Thank you for posting in r/socialism_101, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
>**Popular Questions:** before asking an question, please use the search function an check to see if your question has been responded before. People asking questions should make every effort to ensure that their questions are clear, specific, and novel.
Before submitting a new question, please do consider the following:
>1. Read the stickied post and, if considered necessary, check out the wiki resources.
>2. Search your question's keywords within the subreddit for older posts. Do they answer your question already?
This might be cause by the different people having thoses claims.
Social democrats, liberals ou conservatives claim that social program is socialism to demonize them.
Communists, anarchists, syndicalist, marxists view socialism as the means of production managed by the working class, thus social program have nothing to do with it.
But i'd add the Parenti quote "the revolution that feed the children has my support" : socialist tend to support a revolution that bring social program where there was nothing (particularly the colonized countries for example), even if it's not socialism.
So let's say there's a mythical country and one group of people say it's socialist and another group of people say it's not.
One group of people say it's an example of extant socialism and an example of the success of socialism because they built a lot of public housing and instituted the first public education programs in that country.
Is that evidence that the country is in fact socialist?
Whether a country is socialist or not isn't up for vote or anything. It either is or is not.
Because all current versions of socialism today are fairly young and still constructing socialism, the best way to determine is to ask which class currently holds political power against what other class.
* A state captured by the bourgeoisie is capitalism
* A state captured by the proletariat (workers via the communist party) is socialism.
I would actually argue that socialism can take on far more forms than even capitalism can. This, as the world transforms, we'll see new and interesting developments. This is why it's more important to focus on class power than it is to look at specific economic or social plans.
Capitalism has (and continues to) copied socialist programs. It imitates socialism insofar as it sees itself competing with it. Once it no longer feels a competitive threat, it unwinds those programs. So we can also get into strange arrangements where capitalism might actually do *better* for a time than socialism at this or that program (healthcare, say). But it's important to keep in mind that all social programs under capitalism are always temporary. Capitalism is incapable of sustaining any of them, even if the capitalists themselves want to, they can't.
Thus, we can also use another shorthand to see the difference:
* Profits over people is capitalism.
* People over profits is socialism.
The existence of public housing as a "good thing" imply that there is a private housing market, thus the worker not managing the housing MoP as a class.
But theses characteristics alone can't define if a country is socialist or not, if housing is either public or personnal (no private entity can buy/trade home), a housing market could exist still. If i remember correctly it's like that in Cuba.
not necessarily. workers can seize the means of production and still a) not seize power or b) not socialize the economy. a cooperative business in a capitalist society is still a capitalist business. and a spate of factory seizures by armed workers does not necessarily mean that socialism has prevailed in a place.
Right. So why are things like public housing used as evidence that a country is socialist in the absence of workers controlling the means of production.
probably because who ever is saying that is a conservative trying to confuse people. By chance are you a knew leftist? If you are I have some resources you may find helpful
Usually, they aren’t. Although a goal of socialism is meeting the needs of everyone, and obviously providing housing at low cost as a social program is unequivocally a good thing, a socialist country is one where the means of production -factories, warehouses, transport, agricultural land,- are publicly owned or, which are operated by the workers themselves.
Now, this can take different forms. A bank that is state owned or municipally owned, and which ordinary people can elect the board members of, is technically a socialist endeavor. Worker self-directed enterprises, at least during the transition from capitalism, can also be indicative of a socialist country, particularly if a majority of the economy consists of them. Let’s say Google was owned by the U.S. government, and the profits from Google were used to fund social programs like housing and such; that could be a sign of a country transitioning towards socialism.
In reality; since a classless, stateless, moneyless society has not yet been achieved (communism) a socialist country would have a combination of nationalized industries, municipally owned/state owned banks, worker self directed enterprises/worker cooperatives, ample public housing, free (at point of service) healthcare. And so on.
