America socialist?

@OntheWindowStand,

This isn't black and white, socialist or not socialist.

The Coca-Cola Company and Trump Enterprises will always be private entities.

The Military will always be a socialist entity so long as it is funded by taxes. If you wanted a non-socialist military, we could go back to having militias as we did in 1775.

If you'd like to retire at 65 or 70 rather than working until you're 85 years old, then you're going to see value in paying into medicare and social security.

And unless you plan to spend time personally repaving the highway and building bridges, much of our infrastructure will depend on tax-funded government initiative.

It's a balancing act. It doesn't come down to a label like socialist versus not-socialist.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

It is not becoming more and more socialist, it is becoming more and more corporatist.

1 Reply

@Mr Fight the Power,

The nasty truth is that Mr. Fight the Power is right.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

The United States is pretty much a pseudo-democratic corporatocracy. I find it funny that socialism is demonized when it comes to health care and education. The when it comes to public works socialism (roads, military, police) socialism is called something else entirely.

2 Replies

@Theaetetus,

Some of us in the US still feel the Red Scare - which was irresponsible fear mongering during the Cold War. It's a quick step from communism to socialism in the minds of many.

0 Replies

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus wrote:

The United States is pretty much a pseudo-democratic corporatocracy. I find it funny that socialism is demonized when it comes to health care and education. The when it comes to public works socialism (roads, military, police) socialism is called something else entirely.

Politicians appeal to voters by promising government services on regulations, but they implement these "changes" by working with lobbyists. What you end up with is interest groups pushing for government action and big business providing the services; instead of universally provided healthcare, we have mandatory subsidized health insurance; instead of socially responsible market sector, we have cartelized big business that self-regulate and entrench their own market control like big sugar.

I am against government control and regulation altogether, so perhaps I am not the most unbiased opinion, but this half-assed socialistic drive of modern liberalism has not created a more free society, but a society more dependent upon government, and ironically, a society more dependent on its entrenched, cartelized, and inefficient big business.

The book The Triumph of Conservatism by Gabriel Kolko is a good read on this.

I also would like to add the issue of immigration to list of socialistic tendencies from those who rail against socialism. There could be nothing more (stereotypically) socialistic than the restriction of labor supply in the interests of wage control.

2 Replies

@Mr Fight the Power,

Quote:

I am against government control and regulation altogether, so perhaps I am not the most unbiased opinion, but this half-assed socialistic drive of modern liberalism has not created a more free society, but a society more dependent upon government, and ironically, a society more dependent on its entrenched, cartelized, and inefficient big business.

No reason to point the finger at modern liberalism. Over the past 40 years, Republicans have dominated the White House.

It's not a matter of liberal or conservative policies winning the day - it's that both liberal and conservative policies are ultimately corrupt given the moral bankruptcy of the vast majority of major political players and the influence of big business, especially the military industrial complex.

1 Reply

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

this half-assed socialistic drive of modern liberalism has not created a more free society, but a society more dependent upon government, and ironically, a society more dependent on its entrenched, cartelized, and inefficient big business.

That rhetoric may have worked until maybe 1984 or 1985 when it was the mantra of fiscal conservatives, until Reagan came along and mid-term decided to raise taxes.

I find it very hypocritical that liberals are accused of this in a country where the conservative party wants to pass constitutional amendments about flag burning and gay marriage and abortion, where the conservative party is willing to sign off on all kinds of unchecked executive powers nominally for security purposes, where the conservative party is so down the pants of military industrialists (like Lockheed) and military contractors that they'll give them tens of billions of dollars in questionable projects, and where the conservative party will bend over backwards to appease their oil industry sponsors with the promise of new oilfields everywhere from Alaska to Iraq.

So here we are with bigger government than ever, with a disproportionate amount of money going into defense and big business. And it's virtually all the result of conservative policies. So how does this jive with your values about individual freedom and liberty? At least you can argue that liberal policies, like civil rights and education and health care, will enhance the individual's self-actualization if the programs work. Can you make the same argument for Halliburton?

0 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

No reason to point the finger at modern liberalism. Over the past 40 years, Republicans have dominated the White House.

It's not a matter of liberal or conservative policies winning the day - it's that both liberal and conservative policies are ultimately corrupt given the moral bankruptcy of the vast majority of major political players and the influence of big business, especially the military industrial complex.

I am not simply blaming modern liberalism. I am apolitical and certainly distrust your modern conservative just as much. I simply attack modern liberalism, because the modern mantra of mandated equality lies more in the realm of what I was talking about, because I feel it brings about this equality through means that establish dependency as well.

It is mainly modern liberals (note that I am referring to progressives that can extend back well over a century) that have pushed for and taken credit for these social welfare policies.

