Good question Is Mise- but complex.

Society can be sliced and diced like the proverbial cake- it could in theory take different forms at different levels- it depends on how you structure the sandbox. I don't trust economic purists such as David Ricardo- but I can understand the wedge concerns of Ayn Rand in an impure system. If you change the system constantly capitalism is unable to manage risk. Communism is based on the fallacious principle of equality for unequal widgets. People need meaning- they need to feel that they control their own lives- but they also need security and stability.

Overall Deneen's view is that Locke Liberalism both Capitalist and Socialist forms are doomed to failure because the axioms are wrong.

In a sense the rise of progressive socialist liberalism occurred as a result of the emancipation of the population from the land- occurring as a result of mass agriculture- the rise of stock markets- industrialization- which led to the public social safety net.

But in a sense emancipation of the population from the land is unnecessary and undesirable due to industrialization being based on technology not land area.

The land could be the safety net.

But there are countries that can't feed themselves based on their own production- Srilanka currently has low foreign currency reserves for example.

It's easy to go about solving things before understanding the baseline and background

Basically socialism is when the taxes you pay are returned to you as services or as facilities for the common good and not given away to mates and sponsors by politicians who think they can freely plunder the vault - a global trend started in the eighties.

The nation building infrastructure (water, electricity, telecommunications, roads, schools, hospitals, defence, police and so on) was built on socialist principles and simply because there was no way it could be done privately at the time. Since then much of it has been taken out of public hands and privatised so now we are like former homeowners who forever have to pay rent for what we used to own.
We still have some welfare systems but these are needed to maintain civil order and to protect the wealthy from the otherwise hungry poor.

Nowadays the term is freely thrown around as if it's interchangeable with communism and something sinister coming from "the left".

Ongoing corporate bail-outs and subsidies for private companies suggest that some form of economic socialism still exists but common services for the general population are slowly being taken away.

for the common good and not given away to mates and sponsors ...
rache,
Yes, like giving to the unproductive Academic elite who just keep demanding more simply because they think the World needs them desperately !

My understanding of Socialism is a system that tells people that they are free, in control of everything, will have all their needs taken care of, and collectively own everything. The reality is that they have no power, no services, live where they are told to and do what they are told to, and own nothing. So no, Australia is not socialist.

I think it unfortunate that social welfare is equated with socialism. My view is that social welfare is what sets us apart from socialism.

It could be worse Indy, all the beer and pokie money paid to Old Farts as Aged Welfare, at no return what so ever to the taxpayer. I suppose some comes back as booze and alci tax and tax on their smokes. But then again there's all that dosh wasted on everything from cheap housing to cheap drugs.

Paul1405,
Sounds like serious tinges of guilt !