We could do - have done - much worse than implementing some good sense social safety net measures. Especially as people advocate for AI and using it to replace/disempower employees.
That's irrelevant to the point.
The 1980s did settle the capitalism vs. socialism debate. The USSR and, perhaps more consequentially, China effectively abandonned socialism because it failed and acknowledged that capitalism, free enterprise, and the free market was what worked.
The "end of history" is the belief (proved wrong if not naively wrong from the start) that this would lead to everyone being "friends" under a Western-style liberal democracy.
> We could do - have done - much worse than implementing some good sense social safety net measures.
I don't understand what you are getting at unless you consider that socialism = "social safety net measures", which it isn't but, as mentioned, it seems that many in the US think it is...
Reading the comments it does seem that many don't understand the meaning of "socialism" (or seem to think that the passing of time somehow changes things) even on HN so polls to the general public are completely meaningless. But ask people if the prefer to live in North America or Western Europe vs Eastern Europe/China pre-80s and you'll get a much clearer picture of what the real sentiment is... East Germany had to build a wall to keep people IN, after all.
https://sccei.fsi.stanford.edu/china-briefs/reassessing-role...
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/arc-of-the-chinese-...
Public welfare isn't technically part of it, but it's hard to imagine a state where we don't have it if power is at all evenly distributed.
Central planning is orthogonal to the whole thing... credit institutions and corporations do a hell of a lot of centralized planning.
China has state capitalism and private capitalist enterprises, and free enterprise with robust free markets overall. These are the main reforms that allowed it to thrive after the catastrophe of socialism under Mao. Even basic stuff like farmers being allowed to sell surplus freely for profit and at market prices only became allowed in 1978.
China now has the second largest number of millionaires in USD after the US.
> a theory or system of social organization that advocates the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, capital, land, etc., by the community as a whole, usually through a centralized government.
There are state-owned companies in all Western countries, by the way.
I don't think that you are familiar with the history and economy of China.
>But obviously this isn't how China is now and even state-owned companies in China generally operate in a market and can be in competition with private companies and other state-owned companies.
"Compete's in a market" is irrelevant to socialism. Again, basic poli sci, socialism encompasses both free market and captured market. What makes it socialism is government ownership of the means of production, with redistribution to the general populace.
>There are state-owned companies in all Western countries, by the way.
Right, and which western "capitalist" society has state ownerhsip of 70%+ of the "private" companies that make up its economy? Correct, 0. Socialism has never required the state to own all business in a given economy anymore than capitalism has required 0 ownership.
> because socialism has never required COMPLETE ownership by the state
Sure, it's only complete ownership by the workers.
> What makes it socialism is government ownership of the means of production, with redistribution to the general populace.
Well, then China is not socialist. QED. (and again, owenership by the workers, not necessarily thet state)
I would advise you, in good faith and friendship, to visit China one day. It's a free market capitalist dream in day to day life.
They think "Social Democracy", not pure "Socialism".
But the Right will equate one with the other to pretend the left are communists.
I agree with you that socialism, properly understood, ought to mean something much broader than a social safety net. But not everyone sees it this way.
In my experience, a lot of Americans really do equate social security and welfare as socialism. Or even public education, never mind anything remotely resembling universal healthcare. These people believe that taxation is theft and they're vocal about expressing it. This used to be fringe, but it's a major political movement.
Young Americans have grown up in an environment where anything publicly beneficial is painted as "socialist" by one of the major political parties. Many of them have taken the message to heart.
> capitalism vs. socialism
I learned that when an American talks about socialism, they usually mean communism and often the accompanying dictatorships that enable this oppressive system. Meanwhile, the social-democratic countries score high on measures of democracy, rule of law, human rights, regulation contra anti-competitive practices, consumer protection, environment protection, etc.
It is also important to understand what capitalism means. The theory assumes free markets, but that requires an enforcer that breaks up monopolies and upholds rules for competition. Lots of cognitive dissonance there for people calling themselves capitalists while at the same time screaming against intervention, but those rather should call themselves libertarians.
Yes, it's literally the result of decades of CIA Cold War propaganda, often using conservative Christianity and preachers like Billy Graham (who was funded by the CIA) to scare people into believing communism was literally satanic in nature. Most of American pop culture, media culture and even most subcultures from the 1950s onward were funded by the CIA, if not outright psyops. Americans are more controlled than North Koreans and they don't even realize it.
> believing communism was literally satanic in nature.
> Americans are more controlled than North Koreans and they don't even realize it.
Which don't have anything in common with socialist countries.
https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/denmark-tells-...
Lots of social democratic parties are united in the Socialist International.