5 ms·
"Socialism" has a clear, simple definition. Socialism is the ownership and control of the means of production by the government for the people. Its the mis-use
by jdblair 10y ago
"Socialism" has a clear, simple definition. Socialism is the ownership and control of the means of production by the government for the people.
Its the mis-use of the term socialism and the details of actually implementing government ownership of the means of production that makes discussions so confusing. To pick a few examples, Obamacare is not socialism. Government assistance, as implemented in the US, is not socialism. A state run oil company, on the other hand, may be part of a socialist economy.
- tptacek 10y agoIt's more complicated even than this, and, unfortunately, that means your argument isn't dispositive. There is, for instance, "market socialism", which describes public/private cooperatives. Sweden would call itself a "social democracy", rather than a "socialist country", but Sweden does some things that clearly cross the line in ownership and control of the means of production for some industries. Moreover: most countries with single-payer health care --- the UK, Canada, France --- have state control over one of the most important sectors of the economy! By your definition, they're (at least in part) socialist countries. But they would dispute the characterization. It's not other people who are causing these problems by incorrectly using the terms. It's that reliably using the term "socialism" with any precision requires so much clunky verbiage that nobody --- on either side --- can use it correctly. When we use the term or see it used, we should raise a flag so that we all understand it's ambiguous, and leave it at that. For what it's worth: by no definition does it make sense to call Obamacare "socialist".
- nickff 10y agoObamacare is socialist in the sense that it enabled a great deal of government control over the healthcare market, which is a rather large sector of the economy, almost indisputably one of the 'commanding heights'.
- tptacek 10y agoThis is logic that suggests that any regulation of any major market is intrinsically "socialist". Perhaps that's true, but if it's true it's only true in the sense that it illustrates how treacherous the word "socialism" is.
- nickff 10y agoThere is the saying "why own the farm If you can own the farmer?", which has been attributed to various totalitarians (and whose true origin I am unaware of), that highlights the fact that owning the actual means of production is unnecessary if you control the owner. This can be through regulation, corruption, or other means. I don't see socialism as a 'treacherous' word, but 'socialism' is more a spectrum than a boolean variable. For instance, I am sure you are more socialist than I am, but that does not make you the same as Castro or Mao.
- tptacek 10y agoCareful. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error
- nickff 10y agoI don't understand where you believe I am making a fundamental attribution error. I am an extreme libertarian or an anarcho-capitalist (depending on where you draw the line), and from what I've read in your posts over the last years, you are nowhere near that side of the spectrum(s), unless you usually argue in favor of things you disagree with.
- RodericDay 10y agoeh, i don't know this is like saying that "real-time" has clear, simple definition... except for all those times in which people writing medical software disagree with people writing videogames. socialism is a word that doesn't let people communicate effectively. you say it meaning one thing, and people may understand in a multitude of ways. I think the advice to avoid using it is sound.
- mattmcknight 10y agoThe biggest confusion I see is exactly this, people use "socialism" when they mean "welfare state".