You should look into the Pinkerton’s and a lot of the horsecrap that was going on in the 1800s in a more purely capitalist system. There are systems that mix “socialism” with “capitalism” that work out pretty well. Socialist systems brought the broken capitalist systems out of the destitute poverty people were in, systems like Unions, New Deal policies and so many others. Regulation saved children’s lives in the early 20th century.
I agree that socialism has never worked, but neither has capitalism. It has ALWAYS been a mixed system that flourishes.
I think you’re mixing terms. Capitalism is the private ownership of property. Socialism is the worker’s ownership of property; often managed by a state (which in theory should be run by the workers). None of the things you mentioned are examples of socialism.
Canada, most of Western Europe, Scandinavia- All have a greater blend of public and private responsibilities. Because there are some areas of interest that *benefit *from monopolies. Single payer health care. Industries vital to national security (resource ownership like Norway or Mexico as an example). Canada’s government-created Telsat celecommunications put the first commercial telecommunications satellite in orbit in the 70s, and now as a former crown corporation is set to have a better high-speed competitor to Starlink operational by 2026. Fire departments. Policing. Schooling. There are lots of examples where a socialist approach is preferable to unfettered capitalism.
Capitalism also gave us The tragedy of the Commons, which is playing out in the environment on a worldwide scale. You want to see poverty? Just wait until climate caused widespread displacement kicks in in earnest.
He is narrowly defining the two terms specifically when it suits his argument, but none of these are socialist systems. Of course, he is ignoring the connection between socialist philosophy and these systems and the groups that fought for these systems and their ideology.
You should look into the Pinkerton’s and a lot of the horsecrap that was going on in the 1800s in a more purely capitalist system. There are systems that mix “socialism” with “capitalism” that work out pretty well. Socialist systems brought the broken capitalist systems out of the destitute poverty people were in, systems like Unions, New Deal policies and so many others. Regulation saved children’s lives in the early 20th century.
I agree that socialism has never worked, but neither has capitalism. It has ALWAYS been a mixed system that flourishes.
I think you’re mixing terms. Capitalism is the private ownership of property. Socialism is the worker’s ownership of property; often managed by a state (which in theory should be run by the workers). None of the things you mentioned are examples of socialism.
Canada, most of Western Europe, Scandinavia- All have a greater blend of public and private responsibilities. Because there are some areas of interest that *benefit *from monopolies. Single payer health care. Industries vital to national security (resource ownership like Norway or Mexico as an example). Canada’s government-created Telsat celecommunications put the first commercial telecommunications satellite in orbit in the 70s, and now as a former crown corporation is set to have a better high-speed competitor to Starlink operational by 2026. Fire departments. Policing. Schooling. There are lots of examples where a socialist approach is preferable to unfettered capitalism.
Capitalism also gave us The tragedy of the Commons, which is playing out in the environment on a worldwide scale. You want to see poverty? Just wait until climate caused widespread displacement kicks in in earnest.
He is narrowly defining the two terms specifically when it suits his argument, but none of these are socialist systems. Of course, he is ignoring the connection between socialist philosophy and these systems and the groups that fought for these systems and their ideology.
Why do you think I put quotations on those terms?