Socialism Vs. Capitalism

[Bootstrap]

I feel the translation that was used to the word socialist or socialism distorts the established use of those words today.

Yes, they can be translated into it, but most of the use of socialism and socialist in modern language is talking about a political/economic system.

I agree that people are using very different definitions of socialism, and talking past each other because of that. But if we are going to discuss the things Atnip is talking about, we have to use his two definitions. If I say "no, that's not how I define socialism, let me talk about what I think of as socialism", we pretty much have to leave his article behind, we wind up discussing something else entirely. We are no longer discussing what he called socialism.

If there is a single established meaning of the word today, I think it's the meaning found in places like Webster's Dictionary:

any of various egalitarian economic and political theories or movements advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

I think you get similar definitions in Oxford Learner's Dictionary, Collins, Wiktionary, Cambridge, American Heritage ...

Or the Encyclopedia Britannica:

socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members.

This conviction puts socialism in opposition to capitalism, which is based on private ownership of the means of production and allows individual choices in a free market to determine how goods and services are distributed. Socialists complain that capitalism necessarily leads to unfair and exploitative concentrations of wealth and power in the hands of the relative few who emerge victorious from free-market competition—people who then use their wealth and power to reinforce their dominance in society. Because such people are rich, they may choose where and how to live, and their choices in turn limit the options of the poor. As a result, terms such as individual freedom and equality of opportunity may be meaningful for capitalists but can only ring hollow for working people, who must do the capitalists’ bidding if they are to survive. As socialists see it, true freedom and true equality require social control of the resources that provide the basis for prosperity in any society.

I think Mike Atnip gives two definitions. The first definition he gives is very much what today's dictionaries say socialism is. The second is different, he talks about ownership of resources, not of the means of production. I think that's different:

In Part 1 we looked at the definitions for socialism (resources owned and managed for the community) and capitalism (resources owned and managed for the individuals)

I also think that a LOT of people use the word "socialism" for things that are not socialism at all. I think that's because politicians do that to get people riled up, and so do political commentators. It winds up being a vague term with a lot of emotional whallup, easily applied to anything or anyone you don't like, good for name-calling.

I agree that it's helpful to use the word as it is understood today, by people who actually understand what the word means. I think that's the definition we see in dictionaries. I also think it's probably better to look at specific issues one at a time, under their own names. For instance, if we want to discuss taxation, let's discuss taxation. I think all countries have taxes, not just socialist countries. Calling taxation socialism clouds the issue. And I think politicians and political commentators do that on purpose. They want to reach us on an emotional level, not think about systems logically.

[Bootstrap]

It suggests more directly that Republicans aren't Christians. The Democrats were already suspect.

Wait, you mean the world is ... worldly? And that includes both political parties?

[Szdfan]

If there is a single established meaning of the word today, I think it's the meaning found in places like Webster's Dictionary:

any of various egalitarian economic and political theories or movements advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

So Robert and I recently disagreed about the definition of socialism.

viewtopic.php?p=191671#p191671
Robert posted the same Merriam-Webster definition posted above. This is what he then said:

Communal living that is not voluntary is not in line with the individual choice of faith or life/lifestyle.

So socialism or Socialism are both forced systems. Voluntary communal living is not socialism. If it is so great, why are people forced to live within it?

You can read my response in the original thread, but I'm not going to clutter this thread with it. The definition Robert posted referred to "Utopian Socialism," a 19th Century movement that pre-dated Marx and focused on creating voluntary utopian communities.

Furthermore, I would argue that there have been more recent voluntary communities somewhere on the socialism spectrum (like the Kibbutz communities in Israel) that are covered by the definition that Robert provided. I think the Mennonite church I attended as a child -- Reba Place -- could also fit under this definition as a Christian intentional community in which members pooled their resources and lived communally (my family weren't members).

I think (respectfully) that Robert is ignoring the aspects of the definition he cited that define socialism as sonething broader than Marxist government run and imposed systems.

[Szdfan]

I feel the translation that was used to the word socialist or socialism distorts the established use of those words today.

