> Say what now?
Witness the success of the American right in relabeling everything which is not purely capitalistic as "socialism".
Witness the success of the American right in relabeling everything which is not purely capitalistic as "socialism".
It's a pretty ingenious tactic: they are literally trying to take credit for the success of the very system they are seeking to destroy.
I was arguing with several people on Reddit just yesterday over this, who were insistent that Medicare is somehow socialism. https://www.np.reddit.com/r/HistoryPorn/comments/4mwtr2/gen_...
Medicare is literally a tool for redistribution of wealth from wealthy to the less-wealthy. Some of that is in association with risk smoothing (typical insurance), but a huge chunk of that redistribution happens without any smoothing of risk.
You can argue that "wealth redistribution from wealthy to poor" is not technically the definition of socialism, but colloquially, that's certainly how the word is used, so it's not wrong in that sense to say that Medicare is a socialist program.
Every government action that is funded by taxes, from Medicare to road building to national defense, can be considered wealth distribution, and thus socialism.
I get that you think this definition is wrong, but you're in the minority here. Both self-identified socialists and anti-socialists in the US consider social welfare programs to be socialist.
https://berniesanders.com/democratic-socialism-in-the-united...
"Social Security, which transformed life for the elderly in this country was “socialist.” The concept of the “minimum wage” was seen as a radical intrusion into the marketplace and was described as “socialist.” Unemployment insurance, abolishing child labor, the 40-hour work week, collective bargaining, strong banking regulations, deposit insurance, and job programs that put millions of people to work were all described, in one way or another, as “socialist.” Yet, these programs have become the fabric of our nation and the foundation of the middle class."
I don't think that's what Sanders is saying at all. I think he is saying that those programs were derided as "socialism".
> So let me define for you, simply and straightforwardly, what democratic socialism means to me. It builds on what Franklin Delano Roosevelt said when he fought for guaranteed economic rights for all Americans. ...
> It means that health care should be a right of all people, not a privilege...
> Democratic socialism means that, in the year 2015, a college degree is equivalent to what a high school degree was 50 years ago – and that public education must allow every person in this country...
> Democratic socialism means that our government does everything it can to create a full employment economy...
> Democratic socialism means that if someone works forty hours a week, that person should not be living in poverty: that we must raise the minimum wage to a living wage – $15 an hour over the next few years. It means that we join the rest of the world and pass the very strong Paid Family and Medical Leave legislation now in Congress...
> ...
Are the people who built the Libertarian Party platform just self-hating socialists?
Western Europe's governments are largely run by social democrats, Christian democrats or liberal conservatives. Very few are left enough to be properly called democratic socialism.
That's because socialists (who, after all, are the heirs to the tradition that invented the term "capitalism" to refer to the then-dominant system in the developed world of the late 19th Century that they were criticizing) are more likely to recognize that the so-called "capitalist" societies of Western Europe (and even, though less so, the United States) are quite far from the system that "capitalism" was coined to refer to, specifically as a result of reforms to the system designed to address the same problems with it that were identified by 19th Century socialists (and, often, reforms specifically championed by socialists, though often watered down somewhat.)
The now-dominant system in the developed world -- the modern mixed economy -- has a lot in common with capitalism, but it also has a lot of elements of socialism. Its at least as wrong to call it the former as it is to call it the latter (especially since socialism has been, stretching back to its origins, often seen as an evolutionary step building on the experience of capitalism, not a diametrically opposed system, even if the proponents of the two systems would end up politically opposed.)
The commonality with the the later definitions is this (taken verbatim from the Socialist Party USA's website[0]):
> Socialism is not mere government ownership, a welfare state, or a repressive bureaucracy. Socialism is a new social and economic order in which workers and consumers control production and community residents control their neighborhoods, homes, and schools.
You are correct. Socialism is the abolition of private capital[1] (which isn't the same thing as the abolition of all private funds and property) and the transfer of the means of production to workers. The problem is most people hear about socialism from someone repeating a talking point. Then that talking point is reinforced by politicians and the media.
[0] http://socialistparty-usa.net/principles.html [1] https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/c/a.htm
Well, they're not – "welfare" would be a more fitting term.
Besides, there is no socialism in Western Europe. There are social market economies, like in Germany, but they are very far away from actual socialism.