You are once again failing to understand that in a mixed economy, like the US economy, Canada’s economy, the British economy, the Chinese economy, Cuba’s economy, or virtually any other economy in the world, there is a mix of capitalism and socialism.
A mixed economy is an economic system that includes both elements associated with capitalism, such as private businesses, and ones associated with socialism, such as nationalized government services.
Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are publicly or collectively owned and controlled by the people who work within them
Yes, for example, the people of the UK collectively own and control the health care system of the state, therefore it is a socialist element within their mixed capitalist / socialist economy.
Capitalist countries can, and routinely do, have extensive social programs.
There’s no such thing as a “capitalist country”. Virtually every country has a mixed socialist / capitalist system where certain elements of the economy are capitalist, and other elements are socialist.
Things such as public healthcare, welfare, food assistance, libraries, public education, fire departments, and other government-funded services are social programs
They are social programs which are provided via socialist elements of their mixed economy. Public healthcare in the UK is part of the socialist side of the economy, whereas pharmacies are part of the capitalist side of the economy. Fire departments are socialist elements of the economy, whereas fire insurance is capitalist.
Likewise, socialism does not inherently mean that the government owns every business
Right, socialism can consist of community ownership of an asset, employee ownership, cooperative ownership, but of course it also includes state ownership of an asset.
So I cannot stress this enough: socialism and social programs are two entirely different concepts
Fine, but I cannot stress enough that virtually every economy in the world is a mix of capitalism and socialism, where some assets are privately owned and used to generate profits for those private owners, and others are state owned and used to provide, among other things, social programs.
If you continue to argue something other than what I’ve stated above I will continue to repeat over and over what socialism is
Don’t you think you should actually read about mixed economies first? I assume you’re living in one now, so it would be good for you to be aware of that.
what exactly is the purpose of government?
It’s up to the government. If the government is a strong man and his henchmen, it’s a thing that exists so that they can collect taxes. If it’s a modern western democracy, it’s at least in theory something to provide for the common defence of the country, to meet the basic needs of the people, to provide a social safety net, to provide a legal framework and protections, to allow the citizens and residents to be their best selves, etc.
But that’s completely beside the point. The fact that something can be provided privately does not somehow make a government providing it “socialism.”
Of course it does. Socialism is when the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned or regulated by the public or the community as a whole. That ticks all the boxes. A fire department is a socialism. A library is one of them socialisms.
A capitalist country can have extensive social programs
There you are, thinking there’s such a thing as a “capitalist country” again. Every country that has capitalism also has socialist elements.
If you think such a thing as a purely capitalist country exists, how about a list of names of countries that are capitalist and not mixed economies. I’m guessing an economist would say there are zero purely capitalist countries, but maybe you can find an example they didn’t.
There is no such thing as a mixed economy, either the principal mode of production benefits the working class or the bourgeois. It’s impossible to have a 50/50 and any other mix inevitably collapses towards one or the other.
It’s a concept, that makes no sense and deludes the meaning of the term socialism and capitalism so much that they become meaningless. It’s propagandistic newspeak.
At the end of the day according to marxist political theory (AKA the guy who established the meaning of the term capitalism, so this carries some important weight), that doesn’t make sense, either the principal owner of the means of production is the working class, or not.
Anything inbetween? completely capitalist, according to any socialist who has ever read theory.
it does exist but all the concept does is sully discussions, make terms meaningless, and make you feel like a superior centrist.
Socialism is simply democratization/worker ownership over the means of production. Mixed economies pretend that socialism is when the government does stuff, which is wildly inaccurate.
here’s a cambridge PhD discussion saying what I said is a major problem with the notion. economics professors don’t actually agree with you.
the impossibility of the mixed economy is itself an actual position within professional economics.
So, why do you disagree with me?
Economics professors don’t actually unanimously agree with you. So why are you presenting your position as though it is simply what “the profession of economics” believes?
I also want to point out the smug boldness on display here. You read a wikipedia page and think you know more than someone who disagrees with you. This is why communists find liberals embarrassing to argue with.
edit: even more embarrassing, you didn’t even read the wikipedia
“Numerous economists have questioned the validity of the entire concept of a mixed economy when understood to be a mixture of capitalism and socialism. Critics who argue that capitalism and socialism cannot coexist believe either market logic or economic planning must be prevalent within an economy” is written there.
