Socialism is not “when the government does stuff.” Governments are tools that can be used to advance any sort of ideology or agenda. Socialism is a specific ideology (or set of ideologies), which Ben Franklin did not and could not have subscribed to on account of the ideology had not yet even been developed.
When a member of the capitalist class lobbies the government to introduce regulations designed to prevent small business from competing with his monopoly, that is not making the system “more socialist” because the government is doing “more stuff.” It is making the system more capitalist. A system that is controlled by and works for the benefit of the capitalist class is a capitalist system, regardless of the degree to which the government does things.
If anything, the more correct term would be “statist” but that’s also an absurd term, because again, governments are tools. Whoever holds power in a system will use that tool to advance their own interests, and if the tool does not exist, then it will be created. This ridiculous idea that socialism is simply an ideology based around supporting the government doing things, any government doing any things, is complete nonsense. There is not any ideology that says that, it isn’t something anyone believes. The difference between socialism and capitalism is not the degree to which the state is being used but who is using the state and to what purposes.
Capitalist states do not have fire departments because they are “partially socialist” but because capitalists don’t like having their buildings burn down any more than anyone else does.
Socialism is not “when the government does stuff.”
Of course not, only an idiot who is trying to undermine someone’s argument would claim that. Socialism is when the means of production are collectively owned, such as when a fire truck is owned by a city.
State ownership is not the same thing as collective ownership, especially when we’re talking about a bourgeois state.
If a king rides through a village and says, “I really like the views around here. Seize the land for the state and kick out all the peasants so that I can come here without having to see them spoiling the view.” Is that “collective ownership” because the land is now held by the state? Is that “socialism?”
Treating state ownership and collective ownership as equivalent is just “socialism is when the government does stuff” with extra steps.
State ownership is not the same thing as collective ownership
No, and yet both can be examples of socialism. As in, when the city owns a fire department which is paid for by city taxes and available to help anybody in the city any time there’s a fire.
So then, you need to amend your definition to “Socialism is when the means of production are either collectively owned or state-owned,” which is, again, essentially just saying “socialism is when the government owns stuff.” And again, I completely disagree that state ownership inherently has anything to do with socialism. An absolute monarchy is 0% socialist, regardless of any services the king deems fit to grace the peasantry with.
Ah yes, the famous socialist, Comrade Ben Franklin.
Yes, exactly that.
What an absolute joke.
Socialism is not “when the government does stuff.” Governments are tools that can be used to advance any sort of ideology or agenda. Socialism is a specific ideology (or set of ideologies), which Ben Franklin did not and could not have subscribed to on account of the ideology had not yet even been developed.
When a member of the capitalist class lobbies the government to introduce regulations designed to prevent small business from competing with his monopoly, that is not making the system “more socialist” because the government is doing “more stuff.” It is making the system more capitalist. A system that is controlled by and works for the benefit of the capitalist class is a capitalist system, regardless of the degree to which the government does things.
If anything, the more correct term would be “statist” but that’s also an absurd term, because again, governments are tools. Whoever holds power in a system will use that tool to advance their own interests, and if the tool does not exist, then it will be created. This ridiculous idea that socialism is simply an ideology based around supporting the government doing things, any government doing any things, is complete nonsense. There is not any ideology that says that, it isn’t something anyone believes. The difference between socialism and capitalism is not the degree to which the state is being used but who is using the state and to what purposes.
Capitalist states do not have fire departments because they are “partially socialist” but because capitalists don’t like having their buildings burn down any more than anyone else does.
Of course not, only an idiot who is trying to undermine someone’s argument would claim that. Socialism is when the means of production are collectively owned, such as when a fire truck is owned by a city.
State ownership is not the same thing as collective ownership, especially when we’re talking about a bourgeois state.
If a king rides through a village and says, “I really like the views around here. Seize the land for the state and kick out all the peasants so that I can come here without having to see them spoiling the view.” Is that “collective ownership” because the land is now held by the state? Is that “socialism?”
Treating state ownership and collective ownership as equivalent is just “socialism is when the government does stuff” with extra steps.
No, and yet both can be examples of socialism. As in, when the city owns a fire department which is paid for by city taxes and available to help anybody in the city any time there’s a fire.
So then, you need to amend your definition to “Socialism is when the means of production are either collectively owned or state-owned,” which is, again, essentially just saying “socialism is when the government owns stuff.” And again, I completely disagree that state ownership inherently has anything to do with socialism. An absolute monarchy is 0% socialist, regardless of any services the king deems fit to grace the peasantry with.
Socialism is not when the city owns stuff either…
socialism is when the principal mode of production is owned by the workers.
No, but it includes the fire department which is when the city owns fire trucks and pays firefighters to fight fires.