Nick2253
Active member
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2011
- Messages
- 321
- Reaction score
- 90
- Location
- SF Bay Area, CA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Well under your reasoning then the military is a Socialist venture as well. Or the government in general is Socialist under the generalized reasoning that you stated. I mean the Government serves the greater good of society a lot more than the individual good of the individual.
That's exactly my point. A purely capitalistic society could only exist under anarchy, but anarchy is no guarantee of capitalism. Taxes are socialism, pure and simple: they are all about taking from you according to your ability, and then that money is subsequently paid out according to your need. Since our government requires taxation, then yes, it's socialist. This is simply a fact under the definition we are adhering to: anything between pure capitalism and pure communism is socialism. I'm not passing judgement, since I don't think "socialism" is some closet boogyman, but any modern form of government is ultimately socialist.
Plus there are many private roads in America. Even the National Highway System is not forced on States that do not want to join.
So only 4% of our road system in the US is Nationalized. So what exactly is the other 96% of our road system?
If anything, this is a red herring. The other 96% of our road system is build and managed by the states. Whether or not it's a state or the federal government that does this is irrelevant. And the fact that not all roads and infrastructure development is public does not mean that that service is not socialistic. Ultimately, any government involvement in a service is socialism under our definition.
Something can be nationalized yet not be socialistic.
False.
Our national Olympic teams are not a form of Socialism.
Yes they are. According to our definition of Socialism, anything between Capitalism and Communism is socialism. As soon as a government funded by a "from each according to ability, to each according to need" mentality provides any service, or aid to a service, then you are no longer in capitalism. The fact that the US government provides any kind of funding to the Olympic team makes it socialism. In anticipation of another argument, yes, the Olympic team is also a form of social service: while not immediately practical like fire or police, the Olympic team provides entertainment and national pride, which is just as much a social service.
Infrastructure of an country can be nationalized but that does not make the countries infrastructure Socialism. As shown in Nazi Germany nationalizing can be fascism.
Fascism and socialism do not describe the same aspects of political philosophy. Fascism inherently requires socialism. A key tenet of Fascism is that the state is willing and able to take control of an industry for the benefit of the national interests (basically the same conclusion as Communism, just different reasoning).
But nationalizing can also just be nationalizing not a description as an element of Socialism or fascism. So infrastructure that has been nationalized is not necessarily anything other than nationalized unless accompanied by other elements.
From Wikipedia: "Nationalization is the process of taking an industry or assets into government ownership by a national government or state."
You cannot have nationalization without socialization. By a government taking control of some industry or asset, there is no longer pure capitalism, and socialism is then in effect.
But all that does not mean that I support further nationalizing of anything.
Agreed