What exactly is socialism?

[classical_hero]

I have absolutely no idea what that terms actually means. Every time we are told of some examples that are socialism we get told that is not true socialism and it is a corruption. So I am asking is there any examples of socialism that have been done and I mean on a national scale, not just some commune where it can be practised in miniature? If the examples that are generally given are corruptions of socialism, then show where they went wrong.

[Yoda Power]

There really isn't a firm definition of what socialism is. I would say it's basicly the idea that capitalism does not produce the highest amount of welfare or distribute it fairly, and that the state should thus intervene to bring an equal amount of welfare to it's citizens.

Socialism should however not be confused with Marxism or Communism which are revolutionary ideologies.


Some point to Scandinavia as socialist countries, but that not really fair, since we have very liberal labour markets and generally support the idea of capitalism.

[kosiosko 1]

parts of socialism are adopted by demoracies now days as policies because they are sensible ideas, the ideas come from early writings of comminist, anarchiest, utopian , christian ideas, fabian etc. ideas mostly suported by the left, which was found of writing endless manifestos, or academics who were found of writing, its sorta common good stuff, more than state ownership stuff nowdays, no one agrees on what it exactly is england and australia have had socialist policies

[willemvanoranje]

Well, in a strict sense socialism is the transit stage between the traditional limited democracies of the 19th century, towards true communism. But the use nowadays is quite different...especially under Americans. Many of them stamp anything that means a bigger state and is not done by Republicans, as socialism.

[Taniciusfox]

Socialism is a muddy term that has like one hundred defini- oh. You already pointed this out.

I personally define(there's so many definitions I don't care if it's not the textbook one anymore) socialism as government ownership of the economy. Not regulation or welfare schemes, but complete ownership. However, as social programs would be an integral part of such a state, I think it's fair to call such things socialist ideas, or ideas with socialist origins, but I don't think you're a socialist yourself if you support them.

For instance, I'd say Obama supports some socialist policies as part of being a left-leaning politician, but I wouldn't say he himself is a socialist as he's not advocating government control or worker control of the means of production.

It's a muddy term, but I like to generalise it into two categories:

Old Socialism/Communism: Was far more revolutionary on average, and advocated a complete restructuring of the economy by giving control of all economic activity to the workers or the government. I'd say the Soviet Union fell under this, as it fulfills the latter category, if debateably. I'd say China would fall under it before the market reforms of Deng Xiaoping that slowly opened China to capitalism, turning China state capitalist rather than Socialist.

New Socialism/Communism: Rather than advocating workers' power and a complete revolution, modern socialism seeks to work within the system and try to make it work better by addressing it's main issues. Most socialists have been absorbed into this strain, and most would fall under the category of "social democrat" - the category that the hopeless old socialists like to call traitors.

Modern socialism seeks to redistribute the results of production, rather than the means. Furthermore, modern socialism is more supportive of capitalism on average, but wants to augment it with social programs to ensure equality, human rights, etc. In other words, most modern socialists would be the average left-leaning individual. Heck, even I would fall under the category of "socialist" in this definition, as I support a strong mixture of capitalism and social policies to create a strong, vibrant economy that pulls everyone up and not only a few.

Modern socialist societies under my definition would include most developed nations and to a lesser extent the United States(we do have established worker's rights, social services and safety nets, even if not on the same scale as Europe).

---

Again, I know I'm not going by orthodox definitions or whatever, but the terms are so muddied I couldn't care less. I'll base things on application and not theory, thank you very much. This is all just my opinion and perception of things.