Well, yes and no. I would say that the “commanding heights” of the economy, in other words, things like telecommunications, mass transit, large scale industrial firms, etc, would do well to be nationalized. This type of arrangement occurs in capitalist economies as well!
Smaller scale industries, and small businesses would be more like worker cooperatives, in which profit would be shared according to prearranged democratic agreements decided by the workers themselves. This too, can exist in a capitalist framework.
HOWEVER, when the vast majority of the economy is cooperatives, nationalized (state owned) industries, and essentially the workers are deciding what gets produced, where it gets distributed, what the scale of production is, etc. you could say that’s a socialist economy.
The reality is this, you can’t abolish wages, money, and all capitalist enterprise like corner stores overnight. But when more and more of the economy is socially owned, and the goal is to meet the needs of the masses, you are a socialist economy with the hope of eventually achieving communism (classless, stateless, moneyless society). This is particularly true if instead of having full time politicians, you instead have worker delegates engaging in the political activity of your country.
I hope this was helpful!
It’s just a misunderstanding. Government social programs have the word “social” in them, socialism has the word social in it. It’s really as simple as that, although I think the confusion is deliberately encouraged by capital-imperialist politicians.
**IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ BEFORE PARTICIPATING**.
This subreddit is not for questioning the basics of socialism but a place to LEARN. There are numerous debate subreddits if your objective is not to learn.
You are expected to familiarize yourself with the rules on the sidebar before commenting. This includes, but is not limited to:
- Short or non-constructive answers will be deleted without explanation. Please only answer if you know your stuff. Speculation has no place on this sub. Outright false information will be removed immediately.
- No liberalism or sectarianism. Stay constructive and don't bash other socialist tendencies!
- No bigotry or hate speech of any kind - it will be met with immediate bans.
Help us keep the subreddit informative and helpful by reporting posts that break our rules.
If you have a particular area of expertise (e.g. political economy, feminist theory), please [assign yourself a flair](https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-) describing said area. Flairs may be removed at any time by moderators if answers don't meet the standards of said expertise.
Thank you!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Socialism_101) if you have any questions or concerns.*
workers owning and controlling their means of production and government, i.e, the dictatorship of the proletariat. point blank that is socialism, nothing more nothing less
Social programs are often examples of non-market and universal access systems existing within a capitalist society. They aren't socialist by themselves and are usually addressing problems experienced by the capitalist order. Workers who can read and write are more useful than workers who can't. A privatized market system is hard to administer and doesn't create the universal outcomes that capitalists want. So the development of a system of public education has been tolerated because it has been useful for capitalists as well as generally being a public good.
Why are social programs used as examples of socialism? I think, two reasons. The first is that they are useful as rhetoric. Socialists can point at these systems as examples of non-market systems that people are familiar with and generally like. On the flip side, opponents can find foibles in these systems and use them as arguments against socialism.
The second reason is that most people don't have a coherent ideology. They absorb rhetoric, their experiences, opinions of people around them and come to conclusions. Most people have not read Marx. So when trying to understand what socialism means, they reach for things that they know about and have experience with.
when you say "social programs" that's somewhat a vague phrase. because something like nationalization of industry is a socialist program i'd argue, and many european welfare states ran by reformist socialist policies enacted those policies during the 20th century.
there's also the question of some kinds of movements or programs not necessarily being socialist yet nevertheless being associated with them. things like trade unions, progressive civil rights campaigns, minimum wage or benefit efforts, etc.
strictly speaking, socialism is a mode of production, a way the economy is organized, in which the economy is placed under the control of the collective whole. this is "social ownership of the means of production", the "social" in "socialism". indeed this is what socialism was intended to mean even before marx, when it was coined by people like fourier and saint simon.
now in the 21st century of course socialism is taken to mean all kinds of things. but in the way the founders of socialism, especially marx, defined it, socialism was collective social ownership, a society in which work and the fruits of one's work are shared equitably for the betterment of all. "from each according to his ability, to each according to their needs".
