You're viewing a single thread.
The problem with language is that the only thing required for a definition to be "correct" is for that definition to be in common use. That's just how language works.
You can try to fight against that, and lead a never ending struggle to halt the conversation and say, "no no, the Real definition is this!" every time someone uses a definition that conflicts with the definition you use. But at some point fighting against semantic drift and taking a stubbornly prescriptivist stance on how words should be defined is a fruitless battle that doesn't actually help you communicate those ideas more clearly. Instead, you should adopt a different communication strategy that is less prone to misunderstandings.
There are so many different and contradictory understandings of what it means to be "progressive" "leftist" "liberal" "socialist" "communist" and so on that it's impossible to create a definition that everyone agrees on. Even if you correctly incorporate things like historical origin, first recorded use, and the context in which a world was popularized when evaluating how you define those terms, those things don't actually help communicate your thoughts more clearly. Which should ideally be the mechanical function that language facilitates.
Part of the issue is that those words are very broad and general, and encompass a wide variety of competing schools of thought who all nonetheless identify themselves using these umbrella terms. Of course some of the disagreement over definitions comes from bad actors deliberately mischaracterizing these things for propagandistic/rhetorical purposes, but even if that wasn't the case umbrella terms such as these are inherently more prone to semantic drift over time.
A better strategy for communicating political ideas is to use terms that are much more specific in context, such as Marxism. Of course, Marxism has the same problem of bad actors intentionally mischaracterizing what Marxism is, but because Marxism is a much more specific thing it is much easier to resolve disputes over contradictory definitions. This is because there is an authoritative source you can refer back to in order to resolve conflicts and disagreements over definitions. Because Marxism is defined by the collected body of work authored by Marx (as well as those who contributed to that body of work and expanded upon that work over the years), it is much easier to have a conversation with agreed upon definitions by referencing that body of work.
Edit: But to get back on topic and define socialism, "Socialism is when the government does stuff."
You can look at any existing socialist country - if you don’t want to call them socialist, call them whatever you want. Post capitalist- whatever, I don’t care. Call them camels or window shades, it doesn’t matter as long as we know the countries we’re talking about.
Parenti, from that "the revolution that feeds the children has my support" quote.
My beloved Parenti quotes
Was gonna say....like it or not they aren't strictly wrong. A lot of socdem Biden/Harris voters are running around calling themselves socialists so defining what you actually mean by "socialist" is kinda important today.
...which is why whether or not it's strictly true I just call myself a communist these days. There's less ambiguity or misunderstanding that way.
so defining what you actually mean by "socialist" is kinda important today.
This is absolutely true, and making sure that everyone is on common ground and agrees on what definitions you are using is essential to any effective communication.
But defining what you mean by socialism is different than defining socialism. The first is a generally good practice for communicating clearly and avoiding misunderstandings. The second is a Sisyphean task that will never have a satisfying resolution, because that's the nature of language.
The best we can hope to do is use communication strategies that are less prone to misinterpretation, and to be willing to clarify when misunderstandings do come up. And the problem with explaining what you mean by socialism is that you can only do that if you're already in a conversation with someone who is willing to ask for clarification, or if you catch them using a different definition and take that as an opportunity to clarify what you mean. But there are many contexts where you simply won't have an opportunity for clarification.
Trying to clarify what you mean is a reactive communication strategy. If possible, it's better to use preemptive communication strategies to avoid misunderstandings in the first place. Which is why I suggested using word choices that leave less room for ambiguity. It can also mean adapting your communication strategy based on the context that your audience is familiar with and trying to meet them where they are.
Of course, we're never going to eliminate misunderstandings and misinterpretation simply because language is too imprecise to be able to convey the full complexity of human thought. Any successful communication or discussion requires an audience who is obeying the cooperative principle and is making a good faith attempt to understand your intent as much as it requires a speaker to make a good faith attempt at communicating as clearly as possible.
So why do Americans decide what socialism is?
Why do capitalist nations decide what socialism is?
If people want to know what socialism is, they should research what socialist theorists say and what major countries self-identifying as socialists say
Scientific socialism isn’t a dogma and has no dogmatic definition. That’s the whole point. It’s really defined by what it negates, ie capitalism. All of the Lemmy folks saying AES doesn’t exist are totally incorrect. It is not necessary to achieve utopian communism to be considered socialist. All that matters is that a state takes definite steps to negating capitalism, ie ownership of private property, following the material conditions unique to that state. This nonsense about “socialism is when the workers own the means of production, and nothing less” (sadly encouraged by some armchair socialist named “Communism” in that thread) is utopian and anti-Marxist.
There are so many different and contradictory understandings of what it means to be "progressive" "leftist" "liberal" "socialist" "communist" and so on that it's impossible to create a definition that everyone agrees on.
fwiw, this is why the name of the left faction invariably changes over time, as liberals slowly latch on to and then neuter the old name. social democrat at one time meant what communist means today. socialism is similarly on it's way out and eventually communist will go too.
ib4 communists officially rename the parties to "Tankie party"
You have this issue with liberals co-opting terms that you pointed out, but in addition to that you also have historical instances where communists would self-identify with softer language and euphemistic phrasing because openly identifying as a communist could get you locked up for sedition/treason.
What I'm trying to say is that both sides are to blame, and horseshoe theory is real /s
"socialism is when the government does stuff" as a definition doesn't even fit the question though does it? It's clearly a response to the "communism no food" stereotype which isn't levied against western socdems by anyone but the most brain broken chud who only says that because they ignorantly conflate it with revolutionary socialism. No one is saying "Sweden is when no food" are they? Obviously oil-rich Western socdem countries with social programs would be an upgrade to any American making under 6 figures. So what's the question if you aren't talking about revolutionary socialism which is unpleasant in the transitional stage compared to most Western countries' lifestyles? (China is already probably about on par with, or slightly nicer of a place to live than America already, but I don't expect the op to understand that)
So what's the question if you aren't talking about revolutionary socialism which is unpleasant in the transitional stage compared to most Western countries' lifestyles?
There's a little bit of correlation vs causation that you can argue with regards to this point as well. Yes, it's almost certainly true that any revolutionary upheaval in how society is organized is going to result in a bumpy transition. But revolution is often an act of desperation, a step that people are typically only willing to take after every other option has been exhausted and the alternative of being worked into an early grave is too bleak to accept. And even then, revolution is only likely once a critical mass of people find themselves in the same wretched circumstances.
So I would make the argument that causation should actually be reversed. It's not revolutionary transition that leads to poor living conditions, it's poor living conditions that leads to revolution.
I wasn't arguing that, I was just pointing out that the conditions in AES as we can assume are envisioned by the OP, are poor compared to the average American's. Not even compared to the workers' starting point. Yes, certainly the revolutions in China and Russia and Cuba started rewarding the working people with a higher quality of life within five years compared to their previous standing.
The question as you rightly point out is a wrong one in that regard as well, but I was specifically talking about their choice of definition for "socialism" not making sense.
If the question is "would you move to a rich socdem country?" The answer, following the spirit of the question, family ties and language barrier for example not being included, and being directed at existing socialists, is of course going to be a resounding yes, just like those "would you rather" questions where one option is to eat pizza and the other is to eat rocks. It's a pointless question.
I wasn't arguing that
I didn't assume you were arguing that, I was expanding on a point you brought up.
Oh yeah? Well I didn't assume that you assumed that!
Curses, I've fallen prey to the oldest blunder in the book!
(secretly I did assume that. I'm sorry comrade)
China is easily on par with America, but America is one of the worst Western countries. It's a harder sell when comparing to other Western countries because China's labour protections and work culture could still use work.
Permanently Deleted