If you stand at the extreme right wing end of the spectrum and look leftwards, NHS provision is socialist, benefits and the welfare state are socialist, state education is socialist,
anything provided free at the point of supply by the government is socialist.
But many people (including many Tories) who see these things as normal and desirable wouldn't describe themselves as socialists.
If you stand at the extreme left wing end of the spectrum and look rightwards, anything short of total state ownership, state control of production, suppression of market forces and control of supply and demand could well look suspiciously like capitalism.
But many people (including many Lefties) who see markets and capitalism as useful tools wouldn't describe themselves as right wing or capitalists.
So, I have no idea what a "supposed" socialist is and I find that the word usually requires some accompanying qualifier to denote the degree of socialism that is meant.
IMHO, where Sal Paradise goes wrong is ...
a) In using the term purely as a pejorative
b) Failing to recognise that any economic system short of absolutely total market freedom and laissez faire capitalism is probably socialist to
some degree. e.g. Medicaid in the US is socialist (and roundly condemned by many Republicans as Communist
).
c) Conflating terms such as Communism, Marxism, Trotskyism, Stalinism, Totalitarianism, Social Democracy, Socialism, The People's Front of Judea etc etc as all being the same thing.
