Defining Socialism: Why We Misunderstand the Democratization of Production
I have a Bachelor's in sociology, and still, to this day, I have a hard time explaining to people what Socialism is. The problem of the explanation doesn't come from the lack of knowledge about the subject; it comes from the recipient, who is either unable to grasp the content or has an emotional reaction against the premise, rejects the ideological frameworks, and regresses to calling it "communism," which is what socialism is most commonly mistaken for.
Capitalism is (supposedly) a system of markets that dictates the necessity and availability of goods based on supply and demand. It employs the private ownership of property and means of production, so the creation of goods and services can be distributed for a profit. Socialism was originally conceived to be "workers' rights over the means of production" so that the public can control their own lives within their communities. This means that the workers don't own the means of production (i.e., how the products are made), but rather are able to control them.
If you look at the history of the word socialism, it has a pretty inconsistent history. The Soviet Union was called a socialist society by the two biggest propaganda forces in the world (i.e., the U.S. and the Soviet Union) when, in fact, it was not governed by socialism. The Soviet Union called its governmental model socialism because, at the time, it had a perceived moral benefit. The governmental framework that they did have, which is often conflated with socialism, was Leninism. Communism, unlike socialism, puts the means of production in the hands of the state, and not the workers. The Soviet Union is the exact opposite of socialism because individual citizens did not have rights and the means of production were controlled by the country's leader, Valdimir Lennon. In fact, the collapse of the Soviet Union is a victory for socialism.
At the same time the West called the Soviet Union socialism in order to make it look undesirable and create a misperception about the conditions in which socialism creates. The fact of the matter is that America has socialism, but it is for the rich and the wealthy.
Socialism is a form of governance that gives individuals control over their own lives, in the places they work, the communities they live in, and the homes they run. Socialism is actually only threatening to wealthy capitalists because it is (basically) the democratization of the means of production. Loose control over production would take power and (the accumulation of) wealth from the hands of the super rich and place it in the hands of the workers.
If you look at the history of the word socialism, it has a pretty inconsistent history. The Soviet Union was called a socialist society by the two biggest propaganda forces in the world (i.e., the U.S. and the Soviet Union) when, in fact, it was not governed by socialism. The Soviet Union called its governmental model socialism because, at the time, it had a perceived moral benefit. The governmental framework that they did have, which is often conflated with socialism, was Leninism. Communism, unlike socialism, puts the means of production in the hands of the state, and not the workers. The Soviet Union is the exact opposite of socialism because individual citizens did not have rights and the means of production were controlled by the country's leader, Valdimir Lennon. In fact, the collapse of the Soviet Union is a victory for socialism.
At the same time the West called the Soviet Union socialism in order to make it look undesirable and create a misperception about the conditions in which socialism creates. The fact of the matter is that America has socialism, but it is for the rich and the wealthy.
Socialism is a form of governance that gives individuals control over their own lives, in the places they work, the communities they live in, and the homes they run. Socialism is actually only threatening to wealthy capitalists because it is (basically) the democratization of the means of production. Loose control over production would take power and (the accumulation of) wealth from the hands of the super rich and place it in the hands of the workers.
Thanks for reading! Please comment!
Other Related blog(s): Nouveau Economics, Lyceum Recordz
Comments
Post a Comment