What is socialism?

Its opponents don’t quite agree with its current adherents. Usually, I side on such matters of definition with the idea’s proponents. But if current self-characterized socialists differ from the most prominent socialists of the past, then I say side with the classics.

Of course, all political labels are contentious. A few days ago I Tweeted some hasty definitions. This listing has the last contribution first, on top, so some of you may want to start from the bottom of this Twitter image:

These were not meant to be nice. I started with the liberal, and focused on the two most obvious failures of the current modal liberal: The faux-generosity and the  weird fixation on abortion. People who call themselves “progressives” annoy me even more, for the obvious reason I stated: They don’t really believe in material progress. They don’t like admitting that it has happened, and they wish to attribute the progress they like to ever-increasing government, not to business enterprise working in the market. Further, the most characteristic aspect of the Progressive movement was the idea that as many as people as possible should be run through governmental institutions, organizations at the very least controlled by government.

The word of the day is “socialism” — thank you, Tea Partyers; but it should be “dirigisme.”

On “Talk Shit,” someone asked “Do you understand what the buzzword ‘socialism’ actually means?” The answers given were not adequate. I offered one, which I place here in a slightly revised version:

1. Socialism is variously defined, but usually as public/government ownership of the means of production, run for the benefit of “all.”
   

2. 
   

3. Of course, the “all” is always a bit slippery. The maxim of the old socialists, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” applies to government run outfits, when charge per services rendered plays little part of the revenue of the outfit.
   

4. 
   

5. Full socialism abolishes markets in all production goods. Full socialism has the state running everything.
   

6. 
   

7. Partial socialism is where one industry is “socialized” or “nationalized” and run by government without charging for its services. In America when i was young, public K-12 education was a good example of a socialized industry. Some competition was allowed (a few private schools for the rich, parochial schools for Catholics), but the industry was supported by taxation based on the ability to pay and the service it provided was not charged for. Nowadays, with widespread home schooling allowed, and charter schools run slightly outside the bureaucracy and union dominance, K-12 schooling is a tad less socialistic than it was.
   

8. 
   

9. The local PUD, where I live, is only half socialistic. It gets its revenue from fees (capitalist), but is publicly owned (socialist?) and has a monopoly grant on electricity distribution. Further, it is politically controlled, by elected boards. It also receives rate subsidies from some government-run electric production outfits, such as the Bonneville Power Administration.
   

10. 
    

11. The word that critics of big government should probably be using more often than “socialism” is “socialistic.” The more the government is involved in something, the more socialistic it becomes.
    

12. 
    

13. It should be noted that only anarchists and monarchists argue against socialism of one industry, the production of “justice.” Monarchists essentially argue for justice to be supplied by private enterprise (the king, who owns the castle etc) under monopoly of territory. In modern times that industry has been democratized, with the state put under the loose control of the people as a republic or democracy - a “commonwealth,” which is a rather socialistic word when you think about it, no?
    

14. 
    

15. Few people think these things through, all the way.
    

16. 
    

17. But it makes sense to complain about full socialism. It does not, has not, and cannot work to provide a diversity of goods for a diversity of people. (See Ludwig von Mises and F.A. Hayek on the “socialist calculation” problem.)
    

18. 
    

19. It also makes sense to complain about the grinding inefficiency and injustice of many big government programs. They may be socialistic, but please note: The precise term for government control of private enterprise is DIRIGISME. So, the more regulation, taxation, and redistribution a person (such as a “liberal” Democrat) wants, the more dirigistic his philosophy, and — if successful — the more dirigistic the society is.
    

20. 
    

21. The term is French. The best term for the opposite of socialism and dirigisme is also French: laissez-faire.
    

22. 
    

23. A few laissez-faire advocates apply the “let them alone”idea (which amounts to private property and free markets constrained by a rule of law rather than an intrusive micromanaging regulatory body) even to the production of security. These libertarians call themselves “anarcho-capitalists,” though the originator of the idea, nineteenth-century Belgian economist Gustave de Molinari, eschewed any truck with the term “anarchist.” But that’s another story.
    

One of the answers to the question of what “socialism” means was far more succinct (if way off base):

1. Being sociable?
   

This is actually why I think socialism has as many advocates as it does. People think  of it as “sociable.”

But it isn’t.

It isn’t sociable to force a person into a community and work for that community at the terms the political/bureaucratic Central Committee sets.

In truth, it’s laissez-faire that is sociable. Treating people with forbearance — a respect for their liberty, their person and property — is sociable.

Actually, sociality rests on the capacity to empathize, the ability to be kind, and the principle to grant the other as separate and alter with rights inviolable. With the principle of liberty in place, kindness can take its most nurturing forms.

The anti-social is the denigration of the other, of treating the other as less than human. And this, it turns out, is the ultimate end of socialism. And the reason for this is that socialism relies upon force. And human beings don’t universally like being forced. Indeed, we want to be free. Even when we fear it, there is some hankering for freedom.

Dirigisme is also the practice of force within a community. It subjugates in order to “help.”

The sociable element of socialism is merely what early advocates tell themselves to sell the doctrine. But it is not integral.

Meandering back to my point, it is apparent that for something to be called socialism, it must

1. 1.Government ("public") ownership of the means of production.
   

2. 2.Support from taxpayers on the basis of ability to pay, and/or corvée labor
   

3. 3.Little or no voluntary user fee financing.
   

4. 4.Access to service granted chiefly by "need" or expressed (political?) desire.
   

5. 5.Monopoly granted by government.
   

6. 6.Policy overseen by government and controlled by some bureaucracy, not using profit-and-loss accounting.
   

The more of these six characteristics an enterprise has, the more “socialistic” it is. Since many of our major institutions prove to be two-thirds socialistic or worse, we live in a dirigistic society.

Today’s political economy is not the free market.