For some reason, people still act like capitalism and socialism (or communism) are mutually exclusive, that an economy must be one or the other. But if you look at essentially every national economy on the planet today, they are all some mix of the socialist mode of production (when the means of production are owned by the government, or a group of workers, or a community) and the capitalist mode of production (when the means of production are owned by a private individual or group of investors, operating for a profit). Almost no economy is exclusively one or the other.
It is true that in most countries with robust high speed rail, there is significant government involvement, like planning and building infrastructure, subsidies, or just providing rail travel as a public service. I definitely think that for a national rail service network to work, you need to do some planning. Here in the US, government and planning are bad words, but clearly they needn’t be.
Socialism and communism are not when the state does stuff.
Socialism/communism is workers owning the means of production. This is exceedingly rare and constantly attacked whenever it exists. Almost every state is overwhelmingly capitalist. That’s a primary purpose of the state.
Social programs are not Socialism. The government doing stuff is not Socialism. You cannot take aspects of a society out of their context and analyze them discretely. The United States does not have a “Socialist” millitary. Socialism is a mode of production determined by public ownership being the principle aspect of the economy, ie large firms and key industries being firmly public, as opposed to Capitalism where private ownership is the principle aspect.
Socialism is a mode of production determined by public ownership
That’s what I’m talking about. Essentially every national economy on the planet includes at least some socialist production. I can’t think of a single national economy on the Earth where the production of all goods and services is carried out exclusively by privately owned, for-profit firms. Can you?
Public Ownership is not Socialism itself, but a component of a Socialist economy. An economy where public ownership controls the large firms and key industries, ie has genuine political control, is Socialist.
No system is purely public or private, hence the line of demarcation between Socialist countries and Capitalist countries is where political power is vested.
You’re conflating public ownership in general with Socialism, though, which is wrong, and leads to wrong conclusions like thinking the US Postal Service is a “socialist part of a Capitalist economy.” All systems are mixed, what determines if a system is Capitalist or Socialist is which aspect is primary in the economy.
Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production, as opposed to private ownership.
Social ownership can take various forms, including public, community, collective, cooperative, or employee.
I understand the Wikipedia entry, I read Marx, Engels, Lenin, and countless other Marxists. I even read anarchists like Kropotkin and so forth. You are confusing public ownership in general with Socialism as a Mode of Production, which the Wikipedia entry hints at, but you lack the context to understand that, which is why I am telling you.
I wasn’t trying to adhere to a strictly Marxist semantic structure. And the reason for that is: I’m not a Marxist. But you’ve made it quite clear that when words like “socialism” or “socialist,” or the term “socialist mode of production” are used incorrectly (according to Marxists), this can cause great consternation. Therefore, in the future I will use different words/terms, so that I might avoid offending the sensibilities of Marxists, such as yourself. Hopefully that will help me avoid interactions like this one, in the future.
For some reason, people still act like capitalism and socialism (or communism) are mutually exclusive, that an economy must be one or the other. But if you look at essentially every national economy on the planet today, they are all some mix of the socialist mode of production (when the means of production are owned by the government, or a group of workers, or a community) and the capitalist mode of production (when the means of production are owned by a private individual or group of investors, operating for a profit). Almost no economy is exclusively one or the other.
It is true that in most countries with robust high speed rail, there is significant government involvement, like planning and building infrastructure, subsidies, or just providing rail travel as a public service. I definitely think that for a national rail service network to work, you need to do some planning. Here in the US, government and planning are bad words, but clearly they needn’t be.
Socialism and communism are not when the state does stuff.
Socialism/communism is workers owning the means of production. This is exceedingly rare and constantly attacked whenever it exists. Almost every state is overwhelmingly capitalist. That’s a primary purpose of the state.
Social programs are not Socialism. The government doing stuff is not Socialism. You cannot take aspects of a society out of their context and analyze them discretely. The United States does not have a “Socialist” millitary. Socialism is a mode of production determined by public ownership being the principle aspect of the economy, ie large firms and key industries being firmly public, as opposed to Capitalism where private ownership is the principle aspect.
That’s what I’m talking about. Essentially every national economy on the planet includes at least some socialist production. I can’t think of a single national economy on the Earth where the production of all goods and services is carried out exclusively by privately owned, for-profit firms. Can you?
Public Ownership is not Socialism itself, but a component of a Socialist economy. An economy where public ownership controls the large firms and key industries, ie has genuine political control, is Socialist.
No system is purely public or private, hence the line of demarcation between Socialist countries and Capitalist countries is where political power is vested.
I know, that’s what I’ve been saying. That’s my whole point.
You’re conflating public ownership in general with Socialism, though, which is wrong, and leads to wrong conclusions like thinking the US Postal Service is a “socialist part of a Capitalist economy.” All systems are mixed, what determines if a system is Capitalist or Socialist is which aspect is primary in the economy.
Source
Go back to my original comment where I described the socialist mode of production:
I understand the Wikipedia entry, I read Marx, Engels, Lenin, and countless other Marxists. I even read anarchists like Kropotkin and so forth. You are confusing public ownership in general with Socialism as a Mode of Production, which the Wikipedia entry hints at, but you lack the context to understand that, which is why I am telling you.
I wasn’t trying to adhere to a strictly Marxist semantic structure. And the reason for that is: I’m not a Marxist. But you’ve made it quite clear that when words like “socialism” or “socialist,” or the term “socialist mode of production” are used incorrectly (according to Marxists), this can cause great consternation. Therefore, in the future I will use different words/terms, so that I might avoid offending the sensibilities of Marxists, such as yourself. Hopefully that will help me avoid interactions like this one, in the future.