Socialism in the US

[BenBurch]

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.

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

As classically defined you are correct.

As re-defined by the GOP, Socialism is any time you tax somebody to help somebody else, with more recent dropping of the helping part; Socialism is any time you tax somebody.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I have an example of this [that is, the meaningless use cited in Orwell's essay] use of socialism.

In the mid-'90s, when I was working as an interpreter for the Deaf, there was a move to institute a system of state licensure and establish a state registry of interpreters (such that people wanting services could consult the list or call a state-run 800 number to find an interpreter).

Opponents of the plan (which has successfully been implemented for a little over a decade now) said, "That's socialism!" as if that in itself were an argument against the merits of the plan, when in fact it was nothing but a meaningless label meant to carry pejorative connotations.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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.

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

By that definition, it has never ever been attempted in the U.S. So for sake of this thread title, "socialism in the U.S." has never existed and there's nothing to talk about.

I think many people would disagree with your definition. They speak of the health insurance reform bill ("Obamacare") as socialism, for example. They speak of a bailout of the auto industry as socialism.

 

[RandFan]

I haven't read the thread yet, but whenever discussions of "socialism" or "socialist" come up, I like to quote from Orwell's "Politics and the English Language". From the section headed "Meaningless words" (my underline and paragraph break added):

I think without an explicit definition of the word socialism for sake of any given discussion, we can assume it is at best being used ambiguously --and at the worst, deceitfully as Orwell says.

Thank you for that.

As an interesting aside. I grew up in a conservative community. Orwell was quite the hit with Animal Farm. I'm not sure any of the people enraptured by Orwell for his critique on Communism knew that Orwell was a socialist. I didn't until years later.

 

[crimresearch]

Which means it's not socialism. Call it something else, like social-democracy.

So only perfect socialism done exactly according to the dictionary is socialism in any way, shape, or form?

 

[BenBurch]

So only perfect socialism done exactly according to the dictionary is socialism in any way, shape, or form?

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.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

So only perfect socialism done exactly according to the dictionary is socialism in any way, shape, or form?

According to whom?

My point is that it's a meaningless term (at the very least ambiguous, at the worst deceitful) without a sort of operational definition for a given conversation.

According to Wildcat's definition back in post #4, to be socialism, there must be the public ownership of all the means of production-- "Everything from the factory that makes bread to the factory that makes cars to the grocery store down the street". (I don't believe even the Communist Party ever even supported that in the U.S. Even the USSR limited public ownership primarily to industrial assets.) But it's obvious that many conservatives are using it in a very different way indeed.

Without a definition, it's mostly just a non-argument trying to be passed off as an argument. (See my post about the Missouri interpreter licensure laws debate. Saying, "That's socialism!" is an Orwellian abuse of language, IMO.)

 

[Francesca R]

It isn't a meaningless term at all. It suffers from lack of meaning no more than any other descriptor in the sense of the pure hard-core version being scarcely realistic. When people say "socialist" in a negative way they probably mean "too socialist", and it is pretty clear what it is that there is deemed to be too much of.

Effort to eradicate the word (such as declaring it devoid of meaning, or insisting that unless applied in the 100% pure sense it does not exist), because (in the US) it has been demonised by the political right merely acquiesces to that demonisation and tacitly accepts the assertion the political right makes, that all socialism = evil.

That's dumb.

 

[crimresearch]

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.

I thought the dictionary definition cited above said that the people had to control the means of production?

The post I quoted seems to be saying that because the government has the control (which I already covered), that it isn't really socialism.

 

[crimresearch]

According to whom?

My point is that it's a meaningless term (at the very least ambiguous, at the worst deceitful) without a sort of operational definition for a given conversation.

According to Wildcat's definition back in post #4, to be socialism, there must be the public ownership of all the means of production-- "Everything from the factory that makes bread to the factory that makes cars to the grocery store down the street". (I don't believe even the Communist Party ever even supported that in the U.S. Even the USSR limited public ownership primarily to industrial assets.) But it's obvious that many conservatives are using it in a very different way indeed.

Without a definition, it's mostly just a non-argument trying to be passed off as an argument. (See my post about the Missouri interpreter licensure laws debate. Saying, "That's socialism!" is an Orwellian abuse of language, IMO.)

As I already pointed out, in the real world, the government *always* has control over the means of production, and over the people. That dictionary definition is of a theory, not a practice.

Which makes the post I quoted, an apparent reference to an imaginary perfect world, and an apparent attempt to derail a discussion of the practice.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It isn't a meaningless term at all. It suffers from lack of meaning no more than any other descriptor in the sense of the pure hard-core version being scarcely realistic. When people say "socialist" in a negative way they probably mean "too socialist", and it is pretty clear what it is that there is deemed to be too much of.

I disagree. In the example I gave (which was the entire argument of a colleague against the proposed licensure laws), it was not clear at all what was "too socialist" or why being "socialist" to a greater degree is in itself something to be avoided.

Effort to eradicate the word (such as declaring it devoid of meaning, or insisting that unless applied in the 100% pure sense it does not exist), because (in the US) it has been demonised by the political right merely acquiesces to that demonisation and tacitly accepts the assertion the political right makes, that all socialism = evil.

That's dumb.

Calling for an explicit definition of the term for purposes of a conversation is in no way an "effort to eradicate the word".

 

[Pardalis]

Why? Because socialism is an all-or-nothing proposition?

The definition of the word doesn't say anything about half measures.

 

[RandFan]

The definition of the word doesn't say anything about half measures.

Do you deny that there are other usages of the word? Do you claim that words cannot evolve and acquire other definitions?

 

[crimresearch]

The definition of the word doesn't say anything about half measures.

And what about half-truths?

As already pointed out, the definition of social-ism is relevant to the *theory*.

The dictionary definition of social-ist includes those who merely claim a preference for the theory, not just those who practice it perfectly by the theory.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialist

 

[Francesca R]

Calling for an explicit definition of the term for purposes of a conversation is in no way an "effort to eradicate the word".

Agreed.

 

[SezMe]

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

 

[Tricky]

The definition of the word doesn't say anything about half measures.

Yes, and of course, a dictionary tells you everything you need to know about a subject.

 

[BenBurch]

I thought the dictionary definition cited above said that the people had to control the means of production?

The post I quoted seems to be saying that because the government has the control (which I already covered), that it isn't really socialism.

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

 

[crimresearch]

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

ROTFLMAO!! Those blindfolds sure do make the world simpler, don't they?

 

[BenBurch]

ROTFLMAO!! Those blindfolds sure do make the world simpler, don't they?

Some great people shared that blindfold;

... It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom— and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.