Socialists of DU: how do you define socialism?

[The Second Stone]

Please enlighten me. I'm not asking for an example or what it is like in certain feature. I'm asking for a definition.

Michael Harrington, a man I personally met, was a prominent American intellectual and one of the leading socialist of his day. He described to me that socialism was where government had a say in the production of corporations. He described himself as a "democratic socialist".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Harrington

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism
Democratic socialism is defined as having a socialist economy in which the means of production are socially and collectively owned or controlled alongside a politically democratic system of government.[1]

These entries are consistent with my understanding of socialism. Including the definitions.

The socialists here on DU insist that this is not a definition of socialism. They refuse to offer a definition other than to offer an example such as Scandinavian countries, which is an example, not a definition.

So, what is the definition?
Why all the coyness about it?

[ZombieHorde]

1. Socialism is when the workers own the means of production,

communism is when the state owns the means of production, and capitalism is when financial elites own the means of production.

[rug]

3. Actually, there is no state in communism.

Socialism is the control of the means of production by the state. The state in turn is controlled by the working class.

In communism, things have progressed to the point where the functions of the state become unnecessary. and it "withers away". Workers would have become used to controlling all aspects of their lives, in union with other workers.

[ZombieHorde]

5. That doesn't seem to be the practice.

I know my post is an over simplification, but countries that are labelled "communist" have a state government.

[Albertoo]

11. Here is why there's a confusion between strict and loose definition of the terms

Marx defined Socialism as the collective control of the means of production.
Communism being some kind of distant utopia, Socialism being a stage toward it.

There is much confusion over the definitions of the terms because:

1- the "Socialist People's Republics" were called Communist regimes because they were run by Communist Parties whose stated ultimate goal was the ideal of Communism. But perfection not being of this world, they somehow got stuck at the Socialist stage and its inherent authoritarianism.

2- the Social Democrat parties in Europe often use the word 'Socialist' when they do not advocate the public appropriation of the means of production. Ex: the centrist Social Democratic Party of Germany which enacted the very pro business Harz measures is affiliated to the Party of European Socialists.

[Matrosov]

29. That refers to the political party in power

There is a difference between Communism (the political philosophy of the Communist party) and communism (the economic model).

The Soviet Union was Communist in that it was ruled by the Communist party, but the economic model was socialism. In the view of Marx, socialism was supposed to be the bridge between capitalism and communism. Under socialism, the government was supposed to take the economic power away from the capitalists and hold onto it on behalf of the working class. People would wield that economic power indirectly through the democratic process, by electing officials who would overlook the economy on their behalf. Then once society had evolved into a classless society where capitalism was an ancient memory and everybody was willing to cooperate and work together for the common good, the model would shift over to communism. Government would transfer economic power directly to the people and then disappear, because the functions of government were no longer needed.

Essentially, communism is a classless, moneyless, and stateless society.

Many of the policies of the Communist party were very authoritarian. But that wasn't a problem with socialism or Marx, but with using the need for society to evolve as an excuse to give the Communist party elites more and more power, saying that they needed to rule over the working class with an iron fist to make sure capitalist ideas couldn't make a comeback and ruin the eventual transition from socialism to communism. That's where the topic of Democratic Socialism comes into play, because it is supposed to take the economic model of socialism and combine it with democratic representation for the working class, as opposed to Soviet style socialism, where the economic model was socialism but the working class in reality had very little to no say and everything was up to the Communist party elites.

[roamer65]

6. The problem is the oligarchical parasites that always will demand their "cut" of the pie.

They can't and don't want to do real work. They believe it is their "right" to live off the fruits of others labor.

[cheapdate]

27. Do the "means of production"

include, for instance, the equipment used by a small shop to produce handmade bicycles or guitars?

[handmade34]

33. Syndicalism

that would be

[yallerdawg]

2. Democratic socialism is not socialism.

Socialism is not found in "Scandinavian countries." That's Sanders-style democratic socialism.

Socialism is about ending capitalism and transferring the means of production to the workers, and our lives and our work managed in our democratic collective.

My favorite description from Howard Zinn:

The society's levers of powers would have to be taken away from those whose drives have led to the present state-the giant corporations, the military, and their politician collaborators. We would need-by a coordinated effort of local groups all over the country-to reconstruct the economy for both efficiency and justice, producing in a cooperative way what people need most. We would start on our neighborhoods, our cities, our workplaces. Work of some kind would be needed by everyone, including people now kept out of the work force-children, old people, "handicapped" people. Society could use the enormous energy now idle, the skills and talents now unused. Everyone could share the routine but necessary jobs for a few hours a day, and leave most of the time free for enjoyment, creativity, labors of love, and yet produce enough for an equal and ample distribution of goods. Certain basic things would be abundant enough to be taken out of the money system and be available-free-to everyone: food, housing, health care, education, transportation.

