Quote:
Originally Posted by Merv and Sharon
Yes, having medical support for millions of disadvantaged and elderly in the US was criticised as being socialism. Go figure. It is all relative to one's interpretation and state of need.
|
Exactly Merv, And the US Government shelved out $trillions rescuing failing industries including banks, GM etc. It never ceases to amaze me that Company Boards boo-hoo socialism (whatever the interpretation) yet have no hesitation to approach governments for support when the chips are down. The use of the word in an emotive notion of being related to communism or Marxist has long gone. Very old school as most governments of today utilize a mixed economy, major parts of which are Socialist by definition.
It would surprise Bernie that the UK government in 1945 was strongly accused of being Socialist.
Extract from Wikipedia:
In the biography of the 1945 UK Labour Party Prime Minister Clement Attlee, Francis Beckett states: "the government... wanted what would become known as a mixed economy".
[16] Beckett also states that "Everyone called the 1945 government 'socialist'." These governments
nationalised major and economically vital industries while permitting a free market to continue in the rest. These were most often monopolistic or infrastructural industries like mail, railways, power and other utilities. In some instances a number of small, competing and often relatively poorly financed companies in the same sector were nationalised to form one government monopoly for the purpose of competent management, of economic rescue (in the UK,
British Leyland,
Rolls-Royce), or of competing on the world market.
So the use of the word is subjective.