Yes, they can be translated into it, but most of the use of socialism and socialist in modern language is talking about a political/economic system.

I think the primary people who invoke socialism and Marxism in the US today are conservatives who use these words as scare tactics because it's politically effective.

[Bootstrap]

So Robert and I recently disagreed about the definition of socialism.

Because, of course, there is more than one definition of socialism, used in different contexts, with different meanings. So it's hard to have a conversation until you agree which thing you are talking about.

Philosophers have to deal with this problem all the time - the same word is used for different things. They often deal with it by creating specific names using parentheses:

• Socialism (Utopian Socialism)
• Socialism (Social ownership of the means of production)
• Socialism (Religious Communities)

They start by making a list of the different things people are talking about, then give each a name. After they have done that, they can pick one to discuss, and they know that they are talking about the same thing.

And as they discuss these things, they might change the names. For instance, they might decide that Socialism is not the best name for Socialism (Religious Communities) and change it to something like:

Koinonia (Religious Communities)

or

Communitarianism

Going into the conversation, I'm thinking that might be better naming. But the right way to do this is to make a list of all the things we are calling socialism and ask what defining characteristics justify the name socialism for the ones we are pretty sure have to be called socialism in any well-designed system.

[Bootstrap]

I think the primary people who invoke socialism and Marxism in the US today are conservatives who use these words as scare tactics because it's politically effective.

On the one side.

On the other side, it's Bernie Sanders, who talks about "Democratic Socialism", frequently referring to Denmark. I think these two are probably different:

Socialism (Social ownership of the means of production)
Socialism (Democratic Socialism as practiced in Denmark)

But I could be wrong. Philosophers might start by keeping them distinct, then combine them into one term if they determine that they are the same or that one is a subset of the other. Starting out with different labels, it's easier to discuss how they relate to each other and decide whether to combine the two concepts or rename one or whatever. It makes it easier to think clearly.

[Szdfan]

I think the primary people who invoke socialism and Marxism in the US today are conservatives who use these words as scare tactics because it's politically effective.

On the one side.

On the other side, it's Bernie Sanders, who talks about "Democratic Socialism", frequently referring to Denmark. I think these two are probably different:

Socialism (Social ownership of the means of production)
Socialism (Democratic Socialism as practiced in Denmark)

Right, but I don't think that Bernie Sanders is in the mainstream of the Democratic Party or liberalism. "Democratic Socialism" is not a label I hear many American liberals embrace, even if they wished for a social safety net similar to Western Europe. I think you're much more likely to hear terms like "Socialism" or "Cultural Marxism" from conservative critics of liberals than from liberals themselves. Exceptions of course exist.

Speaking of Democratic Socialism, I often find it ironic that the US allied itself with Democratic Socialist countries like France and West Germany during the Cold War in order to oppose the Soviet dominated Eastern Bloc. The differences in economics didn't seem to matter then.

[Josh]

I live in a Christian community with a common purse, and then am part of a larger Christian church that shares and bears one another’s burdens.

None of us would ever use the word “socialist” to describe ourselves. Indeed, allowance for private ownership and even individual ownership of means of production is important to us. Means of production that are shared with each other or shared with the needy are done so voluntarily.

[Chris]

I live in a Christian community with a common purse, and then am part of a larger Christian church that shares and bears one another’s burdens.

None of us would ever use the word “socialist” to describe ourselves. Indeed, allowance for private ownership and even individual ownership of means of production is important to us. Means of production that are shared with each other or shared with the needy are done so voluntarily.

Amazing! How does this work? I'm fascinated to hear "common purse" - that's a bit different than "all things common" but still....
It's not socialism in a Marx sense. Voluntary socialistic purses is very much fine as there is nothing forcing you to be this way.

But I'm VERY curious how the common purse works.

[Robert]

I think (respectfully) that Robert is ignoring the aspects of the definition he cited that define socialism as sonething broader than Marxist government run and imposed systems.

If I remember right, I stated that there was the second definition, but few use it with that intent. I would not call voluntary communal living "socialism" to not confuse the use of the word since it is seldom used in that context.