What is the True Meaning of Socialism?
During a gathering with American relatives just before the pandemic, we received some handmade tissue holders as gifts. A note was included, Google-translated into Slovene, explaining what a tissue holder is. The note was misleadingly translated, suggesting that the gift was something to be found next to an autopsy table. This led to a bit of lighthearted confusion, as the word tissue in English can have two very different meanings: a hankerchief or a cluster of specialized cells.
What is Socialism? A Question of Definitions
My question is akin to that: What is socialism? The term can encompass state ownership and management of productive assets, or it can refer to a system where individuals do not mistreat the less fortunate. These different meanings are encompassed within the same word, much like how a cloth purse and a jar filled with formaldehyde are both describe as a tissue holder—albeit in entirely different contexts.
I argue that socialism is more accurately described as nothing, as the word itself lacks a useful definition unless it is further explained. In the case of tissue, context can clarify which meaning is being referenced. However, this is not the case with socialism. Both definitions represent a state and its economy, leading to potential misunderstandings and misinterpretations.
Evolution of Language and Political Terminology
One cannot police language, but over time, if a term is used incorrectly for a sufficient period, it can become an accepted usage. This is how lexicography works. However, it is often beneficial to push back against such usages before they become deeply entrenched, particularly when they obscure vital distinctions in sophisticated discussions.
In colloquial US English, conservative often means anything centre-right, and liberal means anything centre-left. For example, socialism seems to refer to state provision of services such as socialized medicine, social security. But these usages diverge from their original meanings and those used in political theory. This can create confusion when making arguments based on historical and theoretical contexts.
Historical and Theoretical Perspectives on Socialism
Historically and theoretically, socialism does not necessarily mean state ownership. One of the earliest welfare states was introduced by Bismarck in Germany, an arch-conservative at the time, in order to counter the gains made by German socialists among the working class. This welfare state aimed to make capitalism more acceptable to those who did not own capital. The introduction of such a system was intended to undermine socialist gains, thereby making the capitalist economy more just for both workers and capitalists.
Today, socialism is more accurately described as a theory of political economy where the economy is under the democratic ownership and control of the people. This does not mean state ownership; in fact, after the failures of Bolshevism, very few socialists today advocate for this. Cooperative ownership within a market economy is more favored. For example, two policies from Bernie Sanders' last presidential election manifesto are illustrative: requiring large corporations to issue stock to workers, and including employee-codetermination in major companies.
Clearly, these policies are not the socialism envisioned by those who advocate for state control of the economy. However, they incorporate socialist ideals such as workers having some degree of ownership and control over the industries they work in.
The Importance of a Robust Vocabulary in Political Debates
Political debates would be all the better if we had a more sophisticated vocabulary to conduct them. The current reliance on sloganizing and oversimplification can obscure the complexities of political theory and historical contexts. A nuanced understanding of terms like socialism and liberalism can lead to more informed and productive discussions.