To be clear, social programs are not “Socialism,” Socialism is a separate organization of the economy where public ownership makes up the principle aspect.
I don’t really agree with designating social programs themselves as “right” or “left,” I think once you move outside the umbrella of Socialism vs Capitalism those descriptors cease to be useful. Something being paid for with taxes doesn’t make it anti-Capitalist, Lockheed Martin for example is quite right wing but depends entirely on tax dollars.
That being said, I do agree that conservative media calls social programs “Socialist” or “Communist” to fear-monger, but I also think liberal media uses terms like “Socialist” for distinctly Capitalist economies like Norway in order to blunt what Socialism actually is and make it compatible with Capitalism, defanging revolutionary and radical sentiment.
That’s too broad for both, even if people occasionally follow your usage. Feudalism was not Capitalism, but definitely had resources in few hands. In fact, Capitalism extended the number of wealthy individuals over feudalism. Traditionally, Socialism and Capitalism are seen as modes of production, the former based on public ownership as the principle aspect of the economy (such as in Cuba, the PRC, former USSR, etc) while the latter is based on Private ownership as the principle aspect (such as in the US, Norway, or Argentina).
To be clear, social programs are not “Socialism,” Socialism is a separate organization of the economy where public ownership makes up the principle aspect.
deleted by creator
I don’t really agree with designating social programs themselves as “right” or “left,” I think once you move outside the umbrella of Socialism vs Capitalism those descriptors cease to be useful. Something being paid for with taxes doesn’t make it anti-Capitalist, Lockheed Martin for example is quite right wing but depends entirely on tax dollars.
That being said, I do agree that conservative media calls social programs “Socialist” or “Communist” to fear-monger, but I also think liberal media uses terms like “Socialist” for distinctly Capitalist economies like Norway in order to blunt what Socialism actually is and make it compatible with Capitalism, defanging revolutionary and radical sentiment.
deleted by creator
That’s too broad for both, even if people occasionally follow your usage. Feudalism was not Capitalism, but definitely had resources in few hands. In fact, Capitalism extended the number of wealthy individuals over feudalism. Traditionally, Socialism and Capitalism are seen as modes of production, the former based on public ownership as the principle aspect of the economy (such as in Cuba, the PRC, former USSR, etc) while the latter is based on Private ownership as the principle aspect (such as in the US, Norway, or Argentina).
deleted by creator