Are regulations a form of socialism?

[happiness]

My understanding of socialism is that it is by definition government ownership of the means of production. If regulation of private enterprise  represents the government exercising the privileges of ownership, it's it a form of socialism, albeit an incomplete one?

[StrictlyLogical]

Communism and socialism are not one and the same.

Redistribution of wealth through taxation of production (not ownership) is not "incomplete" socialism; it is an example of socialism.

Edited October 1, 2015 by StrictlyLogical

[softwareNerd]

My understanding of socialism is that it is by definition government ownership of the means of production. If regulation of private enterprise  represents the government exercising the privileges of ownership, it's it a form of socialism, albeit an incomplete one?

The essence of socialism is state control of the economy, for the good of the state as a whole, with the presumption that the individual's good is secondary to the good of the state. Sometimes, only "resource extraction" industries (e.g. mining and drilling) may actually be owned by the state, and even this is not strictly necessary. 

A welfare state -- qua concept -- has a slightly different focus: where the state is going to take care of individuals. A "nanny state" also tells them what's good for them. In practice,these things are combined. 

Regulations are a mixed bag. For example: a regulation might have a socialist motivation when farmers are allowed to run private farms, but may not sell more than 50% of their crop as they choose. The rest must be sold at or below a regulated rate, and to certain approved and regulated buyers, who will then channel it into a rationing system. Regulations may have a welfare state/nanny state motivation: e.g. where employers must give their employees a certain number of holidays and so on, or where pharmacies are not allowed to sell a drug to a buyer unless he has a prescription from a government-approved doctor. 

Sometimes, nanny state regulations crowd out private contracts. After a financial crisis, the government will sometimes enact regulations that they hope will reduce the probability of a future crisis. In absence of such regulation, private people might have taken steps -- almost certainly more intelligent steps -- to protect themselves. Sometimes, regulations are required to back up some other statist policy. For instance, the FDIC guarantees bank accounts. So, if one takes that as unchangeable context, it makes sense to have regulations that a private deposit-insurer might require as part of a contract.

Edited October 1, 2015 by softwareNerd

[Cadence]

I remember coming across this idea somewhere that regulations are an inversion of a principle of justice in that one is assumed to be guilty unless proven innocent.

In the sense that they restrict freedom, they are an essential feature of the welfare state. I would say that 0% regulation is laissez-faire, 100% regulation is socialism.

[Jacob Smith]

On 10/1/2015 at 3:45 PM, happiness said:

My understanding of socialism is that it is by definition government ownership of the means of production. If regulation of private enterprise  represents the government exercising the privileges of ownership, it's it a form of socialism, albeit an incomplete one?

Yes it is Socialism. 

[Aziz 2 Al-Jabir 2]

Regulations are more on the lines of fascism which one could argue is a loose form of socialism. In a fascist economy the means of production are technically privately owned but are controlled by the government through regulations. Marxist socialism which is the type of socialism most people think of, involves direct public ownership over the means of production. Regulations do not do this per se.

Edited December 28, 2015 by Aziz 2 Al-Jabir 2

[Reidy]

You apparently accept Rand's definition of fascism as a high degree of government control over the economy, short of overt socialism. Not everyone buys into this. Goldberg, in Liberal Fascism, defines it as a political habit of favoring emotion over reason and action over deliberation. Some fascists are overt socialists on this account (Hitler) while others (Mussolini and Peron) are not.

Why do you prefer Rand's account?

[Aziz 2 Al-Jabir 2]

18 hours ago, Reidy said:

You apparently accept Rand's definition of fascism as a high degree of government control over the economy, short of overt socialism. Not everyone buys into this. Goldberg, in Liberal Fascism, defines it as a political habit of favoring emotion over reason and action over deliberation. Some fascists are overt socialists on this account (Hitler) while others (Mussolini and Peron) are not.

Why do you prefer Rand's account?

I believe Rand's account of fascism is more consistent with the way fascism has been implemented throughout history, most notably in fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. The economic system of fascism includes strict government control of the means of production but typically not ownership. I don't think that "favoring emotion over reason and action over deliberation" is necessarily fascism as many different systems that are inconsistent with fascism can be derived from this habit. Fascism is a specific authoritarian political system not a "political habit." Hitler did describe himself as a socialist but not the type of socialist we typically think of as socialism. Hitler's socialism was not Marxism. He considered Marxism to be a form of socialism corrupted by Jews. His socialism is different in that it did not value equality between classes but rather the interests of a race and of a national identity formed along the lines of race. Strict government control over the economy and social life was the means by which those interests were to be promoted.