Socialism means state control of the means of production (as opposed to control by owners of those assets). That’s actually a definition of “state socialism” but since in practice there is no other kind I think that’s sufficient. The most important means of production today is money.
All modern economies today are hybrids, consisting of some market forces alongside some central control. The argument today is over whether we need more or less central control of the economy; my view is that the way in which the federal government is controlling the economy should be changed. There should be less central control domestically and a lot more central control on international trade or, said another way, what we’ve been doing for the last half century has been almost completely backwards.
The irony of those who are arguing in favor of Scandinavian-style cradle-to-grave welfare systems for the United States is that they don’t really understand the systems in those countries. In general they’re even more capitalistic than we are. However, they are a lot more Lutheran. I do wish such advocates would provide examples that are multi-ethnic, multi-racial, and multi-confessional. That doesn’t describe the Scandinavian countries in any meaningful way at least not when their systems were set up and not until very recently. The closest example I can think of is the Soviet Union.
“There should be less central control domestically and a lot more central control on international trade or, said another way, what we’ve been doing for the last half century has been almost completely backwards.â€
Yes. That’s where the primary market failure has occurred. We have been taken advantage of with substantial adverse consequences for the US. Let’s set aside an apportionment of benefit between consumer and producer, at least for this post. The simple fact of the matter is that the game has been rigged, or at a minimum insufficient transition policies enacted. Throw in some environmentally driven shooing of businesses to foreign lands and you have a real shit show on your hands.
“Socialism means state control of the means of production”
What do you mean by “control”? Do you mean outright ownership or regulation? Also, everyone who claims to be a socialist also supports a very comprehensive welfare state. That has to be part of the definition.
There is also the issue of the proletariate. Prior to WW I, socialist parties valorized the proletariate, and were internationalists. The proletariate in all countries were supposed to be a single oppressed class. And capitalists in all countries were supposed to be a single oppressor class.
That last point got Mussolini expelled from the Italian Socialist Party, a doctrinaire Marxist party. On the eve of WW I Mussolini supported Italy’s entry into the war, which all socialist parties opposed in every country, and he valorized the nation as a whole over the proletariate. [Mussolini was a leading theorist of socialism in those days.] Hitler and the Nazis followed suite.
As to control of the means of production, to a Communist of the Marxist tradition that meant outright ownership. To a Fascist or Nazi it meant detailed regulation, cartels, and a sort of merger of owners and workers, a la Mussolini’s syndicates. Eventually the Nazis recognized a single union that included literally everyone, workers and owners.
All of those “isms” were/are also totalitarian (Mussolini’s word). Almost all the modern European welfare states, which are very comprehensive welfare states, are also authoritarian to some degree. The EU bureaucracy is actually anti-democratic, authoritarian, and unelected.
Communism, socialism, and the welfare state require ethnic and cultural/religious homogeneity, because people are genetically group-oriented, and if one group is perceived to be getting more than its fair share, then social divisions and animosities are exacerbated. The US is a very good example.
One might note that the so-called “cultural marxists” (the Frankfurt School) who now dominate the Democrat Party vigorously exploit ethnic, cultural, and sexual orientation differences for personal power.
In that regard, Scandinavia, especially Sweden, Lutheran or not, is a prime example of cultural marxists exploiting the differences between the black and muslim immigrants and the native people. There is heavy-handed censorship of all negative news regarding the immigrants.
The Scandinavians are also top-down authoritarian to a degree few Americans would tolerate. Well, maybe more than a few. Actually, maybe a majority of Americans would, too.
Fabian socialists advocate control of the means of production via regulation. Since money is the primary means of production, taxation beyond a head tax is light socialism.
How about the CCP? A comprehensive welfare state does not figure as a high priority in their programs. Never has.
Also, as the number of immigrants has grown in both Sweden and Denmark, the welfare state in those countries has contracted. That pretty much proves my point.
A dictionary definition.
“a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.”
So either ownership or regulated enough that there is no meaningful difference. If you are going to claim that taxation is light socialism then the term has no meaning or else we accept that Light Socialism is its own ideology separate from socialism. Every form of government taxes.
I ma certainly OK with less control centrally, though the folks at Mercatus have shown that cutting regulations will cost us money in the long run. I would be opposed to doing that for the financial sector as the less regulated financial sector will always crash the economy and the people in the financial sector tend to be rescued. Since the really bad crashes usually have an international component I think that broadly fit under your description.
Steve
Please provide an example of “the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole” in other than a small, generally religious community. I don’t believe that such a thing exists or ever as. For practical purposes state socialism is the only kind there is.
That is an imprecise reading of what I wrote. “Other than a head tax” is a critical phrase. Head taxes are not redistributive. Redistribution is light socialism.
I believe some level of redistribution is inescapable. I know of no Republican, however market-oriented, who advocates abandoning a standing military. A modern standing military is impossible without redistribution. No one or practically no one wants a complete full-on market system. There is a strong tendency to argue for the limits on the market that help you. But as soon as any limits on a market are adopted, as all modern economies do, some readjustment is necessary. That readjustment requires further readjustment and so on.
“I believe some level of redistribution is inescapable.”
And as I said, the term becomes meaningless. Drew is then a socialist. Genghis Khan was a socialist. We are all socialists.
Steve
My point is that it is a matter of degree and direction not absolutes.
That’s not meaningless but complicated.
Socialism explained:
https://www.wired.com/2008/02/economic-cow-jo-2/