The great problem would be to work out a way of accomplishing this without a centralized bureaucracy, using not the incentives of prison and punishment, but those incentives of cooperation which spring from natural human desires, which in the past have been used by the state in times of war, but also by social movements that gave hints of how people might behave in different conditions. Decisions would be made by small groups of people in their workplaces, their neighborhoods-a network of cooperatives, in communication with one another, a neighborly socialism avoiding the class hierarchies of capitalism and the harsh dictatorships that have taken the name "socialist."

People in time, in friendly communities, might create a new, diversified, nonviolent culture, in which all forms of personal and group expression would be possible. Men and women, black and white, old and young, could then cherish their differences as positive attributes, not as reasons for domination. New values of cooperation and freedom might then show up in the relations of people, the upbringing of children.

To do all that, in the complex conditions of control in the United States, would require combining the energy of all previous movements in American history-of labor insurgents, black rebels, Native Americans, women, young people-along with the new energy of an angry middle class. People would need to begin to transform their immediate environments-the workplace, the family, the school, the community-by a series of struggles against absentee authority, to give control of these places to the people who live and work there.

http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinncomrev24.html

[Spider Jerusalem]

17. Democratic socialism is in fact socialism

I think you're confused. Perhaps you're thinking of social democracy.

[merrily]

4. You may be conflating socialism with Democratic Socialism.

Also, DU's definition of socialism may or may not bear a resemblance to real life and there probably is not a single DU definition of socialism anyway.

Seems like an insincere question, anyway.

[The Second Stone]

8. Must one be a true believer to be allowed to read the definition of socialism

or democratic socialism?

I'm just asking for a cut and past from somewhere a definition of socialism. A guy quoted Howard Zinn above on what socialism would require, and that seems at least an attempt at an answer, but it sure as heck isn't a definition.

I linked to a definition of Democratic Socialism, which is pretty much what I heard when I asked Michael Harrington in 1980.

Why is it that the definition is secret? It ain't the Freemasons.

For the record, I am asking because nobody who claims to be a Democratic Socialist on this board has the wherewithal to cut and paste a definition of socialism or democratic socialism by which they would describe their beliefs. I find that just bizarre.

I'm a democrat. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democrat

I'm also a liberal. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberal

I'm not a socialist in that I do not want government telling private businesses what to produce. I make exceptions for production that should be regulated for the public good, such as intoxicants, firearms, access of all to buy goods and services.

What is this socialism you folks speak of (those who identify as socialist), please define it. Don't give me examples, or comparisons, find a definition that works for you and link to it.

I really find it very strange that nobody on DU will define what their particular brand of socialism is.

[merrily]

9. If you purport to reply to my post, your reply really should have something to do with my post.

[The Second Stone]

12. And if you purport to reply in my thread that asks for a definition of socialism

then you should perhaps offer a definition and not thread poop.

Do you have definition of socialism?
Is there a reason you don't have a definition of socialism?
Do you know what socialism is?
Is it something to be hidden?

[Spider Jerusalem]

19. Nope, you're conflating social democracy with democratic socialism.

Democratic socialism is a political ideology that advocates political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production, often with an emphasis on democratic management of enterprises within a socialist economic system.

Social democracy is a political, social and economic ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a capitalist economy, and a policy regime involving collective bargaining arrangements, a commitment to representative democracy, measures for income redistribution, regulation of the economy in the general interest and welfare state provisions.

[RobertEarl]

7. Highways is simply the best

The people own the highways. Anyone can use a highway.

Highways are an integral part of the 'Means of Production' in the US. Without highways our production would be sitting on a dock somewhere.

If the highways were owned by capitalists, there would arguably be fewer roads and the costs to ship from one side of the country to the other would be huge and the profits would go to a few. With our highways the costs are socialized and shared fairly equally.

[The Second Stone]

10. That's an example. A very good one. But it isn't a definition.

Romans had highways more than 2000 years before socialism was first recognized claimed by Charles Fourier. Highways can be a function of other types of government. There call also be toll highways. But highways aren't a definition of socialism, nor a feature of it. I'd argue that public roads are generally a good thing.

[RobertEarl]

14. Compare it to capitalist owned

And then you begin to get the gist of what socialism means.

