Re: Socialism and language

January 16, 2004

In a message dated 1/16/04 5:17:49 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> The " definition? And which definition is that? The USSR was not

> socialist according to the people who invented socialism. Nor was it

> socialist in the popular usage, in which the term is used to refer to

> democratically-controlled systems, such as Canada's " socialized " medicine

> and various elements of the French government.

Is Canada's " socialized " health insurance (to my knowledge, they don't have

socialized medicine, just health insurance) controlled by the workers? The

reason its called socialized is because the state controls it, and it's based on

collectivist principles. It can't be reasonably said that the " workers "

control the health insurance in Canada.

Marx predicted that socialism would occur first in the United States because

of democracy, but he never posited democracy as part of the definition of

socialism, that I'm aware.

The ONLY time the term is

> used to refer to undemocratic systems is when people seek to tar

> democratically socialist systems (such as Canada's health care) by

> association with totalitarian regimes. Then, suddenly, the USSR becomes

> socialist.

Suddenly the " Union of Soviet Socialist Republics " becomes socialist? It

seems that someone had made the association before anyone was making

retrospective attacks.

>

> Unfortunately it is true that the bogus meaning has crept into dictionaries

> because it's repeated so often, but if one desires useful, productive

> discussion, the broader definition is not only useless but

> counterproductive, because people wind up talking about completely

> different things when using the same words.

What's unproductive is referring to socialism as theory without any heed to

socialism as practice. If the theory of socialism *when practiced* inherently

leads to state control, it's unproductive to say that every single incidence

where socialism was every attempted to be put into practice was NOT socialism,

simply because it did not work out as it does in *theory*.

Furthermore, I'm moderately familiar with Marxism and I don't recall

democracy being part of the definition of socialism.

> That's a flat-out distortion. If a company has 10,000 workers, and the

> company is controlled by 5 executives who aren't answerable to the workers,

> it's absurd to say that the company is controlled by " the

> workers " . Everyone knows that " the workers " means " all the workers " . It's

> required by English usage as well as common understanding.

Is Canada's health insurance controlled democratically by everyone involved?

Chris

January 16, 2004

-

>Clearly they should be considered socialist, because they conform to the

>definition of the word. That's how words work.

" The " definition? And which definition is that? The USSR was not

socialist according to the people who invented socialism. Nor was it

socialist in the popular usage, in which the term is used to refer to

democratically-controlled systems, such as Canada's " socialized " medicine

and various elements of the French government. The ONLY time the term is

used to refer to undemocratic systems is when people seek to tar

democratically socialist systems (such as Canada's health care) by

association with totalitarian regimes. Then, suddenly, the USSR becomes

socialist.

Unfortunately it is true that the bogus meaning has crept into dictionaries

because it's repeated so often, but if one desires useful, productive

discussion, the broader definition is not only useless but

counterproductive, because people wind up talking about completely

different things when using the same words.

>Fascism is indeed a form of socialism, as I have explained numerous

>times before here and elsewhere. There's a wonderful quote from a letter

>that Adolf Hitler wrote to Herman Rauschning that illustrates this point

>quite well:

You're completely ignoring history. Socialism in Germany had some popular

support and momentum. Hitler initially paid lip service to the ideals of

the movement while he took it over from inside to take advantage of its

appeal and infrastructure, but he deeply opposed socialism itself.

>That's syndicalism, one of many forms of socialism. Really, though, it's

>tautologically true that the means of production are always controlled

>by the workers, because directing the means of production is a form of

>work.

That's a flat-out distortion. If a company has 10,000 workers, and the

company is controlled by 5 executives who aren't answerable to the workers,

it's absurd to say that the company is controlled by " the

workers " . Everyone knows that " the workers " means " all the workers " . It's

required by English usage as well as common understanding.

Again, this is a common political attack: hijack words and terms and change

their meaning in order to distort discourse. I'm disappointed in you.

-

January 17, 2004

Idol wrote:

> -

>

>> Clearly they should be considered socialist, because they conform to

>> the definition of the word. That's how words work.

>

> " The " definition? And which definition is that?

Yes. The Definition. The one which you will find in most dictionaries.

Language doesn't work very well if words mean different things to

different people, so we have to standardize. If you care to take up the

issue with Mssrs. Merriam and Webster, don't let me stop you.

> The USSR was not

> socialist according to the people who invented socialism.

I can't comment on the views of the inventors of socialism, because I

don't really know who they are. Are you talking about Marx and Engels?

