Why do people think socialists are statists?

Question

I'm a socialist in the old sense of the word. And an anarchist.

I support workers owning their tools and products, whether it is one worker owning her own tools and products, or several workers owning the tools they use together and the products they create together.

At times one group creates tools, and other people must use these tools before they can pay, so the latter group don't have sole claim on their own tools. As long as these are temporary self-correcting exceptions, not dispossession, it is still socialism.

Ben Tucker: "Socialism is the belief that the next important step in progress is a change in man’s environment of an economic character that shall include the abolition of every privilege whereby the holder of wealth acquires an anti-social power to compel tribute."

I oppose governmental means, and support economic means, even market mechanisms, to create socialism.

So why do people define socialism in terms of state-ownership (which means ruling-class-ownership)?

The Ben Tucker quote comes from 'Armies that Overlap,"

http://fair-use.org/benjamin-tucker/instead-of-a-book/armies-that-overlap

Another interesting perspective might be Brad Spangler's "Market anarchism as stigmergic socialism,"

http://www.bradspangler.com/blog/archives/473

P.S. Okay, I wrote much of this in response to another question, where the questioner misdefined both socialism and capitalism and picked a "best answer" at the same time I posted my answer. Which got eaten.

P.P.S. Fix your software!!

Answer 1

So why do people define socialism in terms of state-ownership (which means ruling-class-ownership)?

Because they have listened to the wrong people, and they simply do not understand what socialism really is. Only a small percentage of people, you and I included, seem to understand this. *sm*

Answer 2

Because sharing doesn't sound as scary as state ownership and the goal of the American right is to scare people. The American right wants the state reduced till nothing is left but the private militia of the wealthy.
They have an agenda of social Darwinism and try to portray anything less than survival of the fittest and law of the jungle as communist dictatorship.

Answer 3

Unfortunately, it's the naughts like Bill O'Reilly that make liberal, socialism, Democrat into bad words, which seem to be readily accepted at least by his audience. Most successful governments are to a degree socialistic, that's what governments are for. What private company would build the interstate highway, or dams, or power plants in underpopulated areas, or public hospitals.

Answer 4

People don't; that's called Communism. Socialism is just a mild form of Communism, however. No matter how much they deny it. It's the basis for Communism in that the idea of socialism is to share, much in the same way communists do. And, with socialism, everything is federal: health care, laws (state laws wouldn't exist), etc.. So, in a way socialism could be defined in terms of state-ownership considering the nation pretty much runs everything, which is why taxes become so high.
Secondly, anarchy contradicts itself. Without government, you have, essentially, havoc. There's no law, no police to control idiots. Eventually, factions will form amongst people who have the same beliefs (oh, I smell a political party brewing!), which within those groups, a leader will emerge. Whomever from there has the most people supporting them, and kills the most who refuse to stand down, will win. And most likely, you'll have a dictatorship in the end. So, anarchy is pointless, because all it leads to is another form of government, and like I said, one usually much worse than the one previously instated.
People are naturally power hungry, and always will be. It's in our blood.

Answer 5

you cant use definitions to explain anything

you can only talk from their framework

for it to make sense... to them

Answer 6

You have no idea about that which you expouse.