Socialism, like communism, means everything one wants it to and nothing one doesn't want it to mean.
That's just the reality of socialism. It's easy to forget though. Did you forget that USSR stands for Union of Soviet Socialist Republics? The USSR considered itself socialist, just as Hitler considered his National Socialism party socialist, just as East Germany referred to itself as a socialist state. Even China considers itself to have a socialist market economy.
One shouldn't forget that Lenin, Mao, Castro, Che, Chavez and a host of others considered themselves socialists. Socialism is only a theory ... which has never worked very well ... and its practitioners always believe they are the ones who have the magic bullet for making it successful, though none ever have. Nor, will they. Men are too imperfect for all-powerful central planning. That's just a FACT.
Mankind requires competition. It's an inherent part of man's nature. Just as corporations bloom and die as they are displaced by newer vibrant entities, so it is with governments. The United States, however imperfect, allows such competition. We saw it clearly in the last election cycle when the best planned candidates from both major parties were rejected at the ballot box. Such competition doesn't happen under socialism. Sure, occasionally an envious wannabe tyrant murders his predecessor but that hardly leads to the new blood and fresh ideas so necessary for continual growth and advancement.
Incorrect. They were socialists STRIVING toward the communist ideal. They called the political party the communist party but they identified as socialists.
That would be incorrect as well. Again, socialism is simply a theory ... which remains to be implemented in any fashion which actually accomplishes the desired goals. How long did the USSR last? Less than 75 years, not even as long as the human lifespan now. China is doing a little better ... but only because they gave up on the old socialist practices and decided to try some competitive approaches.
You made my argument ... except you left out the final piece.
One can't get to Utopia via socialism. Not that socialists ever seem to recognize that. For some reason, socialism is always about imposing the will of the state on everyone, not allowing competition and demanding strict obedience of whoever rules the state. The definition of socialism is always just exactly what the ruler of the state declares it to be ... curiously, not dissimilar to the way you've just been declaring that your definition of socialism is the only legitimate definition for socialism. Weird, huh?
No, the definition of socialism does not mean what the “ruler of the state declares,” just as the definition capitalism does not mean what the president of the United States says it to mean. President Trump could moronically claim tomorrow that capitalism is the public ownership of the means of production and not only would he be incorrect, his uneducated statement wouldn’t change the meaning of capitalism. Similarly, Trump could say socialism is the privately owned means of production, and he’d be incorrect.
That is the flaw with your entire argument, your notion socialism is whatever the leader or government declares socialism to mean. You seem to be invoking the Alice in Wonder Land Humpty Dumpty argument of words have whatever meaning ascribed to them by whoever is using the word.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
That’s essentially your argument, and it is wrong.
You have not corrected my statement that neither Cuba or Venezuela is socialist on the basis of this odd argument they are socialist because they said so. Neither was the USSR socialist because they said so.
Venezuela, Cuba, are not socialist. Claiming to be socialist does not make it so. Calling oneself a socialist is insufficient to be socialist.
But that is a wonderful philosophy you have espoused. May I borrow your logic and apply it to the following parallel examples below? Thanks.
1. People’s
Republic of China. Who knew they were a “republic” on the basis they called themselves one. Apparently, “Republic” means, im China, the authoritarian regime they have. This meaning would be a startling surprise to the Framers of the American “Republic.” Indeed, this meaning would be a shock to the ancient world as well, since the word “Republic” was in usd then and defined.
2. North Korea, officially known as the “
Democratic People's
Republic of Korea,” has an appealing allure. After all, the words “republic” and “democratic” are used, but those two words mean brutal dictatorship there.
Perhaps the most damaging aspect to your own argument is it defeats the very point of the thread.
If socialism means what the ruler of the nation declares it to be, then
Bernie is entitled to his own meaning of the word. That means Bernie is to be judged by his own meaning, not yours or anyone else’s meaning.
But of course, your argument doesn’t make any sense anyway, and as a result socialism, having its own meaning, doesn’t means whatever some leader so declares it to mean.
