While I definitely agree that the term socialism is a site of contestation. It points to its importance in the long history of the class struggle. Almost all of the differences that have been laid out tie into the various attempts to transform capitalism into a different, more free and equal society (I recognize that within a Marxian frame work both terms are very problematic, but they are still important to the way these struggles have been positioned in public debate.) You can see this debate going on it Venezuela right now, between militants calling for more radical versions of socialism vs. civil servants who want Swedish style social democracy. Socialism becomes crucial precisely because it becomes the site of contestation. It is a demand for a new form of society based on radically different values, but that creation needs to be collective and experimental. You could think about this in the terms that Voloshinov lays out in his Marxism and the Theory of Language, which looks at the conflict over language as a crucial aspect of the class struggle. (V. denies the existence of separate class sign systems, but argues that the class struggle occurs in the way those terms are defined. Look at Guha's Elementary Aspects of Peasant Insurgency for examples of a more practical nature.)
The meaninglessness of socialism in the U.S. context has much more to do with the impoverishment of forms of popular resistance than anything else. In this sense, I agree with Harvey, that as long as class consciousness remains at this level of development, socialism is going to be off the table, even as a site of contestation.
robert wood
> "Public ownership of the means of production and means of subsistence" is
> how I always read the word "socialism."
>
> That could mean worker-administrated, through unions or other
> organizations, with the public at large holding the ultimate "lien"; it
> could mean government-owned if the government is really democratic; it
> could also mean owned by federations of collectives, etc. I always think
> of the Albert Parsons (Chicago Haymarket martyr) quote that Anarchism is a
> type of socialism but not all forms of socialism are anarchism."
>
> --OR: Should "socialism," like "populism," "libertarian," "anarchism,"
> etc., etc., join the ranks of the words that are "now meaningless"?
>
> If so, that list is getting awfully long. You have to communicate to
> people with words that mean something. Constant retreat is getting old.
>
> -B.
>
>
>
> Matthias Wasser wrote:
>
> "Read literally, a planned economy in the hands of a democratic
> government, I think. But then other dictionaries substitute 'worker' for
> 'social,' et cetera, which would lead to broader definitions."
>
>
> Chris Doss wrote:
>
> "What the hell does that mean, practically speaking?"
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>