5 ms·

The US system is socialist, by any meaningful definition of socialism. Medicaid, medicare, "public-private partnerships" abound.

gdubs 11y ago
Right, but my point was that passing Social Security didn't turn the U.S. Into a socialist country -- which was a concern of many. I'm saying we might not want to throw out individual ideas because we're afraid of a slippery slope.
- justinmk 11y ago
  I'm not quite sure how that isn't a pretty darn good example of a slope being slipped upon.
dublinben 11y ago
None of those government programs have anything to do with worker control of the means of production, the only definition of socialism that matters.
sien 11y ago
The US system isn't Socialism by a standard definition of the social ownership of the means of production. From wikipedia's definition of Socialism: "Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy,[1][2] as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system." Cuba and North Korea are properly Socialist. The US is a market, welfare Democracy like the rest of the developed world.
- justinmk 11y ago
  Unless you envision some other form of "social ownership" than what the US government already exercises[1], I don't follow your objection. The wikipedia article has thirty-two thousand words, describing eight varieties of socialism, and its introductory paragraph mentions: > There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allodial_title http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allodial_title
  - the_why_of_y 11y ago
    If the US of today is "socialist", the word has lost all meaning. They can't even increase health care coverage without ensuring that corporations profit off of it, never mind the economic waste. The wikipedia article also contains this apt observation: "The term socialist has also been used by some politicians on the political right as an epithet against certain individuals who do not consider themselves to be socialists, and against policies that are not considered socialist by their proponents."

gdubs 11y ago

Right, but my point was that passing Social Security didn't turn the U.S. Into a socialist country -- which was a concern of many. I'm saying we might not want to throw out individual ideas because we're afraid of a slippery slope.

justinmk 11y ago
I'm not quite sure how that isn't a pretty darn good example of a slope being slipped upon.

dublinben 11y ago

None of those government programs have anything to do with worker control of the means of production, the only definition of socialism that matters.

sien 11y ago

The US system isn't Socialism by a standard definition of the social ownership of the means of production. From wikipedia's definition of Socialism: "Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy,[1][2] as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system." Cuba and North Korea are properly Socialist. The US is a market, welfare Democracy like the rest of the developed world.

justinmk 11y ago
Unless you envision some other form of "social ownership" than what the US government already exercises[1], I don't follow your objection. The wikipedia article has thirty-two thousand words, describing eight varieties of socialism, and its introductory paragraph mentions: > There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allodial_title http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allodial_title
- the_why_of_y 11y ago
  If the US of today is "socialist", the word has lost all meaning. They can't even increase health care coverage without ensuring that corporations profit off of it, never mind the economic waste. The wikipedia article also contains this apt observation: "The term socialist has also been used by some politicians on the political right as an epithet against certain individuals who do not consider themselves to be socialists, and against policies that are not considered socialist by their proponents."