I understand socialism as government owning the means of production and presiding over a command economy. That means government controls the economy. That has worked poorly where it has been tried. However, other people posting to OLO seem to mean something other than that by socialism.

I expressed my hopes at Obama’s presidency and another poster replied as follows.

“Obama will not be the saviour of the US. He is too socialist. He is putting the US into more debt.”

The business cycle depends more on the private sector of the economy than on government actions. Capitalist nations will have bad years and good years depending on the business cycle. It makes sense to have a tax policy accumulating surpluses during the good years so that government can provide necessary services during the bad years. Howard managed to accumulate surpluses so Australia can now operate through the bad years. Rudd has to operate with a deficit since the business cycle precludes generating a surplus.

On the other hand Bush cut taxes by an unreasonable amount during the good years such that Obama has to drive the country even further into debt during bad years to provide the services he promised during his campaign.

Regardless of who is in power countries must operate at a deficit when the economy is in a downturn to minimise the suffering of the citizens.

There is nothing socialist about deficit financing. Sometimes it is necessary.

The word, socialism, is used loosely. How do you define socialism?

Dear David f,

I realize that some people equate socialism
with the previous Soviet-style socialism. They
think of it as being akin to communism.

However, I think of socialism as a system that
aims to create social equality
through a centrally planned economy.

The state takes ownership of strategic industries
such as railways, airlines, mines, banks,
telephone systems, medical services, et cetera.
Extensive welfare services
are provided such as for example - college education,
medical services, subsidised public housing...

I've read somewhere that socialist economies may
distribute wealth more evenly than capitalist
ones, but they are less efficient at creating
wealth in the first place, and they are also more
bureaucratized and less productive.

One definition I've heard is -
"Capitalism is the unequal distribution of wealth.
Communism is the equal distribution of poverty."

Most people equate Communism with Socialism or Marxism.

The basic family unit is a socialist model as is the structure of of tribes, and these are probably the only methods that best guarantee mutual survival of their members.

We in Australia have a form of socialism.
Nothing like what is intended by the word but in part we are socialist.
And socialism was even in the words of Starlin the enemy of communism.
To say Obama is socialist is a spotlight on America today, attempts to introduce a health system like ours or England's is called socialism.
Our health , education, social welfare, unemployment system, so very much is far better than that country's yet it is called socialism?
The current financial crash was bought about by American greed, the opposite to socialism.
It is my view the future will never see a true socialist future but our system is here to stay.

How long is a piece of string? Much of the debate on these issues seems to come down to that sort of imponderable question.

I'm happy to have the term "socialism" apply to the sort of Gov't handouts that are designed to ensure people don't suffer too badly if they fail to properly secure themselves to life's ladder. Such things as unemployment benefits, disability pensions, supporting parent payments, aged pensions for those without adequate personal resources. I'm also happy to see it apply to measures that are designed to assist the State by improving productivity and health of individuals, such as public healthcare and education.

Where I draw the line is at the public support of the lifestyles of those who are well able to support themselves. It is patently absurd to me when an average family, earning an average income, can pay no net tax, yet can have sufficient funds to spend up on a new car every few years, a new tv each time there is a new model, and so on. Those are luxuries and should not be paid for by the State.

In terms of State intrusion into private business, there used to be a clear distinction between socialist gov'ts and more right-wing ones. The Howard years shower that is no longer the case, with State intrusion, data collection and surveillance becoming ever-greater. Individuals can be significantly disadvantaged by failing to do the things that the Gov't insists are necessary to gain access to the largesse being handed out to the undeserving, which leads me to the conclusion that the handouts are largely there to act as an incentive to hand over one's information, which can then be "mined" for things useful to the bureaucracy.

[cont]

They also act to reduce opposition to the data-collection and manipulation, which was once very strong in this country. It's a thin end of the wedge", leading even as we speak to police being granted powers to enter homes without the knowledge of the occupiers for the purpose of establishing surveillance and the power to listen in, once again with no knowledge of the parties, to private phone, internet and other electronic comms.

How long before were told "if you want your "new plasma tv bonus" you'll have to accept the camera and microphones linked to Central Records it comes with, which of course, no one will ever abuse. Honest people have nothing to hide"?

It may come as a surprise to some reading the above to know that I've identified myself as socialist for most of my life. It saddens me that every time there is a socially-justified Govt measure, it is linked to other measures designed to place greater power and control in the hands of bureaucrats. Many of the programs need little supervision other than a capacity to check ID, yet they have massive, bloated bureaucracies grown around them, usually staffed by people who are expressly absolved from personal accountability for decisions they may make.