By your definition. A somewhat self-serving definition. If you can control the definitions of the terms, you can hardly fail to win the argument. If anyone is dumb enough to let you get away with it.
If, BG, if. Neither you nor I can predict whether Venezuela will go down in flames or not, and I certainly didn’t say it was currently doing so. My point was that I expect your belief in socialism is independent of any negative outcomes in Venezuela. And as I said above, I don’t think it should be otherwise.
Chavez is dabbling in certain socialist practices, and might possibly try to go whole hog at some point in the future, but he isn’t doing that now. Perhaps he will use any additional authority he gains democratically to do so, or perhaps he will do so first, and then claim authority to “save” a socialist system through non-democratic means. Or perhaps something else entirely will happen. But as long as the price of oil remains high, he’ll probably be able to get away with all kinds of interesting experiments.
So, it would appear that definitions matter afterall. 
But I’m just using the definition I learned in school-- a system characterized primarily by a situation in which the state owns the means of production. If you want it to the label you put on whatever system you cobble together to suit your fancy, then just tell us what that is, and we can use that one as well.
However, I’m happy to use the one as per the first paragraph in the entry for Socialism in wikipedia:
Oops, missed the edit window.
Furthermore, the OP talks about “state socialism” and I explicitly used that term in that post. If State Socialism is not a system in which the state owns the means of production, then it’s an odd turn of phrase indeed.
Can I ask about countries like Sweden? This is a fairly socialist example, I think more socialist than the failed socialist experiment in England. Am I wrong about Sweden, I am not a big defender of Socialism, but I think Sweden might be a good example of a benevolent and successful socialist democracy.
I believe Norway is another good example. I think they are both more socialist than Venezuela.
Jim
From wikipedia:
Only if you’re dumb enough to let somebody else make them for you.
What is your proposed definition of “State Socialism”?
I am not sure your links to wikipedia indicate if they are more or less socialist than Venezuela. The have a more develop and all encompassing welfare state. I believe they have a much higher tax rate. Is socialism only defined by state own business?
What is the definition of Socialism?
Well, you made the assertion-- you track down the cites. I’m just pointing out that to characterize Sweden, for example, as a socialist state doesn’t make sense for any reasonable definition of socialism. Especially “state” socialism.
See post #43. Alternatively, give the one that you use.
I haven’t the slightest interest in wrangling with you over definitions. My politics are not based on goals, nor definitions, but directions - as in forward. I’m sorry you find that so daunting. I find such definitions too abstract, too academic - like “free market” and “industrial proletariat”, they describe things that sort of exist, but really don’t.
Working to eradicate injustice and inequality will evolve a new society. How would I define that society? Well, I wouldn’t. Why bother, what reason have I to believe that it will mold itself to my expectations? I’ve already said that if a free-market capitalism can be constructed that is wholly just and egalitarian, cool! Bring it on, and we’ll keep on rockin’ in the free world. But if it cannot, and I very strongly suspect that it cannot, then we chuck it overboard and get on to something else.
Odd that I would find it “daunting” to debate with someone who won’t define terms. We’re not here to rally 'round the cause. We’re here, in this forum, to present ideas and see which ones stand up to scrutiny. At least that’s why I’m here.
So, yeah, I’m for “justice”. And I’m for moving “forwards”. I guess we’re in completely in agreement then. End of debate. At least between you and me. You don’t mind if I debate with others who are interested in definitions, I’m sure.
The way I’ve always understood things is that socialism is about the distribution of resources, not so much the way those resources are acquired. This means that everything from old age pensions to state guaranteed salaries are socialist, if to different degrees.
Using this definition of socialism, it makes perfect sense to talk about a capitalistic socialist state. Such a state allows you to pursue property as you see fit, taxes you, and redistributes the property taxed. Like most things in the political world, this works on a continuum, with the hardest forms of socialism on one end and a purely libertarian state on the other.
The confusion seems to come about when state ownership of the means of production is thrown into the mix and a command and control economy. Nothing about a social safety net strictly requires state ownership, but, if I understand the logic, it usually flows from the loss of profit incentives.
So, is this an acceptable definition of terms? If so, why not use it? If not, where am I going wrong?
Venezuela evolved without developing a strong manufacturing sector-they got rich on oil before that could happen. It’s the “Midas Curse”-Venezuela couldimport cheaper than they could build at home-and the inflation made labor uncompetitive.
Chavez has also screwed the economy-which is why all the educated people are emigarting. By 2012, Chavez will have totally wrecked Venezuela.