You’re going to make me repeat myself. So you’ll just get my regular disclaimer:
Socialism refers to collective or social ownership of the means of production. Social democracy refers to a capitalist market economy supplemented by welfare programs, labor protections, and public services. Democratic socialism generally refers to pursuing socialist ownership through democratic means. These terms are related but are not interchangeable: a capitalist welfare state is not a socialist economy simply because it provides extensive social programs. This disclaimer is intended as a quick reference, not an exhaustive explanation of socialism or every political and economic system that uses the word “socialist.”
Your consistent yet erroneous assertions will not make you correct.
The countries you mentioned are not mixed economies. Libraries, fire departments, healthcare subsidized by the state are not socialist programs. They are social/welfare programs instituted by the state through tax collection.
You are unable to understand these simple concepts which is quite sad.
I have provided you with some links to you so that can educate yourself on what socialism is and its various iterations.
Public welfare programs are not socialist.
This will be my last reply to you as I will not waste my time repeating the same thing over and over. You may choose to accept the correct definitions of the terms you are using or you may continue to delude yourself with your self-proclaimed bullshit.
And make no mistake you are literally just making shit up to suit the conclusion you want. Nothing you said is based on reality.
The link you sent me proves absolutely nothing other than the fact that mixed economies exist.
If that is your only supporting evidence, then you have literally nothing demonstrating that a capitalist country with social programs is therefore socialist.
A government providing welfare, public services, infrastructure, healthcare subsidies, education, fire departments, police, libraries, or other services to the people it governs has nothing inherently to do with socialism as an economic model. Those are functions of government, not definitions of an economic system.
Socialism refers to a system in which the means of production are socially or collectively owned or controlled. That is fundamentally different from a capitalist economy in which the means of production are predominantly privately owned, even if the government taxes that economy and uses the revenue to provide extensive social programs.
And yes, technically you can describe the United States, Germany, Norway, Sweden, or virtually any modern economy as a “mixed economy” because virtually every real-world economy contains some combination of private markets, public institutions, regulation, taxation, and government ownership. That isn’t particularly controversial.
But calling something a “mixed economy” does not tell us which economic system is predominant. It is a descriptive category, not an argument that capitalism and socialism are somehow interchangeable.
By that logic, a car is an automobile and a gorilla is a great ape. Both statements are technically true, but neither tells you anything particularly useful about what distinguishes one thing from another.
The United States is fundamentally a capitalist economy with a substantial welfare state and significant government regulation. Norway is fundamentally a capitalist economy with a much larger welfare state. Neither becomes socialist simply because its government provides social programs.
This is the distinction that keeps getting lost: social programs are not socialism, and a welfare state is not the same thing as a socialist economy.
If your argument is that the United States is a “mixed economy” in the broad academic sense, fine. I will happily concede that point.
If your argument is that the existence of social programs means the United States is therefore socialist, you still have not established that argument. You have simply changed the definition of socialism.
you’re this confident and didn’t even read the article???
Criticism
Numerous economists have questioned the validity of the entire concept of a mixed economy when understood to be a mixture of capitalism and socialism. Critics who argue that capitalism and socialism cannot coexist believe either market logic or economic planning must be prevalent within an economy.[73]
In Human Action, Ludwig von Mises argued that there can be no mixture of capitalism and socialism.[74] Mises elaborated on this point by contending that even if a market economy contained numerous state-run or nationalized enterprises, this would not make the economy mixed because the existence of such organizations does not alter the fundamental characteristics of the market economy. These publicly owned enterprises would still be subject to market sovereignty as they would have to acquire capital goods through markets, strive to maximize profits, or at the least try to minimize costs, and utilize monetary accounting for economic calculation.[75] Friedrich von Hayek and Mises argued that there can be no lasting middle ground between economic planning and a market economy, and any move in the direction of socialist planning is an unintentional move toward what Hilaire Belloc called “the servile state”.[76]
Classical and orthodox Marxist theorists also dispute the viability of a mixed economy as a middle ground between socialism and capitalism. Irrespective of enterprise ownership, either the capitalist law of value and accumulation of capital drive the economy or conscious planning and non-monetary forms of valuation, such as calculation in kind, ultimately drive the economy. From the Great Depression onward, extant mixed economies in the Western world are still functionally capitalist because the economic system remains based on competition and profit production.[77]
I understand Wikipedia articles, that’s why I sent you one, which apparently you still don’t understand. Have you ever even taken an economics class? Are you so absolutely sure you’re right that you refuse to actually learn anything in case it might show you’re wrong?
