What is the term for "collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production "

Question

The dictionary says it is Socialism - but Republicons say taxes and government services are socialism. Could they be...wrong?

The US:
""In this market-oriented economy, private individuals and business firms make most of the decisions, and the federal and state governments buy needed goods and services predominantly in the private marketplace. US business firms enjoy greater flexibility than their counterparts in Western Europe and Japan in decisions to expand capital plant, to lay off surplus workers, and to develop new products.""
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html#Econ
Hmmm...not seeing the government ownership OR administration.

Answer 1

The dictionary is right. Most of the neocons don't even know the difinition.

Nor do they object to government services--as long as they are tehe ones getting the goodies. Examples include building and operating roads (like the pork from Senator Stevens' bridge to nowhere), home loan subsidies, tax breaks for same--or for their IRA's (those of them not living in trailer parks, that is) and so on Not to mention the "faith-based initiative" tha tfunnels billlions of taxpayer dollars into their fundamentalist cults.

IF, however, the services show promise of helping the poor, or minorities, or involve them paying their fair share of taxes--instead of running up deficits and leaving the dept for our children (and theirs)--then, all of a sudden its "socialism."

Answer 2

The dictionary is right. Socialism is a political concept but it stretches into economics. The government owns all the factors of production and has absolute control over the market. All of today's world economies are mixed economies (somewhere between socialism and capitalism). Of course some countries are closer to one side than others. Since all economies are mixed. They both have elements of capitalism and socialism. Government services, including education and health-care in some countries are from a socialist system, and are paid for by taxes. However these are essential and all people must have access to them. There are alot of things that are paid for by the government from tax money and they are all in principle necessary. If we had complete capitalism, we would likely have only a quarter of the roads we do, a quarter of the energy, a quarter of the houses,... People always make socialism sound like some strange beast but it is a very noble concept, just abit niave because it doesn't consider human greed. Capitalism on the other hand works perfectly the more greedy we are. Anyway, the final judgement is the dictionary is absolutely right. The Republicans are right but only in a very, very, very limited sense, and they deliberately using such narrow descriptions.

Answer 3

I find it amusing that you can take a term such as socialism and define it with a single sentence, then try to invalidate other's arguments based on that single definition. In the words of Professor John H. Gray, "The term has no fixed or well defined meaning. Socialism means any proposition to take away any power, legal or illegal, good or bad, that the interests now suppose themselves to possess." Or, as Professor David R. Dewey noted, "It has never seemed possible to me to define the word so as to make it serviceable for general discussion. Socialism represents a movement." Professor Simon Patten has this to say, "I cannot define socialism. It seems to me to be a composite of several thought movements, each of which has separate causes." [1] So wow, all these economics professors can't define it as easily as you did. Could you possibly be oversimplifying a very complex discussion?

Socialism (as I define it) is an economic model that seeks central planning and common ownership of the means of production and the distribution of wealth with the stated intent of eliminating class and establishing equality, generally with the common ownership and planning controlled by a governmental body. Socialism can be combined with any of several political models to a lesser or greater extent, just as capitalism can be combined with any of several economic models to a lesser or greater extent. I make the statement that many of the democrat's policies are socialist because their policy views tend to overwhelmingly move toward and favor more central power and planning, more wealth distribution and more governmental control over private concerns. That they do not outright call for the immediate installing of a Marxist Utopia does not change that their policies lead inexorably to the goal of a socialist economy. Even if those are not their stated goals, any proposed policy that removes decision making capability and property from the private sector and instills it in the government is socialist in nature.

In our political structure it is the politics of increments that wins the day. Whether this is about taxes, gun control, healthcare or any other issue. This is the one arena in US American culture where the long view is dominant. To advance any agenda requires the incremental consolidation of favorable policy gains. Very rarely does anything dramatically shift with a large leap from one direction to another, and our government was set up to avoid such occurences on purpose. Generally, on those occasions when it does, it comes from the Judicial, not the Legislative, branch. Hence a "socialist" can be used to describe one who predominantly favors positions that further the socialist agenda, even if the policies they support only marginally decrease the private property rights held by the populace. I will give you a very brief summary here. Taxes provide for government services. The money comprising those taxes is my private property. It is forcibly removed from me in order to allow the government to administer services for others. That is socialist.

Oh, and I'm not a republican, I'm a Libertarian.

Answer 4

Socialism, democracy, communism and other forms of government are far too broad to define as precisely as you're attempting.

Your definition can range from one extreme, such as Hugo Chavez ordering oil production to come under state ownership, and Canada's health care to be administered by the government but not fully owned (they don't necessarily own all the assets).

The first is socialism imposed by a dictator, the second is a hybrid of socialism and capitalism. There are examples of every degree between these two extremes.

Answer 5

Yes they could be and are wrong, they love to throw the word around to scare folks. They call any attempt to provide health care socialized medicine, but none of the proposals out there are even close. Hillary's plan uses the private sector widely.

You're smart for questioning that term and smarter for apparently seeing through their jargon.

Good Question!!!!

Answer 6

The term socialism is often misused by the American right to describe social programs and economic regulation. These things in the presence of a capitalist economy are not socialism.

Answer 7

"Communism" if taken to the extreme -- govt ownership of ALL property and total regulation

Socialism is correct if you are talking about govt ownership of only the major production resources -- farms, factories, utilities -- and/or govt regulation of most business (but still private ownership)

Socialism does include high taxes and govt welfare programs -- govt control over resources and funds -- it's a sliding scale, depending on how much the govt controls and how much money the govt takes

Answer 8

Republicans, wrong? No way! The Earth would spin right off its axis if that were the case. The invisible man in the sky told me Democrats hate America, so Republicans must be right, right?

Answer 9

It's not socialism...it's Communism . The dictionary got it wrong.

Answer 10

Noooooooo.... The Republicans could NEVER be wrong. Shut your mouth before I slap you down like a red-headed step child.