• honey_im_meat_grinding@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    A socialist system would also feature government officials vetoing spending on the basis of cost. If you think about it, there would be even more such instances, since a socialist government has a larger say on economic questions.

    Not necessarily, allow me to give a different perspective. Market socialists usually argue in favour of socialised organisations like cooperatives and unions having more power. Socialism doesn’t necessarily equal an all powerful control economy, you can marketise elements in a humane way. In Sweden, for example, the unions handle unemployment benefits through what’s known as a Ghent system[1]. In Norway, 20% of housing is democratically owned through housing coops that were originally funded by the government (but that stopped a few decades ago) and it’s still growing faster than the population itself is, so given enough time Norway will eventually be all democratically owned housing. In Finland, something like 90%+ of the population is a member in democratically owned grocery shops (consumer coops), where anyone can stand in elections for managerial positions - yes, you can literally be democratically elected a manager in a coop shop.

    Also, anecdotally, when I went to high school in Norway I was offered free condoms. This is also the case in Sweden and Finland, now that I look it up.

    [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghent_system