Pruning Back an Ideological "Re-Definition" of Socialism

Should language lose its integrity for ideological purposes? On Fox News in the wake of the passage of Obamacare, Brit Hume and Newt Gingrich, a former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, both (re)defined socialism as “government control of private property.” Their rendering falls short, however. According to the Random House Dictionary (via Dictionary.com), socialism is “a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole” (italics added). Whereas government regulation of privately-owned means of production and distribution involves some of the control being in the hands of the community as a whole through its government, socialism includes the vesting of both ownership and control with the government. 
Hume and Gingrich doubtless believed that words can be redefined to suit ideological objectives. Public discourse is difficult enough in a democracy. The dialogue "across the aisle" becomes more difficult when one or both sides decide that language can (and even should!) be subordinated to ideology to the extent that dictionary definitions (and common usages) are presumed to be changeable simply by applying a new meaning to the words on the public airwaves or speeches. Ideologically akin people will doubtlessly follow along, and soon the word has a meaning that contradicts the dictionary definition.  
Going further, to intentionally scare people by redefining a word in such a way that the word appears worse than it actually is nothing short of misleading manipulation. Even in such a case, not even the opposing partisans alert the people through the media or speeches that X means Y rather than Z according to dictionary definitions. No one stands up for language, so ideology can have its way and prey on words.
If government control via regulation is not convenient to the business sector and its advocates, what about government ownership without control! As per the definition of socialism, government ownership without formal control does not constitute socialist enterprise. Ownership and control can indeed be separated. Bearle and Means, in their classic treatise, The Modern Corporation and Private Property, point to the separation in modern large corporations, wherein stockholders as a group are the owners and control is maintained by managers. Theoretically, a government could own a company that is controlled by its management. Perhaps public policy would be served by the ownership alone, or the managers could have taken de facto control away from the government officials.
Therefore, the definition of socialism is more delimited than typically thought. To be sure, the meaning of words can change naturally, but such shifts are gradual as per changing times and thus uses, rather than sudden, as from being artificially interlarded for short-term political use. In the case of socialism, the term has historically applied to an entire economic system, such as those of the U.S.S. R. and China before capitalism made such inroads. A person would not say that healthcare is socialism, or even that taxes are socialistic. In Arizona, the dominant ideology has viewed taxes as theft.
With the fall of the command-and-control economic systems of the U.S.S.R. and China, socialism has come to be increasingly applied to governments owning and controlling particular enterprises rather than every means of production and distribution. Hence a capitalist economic system can contain socialist enterprises. For example, the Green Bay Packers’ football team in Wisconsin has been socialist because the citizens of the Green Bay together have owned the team. The community need not transfer ownership formally to a government for an enterprise to be socialistic. So too has the China National Tobacco Corp. 
In short, socialism can be distinguished from government regulation of privately-owned economic enterprise. Conflating the two by effectively redefining the word, socialism, muddies the public discourse and sows confusion, neither of which is helpful to viable republic. Furthermore, socialism can be applied to particular enterprises as well as to an entire economy whose means of production and distribution are owned and controlled by the community as a whole (often through its government). The application to particular enterprises does not reduce socialism to control alone. 

Prognosis for the Chinese Economy

At the end of February 2012, the World Bank released its “China 2030” report in Beijing. The bank’s president, Robert Zoellick, said that China’s economic growth model is unsustainable, so significant reforms are needed. The report projects growth down to five or six percent annually by 2030, down from the ten percent annual growth in the thirty years up to the issuance of the report. Given the nature of the reforms, the Chinese government officials have their work cut out for them.

For instance, the report calls for “further reforms of state enterprises,” including “separating ownership from management.”[1] Even in the case of the private sector in the U.S., such a separation has been daunting, as CEO’s typically control their respective boards—even being chairman of the board. For state enterprises, management may blur into the government officials under whom the enterprises are run. Moreover, the public or state interest is typically more salient in state enterprises, so separating management from the ownership can raise problems of legitimacy and accountability. Furthermore, lacking an independent judiciary, China is not exactly the sort of system wherein the checks and balances of a separation of ownership and management could viably function. In other words, hierarchical accountability wherein a boss tells a subordinate what to do is more in keeping with the macro political economy of China.

Secondly, the report urges China to build several “world-class research universities.”[2] Here again, the lack of an independent judiciary may make foreign scholars wary of living in China. On the plus side for China, strengthening research domestically may relieve the pressure to pirate technology from foreign companies (sharing technology is often a condition of foreign direct investment). More research done in China may result in relaxed FDI requirements and less industrial spying. The result could be higher economic growth rates both in the short term and beyond.

Lastly, the report urged more of a focus on environmental technology and more spending on social programs (ironic advice given to a communist country). Just months before the report, Beijing had agreed to make public the measurements of finer pollutants in the city (as the U.S. embassy had been publishing its own numbers there anyway). While environmental technology could make a dent, the ultimate problem for the Chinese concerning not just pollution, but economic sustainability as well, is the huge population—over a billion. Simply put, having more people means more must be consumed. Whether in terms of food or more cars on the road, the population itself may not be sustainable, especially as more of it has become densely-packed in urban centers. Ultimately, sustainability for our species has to do with whether we can limit ourselves, not just individually or even in our cities, but also as a species.

1. Bob Davis, “World Bank Chief Urges Reforms for Beijing,” The Wall Street Journal, February 27, 2012.
2. Ibid.