If China’s plans for Myanmar keep going well then them soon, too. I feel like China is playing them like a slot machine: arming a coup repeatedly until it ends up the way they want.
No, it is not. Socialism is an economic system in which the workers, collectively, control the means of production. That is fundamentally different from simply having government programs that provide services or benefits to the public.
A government operating fire departments, libraries, police departments, public schools, healthcare programs, infrastructure, labor protections, or other services that benefit the general population is not inherently practicing socialism. Those are social programs or public services. They can exist under capitalism, socialism, mixed economies, monarchies, democracies, and virtually any other form of government.
I think one of the most misunderstood words in the English language is “social.” We have social programs, social services, social policy, social democracy, socialism, and social welfare, and despite the shared root, these terms do not mean the same thing.
People constantly conflate “the government does something that benefits society” with “socialism.” That is simply incorrect. A government providing a public service does not, by itself, change the underlying economic system.
You can support or oppose a particular social program on its own merits without pretending that the program is inherently socialist. Government action and socialism are not synonymous.
Cuba Vietnam Laos and North Korea currently.
Also Cambodia also Cambodia and Yugoslavia.
It’s actually every country that tried socialism…
Also China is a hybrid system with a thriving free market and many extremely powerful and wealthy mega corporations.
If China’s plans for Myanmar keep going well then them soon, too. I feel like China is playing them like a slot machine: arming a coup repeatedly until it ends up the way they want.
What’s bad about Cuba that isn’t caused by the US embargo?
The US tried socialism. The US is, in fact, still partially socialist.
No, it is not. Socialism is an economic system in which the workers, collectively, control the means of production. That is fundamentally different from simply having government programs that provide services or benefits to the public.
A government operating fire departments, libraries, police departments, public schools, healthcare programs, infrastructure, labor protections, or other services that benefit the general population is not inherently practicing socialism. Those are social programs or public services. They can exist under capitalism, socialism, mixed economies, monarchies, democracies, and virtually any other form of government.
I think one of the most misunderstood words in the English language is “social.” We have social programs, social services, social policy, social democracy, socialism, and social welfare, and despite the shared root, these terms do not mean the same thing.
People constantly conflate “the government does something that benefits society” with “socialism.” That is simply incorrect. A government providing a public service does not, by itself, change the underlying economic system.
You can support or oppose a particular social program on its own merits without pretending that the program is inherently socialist. Government action and socialism are not synonymous.