FWIW, I would still somewhat disagree with you. Safety-net programs are highly progressive and government controlled, which is certainly an aspect of socialism.
Whether it’s evil Pol Pot socialism or happy Europe Socialism of course is in the eye of the beholder.
I certainly think it’s possible to do free insulin without the genocide, but I’m not a republican.
OASDI could be viewed as “socialism” but Medicare is a grey area? I thought Medicare in the US was provided through private entities? If US Medicare was provided solely through government-owned entities or was a system like Canada’s Medicare then it would clearly be a socialistic approach?
It’s certainly murky. I use a simple test. What is the telos of the medical profession? Even adding in ACA and the public funding does not change it. It is a profit maximizing business. Any positives wrt to general improvement in health can only be a secondary side effect. It’s there to make money.
Just looking at if the endeavor is publicly funded makes the concept of socialism worthless. The defense dept is 100% funded by the public. Are you comfortable describing te military as socialist? Not me. Same for law enforcement, the judiciary, etc. so I don’t think that’s a good definition.
It’s potentially socialist, in that:
Your point is well taken, though, that other arrangements are more socialist.
Obamacare created the death panels. The ACA just allowed people to buy health insurance.
I disagree. In fact, I would argue by your own definition, the military, police, and judiciary are “socialist”, because they are not profit maximizing.
By mine definition, it’s less clear, as they are not “progressive” arrangements, necessarily (or at the very least it’s unclear what they are), because the service doesn’t exist on an individual level.
Anyway, “socialism” is a dumb word, and we should probably just leave it at that.
I do like the American Libertarian term “minarchist”, that sort of suggests levels of government involvement based on necessity, with military being pretty necessary.
i think most americans agree (at least in practice) that the “space” left by classic liberalism is too wild. big companies will use it to restrict freedom. the government must step in and positively guarantee freedom in some way.
i guess the question is whether this ruins capitalism or not.
my impression is that for supporters, “socialism” can be a way to recognize these criticisms require a fundamental changes to capitalism while avoiding the apocalyptic, revolutionary aspects of full communism.
on the other hand, in this country, socialism is often treated like communism in sheep’s clothing.
so something like universal healthcare or social security can be capitalistic if it perceived as being there to save capitalism from its excesses.
Or it can be socialist if it’s really a radical attitude pretending to be evolutionary.
My definition would include the phrase “public ownership of the means of production or distribution.” The definition you inferred falls under the category of socialism is a meaningless concept. I’m not a big fan of words that have no meaning.
A municipal water district is a fair example of socialism in effect today in America. I’ll bet you can think of others.
And I agree that the current use by radical politicians is intended to conflate socialism with autocracy. Designed to disparage any idea that is (to use your term) progressive. Which is unfortunate since collective action would be nice.
Personally, I think that in order to deal with things like climate change, water shortages, and food production we are going to need more than a libertarian framework. Those will require public participation, not just servitude.
Our system of government allows for socialism. And communism. One of the batshit ideas that came out of the “red scare” was that communism was illegal in this country.
That’s the definition I learned eons ago.
But, I know that some people call anything that looks like tax-transfer “socialism”. Others, any domestic gov’t spending. And, others seem to use it as “any policy I don’t like”.
Yep. Written works are meaningless collections of letters unless the writer and the reader have the same meanings. “Socialism” and “fascism” are words I don’t use unless I include explicit definitions.
Also,
Yep. Kind of the first bullet on that congressional resolution.
… although many libertarians would argue that our current military is well beyond what is necessary.
There are some pretty standard definitions of what it is but sadly it is often just whatever the user chooses it to mean. Workers organizing to get fair working conditions are called socialists or communists by some folks.
Could list lots of examples of inappropriate uses of the word socialism but WTH.
A good read about a local government.
They replaced the county administrator, health officer, and legal officer. They closed the DEI office. I hope Politico follows up with stories about actual change in ordinances or administration.
Much of the impetus seems to be policies regarding covid. Assuming that’s not controversial anymore, I wonder what issues a county deals with will actually merit the rhetoric.
Yep, I know it is pay walled. In Couer D’Alene Idaho. The elected board of trustees has turned into a far right majority group, which is determined to stop the indoctrination of students into leftist viewpoints.
For most of the past two years, the college’s governing board has been a volatile experiment in turning grievances into governance. Trustees backed by the county Republican Party hold a majority on the board. They have denounced liberal “indoctrination” by the college faculty and vowed to bring the school administration’s “deep state” to heel and “Make N.I.C. Great Again.”
The injection of such sweeping political aims into the routine administration of a community college of 4,600 students, one better known locally for its technical training programs than the politics of its faculty, has devolved into a full-blown crisis. The school has faced lawsuits from two of the five presidents it has had since the start of the previous school year. A district court judge ordered one of those presidents reinstated on Friday in a ruling that castigated the trustees for “steering N.I.C. toward an iceberg.” The college has lost professors and staff and had its debt downgraded by Moody’s, which cited the school’s “significant governance and management dysfunction.”
The school is now facing dis accreditation, and the bond ratings are falling. Not great news. Local business owners are rightly concerned that their source for skilled workers is in jeopardy
My point being, the culture wars do have very real victims. When we alter the mission of institutions towards purposes they are ill equipped to shoulder, we lose. The same goes for far left. For them, the idea of prohibiting ideas at universities because they make some people uncomfortable is anathema to its core mission. Mirror image of the far right, imo.
The idea that viewpoints counter to our own are evil must cease. In a world we are so selfish and self centered however I don’t see that happening soon.
most of us will be 100% pro slavery if born during that era
I read the article in the NYT earlier. I couldn’t figure out what they were changing other than presidents.
No mention of courses added or deleted. No mention of changes in course materials or topics. Nothing on campus organizations or speakers. It seems that unless students reads about board vs. trustees, their experience hasn’t changed.
The threatened loss of accreditation seems to be all about governance.
I’m not saying there won’t be changes in the past, just that I don’t know what kinds of changes are going to happen at a school that seems to be mostly about technical degrees.
Not sure why it matters what “the changes” are. At the end of the day, preserving the accredition and bond ratings are at the very tippy top of the to do list for the trustees. The result of whatever the changes…well it’s a failure.
If your local football team was 1-15 for the past 3 years, I don’t think we need to talk about exactly what plays made the team lose. Just get a new coach. Granted, I’m a result merchant. As another bad analogy, if I were on the board of a company and my CEO had gone thru 5 CFOs, I’d be disappointed in their performance. I’d not be interested in why each resigned.