That is factually incorrect. Do you not understand that I want the workers, not the state, to own the means of production that are not included in the social democratic state I am proposing? Socialism in the owning of the means of production by the community as a whole, which can entail workers. On the contrary to your point, when the public sector has been expanded, we see an increased flourishing of humanity. The Nordic countries, once more, are prime examples of such. A powerful labor movement and collective, compassionate mindset, which eventually was formalized by a generous welfare state, has been the paragon of high living standards for the world for quite some time. To ignore this, or dismiss it merely as cultural or ethnic homogeneity is really just confirmation bias extracted from various articles that try to debunk the success of the Scandinavian public sector to push their right-wing agenda.
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Yes it is, I’m literally using the definition of the socialism. I want the economy to be owned by the public sector, with some parts of collective ownership going to the state (welfare, infrastructure, education (to an extent), justice system etc…), and the remaining part (which would actually be quite large) of the economy being collectively owned and operated by the workers, circumventing inefficient and exploitative bosses. It’s not a wholly socialist state, but that’s because you don’t need a state for socialism. The people can offer socialism.
It’s not disenfranchising landowners when everyone can now collectively own the capital producing property. Instead of a few being the primary beneficiaries, everyone can now be a prime beneficiary. Giving power and wealth to the people in order to free them from oppression is not disfranchisement, you are delusional if you believe that to be the case.
This is incredibly subjective, however, the results of a large public sector re not. The results are what matters, and with a greater public sector, time and time again, we have seen quality of life increase because of such. Extreme authoritarianism isn’t good, and socialist states typically go bad because of such. I’m not proposing and incredibly authoritarian socialist state. You’re going to keep thinking that socialism means destruction of civil liberties if you only ever look at authoritarian states that tried to implement socialism. However, socialism or socialist policy has existed in moderate or even libertarian forms. If you look at the collective result of said policies, they have proved to generally be a net good thing for the societies that implemented them. Capitalism has also been implemented with authoritarianism, just look at the Gilded age attacks on labor movements or the disruption of unionizes strikes, or even the constant action of the state against worker movements, as well as militant action in order to protect lucrative business interests. You’re examining this issue through a very, very narrow lens, and refuse to acknowledge the actual historic happenings and developments of socialist and capitalist economic systems.
Hitler was not a socialist, he didn’t believe in egalitarian outcomes due to discrimination, and actually privatized many industries, and certainty didn’t push for owner ownership of the means of production. I don’t want to debate this right now, but I’m saying this because Hitler actually represented privatization and racial and ethnic discrimination, which are both fundamentally anti-socialist, making him a quite poor example for your point.
I said within the bit that you quoted, that you didn’t say this, but if you thought this (which i didn’t say you did), then that would be ignorant.
Yes, you do. People besides yourself also feel pain and pleasure, and both anguish and happiness. Your life is roughly equal in terms of value to those around you, so don’t act like you don’t have a moral obligation to society. You only know the people you do due to circumstance and your personal development. Their lives are not much lesser or greater than most other peoples’ lives. You can’t run away from this responsibility when, in terms of sensation, you are essentially equivalent to everyone in society.
Yes, and that is why more urgent conditions get treated faster. More urgency=less wait time, less urgency=more wait time, there are limited resources, and to ensure that the people who need healthcare the most get it, sometimes people with less serious conditions have to wait a bit longer so those who are suffering more and need treatment quicker, can get treatment quicker.
If you can afford it, any many people cannot. Take for example, under the UK’s NHS, only 2% of adults skip out on medication because they can’t afford it, whereas under the United States’ healthcare system, 18% of adults, nearly 1 in 5 people, skip out on medication because they can’t afford it. It is ridiculous to say that a system in which nearly 1 in 5 people can’t get enough medicine is superior to a system in which only around 1 in 50, can’t get enough medicine. That is ludicrous. Not to mention the US also pays the world’s highest healthcare per capita costs, all for below par societal outcomes. There must be some form of government negotiating with healthcare companies and government provision to ensure that society’s healthcare needs are met. systems. A universal healthcare system is by far superior.