What is "socialism"? - An attempt to clear up myths/misconceptions

[DonFerrari]

teamsilent13 said:

RolStoppable said:
Venezuela failed you, you communist.

...but it wasn't real socialism. /s

Socialism - any of the various economic and political theories advocating collective or government ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. 

Venezuela was the 4th GDP in the world under colonialism, and now socialism and dependence on global oil prices has stricken them into poverty. I'm still waiting for Socialism not to fail it's people. You can't point to Sweden anymore. For one, it's economic policies shifted capitalist during its economic boom, and two it's now on pace to become a third world country by 2030 according to the UN. 

I prefer capitalism, and I prefer enforcement that prevents monopolies, but ironically many current regulations in place actually help corporations and kill competition. The regulation debate is a totally different thing, but overall I prefer private ownership of companies. I oppose socialism for its historical failures time and time again and also the deaths that socialist leadership has led to because communists time and time again abuse their power and enslave their people. However, I also oppose the global central banking systems and foreigners being able to purchase land in a country they do not live in which is what I consider the problems with current American economic policy. We have a massive problem in America where Chinese, Russian, and foreign Jewish bankers own a lot of American land. I can't find the chart I'm looking for, but basically it allows these groups own a lot more land than one would think reasonable and they sit on high house prices even if no one is buying which is only going to lead more people into debt. 

In fact if you accept the Austrian school teachings Misses proved that have ever been 1 monopoly that wasn't due to government involvement (because since they hold a lot of power and can shape rules, bribery allows for they to close competition and help monopolies thrive... which is the opposite of what their regulations are supposed to do). That was the diamond business because of a single viable production place which meant a single provider as a natural monopoly, all else he could point to how government caused, protected or grow monopolies.

Leadified said:

DonFerrari said:

Sure summarizing People want higher wages doing less work while also paying less for more product (an antithesis that can only be met by increasing productivity and lowering other costs, unless of course government impose several restrictions that make that balance impossible). That is basically also why Socialism wouldn't ever work.

Ah the blame socialism excuse when capitalism is in danger, classic .

Helloplite said:
Socialism = The form of capitalism that strives towards a more economically egalitarian arrangement, usually by focusing on state control of industries and trade, high taxation. In its most typical form, socialism is a mere policy line and in our days it should be seen as an inverse form of austerity economics (where focus is not placed on egalitarianism, but instead on protecting capital and investment at the expense of the low and middle class prosperity). Austerity is now the neo-con equivalent to the left-winger's socialism. Both systems are part and parcel of neoliberal capitalism and form the redemptive and pragmatic faces of the same thing. Scandinavian countries are closest to a healthy form of democracy with socialist aims. Marxism should not be conflated with either socialism nor Leninism.

The problem with the social democratic definition of socialism is that it throws every other socialist under the bus. Since socdems want to work within the capitalist framework and other socialists want to replace the capitalist system, the two definitions become irreconcilable. Perhaps we should abandon the socialist label in public and just go with Marxism/communism for the Marx inspired ideologies and anarchist for the others.

Also Marx used socialism and communism interchangeably to mean the same thing. Social democrats today are more or less the reformists from Marx's time although most of them have abandoned the goal of replacing capitalism. Chavez was the notable example of a modern social democrat that attempted to achieve socialism through reform with his "Socialism of the 21st century". The 1888 English preface to the Communist Manifesto includes an explanation from Engles why the text is not called the socialist manifesto, since the word 'socialist' has increasingly become associated with a middle class movement instead of a working class movement. Lenin built upon Marx & Engles' ideas in the Russian context and one of his ideas was calling the lower stage of communism, "socialism", essentially trying to reclaim the term. However all this has now done is create more confusion, since now "socialism" (social democracy) is conflated with Soviet "socialism", even though the systems are completely different.

Don't remember capitalism being in danger since it was created...