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?
@vivify saidDemocratic socialism is not new. Anything else is communism. Right?
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.
The term democratic socialism does not imply a disregard for means of production.
I think you just unwittingly stumbled onto a definition change. Disregard for means of production is not really socialism, is it? When did Karl Marx suggest disregarding the crux of his books?
If it isn't Marxism, is it really socialism? I don't think so.
@shavixmir saidThe comprehension of what it is, changed because of the definition change.
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.
If it ain't Marxism, it ain't socialism.
@metal-brain saidI never said it did.
The term democratic socialism does not imply a disregard for means of production
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.
@vivify saidWe already had a term for a non democratic form of socialism. It is called communism. All the term democratic socialism suggests is that it is not communism.
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.
Marx was concerned with who benefited from the means of production. Anything else is not really socialism. You are describing a progressive democrat, not a socialist. FDR was not a socialist. He was a progressive democrat.
@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 saidDefinition 1 allows both collective and governmental ownership administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, but Marx didn't say anything about governmental ownership that I am aware of. Governmental ownership has been described as crony socialism. Not real socialism, but a fraud. Like capitalism without the competition. Not much different than crony capitalism.
@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.”
According to Richard David Wolff, definition 2A has never existed. No nation has ever done away with private property 100%.
I am a bit confused about definition 3. If socialism is just a transition does that mean communism is the goal? And if communism is a dictatorship is that what Marx wanted and was his stated goal or did the definition of communism change over time as well?
@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" Communism -- for Marx -- was a dictatorship of the proletariat: essentially majority vote by the working class."
@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.)
I didn't know that. Very interesting. I guess there is an interest for the proletariat to make sure the businesses don't fail as long as they benefit from the means of production.
I also didn't know the word predated Marx. I guess capitalists can blame the idea on the French.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_de_Saint-Simon
Thanks.
@vistesd2 saidLikewise my good man.
@Metal-Brain
Thanks for stimulating my late-night brain, MB. π
@metal-brain saidSigh
The comprehension of what it is, changed because of the definition change.
If it ain't Marxism, it ain't socialism.