Measuring the percentage of private vs state ownership of the means of production isn’t going to tell you whether that state is a capitalist one or a socialist one. The salient question is, which economic class wields the power of the state to suppress the other class? Socialism isn’t a slider bar, it’s a matter of political power in the class war.
The US government was never not captured by the bourgeoisie, because the US was born of a bourgeois revolution[1]. The wealthy, white, male, land-owning, largely slave-owning Founding Fathers constructed a bourgeois state with “checks and balances” against the “tyranny of the majority”. It was never meant to represent the majority—the working class—and it never has, despite eventually allowing women and non-whites (at least those not disenfranchised by the carceral system) to vote. BBC: [Princeton & Northwestern] Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy
Every morning you drive on a road you didn’t build, drop your kids at a school you didn’t found, and trust that if your house catches fire, someone will show up without asking for a credit card first. None of that came from a business looking to profit. It came from all of us chipping in so everyone gets something we couldn’t manage alone.
That’s the basic idea behind socialism: we’re stronger when we pool what we have. And we already live it. When big banks and automakers were about to collapse, the government stepped in with public money to save them. If it’s fine to share the risk for corporations, why is it “radical” to share it for regular people?
So the question isn’t whether we do socialism. We already do. It’s who the leadership is willing to do it for.
What you’re describing is fine; it’s not wrong. The issue is that you’re abusing the term “socialism,” which already has a well-defined and widely agreed-upon meaning that is quite different from the one you’re using.
You’re right, the textbook definition is social ownership of the means of production, and “socialized costs” or “public support” would be more precise for what I’m describing. And I don’t think it’s “well-defined and widely agreed-upon.”
Marxists, market socialists, democratic socialists, and libertarian socialists all disagree on what it actually requires, and in everyday US usage it’s commonly used to mean government spending for social programs.
Either way, my point stands: we already collectivize risk and costs for some groups. The real question is who gets that help.
They don’t even know socialism exists in the US.
Also what you say is more tied to political identity instead of your actual beliefs whether or not the belief falls anywhere close to truth.
??? are you writing from a parallel universe or is this just “socialism is when the government does stuff”
Are you in the universe where people start sentences with question marks?
Spanish speakers would be pretty surprised to hear that they are from the other universe
Uno signo de interrogación de apertura, is different than your freestyle butchery.
You don’t know that it doesn’t and never has.
Care to explain the main idea of your inference?
Measuring the percentage of private vs state ownership of the means of production isn’t going to tell you whether that state is a capitalist one or a socialist one. The salient question is, which economic class wields the power of the state to suppress the other class? Socialism isn’t a slider bar, it’s a matter of political power in the class war.
Previously:
Here’s my opinion.
Every morning you drive on a road you didn’t build, drop your kids at a school you didn’t found, and trust that if your house catches fire, someone will show up without asking for a credit card first. None of that came from a business looking to profit. It came from all of us chipping in so everyone gets something we couldn’t manage alone.
That’s the basic idea behind socialism: we’re stronger when we pool what we have. And we already live it. When big banks and automakers were about to collapse, the government stepped in with public money to save them. If it’s fine to share the risk for corporations, why is it “radical” to share it for regular people?
So the question isn’t whether we do socialism. We already do. It’s who the leadership is willing to do it for.
Not really, no. What you’re describing is the socialization of production.
What you’re describing is fine; it’s not wrong. The issue is that you’re abusing the term “socialism,” which already has a well-defined and widely agreed-upon meaning that is quite different from the one you’re using.
You’re right, the textbook definition is social ownership of the means of production, and “socialized costs” or “public support” would be more precise for what I’m describing. And I don’t think it’s “well-defined and widely agreed-upon.”
Marxists, market socialists, democratic socialists, and libertarian socialists all disagree on what it actually requires, and in everyday US usage it’s commonly used to mean government spending for social programs.
Either way, my point stands: we already collectivize risk and costs for some groups. The real question is who gets that help.
Every modern economy is mixed to some degree.