• yucandu@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    20 hours ago

    In a democratic state, things like universal healthcare are also called “socialized medicine” because it is an example of the people owning the means of production in that particular industry.

    That’s why most countries are what we call “mixed economies”, that mix elements of capitalism and socialism.

    Norway mixes in a higher ratio of socialism to capitalism than most countries. But they don’t export any more of capitalism’s issues to the third world than other countries. It’s something to emulate, not discredit.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Social programs are not Socialism. Every economy is a mix of private and public property, that doesn’t make it mixed Capitalism and Socialism. Capitalism and Socialism are descriptors for economies at large, as you cannot remove entities from the context they are in. A worker cooperative is not a “socialist” part of a Capitalist economy, because it exists in the broader Capitalist machine and must use its tools.

      What determines if a system is Capitalist or Socialist is if private property or public property is the primary aspect of a society, and which class has control. In Norway, Private Property is dominant, so Social Programs are used to support that.

      • yucandu@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        3 hours ago

        But in another comment you referred to the USSR as “the world’s first socialist state”, yet it existed in the broader global capitalist machine. You have contradicted yourself. Which is it? Can socialism exist in a world with capitalism, or not?

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 hours ago

          Socialism can, Communism cannot. Socialism is a gradual process towards Communism. A worker cooperative does not endanger the Capitalist system nor move agaInst it, but Socialist countries and economies working towards Communism do.

          Communism, however, must be global.

        • JacksonLamb@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          15 hours ago

          Pretty sure no one with universal healthcare calls it “socialized medicine”. That’s just a buzzword Americans use to scare each other.

          It’s not a means of producing anything other than health. Health is seen as a human right and it makes sense even in most western capitalist countries for it to be extended to everyone.

          • yucandu@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            14 hours ago

            I’m Canadian. It’s what the founder of our healthcare system, Tommy Douglas, called it.

            And yeah, it’s the people owning the means of producing health. Socialist healthcare.

            Americans scare people with these references to brutal authoritarian dictatorships that call themselves “socialist” but the real cause of all these problems is that they weren’t democratic, not that they socialized industries.

            Anyways, maybe it’s just my autism making me literal as fuck, but I think you guys need to clear that up. This is what the people owning the means of production looks like. It’s always going to be adjacent to capitalism, whether it’s a socialist industry in a capitalist country, or a socialist country in a capitalist world.

            • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              5 hours ago

              It is not Socialist. Social programs are not Socialism. Every economy is a mix of private and public property, that doesn’t make it mixed Capitalism and Socialism. Capitalism and Socialism are descriptors for economies at large, as you cannot remove entities from the context they are in. A worker cooperative is not a “socialist” part of a Capitalist economy, because it exists in the broader Capitalist machine and must use its tools.

              What determines if a system is Capitalist or Socialist is if private property or public property is the primary aspect of a society, and which class has control. In Canada, Private Property is dominant, so Social Programs are used to support that.

              • yucandu@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                3 hours ago

                By this absolutist logic, a socialist country is not a “socialist” part of a capitalist world, because it exists in the broader capitalist machine and must use its tools.

                What is the point then? If you don’t want to call anything “socialism” until the very last human on earth is socialist, fine, I will focus more on improving people’s lives than haggling over definitions.

                • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  2 hours ago

                  This isn’t true, though. Socialism is a transitional status towards the goal of Communism, states that are pushing forwards on that goal, or “on the Socialist road,” play a progressive role, while Capitalist countries take a regressive role. Socialist countries indeed exist in the context of a world economy dominated by Capitalism, but are moving against that.

                  I call many countries Socialist, like the PRC, Cuba, Laos, Vietnam, former USSR, etc.

            • JacksonLamb@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              12 hours ago

              Interesting, thanks for the Canadian history lesson Perhaps that’s where the Americans got their weird terminology from.

              you guys need to clear that up

              Who needs to do what? I’m not sure what I said that somehow gave you the impression I was an American.

              My society pays for universal free healthcare, like everywhere in the civilized world.

          • yucandu@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 hours ago

            A democracy is a state in which the government is owned and controlled by the people.

            • blade_barrier@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              40 minutes ago

              No wtf. Democracy is state that holds elections. Wtf is “owned and controlled by the people”? How are people supposed to control the government? The government is controlled by govt officials. Common people don’t control shit. How can a government be owned by people? Is government even a property that can be owned? That doesn’t make any sense.

              • yucandu@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 minutes ago

                How are people supposed to control the government?

                Through elections.

                The government is controlled by govt officials.

                That we elected.

                How can a government be owned by people?

                Through democracy.

                Is government even a property that can be owned?

                If I ask a friend to water my plants, do I no longer own the plants?

              • yucandu@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 minutes ago

                Yes Norway, or any other country with proportional representation, but not FPTP democracies.

                How else do you think the people can own the means of production?

    • umbrella@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      16 hours ago

      and in a demoratic world norway wouldnt be doing tax-free extrativism in my country (and others’), so that you can pay for your socialized medicine in a capitalist economy, where the money to finance it has to come from the poor. in this case we are your poor.

      • yucandu@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        16 hours ago

        Socialized medicine is always cheaper than capitalist medicine. It’s inherently more cost effective for people to pool their money together. It isn’t paid for by some rich miner buying mining rights in some other country.

      • stickly@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        17 hours ago

        I’m not sure how that link is supposed to refute anything? It says basically what the comment above says without using the phrase “mixed economies”.

        If you meant the power structure and public/private balance is heavily capitalist for Nordic countries then you’d probably want to post something else supporting that statement.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          5 hours ago

          Hey, I’m the author of that post! I don’t see how my post says the same thing at all, it very much talks about which aspect, private or public, has power in society is what determines the nature of its economy.