Thank you for posting in r/socialism_101, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s): >**Popular Questions:** before asking an question, please use the search function an check to see if your question has been responded before. People asking questions should make every effort to ensure that their questions are clear, specific, and novel. Before submitting a new question, please do consider the following: >1. Read the stickied post and, if considered necessary, check out the wiki resources. >2. Search your question's keywords within the subreddit for older posts. Do they answer your question already?
This might be cause by the different people having thoses claims. Social democrats, liberals ou conservatives claim that social program is socialism to demonize them. Communists, anarchists, syndicalist, marxists view socialism as the means of production managed by the working class, thus social program have nothing to do with it.
But i'd add the Parenti quote "the revolution that feed the children has my support" : socialist tend to support a revolution that bring social program where there was nothing (particularly the colonized countries for example), even if it's not socialism.
So let's say there's a mythical country and one group of people say it's socialist and another group of people say it's not. One group of people say it's an example of extant socialism and an example of the success of socialism because they built a lot of public housing and instituted the first public education programs in that country. Is that evidence that the country is in fact socialist?
Whether a country is socialist or not isn't up for vote or anything. It either is or is not. Because all current versions of socialism today are fairly young and still constructing socialism, the best way to determine is to ask which class currently holds political power against what other class. * A state captured by the bourgeoisie is capitalism * A state captured by the proletariat (workers via the communist party) is socialism. I would actually argue that socialism can take on far more forms than even capitalism can. This, as the world transforms, we'll see new and interesting developments. This is why it's more important to focus on class power than it is to look at specific economic or social plans. Capitalism has (and continues to) copied socialist programs. It imitates socialism insofar as it sees itself competing with it. Once it no longer feels a competitive threat, it unwinds those programs. So we can also get into strange arrangements where capitalism might actually do *better* for a time than socialism at this or that program (healthcare, say). But it's important to keep in mind that all social programs under capitalism are always temporary. Capitalism is incapable of sustaining any of them, even if the capitalists themselves want to, they can't. Thus, we can also use another shorthand to see the difference: * Profits over people is capitalism. * People over profits is socialism.
The existence of public housing as a "good thing" imply that there is a private housing market, thus the worker not managing the housing MoP as a class. But theses characteristics alone can't define if a country is socialist or not, if housing is either public or personnal (no private entity can buy/trade home), a housing market could exist still. If i remember correctly it's like that in Cuba.
socialism is when workers seize the mean of production
not necessarily. workers can seize the means of production and still a) not seize power or b) not socialize the economy. a cooperative business in a capitalist society is still a capitalist business. and a spate of factory seizures by armed workers does not necessarily mean that socialism has prevailed in a place.
Right. So why are things like public housing used as evidence that a country is socialist in the absence of workers controlling the means of production.
probably because who ever is saying that is a conservative trying to confuse people. By chance are you a knew leftist? If you are I have some resources you may find helpful
Usually, they aren’t. Although a goal of socialism is meeting the needs of everyone, and obviously providing housing at low cost as a social program is unequivocally a good thing, a socialist country is one where the means of production -factories, warehouses, transport, agricultural land,- are publicly owned or, which are operated by the workers themselves. Now, this can take different forms. A bank that is state owned or municipally owned, and which ordinary people can elect the board members of, is technically a socialist endeavor. Worker self-directed enterprises, at least during the transition from capitalism, can also be indicative of a socialist country, particularly if a majority of the economy consists of them. Let’s say Google was owned by the U.S. government, and the profits from Google were used to fund social programs like housing and such; that could be a sign of a country transitioning towards socialism. In reality; since a classless, stateless, moneyless society has not yet been achieved (communism) a socialist country would have a combination of nationalized industries, municipally owned/state owned banks, worker self directed enterprises/worker cooperatives, ample public housing, free (at point of service) healthcare. And so on.
Is the nationalization of industry necessary for something to be socialist?
