Kinda like how socialism has been studied for centuries...
Ok, this is getting really tiring in this country. I've heard the word socialism like 10,000 times in the past 9 months. It is the #1 propaganda tool of the Republican party, apparently.
I consider myself pretty well versed in this, so I will try to explain this.
Socialism, in it's purest form, is the abolition of private property. Land, commerce, the means of production, etc becomes "public". Furthermore, another common feature in socialism is the concept of a planned economy. The state (representing the public, in theory) comes up with a plan for the economy, controlling ALL major industry, in the 20th century these were typically called "Five Year Plans", and the major parts of the economy were governed by the state. Not by a market. The Soviet Union did 5 Year Plans, China still does them, Vietnam does them, etc.
Now, what "Social Democratic" countries like Norway, Finland, Denmark, Canada, Germany, etc have done is operate a capitalist system, with a market economy (not a state, centrally planned economy, critical distinction), and setup tax schemes to benefit the entire population. They provide healthcare, education, etc from within the capitalist/market system.
What is being fought for by the American "left" is not the socialist platform. Instead, it is the Social Democratic platform. Nobody (that I am aware of) is talking about state control of the entire economy. They are talking about tax schemes and what not that provide things like people in Japan, Canada, the UK, Norway, Sweden, Germany, etc have.
We have capitalism and a free market, and Social Security for old people. That doesn't make us socialists.
We have capitalism and a free market, and Medicare for old people. That doesn't make us socialists.
We have capitalism and a free market, and public education for youth. That doesn't make us socialists.
We have capitalism and a free market, and a public postal system. That doesn't make us socialists.
We have capitalism and a free market, and publicly funded police and military protection. That doesn't make us socialists.
Now, some of these countries I reference HAVE "nationalized" part of their economy. That is an aspect of socialism. Usually it has to do with natural resources. The general thinking on it is that if oil is in the ground, it shouldn't belong to an individual person. That the riches of the land belong to all Norwegians, Swedes, or whatever.
Two examples:
Equinor. This is a state-owned, govt run, Norwegian Oil Company. It says right on their website, "Our purpose is to turn natural resources into energy for people, and progress for society". The state then puts the profits from this oil company into what is known as "The Government Pension Fund". That money goes into building Norway, providing education, health, public investment, saving for emergencies, etc. It currently has a trillion dollar surplus.
Sveaskog... Same thing. 100% state-owned forestry company in Sweden. Largest owner of the forest in Sweden. Funnels the profits into environment sustainability for Sweden, planting more forest, and back into the Swedish society in form of "social welfare".
So, some of these countries do have industries who operate like a business, very much make profit, but their goal is to take that money to develop their society. Oddly enough, nobody in America is even talking about doing that.
Sorry for the long rant... but it's just disingenuous to try and say Democrats want to be like Cuba or Venezuela, or some other military dictatorship. The countries being referenced by Democrats are literally the most robust democracies in the world. The freest and purest of all democracies. Not 3rd world dictatorships.
