[hbrn]

> the capitalist one by prioritising roles that have value to those with capital (corporations etc.), and the Socialist one by prioritising value to the community

In the modern world, capital is typically created by providing value to community. There are exceptions, of course, but nobody will defend those exceptions (i.e. inheriting wealth or committing crimes obviously doesn't provide value).

The problem with socialists is that nobody knows what is the "value to community" and how to measure it, yet everybody has a strong opinion on it. That's why socialists are typically dictators: you need the arrogance to think that you know what is better for community than the community itself.

> There are always highly skills craftsman and experts in very specific fields whose work isn't limited to one workplace etc. But who is forbidding it?

Socialism. There's plenty of debate on self-employment in socialism, and socialists always settle on one of two points: either self-employment is strictly forbidden, or it is only allowed if we have some regulations protecting workers (but those could be implemented in capitalism too, which makes socialism pointless).

> Value is very subjective in Capitalism

Value is subjective by it's nature, and capitalism recognizes that. I'm not interested in debating the downsides of labor theory of value which offers "objective" measurements - the only people supporting it are zealots.

> I see Socialism as the possibility for all sorts of start ups

You seem to blissfully ignore the challenges socialism imposes on start ups. To begin with: who provides the capital?

> These countries are Socialist when a Capitalist wants to criticise them and Capitalist when a Capitalist wants to praise or excuse them.

No, they are always capitalistic: all of them are in favor of private ownership and market economies. I don't care what Bernie calls them.

> The abolishment of private property is Communist - not Socialist

This is false. But I'm really curious, what is your definition of socialism?

[yourmatenate]

> what is your definition of socialism?

This is the probably the best point to start from when discussing Socialism. So it was the point I started with:

"Socialism is about how workers organise their workplace (owning, managing and sharing the produce and profit of their labour)"

As the Oxford Dictionary says:

"a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

So Socialism is something very specific, but Socialists often associate themselves with other principles that they believe are in line with their moral values, see as a helpful strategy for achieving their ideals, or their Socialism is part of a larger political philosophy (Communism etc.) This association (and some detractors using the word Socialism to define everything they don't like) are what lead to confusion.

Socialists joke that detractors believe "Socialism is when the government does stuff, and the more stuff it does the more Socialist (or Communist) it is." But some commentators - see current popular right-wing American opinion pieces - really do seem to believe this.

There is no mention of state, government or rulers of any kind in most definitions of Socialism (most Anarchists are Socialists too). Of course some Socialists have believed that the state can act in the interest of the public by being stewards over these resources with the ideal of later devolving this to the communities and workers. Which has led to State Socialism (which Lenin called State Capitalism) on the one hand, and Social Democracy on the other. Some (like myself) think both strategies are flawed as do non-hierarchal Socialists (Anarcho-Communists, Syndicalists, Libertarian & Council Marxists, Democratic Confederalists, and maybe Agorists etc.)

There is also no mention of private - non-personal - property (although some Socialists like myself are against that too, but other Socialists see the issue as an irrelevance or inevitability).

Some see Socialism as sufficient in itself, others see it as part of the progress toward Communism (stateless, classless, moneyless as stated before).

Do you have a different definition of Socialism?

[hbrn]

According to these definitions, what is the difference between capitalistic US and socialistic Norway? Both allow social ownership of means of production, but they don't forbid private ownership.

> Socialists joke that detractors believe "Socialism is when the government does stuff, and the more stuff it does the more Socialist (or Communist) it is." But some commentators - see current popular right-wing American opinion pieces - really do seem to believe this.

By your own words, the difference between socialist Norway and capitalist US is universal healthcare, housing, pensions... government does stuff!

You are laughing at caricature capitalists, but don't you see that you are a caricature socialist? Norway is socialistic when it suits you, even though it contradicts your own definition of socialism.

> So Socialism is something very specific, but Socialists often associate themselves with other principles that they believe are in line with their moral values

If KKK starts preaching green energy, no one will listen to them. If you really want to achieve social policies similar to nordic countries, stop mixing them with your harmful political ideology. Nobody wants universal healthcare if it comes with famine caused by central planning.

> Do you have a different definition of Socialism?

Yours is fine, except that it is impractical - it doesn't draw the line anywhere. It doesn't define socialism, it describes it. How do I tell whether state is capitalist or socialist? Can it be both?

Given that socialists aren't happy with freedom to practice socialism they have right now, my pragmatic definition is that socialism is a state in which social ownership of means of production is enforced, meaning private ownership is banned. Most socialists seem to defend such policies.

[yourmatenate]

You are right that Socialism is a broad word and Socialism is a broad tent. I tend to personally use it more narrowly than some Socialists, but acknowledge that others consider universal social policies or co-operatives as at least partial Socialism, or part of an effort towards it.

It doesn't suit me that Norway isn't fully Socialist. I'm glad that some policies started by Socialists have been implemented that offer some relief from the worst economic injustices of Capitalism, but I don't think it is sufficient or goes anywhere near far enough.

I agree that those seeking to introduce universal social programmes in America could use some better strategies. For example pointing out that Americans already pay twice toward healthcare in taxes as what Canadians do (3 x what some Europeans do), but are getting nothing in return for their high taxes most of their lives (if they don't qualify for medicare / medicaid or pay for exorbitant insurance on top of their taxes). But the right has done a good job of labelling any universal benefit - even if it saves people money - as Socialism, so maybe it is an unescapable label.

The United States has it's own social welfare programs. Some of which can be traced back to American Socialists. But I'd say the biggest of welfare program these days by expenditure is the American military, followed by corporate welfare in various forms (subsidies, overlooking tax evasion, government contracts, paying for externalities by taxation). It would be a stretch to call these Socialist, but they are definitely the government doing stuff, and I reckon have a lot in common with Lenin's state capitalism or even Mussolini's corporate fascism in my eyes.

Having said that Americans with a positive view of Capitalism has been going down, and a positive view of Socialism has been going up (especially among younger people). This seems to be true across most of Europe too, where it has never been as dirty a word as it is in the U.S.

Capitalism also suffers from the same broadness. I'd argue it only means "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit." But many people who aren't private owners of industry consider themselves Capitalists because they work for wages, have a house, and go shopping for things.

I'll admit that people calling themselves Socialists have done some pretty dumb things (bad crop planning, playing with missiles), especially in the early days, and a few so-called Socialists who sought for power and gained it abused it (Lenin and Mao). Capitalism has had it's share of major problems too (slavery and imperialism for example), and has had horrible dictators all of its own (Pinochet and Putin for example).

I would argue that when Socialism has failed it has been in trying to be more Capitalist (Lenin & Mao's biggest critics were Socialists and his harshest acts were against Socialists, and his worst acts were either against them or in response to trying to out-Capitalist the West). I'd also argue that Capitalism's biggest issues are inherent to Capitalism - see the Iron Law Of Oligarchy & overthrowing peaceful democratic countries for the benefits of corporations for example.

As for questions of state enforcement - maybe I associate with a different set of Socialists and maybe a different group are getting airtime here in Europe where I'm living right now, but I'm not hearing many people on the left speaking about enforcing state Socialism and banning much of anything. Most avowed Socialists parties here (which number millions of supporters this side of the pond) aren't arguing for this.

The most radical Socialists I know (Anarchists like me) don't want a state at all, and do want to see an end to the Capitalism that is being enforced at the moment, but I recognise I am in a minority, and offer solidarity in areas I can find agreement with other Socialists, with whom I may share some general ideals.