I can never post this information enough places. So many people have no idea what any of these terms mean. It's necessary, I think, to educate people to where they understand what's being discussed.
From Roger Scruton's Dictionary of Political Thought
Socialism [Abridged - G]:
A wide term, with two principal related meanings:
**One: In Marxian theory and official communist language, socialism denotes a social and economic system that is supposed to be the transitional stage between *capitalism and (full) *communism. The means of production are taken into social ownership, and the state persists as an administrative machine, upholding a new order of legality, and a new system of rights, in such a way as to permit the emergence of true common ownership, and the eventual abolition of the state. This has little or nothing to do with:
[This is not European or Scandiwegian socialism as practised in most Western democracies - G]
Two: ‘socialism’, construed as a broad and comprehensive outlook on the human condition. As a political theory, socialism is a relative newcomer and probably lacks both the system of traditional *liberalism and the pragmatic character of *conservatism. But its influence over modern politics is none the less great for its lack of clear foundations. The principal ideas seem to be these:
(i) The belief in *equality. This may be variously stated in terms of *equal opportunity, *egalitarianism, etc. The main consideration is that human beings are equally entitled to the things of this world since they are equal in every respect relevant to their entitlement. All inequalities must, therefore, be justified, and the onus is on the one who defends them to produce the proof.
(ii) The state as administrator. The state is seen, not as the legal and ceremonial manifestation of civil society, but rather as a complex administrative device, designed to guarantee individual entitlements and to distribute benefits among the citizens accordingly. The state is, therefore, primarily concerned with *distribution, and must provide and maintain the institutions which ensure that human goods – food, medicine, education, recreation – are made available to
everybody on terms that are as equal as possible. Law is necessary as a means to good order, and to effective administration. But neither it nor any other aspect of the state machinery, is an end in itself. Moreover, the state should be confined to administrative functions, and not, for example, set up as the propagator of religious doctrine, or nationalist ideology.
(iii) The elimination of systems of *control. People exert control over each other in various ways – e.g. through the *class system, through political institutions, and through hereditary privileges. All such systems violate the fundamental axiom of equality. While most socialists in sense 2. deny the Marxian thesis that all private property in the means of production is a form of control over other men’s lives, they accept that some is. Hence private property, while in itself right and permissible, and perhaps even a proper expectation of a citizen in a well-ordered society, should not be allowed to accumulate inordinately or to escape accountability for its use, lest vast systems of private control should emerge and prove damaging to the interests of society. Socialists used to draw the conclusion that the state must therefore be prepared to *nationalize major assets, and should curtail or forbid the transactions that lead to large-scale
private accumulation – such as gifts and inheritance. A softer kind of socialism has emerged in recent years, in which the role of the state is confined to regulating, taxation and preventing oligarchies and cartels, without itself directly owning or controlling economic assets. (See *New Labour.)
Those three main principles explain most of the details of socialist policy: in particular the attempt to eliminate privilege in all its forms [in the proper sense of the term privilege - G], the opposition to the *hereditary principle, and the defence of the *welfare state. Historically socialism has had strong affiliations with the *labour movement, for the obvious reason that, while it promises very little and threatens much to the class of property owners, it promises much and threatens little, or seems to threaten little, to the workers. It has been an important force in European politics and has acquired some of the pragmatism and ability to compromise which is integral to parliamentary government, so that, under the actual conditions of Western government, none of the three principles is expressed or applied in its pure, theoretical form.
