I guess perhaps I should be flattered that you put me on a pedestal along with famous people of the past, but in fact I'm not any sort of authority in this matter, and I'm certainly not taking any kind of unique position.
We have these books called DICTIONARIES that give the accepted definitions of words in the English language, and THAT is the "authority" I'm using.
I realize it has become quite a fad in these trying times for people to take the Humpty-Dumpty approach to word definitions (ie, "words mean what I choose them to mean") but MY point is based on the historical DICTIONARY DEFINITION of the term "socialism". Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with these things we call a DICTIONARY.
In fact, not one thing mentioned here relates to "an economic theory where the government owns the means of production". There are plenty of mentions of inequities, for sure, but none of them spring from "government ownership" of anything, certainly not any sort of "means of production". (Medicare is simply an entity that manages insurance claims and payments, like any other insurance TPA, not a "means of production".)
Aside from all of this nonsense, the biggest piece of it relates to suggesting that businesses who cannot afford to pay a "living wage" should not be penalized.
You do realize of course that if there were no such thing as a "minimum wage" there would be companies who pay their employees as little as possible, maybe even $1/hr or less? Again, that's not "socialism" or even government ownership of some means of product, but pure capitalist BS.
The fact is that the minimum wage (MW) in America has failed to keep up with inflation over time. If it had, various sources say it would be around $33/hr today. THAT is a "living wage". When the MW was set at $7.50 or so, that was also a "living wage" at the time; but today it's a poverty-level wage that cannot support anybody anywhere in America.
As the inequity between the MW and a "living wage" has increased, more and more people have been forced to rely on "social safety nets" to make up the shortfall. Saying that it's not the employer's fault is nonsense. My personal opinion is that if an employer cannot pay a "living wage" to their employees then they don't deserve to be in business. It's that simple. Otherwise, you could argue that any wage at all is justifiable, even $1/hr. That's a "pure capitalistic approach" that would result in the collapse of our entire economy. The MW is not so much of a "socialist" thing as a necessary regulator that sets a reasonable floor on wages to prevent the collapse of the economy.
At the end of the day, each one of us has nothing more than our own time and skills to offer in exchange for our daily needs. The government, in this case, through the (in)action of Congress, has failed to support the needs of ALL AMERICANS by refusing to ensure that the MW is actually a "living wage". In their failure to act, the shortfall in needs has been being met increasingly by different kinds of "social safety net" programs.
Yes, some of these are run by various government entities, and many are funded by taxes. So what? Their existence isn't because the "government owns the means of production" because we're talking about economic impacts caused directly by choices made by PRIVATE BUSINESS OWNERS, not the government.
Remember, the MW is merely a "suggestion" and the absolute minimum that an employer can pay their employees -- it's NOT A MANDATE! Any employer is free to pay more, and many do. Look at Costco, for example.
I'm sure Amazon could pay everybody that works for them a "living wage" and Jeff Bezos' net worth wouldn't drop by more than $1B or so, which is less than 1% at his currently reported net worth. Ditto for Walmart. This isn't anything the government has any say about -- Bezos and the Walton family are pure capitalists and they're profiting by skimming off every penny they legally can of Amazon's / Walmart's cashflow. Suggesting that if these private companies were to pay their workers a "living wage" that it would somehow negatively impact their fortunes, or that these costs would be passed on to customers, is pure nonsense.
This is what capitalism is all about. You're arguing that inequities that make capitalism work are a reflection of "socialism". That's crazy. Amazon and Walmart have both driven hundreds and hundreds of small mom-and-pop businesses out-of-business by undercutting their prices and eliminating their ability to operate profitably. I don't hear anybody lamenting those poor souls who now have no way to support themselves because of Amazon's and Walmert's "capitalist" approach to things!
My only question is, why should the community be punished and asked to fund social safety net programs to help the people Amazon and Walmart have driven out of business while all of the additional profits flowing into these company's coffers are benefitting their shareholders and executives, rather than the community?
The COMMUNITY and it's members are the victims here! Things were fine before Amazon or Walmart or whatever other mega-store moved in and drove small businesses out!
And there's nothing even remotely related to "government ownership of means of production" at work here -- that is, no evidence of "socialism", at least according to the DICTIONARY'S definition of the term. (I don't care about historical figures who made up their own meanings. Their reign was short-lived and proved their approaches didn't work anyway.)