The means of production are near wholly subsisting on the capability to move the produce. In the US, the means -- read roads -- to move the produce, are owned by the people and are therefore socialist in nature.

We have a mixed system here: Capitalist and Socialist. The lines have been blurred and therefore hard for some to discern.

Our government has a hands on, and hands off, way of taking care of business. The hands on are concerned with the general welfare, the hands off are concerned with profits for a select few. The lack of environmental regulations which have created this damaged environment are the hands off style and the few regs that have stopped it from being a total wreck are the hands on.

In private business, the creation of worker owned businesses are socialistic. That would be the workers owning the means of production and the sharing of profits all rolled into one.

In the US there is no 'Night and Day', no 'Black and White' distinction in our economy or government, or business. It is an amalgamation of 'Things'.

One way for you to get the answer you seek is to do a comparison of pure Capitalism and pure Socialism.

Pure capitalism would be no government... it would be anarchy. Pure Socialism would be democracy involved in each and every decision made which governs our system of means of production..

[The Second Stone]

15. So would your view of socialism is that a definition be that

government controls production on an ad hoc basis determined by a vote of the state or federal legislation?

Don't let me put words in your mouth, or have it written in stone. I just want to know if that is an acceptable working definition.

[RobertEarl]

16. No

Our current set-up of democracy is a democratic republic. Which means we democratically elect a few to represent us in the republic government and those few make the decisions of the government.

A true, pure democracy, would entail that all of us put our heads together on each issue and communally decide -- one way or the other.

Pure democracy is presently best used in small scale matters. But given technology, it may become possible for communal decision making to become usable in large scale, country wide decisions.

Pure socialism would have to be based on pure democracy, being that the lowest would have to have as much say as the highest.

What we have now is a mix, with a few making most of the major decisions, and we are allowed to place, or remove them from their positions via the vote.

[The Second Stone]

18. Sorry for misunderstanding your position

Thanks for thoughtful responses.

[RobertEarl]

20. Thats ok, seen worse

Is it making any sense to you in answering your question?

[The Second Stone]

22. The original question is what do the DU members who are socialists

believe the definition of socialism is. It could be different for any number of different posters.

I'm not looking for an example, or portrait, or comparison, but a philosophical definition and trying to see what the various people have for a definition (philosophical or dictionary) that they like.

The poster who quoted Zinn above gave more of a portrait rather than a definition, but is was a sincere effort. You've responded with thoughts.

I've become very frustrated with Sanders over the past campaign saying "it's like something. He won't or can't or doesn't know how to say what it is.

I know what it is, because I study politics. But I get the strong impression that most DUers don't know what they mean when they describe themselves as "socialist" or "democratic socialist".

[RobertEarl]

25. There is no all or nothing

It's a mix.

Sanders is in favor of democracy in that he wants us all to share in government. Others are in favor of more republic in that they want to be king of the hill. (no pun intended)

We are not capable of pure socialism, nor pure capitalism. What we have is a mix.

Capitalism is pure king of the hill. Eat or be eaten.

Socialism is all for one and one for all. Everyone eats what everyone produces.

[Nye Bevan]

13. Seems to me that another term for "Democratic socialism" would be "regulated capitalism".

Denmark and Norway are proudly capitalist countries with stockmarkets, private ownership, and plenty of free trade. But having universal health care, paid maternity leave and so on apparently transforms these countries into "Democratic socialist" economies.

[Spider Jerusalem]

21. Nope. That's "social democracy". They aren't the same thing.

[Matilda]

23. I have long described myself as a democratic socialist

but my beliefs have something in common with the Scandinavians.

I'm socialist in that I believe in a national health system and a state-owned school system in which the funding matches that of private schools – it should never be a second-class system, as it now is in Australia. I'm okay with private schools provided they are funded by the people who use them, not by the government.

I also believe that all infrastructure should be owned by the people – roads, rail, transport, airports and shipping facilities. As well as utilities such as electricity, the phone system, etc.

I call myself a democratic socialist because I believe the government should be elected by the people, not live in a system brought about by revolution then imposed from the top as in the Soviet-style Marxist governments. I think the Attlee post-war government in Britain got it pretty right.

It does seem though, that different people have different ways of qualifying the terms "socialist", and I confess to being a little confused at times as to what label to put on myself.

