The definition of socialism

It’s inevitable that words will change over time. In some instances, words gain new meanings entirely different from their original definition. One of my brothers once suggested the definition of Zionism has changed over time to mean the expansion of the Jewish state when I told him about Saddam Hussein's open letter to the people of the USA prior to the invasion. Saddam condemned Zionism.

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/25-words-that-don-t-mean-what-they-used-to?utm_source=pocket-newtab

How has the definition of "socialism" changed over time?

The definition hasn't changed but new forms of socialism have emerged, like democratic socialism, which focuses on social welfare rather than means of production.

I’m inclined to say that it’s not the definition of socialism that has changed, but, in some instances, the comprehension of what it is.

And I agree that new forms have emerged as well.

@vivify said
The definition hasn't changed but new forms of socialism have emerged, like democratic socialism, which focuses on social welfare rather than means of production.

@shavixmir said
I’m inclined to say that it’s not the definition of socialism that has changed, but, in some instances, the comprehension of what it is.

And I agree that new forms have emerged as well.

@metal-brain said
The term democratic socialism does not imply a disregard for means of production

@vivify said
I never said it did.

Democratic socialism is interested in the means of production only as far as how it affects the social well-being of citizens, which is the essence of socialism.

@Metal-Brain

Interesting question. Definitions change with conventional (or sometimes limited technical) usage.

Traditionally, it has had to do with ownership of the means of production (owned by the state/collective as opposed to private/individual ownership). What does that mean in a technological age where access to information – and information exchange – is a more wealth-producing metric? (And asymmetric access to information can produce wealth disparities.)

Anyway, here are the Merriam-Webster definitions:

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

-- https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

But the term seems to predate Marxian analysis: https://www.etymonline.com/word/socialism.


Perhaps it is one of those words that always needs to be defined contextually. But I would link it to something like “social/public ownership of the means of wealth production.”

@vistesd2 said
@Metal-Brain

Interesting question. Definitions change with conventional (or sometimes limited technical) usage.

Traditionally, it has had to do with ownership of the means of production (owned by the state/collective as opposed to private/individual ownership). What does that mean in a technological age where access to information – and information exchange – is a mo ...[text shortened]... would link it to something like “social/public ownership of the means of wealth production.”

@Metal-Brain

Good points. I'll limit myself to the question of transition from socialism to communism (as best as I recall it): Communism -- for Marx -- was a dictatorship of the proletariat: essentially majority vote by the working class. That, of course, could be preceded by a more limited social ownership of the means of production.

Again, I'll suggest that an "updated" definition of socialism might be something like "social ownership of the means of wealth production."

______________________________________________

I am not particularly Marxian, but I am loosely familiar with Wollf, and would take him as a good source. (Of course, Marxians can disagree with one another as vehemently as any other group.)

@vistesd2 said
@Metal-Brain

Good points. I'll limit myself to the question of transition from socialism to communism (as best as I recall it): Communism -- for Marx -- was a dictatorship of the proletariat: essentially majority vote by the working class. That, of course, could be preceded by a more limited social ownership of the means of production.

Again, I'll suggest that an "upda ...[text shortened]... a good source. (Of course, Marxians can disagree with one another as vehemently as any other group.)

@Metal-Brain

Thanks for stimulating my late-night brain, MB. 🙂

@vistesd2 said
@Metal-Brain

Thanks for stimulating my late-night brain, MB. 🙂

@metal-brain said
The comprehension of what it is, changed because of the definition change.
If it ain't Marxism, it ain't socialism.

@shavixmir said
Sigh