What is socialism?

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

I remember when the most effective--and probably most common--bogeyman and buzzword was "the L word": liberal or liberalism.

Now I think that it is safe to say that it is "socialism".

The only definition that I have of socialism is from a college introductory class on world politics in the Political Science department. Socialism was presented as a point on a spectrum. Communism is where government controls and redistributes all resources. Socialism is where government controls and redistributes some resources. Totalitarianism is where government hoards all resources--no redistributing. Therefore, the United States of America is socialist.

But I do not think that anybody--left, right, center; liberal, conservative, moderate--I hear today subscribes to that definition. Therefore, I have no idea what anybody has in mind when they say something like, oh, Obama is leading us down the slippery slope of socialism.

What is socialism? Why is it so controversial?

 

[SteveB28]

Its current usage is on something of a sliding scale. Many would assert that public education, public hospital systems, comprehensive health insurance, etc are examples of socialism. And yet, the original intent of the term was to imply the state ownership of the means of production as its primary goal.

 

[jayem]

It's a very protean term these days. It refers to anything the speaker doesn't think should be funded by taxes.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Simple. Socialism is government control of the means of production.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Perhaps the english word has a different meaning in the US then the dutch word has in Belgium....

But over here, it does not mean "control over the means of production" at all.

Rather, it means things like valueing solidarity and "social state programs" in general.
It's very broad. From social housing for the poor all the way down to universal healthcare (regardless of income) and everything in between. Education, welfare, etc all fall under it, funded by the state through taxes. As opposed to an "every man for himself" kind of society.

I've always found it very strange that in the US, with it's high religiosity, people are so much against such ideas. You'ld think that such ideas like solidarity etc are christian values. At least christians always say so... that it's all about love and helping people and reaching out to the poor and the sick and the unfortunate etc....

Well... that's exactly what social programs are all about.

 

[Eudaimonist]

You'ld think that such ideas like solidarity etc are christian values. At least christians always say so... that it's all about love and helping people and reaching out to the poor and the sick and the unfortunate etc....

Well... that's exactly what social programs are all about.

One catch: social programs involve institutionalized theft. They are robbery writ large.

Christians in America often prefer voluntary charity. Yes, they value helping people and reaching out to the poor, etc, but do so of their own volition instead of forcing others to join their social agenda.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Oafman]

The only definition that I have of socialism is from a college introductory class on world politics in the Political Science department. Socialism was presented as a point on a spectrum. Communism is where government controls and redistributes all resources. Socialism is where government controls and redistributes some resources. Totalitarianism is where government hoards all resources--no redistributing.

Those are some pretty awful definitions.

Communism is not where the govt controls everything; actually the opposite is true. It is a goal of communist theory to eliminate the state. It's quite anarchist, in that sense. Some communists argue that strong state control is necessary 'in the short term' to get society to the point where it can eliminate the state. Of course, we always seem to get stuck in the temporary situation, as power hungry leaders refuse to give up control.

Also, socialism is not necessarily govt controlling the means of production. That would be state socialism, but there are plenty of alternative varieties, some of which are as anarchic as communism. Examples are libertarian socialism, and various models that involve cooperatives and communes. The link between all of them is the idea that individuals should not own businesses, though you should not assume from that statement that 'therefore, the state must'. Workers could own a business, or the residents of a town could own it, or a bunch of other similar ideas.

Simple. Socialism is government control of the means of production.

That's one specific type of socialism; State socialism

One catch: social programs involve institutionalized theft. They are robbery writ large.

This, and 'property is theft' are equally ridiculous statements.

 

[DogmaHunter]

One catch: social programs involve institutionalized theft. They are robbery writ large.

Sorry, but I consider that to be absolutely ridiculous.

Everyone benefits from such tax-funded programs. Just like everyone benefits from tax-funded roads, fire departments, police stations, ...

 

[Goonie]

I remember when the most effective--and probably most common--bogeyman and buzzword was "the L word": liberal or liberalism.

Now I think that it is safe to say that it is "socialism".

The only definition that I have of socialism is from a college introductory class on world politics in the Political Science department. Socialism was presented as a point on a spectrum. Communism is where government controls and redistributes all resources. Socialism is where government controls and redistributes some resources. Totalitarianism is where government hoards all resources--no redistributing. Therefore, the United States of America is socialist.

But I do not think that anybody--left, right, center; liberal, conservative, moderate--I hear today subscribes to that definition. Therefore, I have no idea what anybody has in mind when they say something like, oh, Obama is leading us down the slippery slope of socialism.

What is socialism? Why is it so controversial?

