The Definition of Socialism...

[RadioRaheem84]

...according to most mainstream dictionaries, is state or governmental control of the means of production. Why is that? They don't even define, what kind of state. It could mean almost any state.

Why isn't it defined as workers control of the means of production?

[Comrade Lucifer]

Because it is next to impossible to understand every concept, and the definition understood in the Western World is as state ownership. It was intentionally perverted by both the Soviet Union and the United States during the Cold War. The Soviet Union to justify itself, to destroy the base of support for real socialists in Russia and to feed from the popularity of the idea, and the United States, in order to protect the bourgeois from the workers, and to justify overbearing, authoritarian measures against those the Government disliked. I presume this is the reason, anyway.

Does this help?

[Invincible Summer]

Yeah I hate how that is the dictionary definition. I always get all sorts of arguments thrown at me - "But the dictionary definition of socialism is _____, not what you just said!"

I would also think that dictionaries provide the popular usage of a word, not necessarily what it entails and such. That'd be for an encyclopedia

[ArrowLance]

That's because socialism is state ownership. The definition of a word truley is what the user wants it to be, although for communications sake we should stick to popularly held ones. My definition of socialism that I use universally is state ownership of the means of production and their application for the progression of the working class agenda. This does not require working class control you should note.

Obviously since words are just tools of communication it is important we communicate with ideas through words, and not just accept that words are a replacement for ideas. For example those that are against the Soviet Union do not need to say the Soviet Union was not communist/socialist/marxist as that could just be confusing, instead it is easier to just say that their ideas are different from those and that they do not have a relation.

Remember, ideas are what are important.

[RadioRaheem84]

But doesn't it depend on the state? I mean you're not just going to have the US Federal government own the means of production and extract the surplus value of the workers. You are talking about a state that adheres to direct democracy, right? I can understand how that can be seen as both workers in control of the means of production and state ownership of the means of production. Otherwise its just state capitalism.

[Red Commissar]

Dictionaries should be taken at face value. A lot of times these definitions are done for the sake of convenience, and you'll get differing ones depending on the dictionary.

There is this bit from the Anarchist Faq I remember reading



The problems in using dictionary definitions to describe political ideas can best be seen from the definition of the word "Socialism." According to the Oxford Study Dictionary Socialism is "a political and economic theory advocating that land, resources, and the chief industries should be owned and managed by the State." The Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, conversely, defines socialism as "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or government ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods."

That's the problem when you have a school of thought as broad as socialism. The latter definition is better than the first, but still ultimately can only say so much.

[Zanthorus]

That's because socialism is state ownership. The definition of a word truley is what the user wants it to be, although for communications sake we should stick to popularly held ones.

I'd agree with this. The current definition anyway is the popularly held one.

If you want to express a system more narrowly of "worker control" it's probably best to be more specific and talk about "libertarian" socialism.

[Uppercut]

The dictionary usually says socialism is state control. That's not always a bad thing, in my opinion. The economy can be managed by workers' councils in a collective fashion and be administered by the state, until the state is no longer necessary.

[ArrowLance]

Well this is the whole deal. You often hear talk about 'socialism for the rich' which is of course along the same terms as what Lenin meant when he said 'democracy for the bourgeoisie'.

Socialism is merely state control, the question which defines whether or not we support any such socialist state is 'socialism for which class'.

[syndicat]

Dictionaries merely chart usage. In the past 60 years or more, with the coming to power of social-democratic and Communist parties in various countries, all calling themselves "socialist", state socialism became the dominant form in the public eye and in the media. The corporate media have no interest in propagating any favorable impression of socialism, so it's fine with them to interpret it as statism.

In reality of course there's always been a more libertarian definition of what socialism means, as direct popular power, and direct workers management of production, eliminating the power of dominating classes, creating a society without a division into classes. Libertarian socialism is not a contradiction in terms because socialism, in this reading, is NOT statism, but is social ownership of the land and other means of production and re-organization of production so as to directly empower workers in their work, but also ensure that production is geared to produce for direct benefit, direct use, not private profit. Thus it is shared control over the system of social production by workers and the population directly. This is not the same as power over the economy by some state bureaucracy. That would be a bureaucratic mode of production...and that is what state socialism is. so socialism itself is a contested concept.

If "socialism" merely means "state ownership and control of the economy" then libertarian socialism would be self-contradictory. This is how the right wing socalled libertarians view it...because they accept the definition of "socialism" as state ownership and control. but "socialism" need not be interpreted that way. it can instead by understood as a society of equals based on collective social ownership of the means of production. the question is, can the mass of the people really control a state or are states inherently instruments of some dominating class? If the latter, "state socialism" itself is self-contradictory.

[RadioRaheem84]

Well this is the whole deal. You often hear talk about 'socialism for the rich' which is of course along the same terms as what Lenin meant when he said 'democracy for the bourgeoisie'.

Socialism is merely state control, the question which defines whether or not we support any such socialist state is 'socialism for which class'.


We have an understanding of what the state means and should entail for a worker run society. But for most people they assume, oh state control, that must means post office = socialism.

[mikelepore]

Dictionaries merely chart usage.

Yes, that's the explanation for some of the strange things we see in dictionaries.

terrific (adjective): 1. capable of producing terror; 2. very enjoyable.

I once heard an interview with a dictionary editor. The person said they scan popular publications, and all usages that they find become definitions.

If _somebody_ used the word "socialism" to refer to state ownership, that's enough for it to go into the dictionary.

***

But is it right? No. Socialism means collective ownership of the industries by the people. Most people who call themselves socialists assert that the state is not synonymous with the people.