[tentonova2]

From Wikipedia: Socialism refers to various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with a method of compensation based on the amount of labor expended.

Of course Wikipedia might be wrong here, but even my rudimentary understanding of "socialism" is aligned with wikipedia's stated definition.

How are the sugar import quotas socialism, or is it merely popular nowdays to label every overstepping of government as socialism and/or communism?

[JoeAltmaier]

"public ... administration of ... allocation of resources" is socialism. And that's whats happening with sugar.

[turkishrevenge]

The word "public" is used here to mean the State, as in, the current capitalist state, not a worker's state controlled and administered by councils as in socialism. If it were public, as in non-private property, it would be administered by the workers themselves, not agents of the bourgeoisie.

[JoeAltmaier]

So in America, its worse than in a true socialist state. How about compared to existing corrupt socialist states? Probably better. I can forgive people comparing such policies to socialism, since we rarely see true socialism, and cynically we regard our elected representatives are hardly better than socialist councils.

[turkishrevenge]

Whether you agree or not, everything seen so far has been an iteration of Stalinism, without question. Additionally, in either a degenerate socialist state or a capitalist society like the U.S., productive means are most certainly not under the control of workers in any real capacity. Whether the said productive means are controlled by a bureaucratic elite from a single party, or from a "two" party system that unabashedly represents capitalist interests, the end result is still the same: subjugation of the worker.

[JoeAltmaier]

Easy to say "subjugation of the worker", in the sense that the worker doesn't guide policy. But the ideals of capitalism are supposed to work in the worker's favor, which softens the claim. If the worker values receiving compensation for what they do, has the right to spend their money as they please, wants to live in a thriving economy with choices, that is hardly subjugation. A worker may feel subjugated because they are frustrated by policy decisions made by others. Is it better in Socialism where the committee of workers makes the decisions, if the worker isn't on that committee? How does it matter that the committee is "closer" to the worker? The subjugation is the same. (except now the committe is made up of amateurs,but thats another argument) I think "subjugation" if it exists, is actually the decision by the governed to submit to the will of the whole. No matter what the system this "subjugation" must exist - its the foundation of civilization.

[turkishrevenge]

> "But the ideals of capitalism are supposed to work in the worker's favor"

The ideals of capitalism favor the bosses. Such a statment is very telling. You've obviously never read any literature on the subject, nor much about history of worker struggles, both in the U.S and abroad, that much is clear. At least I've read enough about neoliberal policies and the ideas that form the basis of capitalism in order to sufficiently criticize it.

> "If the worker values receiving compensation for what they do, has the right to spend their money as they please, wants to live in a thriving economy with choices, that is hardly subjugation"

What does this really mean? By your interpretation, capitalism is always "thriving" and people that live under it are always willfully and gainfully employed. Unless you've been living under a rock for the past few years, you're aware of the joblessness that is plaguing not only the U.S., but the world. The capitalism of yesteryear is hardly what we have now, and the dynamicism offered up by neoliberal policies is essentially over. What say you about the inevitable crises of capitalism? What about the increasing pace and severity of boom and bust cycles? Even in the worst dictatorial Stalinist regime, they at least have full employment. That's more than we can say about our system.

> "A worker may feel subjugated because they are frustrated by policy decisions made by others. Is it better in Socialism where the committee of workers makes the decisions, if the worker isn't on that committee?"

Your point is moot, as in a worker controlled factory, the actual committees are comprised of the workers themselves, or at the very least the people they directly elect from amongst the factory workforce. The representatives are also subject to instant recall, and managerial positions are routinely rotated. Every major decision from controlling production, to working hours, to health benefit and sick time is decided democratically. As such, the workers in the factory have a vested interest in its survival and productive capability. Additionallty, since the "managerial" aspects of running the factory merely deal with administration of the daily tasks, it is divested of its character of authority. Any worker can and will occupy the position traditionally held by the boss at a given time.

None of this is fanstasy. It has happened several times throughout the capitalist epoch, most notably in Catalonia during the Spanish civil war (see http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/spain/coll_catalonia_dolgof...) and the Soviet Union, immediately following the October revolution to about the 1930, before degeneration at the hands of the state bureaucracy fully set in. For a more current example, see Mondragón (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondrag%C3%B3n) the world's largest worker controlled cooperative.

> " The subjugation is the same...No matter what the system this "subjugation" must exist - its the foundation of civilization."

We're not talking about the idea of the social contract and the rule of law. Subjugation in this sense refers to the subjugation of the worker under a system of wage labor. Tell me, when a worker, through his or her labor produces a certain amount of value for his employer in the form of profit, yet receives only a fraction of that generated value back in the form of wages, how is that not exploitation? The only reason such a situation persists stems from the fact that the owner possesses the productive means (a factory, office building, machinery, a mine, etc.), while the worker only possesses his own labor. All he can do is sell it in order to survive. It is his only recourse.

But you say "What stops him from starting his own business and becoming rich like the boss?"

As a prerequisite, one needs a willingness to exploit one's fellow human beings for profit. Logistically speaking though, not everyone can be a boss, as by definition, a boss (and production in general) cannot exist without workers. Even barring that, credit is necessary to initially start operations. When banks aren't lending to make a small business loans to consumers, it is nearly impossible to start a business, as the case right now.

[hga]

In a loose sense it's not entirely bogus: this is what economists call rent seeking, and the payoff for that is all the greater the bigger and more pervasive the government is.

Plus that traditional definition of socialism is mostly historical, direct ownership and equal "access" to the goodies just doesn't work in practice and is ruinous in practice.

So when people talk about "socialism" nowadays, they're talking about a diluted form that's in theory more like traditional socialism (e.g. soft Fabian or hard Communism) than corporatist Fascism (the real Italian variety, not Hitler's National Socialism (vs. Communist International Socialism (e.g. the Comintern))).