What is Socialism?

[Starlight]

Social programs are not socialism.

Many people seem to equate the two when convenient.

Socialism is a form of government.

Not really. Few would describe capitalism as "a form of government", and socialism is supposed to be about being an alternative to capitalism.

The basic contrast is supposed to be that in capitalism a few rich people own the businesses and get absurdly rich as a result while the bulk of the populace get ordered around as wage/salary earners, whereas in socialism the workers are supposed to be empowered and have control of the businesses. So, at face value at least, the difference is supposed to lie in how the businesses are structured and the extent of worker empowerment within them.

If you'd read my long post instead of eating crayons you might know this.

[Starlight]

Ah, the New Deal, for which the cost has been placed on the backs of our grandchildren's grandchildren.... but it's OK if it's Democrat debt....

Today, the future cost of old New Deal programs still in effect is reckoned at more than $50 trillion. These programs include Social Security, Medicare (an amendment to Social Security), Aid to Families with Dependent Children (part of Social Security), Fannie Mae , the Tennessee Valley Authority , farm subsidies and large-scale government intervention intended to prop up troubled sectors of the economy.

We aren't paying down these obligations inherited from the old New Deal. On the contrary, the total tab keeps getting bigger every year. While the old New Deal involved unprecedented peacetime spending during the 1930s, its current escalating obligations dwarf that spending...

I call complete BS.

These programs aren't debt-financed. Nobody's mortgaging the future of their grandchildren's grandchildren, or anything remotely of the sort. No part of the statement "We aren't paying down these obligations inherited from the old New Deal" makes any sense, it's pure garbage.

Governments throughout the Western world have been running social safety net programs at various levels for 75+ years now. The exact finances vary by nation, but what certainly hasn't happened is any sort of across the board gradual racking up of ruinous levels of debt or anything of the sort. These programs are affordable. Many Western countries with strong social safety nets, such as my own, regularly generate budget surpluses.

[Starlight]

Jules Verne would disagree, I think.

Okay, point taken. But I was thinking primarily of Sci-fi descriptions of futuristic societies which were nothing like as advanced a genre in the 19th century as they are today. Marx's writings are focused on imagining future societies and he thinks technological change is the main driver of workplace/social changes that will lead to these future societies.

[Terraceth]

I kind of feel like "socialism" as a word has become useless because everyone has conflicting ideas about what it means and thus it seems half of the arguments about it are about what the term actually means. The only thing everyone seems to agree on is that it isn't laissez-faire capitalism.

Heck, my computer's dictionary had this little note in its definition:

The term “socialism” has been used to describe positions as far apart as anarchism, Soviet state communism, and social democracy; however, it necessarily implies an opposition to the untrammeled workings of the economic market.

[Starlight]

...it necessarily implies an opposition to the untrammeled workings of the economic market.

I would actually disagree with this. There are versions of socialism that embrace market economics. e.g. worker co-ops participating in the market.

[Terraceth]

I would actually disagree with this. There are versions of socialism that embrace market economics. e.g. worker co-ops participating in the market.

Hence, presumably, the usage of the words "untrammeled" in "it necessarily implies an opposition to the untrammeled workings of the economic market."

[Starlight]

Hence, presumably, the usage of the words "untrammeled" in "it necessarily implies an opposition to the untrammeled workings of the economic market."

Nah, they're trying to juxtapose socialism to free-market economics. It's a reasonably common way to try and create a dichotomy. But it isn't correct, because there are versions of socialism that embrace the free market.

[Terraceth]

Nah, they're trying to juxtapose socialism to free-market economics. It's a reasonably common way to try and create a dichotomy. But it isn't correct, because there are versions of socialism that embrace the free market.

What form of socialism is compatible with laissez-faire capitalism? Because that's what I assume "untrammeled workings of the economic market" means.

[Starlight]

What form of socialism is compatible with laissez-faire capitalism? Because that's what I assume "untrammeled workings of the economic market" means.

Capitalism and the market are two different things. Capitalism is about who owns the businesses (private ownership), the market is about how goods are priced and distributed. You can mix and match any business ownership method with any distribution and pricing method.

Wiki has a pretty good definition of socialism IMO:

Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and workers' self-management of the means of production as well as the political theories and movements associated with them. Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective or cooperative ownership, or to citizen ownership of equity. There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them, though social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms. Socialist economic systems can be divided into non-market and market forms.

The only objection I have to that definition is that "means of production" is a bit of a technical term.

[Psychic Missile]

Because she is talking about the Baker knowing better than the bureaucrats for himself and his own situation, not everyone elses.

Even in that case, why is that information inaccessible in smaller, less varied countries?

Because generally when the socialists get in power, they stay there. And in capitalism there are built in checks and balances. The free market reacts. If you have a product nobody wants, your business fails. Under socialism, it remains because it is propped up by the government and becomes the standard. That is why when you go to socialist countries you see everyone driving the same crappy car that looks like it was built in the 1980s. No need to improve when you control the consumer and the production.

If a dominant capitalist has their "primary" income source fail, they can just move on to another. The market can't correct for an individual with enough money.

um what? The companies and their owners lose their own money if their products are not wanted or good. Companies are not slave owners. If you are an employee you are free to leave whenever you want.

Outside of stock, how would a CEO lose any money at all if their company failed? What does that slave owner/right to work comment refer to?

[Roy]

Jules Verne would disagree, I think.

Jules Verne wouldn't, since he was younger than Marx.

[Roy]

My worst "nothing like the movie" was reading Clancy's Hunt For Red October, then seeing the movie.

You clearly haven't read The spy who loved me.

[Cow Poke]

Jules Verne wouldn't, since he was younger than Marx.

You're being pedantic, Roy.

[Cow Poke]

You clearly haven't read The spy who loved me.

Correct.

[Sparko]

Many people seem to equate the two when convenient.

Not really. Few would describe capitalism as "a form of government", and socialism is supposed to be about being an alternative to capitalism.

The basic contrast is supposed to be that in capitalism a few rich people own the businesses and get absurdly rich as a result while the bulk of the populace get ordered around as wage/salary earners, whereas in socialism the workers are supposed to be empowered and have control of the businesses. So, at face value at least, the difference is supposed to lie in how the businesses are structured and the extent of worker empowerment within them.

If you'd read my long post instead of eating crayons you might know this.

In an attempt to make everyone equal and to be "fair" in socialist countries nobody has anything except the glorious leaders at the top and a few of their pets who seem to have everything.

In Socialism everyone is equally poor. Got it.