his ability to exploit the farmers.

Post IR, all that changed. Not only could the miller easily bring in grains from all the surrounding towns, but his efficiency in grinding them down was so great, that one miller (usually the first to industrialize) had such an absolute competitive advantage he put all the surrounding towns' mills out of business in short order.

This had the effect of making the miller "the only game in town" (in other words a monopoly), or at the very least secured him a huge comparative advantage. The farmers were forced into doing business with this new, more explotative miller, because if they had ANY expectation of bringing a crop to market (moving beyond personal subsistance farming), they had to play the miller's game.

 

[Dymanic]

"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."
-John Steinbeck

 

[Bikewer]

As noted, much depends on the definition. There was a thriving and active Socialist party in America back in the 20s and 30s, as I recall. Not by any means a majority, but many elected representatives, mayors, and even a few governors were Socialist.
When the Communist/Bolshevik takeover occurred in Russia, the other parties successfully conflated Socialism with Communism, a situation that maintains to this day.

Most contemporary governments have Socialist aspects, some more than others. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaide, Welfare... All arguably socialist programs.

Nowadays, it seems to be only outright Dictatorships where the government "owns the means of production"; even China is rapidly steering towards individual ownership of such after it became apparent that state-run industry tended to be highly inefficient.

 

[MG1962]

"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."
-John Steinbeck

I think thats a pretty good description, and suggests a basic difference in thinking between Americans and those in other parts of the world. We can either choose to blame others for our problems, or choose to try and do something about our problems ourselves

 

[MG1962]

Most contemporary governments have Socialist aspects, some more than others. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaide, Welfare... All arguably socialist programs.

You are absolutely correct. Smart countries over time have picked the eyes out of the extremes of socialism and capitalism and built a good working system for themselves.

The obvious benefit is avoiding the one size fits all problem, each nation tailoring the mix to suit their circumstances. Australia for example can be seen as a socialist paradise by the US, but conversely seen as a draconian exploitive system by a country such as Sweden

 

[crimresearch]

Cant that be said that there has never been a true (insert any government/economic system here)?

Except monarchies and dictatorships?

Yes.

The universal constant is that all forms of government are by definition, powermongering. Which guarantees a corrupting influence that will keep any 'true' form from actually being applied.

So the powermongers merely co-opt labels like democracy and socialism.

In the case of socialism, whereas the dictionary specifies 'the people', as practiced in the USSR the apparatchiks insulate the people from actually owning or regulating the means of production, and the elites wind up in limos.

 

[Cleon]

Socialism = government owns the means of production. Everything from the factory that makes bread to the factory that makes cars to the grocery store down the street

Socialism is a centrally managed economy where the state owns the commanding heights, if not all means of production. At least it was until everyone realized it was a colossal failure and a sham and it became an embarrassment to advocate it.

Which would mean that Barack Obama, the Scandinavian countries, and even the People's Republic of China are not socialist.

 

[lomiller]

Socialism = government owns the means of production.

Not quite. Socialism calls for social/public ownership of the means of production, but the owner need not be government. Some of these forms are very similar to system of publicly traded companies.

 

[RandFan]

Indeed they do. By that definition, every government in the world is socialist. By that definition, all but the most extreme libertarian advocates for socialism.

IOW, adding your bolded phrase turns the definition meaningless. (I realize that is not YOUR definition.)

Would you agree that the word "socialism" has more than one definition and it's usage in America typically deviates from the classical one?

Or, in politics of the USA today, it has no meaning.

I don't agree. I think that in the USA today the word is ill defined. I think most people who use it have in mind some line that is crossed when govt becomes too involved in the affairs of business or citizens through regulation and taxation. Now, you could argue that the failure to delineate that line renders it meaningless but I would not. JMO.

 

[Francesca R]

Will you agree that calling Obmacare socialized medicine is BS?

I wouldn't. Because it is.

From a similar thread (there are a few I think):

IMO this is a weird OP.

Universal health cover is socialist.

Lending-of-last-resort is socialist.

Public provision of other goods/services is socialist.

Public ownership of capital goods is socialist.

Every country--and by implication every government and head of government--embodies some socialist things.

Also:

There was an equally dotty thread on this a few months back, from an OP on the other side of the tracks. But from there:

Something is socialised if it is supplied by the state and compulsory. Conversely it is privatised if it is voluntarily provided by non-state agents.

You can wordsmith-lawyer the definitions all you want, of course. Those definitions are about as simple as one can get.

Many policies or institutions are mixed which means they have public and private parts to them. Universal health cover is almost everywhere compulsory (up to a minimum level of provision) and publicly funded (sometimes with means-testing). More or less of a country's healthcare sector may be in public ownership, but the cover (insurance-based financing) is just about always socialised. If it wasn't, it would not be universal, which is mostly a euphemism for socialised anyway.

 

[MG1962]

I don't agree. I think that in the USA today the word is ill defined. I think most people who use it have in mind some line that is crossed when govt becomes too involved in the affairs of business or citizens through regulation and taxation. Now, you could argue that the failure to delineate that line renders it meaningless but I would not. JMO.

One of the hardest parts of arguing this issue in the US is the knowledge that American political attitudes are set a lot further to the right than in many countries.

Obama would make a fine conservative leader in most western nations, however in the US he is seen by many as being dangerously close to the extreme left