Chunk; "Socialism is a range of" is an interesting thought. I think what you are saying is that Socialism really isn't socialism because you need a word to describe whatever it is that you prescribe and 'socialism' fills your bill.
Interesting thought - change a language to promote an idea. I wonder, are you a member of the Socialist Worker's Party? (Leon would be proud!)
I was responding to your definition of socialism being 'government owns all means of production that is accepted just about everywhere' statement. It isn't and hasn't been. If that is a revelation for you I'd suggest you take it as an interesting area of study to be examined further... Or not. Perhaps your suffering the hysterics of the red scare after effects and have locked the idea away in your mind, never to be contemplated fully. You could do worse than Richard Wolff and he's just given an interesting historical summation of socialism:
I thought we nudged you away from that simplistic definition of socialism a long time ago.
Type socialism into your Google search field, click enter, and you will come first to the very words Chunk quoted to you...the Wikipedia definition and explanation.
Scroll on down a ways, click around, look at some definitions, explanations and articles. You'll see that few of them state that old canard about "government owns the means of production". Socialism is when the people own and/or control the means of production.
In your mind, does capitalism have a single, one line definition or can it be a range of different things?
Do you think it's possible to have a mixed system? A system which uses equal parts of capitalism and socialism.(like police and fire deptartments)
Or is it "NOT REAL SOCIALISM" unless some corrupt powerful government owns all the factories and makes the population work like slaves in them? The "not real socialism" argument is a fallacy and it needs to die.
Socialism is a range of things...!
Socialism (disambiguation) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Socialism is a political philosophy and economic system based on the social ownership and control of the means of production; as well as the political and economic theories, ideologies and movements that aim to establish a socialist system.
Socialism may also refer to:
Democratic socialism, a political philosophy that advocates achieving socialist goals within a democratic system as opposed to what it perceives as undemocratic socialist ideologies such as Marxist–Leninist-inspired socialism
Scientific socialism, a method of analysis pioneered by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels and used to analyze capitalism, where socialism is postulated to emerge from capitalist development; in the late 19th century it widely became known as Marxism
Social democracy, a political, social and economic ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and capitalist economy Socialist mode of production, a more specific concept of socialist organization articulated by Marxist theory of historical materialism
Socialist Party, or capital-s "Socialists", the policies and practices of titular Socialist political parties irrespective of whether or not they adhere to the implementation of a socialist system
Socialist Party (disambiguation), variations on the above
Socialist state, a country governed by a socialist party with the constitutional aim of constructing socialism
Real socialism, a phrase sometimes used to refer to the Soviet-type planned economies in the former Soviet Union and Eastern bloc countries
I was pretty clearly talking about the invisible hand in the original Adam Smith sense, not all that religious and political BS. Simply that individuals making their own economic decisions works, and central planning can't from a mathematical perspective. That's why I am a Democratic socialist instead of a "Real socialist" as per the definitions above. Government is the only force strong enough to counter the power of business. Corporations have a duty to make money: That's why people invest in them. It's up to government to regulate all business activity to keep the excesses of capitalism from wrecking havoc. (Because it would, if not regulated.)
Socialism versus capitalism: Either extreme is Hell-on-Earth. We (and almost all of the world) live in the middle. I think the useful debate is subtle. What goods and services should be tax-funded and universally available for free. What goods and services should be optional by our own choice to spend our money? What power should the majority of the public have to control government policies? What rights should minorities have to prevent abuse by majorities?
Arguing endlessly about your favorite "ism" is boring and ineffective. What is it you want?
To badly quote Joseph Stiglitz- 'The reason the invisible hand is invisible is because it isn't there'. I would agree with that observation so when people start to invoke the 18th century market philosophy (usually incorrectly) you've gotta ask yourself what's their angle. Are they sellin or proselytizing?
I would like to see more 'democatize the enterprise' backed by government regulation.
Roosevelt was no fool and understood his class better than most. He understood bankers and kept them out of Bretton Woods. Knowing the psychopathic tendencies of wealth and it's eventual accrual of economic and political power he may have thought that a second bill of rights would provide a bulwark against that power and maintain stability. Unfortunately, it didn't happen and things have deteriorated since by every reasonable measure. Yet somehow 'invisible hand' is still around....
I'm more in favor of "ishisms", than isms. I'm both capitalish and socialish. I see merits in both and dangers in each and the goal is to navigate the currents between them without capsizing. Purists bother the hell out of me.
I would like to see more 'democratize the enterprise' backed by government regulation.
Yeah, me too. We aint gonna achieve socialism through revolution. Unless it's at the ballot box. That's where social democrats like AOC come into play.
It bears mentioning that their party is the Democratic Socialists of America.
Once voters/workers/proles have elected enough social democrats to legislate the living wage/health insurance/free education agenda along with environmental regulation and the beginnings of the Green New Deal(which must become a reality if we are to survive as a species) Then we can move forward into becoming a Social Democracy.
This is where Marx and Engels postulated that capitalism would evolve into socialism. Did you know that Marx and Engels were 29 and 28 years old when they wrote the Communist Manifesto? The same age as AOC.
The same age that most brilliant thinkers and geniuses typically do their most notable work.
I've mentioned before that Marx predicted all of this in his later writings. He predicted automation replacing workers until workers became superfluous. He predicted that capitalism would swing from crisis to crisis and eventually reach an end stage where all of the wealth was tipped into the hands of the bourgeoisie.
This is the scientific socialism or Marxism that I embrace.
It could be that the global warming crisis will be the very catalyst that is needed to push the world into what we might now consider a socialist Utopia.
Or we might become extinct. We're the only animal that has ever actually had a choice in this matter.
Good for you! I am firmly in your camp. All the rest is just waaay too complex for me.
Given all the different modes, words, concepts, etc. of socialism I surrender. I think what is being said is that "socialism" is a mystical thing that sometimes refers to governments, sometimes individuals, sometimes groups, and, in all cases, can be just about anything you want as long as, in the end, it involves more than one person. It also means that virtually all governmental activities may, or may not be, socialistic depending on something so long as its supported by taxes.
Sometimes you just have to look at something besides imagined simple facts.
Simple facts are often just ways to avoid looking at complex truths.
I think what is being said is that "socialism" is a mystical thing that sometimes refers to governments, sometimes individuals, sometimes groups, and, in all cases, can be just about anything you want as long as, in the end, it involves more than one person. It also means that virtually all governmental activities may, or may not be, socialistic depending on something so long as its supported by taxes.
There is nothing mystical about the definitions above. Nor any big words or complex truths. Just simple facts that explain things in a simple way.
Socialism is an economic policy just like capitalism(which you seem to have no problem understanding despite its vast complications and the obvious damage it is doing to the world and it's inhabitants... You have no fear of capitalism but cringe at the thought of any other less harmful way of doing business.
Socialism is a political ideology which seeks stem runaway inequality caused by capitalism.
You go on and on about Democrats standing up and tooting their horns...but you want them to play the same tune as the Republicans.
If the invisible hand does not exist, why do so many people shop at WalMart? Why is Ford deciding not to make small cars here in the US? Why do businesses decide to move some operations to foreign countries?
Are these all because the Central Planning Committee decided this shall be so? Or do people make their own economic decisions and producers respond to consumer's buying habits?