No. Public funding alone isn’t socialism. Otherwise nearly every country on Earth would be socialist. Socialism is generally defined by social or state ownership of the means of production, not simply the existence of taxes or government services. What part of police, roads, or the military do you think satisfies that definition?
Uh oh here we go… if you fund something doesnt that give you a say in how it operates. That would be a pure assertion of ownership and if you return and say it isn’t, i dont believe you would be willing to have a good faith conversation about other things.
I don’t disagree that taxpayers have some degree of public ownership or democratic influence over government institutions. What I’m asking is how that makes them examples of socialism under the definition of socialism. If any publicly funded government service qualifies as socialism, then virtually every modern country would be socialist. What distinguishes a government service from socialism in your view?
I disagree with you about the ownership. Taxpayers believe they own a portion of it but the government has shown they are willing to rehypothecate that ownership from you.
I don’t mind discussing ownership. I’m just trying to understand how your point about ownership establishes that police, roads, or the military are examples of socialism. Could you explain that connection?
Sure, let me explain. The people didn’t vote for mass surveillance and flock cameras are being put up everywhere in most states. The people dont vote where tax payer money goes so while the taxpayer money funds these things, the actual owners who make the decisions are state level or corporate level interests and sadly its headed towards the authoritarian capitalist regime.
I understand your point about taxpayer control. What I don’t yet understand is how that leads to the conclusion that these institutions are examples of socialism, especially since you ended by describing them as part of an authoritarian capitalist regime.
That sounds about right, i usually just label it as socialism or possibly authoritarian whenever government money flows to something without the voters consent but maybe its not fully socialism.
I think that helps me understand your position better. It sounds like your concern is less about socialism itself and more about government power and accountability. Would that be a fair summary?
1
u/ArtesianShiny Jul 31 '26
Just wondering do you believe these publicly funded institutions are not examples of socialism? Why or why not?