Definition of Socialism

[Jkid]

Currently at one point during the Health Care Farce I come to realize that in America there are two definitions of Socialism.

Real Definition of Socialism: Ownership of the means of production by workers.

Definition of Socialism by Conservatives, Regressives, Blue Dog Democrats, Teabaggers, and Rightist/Right-Wing Talk Radio Commentators: Anything public funded that is not toward defense, subsidizing corporations or big business directly or indirectly, or puritanical interests.

Most Americans either do not know the real definition of socialism or simply do not care, even if you present them the real definition. This is because most Americans are socialized by school, peer culture, and the media at a early age to be disinvovled and apathetic towards politics and governance.

[Justitia]

1. Trust me, the ones screaming "socialism, communism, fascism" have no idea what they mean.

I always ask them - "Define socialism, give real world current examples."
It's either flopsweat or "whatever Obama / liberals / Democrats do".

Clueless.

[frebrd]

2. K&R! n/t

[madamesilverspurs]

3. At a local "tea party" rally

one of the protesters was carrying a sign with the words "Say NO to socialism!" I asked him to define socialism, and he just glared at me. Then I asked him to define capitalism and he snarled "You think you're soooo smart!" as he stomped away.


---

[checks-n-balances]

4. lol in high decibels!!!

That is so pathetic that it's HILARIOUS!!!

[patrice]

5. What about a larger context that includes Socialist and non-Socialist entities?

There is something that troubles me about this definition, though I like it very much otherwise.

If one is a Socialist, does that mean I support some means of production being owned by the Workers and others not owned by Workers? or, as a Socialist, must I support all means of production being owned by Workers? which, though, perhaps desirable, seems definitely problematic to me.

I can also imagine that the definition of "means" is limited to conventional matters such as the property necessary to produce something, but what about more communitarian forms of property that are involved in production, such as, highways, natural resources, and broadcasting spectrum, that are not specifically "owned" and managed by Workers?

There's also a question as to which Workers: owned by THE Workers, all Workers collectively? or the Workers doing the production? or owned by Workers, some Workers, any Workers? - and - owned, how much? 100%?, 50%, 10%???

These are just a couple of the issues that make this definition of Socialism a little problematic for me, so . . . .

That's why I prefer to focus on what is implied by "Ownership of the means of production by workers", something that could apply to all Americans whether they are specifically Worker-Owners or not.

Ownership implies that those who own something are OWED something for what they own. The principle Ownership-of-the-means-of-production-by-workers implies that Workers are OWED something. I think this essential element of Socialism makes it more relevant to more people.

By virtue of the fact that I am a Worker and member of various groups that benefit directly and indirectly from what I produce and those groups benefit from other groups and other Workers, that whole collective, that whole Society, that whole Social entity OWES me and all other Workers Real Value compensation for my/our cooperation with and participation in the productive goals and processes of that Social entity. Society owns production collectively and, therefore, society owes everyone Real compensation for being members of society.

[treestar]

6. Right wing nuts deprive the language of its variety

assigning all words to "black" or "white."

These morans do not know a communist from a marxist from a socialist.