The only metric that page uses to define India as socialist is “makes a constitutional reference to socialism”. That can mean socialism is some end goal, or they just have policy inspired by socialism.
Words have definitions, so just saying “this country is socialist” is not enough evidence to declare that country is socialist, unless your definition of socialism is “a system which people call socialist”.
By that definition, America is socialist so long as I call it socialist. It becomes tautological and useless.
Well I didn’t create that Wiki page, so I’m only just reiterating what it says on there.
According to that page it is, in whatever way you want to interpret that page as.
The only metric that page uses to define India as socialist is “makes a constitutional reference to socialism”. That can mean socialism is some end goal, or they just have policy inspired by socialism.
Having said all that, they are actually declaring they are socialists in their constitution, so even if they don’t get to it to a point where you think it’s socialist, they think they’re are already, or are going towards socialism.
People say things for reasons, and those reasons aren’t always to express the true state of things. For example, it’s powerful to capture positive social sentiment around socialism without having to actually relinquish any power to the working class. It effectively destroys workers’ ability to communicate effectively about what we want to see in the world.
Back in the day, you could simply say “I’m a socialist” and that meant that you advocated for a system where workers owned the means of production, and private property didn’t exist. Now you can say the same thing, and what does it mean? Literally nothing, it’s an incoherent thing to say because it has too many contradictory meanings.
I still identify as a libertarian socialist, but every other person I talk to doesn’t understand what I mean by this (pro-China? pro-Bernie? interested in dismantling private ownership? want to slightly increase taxes on corporations and implement universal healthcare?). Most people that use the label libertarian socialist align with the original definition of socialism, and I find value in that. However for the purposes of communicating to people who don’t agree with the position, it’s effectively useless.
Destroying that avenue to communicate was definitely intentional, it subverts actual organizational efforts. The same thing has happened with unions. Essentially the entire 19th century socialist movement has been systematically destroyed through propaganda and language manipulation.
Well truly, I don’t mean to discredit what you are saying (especially since its being said well), but I gotta just point out again that they think they are socialists, enough so that they put it into their constitution.
“Boots on the ground” reality I agree with you that they are not (though I am an outsider, not a citizen of the nation, so my view is from the external), they seem very capitalistic to me. But again, their stated goals as per their constitution (and that wiki page while we’re at it) says otherwise.
The only metric that page uses to define India as socialist is “makes a constitutional reference to socialism”. That can mean socialism is some end goal, or they just have policy inspired by socialism.
Words have definitions, so just saying “this country is socialist” is not enough evidence to declare that country is socialist, unless your definition of socialism is “a system which people call socialist”.
By that definition, America is socialist so long as I call it socialist. It becomes tautological and useless.
Well I didn’t create that Wiki page, so I’m only just reiterating what it says on there.
According to that page it is, in whatever way you want to interpret that page as.
Having said all that, they are actually declaring they are socialists in their constitution, so even if they don’t get to it to a point where you think it’s socialist, they think they’re are already, or are going towards socialism.
People say things for reasons, and those reasons aren’t always to express the true state of things. For example, it’s powerful to capture positive social sentiment around socialism without having to actually relinquish any power to the working class. It effectively destroys workers’ ability to communicate effectively about what we want to see in the world.
Back in the day, you could simply say “I’m a socialist” and that meant that you advocated for a system where workers owned the means of production, and private property didn’t exist. Now you can say the same thing, and what does it mean? Literally nothing, it’s an incoherent thing to say because it has too many contradictory meanings.
I still identify as a libertarian socialist, but every other person I talk to doesn’t understand what I mean by this (pro-China? pro-Bernie? interested in dismantling private ownership? want to slightly increase taxes on corporations and implement universal healthcare?). Most people that use the label libertarian socialist align with the original definition of socialism, and I find value in that. However for the purposes of communicating to people who don’t agree with the position, it’s effectively useless.
Destroying that avenue to communicate was definitely intentional, it subverts actual organizational efforts. The same thing has happened with unions. Essentially the entire 19th century socialist movement has been systematically destroyed through propaganda and language manipulation.
Well truly, I don’t mean to discredit what you are saying (especially since its being said well), but I gotta just point out again that they think they are socialists, enough so that they put it into their constitution.
“Boots on the ground” reality I agree with you that they are not (though I am an outsider, not a citizen of the nation, so my view is from the external), they seem very capitalistic to me. But again, their stated goals as per their constitution (and that wiki page while we’re at it) says otherwise.
Anyway, good discussion. :)