Sorry, I guess I made the mistake of believing all of those on the Right that refer to UHC and similar programs as a socialism. May I cite your definition in the next UHC debate?
I note that continuing through your wiki cite that the definition is rather fluid.
Jim
As a self-avowed socialist, I have to say that Chavez gives me great pause and that if he fails, Venezuela will be used as an example of the “failure of socialism” because of faults found in socialism, instead of the egomania and (justifiable) paranoia that I think is the true cause that will make him likely to fail.
In regards to socialism in general, I think the simplest definition and its greatest contrast with capitalism is that it believes that the public interest outweighs private interests, and that the best means of ensuring the public interest is through democratic government ownership, control or regulation of industry. Thus it is explicitly both a political and economic ideology and does not try to separate the two fields as capitalism has.
For better and worse, socialism has also evolved over the last 150-odd years since it was first put forth as a philosophy. Marx and his bastard child of communism was the worst thing that ever happened to it. I do not agree with his conclusions (though I do agree with some of his criticisms). Socialism requires a liberal democracy, not the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’. Too many autocratic regimes called themselves socialist with no desire of actually implementing the democratic side that it needs to truly work. Marxism also has an irrational hatred for the middle-class bourgeois. I think socialism works best in a bourgeois society such as found in the Scandinavian social democracies. In this sense, Chavez leans uncomfortably Marxist.
Also, the experiments with “state socialism” failed miserably because they not only tried to control the means of production, but the means of exchange as well. Modern socialist theory has (mostly) conceded the argument in regards to the market. The market is the most practical means of allocating resources. But socialism still does not trust it to behave at all times and reserves the right of government to intervene in cases of market failures.
Socialism is now more concerned with the equitable ownership and distribution of capital and the rewards from its use, which does not preclude government ownership, but does preclude the setting of prices through government fiat.
I personally think that the next stage in socialism will not be direct ownership and control, but a regulatory structure and institutions (as defined by Douglass North) that will ensure that the public interest trumps private interest when they come into conflict. And I am sure that it will not be a smooth ride. And there have to be guarantees that minority rights are protected against majority rule, something that the United States has made great progress towards.
In regards to capitalism, I think “laissez-faire” capitalism failed just as miserably as state socialism. For the first hundred years of capitalism, government mostly let it alone, and we got the wonderful business cycle of boom and panic, leading to the Great Depression. When business is allowed to regulate themselves, they rarely do so to better society unless under extreme political pressure, but more often to raise entry costs and keep out new firms from entering the market. The rewards under capitalism go to far too few and the pain shared by far too many.
Given the choice between the two and looking at the historical record of each, I chose socialism. I also know that the streak of individualism is too strong in the United States to ever allow a socialist government. I’ll just be content when they stop trying to overthrow those governments that do decide to try socialism.
So, since you’re not interested in finding a workable definition, what’s left? You’ll know it when you see it? Feelings?
It’s like I’m talking to Wesley Mouch.
Yes, you may.
But it also changes name. Socialist -> Social Democrat.
Right. Norway and Sweden are just “Tax & Spend” Capitalist Democracies taken to an extreme. Of course, if one spends on social programs, like Universal Health care, then one has brought in socialist aspects. But that is with a “small s”. They are not Socialist States.
I always love the argument that the various Socialist and Communist dictatorships 'weren’t *really *Socialist or Communist". :rolleyes: It’s the “no true Scotsman” fallacy. Every Socialist or Communist government has been a “State” goverment, complete with few personal freedoms and rife with dictators and secret police. Socialism or Communism just do not seem to work in the real world without dicators, loss of personal freedoms and the like. And even then, Socialism and Communism work poorly, with an inevitable collapse within a century or less.
“Real” or “Pure” Socialism or Communism just plain has not* and can not *occur on a national scale. (Nor has Pure Democracy, of course, although in the case of Athens it got fairly close.)
I also think people who call Scandinavian countries “socialist” based on tax policy are using data that is about 20 years old. The table on page 11 of this site (warning: PDF) gives public expenditures as a percent of GDP for the major industrial nations. All of the very high spenders from the 1980s have reduced their spending in recent years. For Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland that reduction was 9.7%, 6.6%, 4.9% and 10.3%, respectively as measured between their year of maximum expenditure (in the 80s/90s) and the present (2002, for this study). The Euro zone, on average, has reduced public spending as a percent of GDP by 7% as measured the same way. Sweden = taxes is a gross oversimplification.