I think you’re just moving the goalposts by following strict definitions. Most people, probably even here on Lemmy, when they say they want “socialist” policies probably mean “higher guardrails”.
The problem is that “normal” guardrails and safety nets that most other capitalist countries have are demonized as “socialism”. We haven’t been successful saying “no, it’s not”, so maybe reclaiming the word as not evil is the way to go
Seriously. I could take or leave government owning the means of production. You know what I want? I want universal healthcare and for no one to want for food or shelter. It doesn’t have to be extravagant. But in a country as rich as ours, if you can’t afford a studio apartment, we should just give one to you. It won’t be fancy. It won’t be where you want to live your entire life. But you will never want for a roof over your head. Everyone should have access to the bare necessities of life. Beyond that? Learn some skills, work, and build whatever lifestyle you want. But no one should want for the bare essentials.
Will a few just sit in their government-issued studio apartment and play video games til they die of old age? Sure. But the vast majority won’t. And really, the people with so little work ethic are the type most companies really don’t want working for them anyway. You can force people like that to get a job, but they’ll ultimately be a drag on any organization that manages to hire them. Best to just make sure everyone has the essentials and that anyone working is working because they want to work, not because the alternative is homelessness.
I’m definitely capitalist in that I think private wownership of the means of production usually works out best but there are many variations and we seem to pick the worst.
One of the fundamental purposes of government is to establish a market. Establish a foundation of legal and contractual processes, a currency, some level of transparency and fairness. We mostly have those, although the transparency and fairness has been heavily eroded.
But government is established “by the people, for the people”. Its governments role to configure that marketplace to serve the people, the society. Capitalism will always exploit negative externalities, imbalances of power, lack of transparency, but its governments role to structure those to not harm people or society, and we’re failing at that. Modern capitalism is structured for very short term profit-seeking even at the expense of the long term, but its governments role to consider that and structure the market to serve longer term goals. Some services for society are NOT handled well bely capitalism: that’s where government needs to step in more. It’s government that is failing , government captured by the oligarchs, government corrupted for profit and power seeking, government that’s lost its way. And by government I obviously mean those in charge, those who make the decisions, not those who get things done.
I found this article classifying types of capitalism and apparently its “ State-guided Capitalism”, but my preference gets fascinating from there - it classifies China as an extreme example whereas we tend to call it communism or socialism or something
In many countries, critical infrastructure, such as airlines or railways, are operated by companies in which the state owns all or most of the stock. These may also simply be directly controlled government entities in which case they function more like the police or fire service.
…
State-guided capitalism is different to socialism….
…
Examples of countries which have state-guided capitalism are everywhere. In fact, it could be argued that all countries are to some extent examples of it, as the modern economy always requires some form of regulation. Without such rules as health or safety regulations, societies end up with far more problems than without.
…
China – A great example of a heavily interventionist state is China. The Chinese government owns firms that together account for 40% of the economy,
While I agree the the words have been co-opted in American politics to mean something other than what they’re supposed to, that doesn’t take away from the dismal track record they have at succes6sful running a country.
We don’t need classical socialism in America as a replacement for capitalism we need something else entirely.
A program run by the government that offers assistance or relief to people isn’t socialism.
I think you’re just moving the goalposts by following strict definitions. Most people, probably even here on Lemmy, when they say they want “socialist” policies probably mean “higher guardrails”.
The problem is that “normal” guardrails and safety nets that most other capitalist countries have are demonized as “socialism”. We haven’t been successful saying “no, it’s not”, so maybe reclaiming the word as not evil is the way to go
Seriously. I could take or leave government owning the means of production. You know what I want? I want universal healthcare and for no one to want for food or shelter. It doesn’t have to be extravagant. But in a country as rich as ours, if you can’t afford a studio apartment, we should just give one to you. It won’t be fancy. It won’t be where you want to live your entire life. But you will never want for a roof over your head. Everyone should have access to the bare necessities of life. Beyond that? Learn some skills, work, and build whatever lifestyle you want. But no one should want for the bare essentials.
Will a few just sit in their government-issued studio apartment and play video games til they die of old age? Sure. But the vast majority won’t. And really, the people with so little work ethic are the type most companies really don’t want working for them anyway. You can force people like that to get a job, but they’ll ultimately be a drag on any organization that manages to hire them. Best to just make sure everyone has the essentials and that anyone working is working because they want to work, not because the alternative is homelessness.
I’m definitely capitalist in that I think private wownership of the means of production usually works out best but there are many variations and we seem to pick the worst.
One of the fundamental purposes of government is to establish a market. Establish a foundation of legal and contractual processes, a currency, some level of transparency and fairness. We mostly have those, although the transparency and fairness has been heavily eroded.
But government is established “by the people, for the people”. Its governments role to configure that marketplace to serve the people, the society. Capitalism will always exploit negative externalities, imbalances of power, lack of transparency, but its governments role to structure those to not harm people or society, and we’re failing at that. Modern capitalism is structured for very short term profit-seeking even at the expense of the long term, but its governments role to consider that and structure the market to serve longer term goals. Some services for society are NOT handled well bely capitalism: that’s where government needs to step in more. It’s government that is failing , government captured by the oligarchs, government corrupted for profit and power seeking, government that’s lost its way. And by government I obviously mean those in charge, those who make the decisions, not those who get things done.
I found this article classifying types of capitalism and apparently its “ State-guided Capitalism”, but my preference gets fascinating from there - it classifies China as an extreme example whereas we tend to call it communism or socialism or something
While I agree the the words have been co-opted in American politics to mean something other than what they’re supposed to, that doesn’t take away from the dismal track record they have at succes6sful running a country.
We don’t need classical socialism in America as a replacement for capitalism we need something else entirely.
A program run by the government that offers assistance or relief to people isn’t socialism.