[kosiosko 1]

Originally Posted by willemvanoranje

Well, in a strict sense socialism is the transit stage between the traditional limited democracies of the 19th century, towards true communism. But the use nowadays is quite different...especially under Americans. Many of them stamp anything that means a bigger state and is not done by Republicans, as socialism.

thats why no two socialists can agree there was never a true communism, BEFORE socialism split off from communism in the U.k. very early on before communism formed a solid dogma, though marxs and engells had a strong following in the U.K. it was temper by strong christian influences, not withstanding we still use "brother this or commrade that" to address each other in the union movement, comminism has had a strong faction in trade unions but was never really domminant except in some industies like minning/ stevadoring as opposed to teachers or public servants

[Yoda Power]

I think some Americans don't understand the difference between socialism and socialdemocrativism either, the latter is usually supportive of capitalism but with equality as a goal.

Obama is not a socialist, but he might be, in some contexts, a social democrat.

[BasketCase]

Originally Posted by Taniciusfox

I personally define(there's so many definitions I don't care if it's not the textbook one anymore) socialism as government ownership of the economy.

Nothing personal, but I disagree with this definition; lots of different government systems already do this. Even the United States. Hell, even Saddam Hussein did this. When dictatorships and free nations can both do the same thing, there's a big problem with the definition.

How about this one. "Socialism: when the workers own and control the means of production"

Human rights certainly isn't it; capitalist systems and human rights do not conflict with each other. Capitalist systems exist both with slavery and without it; with child labor and without it; with womens' voting and without it. The two are independent of each other. Where socialists tend to go wrong, I think, is in confusing economics and civil rights. The two are separate things. In their opposition to capitalism, they are voicing opposition to something purely economic; the solution, accordingly, is purely economic. Hence: my definition, which is purely economic.

[Taniciusfox]

Originally Posted by BasketCase

How about this one. "Socialism: when the workers own and control the means of production"

I base my definitions off the brands of "socialism" that have been applied. Meaning, Stalinist/statist socialism, as in the USSR, or more modern, redistributive socialism, as practiced in Europe. Again, the terms are quite muddy.

Human rights certainly isn't it; capitalist systems and human rights do not conflict with each other. Capitalist systems exist both with slavery and without it; with child labor and without it; with womens' voting and without it. The two are independent of each other. Where socialists tend to go wrong, I think, is in confusing economics and civil rights. The two are separate things. In their opposition to capitalism, they are voicing opposition to something purely economic; the solution, accordingly, is purely economic. Hence: my definition, which is purely economic.

Considering I'm somewhat of a social capitalist(as in, I'm firmly capitalist, but support social programs to create a better overall system, while not supporting full-fledged nationalisation/workers' democracy), I can agree with all of this. But of course, be prepared for the waves of socialists who will do all in their power to demonise capitalism as an economic system, and do this with the social structure of a particular capitalist society. Capitalism can be no more condemned for coexisting alongside social negatives than socialism can be praised for existing alongside social positives(Lenin's USSR, for instance, if I recall right, was very socially progressive).



On the general topic, I would also like to add that workers' democracy is crap, just like normal, direct democracy. Workers' democracy is even worse, however, as it fuses politics with economics, believing that a bunch of people will somehow know how to run a business better than the individual(s) who founded it.

[Hehehe]

In capitalism, the definition of freedom is that government doesn't stop one from doing something. For example, if there are no laws against going to college, it is considered that one has the freedom of going to college. It doesn't matter whether or not that person has an actual chance of going to college.

Social democracy is based around the idea that it is not enough that the government doesn't forbid anyone from going to college, but that they also actually have the chance to go to college (or get healthcare etc), no matter what ethnic group they are or how rich their parents are. In a way social democracy tries to "even it out". So the freedom of healthcare doesn't mean that the government won't stop you from getting healthcare, but that the government actually provides healthcare.

Or that's my opinion anyway.

