09-17-2019, 03:24 AM
pdq wrote:
To me, "Socialist" means centrally planned economy.
No Dems anywhere near that.
Not that that matters to any Republicans.
I think that economists generally agree that the most crucial aspect of the concept of socialism is that the means of production and distribution of goods and services are owned by the collective of everyone. Theoretically, it may be possible to have decentralized government control of those means, but central control seems to be almost an inevitability given human proclivities.
But then there's also the academic concept of "mixed economy":
"A mixed economy is an economy organized with some free market elements and some socialistic elements, which lies on a continuum somewhere between pure capitalism and pure socialism."
This implies degrees of capitalism and socialism.
We use the term "socialism" to be a counterpoint to the term "capitalism" but there is no place where all goods and services are produced and distributed by private capital owners. I don't think there is a major national economy that is "purely" socialist either. So if we insist that the terms "capitalism" and "socialism" mean only their purist manifestations, then they are terms that have little practical descriptive value.
Not that it matters in the colloquial world of political discourse, but if one were to insist that a presidential candidate must be categorized by one of those terms in closest to their most pure construction, then I would agree that none of the Democratic candidates are socialists.
