I see the meme of R.Wolff making fun of the idea that socialism is when 'the government does stuff'. I unironically thought... that was what socialism was...? Regulations, public programs, increased oversight by a body that isn't incentivised by profit? These are all government initiatives right?
Tell me why i'm wrong.
Well, you're not exactly wrong, certainly the government does do a lot of stuff under socialism, but the difference is what the government is doing these things for. Socialism is when the working class takes over the means of production, and that usually looks like seizing state power to end the system of production for profit and reorienting the economy to serve the public good. Capitalist states will use regulations, public programs, and oversight to make the capitalist system more effective, or, if the workers are organized enough to have some power, to alleviate some of the problems caused by capitalism.
The state can do things for the public good under capitalism, and some businesses, cooperatives, and enterprises can operate for profit under socialism, but the question of whether a country is socialist or capitalist depends on what the overall picture of the economy and political system looks like.
I don't want industries to be nationalised. Next time elections come around and conservatives win, they defund the industry, it crumbles, then they go "this looks like a job for the free market".
I want industries to be worker owned. Which ideally reverses this dependency pyramid. Now the industry can bully government into concessions.
Of course, some industries function best as public goods (education, healthcare and so on) and in that regard you don't have much choice, it's either nationalised or you're thrown to the wolves.
Fully agreed, but what does it mean 'worker owned'? Employees all have an equal say in direction of company, no CEO/board? Are there any real world examples we can point to as success stories?
that's a good question, i'm not well read enough to give you an answer i fully trust, i think coops are a good start, my two cents are as long as there's a democratic process and every worker is on the board then you'll see working standards improve; heard good things about the Mondragon Corporation, stuff like that
Yeah the two birdseye view definitions of socialism are "social ownership of the means of production" and "a transitionary state between capitalism and communism". For the most part, in North America, you're only dealing with the first definition, however in left spaces it does help to be clear when talking about socialism.
Focusing on the first one, there are goods and services which are under social ownership such as firefighters, healthcare (at least here), libraries, garbage pick up, etc. There are also millions of pages of regulations, thousands of government employees, and other government initiatives with the express goal of keeping the means of production away from social ownership, or for funneling capital into the hands of fewer and fewer. This is the opposite of social ownership, and you'll find that the majority of government actions fall under this category.
Socialism is public ownership of the means of production. The means of production could be centralized and planned by a government, but it doesn't have to be. It depends on the conditions at the time. Socialism also does away with the profit motive. If there was still a market structure, the government would probably have to intervene in it. But governments intervene and do stuff in all structures so that isn't really a useful way of describing socialism
But I have barely read theory so go read theory and get back to me
That isn't what actual socialists are proposing, though you could probably characterize the vaguely social democratic reforms that someone like Bernie is proposing that way. The two are often conflated in the media which can be a bit confusing for newcomers.
I'd just read this to get a better idea, it's pretty succinct (feel free to skip the introductions). Better that that getting it third-hand from some guy on the internet anyway.
I remember thinking that anarcho-communism was impossible because communism was when the governent does a whole lot of stuff.
