Hey, folks, a great article on why Bernie Sanders is not only not a Socialist (sorry for the clumsiness, I’m tired), but is actually dangerous to socialism.
Taking great care with terminology is always crucial.
A Good Article on Socialism
Opinions, art, debate
Clarissa's Blog 
Well, if the linked article’s definition of socialism — “ownership by workers of the means of production, or worker control of the economy” — is what socialism actually is, and Sanders is actually doing serious damage to that cause in America, then he’s accomplishing far more good than I’ve been giving him credit for.
That idiotic philosophy of government has NEVER worked anywhere on this planet, and never will. If Sanders is driving a stake through its dying heart, give him a bigger hammer.
LikeLike
Ah, all those down thumbs mean that people are paying attention. Will all you lovers-of-lunacy keep them coming? 🙂
LikeLike
“Sanders is actually doing serious damage to that cause in America, then he’s accomplishing far more good than I’ve been giving him credit for.”
LikeLike
If Arizona had open primaries, I would definitely vote for Bernie in the Democratic primary election!
LikeLike
I think that anyone who claims that Sanders is not a socialist is trying to be hyper-radical. Whatever the definition of a socialist was before 1970 is no longer adequate, particularly in the United States. This drive towards radical-hip-leftness is ruining liberalism in the US.
LikeLike
Please continue reading my blog. I’m sure you will be pleasantly surprised.
Gosh, it really feels unusual to be classified as a hyper-radical hip-anything. 🙂 🙂
LikeLike
Just as a point of order – your personal definition was “socialism is state ownership over means of production”, whereas the article you linked says “socialism is worker ownership over means of production.” It’s anything but a minor difference – you can point your finger at actual political systems in the case of the first one, ugly as they may be. Not so much for the second one, at any large or long-term scale.
Honestly, I think what attraction ‘socialism’ has owes it to large degree precisely to the ambiguity you have been decrying. If anyone tried to implement socialism under either of the two above definitions, they’d be as successful… as they actually are, I guess.
So that’s kind of a moot point in practical terms.
More importantly, it seems to me that you too don’t really care for socialism as defined above either, and are mostly interested in it as a counterweight, right? Without Scary Red, social security and public healthcare and public schools have no protection, and so disappear.
But if a political movement is being supported not for it’s own sake, not for what it can achieve on purpose, but what it can be strategically made to do, it’s either dead or running on fumes.
LikeLike
“Just as a point of order – your personal definition was “socialism is state ownership over means of production”, whereas the article you linked says “socialism is worker ownership over means of production.” It’s anything but a minor difference”
It’s not a difference at all. A workers’ state is owned by the workers, so everything owned by the workers’ state is owned by the workers themselves.
“More importantly, it seems to me that you too don’t really care for socialism as defined above either”
Oh, I absolutely hate it. It has failed everywhere it has been implemented. But that doesn’t mean that one day an alternative to capitalism – different from socialism or communism – will not be found if only we keep looking. What I do oppose is meekly accepting the “end of history” theory under which no alternative is possible, so we should just stop looking and resign ourselves to tweaking the status quo.
LikeLike
I am confused. Is Avis. the car rental company, a socialist company because it is worker owned??
LikeLike
There can’t be a socialist company or a socialist household. A company or a household exist within and are dominated by the wider societal structures.
And Avis exploits its workers in all kinds of very capitalistic ways. My sister worked for Avis for years, and I still have horrible memories.
LikeLike
Ah, DWeird, where have I ever specifically defined socialism as “state ownership over means of production”? That’s been the extreme definition posited on this website by others, while my (never-spelled-out) definition has been much looser. (Under my very loose definition, Sanders meets the bill.)
I’m merely stating here that if the official view of socialism on Clarissa’s website is the one listed in this specific article — that socialism is “ownership by workers of the means of production, or worker control of the economy” — IF that’s the correct view, as the linked article states, then the war is over, and the workers and their idealistic supporters will have to construct another phantom fantasy to battle capitalism.
Minor socialistic adjustments to capitalism — say, funding for public schools K-12 and a reasonable safety net for the unfortunate in our society who legitimately need welfare-style help — are acceptable to me for what they are: minor adjustments to an overall capitalistic system, projects that in no way threaten the domination of capitalism as the only workable economic system on this planet.
The “Scary Red”? Ancient history, along with “McCarthyism” and the “Yellow Peril.” All phantoms of yesterday, along with the ancient definition of socialism as “ownership by workers of the means of production,” once aided by opium pipe dreams that bedazzled certain workers but let to nowhere.
LikeLike
Oh, uh, hello Dreidel. This is slightly awkward, but I was addressing my initial post to Clarissa.
But, so long as we’re here. Could you tell me what you mean by ‘capitalism’?
LikeLike
Capitalism is private ownership over the means of production.Since Marx came up with the whole theory of capitalism, using his definition seems like the most productive thing to do.
LikeLike
Hi, DWeird — sorry, but with the way WordPress stacks comments, it’s sometimes hard to tell which comenter is being addressed.
Anyway, Clarissa’s comment below (posted hours before this one I’m typing now) gives the correct basic definition of capitalism: private ownership over the means of production.
LikeLike
“Minor socialistic adjustments to capitalism — say, funding for public schools K-12 and a reasonable safety net for the unfortunate in our society who legitimately need welfare-style help — are acceptable to me for what they are: minor adjustments to an overall capitalistic system, projects that in no way threaten the domination of capitalism”
Exactly. One thing, though: they are not socialistic. The truly social states that have actually existed and do exist never provided any safety net for any unfortunate because the very existence of the unfortunate was not acknowledged.
“along with the ancient definition of socialism as “ownership by workers of the means of production,”
It’s not ancient. It’s the only existing one, as you just argued in your previous sentence.
LikeLike
Acutally, I agree with DWeird, if I understand his position correctly, that the term “socialistic” can be applied to government systems which aren’t that absolute.
Countries like the Nordic States that allow private ownership of many means of production but also have vast government programs (“ownership by workers” is a quaint way of describing public programs) that take many choices away from individuals (and in my opinion intrude unacceptably into their lives) can legitimately be called quasi-socialist.
I realize that you don’t agree with that loose definition of “socialism,” but there are a LOT of journalists and politicians (Bernie Sanders, ahem!) who use that definition widely.
LikeLike
And do you know how many people use double negatives or write “I should of done it”? Why should their carelessness be something I adopt?
LikeLike
I just did a Google search for “define socialism,” and here are some of the dictionary definitions:
— “A way of organizing a society in which MAJOR industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies.”
— “An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled SUBSTANTIALLY by the government rather than by private enterprise.”
— “An economic system IN BETWEEN capitalism and communism, ADVOCATING collective ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods.”
So not all dictionaries apply your absolute definition. Are you saying that their definitions are the equivalent of double negatives and sloppy grammar?
LikeLike
All these definitions are repeating the one I gave using slightly different wording. And none of them are even remotely describing anything that Bernie Sanders is proposing or anything that exists anywhere in Western Europe.
LikeLike