In the US at the moment it seems to be anything to the left of Attila the Hun.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Perhaps the english word has a different meaning in the US then the dutch word has in Belgium....

But over here, it does not mean "control over the means of production" at all.

Rather, it means things like valueing solidarity and "social state programs" in general.
It's very broad. From social housing for the poor all the way down to universal healthcare (regardless of income) and everything in between. Education, welfare, etc all fall under it, funded by the state through taxes. As opposed to an "every man for himself" kind of society.

I've always found it very strange that in the US, with it's high religiosity, people are so much against such ideas. You'ld think that such ideas like solidarity etc are christian values. At least christians always say so... that it's all about love and helping people and reaching out to the poor and the sick and the unfortunate etc....

Well... that's exactly what social programs are all about.

We aren't as prosperous as Belgium and other socialist countries. We can't afford those programs.

 

[DogmaHunter]

We aren't as prosperous as Belgium and other socialist countries. We can't afford those programs.

It's funny, because the US already spends MORE per capita then Belgium for public healthcare services. It would become cheaper for the state, if they would actually adopt a proper universal health care system. While quality and reach of it would be much higher.

But, for some reason, I think you are being sarcastic.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It's funny, because the US already spends MORE per capita then Belgium for public healthcare services. It would become cheaper for the state, if they would actually adopt a proper universal health care system. While quality and reach of it would be much higher.

But, for some reason, I think you are being sarcastic.

No sarcasm. Belgium is healthier and more prosperous than the U.S. Also smarter, more socially conscious, which is typical of a small homogenous population. Really an apples and oranges comparison.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No sarcasm. Belgium is healthier and more prosperous than the U.S. Also smarter, more socially conscious, which is typical of a small homogenous population. Really an apples and oranges comparison.

A homogenous population?????
Are you kidding??

Just to illustrate, right after Saddam Hussein's rule was overthrown in Iraq, a Belgian delegation was asked to come explain to the interim government how we managed to still exist without ending up in a brutal civil war... That's how "homogenous" our population is. Brussels houses like 172 nationalities. Flanders (the northern half) and Wallonie (the southern half) don't even speak the same language and are in almost constant political conflict with one another. Then there's also that small piece to the east which speaks yet another language.

The reason we are healthier is, ironically, a superior health care system.
We are not more prosperous.
And the fact remains that the US spends MORE per capita on public healthcare then Belgium - precisely because they don't have an efficient and properly regulated health care program. There are waaaay to many (private) capitalistic parties involved. To the point that "health" becomes a commercial product, instead of a fundamental basic need.

A healthy population is a productive population, and it is in everyone's best interest that the population is healthy. Health is not a luxury product. Or at least, it shouldn't be.

But I'm going off topic......

 

[Eryk]

Socialism is the democratization of the economic sector. The justification for this is, that wealth is socially created and therefore should be democratically controlled.

 

[jayem]

I've always found it very strange that in the US, with it's high religiosity, people are so much against such ideas. You'ld think that such ideas like solidarity etc are christian values. At least christians always say so... that it's all about love and helping people and reaching out to the poor and the sick and the unfortunate etc....

A lot of Americans still have the frontier mentality. They romanticize the notion of the settler staking his claim, clearing his land, building his cabin, digging his well, chopping his wood for fuel, and feeding his family with the food he hunts and farms. Of course, good neighbors do their Christian duty by helping each other in hard times. But self-sufficiency, and self-reliance are most prized. Government's job is just to keep order.

This may have had some relevance in the 19th century (and even then, only a fraction of our population were actually pioneers.) But it doesn't work at all in a post-industrial, technology dependent, urbanized, 21st century society.

 

[com7fy8]

I've always found it very strange that in the US, with it's high religiosity, people are so much against such ideas. You'ld think that such ideas like solidarity etc are christian values. At least christians always say so... that it's all about love and helping people and reaching out to the poor and the sick and the unfortunate etc....

Well... that's exactly what social programs are all about.

According to our report in the book of Acts, we had "all things common", at first. Acts 2:44-45, Acts 4:32

One catch: social programs involve institutionalized theft. They are robbery writ large.

There is human nature in the mix, from the ones committing welfare fraud at the bottom, to the ones cheating on tax returns, to the ones administrating dishonestly and/or incompetently, to the politicians making dishonest administrative appointments as returned favors and otherwise betraying the trust of the people - - - betraying trust, not knowing how to love. If people betray trust because they do not know how to love, their not knowing how to love is what can make a program or system fail to work as well as it could. And no reform of politics or law or policy can change people's hearts so they stop trying to only use other people for what they want. No law can make people love.

