Which of these is NOT socialism?

[OtterMan68]

Subsidies for solar and wind

Public schools

Subsidies for coal and other fossil fuels

Agricultural subsidies

Police forces

Border security

All of these are examples of socialism

Updates

+1 y

if you chose an option other than "All of these are examples of socialism," please explain why.
Thank you.

[genericname85]

if you have a company that makes a product. and the government gives you a subsidy for the creation of that product. does that mean that the production of said product is regulated by the community? not in my opinion. cause you had the company to begin with and you'd be producing anyway and the community has no say in the production of your company.

i don't see monetary incentive or discouragement as "socialism". it's a means for a government to use the funds of the people to incentivise an economic development that benefits the people. it doesn't transfer ownership of the means of production to the people.

[OtterMan68]

so if the government redistributes wealth from the taxpayers to specific company or industry, that's not socialism?
It's certainly not free-market capitalism.

[exitseven]

They can all be considered socialism. Some are more blatant than others.

[exitseven]

Thanks for the MHO😎

[Juxtapose]

Border security and police are inherently state run. I don't see countries really hiring mercenaries to guard their borders or police a country unless things are shit.

From Wikipedia (I can understand if you want another source but this was a good summary in my opinion):

"A socialist country is a sovereign state in which everyone in society equally owns the factors of production. In a socialist state, the distribution of resources and their allocation is by the State itself unlike the capitalist state."

We do NOT own border security or the police since they don't answer to us as we please.

[Juxtapose]

And socialism is about production and distribution of resources.

[OtterMan68]

From Wikipedia: "Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production, as opposed to private ownership... in the post-war period social democracy embraced a mixed economy based on Keynesianism within a predominantly developed capitalist market economy and liberal democratic polity that expands state intervention to include income redistribution, regulation, and a welfare state"
The US has a mixed-market economy with some capitalism and some socialism, so is government border security and police in the socialist part since it involves taking resources from citizens and redistributing them for what is perceived as the "greater good"?

[Juxtapose]

"characterised by social ownership of the means of production"

Welfare and whatnot is socialist but security is a basic feature of authority in general that predates Karl Marx's birth.

[Juxtapose]

The mafia will even have security if they control everything. They won't be socialist.

[OtterMan68]

you're using the definition of a socialist country, not socialism.
If a government run entity is not socialism what is it? It's not capitalism.

[Juxtapose]

It's unrelated to either. Fascism can have security, even anarchy will have some security within small tribes.

[OtterMan68]

so if government funded border security is not socialist, and it's not capitalist, what is it?

[Juxtapose]

Neither. Those categories are irrelevant to security.

[Juxtapose]

Like I said, both the strictest mafia boss and the most desperate tribe in a anarchist state are going to have some sort of security. A bear in the woods is going to have some security.

[OtterMan68]

but if that security is not provided by the government, it's not socialism.

[Juxtapose]

What country on Earth provides security that is not given by the government? Because what I'm hearing sounds like fiction.

[Juxtapose]

You may as well argue if the paycheck given to the president is socialist or not.

[OtterMan68]

it is the redistribution of wealth via the government, is it not?

[Juxtapose]

At this point you're arguing anything but anarchy is socialist.

[Juxtapose]

"a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

That's what Oxford dictionary says. That is absolutely nothing to do with security. The community does not own or regulate that as a whole realistically.

[OtterMan68]

based on state or collective ownership.
If the government provides it, it is based on the redistribution of wealth so it's collectively owned.
Government funded border security is socalized. Just like the VA is socialized medicine and public schools are soclalized education.
The GOVERNMENT controlls the production and distribution of border security.

[Juxtapose]

"Under any of the definitions of socialism given by Merriam-Webster, it is not sufficient, since none of those services control a significant portion of the means of production.

At least in the United States, though, few if any political actors actually use the term in that manner. Instead, they use the term to describe the amount of wealth that’s controlled by the government and redistributed for the public good. While the control can be by direct ownership, it’s also used to refer to the level, type, and allocation of tax levies.

Under that convenient definition all three can be considered socialized functions — if it’s expedient for the speaker to do so."

[Juxtapose]

What you are using is a faulty definition of socialism.

[Juxtapose]

"Socialism is the ownership of the means of production by the workers. The military, and most other public institutions, provide a public service but are not the means of production. They exist to protect or facilitate that production or the people.

So the military is not a form of socialism."

[OtterMan68]

Soldiers are given tax-payer salaries, housing, and medical care via the redistribution of wealth done by the government.
From Britannica: "The US already has many successful and popular socialist policies.
The job of the US government is to enable and protect all of its citizens. More socialist policies can work with capitalist structures to undo the harm done by unfettered capitalism.
The American public supports the implementation of more socialist policies.:
It just seems we have dueling definitions of socialism.

[Juxtapose]

Like I said, you expand the definition of socialism to the point where the government can't even collect taxes and use them without it being socialist. That's not how capitalism versus socialism works.

[Juxtapose]

Again:

"Socialism is the ownership of the means of production by the workers. The military, and most other public institutions, provide a public service but are not the means of production. They exist to protect or facilitate that production or the people."

By your definition even having a president and paying the president is socialist. It's conveniently broad so socialist Europeans who are super lefty can claim the success of the modern world.. when in reality it is capitalism and competition that has brought about first world luxuries.

