Ken is right. There are (at least) two meanings of the word "socialism." One is "the government is charge," but that seems to cover the Pharaoh's Egypt, Stalin's Russia, and other systems. The other says that having the government being in charge isn't enough: the people have to run the government, democratically (with a more profound kind of democracy than we've got in the US).
A third definition of "socialism" is as social democracy: government-supplied social services within the framework of capitalism (usually managed by technocrats and party politicians). As much as that's preferable to the current set-up, it involves a contradiction that Ken points to. Capitalism treats such programs as if they were parasites (unless, of course, powerful capitalists benefit from the programs, as with the US food stamp program) and tries to get rid of them. Absent a mass movement aimed at defending and extending them, capitalism goes in the neoliberal direction. ken hanly wrote: > What has any of this to do with socialism?The major means of production > distribution and exchange remain in private hands and profit not need is the > basis of production. Outside of the U.S. in many European countries the > systems you suggest already exist. However neoliberal policies have eroded > such systems. Truly socialized medicine would involve socialized inputs but > almost all inputs into the health care system are from private corporations, > medicines for example. The same is true of education inputs. > While these systems are socialized they serve as benefits to the > underlying capitalist system. Of course to move in the directions you > suggest is positive but they really do not show that citizens are ready for > socialism. l > ________________________________ > From: Chuck Grimes <[email protected]> > > IMHO this is not the right approach. > > Simply describe a system like Single Payer or Medicare for All, along with > proposals for funding through a joint tax system of employers and employees. > Some huge percentage of people support this basic idea as long as it is > fair. Both are equivalent to socialized medicine. > > The same goes with public education. Through a combination of equitable > progressive taxes as the funding source with minimum administrative systems, > the feds, states, and counties pay for public schools and teachers. It is > essentially a socialized system. > > Are the masses ready for socialism? Of course they are. > > Another area is public transportation, etc. -- Jim Devine / If you're going to support the lesser of two evils, you should at least know the nature of that evil. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
