I use one definition; you use a different one.
Well, there’s only one. State owns the means of production. Period.
But virtually all the countries of Europe have a “Socialist” party and none of them advocate the platform you gave; neither does the umbrella organization, the Party of European Socialists. Are you really going to insist on a definition of “Socialism” which excludes virtually every major “Socialist” party in the world?
I would. After all, North Korea’s actual name is the “Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea.” How accurate do you think THAT is?
Words have meanings, after all. The names of countries and political parties…..not so much. We shouldn’t change the definition of the meaning of the word simply because it gets co-opted by a group with a narrative to advance.
[Additionally, we already have a much better word for the platform you described: “Totalitarianism”. Why we would need to press-gang another word which is still a common political label for people who believe something completely different, you’ll have to explain to me.]
Well, if the French Socialist Party changed their name to the “Totalitarian Party”, they wouldn’t get any votes.
But in a scant seven years, German “Socialism” had thoroughly out-performed British and French “Capitalism”.
Socialism sure will outperform capitalism— — for a season.
(Enter anecdote mode) A few years ago I was in Shanghai on business. When we were there, we went to this fabulous (and huge) outdoor market where you could buy pretty much any logo you wanted for cheap. :-). It had been there for 15 years or more, they said; it wasn’t just tents and setup booths, there were permanent brick structures mixed in with the setups.
Six months later, I went on vacation with my hubby to the same hotel, and I wanted to show him the market. We had cabbed there before, and although I remembered a cab ride of about 5–7 minutes only, I asked the concierge for directions.
He told me very seriously that there was no large outdoor market near the hotel. I got a bit frustrated trying to suggest places where it could be, to the point where they asked an assistant manager over (better English!) to …. set me straight.
Well, the nice gentleman again apologized and told me that there was no such market. Frustrated, hubby and I stood for a moment in the lobby trying to figure out what to do next. After about three or four minutes, and out of earshot of the concierges, the asst manager came over and said in a near-whisper “that market was moved, Ma’am.”
I said “but….how? It had been there for years, they said, and had permanent buildings.”
He shrugged and said “the government wanted that land, ma’am”. And then on our map, he pointed to a location near the Bund, and said “most of them moved HERE, ma’am. (end of anecdote)
The moral to the story is that a socialist/communist/whatever government can be EXTREMELY EFFICIENT when it wants to do something — — because nobody has to fiddle around to get people to vote on things. The government decides, and it happens.
The PROBLEM is that OVER TIME, since the means of production are cut off from signals of supply and demand, misallocation of resources starts to occur, and those misallocations compound themselves over time until you get an economic mess.
Hitler fell before those misallocations came home to roost. The USSR was not so fortunate, and the end was messy.