By the way, I may be wrong on this point, but wasn't the USSR held up as

a model society by many American socialists throughout most of the

twentieth century?

> The ONLY

> time the term is used to refer to undemocratic systems is when people

> seek to tar democratically socialist systems (such as Canada's health

> care) by association with totalitarian regimes. Then, suddenly, the

> USSR becomes socialist.

In his 1922 treatise, " Socialism, " Ludwig von Mises used the definition

of socialism that you will find in most dictionaries today:

" The essence of Socialism is this: All the means of production are in

the exclusive control of the organized community. This and this alone is

Socialism. All other definitions are misleading. "

It seems unlikely that he would have been doing this in an attempt to

smear democratic socialism by association with atrocities that had not

yet taken place.

> Unfortunately it is true that the bogus meaning has crept into

> dictionaries because it's repeated so often, but if one desires

> useful, productive discussion, the broader definition is not only

> useless but counterproductive, because people wind up talking about

> completely different things when using the same words.

The definition is both useful and appropriate, because it identifies the

fundamental difference between liberalism and socialism, namely that

under liberalism, production and its factors are controlled by market

forces arising from voluntary transactions, while under socialism, they

are controlled by political means. All forms of socialism, from

democratic socialism to Stalinism to Nazism, share this essential

characteristic.

Democratic socialists will often attempt to distance themselves from

totalitarianism by claiming that such and such a regime was not really

socialist because it did not conform to their own personal definitions

of socialism. To some extent, this is an understandable way of dealing

with the guilt-by-association fallacy--that is, the notion that all

socialists endorse mass murder because it was employed by one (well,

several) particular socialist regime(s), or that all forms of socialism

must necessarily lead to such tactics because a few particular forms of

socialism tend to. I do not employ such tactics and have little respect

them, which is why I very rarely bring up this point without some sort

of provocation.

However, when someone tries to claim that Stalinism and Nazism are not

really socialist, or that fascism is just liberalism taken to its

logical conclusion when they are in fact polar opposites (I've lost

count of the number of times I've been called a Nazi), I think I'm

justified in setting the record straight. Although all three are widely

separated, it's undeniable that fascism, or national socialism, is more

akin to democratic socialism than it is to liberalism.

>> Fascism is indeed a form of socialism, as I have explained numerous

>> times before here and elsewhere. There's a wonderful quote from a

>> letter that Adolf Hitler wrote to Herman Rauschning that illustrates

>> this point quite well:

>

> You're completely ignoring history. Socialism in Germany had some

> popular support and momentum. Hitler initially paid lip service to

> the ideals of the movement while he took it over from inside to take

> advantage of its appeal and infrastructure, but he deeply opposed

> socialism itself.

He opposed the kind of socialism which you claim is the only kind, but

I'm sure that he was quite fond of his own brand of socialism. People

often argue that the Nazis could not have been socialists because they

were opposed by other socialists, but so was Stalin opposed by

Trotskyites.

>> That's syndicalism, one of many forms of socialism. Really, though,

>> it's tautologically true that the means of production are always

>> controlled by the workers, because directing the means of production

>> is a form of work.

>

> That's a flat-out distortion. If a company has 10,000 workers, and

> the company is controlled by 5 executives who aren't answerable to

> the workers, it's absurd to say that the company is controlled by " the

> workers " . Everyone knows that " the workers " means " all the workers " .

> It's required by English usage as well as common understanding.

I actually hadn't considered that, but now that you mention it, I

suppose it makes sense. Socialists frequently assert that entrepreneurs

and managers are parasites who do not perform real work, so I think it

was an understandable misunderstanding. If that's not what you meant,

then I withdraw that particular argument. However, it is still true that

all of the workers, in their roles as consumers, control the allocation

of the means of production, and many of them do so as capitalists as

well. As I last heard, some 50% of the American population owns stock.

January 17, 2004

In a message dated 1/17/04 10:44:34 PM Eastern Standard Time,

mhysmith@... writes:

> They were not socialistic. They were

> communistic which is a different system. Socialism is founded on the

> concept of group, capitalism is about individual, and communism is about

> government.

That doesn't make sense. Marx coined " communism " as the final stage of

development where the state would deteriorate, and it is essentially a

collectivist

form of anarchism. While there might be problems with associating the USSR

with " socialism, " it's far closer to socialism than it is to communism.

Chris

January 17, 2004

-

>Yes. The Definition. The one which you will find in most dictionaries.

