Comment

Comment on What's the difference between communism and socialism?

Also for additional information, Countries/Economies don’t have to be entirely one or the other.

The US has both socialist and capitalist components. The post office system is socialist, so are functions like public roads, and fire and police services. There are also overtly socialist programs in place in things like food stamps, medicare, etc.

Other countries like Canada are the same, but generally have more socialist organizations and programs in comparison (like our healthcare system and electric grids)

source

Sort:hotnew top

Yendor@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

The post office system is socialist, so are functions like public roads, and fire and police services.

I’d argue that having the government provide a service isn’t enough to call something socialist. In “The Wealth of Nations”, Adam Smith said that in a free-market economy, the governments role was to provide defence, law and order, and public works (eg. roads and education). If we’re using Marx’s definitions for communism, then surely we have to use Smith’s definitions for Capitalism.

source
- BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  Even if you do exclude those pieces, the US still has socialist organizations and programs that fall outside that definition. I’d argue that even Adam smith is just realizing that socialism is required for certain industries because capitalism has extreme market failures in situations where two or more providers are not economically viable, or in situations where the public good an profit are not aligned.
  
  Florida has a public state insurance company for example. It had to because insurers are fleeing the state.
  
  Texas maintains a publicly controlled electricity distribution organization (Ercort) covering most of the state.
  
  source
wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
Food stamps etc are not socialism. I wish people would stop that trope.

As a republic, we can vote for social programs and not be a socialism. Socialism is the workers controlling the means of production. Capitalism is people inject capital to create a business.

Social welfare programs are not socialism. The workers do not own the means of production.

The United States, Sweden l, etc are all capitalist countries. Sweden has elected to use taxes to fund more robust social programs but that is funded by captialism.

In America we could do the same thing and we’d still be a republic based on capitalism.

source
- BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  First off, you may live in a republic. I don’t. Don’t assume everyone is American.
  
  Secondly, your definition of Socialism is too narrow. Socialism isn’t strictly an economic system of who owns things. Social welfare programs are Socialism, but in the political sense. The political movement of Socialism almost always involves wealth redistribution programs like food stamps.
  
  The US is very obviously not strictly a capitalist country. The government owns and controls significant assets including land, resources, and companies which it utilizes to the benefit of the citizenry and would fall under even your definition of Socialism.
  
  Between the federal and state governments, they own around 60% of all the land in the US. www.nrcm.org/documents/publiclandownership.pdf
  
  Fanny and Freddie? FDIC? Government owned Export-Import Bank of the United States (EXIM)? Government owned Hospitals? There’s a number that are owned by State Governments Airports? Liquor Stores? Lotteries? Utilities? Transit Systems? Also lots of them owned by Governments in the US
  
  source