With the fire department , the government owns the means of production (fire houses, trucks, etc) and sets the prices instead of the free market (paid for by taxes). That is socialism. Public healthcare may or may not be depending on what system it is.
Because this isn’t what socialism is. State ownership/price regulation by itself isn’t necessarily socialist or capitalist. It can be used to expand/reinforce market freedom or to undermine it.
The dictionary can be wrong about what a concept is (see: God). Regardless of any formal definition (and there isn’t just one formal definition of socialism), capitalism (capital-ism) requires state ownership and market administration to some degree in order to be what it is.
The problem is you are thinking of capitalism and socialism as a binary. An economy can incorporate elements of both (and usually does). Most capitalist economies incorporate some amount of socialism with utilities and essential services. Most socialist economies incorporate some amount of capitalism with entertainment.
You can’t “incorporate” with capitalism “elements” that are necessarily immanent to it, that constitute an aspect of what capitalism is. State regulation, ownership is not some other to capitalism. Capitalism cannot be what it is without these elements (ex. capitalism requires contract law and the protection of private property rights, which requires a state, state-operated courts and police forces, whose existence cannot be subject to market forces as with private companies). This is not capitalism taking elements from socialism.
Socialism is not when the state owns or regulates some things. There is nothing inherently socialist about public healthcare or firefighters.
With the fire department , the government owns the means of production (fire houses, trucks, etc) and sets the prices instead of the free market (paid for by taxes). That is socialism. Public healthcare may or may not be depending on what system it is.
No, it isn’t.
Why?
Because this isn’t what socialism is. State ownership/price regulation by itself isn’t necessarily socialist or capitalist. It can be used to expand/reinforce market freedom or to undermine it.
The definition of socialism is literally state ownership of means of production and state administration of the market.
Are you saying this is capitalist state ownership and market administration?
The dictionary can be wrong about what a concept is (see: God). Regardless of any formal definition (and there isn’t just one formal definition of socialism), capitalism (capital-ism) requires state ownership and market administration to some degree in order to be what it is.
The problem is you are thinking of capitalism and socialism as a binary. An economy can incorporate elements of both (and usually does). Most capitalist economies incorporate some amount of socialism with utilities and essential services. Most socialist economies incorporate some amount of capitalism with entertainment.
You can’t “incorporate” with capitalism “elements” that are necessarily immanent to it, that constitute an aspect of what capitalism is. State regulation, ownership is not some other to capitalism. Capitalism cannot be what it is without these elements (ex. capitalism requires contract law and the protection of private property rights, which requires a state, state-operated courts and police forces, whose existence cannot be subject to market forces as with private companies). This is not capitalism taking elements from socialism.