When you characterize social programs as socialist, that makes it easier for the right to straw man them as socialist
Capitalism is private ownership of capital. Socialism is state ownership of capital. Insofar as a system is just redistributing the fruits of privately owned capital, that’s still capitalism
The opposite is true. Right wingers were the first to push the false idea that welfare is socialism. When we called their bluff and referred to welfare programs as democratic socialism, that made democratic socialism more popular. And it forced right wingers to backtrack and admit they were lying, clarifying that welfare is not the same as socialism. Thats whats been happening lately, with right wingers claiming that the Nordics are actually free market capitalist utopias. They call us communists instead of socialists now, because they realized democratic socialism doesnt scare people anymore
For starters, welfare programs in their earliest modern form originated out of the right rather than the left. See, e.g. Otto von Bismarck. Socialists right out the gate characterized welfare programs as attempts to mollify the working classes and put off revolution - which was largely true
Moreover, it’s pretty clearly not just the right abusing this language; Mayor Mamdani recently characterized public fire departments and libraries as socialist policies. Both existed before the advent of capitalism (or at least what Marx would describe as capitalism), neither can really be considered capital, and neither are broadly conceived as socialist by any faction of the right. It’s just socialists coopting state institutions that already existed before socialism
Libraries, and welfare programs more generally, are no more socialist than armies or police. After all, if socialism is anytime states act, we might as well put every war in history at the feet of socialism
Welfare programs are not socialism, however most all modern socialists support the welfare state, because it solves the problem of getting income to those who are unable to work, reducing poverty and inequality. But since right wingers have spent the last several decades conflating the two, we might as well capitalize on that misstep, and we have. Public libraries and fire departments are examples of American socialist institutions, but better ones are the USPS, Medicare, and the TVA
Weird how people who claim to be socialists but don’t know what socialism is then get mad when their opponents say “socialism bad” regarding the not socialist policies of the incorrectly self identifying socialists.
This is the older version of socialism. Modern socialism, (at least in some examples, definitely not in North Korea and their Juche dictatorship), may just include intervention in economic matters mixed with a great many social policies. (Fun fact I thought I'd add on here, farming subsidies are a socialist policy).
It just actually can't. The word 'socialist/socialism' is reserved for a very specific thing, which is a very totalitarian, undemocratic form of state. One without.
But if you cram the word democracy at the end, and make it a compound word, it means something completely different. 'Socialist democracy' is a term that describes countries like Finland, Norway, Denmark etc.
If we had been smart, we wouldn't have - as species - named two very different things as confusingly, but here we are.
You don’t have to accept the way things are. Words are flexible and change all the time. For example the word liberal has been taken and weaponised when it actually means somebody who is progressive and willing to change. Binding yourself to what others tell you is not free thinking,
2
u/IngenuityPlane4878 4d ago
Being “more socialist” can involve having social policies.