There’s no point in carrying on a discussion when you’re unwilling to understand what I am saying…
Progressive Reformation

I gave a definition of Socialism — government intervention in the economy with the aim of redistribution and promoting economic equality — which is in common use, and in particular describes the platforms of the various “Socialist” parties of the world much more closely than your extreme totalitarian definition.

Oh, for crying out loud, we understand that.

The entire point here is that they are misusing the term. They are using the term “socialist” to mean “a capitalist economy characterized by high rates of taxation and a mature infrastructure which provides social services and redistributes wealth.”

The use of the term “capitalist” in a definition of “socialism” causes entire legions of economists heads to explode.

That’s like saying “the grass is green, but it’s blue.” It’s why the Prime Minister of Denmark actually had to correct Crazy Uncle Bernie during the campaign.

The correct term for the European model being referred to is a social democracy. Despite the similarities of the two terms (socialism and social democracy), they are not related in anyway.

It is your insistence on this as the One and Only Meaning, in the face of the actual platforms of actual Socialist parties, that rankles.

It shouldn’t. If the socialists succeed in coopting the term and redefining social democracies as a variant of socialism, then the chances that one of today’s developed democracies actually ends up with a socialist government become significantly greater.

Show your support

Clapping shows how much you appreciated Kady M.’s story.