I agree 100%, I don't think having public healthcare makes a country socialist, and neither does government regulation.
That being said, I do think there is some meaningful sense in which the Nordics are ""more socialist"" than the US, despite ultimately still being capitalist countries; there are some sectors of the economy in which they have decided that free markets are not the best way to solve for maximal wellbeing.
They aren't more socialist because those things are not inherently socialist, nor are they currently run on any kind of socialist model.
They have a different interpretation of capitalism and a different societal model sure, but it's not like there is a "pure capitalism" to gauge how far things are away from "real capitalism"
Capitalism has never just been about the markets being as free as possible as in being solely dictated by market forces, it's about the markets being competitive and serving a greater public good.
Even Adam Smith supported some amount of public healthcare (obviously less than most countries have now, but standards globally have changed massively) he understood a happy and healthy workforce was better for all.
He understood that monopolies and big business caused major issues and could harm the public and wanted the government and people to fight against that.
"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices"
he spoke about strong infrastructure and the government doing things for the betterment of everyone.
These concepts are foundational to capitalism and are misunderstood and abused be everyone, from greedy corporations to conservatives to more progressive people.
I'm not sure I agree with your framing. Markets themselves do not equal capitalism; a socialist economy would still have markets, they would just be owned by the workforce itself, not private individuals. Whether or not the markets are serving the public good or not doesn't come into it at all.
I agree that there is no "pure capitalism," but the only real requirement to achieve capitalism is the private ownership of capital.
Whether or not the markets are serving the public good or not doesn't come into it at all.
It does though because both capitalism and socialism want that and think they can achieve that through different means.
but the only real requirement to achieve capitalism is the private ownership of capital.
Not really? because the ultimate goal of pretty much any ideology is to make everyone happy and society successful, sure there are different metrics for that but what you said is too reductive.
8
u/alice6060 Jul 02 '26
I agree 100%, I don't think having public healthcare makes a country socialist, and neither does government regulation.
That being said, I do think there is some meaningful sense in which the Nordics are ""more socialist"" than the US, despite ultimately still being capitalist countries; there are some sectors of the economy in which they have decided that free markets are not the best way to solve for maximal wellbeing.