[Juxtapose]

Adam Smith over Karl Marx any day of the week.

[OtterMan68]

I don't think Smith had a definition of socialism; in fact, he died before the term was coined.

[Juxtapose]

Like I said, super lefty Europeans try to steal credit.

[OtterMan68]

then what was Smith's definiton of socialism?

[Juxtapose]

That's irrelevant.

[Juxtapose]

I brought up Adam Smith because his ideas are superior.

[OtterMan68]

I agree.

[Chazmatazz269]

Subsidies for corporations’ profits is capitalism 101, mate. If the government took over those industries in order to foster a growth potential that suited working class people, kinda like the “New Deal”, that would be socialism.

[OtterMan68]

no, that's crony-capitalism at best as it's the government interfering in the free market

[Chazmatazz269]

Public skools and police protection were meant to reduce the disparity between the rich and the poor, but they both are used in the opposite way now.

[Chazmatazz269]

You can jumble all the extra words in that you want. It’s still capitalism and NOT socialism.

[OtterMan68]

what's your definition of capitalism?

[Chazmatazz269]

Capitalism is an economic system by the unproductive wealthy for the unproductive wealthy. It’s characterized by policies and principles that feed greed at the expense of all other values.
Socialism was designed as a means to elevate the least among the people; to reduce or eliminate the disparity between the wealthiest and the poorest in a society. Giving money to corporations doesn’t do that in any meaningful way. Again, a government takeover of those companies and/or industries so that working conditions and compensation packages could be controlled for the good of the working class would definitely be socialism. But giving money to the wealthiest people and suggesting the benefits will “trickle down” to the working class has proven to be a fallacy over the last the last four decades.

[handsomelad70]

All of the above examples, because regular citizens are rarely rich enough to pay for any of them;thus they require government funding.

[AviatorTom]

None of these are socialism. All deal with social issues though.

[OtterMan68]

if they are not socialism, are they examples of capitalism?

[AviatorTom]

@OtterMan68 They are examples of managed capitalism. There has never been pure capitalism or pure socialism. It's always been a mix, with an emphasis on one or the other.

[OtterMan68]

I agree. All countries save N. Korea have mixed market economies, but how is government funded or gov subsidized entities capitalist? Crony capitalism, maybe with the subsidized companies.

[AngryCarl]

All of these things can happen under socialism.

[gorydetails]

Border Security/Police. Securing our rights is the duty of our government.

[OtterMan68]

but is it socialism?

[gorydetails]

No it is not.

[OtterMan68]

so it does not involve the government redistrubiting resources from one group of people to another?

[gorydetails]

If you're worried it's socialism, I'm more than willing to allow a private army to guard the border since the Biden administration is unwilling to do so.

[OtterMan68]

I'm not worried about it. I just think that any government entity is socialism as the cost is socialized through the redistribution of income via taxation.

[gorydetails]

Generally socialism applies to “the people” owning private entities. But you’re working so hard to make your dumb point.

But thanks for highlighting that the government is inept so it proves socialism is a horrible way to run a country.

[OtterMan68]

social ownership as opposed to private ownership.
A bodyguard is private: capitalism paid for voluntarily from private entity to private entity. Police force is public: socialism as the costs are socialized throughout the population via redistribution of resources via taxation whether the taxpayer likes it or not.
The costs are socialized for something the government considers the "common good."
If there was no government, all services would be private: police, fire, water, roads, schools, etc.

[gorydetails]

I like it.

[OtterMan68]

many do. Even those who don't realize that government provided services are socialism.

[gorydetails]

lol. I love how much you think this is a gotcha.

[OtterMan68]

it's funny how you refuse to believe government funding activities are socialism

[gorydetails]

It’s funny you think I care.

[Astarlessnightsky]

None of them are examples of socialism.

[OtterMan68]

then what are they? Captialism? Mercantilsm? Communism?

[Astarlessnightsky]

Subsidies for anything are government funded financial aids. You got them in any economic and political system.

[Astarlessnightsky]

Police forces - you have them in any political and economic system, even though the seperation of Police - Government - Judges is one of the main aspects for a democratic state. Laws are made, enforced and criminals are judged by different institutions ensures no one is above the law (at least in theory).

Border Security - thats a national state thing, Only within the European Union, the borders are removed (almost) completely. All other states "protect" their border, Regardless of economic or political system.

Public Schools - thats a humantary right. The right to be educated and learn. The only thing that changes is how strict or how much is banned from being taught. Authoritarian Regimes limit the amount of what can be taught, by banning books, deleting some aspects from history books, ...

[Astarlessnightsky]

If you want examples of socialism:

Its when workers own the means of production instead of being "employed" by some rich guy.

An example of this is the Publix Super Market Chain of the US. Employers own all the stocks, when they do a good job their stock value increases and even the Janiter becomes a millionaire.

This is not pure socialism as it exists in an overall capitalistic system, but its an example people can umderstand

[OtterMan68]

not in a free market capitalist society. The market rewards and the market punishes, and the gov does not intervene with subsidies to prop up any company or industry nor does it bail them out or give them advantages

[OtterMan68]

are they socialism since they are paid for with the government redistributing income?

[WindAtMyBack]

None of those are socialism.

[mandyfire98]

They're all forms of socialism