>Language doesn't work very well if words mean different things to

>different people, so we have to standardize.

The funny thing is we don't live in France, where they have state control

of their vocabulary and, I guess, their dictionary definitions, so

dictionary definitions vary. (I offered two different ones, both of

which supported my argument but which had a serious disagreement with each

other. I'll give them to you too.) Also, usage leads dictionaries. IOW,

dictionaries develop their definitions from usage after usages become

widespread. Another way to put it is that dictionaries lag usage, or even

more importantly, that dictionaries codify usage. So you can't ignore

usage in considering the meaning of a word, even though the purists among

us (and I'm sometimes one) might often wish you could.

Anyway, here for your reading enjoyment are the definitions of socialism I

already posted.

The Encarta definition of socialism:

1. political system of communal ownership: a political theory

or system in which the means of production and distribution

are controlled by the people and operated according to equity

and fairness rather than market principles

The dictionary.com definition.

1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization

in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned

collectively or by a centralized government that often plans

and controls the economy.

Note that the Encarta definition states that the means of production and

distribution are owned and controlled by _the people_, clearly indicating

the people in aggregate, not some people or a few people as in a few

managers or owners or executives, and note that the second definition says

the same thing but also says that the means of production and distribution

could alternately be owned by a centralized government which " often plans

and controls the economy " . That latter, looser form of the definition is

uselessly broad in trying to describe specific political systems, which is

why I objected to it at some length and with no little specificity.

Note that the USSR doesn't fit Encarta's definition at all, but does fit

the latter, uselessly loose half of dictionary.com's definition. As I

already conceded, a lot of people do call a lot of different systems with

centralized control of the economy socialist, but that's a definition which

doesn't distinguish between a wide variety of radically different

governmental systems, so it's of little use except as a propaganda tool.

>I can't comment on the views of the inventors of socialism, because I

>don't really know who they are. Are you talking about Marx and Engels?

Yes, among others.

>By the way, I may be wrong on this point, but wasn't the USSR held up as

>a model society by many American socialists throughout most of the

>twentieth century?

The USA is held up as a model capitalist society by many American

capitalists. That doesn't make it so. Labeling something doesn't make it

so. I have no idea why you'd trust Hitler and Stalin to describe the

social systems they created. I also don't know why you'd trust a bunch of

people with no access to the USSR (and most of those socialists you refer

to, particularly during the earlier parts of the century when there was

some kind of genuine socialist movement here in the States) had no reliable

information about it to describe it accurately.

However, if you're going to trust practitioners and advocates, why not look

at some actual modern-day socialists? None of them are advocating

dictatorships. It's all about group, collective control by workers.

Now, I'm not advocating such a system, but I don't believe that political

debate is served by distorting reality either.

>In his 1922 treatise, " Socialism, " Ludwig von Mises used the definition

>of socialism that you will find in most dictionaries today:

>

> " The essence of Socialism is this: All the means of production are in

>the exclusive control of the organized community. This and this alone is

>Socialism. All other definitions are misleading. "

>

>It seems unlikely that he would have been doing this in an attempt to

>smear democratic socialism by association with atrocities that had not

>yet taken place.

You've made my case for me. Thank you. Notice a key phrase: " the

exclusive control of the organized community " . How do people suffering

under a brutal dictator control anything? Stalin was an individual, and

while I suppose you could say that the overall Soviet government, including

the politburo and the KGB and so on, was " a " community (or more likely a

multiplicity of different interlocking communities) they were in no way

_the_ community. The Soviet _people_ didn't decide to send millions of

themselves off to work camps, and they didn't decide to execute millions

more in purges to assure Stalin's political hegemony. The very idea is absurd.

>The definition is both useful and appropriate, because it identifies the

>fundamental difference between liberalism and socialism, namely that

>under liberalism, production and its factors are controlled by market

>forces arising from voluntary transactions, while under socialism, they

>are controlled by political means. All forms of socialism, from

>democratic socialism to Stalinism to Nazism, share this essential

>characteristic.

In that case you're misusing the term more than I thought, because you're

using it as an umbrella label by which you can effect a manichean division

of all political philosophies into two simple camps. Control of production

and its factors by political means -- your definition of socialism --

encompasses far more political systems than those which are encompassed by

the other definition you cited -- " All the means of production are in the

exclusive control of the organized community " . That latter definition, a

realistic one, BTW, certainly describes SOME kinds of political control,

but it is limited to communal control, not, for example, oligarchic or

dictatorial control.

