Lets Define "Socialism" - Once and For All!

[tooAlive]

I've seen a lot of misinformation regarding socialism and communism lately, as everyone seems to have a different idea of what those two words mean. Some people think that countries like the USSR, Cuba, or North Korea were/are communist. That's actually not the case.

Others say that socialism is what they have in many modern-day European countries, and that even America is socialist because we have social security, welfare programs, police and fire departments, ect.. That's also not quite true.

So lets go ahead and properly define these words once and for all, and hopefully end the confusion. Lets start out by looking at a simple definition of socialism by a non-partisan source, Merriam Webster.

so·cial·ism - \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\

Socialism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

1. a) any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.

In a nutshell, this refers to the government having control over all corporations/productive forces. They get to decide who runs the corporations, what the corporations produce, how much they charge, what wages are paid to employees what hours they will work, ect..

Countries around the world that have portrayed or still use this aspect in their economies include the USSR, North Korea, Nazi Germany, and Cuba. Just to name a few.

2. a) a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
2. b) a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

Under socialism, all private property would be confiscated and belong to the state. The state (government) would then decide what to do with said properties. Theoretically, all private property would then be equally redistributed among the people.

Once again, the USSR, North Korea, Nazi Germany, Cuba, ect.. are all countries with little to no private property rights. Nazi Germany however is one that brings up a lot of controversy, as Hitler is known to have said he defended private property rights and is typically associated with right-wing Fascism; not socialism.

This of course is contradicted by the fact that the Nazis confiscated private property at a whim. People were only allowed to own private property only if it "didn't interfere with the state.." So in reality, they didn't have private property either; again placing them in the category of socialism. Here's a quote from Wikipedia: "Private property rights were conditional upon the economic mode of use; if it did not advance Nazi economic goals then the state could nationalize it." - Nazism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

3. a) stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Marx's ultimate goal was a classless, stateless, moneyless society. In the beginning, he and Engels originally referred to socialism and communism interchangeably. But since they couldn't just reach their "dream world" in one swing, socialism became their "transitional phase" from capitalism into communism. Which again, is their fantastical ultimate goal of a classless, stateless, moneyless society.

So if we go back to the origin of these words, we'd notice that socialism and communism go hand in hand. One is just a vehicle to reach the other. At least that's how Karl Marx had envisioned it.

By these definitions, there has never been a truly communist country, as no country has ever gotten to that point. So it'd be incorrect to call Cuba, North Korea, or The USSR communists; considering that none of them ever got to the point of being classless, stateless, and moneyless.

And by moneyless I'm referring to having no monetary system. As Marx saw it, socialism would once reach a point where currency would no longer be needed and that trading would come down to simple mutual exchanges. That's when the transition over to communism would become effective.

So looking back at history, all those countries are in fact socialist, or stuck in the "socialism phase;" in that they never completed the transition over to communism.

Lets finish off with a bit more of a historical insight into the origin of this ideology, and how the founders had envisioned it. From WorldSocialism.org:

The word “communism” has different meanings to different people. To Marx, communism and socialism were interchangeable. Lenin distinguished these words, but not in the way we would today. By socialism he meant a society where everybody would be an employee of the state, which would own all the means of production. This should properly be called state capitalism. By communism he meant what up to then had been called socialism, a classless, moneyless, wageless society with common ownership and democratic control. So Lenin’s “communism” is what we normally refer to as “socialism” and what Lenin called “socialism” is what most of the world thinks of as “communism” and what we like to call state capitalism. Lenin’s socialism was not the goal of Lenin or the Bolsheviks, but the goal was communism or “true” socialism.

So why was this goal never achieved? Why does every communist country in the world have state capitalism? One of the many important ways Lenin disagreed with current socialism is in believing that to achieve this classless moneyless state, a country must go through a transitional phase, where most of the productive property is owned in common by the state, but where class differences remain. This is what Marx and Engels referred to as the “first phase” of communism. This belief in a transitional phase aided in the communists undoing; they remained permanently stuck in transition. Stalin pronounced that “socialism” had been achieved in 1936 and believed that Russia was headed for communism, as did Khrushchev. But Gorbachev, when he became leader in 1985, put off the establishment of communism indefinitely — virtually abandoning it as a goal.

