Medicare and now the ACA, public school education, police/military/Homeland/NSA/etc, huge farming subsidies: so, health, education, food, personal and national safety – isn’t the basic framework of the nation socialist in character.
The USA seems to differentiate from its first world counterparts only in the extent to which the wealthy have been able to affect lawmaking through influence over lawmaker. Everything else is propaganda* and smoke and mirrors.
Does that make sense?
*capitalism wrapped in the flag, excess sold as success, inequality sold as the Americn Dream, etc, etc.
Sort of annoyingly, it seems to be shifting in meaning to mean a state with a social safety net program and a progressive tax/benefit structure. Some of this is just rhetoric from opponents of these programs trying to make form a tenuous progressive=socialist=communist=bad association in the minds of voters. But even progressives sometimes use the word in this sense. Bernie Sanders calls himself a socialist, but outside of the health sector, he doesn’t really propose nationalizing anything. His proposals are basically Progressive ones.
Anyhoo, its confusing both because its fairly different from the original use of the word, and because it basically encompases, to one extent or another, every industrialized country, which makes it kind of useless at describing anything.
We have words for capitalism and socialism. We don’t have a word for an economy where a large majority of people work for private employers, but the share of the money controlled by the various levels of government has crept up to about 40%, and where a bazillion regulations give the government a measure of control over virtually every aspect of economic life. It’s not socialism, but it’s obviously also very different from capitalism as envisioned by Adam Smith.
Historically, public school education has been stronger in America than in many other countries, but was organized at the local level rather than the national. (At least that’s my understanding.) This may be true of other institutions as well.
When you talk about the “basic framework of the nation,” do you mean what it has evolved into currently, or are you taking a more broad, historical view?
Yeah, I had intended to put that in my post. The US is a mixed economy like (shocker!!) every other industrialized country on the planet, and it’s all a matter of just how “mixed” they are. On a scale of pure capitalism to pure socialism, I don’t think you’d find the US and Sweden to be all that far apart.
As to public education, schools in rich neighbourhoods get tons of funding have lots of activities and high quality teachers. In poor neighbourhoods schools get little funding, few activities and often poor quality teachers and materials.
And this sort of “anything government-run is socialist” is a silly and trite government which gets you absurd conclusions such as that Bismarck was some sort of a left-winger.
That’s kind of the point, I guess. The dictionary definition is available with a click; has the definition as propagandised to the US population allowed reality to be disorted. First definition on Google:
Central organisation … regulated … exchange.
Fwiw, when I see Americans talk about ‘socialism’ it’s not about the means of production, it is *always *about taxation.
Yep, that’s what I understand it to be.
As above really, whenever I’ve seen Americans talk about socialism it’s always to complain about taxes. Taxes - collectivism - create the framework within which every first world society functions and prospers.
Whilst Sanders has never outright denied being called “socialist”, his brand of “socialism” is more akin to the “socialism” of the Nordic countries and to some extant places like Germany. Earlier on he made it more apparent that he was specifically leaning towards Nordic “social democracy” rather than being some kind of nazi or communist. I think (somewhere else) he even went as far as to say that has his brand of “socialism” was mostly interchangeable with “progressivism”, whatever that means. These are very different things and I think they should be emphasized here.
Indeed. I would say that the USA is a capitalist country with some socialist aspects (e.g. ACA, Medicare, farm subsidies, etc.). By contrast, China could be described as a socialist country with some capitalist aspects. The fact that there has been increasing tolerance for private industry hasn’t changed the fundamental nature of the relationship between the people and the Communist Party.
Right … okay now it’s getting me confused - once you strip out the democracy thing, isn’t the basic state framework of health, education, food and security kind of similar.
I just want to say this as well; I recently picked a friend up from Heathrow and it coincided with a flight from China; blown away … all of a sudden my perception of that country went from millions riding bikes along car-free streets to a totally confident, well dressed, professional middle class. And tall. That happened fast.
No, those programs don’t define either what is socialist OR national socialist.