Socialism: What does 'Socialism' mean?

[SkyBlueAri]

I'm a political studies student and recently I've gotten into debates about the term 'Socialism' and how it applies to many Democratic nations around the world. To briefly explain my argument:
Socialism is defined by - An enterprise (economy, police, military, public hospitals, public schools, etc) which operates for the benefit of everyone. Everyone can have their say - through voting or campaigning - regarding the nature of these public services which are funded by everyone (through taxes).

Because of this raw definition of Socialism I argue that many Democratic nations around the world (perhaps all of them) employ, to some degree, an aspect of Socialism. I state that all nations that tax their citizens for the purpose of funding public services, such as the ones I listed above, are employing a fundamental aspect of Socialism. It is based on a principle that everyone is equal and has the right to these services which provide people with a service that ensures the rules and rights of the State are enforced. Everyone has a right to be protected by the military and the police, they have a right to seek welfare if they cannot support themselves, they have a right to free-market trading, they have a right to have a say about how their money is being spent on public services.


So one of my questions is this: How come people still pidgeon hole Socialism as having a negative impact on a country, even though majority of societies internationally benefit from it?

For example the American government - whilst is Democratically elected - still utilizes Socialist aspects as pretty much the infrastructure of power. What I mean by this is that Americans pay taxes and those taxes go towards funding services that are intended to benefit everyone, such as the ones I stated above. Without taxes American society would fail.

Many people would respond to this and tell me things like "a country needs a military, that's not socialist" and "state funded public services have nothing to do with socialism". Looking at it from a definition point of view it seems to me that Socialism plays a monumental role in American society, yet the word ignites a defensive response when its mentioned. People pay and elect the government, the government makes actions that are intended to benefit the country as a whole.

Have Western societies been scared into fearing Socialism because of failed or undemocratic Socialist states - such as Nazi Germany, modern China, Cold-war Russia, etc - or am I missing something imperative to the argument?

PS Don't get me wrong, I see flaws in an entirely Socialist society and in no way support outright Socialism. But it is hard to give it a bad name because of everything we gain from it. My main point is that Socialism, along with Democracy and Capitalism are all essential, to some extent, for a country to flourish so you cannot say that Socialism is bad as a whole.


TL;DR:
What are your views on modern Socialism?
If you don't like Socialism, does that equate to your support of the increasingly wealthy "1%" of American income earners?
If you support the equalistic nature that would see rich people getting taxed significantly more so more people can benefit, make you, to some extent, a supporter of Socialism?






Sources/Relevant Sites:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/historicals - Taxes make up roughly 80% of federal govt. revenue.
http://www.cbo.gov/ - details the intricacies of the budget.
http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/doemoff/...ov_ushist.html - List of useful sites.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4Tq4VE8eHQ - Noam Chomsky on Socialism.

[Cthulhu 2020]

So one of my questions is this: How come people still pidgeon hole Socialism as having a negative impact on a country, even though majority of societies internationally benefit from it?

Socialism is evil because Fox News told me so. It steals my money so that people on food stamps can buy cars. I mean just the other day I saw someone use food stamps and then get into a CAR!!!!!! I mean aren't these people supposed to be poor? How can they afford a car while my money is going to pay for [the national debt, medicare and medicaid, corporate welfare, and over inflated military complex] their food?!

[Arrkon]

I think the simple answer is every time you try to implant a good idea with good intentions it fails to the very nature of humanity. There is no current form of government that has not been corrupted in some fashion and or just has made terrible decisions with no regard of human life.

[Rendia]

Socialism is evil because Fox News told me so. It steals my money so that people on food stamps can buy cars. I mean just the other day I saw someone use food stamps and then get into a CAR!!!!!! I mean aren't these people supposed to be poor? How can they afford a car while my money is going to pay for [the national debt, medicare and medicaid, corporate welfare, and over inflated military complex] their food?!

And that is the biggest problem with America today, we (talking general population here) take what "important" people say at face value rather than doing some research and calling them out on their bullshit.

[Schattenlied]

I don't like socialism, because it would force me to pay, through taxes, for a bunch of shit I don't want, will never use, and don't support.


Also, in theory Communism and full blown socialism are great, but as soon as you add the human element into leadership, the whole thing becomes completely fucked.

[Zao]

I've also heard people thinking socialism = fascism because Nazi = National socialism.

[Kraenen]

Noam Chomsky answers this pretty simply:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4Tq4VE8eHQ

[Willias]

By western societies, you mean the United States of America. And I figure we only really fear socialism because of the red scare during the Cold War period.

Full blown socialism is probably bad, too easy to take advantage of. But some socialist elements are good, so long as they are controlled.

[SkyBlueAri]

Great Chomsky link^, will add it to the initial post to better inform people on what I mean.

