Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Video & Multimedia

In reply to the discussion: Chomsky on socialism [View all]

Tal Vez

(660 posts)
5. Your definition of socialism is just another example of what Chomsky meant
Sun May 29, 2016, 12:16 AM
May 2016

when he said that the term socialism "has been so evacuated of content over the last century that it's hard even to use." The original meaning was public ownership of the major means of production. The theory was that the government would for a period of time own and control everything important and that over time there would be a "withering away of the State" leading to a communist nirvana. The traditional definition did not encompass an economy in which every employee owned an equal number of shares in a corporate entity. But, as Chomsky points out, many folks have tried to distort the meaning of the term to serve their own interests. For example, they like to label Medicaid and other transfer programs as Socialism.

My point is that Bernie Sanders has not been calling for Socialism as traditionally defined or even as you are trying to define it and my question is - why did he do that to himself? If you don't know why he did it, you don't know. I sure don't know. That's why I'm asking you.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Video & Multimedia»Chomsky on socialism»Reply #5