The definition of Socialism has always been that the means of production is owned, not privately, but by the community as a whole.
The common use of the word Socialism seems to be that the government taxes the wealthy and provides free stuff for everyone else. That’s very different. And it’s pretty much Marx’s motto for Communism, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”
Listening to the Democratic candidates, I don’t hear much about the means of production, but I do hear a lot about the government providing lots of free stuff and paying for it by taxing the wealthy. If you go over the issues presented at the Hillary and Bernie web sites, you’ll see that they’re remarkably consistent.
Is there some subtlety I’m missing?
Added:
Of course I’m aware that a heavily progressive income tax is the 2nd of Marx’s Ten Planks of Communism. Â So there’s that.
Published in General
The entire issue is muddled in the mainstream. That phrase “from each according to his ability, to each according his needs” is an analogy of the difference/transition between socialism and communism.
Marx would agree with the text book definition of socialism being state ownership/direction of all means of production. He accepted such a system because in his manifesto he argues that it will be controlled by a single class (what will be the only class left, the collective) of the proletariat to which it will enable the equal allocation of all production to all.
According to Marx only the Proletariat actually “works” and socialism will be a system where each is awarded by his ability and only the proletariat will exist (hence everyone works and Marx also assumes an imperfect allocation of resources since the world is changing from capitalist to socialist).
Communism on the other hand is your post-scarcity utopia with no government. Production is so high and/or demand is so low that everyone alive can literally have anything they need/want. The concept of owning property (and government) will be meaningless because of the abundance of all things. Hence in communism everyone will be rewarded according to their needs.
Sandlers and Haglary are very much in the vein of socialism.
(continued)
(continued)
They both desire to use the state to direct the economy of the nation to certain desired social outcomes. In the case of the Sandlers it is more direct with increased state ownership and more regulation for the outcome of equalizing all classes to that middle class he speaks so fondly of (then we will all be equal).
In the case of Haglary it is maintain economic stratification to benefit those interests that desire government intervention for maintaining their monopolies and oligopolies of certain industries while also crafting new regulations (weaker hand with more direction than ownership) in order to appease the democratic base’s equalizing message of Sandlers.
To my knowledge neither believes in achieving a post scarcity utopia (communism), although I might be wrong given how profligate Sandler’s spending schemes are (they assume post scarcity).
Yes, I agree that the current definition is a Santa Claus-like “rich people will pay for your free stuff”, but without the whole “naughty or nice” discrimination factor. But it will be mixed with libertarian type freedoms to smoke weed and SSM and sexual liberation. But there will be control if you, god forbid, want tobacco or unhealthy food.
Hill and Bernie don’t want the government to own the means of production because then failure is laid at the feet of the government. Better to have a heavily regulated and government managed “market” with crony kickbacks and crushing of competitors, then failure can still be blamed on the greedy capitalists and enable even more rigorous control. How many CEOs would pass up being in bed with the government if the fed will guarantee a small but steady return on investment paid for by the taxpayers and failure protection in the form of bailouts? Like those risk corridor kickbacks the health insurance companies get.
Contemporary socialists have figured out it’s not necessary to formally own the means of production. Ownership is not necessary when hyper regulation amounts to the same thing, as well as giving socialist bureaucrats a convenient scapegoat in evil businessmen. When socialists formally own everything, then everyone knows who is actually to blame for the sorry state of affairs.
I see metalheaddoc basically said the same thing: So, what he said.
The economic theory arguments against centrally planned economies (whether you call them socialist, or communist, or “democratic socialist”) are compelling to be sure. Â But the historical arguments against them are overwhelming, irrefutable, and generally ignored by the left. Â It is the great tragic joke of the world that this lesson must be learned anew by each generation. Â And that the lesson is so painful each time.