I don't like socialism, because it would force me to pay, through taxes, for a bunch of shit I don't want, will never use, and don't support.

Well that's just not true unless you don't want a military, police, economy, infrastructure, and in general everything that the government provides for society. If you live in America and say you don't like Socialism on any level, and yet still love what America is and has been, then you could be branded a hypcrite.

By western societies, you mean the United States of America. And I figure we only really fear socialism because of the red scare during the Cold War period.

Full blown socialism is probably bad, too easy to take advantage of. But some socialist elements are good, so long as they are controlled.

Yep. Controlled Socialism is the right idea since Humans are apparently incapable of solely following a single form of governing. Perhaps the difference of perspectives relates to how we (Humans) cannot agree on anything. Could that be the basis for the reshaping of the Human condition?

[Itisamuh]

For me what it basically comes down to is that I think individuals should be responsible for themselves, and that giving everyone the same standards no matter what lowers incentive to succeed or contribute. I support certain aspects of socialism (such as health care; something so vital and uncontrollable should not make people go broke under any circumstance) but for the most part, I think people should receive no more than they earn. Also, the closer socialism gets to communism, the more unrealistic it is when human nature takes control. People are not all equal, no matter how pretty the idea sounds.

[Navillus]

I don't like socialism, because it would force me to pay, through taxes, for a bunch of shit I don't want, will never use, and don't support.


Also, in theory Communism and full blown socialism are great, but as soon as you add the human element into leadership, the whole thing becomes completely fucked.

Communism is horrible. Well, according to Karl Marx, true communism would entail the eradication of the middle class, taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor (Robin Hood). Dividing everything up and redistributing it to the masses. Socialism is a precursor to communism. Once you tax the hell out of the middle class and rich (because the poor are exempt) and giving it to programs and whatnot, the middle class slowly dwindles down to poor, leaving only the rich. Once the rich is all that is left, and since there is no middle class anymore, they get taxed ever more. Soon, everyone in the country would be getting the same amount of money per month.

I agree with you Schattenlied, I do not like getting taxed obscene amounts of money for programs that people are abusing, but until there is reform, it is the way it is.

I just wish that the people on the Hill would stop bickering about gun control (that will not go beyond what it is now), and start changing this country for the better. You know, moving it "forward" (see what I did there?).

[Wells]

For me what it basically comes down to is that I think individuals should be responsible for themselves, and that giving everyone the same standards no matter what lowers incentive to succeed or contribute.

If everyone is supposed to be responsible for themselves what are they supposed to contributing to?

[Cthulhu 2020]

If everyone is supposed to be responsible for themselves what are they supposed to contributing to?

I think Clinton said it best in his interview with Colbert, selfishness and selflessness are the same thing. As long as you improve the world and the society around you, and strive to give others opportunities, you increase your own opportunities and horizons. As soon as you begin only thinking about yourself, you shut off those horizons and limit your own opportunities and bankrupt yourself.

That wasn't his exact quote, but the sentiment.

Edit: http://www.colbertnation.com/full-ep...3-bill-clinton

"I wanna leave my daughter and the grandchildren I hope to have and all these young people a better world. And I think the reason you should do things for other people at the bottom of it is selfless... selfish there's no real difference between selfless and selfish if you understand how the world works. We're all tied together." "There's no difference between selfless and selfish?" "No, not if you understand how the world works. We live in an interdependent world. Suppose you're an American and you're worried about growth in the American economy. So we're 4% of the world's population. We've got about 20% of it's income. We've gotta sell something to somebody else. The more you reduce poverty overseas the more you increase education and improve health , the more you empower women and girls, the more you will have growth overseas, the more you will have global growth, the better off Americans will be. If every time you cut off somebody else's opportunities, you shrink your own horizons."

[Kraenen]

Communism is horrible. Well, according to Karl Marx, true communism would entail the eradication of the middle class, taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor (Robin Hood). Dividing everything up and redistributing it to the masses. Socialism is a precursor to communism. Once you tax the hell out of the middle class and rich (because the poor are exempt) and giving it to programs and whatnot, the middle class slowly dwindles down to poor, leaving only the rich. Once the rich is all that is left, and since there is no middle class anymore, they get taxed ever more. Soon, everyone in the country would be getting the same amount of money per month.

I agree with you Schattenlied, I do not like getting taxed obscene amounts of money for programs that people are abusing, but until there is reform, it is the way it is.

I just wish that the people on the Hill would stop bickering about gun control (that will not go beyond what it is now), and start changing this country for the better. You know, moving it "forward" (see what I did there?).

You've never read a single bit of Marx have you? Be honest now. Everyone's watching you.

[SkyBlueAri]

People are not all equal, no matter how pretty the idea sounds.