The state capitalism of the Soviet Union and other “communist” countries differs from what we call socialism in so many ways that they have almost nothing in common. Socialism must have democracy in every aspect of life. But in the Soviet Union, it has never had a majority support. This stemed from a differnce in beliefs. Marx believed that the working class must free itself, while Lenin believed that freedom must come from somewhere outside of the working class. Democracy and the self-determination of the working class have never been strong points in the Soviet Union. Instead there was a belief in strong leaders, which lead to a succession of totalitarian states. Socialists, on the other hand, believe in a leaderless society; a primary tenant of socialism is to bring about a classless society in which we can generally regard each other as equals. In addion to not eliminating classes, neither were money, wages, or profits eliminated from Soviet life. Freedom was not achieved and the self-emancipation of the working class, as advocated by Marx, remains a goal.

It was not surprising that communism fell in the Soviet Union. It was locked in a permanent state of transition without true democracy or popular support. In 1990, the Socialist Standard wrote:

“We welcome the fall in these countries of the dictatorial regimes that have dragged the names of socialism and Marx through the mud by wrongly associating them with one-party rule, a police regime, food shortages and regimentation and indoctrination from the cradle to the grave.

“As Socialists who have always held, like Marx, that socialism and democracy are inseparable and who denounced Lenin’s distortion of Marxism right from 1917, we vehemently deny that it is socialism that has failed in Eastern Europe. What has failed there is totalitarian state capitalism falsely masquerading as socialism.”

"Communism"

And here's another reference to communism being a classless, stateless, moneyless society:

Communism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Communism (from Latin communis - common, universal) is a revolutionary socialist movement to create a classless, moneyless and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order.[3] This movement, in its Marxist–Leninist interpretations, significantly influenced the history of the 20th century, which saw intense rivalry between the "socialist world" (socialist states ruled by communist parties) and the "western world" (countries with capitalist economies).

I hope this sheds some light on what these words really mean, and where their origin comes from.

 

[PredFan]

Simple: Government control of the means of production.

 

[Avorysuds]

I think the idea is not people saying we live in a fully communist or socialist country but rather that many aspects of our society have shifted in that direction by way of actual law and policy. Some of the most damaging areas of our economy and society are due to the growth on Socialism and Communism like Governing.

Many of us understand that we have a mix, but we also understand that the more we have shifted in the direction of Socialism the worse things have become, as predicted. Socialism simply does not work, there is the idea and then there is reality, we are living the reality, just like any country that has or will ever try socialism.
.

 

[Agit8r]

I prefer to use precise terms like planned economy, mixed economy, or spontaneous economy to describe the differences. Socialism has become something of a weasel word.

"The successful use of competition does not preclude some types of government interference. For instance, to limit working hours or to require certain sanitary arrangements. An extensive system of social services is fully compatible with the preservation of competition. There are, too, certain fields where the system of competition is impracticable. For example, the harmful effects of deforestation or of the smoke of factories cannot be confined to the owner of the property in question. But a few exceptions do not prove that we should suppress competition where it can be made to function. To create conditions in which competition will be as effective as possible, to prevent fraud and deception, to break up monopolies - these tasks provide a wide and unquestioned field for state activity."
-- Friedrich August Von Hayek; from 'Road to Serfdom'

 

[tooAlive]

I prefer to use precise terms like planned economy, mixed economy, or spontaneous economy to describe the differences. Socialism has become something of a weasel word.

"The successful use of competition does not preclude some types of government interference. For instance, to limit working hours or to require certain sanitary arrangements. An extensive system of social services is fully compatible with the preservation of competition. There are, too, certain fields where the system of competition is impracticable. For example, the harmful effects of deforestation or of the smoke of factories cannot be confined to the owner of the property in question. But a few exceptions do not prove that we should suppress competition where it can be made to function. To create conditions in which competition will be as effective as possible, to prevent fraud and deception, to break up monopolies - these tasks provide a wide and unquestioned field for state activity."
-- Friedrich August Von Hayek; from 'Road to Serfdom'

I would agree with that.

