What difference does motive make in labeling the construct?
It's the whole difference. The Johnson people weren't aiming, nor were their supporters in Congress, for a state run economy; nor, in my view, were the most prominent arguments amelioristic. They were, very mildly, redistributional, if that's your argument. But redistributuional arguments are compatible with populism, socialism, some forms of welfare statism, some arguments within twentieth century liberalism. I don't see them as uniquely socialistic.
If LBJ's social welfare programs do not fit under the rubric of socialism, then where does it fit?
The one I offered which was a little play on words. You may (or may not) recall the "Marxism with a human face" arguments of the 70s and 80s. I was simply taking that term and using it, as has been done by others, to label the US poverty programs of the late 60s "Capitalism with a human face." So, if you consider that this conversation is about economic systems and not political programs, then I simply see the late 60s stuff as a part of capitalism, definitely not the ruthless late 19th Century stuff, however. |
