Socialism in the US

[RandFan]

I can live with "ill-defined". In either case, we're basically singing off the same page.

Cool.

 

[respect]

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.

Also important, ignoring that and going with what you pointed it to would make the definition almost identical to the existence of government. All governments must interfere with markets to some degree, if for no other purpose, to raise revenues or they couldn't exist. That would render the term meaningless.

An economic policy that ostensibly allows for private business ownership but features a government dictating to those owners is more specifically called national corporatism (see fascist Italy for a real world example). Although it is often suggested that it is a distinction with little practical difference from more traditional forms of socialism.

 

[respect]

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

I'm not sure why you would think that I write Merriam Webster entries, but what you are presumably thinking of as socialism would more accurately be referred to as a welfare state. All modern nations feature welfare states. That is not the same thing as socialism. Welfare states redistribute some of the fruits of production, socialist states decide what is to be produced.

 

[respect]

No, but it has to have some elements of that definition, like substantial governmental control of the means of production. Wouldn't need to be total control, just substantial. With the exception of some military articles, the US government manufactures nothing, mines nothing, grows nothing, and has no substantial control of the means of production in general.

That's a bingo!

Republicans (and apparently some of the liberals here) who think that all government spending is socialism don't know what they are talking about.

The distinction between redistribution of wealth and government ownership of the means of production and central planning is no small thing. The economic consequences of the two ideas are very different.

 

[crimresearch]

Some great people shared that blindfold;

Again, r. o. t. f. l. m. a. o.

You think that the workers in North Korea, or the USSR are the government? You think Lincoln would actually say that about those specfic socialist countries?

Or more specifically, since this is predicated on earlier comments, where is your proof that there are no elites there?

 

[respect]

Again, r. o. t. f. l. m. a. o.

You think that the workers in North Korea, or the USSR are the government? You think Lincoln would actually say that about those specfic socialist countries?

Or more specifically, since this is predicated on earlier comments, where is your proof that there are no elites there?

Pay attention to the bolded part:

As an American, I see no distinction between the people and the government. I realize this is not the case elsewhere.

 

[crimresearch]

Pay attention to the bolded part:

Went right over your head, hmmm?

 

[respect]

Went right over your head, hmmm?

What exactly went over my head? It is pretty clear from your posts that you did not understand that he wasn't talking about other countries.

 

[WildCat]

Odd that - I don't see the 40 hour week going anywhere soon

I don't see what that has to do with socialism.

 

[BenBurch]

What exactly went over my head? It is pretty clear from your posts that you did not understand that he wasn't talking about other countries.

Noting that this is the US politics section, I was discussing US Politics.

If the US government were to nationalize all industry, then the workers ARE in control of the means of production. Citizens elect the people who enact and enforce the laws, and citizens ARE the people who enact and enforce the law.

There is no ruling class.

There is no royalty.

There is universal enfranchisement of adults.

 

[crimresearch]

What exactly went over my head? It is pretty clear from your posts that you did not understand that he wasn't talking about other countries.

And it is painfully clear from yours, that you don't understand that the topic was other countries, specifically countries identified with socialism as the primary form of government. The point being made addressed the hypocrisy of the usage of the term.

His attempts to hijack that into partisan poo flinging with the whacky theory that America is a socialist country because our government spends money internally, or our politcians pretend that the everyday poor people are the actual rulers, was a red herring, and you fell for it.

 

[RandFan]

I don't see what that has to do with socialism.

Republicans often equate socialism with govt regulation. They haven't gotten your memo that demands that the word must only be used in the classical sense.

 

[crimresearch]

Noting that this is the US politics section, I was discussing US Politics.

If the US government were to nationalize all industry, then the workers ARE in control of the means of production. Citizens elect the people who enact and enforce the laws, and citizens ARE the people who enact and enforce the law.

There is no ruling class.

There is no royalty.

There is universal enfranchisement of adults.

No, you were trying to derail a discussion of what are commonly called socialist countries.

 

[WildCat]

I can see advantages to having certain aspects of our society socialized. Many of the things the government already does like military and infrastructure.

Those are core government functions, as well as social services. This is what government is supposed to be doing - "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare".

Seizing privately owned farms and collectivising them under government control isn't a core function of government. Nor is manufacturing cars or making films.

Do you think that all aspects of society should be privately owned and open for competition?

Of course, with the exceptions as noted above.

 

[RandFan]

Those are core government functions, as well as social services. This is what government is supposed to be doing - "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare".

Perhaps it would be nice if pundits and ideologues on the right could stop accusing many democratic policies and democrats of being socialist.

Is Obama a socialist?

Is Obamacare socialist?

Is the democratic party socialist?

 

[WildCat]

You're right. Let's get rid of the most blatantly socialistic federal program in the United States: the military. At least, let's tackle that along with all of the other, evil socialistic programs, just for the sake of consistency.

Sound good, WC?

The military is a "means of production"?

 

[BenBurch]

No, you were trying to derail a discussion of what are commonly called socialist countries.

Topic title is "Socialism in the US" is it not?

 

[Corsair 115]

Also important, ignoring that and going with what you pointed it to would make the definition almost identical to the existence of government. All governments must interfere with markets to some degree, if for no other purpose, to raise revenues or they couldn't exist. That would render the term meaningless.

If you disagree with the definition then I suggest you take that up with the Oxford English Dictionary.

 

[WildCat]

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?

Sure does, by that definition everything except complete anarchy is socialism. It renders the word virtually meaningless.

At any rate, that's not the American English meaning of the word: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

eta: heh, I see SezMe said the same thing.

 

[MG1962]

The military is a "means of production"?

You are really hung up on that term aren't you. You keep repeating it as if it has something to actually contribute to the discussion. Maybe you should try sources beyond the opening line of a Wiki article