E: Seems I confused socialism and social democracy

[kosiosko 1]

Originally Posted by BasketCase

How about this one. "Socialism: when the workers own and control the means of production"

Human rights certainly isn't it; capitalist systems and human rights do not conflict with each other. Capitalist systems exist both with slavery and without it; with child labor and without it; with womens' voting and without it. The two are independent of each other. Where socialists tend to go wrong, I think, is in confusing economics and civil rights. The two are separate things. In their opposition to capitalism, they are voicing opposition to something purely economic; the solution, accordingly, is purely economic. Hence: my definition, which is purely economic.

but thats 40 years out of date, late 60's early 70' the union movement tradionally the main driving force of socialism bumped up against a brick wall, wages were high, holidays were many , penalty rates good, safety the laws were progressing it was just being vigalant, it had won its battles over the last 100 years, it was actualy figting for its share of other unions pie-- it formed super unions - like construction mining engindrivers and forestry union- CMFEU-- "mine" mostly short term work, pensions were on the agender, love the free market- if you wish to buy our labour and expertise its price is now +10% into a pension fund, you are quite welcome to shop around elsewhere, "we had a new cause" forty years on its standard practice for all employees, they can choose any bank, insurance company or union owned fund.

the best performing, the union started ones, The countrys largest pool of investment money, these same superanulization funds, where is it invested in shares, banks mining companies etc across the board, SO we do own and control means of production but in a very American and capitalist way, socialists didn't stop thinking at the end of the 19th centry, we love capitalism with a social consence

[willemvanoranje]

Originally Posted by Taniciusfox

But of course, be prepared for the waves of socialists who will do all in their power to demonise capitalism as an economic system, and do this with the social structure of a particular capitalist society.

Those still exist? I honestly thought today's discussions are more about the extend of freedom to allow in capitalism, not really about whether to use capitalism. So basically whether there are social programmes or not. I don't know anyone in Dutch politics who can say he wants a socialist system with a straight face.

Originally Posted by Taniciusfox

On the general topic, I would also like to add that workers' democracy is crap, just like normal, direct democracy. Workers' democracy is even worse, however, as it fuses politics with economics, believing that a bunch of people will somehow know how to run a business better than the individual(s) who founded it.

I agree. Although you could have some forum to discuss certain issues openly, I too do not belief in democratising private companies and industries. And direct democracy in the classical sense is just not feasible. Don't make the mistake of separating politics and economics, though. They are intertwined and while making policy in one area you should always consider what effect it will have on the other.

[G-Man]

I'd say that socialism = taking care of the society (as opposed to taking care of the individual). It's as aspiration for greater equality. And I think it applies in all countries at different levels - The US has some socialist aspects, but compared with other countries it's relatively in the extreme. The other extreme is communism and strict socialist countries, where the country owns most of the property and there is relatively a lot of equality, but the individual's rights, atleast in terms of owning property, are very limited.
Most countries are somewhere in the middle between these two extremes.

[Cheezy the Wiz]

In a word, socialism is a workers' democracy. Private ownership of businesses is removed, and replaced with workers' ownership, who then administer the business equally as a democracy. For the same reason we have done away with political despotism in favor of democracy, so does socialism do away with economic despotism in favor of democracy.

[Cutlass]

Socialism is that thing that the US is in zero risk of adopting, so people here should get over it already.

[willemvanoranje]

Sure... but many Americans brand anything that's not rolling back the state socialism.. and it's quite realistic that a state may adopt something that is not rolling back the state. So that's why they make a fuzz. And because it is all socialism in their dichotomous minds, they make a fuzz.

[warpus]

Doesn't wikipedia put it best?

Socialism refers to the various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with a method of compensation based on the amount of labor expended.

It's a collection of theories, not just one, which is why there is so much confusion.

[Shekwan]

Socialism is an extremely vague political term that media and politics can distort to suit their needs, either as the beginning of a tyrannical controlled economy, or as a necessary tool to implement a welfare state.

[Traitorfish]

Originally Posted by warpus

Doesn't wikipedia put it best?

Socialism refers to the various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with a method of compensation based on the amount of labor expended.

It's a collection of theories, not just one, which is why there is so much confusion.

[/thread], if we had the slightest ounce of sense in our collective heads.

[classical_hero]

So socialism isa collectivism of collectivism ideas?