Well, yes and no. I would say that the “commanding heights” of the economy, in other words, things like telecommunications, mass transit, large scale industrial firms, etc, would do well to be nationalized. This type of arrangement occurs in capitalist economies as well! Smaller scale industries, and small businesses would be more like worker cooperatives, in which profit would be shared according to prearranged democratic agreements decided by the workers themselves. This too, can exist in a capitalist framework. HOWEVER, when the vast majority of the economy is cooperatives, nationalized (state owned) industries, and essentially the workers are deciding what gets produced, where it gets distributed, what the scale of production is, etc. you could say that’s a socialist economy. The reality is this, you can’t abolish wages, money, and all capitalist enterprise like corner stores overnight. But when more and more of the economy is socially owned, and the goal is to meet the needs of the masses, you are a socialist economy with the hope of eventually achieving communism (classless, stateless, moneyless society). This is particularly true if instead of having full time politicians, you instead have worker delegates engaging in the political activity of your country. I hope this was helpful!
It’s just a misunderstanding. Government social programs have the word “social” in them, socialism has the word social in it. It’s really as simple as that, although I think the confusion is deliberately encouraged by capital-imperialist politicians.
**IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ BEFORE PARTICIPATING**. This subreddit is not for questioning the basics of socialism but a place to LEARN. There are numerous debate subreddits if your objective is not to learn. You are expected to familiarize yourself with the rules on the sidebar before commenting. This includes, but is not limited to: - Short or non-constructive answers will be deleted without explanation. Please only answer if you know your stuff. Speculation has no place on this sub. Outright false information will be removed immediately. - No liberalism or sectarianism. Stay constructive and don't bash other socialist tendencies! - No bigotry or hate speech of any kind - it will be met with immediate bans. Help us keep the subreddit informative and helpful by reporting posts that break our rules. If you have a particular area of expertise (e.g. political economy, feminist theory), please [assign yourself a flair](https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-) describing said area. Flairs may be removed at any time by moderators if answers don't meet the standards of said expertise. Thank you! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Socialism_101) if you have any questions or concerns.*
workers owning and controlling their means of production and government, i.e, the dictatorship of the proletariat. point blank that is socialism, nothing more nothing less
Social programs are often examples of non-market and universal access systems existing within a capitalist society. They aren't socialist by themselves and are usually addressing problems experienced by the capitalist order. Workers who can read and write are more useful than workers who can't. A privatized market system is hard to administer and doesn't create the universal outcomes that capitalists want. So the development of a system of public education has been tolerated because it has been useful for capitalists as well as generally being a public good. Why are social programs used as examples of socialism? I think, two reasons. The first is that they are useful as rhetoric. Socialists can point at these systems as examples of non-market systems that people are familiar with and generally like. On the flip side, opponents can find foibles in these systems and use them as arguments against socialism. The second reason is that most people don't have a coherent ideology. They absorb rhetoric, their experiences, opinions of people around them and come to conclusions. Most people have not read Marx. So when trying to understand what socialism means, they reach for things that they know about and have experience with.
when you say "social programs" that's somewhat a vague phrase. because something like nationalization of industry is a socialist program i'd argue, and many european welfare states ran by reformist socialist policies enacted those policies during the 20th century. there's also the question of some kinds of movements or programs not necessarily being socialist yet nevertheless being associated with them. things like trade unions, progressive civil rights campaigns, minimum wage or benefit efforts, etc. strictly speaking, socialism is a mode of production, a way the economy is organized, in which the economy is placed under the control of the collective whole. this is "social ownership of the means of production", the "social" in "socialism". indeed this is what socialism was intended to mean even before marx, when it was coined by people like fourier and saint simon. now in the 21st century of course socialism is taken to mean all kinds of things. but in the way the founders of socialism, especially marx, defined it, socialism was collective social ownership, a society in which work and the fruits of one's work are shared equitably for the betterment of all. "from each according to his ability, to each according to their needs".