/lit/ - Literature

>>22993397
>If socialism is "administration of the common weal," and the common weal is "the general wellbeing of a group," then your definition seems so broad that it encompasses most forms of social organization.
It does look that way, yes. Hence why modern (American) understanding of socialism and related concepts is useless and of no importance.

>Is a large corporation with a working group that "fosters employee well-being" socialist?
Probably not given its focus on profit and not the administration of common weal as there is no such thing in a purely economic association. Perhaps i am wrong but there are two many variables to accurately answer you as you can bring up hundreds of hypotheticals.

>Is an Alcoholics Anonymous group socialist, since it looks after the health and spiritual wellness of its members?
I dont think so as it has no authority over any common weal, you seem to be conflating the individual with the unpossesed common.

>Is a synagogue socialist? A mosque? A church?
Perhaps to some extent.

>Can you give some examples of social organizations that don't aim, in at least one way, for a kind of general well-being?
Ones dedicated entirely to economic pursuits by definition, as there is no common weal only the drive to seek economic success. Those like America too, they have fragmented society to such an individualistic degree that there is no common weal as everybody must compete in all things for the scant resourceses that big business mismanages or forgets. Or those without any kind of State, functional or otherwise. Communist to, as they view people are a resource.