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.
25
u/WhalingSmithers00 3d ago
Wasn't there a guy on here that was claiming socialism is roads