Actually, no I don’t. I am using the definition that virtually every media outlet is using to define entitlement programs intended to redistribute income and wealth through taxes.
Modern socialism is the process by which society insures that everyone gets “what they need” (the argument is over “what they need”). In early versions of socialism, the people felt the best way for that to happen was for the people through the government to “own all means of production” and therefore they would have absolute control of all goods produced and could insure a “fair distribution”.
Governments turned out to be very corrupt (no surprise) and so I do not believe any of these approaches have worked. Rather than insuring a “fair distribution” of goods produced, they tended to pile up in the bank accounts of corrupt government leaders.
So when we refer to things like “universal health care” or “universal free education” as socialist programs, we are not talking about the government taking over health care like the British have where their health care system, which operates like our VA system. Nor are we talking about the government taking control of all private colleges. We are talking about the government taxing the public enough to insure everyone has access to health care and college.
Bernie Sanders, an avowed socialist, is someone that embraces this form of modern socialism. In contrast, I think “honest” socialists have come to realize that the traditional socialism does not work and has never worked. And so they advocate an capitalism as the best way to maximize a society’s production of goods and services and regulations combined with income and wealth redistribution programs funded by taxes to support the poor and in some cases even the middle class. If you think the average American “socialist” believes otherwise, then that is fine, I don’t.
Where I part ways with most progressive Democrats is that I believe the consent of the taxpayers to be taxed is very important. To the extent Democrats are elected to office promising entitlements by individuals who don’t expect to pay the taxes necessary to fund those entitlements, then the whole system breaks down. So saying “we will tax the rich to give the money to the poor” may sound appealing, except if the rich don’t go along with the idea, then their money will simply move overseas… money is quite mobile… I can send cash to anywhere in the world (almost) in less than 24 hours.
To a large extent this is the breakdown that is happening between our economy and government. Government is filled with people promising no new taxes and rich entitlements. This way taxpayers are happy (no new taxes) and the poor are happy (new entitlements). That is not modern socialism, since it does involve income or wealth redistribution… it is simply buying “votes” through entitlements funded with debt…