I can certainly rail against the conservative movement supporting the other end of the welfare-warfare state (see Robert Higgs for good reading on this), but that is not really what I interpreted this discussion as being about.

Also, Kolko is a historian from the New Left movement, and his title is an attempt at revisionist history.

4 Replies

@Mr Fight the Power,

Quote:

I am not simply blaming modern liberalism. I am apolitical and certainly distrust your modern conservative just as much.

Yeah, I see myself as a liberal - I'm fond of individual liberty. Unfortunately, both sides in American politics, conservative and liberal, have little to boast about in my mind.

Quote:

I simply attack modern liberalism, because the modern mantra of mandated equality lies more in the realm of what I was talking about, because I feel it brings about this equality through means that establish dependency as well.

Is that dependency the result of increased equality, or the result of poverty?

Quote:

It is mainly modern liberals (note that I am referring to progressives that can extend back well over a century) that have pushed for and taken credit for these social welfare policies.

I don't see the problem with those welfare policies. Perhaps if there was greater economic opportunity, people would not depend on those welfare programs. Either way, without those programs people starve, people go homeless, ect.

I'm not trying to defend the supposedly liberal policy makers - seems like we both are quick to criticize them. I think we would both agree that when supposedly liberal politicians make reforms, regulate, ect, they usually do so to the advantage of their campaign contributors and other special interests. However, the same is true of conservatives and conservatives have gone out of their way to increase the size of government - and have caused the government to grow far more than the liberals have allowed.

Quote:

Also, Kolko is a historian from the New Left movement, and his title is an attempt at revisionist history.

I'm a little confused - usually 'revisionist history' carries negative connotations.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Is that dependency the result of increased equality, or the result of poverty?

You give a man a fish he eats for a day.

You teach a man to fish he eats for life.

You make a man work for subpar wages, steal a large portion of those wages at gun point, give what you've stolen to some rich dude so that the rich dude will give the man a fish "for free" and you have made that man a slave.

Quote:

I don't see the problem with those welfare policies. Perhaps if there was greater economic opportunity, people would not depend on those welfare programs. Either way, without those programs people starve, people go homeless, ect.

I should point out that I oppose those welfare policies on non-aggression principle. If government taxes (and taxation is theft, despite how "justified" the government expenditure seems to be) one sector of the population and provides unequal benefit to another segment of the population, I feel it to be wrong.

That is not to say that I blame the recipients of welfare (at least not as strongly as many conservatives would). In fact, I believe there are much greater evils within government (all of society in fact) that have created this dependent underclass that must be dealt with first.

My gripe is that, in their dispicable methods for dealing with these welfare issues, many modern liberals have only strengthened the greater evil that makes the lesser evil necessary.

The welfare-warfare state and the political capitalism it rests upon is always ratcheted into stronger positions by these political movements.

Quote:

I'm not trying to defend the supposedly liberal policy makers - seems like we both are quick to criticize them. I think we would both agree that when supposedly liberal politicians make reforms, regulate, ect, they usually do so to the advantage of their campaign contributors and other special interests. However, the same is true of conservatives and conservatives have gone out of their way to increase the size of government - and have caused the government to grow far more than the liberals have allowed.

I think that depends very much upon how your values affect your viewpoint.

Quote:

I'm a little confused - usually 'revisionist history' carries negative connotations.

It can be, it just depends on whether you think the historical record is correct. For example, The Triumph of Conservatism takes the generally accepted viewpoint that the Progressive Era that saw massive regulation imposed on big business not as a safeguard against big business, but a safeguard for big business against fair competition. The idea is that as these businesses grew large, they began to operate on poor business models and suffer to smaller competitors. As a result, they pushed just as hard for regulation in order to entrench their own position despite their inability to actually compete.

It is dry, but it is a very convincing case and has been touted by leftists and rightists alike.

0 Replies

@Mr Fight the Power,

Actually, if you want to get technical with the terminology, we are coming to the down fall of both neoconservatism and neoliberalism dominated political climate. The former delegated both foreign and domestic policy trying to disassemble the social welfare system at home while assisting big business with the use of the military and trade agreement overseas. The later delegated economic principles. Reaganomics is a classic example of neoliberal economic ideals.

0 Replies

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

I am not simply blaming modern liberalism. I am apolitical and certainly distrust your modern conservative just as much. I simply attack modern liberalism, because the modern mantra of mandated equality lies more in the realm of what I was talking about, because I feel it brings about this equality through means that establish dependency as well.

It is mainly modern liberals (note that I am referring to progressives that can extend back well over a century) that have pushed for and taken credit for these social welfare policies.

I can certainly rail against the conservative movement supporting the other end of the welfare-warfare state (see Robert Higgs for good reading on this), but that is not really what I interpreted this discussion as being about.

Also, Kolko is a historian from the New Left movement, and his title is an attempt at revisionist history.