>or that fascism is just liberalism taken to its

>logical conclusion

I've never actually run into anyone who's said that, but that's because

your manichean use of the word " liberalism " is extremely rare. With the

exception of conservatives demonizing their liberal opponents, people

generally mean something like dictionary.com's definition when talking of

liberalism in a broader sense.

1. The state or quality of being liberal.

a. A political theory founded on the natural

goodness of humans and the autonomy of the

individual and favoring civil and political

liberties, government by law with the consent

of the governed, and protection from arbitrary

authority.

(By your definition, anarcho-libertarianism would seem to be the purest

expression of " liberalism " .)

And people generally mean something like dictionary.com's definition when

speaking of fascism, too.

1. often Fascism

a. A system of government marked by centralization

of authority under a dictator, stringent

socioeconomic controls, suppression of the

opposition through terror and censorship, and

typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and

racism.

In liberalism, the liberty of the individual is very important. In

fascism, the individual has no liberty except privileges granted by the

dictator and allowed at the dictator's whim. The two can never mean the

same thing.

>Although all three are widely

>separated, it's undeniable that fascism, or national socialism, is more

>akin to democratic socialism than it is to liberalism.

You're insisting on a non-dictionary use of the word " liberalism " . As far

as actual dictionaries and common usages go, lots of kind of regulations

and government programs are consistent with the philosophy of liberalism.

>He opposed the kind of socialism which you claim is the only kind,

No, there are many kinds of socialism, but they all involve some sort of

democratic control of the process. Sure, Stalin _said_ he was doing the

collective will of the people, but, see, he lied. He was a ruthless

dictator (and an expert and prolific propagandist) with little more regard

for the Soviet people than Hitler had for Jews.

>but

>I'm sure that he was quite fond of his own brand of socialism.

He was only socialist in your sense of the word, in which every possible

form and degree of governmental control over the economy is

socialist. I'll grant you that it might actually be useful to have a word

to specify that distinction, but " socialism " is not that word. You've

hijacked the word from other people who meant something much more specific

and granular.

>Socialists frequently assert that entrepreneurs

>and managers are parasites who do not perform real work,

Yes, well, there are nutjobs everywhere in the political continuum. (Not

to say, of course, that _some_ entrepreneurs and managers aren't parasites.)

>However, it is still true that

>all of the workers, in their roles as consumers, control the allocation

>of the means of production, and many of them do so as capitalists as

>well. As I last heard, some 50% of the American population owns stock.

Owning stock doesn't necessarily confer any control whatsoever, only owning

vast quantities of the right kind of stock. Nor is it meaningful to say

that consumers control the means of production by consuming. Collectively

they have some degree of influence, but it's mostly not under their

intentional control, and unlike the power wielded by huge concentrations of

capital, it's extremely diffuse and subject to manipulation. The statement

that consumers are in control also seems to suggest that they're the only

ones with control, which is absurd.

-

January 17, 2004

,

I haven't felt inclined to join this thread but I must at this point. The

discussion is about capitalism and socialism, but the USSR keeps being used

in association with socialism. They were not socialistic. They were

communistic which is a different system. Socialism is founded on the

concept of group, capitalism is about individual, and communism is about

government. Stalin didn't lie - he carried on the ideas started by Marx and

developed further by Lenin. Dictatorships go with communism because the

government is number one and owner of all. Groups are secondary.

Individualism threatens both. We take for granted our Judeo Christian

values that respect the individual. Communism was atheistic - anti Judeo

Christian values. In our system, we are innocent until proven guilty. In

our belief, it is better that a guilty man walk free than an innocent person

be punished. Individual significance is a fundamental premise our system is

based on. In communism, it is the opposite. While Stalin was more violent

than Marx invisioned, his mass murders were in line with the ideologies that

Marx had created in defiance of his Jewish upbringing.

Another point of disagreement, consumers do control production in a

capitalistic system. They may abnegate that control, but it is there none

the less. Adnegation is a choice they make and they can chose otherwise if

they so decide. And when they do, manufacturers respond. A good example is

what is happening with the low carb movement and with transfats. Sales are

down in many food products, so those capitalists are at the drawing board

coming up with products to meet the new demand. It is one of the virtues of

the captialistic system.

----Original Message-----

From: Idol [mailto:Idol@...]

Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2004 7:54 PM

Subject: Re: Socialism and language