What does the word "socialist" really mean? I've really only ever heard it used as a buzzword. From what I've heard, calling someone a "socialist" is really just a synonym for "bastard." I've only rarely heard it used in a calm, precise, intellectual way. Most of the time I've heard it, it's been used in an angry, partisan way. So is it a buzzword. Can anyone come up with a precise and consistent definition? If you can, how does this definition relate to bailouts, public roads, social security, medicare, healthcare reform, public schools, welfare, and subsides?
The actual dictionary definition of a socialist is one who thinks the state should own the country's strategic industries. Another way to define it is to say that the difference between a socialist and a communist is that a socialist has figured out that any government large and intrusive enough to manage from each according to his means to each according to his needs isn't ever going to go anywhere of it's own volition.
You can't write it off as a buzz word when people are openly calling themselves by that term. Just look around this forum. I don't think people would be voluntarily sporting avatars belonging to the Bastard Party.
Cleverly said Unifier. I wonder about them too. What proportion of them have ever actually read the works of famous socialists or asked a political scientist to define it? What proportion of them just use it as a word for "*** the system." I suppose there must be some people who use it in a precise way, but I think they're most likely in the minority. Of course, all people's views on the term "socialist" (including my own) will ultimately stem from their own personal experience. And personal experiance can be misleading. But I think people get so jazzed up over this word that it's lost all meaning. I think that's what happens when you use a word as a swear.
I voted buzzword, but only because that's what most people have turned it into. The problem is too many people assume socialism is one hive-mind ideology. They do the same with capitalism. Thing is, there are many different models and variations of both ideologies, because economics =/= science. Economics is philosophy. Anyway, socialism: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
??? MMM probably more than 50% of the poblation of Europe uses the word socialist as definition of their own ideology.
The same thing has happened to racism. It's just an empty insult now. It doesn't even mean anything anymore. In debate, it has become universally recognized as meaning, "I've run out of arguments to defend my position, but I need to be right."
Socialism has such a huge history that it is not a buzzword. So many influential theories revolve around socialism, Marxism and non-marxian communism. Of course this doesn't stop idiotic conservatives from claiming anything government run is "socialized", when in truth we want the exact opposite - things run by and for the benifit of the people.
It kind of is a buzzword in the US - it's become a 'catch-all' insult flung around by the right for anything that they don't agree with, interchangeable with the term 'communism'. These things do have real definitions which aren't difficult to find, and are quite widely recognised in other parts of the world, but the right wing in the US have become so tied up with the idea that anything remotely 'to the left' of their views (especially if it involves any form of 'social' measures or 'social justice' or even, for some, 'social tolerance') must be to do with 'evil commies and socialists trying to destroy our freedom and destroy America' that they have become effectively just meaningless insults in the context of US political discussion. Of course, that has a reactive mirror effect among some supposedly 'on the left', who use the term to describe themselves because they see themselves 'anti-establishment' and/or 'anti-conservative', even thought they sometimes have no more idea of what the term really means than those one the right who use it as an insult (and for some of them, the fact that it winds Conservatives up is a bonus, of course). That just serves to perpetuate the problem, as some so-called 'socialists' espouse ideas which aren't really 'socialist' at all. None of that is helped by the early/mid 20th century German term 'National Socialism', which was an ideology about as far removed as it is possible to be from Marx and actual socialism, and has muddied the waters of misunderstanding of the term even further, and added an even greater element of 'evil' to the whole thing. The same is true, to an extent, of the term 'liberalism' in the US - it's been used as an insult without real understanding, and adopted as a label by some who haven't the faintest idea what it actually means (or are just trying to avoid, understandably, being called 'socialists' constantly!). Political debate in the US would be alot easier if people actually understood these terms, what they mean, and what specific range of individual ideas and ideologies they encompass. Definitions are easy to find - the wiki page for socialism has already been linked in this thread (I would normally avoid wiki as a source, of course, but for broad and general definitions like this it is as useful as any other brief outline). It would also, of course, be alot easier if people would actually take the time listen to what each other are saying instead of dismissing it as 'evil' and 'anti-American' because it isn't exactly the same as what they think (and that applies to all 'sides' - right wing, 'socialist', 'liberal', etc.).
That is also true to a large extent, and the same could certainly be said for terms like 'anti-racism' and 'political correctness'. They are all about one 'side' (whichever 'side' that may be) just trying to 'prove' that the 'other side' is just completely wrong and evil and wants to destroy America, and/or the World, and/or just everything that is decent and right, just to 'prove' that the other lot must be resisted at all costs and in all things utterly and completely, and must never, ever actually be listened to or understood in any way. In fact, the Mission Statement of this forum closes with this sentence: Unfortunately it seems for some that, far from the above sentiment about discourse and discussion, 'winning' and 'defeating the enemy by any means possible' are what political debate should be about. If such people would shut up and listen from time to time (in the world, not just on an internet forum) they might realise that 'the enemy' and their 'agenda' are actually not what they assume them to be at all! Of course, people will still have different opinions and disagree on things politically, but at least they might stand a chance of actually knowing what it is they are arguing about!
I'm an atheist. So, when Baptists want to bicker with Methodists or Jehovah's Witnesses want to scream and Christian Scientists I sort of tune out. It's much the same with socialists/communists want to bicker and scream at each other. It's amusing here in Oaxaca when the communist take over the zocalo the Stalinist hate the Maoists hate the Troskyites hate the Leninists and so forth and so one. For the non-socialists/communists the doctrinaire differences are irrelevant. The countries in Europe failing are socialist countries. The U.S. has gone far enough down the socialist path to be failing. And the socialists mostly just want to deny they're socialists. The only thing I can say positive about the nutty Rep. Waters is she almost admits she's a socialist. Not quite, but almost. Obviously, President Obama is but he would throw Michelle and the kids under the bus before he would admit it.
Europe is not socialist because they have capitalist economies. America has a particularly crappy economy because of the huge rich-poor divide caused by lack of policies designed for social equity. Take a look at Australia's economy, we have higher employment, lower crime, one of the best standards of living and we came out of the global financial crisis strong. Social policy on its own is not socialism. We want to fundamentally change the economy to one run democratically and cooperatively where people are rewarded accordingly for their actual contributions.
Unfortunately since you have no idea whatever what those contributions are you have no idea whether the current system is just or not. You merely assume that since the Boss doesn't run the equipment that he is not doing any work and it therefore seems unfair to you that he gets most of the money. All socialism eventually boils down to the poisonous view that some one took advantage of someone else and it's not right that we all aren't millionaires. One thing the upper echelons of the European left figured out a long time ago that you haven't figured out yet is that owning a company and running a company aren't necessarily the same thing. The average european company is so hemmed in by government rules and regulations that for all practical purposes he is himself a government flunky adminsitering rules and regualations that he had no hand in creating. It isn't much diiferent here if you business has more than a handful of employees.
This is absolute nonsense. Dictionaries usually do not mention a state but rather community or communal. Moreover, communism is by its very definition a stateless society. Incidentally, socialism is classless and would therefore according to some socialist theorists allow for a minimal government or no state at all. Socialism is any theory that advocates collective ownership of the means of production and workers' control over production. In popular and media discourse, this definition is rarely if ever applied. Therefore socialism, like fascism, has become a buzzword in American politics. In European politics, it's not really an insult, but it's divorced from its actual meaning.
