Lemdro.id

13 points

6 days ago

No. “Socialized medicine” is not “people owning the means of production”

report

[ - ]

-4 points

6 days ago

It is in a democratic state. Who else do you think owns it?

report

[ - ]

JacksonLamb@lemmy.world

8 points

6 days 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.

report

[ - ]

-2 points

6 days 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.

report

Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml

[ - ]

4 points

5 days 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.

report

[ - ]

-2 points

5 days 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.

report

Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml

[ - ]

4 points

5 days 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.

report

[ - ]

JacksonLamb@lemmy.world

1 point

6 days 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 American.

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

report

[ - ]

2 points

6 days ago

How is democracy related to ownership?

report

[ - ]

-1 points

5 days ago

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

report

[ - ]

BrainInABox@lemmy.ml

3 points

5 days ago

So not Norway, or any Western capitalist pseudo democracy.

report

[ - ]

-1 points

5 days 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?

report

[ - ]

1 point

5 days 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.

report

[ - ]

1 point

5 days 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?

report

[ - ]

1 point

5 days ago

Through elections

Umm, no. Elected politicians can do whatever tf they want. There’s no legal mechanism to make them fulfill the promises they made during their campaign.

That we elected

Not to mention that elected politicians aren’t controlled by the people, most of the government positions aren’t elected.

Through democracy

Democracy is when Government is owned by people. People own government through democracy. Great argument.

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

If you ask government to persecute people who break the law, do you no longer own people who break the law?

report