Christians in America often prefer voluntary charity. Yes, they value helping people and reaching out to the poor, etc, but do so of their own volition instead of forcing others to join their social agenda.

Yes, we do value voluntary charity. But I think we need to not only do distant giving, only of money and materials and education to people we don't even personally share with. We need personal sharing of ourselves, as examples of how to love, not by controlling with programs >

"nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock." (1 Peter 5:3)

It is a goal of communist theory to eliminate the state. It's quite anarchist, in that sense. Some communists argue that strong state control is necessary 'in the short term' to get society to the point where it can eliminate the state.

And, Oafman, I was told that communist doctrine includes that the communists must first use violent takeover before communism can be established. But if, because of how humans are, you would need violent taking of control and then state control, for a while, I would think that then humans would still be human and so you would keep finding yourself excusing the use of imposed control measures.

And I notice how people claiming to be democratic can keep finding excuses to use violence, and doing things which do not really work so then they find they need to keep using violence. And after ones of democracy might win, then is when they want everyone to act nice . . . but only after they get what they want. The Europeans did this against American native peoples, and Mexico . . . taking their lands, and only then claiming they wanted peace and democracy.

the US spends MORE per capita on public healthcare then Belgium

And how much of this "MORE" spending is needed because of how Americans destroy themselves with food abuse, smoking, alcohol abuse, sexual and needle transmission of AIDS, workplace environment poisoning, and military injuries of policing the world? And how much is because of medical care fraud of different sorts, which possibly is possible because of the United States being bigger so it is harder to keep track of things? In any case, I would say human nature is the problem at the base of it all. No matter how you reform, you still will have humans to deal with

 

[JackRT]

Socialism is the democratization of the economic sector. The justification for this is, that wealth is socially created and therefore should be democratically controlled.

As it is in most western nations, the CEOs and senior executives are literally looting their corporations with no consideration for the workers, the general public or the communities in which they are located. The workers are absolutely essential to the success of any company. They contribute through their education, their intelligence, their skills, their innovation, their time and their labour. They deserve a fair share.

A pet peeve of mine. When a company fails, the workers should be fully compensated for back wages and the workers pension plan should be absolutely sacrosanct. Only then should the assets be divided.

 

[Oafman]

And, Oafman, I was told that communist doctrine includes that the communists must first use violent takeover before communism can be established.

I don't think that's the case for all schools of communist thought. That sounds like Leninism (dictatorship of the proletariat to oversee the transition from capitalism to socialism). Marx thought that an industrialised capitalist society could transition more easily to socialism than an agrarian society, but Russia was not industrialised at the time of the revolution, so Lenin had other ideas.

But if, because of how humans are, you would need violent taking of control and then state control, for a while, I would think that then humans would still be human and so you would keep finding yourself excusing the use of imposed control measures.

Perhaps. I guess some sort of constitutional timetable, guaranteeing the relinquishing of dictatorial power, should have been devised in Russia!

And I notice how people claiming to be democratic can keep finding excuses to use violence, and doing things which do not really work so then they find they need to keep using violence. And after ones of democracy might win, then is when they want everyone to act nice . . . but only after they get what they want. The Europeans did this against American native peoples, and Mexico . . . taking their lands, and only then claiming they wanted peace and democracy.

No political or economic systems stops nation states from behaving badly, including democracy. That said, I think it's still a fact that no two democracies have even gone to war with each other.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

A homogenous population?????
Are you kidding??

Just to illustrate, right after Saddam Hussein's rule was overthrown in Iraq, a Belgian delegation was asked to come explain to the interim government how we managed to still exist without ending up in a brutal civil war... That's how "homogenous" our population is. Brussels houses like 172 nationalities. Flanders (the northern half) and Wallonie (the southern half) don't even speak the same language and are in almost constant political conflict with one another. Then there's also that small piece to the east which speaks yet another language.

The reason we are healthier is, ironically, a superior health care system.
We are not more prosperous.
And the fact remains that the US spends MORE per capita on public healthcare then Belgium - precisely because they don't have an efficient and properly regulated health care program. There are waaaay to many (private) capitalistic parties involved. To the point that "health" becomes a commercial product, instead of a fundamental basic need.

A healthy population is a productive population, and it is in everyone's best interest that the population is healthy. Health is not a luxury product. Or at least, it shouldn't be.

But I'm going off topic......

Sorry, I guess I was thinking of the Dutch.

 

[Eudaimonist]

This, and 'property is theft' are equally ridiculous statements.

"Property is theft" is ridiculous. "Taxation is theft" is not.


eudaimonia,

Mark