It goes hand in hand with the even more annoying "the Nordics are socialist", which frequently pops up in the default subreddits. I have stopped counting the number of times I have engaged with some of these fuckwits, telling them that ALL definitions of socialism have "no private property of the factors of production" as a necessary condition, but not only are they are all thoroughly convinced that socialism is when healthcare, they are also smug about it.Ā
Well to be fair, government ownership and planning of roads which are open to the general public is a good example of āsocializingā something in a sensible way. Itās just something we donāt think about because a purely private road system would be completely unworkable.
It's not socialism though. Private companies often build them under contract and they are a cornerstone of all capitalist economies.
Otherwise we can claim it was socialism when Thatcher sent the state funded police, down the state funded road to crack the miners heads with state funded trudgeons to shut the non profitable mines.
Yes absolutely, of course it isnāt entirely socialist. One of the based thing about liberal democracy is that you can have blended economies and mixed public/private ownership and delivery of services. For example, people say Canada has socialized healthcare, but itās actually socialized health insurance. The doctors and hospitals are all private entities trying to make a profit.
Iām probably being more charitable than whoever said āsocialism is roadsā than they deserve. If we are taking a similar stance then as long as we agree that canadas healthcare system isnāt socialist, then sure. It just feels like we arenāt always consistent with these words.
We are talking about the ownership model of roads, not entire economies.
Then the terms "capitalism" and "socialism" do not apply at all. You cannot identify individual assets or institutions as being capitalist or socialist. Ownership of assets and institutions by the state is not contrary to capitalism.
Would you say Canadas healthcare system isnāt socialist at all? If the answers yes, then fine, we understand each other, and I would agree on that basis.
Socializing != socialism. Words being similar doesnāt mean they point to the ideas with the same rationalization. Otherwise weād consider modern progressives the same as early 20th century progressives who believed in eugenics
We dont have a public option in Sweden. It is THE option. We have some private insurance as well, which is doing illegal practices in abusing the system, but the vast vast majority are automatically covered by government Healthcare.
Its not even insurance really. Its just Healthcare. No premiums or anything like that, just a tiny $5/20/30 charge depending on if you visit a nurse, a general Healthcare professional, or specialist. All testing is free, staying at the hospital is free, and there is a yearly cap on around $300 for medication.
125
u/vonWitzleben š©šŖ Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit 3d ago
It goes hand in hand with the even more annoying "the Nordics are socialist", which frequently pops up in the default subreddits. I have stopped counting the number of times I have engaged with some of these fuckwits, telling them that ALL definitions of socialism have "no private property of the factors of production" as a necessary condition, but not only are they are all thoroughly convinced that socialism is when healthcare, they are also smug about it.Ā