There are over 100 different types of Socialism, ranging from the energy co-ops that exist in 47 US states to what is going down in modern day Venezuela.
A lot of young people like to talk about socialism without really defining what type they are talking about, and this frequently leads to miscommunication both between neo-liberals and other people who support or are curious about socialism.
Just like with capitalism, the overwhelming majority don't have the slightest clue what they are talking about, and getting that information is like pulling teeth.
Most of the time they will bring up the success of the Nordic countries as evidence that "socialism works" only to be reminded that they still have a free market, and are classified as a social democracy not socialist. The Primary difference is that they all pay into social welfare programs such that everyone's misfortune is effectively hedged. In other words, Your success is on you. Your misfortune is on everyone.
A lot of the detractors of socialism will bring up the Cuba, USSR, Nazi Germany, and Venezuela and show that the collapse is evidence that socialism doesn't work, however many socialist will either declare that the circumstances leading to their collapse was caused by external forces, or that they were socialist in name only and economically were actually state capitalist or fascist ( Nazi's were not really socialist after Hitler took control of the party )
If a group of hard-core economic-right entrepreneurs got sick of their jobs and invested in their own business that they all shared a near equal stock in, this would meet the definition of socialism laid out by Marx and Engels in their infamous work, but if you talked to them they wouldn't see the similarity. Same as if you own stock in a company you presently work at. But almost no one would call or recognize this as being socialist.
So in conclusion, the term is so deluded and meaningless that meaningful conversation about it is effectively useless without an in depth discussion about what those discussing it are talking about.
3
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
4 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.
I'd agree with what's in this graphic. I don't see co-ops as a sub type of socialism, but as a distinct model called... a co-operative. No complex economic system is solely one thing. Eg many socialist public commodities and services exist in the US . Capitalism in the US is the means of production.
MarkiusMahamius
Level 7
Dec 30, 2019
1
I have had discussions with supporters of socialism who have told me that co-ops is the only thing worth talking about. Even prominent supporters, such as the economist Richard Wolf will sometimes equate the two. Any public commodity or service is also commonly referred to as socialism, usually in meme form declaring something like "Better watch out for those socialist snowplows" or something equally absurd. The best picture I can give is that everything is on a spectrum, with single owner capitalism on one end, moving through multiple private ownership, to union ownership, to community ownership, through local government ownership, finally to communistic ownership. The lines are drawn somewhat arbitrarily, which just makes everything confusing.
As much as I would love for everything to be reducible to a single info graphic, in the real world things are messy and labels made for specific purposes do not apply adequately to broad categories they are often used to describe.
@Happy_Killbot at the same time, trying to expand fairly pedantic economic structures into "big picture ideas" means those ideas lose lots of credibility. Blanket statements about socialism being everything good and fair, is just as thought-numbing as capitalism being everything good and fair.
Some very good points. The waters are so muddied when discussing socialism that it can feel useless. Many think that socialism and communism are two words for the same system.
The way I see it, socialism is when all workers have representation and a significant amount of participation in the determination of major decisions in the work place. The society pools it's resources for the advancement of all members. "Your success is on you. Your misfortune is on everyone." I like the way you put that. And finally, the government plays a role in large scale economic planning. Big economic decisions that have significant effects on society are made by democratically elected representatives rather than leaving those choices to the market.
I favor the Nordic brand of "socialism." I think you are correct that they aren't truly socialist but their societies do have socialistic elements. They pools their resources for the betterment of all their citizens and they have very strong unions giving their workers a lot of say in how things are run. But, ultimately, it is the free market that runs their economies. A very regulated free market but it is market based at it's core so not socialism. I think the best way to describe it is Keynesian. I wish people would stop using the word socialism to describe societies that are organized in this social democratic fashion. It's not really accurate and more importantly, socialism has become a taboo word so it does no good to attach this word to it with all of it's negative connotations that many people still have for it.
RoboGraham
Level 8
Dec 30, 2019
3
I agree about the description of various government types. These can lead to incorrect conclusions by some persons. Labels are not helpful.
The Nordic model has "social" not "socialist" methods. They have a less regulated market than the US does, by far, and policies that even many US conservatives would see as to far right, for example no minimum wage. This confusion is perhaps the basis of my views.
They aren't exactly kansIan, it is different from that. What they did was invented all the oil wealth and then managed it on behalf of the people. Every Norwegian is technically a millionaire, and this has aforded them a strong social safety net.
I highly agree that modern socialists like BernI Sanders are doing themselves and others no favors by calling themselves socialists. They should have made up a new label for everyones sake.
@Happy_Killbot That's very interesting about the lack of minimum wage I didn't know that. Pretty cool that their unions are so strong, wide spread, and skilled at negotiating wages that the government need not intervene.
The Norwegians did that with their oil jack pot. The others are thriving by taxing the very wealthy and investing in social institutions and the advancement of average people. They also have the advantage of being friends of the American empire so they are spared the freedom enhancement that other leftist countries have to endure.
None of these generalized "labels", are going to describe the spectrum of behaviors of governments.
Asking to define one's ideas of socialism or capitalism is the trick.
PondartIncbendog
Level 8
Dec 30, 2019
1
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.