Quote:
Originally Posted by Monkey Banana
I mean, it's cute that you share IANAWW's misconception that socialism is somehow synonymous with government but you can't just describe everything a government does as "socialism" because you simply render the word useless. You end up in the ridiculous position of claiming that a man who strengthened the insurance model of health provision is a "socialist" or that any redistribution of income is "socialist" or that building roads is "socialist". Socialists may redistribute income and they may build roads but so might a lot of people.
My use of the term does not render it useless, of course, even if you aren't happy with the use that it retains. It does start to fade once the public/private distinction is sufficiently scrutinized, but nobody wants to deal with that so okay. We are left with a spectrum from anarchy to socialism, in terms of political mechanism, with certain policies being more socialistic than others.
Why aren't you contented with the phrase "worker socialism" for what I expect you to intend?