“Socialism” is among the most feared words that arise in political discourse. It is used by some to strike fear into people’s minds. To others, this word symbolizes hope for the planet and its inhabitants. This word’s usage is so inconsistent that it is often stretched to whatever narrative its user prefers.

Britannica’s article by Richard Dagger defines socialism as a “social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources.” Essentially, businesses are managed by the people instead of private individuals. This word was first given life in the 1800s as it was used to describe a utopia. Robert Owens is the name of the man who took the initiative to make this utopia a reality. Soon after, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels developed a new vision of this word. They acknowledged the utopian nature of Owen's beliefs and took it upon themselves to create a more scientific socialism.

To the person who places their faith in conservatism, the word takes on a frighteningly dystopian usage. The conservative has no definition for the word. The action of defining this word is of no purpose to those whose only idea of the word stems from dictatorships. They have never seen these so-called dictatorships. Why would they want to, when they can hear the stories of these failed countries from the leaders who know as much as any other conservative. The conservative fears the changing of society, and the death of capitalism serves as an unthinkably severe threat to the status quo.

To the person who places their faith in liberalism, the word is seen as a light in a dark world of wealth inequality. The liberal defines socialism as "the use of public industry." They see our crippling world and find a mix of capitalism and socialism. This mix provides the people with affordable healthcare, public transportation, and free education. To the liberal, socialism shines its light on wealth inequality through taxes. These taxes take power from the wealthy and are given back to the people. Unions would dominate businesses to provide higher wages. To the followers of liberalism, their ideology is the one that serves the people and not the rich. In preaching this, the liberal neglects the consequences of their actions and the material reality they exist in. They neglect the inevitability of imperialism and prioritize their country over the lives of people abroad.

To the person whose loyalty is earned by socialism, the word is seen differently than the conservative and liberal. The socialist does not fail to provide a definition like the conservative, nor do they neglect the material realities of the working class like the liberal. The socialist defines socialism as "An economic system in which the mode of production serves the working class." They look at the productive capabilities of society and combine them with the relationship between people and the productive forces to form an analysis of society. They see how as productive forces advance, contradictions arise with the relations to these productive forces. The socialist recognizes capitalist society as having reached a point of production where the relations to the productive forces have given rise to contradictions. The wealthy capitalist exploits the worker as the desire of the capitalist is profit. The worker desires a better quality of life. These two interests are directly opposed. The socialist recognizes these antagonisms and fights to the best of their ability against the ruling class to resolve these contradictions in the form of socialism. The socialist sees no reason why people should go hungry when there is more than enough food to go around. They see no reason why people should stay homeless when there are more vacant homes than homeless people. They see no reason why anyone should go uneducated or uncared for, despite society having the capacity to educate and care for everyone. They see socialism as a stage in societal development, the stage that directly follows capitalism. Capitalism and socialism are treated as completely separate systems by the socialist, unlike the liberal who favors a mix of two fundamentally opposing systems (although liberals do this in name only, in reality, they only favor capitalism). This might raise the question, why are they incompatible? The socialist views society as a dictatorship of the ruling class. In that sense, socialists view capitalism as a dictatorship of the capitalist class. It is core to socialism that society be dictated by the working class.

After taking a clear look at the way “socialism” is used by conservatives, liberals, and socialists, it is clear that the socialist’s definition is different in two senses. It is different in the sense that the socialist’s definition draws an actual distinction between capitalism and socialism as well as basing their definition off of the material reality in front of them (the mode of production). 

The word socialism's usage is remarkably fluid. Conservatives, liberals, and socialists all have vastly different interpretations of the same word. None of the definitions are necessarily objectively correct though, they can't be when the word is used in so many different ways. Despite that, the definition of the socialist is the only one that clearly makes sense to be the definition. What's important is to know someone's political views, so you can have a better understanding of what socialism means to them.