But since people will inevitably use the word socialism, I thought it'd be a good idea to set the definition straight.

But again, you're right. Those terms would be much much more accurate to describe economic systems.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I prefer to use precise terms like planned economy, mixed economy, or spontaneous economy to describe the differences. Socialism has become something of a weasel word.

"The successful use of competition does not preclude some types of government interference. For instance, to limit working hours or to require certain sanitary arrangements. An extensive system of social services is fully compatible with the preservation of competition. There are, too, certain fields where the system of competition is impracticable. For example, the harmful effects of deforestation or of the smoke of factories cannot be confined to the owner of the property in question. But a few exceptions do not prove that we should suppress competition where it can be made to function. To create conditions in which competition will be as effective as possible, to prevent fraud and deception, to break up monopolies - these tasks provide a wide and unquestioned field for state activity."
-- Friedrich August Von Hayek; from 'Road to Serfdom'

I would agree with that.

But since people will inevitably use the word socialism, I thought it'd be a good idea to set the definition straight.

But again, you're right. Those terms would be much much more accurate to describe economic systems.

What people?

Using your "definition", is Barack Obama a Socialist? I have never heard a Liberal or a Socialist say that he is.

Liberals understand reality and use the terms that are appropriate. You are knocking the shit out of that fake wall that you see there. Well done.

 

[Contumacious]

Simple: Government control of the means of production.

Correct.

And that can be accomplished directly via socialism or indirectly via fascism.

Under fascism government controls the means of production via licensing and massive regulation.

They are able to disguise their control by allowing the entrepreneurs to retain "ownership".

.

 

[Lakhota]

Socialism is not a one-size-fits-all...

Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy.[1] "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, or citizen ownership of equity.[2] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.[3] They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets or planning, how management is to be organised within productive institutions, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.[4]

More: Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Types of Socialism: The word socialism refers to a broad range of theoretical and historical socio-economic systems, and has also been used by many political movements throughout history to describe themselves and their goals, generating numerous types of socialism. Different self-described socialists have used the term socialism to refer to different things, such as an economic system, a type of society, a philosophical outlook, a collection of moral values and ideals, or even a certain kind of human character. Some definitions of socialism are very vague,[1] while others are so specific that they only include a small minority of the things that have been described as "socialism" in the past. There have been numerous political movements which called themselves socialist under some definition of the term; this article attempts to list them all. Some of these interpretations are mutually exclusive, and all of them have generated debates over the true meaning of socialism.

More: Types of socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Daktoria]

According to Marx, it's the application of labor theory of value to the relations of production to achieve a dictatorship of the proletariat via permanent revolution.

That way, commodity fetishism doesn't create social alienation. Instead, people historically and dialectically materialize base with superstructure. This happens because use value is extracted from concrete labor instead of exchange value being extracted from abstract labor.

Those who are valuable in society are defined according to the contribution to species-being. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I think the idea is not people saying we live in a fully communist or socialist country but rather that many aspects of our society have shifted in that direction by way of actual law and policy. Some of the most damaging areas of our economy and society are due to the growth on Socialism and Communism like Governing.

Many of us understand that we have a mix, but we also understand that the more we have shifted in the direction of Socialism the worse things have become, as predicted. Socialism simply does not work, there is the idea and then there is reality, we are living the reality, just like any country that has or will ever try socialism.
.

The move towards hard right conservatism during the past 3 decades has done far more damage to this nation than all of the "socialism" programs combined. The failed dogma of deregulated free markets have caused massive economic turmoil and wiped out the life savings of millions of hard working Americans. Without the current social programs in place they will end up in destitution in their retirement years. To blame socialism for the current situation is dishonestly blaming the victims for the crimes of those who made out like bandits.

 

[Contumacious]

I think the idea is not people saying we live in a fully communist or socialist country but rather that many aspects of our society have shifted in that direction by way of actual law and policy. Some of the most damaging areas of our economy and society are due to the growth on Socialism and Communism like Governing.

Many of us understand that we have a mix, but we also understand that the more we have shifted in the direction of Socialism the worse things have become, as predicted. Socialism simply does not work, there is the idea and then there is reality, we are living the reality, just like any country that has or will ever try socialism.
.