You are once again failing to understand that in a mixed economy, like the US economy, Canada’s economy, the British economy, the Chinese economy, Cuba’s economy, or virtually any other economy in the world, there is a mix of capitalism and socialism.
Yes, for example, the people of the UK collectively own and control the health care system of the state, therefore it is a socialist element within their mixed capitalist / socialist economy.
There’s no such thing as a “capitalist country”. Virtually every country has a mixed socialist / capitalist system where certain elements of the economy are capitalist, and other elements are socialist.
They are social programs which are provided via socialist elements of their mixed economy. Public healthcare in the UK is part of the socialist side of the economy, whereas pharmacies are part of the capitalist side of the economy. Fire departments are socialist elements of the economy, whereas fire insurance is capitalist.
Right, socialism can consist of community ownership of an asset, employee ownership, cooperative ownership, but of course it also includes state ownership of an asset.
Fine, but I cannot stress enough that virtually every economy in the world is a mix of capitalism and socialism, where some assets are privately owned and used to generate profits for those private owners, and others are state owned and used to provide, among other things, social programs.
Don’t you think you should actually read about mixed economies first? I assume you’re living in one now, so it would be good for you to be aware of that.
It’s up to the government. If the government is a strong man and his henchmen, it’s a thing that exists so that they can collect taxes. If it’s a modern western democracy, it’s at least in theory something to provide for the common defence of the country, to meet the basic needs of the people, to provide a social safety net, to provide a legal framework and protections, to allow the citizens and residents to be their best selves, etc.
Of course it does. Socialism is when the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned or regulated by the public or the community as a whole. That ticks all the boxes. A fire department is a socialism. A library is one of them socialisms.
There you are, thinking there’s such a thing as a “capitalist country” again. Every country that has capitalism also has socialist elements.
If you think such a thing as a purely capitalist country exists, how about a list of names of countries that are capitalist and not mixed economies. I’m guessing an economist would say there are zero purely capitalist countries, but maybe you can find an example they didn’t.
There is no such thing as a mixed economy, either the principal mode of production benefits the working class or the bourgeois. It’s impossible to have a 50/50 and any other mix inevitably collapses towards one or the other.
Of course there’s such a thing as a mixed economy. They made a whole Wikipedia article about it.
It’s a concept, that makes no sense and deludes the meaning of the term socialism and capitalism so much that they become meaningless. It’s propagandistic newspeak.
At the end of the day according to marxist political theory (AKA the guy who established the meaning of the term capitalism, so this carries some important weight), that doesn’t make sense, either the principal owner of the means of production is the working class, or not.
Anything inbetween? completely capitalist, according to any socialist who has ever read theory.
it does exist but all the concept does is sully discussions, make terms meaningless, and make you feel like a superior centrist.
Socialism is simply democratization/worker ownership over the means of production. Mixed economies pretend that socialism is when the government does stuff, which is wildly inaccurate.
Take it up with the profession of economics. They think it makes sense. I think it makes sense. You’re the only one confused by it.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/modern-intellectual-history/article/architects-of-the-mixed-economy-assar-lindbeck-ingemar-stahl-and-gosta-rehn/33574238F379F23C0C35B3F24D2A43F1
here’s a cambridge PhD discussion saying what I said is a major problem with the notion. economics professors don’t actually agree with you.
the impossibility of the mixed economy is itself an actual position within professional economics.
So, why do you disagree with me?
Economics professors don’t actually unanimously agree with you. So why are you presenting your position as though it is simply what “the profession of economics” believes?
I also want to point out the smug boldness on display here. You read a wikipedia page and think you know more than someone who disagrees with you. This is why communists find liberals embarrassing to argue with.
edit: even more embarrassing, you didn’t even read the wikipedia
“Numerous economists have questioned the validity of the entire concept of a mixed economy when understood to be a mixture of capitalism and socialism. Critics who argue that capitalism and socialism cannot coexist believe either market logic or economic planning must be prevalent within an economy” is written there.
You’re going to make me repeat myself. So you’ll just get my regular disclaimer:
Your consistent yet erroneous assertions will not make you correct.
The countries you mentioned are not mixed economies. Libraries, fire departments, healthcare subsidized by the state are not socialist programs. They are social/welfare programs instituted by the state through tax collection.
