Socialism

[robkelk]

As requested, spun off into its own thread.

So, exactly what is socialism?

Socialism in theory:

The dictionary definitions in Oxford and Merriam-Webster are remarkably similar (although M-W has a definition that OED doesn't), so I'll be lazy and just quote M-W's wording of the definitions that the two dictionaries have in common.

1. : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
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

I think we can all agree that the Marxist definition simply does not work. Marxism fails to take into account the simple fact that people like to own things.


Socialism in practice:

"[A]dvocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods"... We already have collective ownership; we call it the stock market. But there are companies where "collective ownership" means the employees are the only ones who own any of the shares, and every employee owns at least one share. And those companies are just as successful as other companies, if not more so - the employees have a tangible benefit to working there. They're making themselves rich, not toiling away for the 1%. (The less said about "governmental ownership", the better - governments are not businesses, and cannot effectively operate the way that businesses operate.)

But that isn't what people think of when they hear the word "socialist". This is, or at least it's one example:



The descriptive text goes on to say:

Finland explained himself in the comic, but in 2010 Denmark started giving heroine[sic] to drug addicts for free and it was such a huge success that it has continued until today. Because of this Norway has started experimenting with it too.

It’s a lot cheaper for society because the addicts commit less crime, they don’t have to spend money on drugs so instead they spend it on things that are more healthy for them so they don’t end up on the hospital as often, they have to take the drugs in special clinics so there’s no chance of them taking an overdose or using dirty needles and spreading diseases among each other, there’s always staff ready to help them if they want to get off the drugs, and it’s a lot more effective way to help more people because addicts come into contact with professionals who want to help them before they even think about getting help themselves.

Nobody wants to be homeless or an addict. Though they often end up getting involved in criminality because of their situation, the act of being homeless or an addict is not a crime in itself and the people deserve help like anyone else.

I happen to think that this particular example goes too far to the left. Not in providing homes to the homeless - multiple real-life case studies from both North America and Europe show that doing this gets people out of the recidivism cycle and the hospital emergency rooms, which saves tax money in the in the long run, and thus is not really left-wing at all... as long as the formerly-homeless actually find work (but they're more likely to find work once they can put home addresses on their resumes) and start paying rent on those apartments. What I'm not wild about is the giving drugs to addicts; I'd much rather see programs to help addicts break their addictions (and that's where my charitable donations go).