The Administration's "Socialism"

[Agnapostate]

The history of the development of socialist ideology as being focused around the collective ownership and management is conveyed through the American Heritage Dictionary's definition of "socialism" as "a social system in which the means of producing and distributing goods are owned collectively and political power is exercised by the whole community." With that in mind, where lies the basis for description of the liberal democratic capitalist administration as "socialist" in nature?

Liberalism and socialism are in fact antithetical because of the role of the welfare state in maintaining macroeconomic stabilization in general and sustaining the physical efficiency and employment of the working class, the latter constituting a sustainment of static efficiency. This role occurs in the context of the capitalist economy, which means that the welfare state is supporting the existence of the prevailing arrangement of the private ownership of the means of production. It's therefore ironically economic rightists who are greater allies of socialists, as their favored policies will destabilize capitalism.

 

[TheFranklinParty]

The history of the development of socialist ideology as being focused around the collective ownership and management is conveyed through the American Heritage Dictionary's definition of "socialism" as "a social system in which the means of producing and distributing goods are owned collectively and political power is exercised by the whole community." With that in mind, where lies the basis for description of the liberal democratic capitalist administration as "socialist" in nature?

Liberalism and socialism are in fact antithetical because of the role of the welfare state in maintaining macroeconomic stabilization in general and sustaining the physical efficiency and employment of the working class, the latter constituting a sustainment of static efficiency. This role occurs in the context of the capitalist economy, which means that the welfare state is supporting the existence of the prevailing arrangement of the private ownership of the means of production. It's therefore ironically economic rightists who are greater allies of socialists, as their favored policies will destabilize capitalism.

The error in your thinking is that you have left out the 4th dimension - time. In order to achieve the static utopia of pure Socialism you need to usurp control and property away from owners and redistribute it to others in a fashion that provides them incentive to produce and consume at equilibrium. Liberalism is the term being used for progressivism which is the track socialism rides to get to its destination.

The other problem with your hypothesis is that human nature, I'm sad to say, prevents leaders from allowing the re balancing of their power after the Utopian structure is formed. This leads to dictators and tyrants - Stalin, Mao, Castro, etc. If you don't like my political examples then examine every commune that existed in the 60's and early '70s and you will see that it was greed, envie, and jealousy that became their downfall.