The move towards hard right conservatism during the past 3 decades has done far more damage to this nation than all of the "socialism" programs combined. The failed dogma of deregulated free markets have caused massive economic turmoil and wiped out the life savings of millions of hard working Americans.

HUH?

Why do you associate right wing " conservatives with deregulation?

What/When did the "right wing " conservatives deregulate?

.

.

 

[tooAlive]

Socialism is not a one-size-fits-all...

Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy.[1] "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, or citizen ownership of equity.[2] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.[3] They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets or planning, how management is to be organised within productive institutions, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.[4]

More: Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Types of Socialism: The word socialism refers to a broad range of theoretical and historical socio-economic systems, and has also been used by many political movements throughout history to describe themselves and their goals, generating numerous types of socialism. Different self-described socialists have used the term socialism to refer to different things, such as an economic system, a type of society, a philosophical outlook, a collection of moral values and ideals, or even a certain kind of human character. Some definitions of socialism are very vague,[1] while others are so specific that they only include a small minority of the things that have been described as "socialism" in the past. There have been numerous political movements which called themselves socialist under some definition of the term; this article attempts to list them all. Some of these interpretations are mutually exclusive, and all of them have generated debates over the true meaning of socialism.

More: Types of socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, many people have given "socialism" many different meanings over the years. That's the point of this thread.

Since everyone gives socialism a different meaning, I thought I'd outline what its originator had intended it to mean.

 

[Mac1958]

.

As simple and black & white as some folks want to make it, a political system in a free society is always going to be shades of gray. America has had elements of what could be called "socialism" for most of its existence. That doesn't mean we're a socialist country.

Good grief. A person isn't a socialist or a communist or a Marxist just because you heard a guy on the radio say so. The dittoheads have overused and diluted those words as badly as the lefties have overused and diluted "racist".

Shades of gray.

.

 

[Sallow]

Nazis weren't socialists.

They were Christian Fascists.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Today we have Neo-Marxism, Neo-Socialism; it's the same failed ideology that the state knows best, but they changed the packaging

 

[Sallow]

Simple: Government control of the means of production.

Correct.

And that can be accomplished directly via socialism or indirectly via fascism.

Under fascism government controls the means of production via licensing and massive regulation.

They are able to disguise their control by allowing the entrepreneurs to retain "ownership".

.

Fascism is quite different from Socialism.

Socialism gives the government some power over private industry.

Fascism give the private industry power over the government.

Unless you are talking about Nazis. Then it's Christain private ownership over government.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Nazis weren't socialists.

They were Christian Fascists.

Nazis were National Socialists

There, fixed

 

[Derideo_Te]

I think the idea is not people saying we live in a fully communist or socialist country but rather that many aspects of our society have shifted in that direction by way of actual law and policy. Some of the most damaging areas of our economy and society are due to the growth on Socialism and Communism like Governing.

Many of us understand that we have a mix, but we also understand that the more we have shifted in the direction of Socialism the worse things have become, as predicted. Socialism simply does not work, there is the idea and then there is reality, we are living the reality, just like any country that has or will ever try socialism.
.

The move towards hard right conservatism during the past 3 decades has done far more damage to this nation than all of the "socialism" programs combined. The failed dogma of deregulated free markets have caused massive economic turmoil and wiped out the life savings of millions of hard working Americans.

HUH?

Why do you associate right wing " conservatives with deregulation?

What/When did the "right wing " conservatives deregulate?

.

.

Were you not paying attention when Gingrich was pushing his Contract On America and the subsequent Enron/Arthur Anderson corruption scandals? How about the deregulation of Glass-Steagall? How about the angry screams from the conservative right about "my money" when it come to the Bush era taxcuts? Are you blaming all of those on "liberals" instead?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Simple: Government control of the means of production.

Confirming that neither liberals nor democrats are ‘socialists.’

They are advocates of capitalism, free markets, private property, and legislation beneficial to corporate America.

 

[Sallow]

Nazis weren't socialists.

They were Christian Fascists.

Nazis were National Socialists

There, fixed

Naw.

Nazism is Pope Approved.

Ask Ratzinger.