[Largeman]

Earlier today I partook in a discussion where a young friend of mine brought up the question of why some countries turn to independent markets to provide weapons for their armies, specifically post-ww2 america, and a rather distinguished other friend of mine replied that it was simply too expensive for a government to look anywhere else. My young acquaintance's natural respondent question was, "Well, why don't they take control of these companies themselves?" and my other friend, she simply said that this would be too economically socialist for america.

She then decided to go on and by using the current "socialist health-care reform crisis" in america as a parallel, but I was struck as the comparison seemed a little off. To tell the truth, I'm not well versed in any way in the specific details of what goes on in a socialist economy; I've never put any study into it.

It appears to me that comparing the government requisition and taking control of an organisation that normally economically only vends to the citizens and public of the country is different than taking control of an corporation that sells to the government, not the public.

Is there in fact a difference between the two? Would a government having control over a private company that only makes deal with the government itself be "as socialist?"

[Figlio di Moros]

I don't see how it's socialist; the government controls roadways and the Post Office, as well as Amtrak, the education system, etc. Nationalizing companies that deal specifically with Defense would actually be a very valid proposal.

As for the "it's too socialist" argument your friend made(including towards healthcare), perhaps the socialists on this board could help you out in defining it. "Socialism" actually describes an extremely varied feild of ideologies, but the simplist definition I could ascribe to it is social or shared ownership of the means of production. For instance, if a Monarch nationalizes all industry and the aristocracy provide management, it would fail to be socialism as it's controlled by a heritable aristocracy rather than "the people". In the same regards, a Federally-owned company that deals with manufacturing goods specifically for defense would not be socialist, as it has nothing to do with social ownership of the means of production.

[hannigaholic]

I don't see how it's socialist; the government controls roadways and the Post Office, as well as Amtrak, the education system, etc. Nationalizing companies that deal specifically with Defense would actually be a very valid proposal.

I don't see how being valid means it's not socialism. State ownership of means of production is all that is necessary for a program to be socialist. I don't see how owning the capital and land of an arms company isn't socialist in nature.

The main problem as I see it is branding - socialism can often produce better results than the market in specific industries/firms if handled correctly, but in the US at least, admitting that such a move is socialist results in the venting of pent up anti-USSR rage due to the propaganda released during the Cold War.

[Cheesecake_Marmalade]

I don't see how being valid means it's not socialism. State ownership of means of production is all that is necessary for a program to be socialist. I don't see how owning the capital and land of an arms company isn't socialist in nature.

wat

that is completely off-base. Collective ownership of the means of production is required for socialism, and furthermore it also requires collective capital of the means of production. The state, in a capitalist society, does not represents the collective, it is the enforcer of property rights hired by the bourgeoisie. They act as an agent of the bourgeoisie thus any action they take must be colored by that.

Therefore I would say that it is state capitalism, not socialism. In fact it's not socialism at all.

Thanks for playing this round of "socialism... or not?!"

[hannigaholic]

Collective ownership of the means of production is required for socialism, and furthermore it also requires collective capital of the means of production. The state, in a capitalist society, does not represents the collective, it is the enforcer of property rights hired by the bourgeoisie.

That's an extremely limited definition of socialism, that really doesn't fall far short of pure communism. I think most people would accept that the state does far more than simply enforce the property interests of the bourgeoisie, especially in a democracy - where we all have a say in the makeup of the government, regardless of class.

I'd say the state definitely represents the collective.

[Vera Politica]

I'd say the state definitely represents the collective.

I would say that this ignores the substantial literature devoted to a Marxist theory of the state. While it is true, in general, that the state does more than enforce the interests of the ruling class, it is, however, the primary function of the state to do so. Welfare programs, etc. which seem to serve the interest of regular working and non-working people do serve the interests of the ruling class. In the absence of welfare programs current capitalist societies would not function.

[Cheesecake_Marmalade]

That's an extremely limited definition of socialism, that really doesn't fall far short of pure communism.

No. Proletariat control over the means of production is the only thing required for socialism. It is actually more limiting to say that it requires government intervention or any other thing like that because it is inclusive towards things that are simply liberalism and could exclude more of the voluntary collectivism that has been a hallmark of many Marxists (as ridiculous as anarchy is, it still belongs in the category).

Sure you could say that government intervention and no government are simultaneously socialism but not necessarily either, but then what kind of definition is that? It's nothing. It's just word association.

Proletariat control over the means of production has nothing to do with either government intervention or no government intervention, it simply is what it is. The idea that it is simply about collective representation or simply about government intervention or any other wrongheaded thing misses the point. The fact is that the government represents the bourgeoisie in capitalism, and other socialism if government exists it is the sword of the proletariat.

[Holt]

State ownership of means of production is all that is necessary for a program to be socialist.

Following this inane logic, the fucking post office could be considered some kind of Bolshevik fifth column.

[Potemkin]

Following this inane logic, the fucking post office could be considered some kind of Bolshevik fifth column.

Shhhh!!, Holt. They haven't caught onto that yet.

[Negotiator]

Following this inane logic, the fucking post office could be considered some kind of Bolshevik fifth column.

It kind of is, though I dont know why you think communists have a monopoly on socialism.

In many situations, the socialist solution is just the solution that makes the most sense.

Like not allowing the arms industry to be privately owned. Thats a way dangerous kind of know-how. Plus I think we should limit the profit making from wars as much as possible.

[fuser]

why you think communists have a monopoly on socialism.

Please define socialism then.Socialism inherently means common ownership and if it isn't the case, it is not socialism.......

[DubiousDan]

That's an extremely limited definition of socialism, that really doesn't fall far short of pure communism. I think most people would accept that the state does far more than simply enforce the property interests of the bourgeoisie, especially in a democracy - where we all have a say in the makeup of the government, regardless of class.

