No. Fire departments have been around a long time before socialism.
Yes. But at different times, in different societies, they have taken on different forms. There was a time in America in the big cities, where if you didn't have fire insurance, and weren't wealthy, the fire department wouldn't come to put out your fire.
In regards to your overused and misunderstood fire dept argument
Fire Departments are run by local entities, not the national government. This means each and every local entity can run their FD as they see fit. In the city in which I live, we have a volunteer FD. Other cities employ full time units.
...
This is not socialism – at all.
Well, the local entities that pay to employ full time units definitely have a socialism aspect to it. They are using government to provide "collective ownership and distribution" of an economic resource. In this case, putting out fires. That IS an aspect of socialism. The all volunteer system is not... but to the extent that the local government pays for the trucks, hoses, fire house, etc, that aspect is also socialism in nature. It is the government utilizing the collective resources of the community it represents to provide services to those who need it.
A service run by the government (e.g. armed forces, fire departments, etc.) is not prima facie evidence that socialism exists within a country.
Well, actually it is evidence of a socialism aspect to our county. Our armed forces are paid for (in theory) by the people as a collective, and the protection is provided to all through the coordination of the government.
This is different than, for example, Feudal societies, where the Kings were beholden to the lords to raise an army, and provide for defense or to wage war.
That model wasn't socialist, because you didn't have a collective of the people providing a resource for common good though the means of a government.
the idea of firemen and policemen paid from tax money predates the concept of Democratic Socialism by thousands of years.
None-the-less, it it still a concept of Socialism, even if it existed before the word was invoked or the concept was more formally developed.
Members of a community collaborating and specializing to make their lives easier =/ Socialism, in any of it's disguises.
Well. It depends. If the government providing the money for these collaborations, and if the collaboration & specialization is intended to serve the people at large, then that IS socialism. Socialism is the idea of using government as a means of providing resources to provide a service to the people. Socialism = owned by the people collectively, and provided as a service to the people.
Something like a cooperative is much less socialist in nature. For example, if you choose to join an private HMO, that's not really socialist in nature. That's the example you site of a community collaborating and specializing to make their lives easier.
Medicare, on the other hand, IS socialist in nature. The Government provides the resources to provide a service to the people. Now, especially in America, the government tends to get it's "resources" by taxing people, goods, services, companies, etc. So I will grant that the Government is taking from people in order to organize a service or good and provide that to the people... which is socialism.
Countries like Qatar, on the other hand... have so much wealth from their oil and other resources, that they actually GIVE money to their citizens, rather than taxing them. Now whether you feel the government owning the oil is a tax in and of itself... I haven't thought about that. I'm
Well, to be fair, just because it came before 'socialism' doesn't mean it's not socialist. .
Agreed.