The argument about just what exactly constitutes "socialism" is one I find intriguing and worthwhile.

It is common to see the claim that since the state has not socialized the means of production, or created a vanguard for proletarian redistributionism, that to worry about creeping socialism is to be delusional.

The implication is that since policy has and is aimed at the redistribution of wealth to the elite few, rather than helping the working class, that something else entirely must be afoot and the word socialism has no place to describe it.

Well, that is true in one sense.

But it is false in another.

And to see the paradox is to distinguish between socialism per se, as found in our dictionary definitions, and what I would call "meta socialism," or socialism prime.

So we can distinguish between socialism proper, which is where the means of production are brought together in a singular central plan, as opposed to meta socialism, which is central planning in ways not as overt or obvious.

But a covert plan formed centrally and imposed with legal violence is a central plan none the less.

An example of meta socialism would be found in a nominally market based order, where property is owned privately, de jure, but de facto its use is circumscribed and controlled by the state, as in the case of patents and IP laws, which are simply grants of monopoly privilege or various other restrictions too numerous to list.

Or we see it in the central planning of money and credit, through a private banking cartel.

What distinguishes socialism from all other forms of social organization is the existence of violence and force.

Under socialism, in either variety, the choice set of actors are circumscribed not only by their resource endowments, their budget, and the natural laws, but also by the arbitrary dictates of some authority.

For example, an entrepreneur might very well have a brilliant idea for replicating and improving on some competitors product or process, and he may have the means of competing, but owing to some monopoly privilege, such as a patent, he is preventing from using his own property in the most value enhancing way.

An arbitrary force imposes its will on the peaceful entrepreneur.

Now all is well if you are the competition and this act protects your profit margins.

But in the meantime there is an opportunity cost in terms of jobs that are not created, the goods that go un-produced and the new inventions/ innovations and ideas that may have come out of this process, that we cannot begin to predict or account for.

What is lost cannot be known for we cannot know what someone might have created given the freedom to do so. Nor can we know how these creations could lead to subsequent innovations on the part of others, or what the pattern of production/consumption that would have occurred might look like.

Beyond that it is immoral to control other people in way that violates their self ownership.

So make no mistake, this is a form of central planning. It is not aimed at "seizing the means" or overturning the "bourgeois."

But it is centralized planning even if it occurs against the backdrop of private property in the means of production, or what we call "private property."

As has been argued, this really amounts to de facto central planning, for if one cannot do what they wish with their own property (and body) then they do not really own it.

Essentially, socialism per se is a story about the means of production and who owns/ controls them.

But that is incomplete. For the means of production are only half the story, and not even the most important part.

More important than private property in things, such as capital goods, is the private boundary separating people.

Where the individual does not enjoy self ownership, she is subject to the arbitrary will of another and her boundaries are not respected. In such a situation, even the self is public property, to some extent, and that renders private ownership of anything impossible, in the strict sense of the word.

So we can have a de facto socialism even in a de jure private property order, where the rule of men replaces the rule of law, and where ownership is private in name, but controlled centrally de facto, along with the people themselves.

To conclude, there are numerous ways in which political force is used to shape the pattern of production, investment, and income, in what is supposed to be a market based society.

Every example in this vein involves some imposition on the will of others, using force and violence, concerning how various properties will be used.

And these dictates come from sources other than the rightful property owner.

To the extent these dictates are enforceable, they constitute a centralized plan, even if the means of production are said to be privately owned. The key is that the owner is not free to use them how she wishes, with respect for the rights of others being the key consideration.

The dictate is imposed, above and beyond considerations of justice or the rule of law. And in the process, the rule of law is lost, and is replaced with the rule of men.

And this constitutes a start toward a meta theory of socialism.

Quick question: is any state where regulations are enforced by the threat of violence socialist?

AS perfect example would be the "Farm Bill" complete control over production via coercion and bribe.

First, typical long winded, left wing gibberish. And in a service economy - as our is - controlling the means of production, no longer means running the factories. It could also mean controlling much of the service sector via government regulation. 

Quote from: mdgiles on February 14, 2014, 06:06:27 AM
First, typical long winded, left wing gibberish. And in a service economy - as our is - controlling the means of production, no longer means running the factories. It could also mean controlling much of the service sector via government regulation.

I think his point was a delineation of socialism, as in what we have today and where we're headed.
All comes down to the differences in Fabian socialism, and Marxism, yet still, both have the same end goal/result, complete state control.

Quote from: Bismarck Revivalist on February 14, 2014, 03:23:06 AM
Quick question: is any state where regulations are enforced by the threat of violence socialist?

Yes, in the sense of meta socialism..

Quote from: mdgiles on February 14, 2014, 06:06:27 AM
First, typical long winded, left wing gibberish. And in a service economy - as our is - controlling the means of production, no longer means running the factories. It could also mean controlling much of the service sector via government regulation.

You have to be kidding...

Left wing?!

I challenge you to find a single left wing statement!

And your 2nd and 3rd statements are simply restating the argument of OP.

Quote from: Solar on February 14, 2014, 06:22:56 AM
I think his point was a delineation of socialism, as in what we have today and where we're headed.
All comes down to the differences in Fabian socialism, and Marxism, yet still, both have the same end goal/result, complete state control.

Yes, exactly.

The point is to show what all the different forms have in common and why socialism is any form of centralized planning.

Quote from: TowardLiberty on February 14, 2014, 06:26:24 AM
You have to be kidding...

Left wing?!

I challenge you to find a single left wing statement!

And your 2nd and 3rd statements are simply restating the argument of OP.

Okay, forced myself to reread your post, and it seems we agree. I apologize. Because it isn't the classical socialism as outlined in the 19th century, doesn't mean it isn't socialism in the 21st.

Quote from: TowardLiberty on February 14, 2014, 06:25:21 AM
Yes, in the sense of meta socialism..

Watch his definition of "regulation" change to any and all laws.

Quote from: mdgiles on February 14, 2014, 06:34:00 AM
Okay, forced myself to reread your post, and it seems we agree. I apologize. Because it isn't the classical socialism as outlined in the 19th century, doesn't mean it isn't socialism in the 21st.

Yeah, that's really all I am saying.

Quote from: Solar on February 14, 2014, 06:37:33 AM
Watch his definition of "regulation" change to any and all laws.

I have already seen an equivocation between rights and welfare, ie a guaranteed income/ job..

Quote from: TowardLiberty on February 14, 2014, 06:51:20 AM
I have already seen an equivocation between rights and welfare, ie a guaranteed income/ job..

Yeah, saw that too, where he is rewriting the definition of a right.

Quote from: TowardLiberty on February 14, 2014, 06:51:20 AM
I have already seen an equivocation between rights and welfare, ie a guaranteed income/ job..

Or a "right" to health care.

So the word "right" is redefined thereby giving socialism the appearance of naturally occurring.