Wouldn't that be more communism than socialism?

The unpolluted definition of socialism is about public (e.g. social) ownership of the means of production. Technically, it’s not mutually exclusive of market systems, simply that participants are socially owned in some form. To be more specific about what I said, the roots of socialism called for the “seizing of the means of production” if governments and capital would not voluntarily convert to some form of social ownership

Communism differs in that it takes this a step further advocating not only for social ownership but also the dissolution of of all private property ownership and its corresponding economic role, and distribution, and exchange that allocates products to everyone in the society based on need.

For the record, I think communism is a dead end as it flys in the face of human nature. Market socialism might have legs though.

I was being a bit tongue in cheek but taxes aren’t inherently socialism. Taxation has been levied under multiple periods of economic philosophy like in feudal Europe or during the age of mercantilism for example. Seems to be a hallmark of highly organized civilizations

Something like an employee owned co-op is a valid socialist concept, for example. Social doesn’t automatically mean government.

Though communists like Marx believed in revolutionary uprising and those tend to be inherently violent. It’s a shame that the only exposure people have to any form of socialist ideas is via Marx.

▲

psd1 7 months ago | parent | next [-]

Very nicely put.

If you have an innovation fixation and only give a shit about unicorns, you aren't going to even perceive the cooperatives and mutuals that have survived six monarchs. Especially if they are mostly outside your country and you're congenitally parochial.

▲

JeffL 7 months ago | parent | prev [-]

I agree with and appreciate your comment, but I do think there is some validity in the more broad usage of "socialism" that has come to be. To steel man the other sides argument, if you have to pay taxes on an asset, be that the means of production or real estate, or else the government will come and take it away from you, it feels more like renting than owning, and the only thing you "own" is the right to pay rent on the governments asset.

I do definitely think that just labeling every government overreach that one dislikes as "socialism" is not the most useful.

	▲	no_wizard 7 months ago \| parent [-]
		I do think we need some disambiguation of things. For example, I have (in what I realize is largely futile) advocated for a return to using more accurate political terms for describing philosophies. Left and right are terrible terms to use for this. Liberal, Progressive are Conservative are much better, but still lack some depth for range. Terms like fascism, neoliberal, neoconservative etc are much better and better represent ideas in discourse. Folks who seriously think about socialism as a real economic philosophy often also have accompanying liberal and/or progressive ideas attached to it, like higher taxes to fund social safety nets and better schools, for example. They however aren’t the same thing. Taxes are a political act with economic consequences, regardless of what those consequences are. Where as social ownership of the economy can have more diversity in practical implementation and thus should not be lumped together like it is. I realize this isn’t a common discussion point, particularly in the US where these philosophies were never given equal footing to capitalism[0]. Frankly I sincerely believe most Americans, even educated folks who should know better, don’t differentiate socialism from communism and use the terms at least somewhat interchangeably and often incorrectly. [0]: free markets aren’t inherent to only capitalism either. They absolutely exist in a market socialist economy. Remember the origins of corporations were chartered with expectation they would serve a purpose that demonstrably benefited the public good