4 ms·

If you say that the US is "living under socialism"... you don't know what that word means. Wikipedia says: "Socialism is an economic system characterised by so

by D-Coder 13y ago

If you say that the US is "living under socialism"... you don't know what that word means. Wikipedia says: "Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy. "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these." The US lives under a regulated capitalist economy.

javert 13y ago
I think of "socialism" as "unlimited redistribution of wealth." But the definition you gave checks out as far as I can tell from common sources online. So I may be using the term in an unconventional and confusing way. That said, how would you describe a system with high taxation and redistribution of income, but without state ownership of the means of production? (That is how I characterize the US mainly, plus massive reuglation.) There needs to be a word for it. "Socialism" seems to fit pretty well. The definition you are promulgating seems too narrow and technical. It doesn't really matter if the state owns the means of production, or simply seizes the profits created thereby. In the end, it's the same.
- ljf 13y ago
  No, that is not what socialism means, just because you want to think of the term meaning something else doesn't mean it is so. That's not how a shared language works.
  - javert 13y ago
    Your comment is intellectually bankrupt comment. My comment asknowledges potential error, raises issues, asks questions, and does not provide answers that I can't provide yet. Rather than dealing with any of that, you just make an assertion. If you want "socalism" to mean only a subset of collective political coersion, you have to defend that intellectually with reason. That is how a shared language works. Personally, I think of state ownership of the means of production as "communism," and redistribution of wealth, separate from ownership of the means of production, as "socialism."
    - ljf 13y ago
      There is a shared understanding of what socialism means, the parent you responded to pointed out one of the many accepted definitions and cited Wikipedia. Just because you would like it to mean something else does not mean that is does, I really struggle to understand the issue you have with that. Fair enough you want to label the current system of economic distribution in the USA, but you can't co-opt an existing term. For one it attempts to subvert a well understood concept, and tries to make it mean something else. There is no way that you can call the current system in the US socialist, unless you do not understand what socialism is, and how it works. And state controlled business is wildly different from taxed private business in a whole range of ways.
      - javert 13y ago
        Thanks for the response. I think I was being too harsh before. And I think you are putting forth a reasonable and commonly held view. I think it's a crime against comprehension to take well-known words and try to make them mean something else. That said, I'm not actually sure I'm doing that when I equate massive taxation and redistribution with socialism. High taxes and redistribution is an attempt to get away with socialism, without calling it "socialism." I don't think that is even controversial. It is the same goal with only slightly different means. So in calling that "socialism," I'm just calling it for what it really is, in terms of motivation and goal, and partially in terms of method (which is still coercive, just at a different point). In further support of my point---different socialists disagree on the precise techinical means of implemnting socialism anyway, so that would suggest that it may be a flexible enough term to encompass what I am talking about. And yet further support of my point is that there is no existing word to describe what I am describing other than "socialism;" if there were, I would be obliged to use that other term. The closest thing would be a "mixed economy." But 51% of Americans now take more from the tax system than they put in, and taxes are what I would call "very high." If you are taxed at a 50% rate, and you live to be 100, you have spent 50 years serving others. Plus we are in the process of implementing universal healthcare. Sounds like what socialist advocates would call a victory. (Of course socialism works so badly that you don't see good things coming out of it in practice, so nobody is claiming victory; but in terms of methodology, they are getting what they have advocated.)

by D-Coder 13y ago

javert 13y ago

I think of "socialism" as "unlimited redistribution of wealth." But the definition you gave checks out as far as I can tell from common sources online. So I may be using the term in an unconventional and confusing way. That said, how would you describe a system with high taxation and redistribution of income, but without state ownership of the means of production? (That is how I characterize the US mainly, plus massive reuglation.) There needs to be a word for it. "Socialism" seems to fit pretty well. The definition you are promulgating seems too narrow and technical. It doesn't really matter if the state owns the means of production, or simply seizes the profits created thereby. In the end, it's the same.

ljf 13y ago
No, that is not what socialism means, just because you want to think of the term meaning something else doesn't mean it is so. That's not how a shared language works.
- javert 13y ago
  Your comment is intellectually bankrupt comment. My comment asknowledges potential error, raises issues, asks questions, and does not provide answers that I can't provide yet. Rather than dealing with any of that, you just make an assertion. If you want "socalism" to mean only a subset of collective political coersion, you have to defend that intellectually with reason. That is how a shared language works. Personally, I think of state ownership of the means of production as "communism," and redistribution of wealth, separate from ownership of the means of production, as "socialism."
  - ljf 13y ago
    There is a shared understanding of what socialism means, the parent you responded to pointed out one of the many accepted definitions and cited Wikipedia. Just because you would like it to mean something else does not mean that is does, I really struggle to understand the issue you have with that. Fair enough you want to label the current system of economic distribution in the USA, but you can't co-opt an existing term. For one it attempts to subvert a well understood concept, and tries to make it mean something else. There is no way that you can call the current system in the US socialist, unless you do not understand what socialism is, and how it works. And state controlled business is wildly different from taxed private business in a whole range of ways.
    - javert 13y ago
      Thanks for the response. I think I was being too harsh before. And I think you are putting forth a reasonable and commonly held view. I think it's a crime against comprehension to take well-known words and try to make them mean something else. That said, I'm not actually sure I'm doing that when I equate massive taxation and redistribution with socialism. High taxes and redistribution is an attempt to get away with socialism, without calling it "socialism." I don't think that is even controversial. It is the same goal with only slightly different means. So in calling that "socialism," I'm just calling it for what it really is, in terms of motivation and goal, and partially in terms of method (which is still coercive, just at a different point). In further support of my point---different socialists disagree on the precise techinical means of implemnting socialism anyway, so that would suggest that it may be a flexible enough term to encompass what I am talking about. And yet further support of my point is that there is no existing word to describe what I am describing other than "socialism;" if there were, I would be obliged to use that other term. The closest thing would be a "mixed economy." But 51% of Americans now take more from the tax system than they put in, and taxes are what I would call "very high." If you are taxed at a 50% rate, and you live to be 100, you have spent 50 years serving others. Plus we are in the process of implementing universal healthcare. Sounds like what socialist advocates would call a victory. (Of course socialism works so badly that you don't see good things coming out of it in practice, so nobody is claiming victory; but in terms of methodology, they are getting what they have advocated.)