[Matrosov]

24. Socialism is an economic model, therefore Scandinavian countries are not socialist

Socialism is an economic model, like capitalism and communism. I made a comparison thread the other day: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027983157

None of the European countries are socialist in that sense, because they're all based on capitalism. Since it's not pure capitalism, perhaps you could call it socialized capitalism, and the degree to which it is socialized varies from country to country. But it's still not socialism.

The Soviet Union was an example of a socialist country, because the economy was under the control of the government. Many people insist it was a communist country, but there is a difference between the economic model of communism and the political policies of the Communist party that ruled the Soviet Union.

I think some of the confusion stems from people talking about socialism in a political sense, e.g. Democratic Socialism, but they are actually talking about Social Democracy, where the underlying economic model is still capitalism.

[The Second Stone]

26. The Soviet Union was a totalitarians system somewhere

between socialism and communism. Russia is now totalitarian capitalism.

I'm interested in this thread what people use for definitions. Thank you for your contribution.

[Matrosov]

30. Check out post 29

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028003125#post29

I just expanded on my thoughts about the Soviet union there.

[white_wolf]

28. This is a really difficult question to answer for a lot of reasons...

First of all, because everyone you ask might have a different definition of socialism. I'll try and give a few definitions and examples of states or people who have used them and explain why it's such a blurry question.

Sanders Socialism-He's based his ideas on the Social Democratic policies of the Nordic countries. Basically it's a mixed economy where capitalism is highly regulated. It's interesting to me that Sanders once ran on the ticket of a Trotskyist party back in the 70s, I think, so his views might be even further to the left than he lets on or it's possibly they've simply changed over the years.

USSR-The thing that a lot of people envision when they hear socialism are the communist states of the Cold War. Totalitarian societies where the state controls economic and social life. A state-ran economy must be socialism right? Well, some such, as Leon Trotsky, would disagree. He argued that the USSR under Stalin was "State Capitalist" because he believed the state was simply fulfilling the same role as private capitalists in other countries.

Council socialism-This is probably the closest to what I, personally, would consider pure socialism. Basically in such a system the workers who run the store, factory, etc. would be the ones making the decisions about what would happen.

Anyway, I hope that helps some.

[socialist_n_TN]

35. This is a pretty good definition. I would only add.........

to the "council socialism" part that some provision would have to be made for the general welfare of the entire people in the case of large enterprises and fundamental "quality of life" enterprises, which would necessitate some state input, even if it's not total control like under Stalinism. In these cases, I would envisage something like a board of directors that was made up of community representatives as well as the workers in these enterprises. As an example, a community hospital would be run by an elected board of both workers AND the surrounding community.

The problem you run into is getting to that point. The capitalists won't let you vote to take away their wealth, productive capacities and power which mean you do need a revolution. And even if the revolution succeeds, you have an inevitable counter-revolution which the revolution has to defend against, which means you need some discipline in the ranks of revolutionaries for the defense of the revolution. This runs the risk of authoritarianism taking hold like Stalinism. Then, if you win the civil war, you have to change society from individualistic aims and goals to societal ones. THEN you might start seeing the real benefits of democratic ownership of the means of production. And all of this has to be done internationally within a relatively short time frame.

Socialism is NOT an easy task. But then again, neither is reforming capitalism for an length of time in the historical tense.

[Buzz cook]

31. There are many types of socialism

This wiki is just a partial list.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_socialism

This is a good enough working definition.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/glossary.htm

Socialism: A proposed economic system in which workers, not private capitalist individuals, own and control the means of production. (This includes factories, stores, farmland, machinery, etc.) Not to be confused with the "socialism" nominally practiced by the Soviet Union, which was no more than a dictatorship over workers by a ruling elite. True socialism on a national level has never been tried anywhere in the world. (It is sometimes practices at the company level, with employee-owned firms.) Socialism has been proposed in many forms, ranging from anarcho-socialism to social democracy. However, in those variants where socialism advocates a centralized government, that government is always democratic.

So called Scandinavian socialism is democracy with a larger social safety net. While some industry is owned by government, such as Norway's oil resources being owned by the government, most business is privately owned and capitalistic.

Many if not most of the "socialists" on DU are probably not socialists in any meaningful way. For example "single payer" health care is simply a stronger social safety net. A true socialist system would be closer to England's National Health Care in which the government owns the hospitals and employs the health care workers.

[AntiBank]

32. here is a good article explaining our healthcare system in Sweden

https://sweden.se/society/health-care-in-sweden/

[kentuck]

34. Socialism is..

a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. The purpose of government is to make the lives of common citizens better. It requires that the majority have control over the functions of the fewm that desire to accumulate all the capital for their own aggrandizement.