The question is not *whether* we will be a "socialist" nation, but how much and in what areas. (Ditto for "capitalist".) This is not a binary decision, dog-whistles notwithstanding. https://t.co/uYmK0GeguZ
— ***Dave Hill (@Three_Star_Dave) March 20, 2019
The question is not *whether* we will be a “socialist” nation, but how much and in what areas. (Ditto for “capitalist”.) This is not a binary decision, dog-whistles notwithstanding. https://t.co/uYmK0GeguZ
We are not a capitalist country. We do not have a free-wheeling free-market economy. We do not live in a Hobbesian war of all-against-all, Dickensian workshop, Ayn Randian anarchy. Indeed, most people reject Scrooge’s idea of a capitalist ideal for those who don’t succeed:
“At this festive season of the year, Mr. Scrooge,” said the gentleman, taking up a pen, “it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and Destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir.”
“Are there no prisons?” asked Scrooge.
“Plenty of prisons,” said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.
“And the Union workhouses?” demanded Scrooge. “Are they still in operation?”
“They are. Still,” returned the gentleman, “I wish I could say they were not.”
“The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?” said Scrooge.
“Both very busy, sir.”
“Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,” said Scrooge. “I’m very glad to hear it.”
“Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude,” returned the gentleman, “a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?”
“Nothing!” Scrooge replied.
“You wish to be anonymous?”
“I wish to be left alone,” said Scrooge. “Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don’t make merry myself at Christmas and I can’t afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned — they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there.”
“Many can’t go there; and many would rather die.”
“If they would rather die,” said Scrooge, “they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. Besides — excuse me — I don’t know that.”
“But you might know it,” observed the gentleman.
“It’s not my business,” Scrooge returned. “It’s enough for a man to understand his own business, and not to interfere with other people’s. Mine occupies me constantly. Good afternoon, gentlemen!”
We do have, in the United States, what are properly deemed socialist institutions. We have Social Security Insurance for the elderly, and Medicare and Medicaid for the poor and aged and disabled. We help poor people heat their homes in the winter. We have public-built roads, and police and fire-fighting forces that have their costs divided up amongst the whole population, not just those who explicitly call on them. We have national (and state, and local) parks, not just private preserves for those who own them. We have regulations about pollution, and about safe food, and proven drugs; about overtime pay and child labor and a five day work week; about requiring lenders to tell you the truth with some degree of clarity when you borrow money. We have tax incentives for public policy ends, some of them to support individuals, some of them to support businesses. We provide support to farmers to help them deal with wide-swinging fortunes in commodity prices and the weather.
Those are all “socialist” ideas — and many of them were attacked as dire deep-red socialism when proposed, threatening the moral fiber of freedom in our country when they were passed.
That said, we are not a socialist country, either — at least not in the state-controlled-economy Stalinist-Communist model, which is what the anti-socialist commentators condemn. Supply and demand largely control the economy. People can start (and end) businesses. People purchase goods and services almost solely from privately owned companies and corporations that are “public” only insofar as their stock is sold to the public. People can spend their money pretty much as they prefer, and pass on much of their wealth to their children (or to their cats, or to a charity of their choice).
There are no Democratic candidates who are proposing the sort of Stalinist/Maoist collectivist state as their ideal — even the stereotype of Bernie in his wildest dreams.
But that’s not what you hear from Trump and the GOP. From their perspective, the entire Democratic field consists of Levellers and people who want to tax everyone at 100% and allocate money out to everyone on an even basis, regardless of whether they are patriotic “maker” entrepreneurs or lazy “taker” welfare queens.
One could have a serious discussion about individual policy proposals — Medicare for All, Tuition-free College, Child Care subsidies for working parents, whatever — looking at the pros and cons of their goals, the costs and benefits, the risks and rewards. Heck, one could have a considered relitigation of those socialist programs and policies already in our society.
But instead, the Right is pivoting Red-baiting mode, coloring any sort of “socialist” proposal as hurtling down Perdition Road toward a Venezuela or Cuba or Soviet Union. (If pressed, they’ll also condemn “Euro-Socialism” as a terrible evil, no matter how happy the people of the more socialist states in Europe poll as being.)
Ideally, as I said, we would debate individual proposals and policy points. Apparently Trump has decided — and the GOP have agreed to follow — the concept that anything done for the common good is some sort of crazed communistic “socialism,” and therefore should be painted as a horrifying evil. The goal of the Democratic candidate in 2020 — and of the party in general — has to be to note those areas where we already have “socialism” in what we as citizens accept as normal and beneficial, and clarify that the discussion should not be about facile philosophical labels, but about specifics as to what people do or don’t want, and the costs and benefits of pursuing that.
“Capitalism” and “Socialism” are neither necessarily contradictory, nor are they a binary choice of all-of-one or all-of-another. Making that clear is the best messaging that Democratic politicians could put forward, in opposition to the scaremongering already coming from the Trump campaign.
Do you want to know more? ‘High-level fear-mongering’: Trump’s economic team drives ‘socialism’ attack – POLITICO
Okay, here’s my side of the debate. You are correct to state we have certain socialistic policy and endowments in our government that FDR, LBJ and Nixon put into the bureaucracy. I, however, disagree with you side of the argument. What President Trump is stating is the business system our country has, a Capitalist system, not a socialist system. It seems that Bernie, AOC and whatever Democrat canidate are running on is, what many would say, is pure Socialism. Notice the difference? Socialism is a political ideology to “achieve” Utopia here on Earth. The government, not the individual, will dolt out what you need and give you just enough to survive. If, in a Socialist government, if you do what more, are willing to work harder, and become successful, well, then, we’ll just have to tax you because that’s not fair or “equal”.
Socialism is an system that equate all individuals as equal. We can’t have someone succeeding over someone else, least their feelings might get hurt. Socialism is equality, everyone is equally miserable.
If, as Bernie and AOC are purposing, the Government would take care of your needs, i.e. healthcare, education, etc… There’s an old saying, if you think things are expensive now, just wait until they are free.
A Capitalist economy, rewards those companies and individuals off of their success, product or ideas. I’m sure there a few I left out, but, you can follow my thinking. Capitalist economies reward those that take risks, generally with their own money or assets, when they provide a product or service the economy needs. As for me, I’ve never had an hourly paying job since graduated from the UC Davis. I’ve always made my living off of working harder, smarter and longer hours than those who believe that just because they have a degree, they don’t have to work hard to succeed.
Socialism, an ideology, not an economic principal, will deem what is prudent. Just like AOC (Rep. Orcasio-Cortez) and Bernie are spewing. They, not you the individual, know what is best for you, not you. Remember, she’s the Boss. That’s arrogant. But, most self deemed intellects believe this notion. We have the degrees from those “prestigious” Universities, therefore, we are smarter than you.
Once again, I’ll take wisdom over book smarts.
Can you name another Nation that has brought more people out of poverty and into the middle class? Our economic model has created jobs around the world. It empowers the individual, not the government.
But, you say, it works in Europe! Does it? How’s Greece and Italy doing? But, they have free health care! Yes, but, their populations are a fraction of ours and we defend them with our military and our dollars.
Most intellects are for socialism. Just look at how Stalin came to power. It was the intellects, not the factory workers that supported him. Take a look at all the Socialist and Communistic countries and see who has the wealth, the leaders, not the individual. China has more billionaires that the US!
Socialism is an ideology and a Capitalist frame work is an economic system.
So, that’s the difference. You shouldn’t compare apples to oranges. Yes, they are both fruits(I think) and are nutritious, but are completely different. One is an Utopian ideology that only the intellects want-because they want the power and the purse strings. They other is an economic system.