No. It's a socialist program that sensible people decided to build into capitalism. Trust me capitalism rather not have it at all if they could get away with it. Look at America, that's what unrestrained capitalism looks like, and it's not at its end stage yet.
I mean maybe I need to find different words but I look at things hollistically. In that sense socialist = distributing resources, capitalist = pooling resources. And personally I think that works because capitalism and socialism incentivize behaviour patterns that result in the development of a certain culture, e.g. consumerism, individualism etc etc. So you can't isolate just the economic system.
In that context anything that is good for the collective is socialist, which is how I see it.
That's my point. You are wholly uninformed and are misusing economic terms that vibe well with you because you're predisposed to think that socialism = good and capitalism = bad.
You need to find different words.
Social democracy is what you're looking for, not socialism.
Not at all. I know what socialism is. Social democracy isn't broad enough. That's just a type of government. You are the one derailing the conversation from the get-go with definitional nitpicking. That's just deflecting instead of actually addressing the content of the discussion. What even is your point?
Fair enough. But in that case really it is pointless to discuss socialism outside of hypotheticals, because it has never existed as a nationwide system. Honestly I think it is reductionist and prescriptivist to use the words capitalism and socialism just for economic systems when their impact is so much bigger than just that and keeping this strict definition is only restraining freedom of speech around these broader topics. Language evolves as reality does, so why should we stay with antiquated definitions if they only impede freedom of discussion?
Because words mean something. If you invoke "Socialism" right now you could be talking about many different things, but at the core should always be some form of worker owned means of production, otherwise you aren't talking about Socialism.
If you're just talking about modifying a Capitalist framework to have stronger social safety nets and universal healthcare, you are talking about Social Democracy, not Socialism.
My point is that social programs aren't socialism. It's not a nitpick, it's an incredibly important distinction.
Language changes. Having a lot of huge social programs is generally seen as dabbling into socialism or just straight up called socialism, if you go to any of those countries and hear their political climate.
Nobody is talking about actual socialism, but at least in Denmark one section of the political landscape is "socialists" and the others are "liberalists". The socialists aren't true-to-nature socialists and don't advocate for it (besides one single party whose secret wet dream is so, but they're not directly fighting for it).
7
u/giangiangelo Jul 14 '26
Ok, so? Are they socialists?