This little idea, for me, is misunderstood by many. The word "equal" in this sense is being misrepresented. People are not all equal in their abilities, but still deserve a standard of life, which everyone is entitled to. This is because social interaction is a fundamental aspect of Humanity. We cannot effectively function solitarily, we require others to improve the standard of us all. Without the consideration for others humanity would not be where it is today. You would not have computers, or phones, or sewerage, or protection, or electricity. The negative trade off for all these benefits is war and conflict.

Socialism is part of what it means to be human, so is democracy, and to some extent communism and fascism. As Chomsky said in the video (paraphrasing) the Russian and American govt. both misrepresented Socialism for the purpose of propaganda - to keep the peoples fears and ambitions in check with the government. The intention was the assurance of political sovereignty for the respective nations. By this I mean the governments weren't intentionally trying to smear Socialism but in requiring necessary power to be kept in the hands of the right people, they had to... Of course who the right people are will always be up for debate <-- A necessary trait of Democracy.

Human nature requires an update in order for humanity to take a good evolutionary step.

[Korgoth]

so·cial·ism [soh-shuh-liz-uhm]
noun
1.
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2.
procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3.
(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

Well going by Dictonary.com's definition, it seems the defining thing about socialism is that the community owns practically everything, which we don't do. We pay taxes for the benefit of the community of the whole which in turn gives us benefit, but the community doesn't own our business's, the community doesn't own our homes, our cars, our money. Since you want to look at Socialism around the Definition, I argue your definition is invalid, therefore your argument is invalid.


Here is Webster's for comparison.

Definition of SOCIALISM

1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2
a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3
: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods is Socialism, and it is not done here.

[Pull My Finger]

So one of my questions is this: How come people still pidgeon hole Socialism as having a negative impact on a country, even though majority of societies internationally benefit from it?

That's just America and the massive brainwashing after WW2, when the commie used to be the enemy. Today it's the muslim.

[Willias]

Well going by Dictonary.com's definition, it seems the defining thing about socialism is that the community owns practically everything, which we don't do. We pay taxes for the benefit of the community of the whole which in turn gives us benefit, but the community doesn't own our business's, the community doesn't own our homes, our cars, our money. Since you want to look at Socialism around the Definition, I argue your definition is invalid, therefore your argument is invalid.


Here is Webster's for comparison.



collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods is Socialism, and it is not done here.

Do note that dictionaries are just collections of words, and that definitions contained therein are chosen by a group of people who believe that is the meaning of the word. Also, words tend to fluctuate in meaning based around the society that created the word and how it uses it over time.

Defining a concept that has a wide variety of meanings to a wide variety of people is difficult to do in a single sentence, and trying to define the word with a dictionary alone seems like you're trying to oversimplify the concept.

[Deleted]

Well, some aspects of socialism are great, it's true but socialism as a whole is bad. Very bad.. and it causes countries to stagnate. It's especially bad for the US because we actually depend on the inflow of brains and the best and the brightest from poor socialist countries coming to actually get paid for their ideas and effort.

Besides, most of these threads end up with a bunch of lefties bashing everyone who doesnt share their views. Such arguments on the internet, when there is actually no "right" side but everyone thinks theirs is the only way never go well:P

[SkyBlueAri]

Well going by Dictonary.com's definition, it seems the defining thing about socialism is that the community owns practically everything, which we don't do. We pay taxes for the benefit of the community of the whole which in turn gives us benefit, but the community doesn't own our business's, the community doesn't own our homes, our cars, our money. Since you want to look at Socialism around the Definition, I argue your definition is invalid, therefore your argument is invalid.

Perhaps on a legal base you are completely correct. The people don't "own" anything to do with the government. But the government cannot function without money from the people. Therefore, in many ways, the people do own the government. The people just can't express right of ownership over the government in the legal sense (even though they do through Democracy).

According to the Dictionary.com's definition which states that the community ADVOCATES THE VESTING OF THE OWNERSHIP. This doesn't mean that the community "owns" the means of production and distribution of capital. It means that the community ADVOCATES (Publicly recommend or support) THE VESTING (The conveying to an employee of unconditional entitlement to a share in a pension fund.) of them. It says nothing about directly owning them. Same word "advocating" is used in Websters.

The word you are conveniently missing in accordance with your point of view is the word "advocating". This word is important in the definition because it represents that there is no immediate link between the ownership and the people - the people can only advocate the ownership. Similarly the word "vesting" is used which has the word "employee" among it which means someone who works for someone else.

I mean no offense, to a nearly three-thousand posts user, on a personal level when I say this, but everything you linked is in accordance with my definition. Therefore all your arguments are invalid. IE you're wrong. PS I have put a lot of time and thought into what I wrote so please don't post things hastily without considering what it is you are posting.