Michael Makovi's definition of socialism aligns closely with my own.
"[For the word socialism], I adopt the definition, government (or at least collective) ownership of the means of production."
Even more abstractly, we might say that socialism is government or collective decision-making concerning questions of individuals' consumption and production.
What this means is that for a system to be socialism, there must be some sort of government direction of what people are DOING. The government must be telling people, "You must do this; you cannot do that."
Heavy government regulation can therefore be socialist. The government may not literally own the means of production, but it is dictating how the means of production may be used. An in economics, "ownership" is defined as control of resources, not legal title. In economics, it is common to say that property rights are defined by (1) right of use, (2) right of transfer, and (3) right of exclusion, not by legal title. In other words, economically speak, something is owned by whoever controls it, not by whoever has a legal piece of paper with their name on it.
Now, I would say, socialism is NOT binary. It is possible for something to be "slightly socialist" or for one sector of the economy to be socialist while another is not. For example, if the government is directing the production of cars but not trucks, then the car sector is socialist while the truck sector is not.
Or let's say the government is regulating cars' headlights but not their engines. Then that sector is socialist to a degree, but not completely socialist.
So we can talk about degrees of extensiveness - how many sectors are regulated - and intensiveness - how heavily they are regulated.
Also, taxation of specific activities can function as a form of regulation, and therefore, socialism. Taxing people who do X is equivalent to imposing a fine on people who do X. That's not quite forcing people to abstain from X, but it's close. So it's some degree of socialism. Putting people in prison for not paying a fine, and imposing a fine for doing X, isn't the same as putting people to death for doing X, but it's somewhere on the same spectrum.
But to be socialist, there must be some aspect of government control of decision-making.
..."
Note that Makovi goes on to say more that I don't agree with. Original comment here:
https://www.facebook.com/steve.horwitz/posts/10157877109665334?comment_id=10157877115770334&reply_comment_id=10157877167140334
"[For the word socialism], I adopt the definition, government (or at least collective) ownership of the means of production."
Even more abstractly, we might say that socialism is government or collective decision-making concerning questions of individuals' consumption and production.
What this means is that for a system to be socialism, there must be some sort of government direction of what people are DOING. The government must be telling people, "You must do this; you cannot do that."
Heavy government regulation can therefore be socialist. The government may not literally own the means of production, but it is dictating how the means of production may be used. An in economics, "ownership" is defined as control of resources, not legal title. In economics, it is common to say that property rights are defined by (1) right of use, (2) right of transfer, and (3) right of exclusion, not by legal title. In other words, economically speak, something is owned by whoever controls it, not by whoever has a legal piece of paper with their name on it.
Now, I would say, socialism is NOT binary. It is possible for something to be "slightly socialist" or for one sector of the economy to be socialist while another is not. For example, if the government is directing the production of cars but not trucks, then the car sector is socialist while the truck sector is not.
Or let's say the government is regulating cars' headlights but not their engines. Then that sector is socialist to a degree, but not completely socialist.
So we can talk about degrees of extensiveness - how many sectors are regulated - and intensiveness - how heavily they are regulated.
Also, taxation of specific activities can function as a form of regulation, and therefore, socialism. Taxing people who do X is equivalent to imposing a fine on people who do X. That's not quite forcing people to abstain from X, but it's close. So it's some degree of socialism. Putting people in prison for not paying a fine, and imposing a fine for doing X, isn't the same as putting people to death for doing X, but it's somewhere on the same spectrum.
But to be socialist, there must be some aspect of government control of decision-making.
..."
Note that Makovi goes on to say more that I don't agree with. Original comment here:
https://www.facebook.com/steve.horwitz/posts/10157877109665334?comment_id=10157877115770334&reply_comment_id=10157877167140334