Blaspheme!!!

Actually. Yes. I agree. As far as blaming the liberals even though liberals are more communist and conservatives more anarchist I actually blame the conservatives. Conservatives have screwed up so bad that more and more people are forced to turn to the government and more and more people are becoming liberals.

As far as America becoming socialist. I would like to bring up some Marx "Democracy is the stepping stone towards socialism." It's normal for us to be going towards socialism. In the Communist Manifesto Marx talks about the four stages of human development and thus country development. Stage I: Slavery, Stage II: Feudalism, Stage III: Capitalism, Stage IV: Communism. As of now America is in stage III but developing into stage IV just as Marx predicted because it is the development.

1 Reply

@TheRedMenace,

Oh God!! I sincerely hope we don't go communist. Sorry, but giving the bureaucrats more power is just wrong. Allowing them to plan the economy for a false market is wrong.

Besides I'd say the corporations are going to have more power and only take advantage of capitalism. More monopolies with the ones that actually globalize, the benefits corporations have from way, and the public not really getting anything out of a war overseas, except for vengeance. But vengeance isn't always justice.- quote from Battlestar galactica lol.

The government needs to establish some laws for how far corporations can go, so as to eliminate greed. But not in any way give themselves more influence, because I don't see any need for there to be.

Communism isn't going to turn mercantilism to free market, only international agreements can do that, not national change. Lol, like the public is going to have any say if every country went com.

As far as America being socialist, the healthcare system would be:slap: financially. So pro for socialism.

What I am trying to understand so far is... Is Socialism when things are publicly owned or owned by the state?

If America were to switch to a socialism with a democratic stance, so as to keep public liberty, and headway, wouldn't it make more sense to give the public more ownerships, not the government, b/c in a democracy it is about the people; being something that communism should work out.

Forget being reliant on a plan, the intrinsic bias of the strategies of the political power, or corporate power for that matter (as seen today).

3 Replies

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401 wrote:

What I am trying to understand so far is... Is Socialism when things are publicly owned or owned by the state?

Most socialist doctrines do call for public or state ownership of the factors of production, i.e. those economic goods we must have to produce the necessities of life: natural resources, land, factories, whatever. As a result it is most often defined as such.

As there have been many socialists who did not fit in this definition, Proudhon, Tucker, Warren, Stirner, I don't believe it fits.

It would be more fitting to say that socialists believe all men should have access to the factors of production and to the resulting product. This belief is pretty much universally held jointly with the belief that capitalism robs some or many of the access that they deserve.

0 Replies

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401 wrote:

Oh God!! I sincerely hope we don't go communist. Sorry, but giving the bureaucrats more power is just wrong. Allowing them to plan the economy for a false market is wrong.

True communism does not give the bureaucrats more power. In fact, true communism takes away bureaucratic hierarchical power structures and replaces them with networks of people.

1 Reply

@Theaetetus,

Then what do you call China? Because I think true communism is the aftermath of totalitarian communisms, not corporate booms and capitalism. Has history ever presented true communism?

1 Reply

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401 wrote:

As far as America being socialist, the healthcare system would be:slap: financially.

Are you so sure? Under our current system, with a disorganized mess of public and private third party payor systems (insurance companies, HMOs, etc), health care is so exorbitantly expensive that it's pretty clearly unsustainable. We spend FAR more per capita on health care in the US than any other developed nation, and yet our health statistics are WORSE than most of them. Our system protects drug companies so that drugs are unaffordable, and it rewards fancy diagnostic tests and procedures and subspecialty care but is adversarial for primary / preventative care. And it turns out that major sectors of health care are largely socialized already -- the big ones are Medicaid (which requires both state and federal contribution), Medicare (federal with elective private contribution), the Veterans Administration.

While the answers to our health care problems are hardly simple, there is one IMMENSE potential advantage to socialized medicine. That is, with a single payor, the "system" would negotiate down prices for hospitalizations, tests, drugs, etc until it was actually affordable. Of course medicine would change a lot -- we wouldn't see the ER ordering head CTs on every single person with a headache, or CT angiograms of the chest of every person with chest pain and shortness of breath, etc. Drug prices would fall precipitously, and there would be a bigger gatekeeper before people could get fancy shmancy new and expensive drugs that they often times just don't need. Of course I'd earn less money, but there isn't too much room to go down in my subspecialty -- it's the really lucrative specialties like cardiology that would take the biggest hit.

Point is, don't knock socialized medicine in principle until you get a good sense of how horribly diseased our health care system already is. There are rational ways to provide better and more affordable health care to more people without going all out with a British or German-style system.

2 Replies

@Aedes,

Guess I should have thought about it. Is Cuba a fine example of communist health care thats cheap

1 Reply

America socialist?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know