I'd say the state definitely represents the collective.

And of course you leave your teeth under your pillow for the tooth fairy and hang your stockings up for Santa Claus. Yes, we have a say. We get to choose between buffalo chips and cow chips for breakfast and therefore we can’t complain because we have caca for breakfast. If you happen to belong to the demographic of the easily brainwashed and intellectually challenged, your vote will count as one of the atoms in a structure of stupidity.
In all of civilization, the state represents the Elites. Rule by naked force is inefficient. Fraud and guile is so much cheaper. However, in the end, the sword remains.

[Negotiator]

Please define socialism then.Socialism inherently means common ownership and if it isn't the case, it is not socialism.......

We where discussing state owned services like the post office, where we not ? Thats kinda socialist then, right ? Being state-owned.

To me, socialism is any society without suppression and exploitation, no matter how this goal is archieved.

Please note that any non-democratic society, including old russia, old east germany, kuba etc isnt socialist according to this definition, because lack of democratic rights is obviously suppression.

But the concept doesnt require common ownership. It is enough, for example, if all workers own their own work, i.e. if production is owned by the workers and you cannot employ people without giving them equal parts of your company.

[Cheesecake_Marmalade]

Please note that any non-democratic society, including old russia, old east germany, kuba etc isnt socialist according to this definition, because lack of democratic rights is obviously suppression.

Funny that a non-Marxist socialist would be so quick to pass things off as not being socialist that clearly are. I thought that was the job of Marxists to be so closed-minded and uninclusive in their definitions.

Regardless, I would hardly consider you an expert on socialism as you have demonstrated in the past your clear allegiance to neo-liberal trash like Obama, passing it off as democratic socialism or what have you. It's capitalism baby. State capitalism (post office) is still capitalism no matter how you slice it. Socialism implies a dictatorship of the proletariat at the very, very least, and the post office does not satisfy those terms as it is clearly not run by or for the proles.

[DubiousDan]

Socialism implies a dictatorship of the proletariat at the very, very least, and the post office does not satisfy those terms as it is clearly not run by or for the proles.

There is only one definition of socialism for which that could even be remotely true, and that is 2.c. That is the Marxist definition.

I agree that ownership of the post office does not make a state socialist. However, you don’t need to go all the way to Communism to have Socialism.

Socialism :

From the Merriam-Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, CD Version 3.0

Main Entry:so£cial£ism
Pronunciation:*s*sh**liz*m
Function:noun
Inflected Form:-s

1 : any of various theories or social and political movements advocating or aiming at collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and control of the distribution of goods: as a : FOURIERISM b : GUILD SOCIALISM c : MARXISM d : OWENISM
2 a : a system or condition of society or group living in which there is no private property *trace the remains of pure socialism that marked the first phase of the Christian community— W.E.H.Lecky* — compare INDIVIDUALISM b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state — compare CAPITALISM, LIBERALISM c : a stage of society that in Marxist theory is transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and payments to individuals according to their work

[Vera Politica]

I tend to agree with DubiousDan here. Liberal Socialism predates Marx and Marxism. In fact it was Marx's unprecedented anti-liberal Socialism (i.e. scientific socialism) that makes him such an important and paramount figure in Socialist thought.

[Prince Nicolo]

I think your friend was saying that it would never fly in America because of how it would be perceived. Because they are elected every 2 years, Representatives in the HoR are in almost constant re-election mode which means that they will not take a decision that they know will be badly received in their home district. Consider how the healthcare idea went down: ridiculous people claimed it was "socialist" even though it really wasn't. As a result, surely, they will claim any nationalization as socialist and it will be radically opposed by tea-baggers and moderately opposed by moderate market-like individuals. Not that it is socialist in any way, just that, prima facie, it appears socialist.

[Negotiator]

I think I start to suffer from a confusion of terms.

How exactly is the term "socialist" used here ?

Simply as an insult ? "Oh, I like those green trousers." - "If you wear green, people will think you're socialist" - "Oh my god, then I rather wear blue".

[nucklepunche]

One can support socialism without being a full blown socialist. For instance public roads are a form of socialism. Public health care is a form of socialism. I can list off public transit, military defense, social security etc. etc. as FORMS of socialism. They are socialistic because they involve pooling of resources for the collective benefit of the whole. However support these socialistic ideas does not mean one is an ideologically committed socialist. One can support such things and still support private ownership of business and so on and so forth. The reality is that apart from hardcore socialists and communists there are very few people who are not to some degree capitalistic and apart from anarcho-capitalists there are few people who are not to some degree socialistic. The issue is the degree. In the USA spectrum minarchist libertarian might be 10% socialist and 90% capitalist, a conservative Republican 20% socialist and 80% capitalist, a moderate Republican 30/70, a moderate Democrat 40/60, a liberal Democrat 50/50 and a progressive Democrat 60/40 and higher and so on and so forth.

[MisterFreeze]

I've got to get a hold of my college semantics professor or I'm going to lost my grip on reality. Maybe it's all this weird leftover Red Scare nonsense coming from the right about how President Obama is a socialist or how socialistic medicine inevitably ends with your grandmother in a gas chamber, but I think somewhere along the way we've lost our grasp as English-speakers on the definition of socialism and it's basic historical context.

I was taught that socialism means state ownership of means of production. Capitalism is private ownership of means of production, and communism is worker ownership of means of production. This is how I've always basically conceptualized these terms. I don't think I'm off on these, but based on the use of this word even on a place like Politics Fourm, let alone in media and polite conversation, makes me think either I'm remembering incorrectly, or everyone has completely lost their minds.

By my understanding, permanent nationalization could correctly be characterized as socialism, though it wouldn't change the fact that the United States enjoys a mixed system with some elements controlled by the government and others controlled by the market.