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?
I am 100% sure I’m right that public welfare is not socialism. I’m also 100% sure that public welfare is not an economic system in which the means of production are publicly owned.
I’m 100% sure that you’ve decided that anything beneficial a government does is somehow “socialism,” and I’m 100% sure you don’t actually know what socialism means.
Do you know how I know all of that?
I read the actual definitions, along with the supplementary information explaining the different systems.
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?
I am 100% sure I’m right that public welfare is not socialism. I’m also 100% sure that public welfare is not an economic system in which the means of production are publicly owned.
I’m 100% sure that you’ve decided that anything beneficial a government does is somehow “socialism,” and I’m 100% sure you don’t actually know what socialism means.
Do you know how I know all of that?
I read the actual definitions, along with the supplementary information explaining the different systems.
Something I strongly suspect you haven’t done.
Because, you know… you’re wrong.