You are unable to understand these simple concepts which is quite sad.
https://share.google/UwkbI8StvcTnotfL9
https://share.google/yAO1HkNJznbQeo0iv
https://share.google/lVx33U2pRt7rMnOgn
I have provided you with some links to you so that can educate yourself on what socialism is and its various iterations.
Public welfare programs are not socialist.
This will be my last reply to you as I will not waste my time repeating the same thing over and over. You may choose to accept the correct definitions of the terms you are using or you may continue to delude yourself with your self-proclaimed bullshit.
And make no mistake you are literally just making shit up to suit the conclusion you want. Nothing you said is based on reality.
Good day.
You should read the link I sent you first.
The link you sent me proves absolutely nothing other than the fact that mixed economies exist.
If that is your only supporting evidence, then you have literally nothing demonstrating that a capitalist country with social programs is therefore socialist.
A government providing welfare, public services, infrastructure, healthcare subsidies, education, fire departments, police, libraries, or other services to the people it governs has nothing inherently to do with socialism as an economic model. Those are functions of government, not definitions of an economic system.
Socialism refers to a system in which the means of production are socially or collectively owned or controlled. That is fundamentally different from a capitalist economy in which the means of production are predominantly privately owned, even if the government taxes that economy and uses the revenue to provide extensive social programs.
And yes, technically you can describe the United States, Germany, Norway, Sweden, or virtually any modern economy as a “mixed economy” because virtually every real-world economy contains some combination of private markets, public institutions, regulation, taxation, and government ownership. That isn’t particularly controversial.
But calling something a “mixed economy” does not tell us which economic system is predominant. It is a descriptive category, not an argument that capitalism and socialism are somehow interchangeable.
By that logic, a car is an automobile and a gorilla is a great ape. Both statements are technically true, but neither tells you anything particularly useful about what distinguishes one thing from another.
The United States is fundamentally a capitalist economy with a substantial welfare state and significant government regulation. Norway is fundamentally a capitalist economy with a much larger welfare state. Neither becomes socialist simply because its government provides social programs.
This is the distinction that keeps getting lost: social programs are not socialism, and a welfare state is not the same thing as a socialist economy.
If your argument is that the United States is a “mixed economy” in the broad academic sense, fine. I will happily concede that point.
If your argument is that the existence of social programs means the United States is therefore socialist, you still have not established that argument. You have simply changed the definition of socialism.
Good, you read some of it. If you read more you’ll find out that every economy in the modern world is a mixed economy.
you’re this confident and didn’t even read the article???
Criticism
Numerous economists have questioned the validity of the entire concept of a mixed economy when understood to be a mixture of capitalism and socialism. Critics who argue that capitalism and socialism cannot coexist believe either market logic or economic planning must be prevalent within an economy.[73]
In Human Action, Ludwig von Mises argued that there can be no mixture of capitalism and socialism.[74] Mises elaborated on this point by contending that even if a market economy contained numerous state-run or nationalized enterprises, this would not make the economy mixed because the existence of such organizations does not alter the fundamental characteristics of the market economy. These publicly owned enterprises would still be subject to market sovereignty as they would have to acquire capital goods through markets, strive to maximize profits, or at the least try to minimize costs, and utilize monetary accounting for economic calculation.[75] Friedrich von Hayek and Mises argued that there can be no lasting middle ground between economic planning and a market economy, and any move in the direction of socialist planning is an unintentional move toward what Hilaire Belloc called “the servile state”.[76]
Classical and orthodox Marxist theorists also dispute the viability of a mixed economy as a middle ground between socialism and capitalism. Irrespective of enterprise ownership, either the capitalist law of value and accumulation of capital drive the economy or conscious planning and non-monetary forms of valuation, such as calculation in kind, ultimately drive the economy. From the Great Depression onward, extant mixed economies in the Western world are still functionally capitalist because the economic system remains based on competition and profit production.[77]
Sir. You’re displaying elements of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Your confidence is disproportionate to how incorrect you are.
But since you’re not willing to agree with me as to what socialism even is I’ll once again simply say good day to you.
And yet, here you are, still unable to understand a single Wikipedia article.
Says the guy unable to understand any wiki article.
And scream up and down all you want social programs are not equal socialism.
Literally any form of government can have social programs and not have to be socialism.
The fact that you can’t understand the simple concept is beyond amazing.
I understand Wikipedia articles, that’s why I sent you one, which apparently you still don’t understand. Have you ever even taken an economics class? Are you so absolutely sure you’re right that you refuse to actually learn anything in case it might show you’re wrong?