If you've ever read my writings, you are probably aware that I am quite familiar with a wide range of different political philosophies. You've probably noticed that I'm quite familiar with socialist theory. You've heard me talk about marxism (Karl Marx, Frederick Engels), fabian socialism/evolutionary socialism (Eduard Bernstein, George Bernard Shaw), libertarian socialism (Peter Kropotkin, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Murray Bookchin), Lange-Lerner market socialism (Fred M. Taylor, Oskar Lange, Abba Lerner), and even individualist socialism and Ricardian socialism (Thomas Hodgskin, Benjamin Tucker). This might give one the impression that I am a socialist, but technically I'm not. In the past, I have identified as an anarchist and as a socialist, but my current views don’t really fit into either of those categories.
"Socialism" refers to a wide range of ideas, but it can basically be reduced to about four competing definitions:
Type1Socialism: an economic system in which the workers own the means of production
Type2Socialism: a political system that is democratically controlled by the workers and in which the means of production are publicly owned
Type3Socialism: an economic system in which private property has been abolished in favor of communal ownership
Type4Socialism: an economic system in which allodial and fee-simple property have been replaced with usufructuary property
Which one of these four definitions applies to the term "socialism" really depends on which school of socialism you are referring to. Proudhon's mutualism, Bakunin's collectivism, Rocker's anarcho-syndicalism, and Morris' guild socialism would be examples of Type1Socialism. This form of socialism is basically libertarian and can be associated with either minimal government or anarchism. The socialist phase of marxism in Marx/Engels, the fabian socialism of Shaw, and the market socialism of Lange/Lerner/Taylor all represent Type2Socialism. These forms of socialism tend to be more statist. The communist phase of marxism in Marx/Engels, the fully-automated luxury communism of Bastani, and the communist anarchism of Peter Kropotkin are forms of Type3Socialism. These forms of socialism ought, theoretically, to be libertarian or anarchist. The Ricardian socialism of Thomas Hodgskin and individualist anarchism of Benjamin Tucker are forms of Type4Socialism. These forms of socialism are libertarian. (The philosophy of "anarcho-capitalism" is actually largely based upon the market anarchism of the Type4socialist Benjamin Tucker. If you replace Tucker's usufructuary property with allodial property, you arrive at Murray Rothbard's position.)
My views do not align with any of those definitions of socialism. Instead, my views fall more in line with third way economic philosophies, such as distributism, georgism, and social democracy. Distributism's "key tenet is that ownership of the means of production should be as widespread as possible rather than being concentrated in the hands of a few owners (Capitalism) or in the hands of state bureaucrats (Socialism)."(John Médaille) Georgism is "an economic philosophy holding that, while people should own the value they produce themselves, economic value derived from land (including natural resources and natural opportunities) should belong equally to all members of society"(Wikipedia) Social democracy is "a political, social and economic ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal-democratic polity...a policy regime involving a commitment to representative and participatory democracy, measures for income redistribution and regulation of the economy in the general interest and welfare state provisions."(Wikipedia)
These three philosophies are referred to as third way philosophies insofar as they can be regarded as being neither capitalistic nor socialistic. "Capitalism," like socialism, is a term with several competing definitions, which are as follows:
Type1Capitalism: an economic system in which a minority of individuals, known as capitalists, dominate the economy and the majority of the people have little or no alternative to working for the capitalist class in exchange for wages
Type2Capitalism: an economic system in which there is private-ownership of the means of production and a market system for the distribution of goods and services
Using the first definition, Type1Capitalism, it can be said that these third way philosophies of distributism, georgism, and social democracy are neither capitalist nor socialist. Of course, by the other definition, these are just forms of capitalism. Also, these third way philosophies are not mutually exclusive. These three philosophies are actually compatible with one another, so that one can simultaneously adhere to all three philosophies.
I really don't care about workers owning and managing the means of production. I actually look forward to automation eliminating jobs and machines replacing workers. I think it is more important for all citizen's to have a share of social wealth. It's more important to me that all citizens get a basic income in the form of a citizen's dividend. If there is sufficient taxation and redistribution, then I don't care whether the means of production are publicly owned or privately owned. I'm not necessarily opposed to all forms of socialism; I just don't think it is necessary or really beneficial to transition to socialism when distributive justice can be achieved without adopting any form of socialism. I don't think that we need to abolish private ownership of land and natural resources, so long as we tax the monopolization of them by private individuals and use the tax revenue to benefit the whole community. Furthermore, I like these third way philosophies because they do not require us to have a violent revolution in order to set things right. Distributism, georgism, and social democracy can be implemented within the framework of the existing system, via reform rather than revolution. These third way approaches make it possible to achieve distributive justice and a better world without bloodshed or burning down the existing system.
P. S. There may be some confusion about the term "social democracy."
Certain social democrats have called themselves "socialists" because they like how it makes them seem more radical. I have in mind people like Anthony Crosland and Bernie Sanders. What they are advocating is not socialism proper. Part of the reason that some people equate social democracy with socialism is because the German Social Democratic Party was originally a marxist party. Reformers like Eduard Bernstein ended up revising the marxist party line. Over time, social democrats abandoned socialism altogether in favor of ameliorative reforms within the capitalist system. Modern social democracy, as expressed in the Nordic Model, actually rejects every aspect of marxist ideology and is not socialist at all.
Conservatives, libertarians, and Republicans are inclined to call liberalism, Keynesianism, and social democracy all "socialism." This is the result of ignorance. These folks use the term "socialist" as a slur. To many people on the right-wing, socialism is when government does things. This, however, is not an accurate definition of socialism. This is really just bullshit right-wing propaganda.
Additionally, it is worth noting that distributists tend to identify themselves as simultaneously "anti-socialist" and "anti-capitalist." However, they specifically define "socialism" in terms of Type2/Type3Socialism and define "capitalism" in terms of Type1Capitalism. They totally support Type2Capitalism, although they would never consider it to actually be “capitalism.” Furthermore, distributists may, but also may not, support Type1/Type4Socialism, but they would not refer to those types of socialism as "socialism."
