Could the USA ever be "Socialist"?

Apr 2018
6,503
1,404
oregon
#71
Since that seems to be one of your more common retorts, maybe the inability to comprehend others or explain your opinions is more your own problem? Or maybe your nameless ideology demands you insult those who disagree with you.

But Sociopathism does seem to be an apt name.
You can name your strawman's ideology anything you'd like. It's not as if I control your delusions.
 
Apr 2018
6,503
1,404
oregon
#73
There you go again with your rote responses again. Why be so deceitful?
Do you even know what "deceitful" means? It appears you just like to use irrelevant terms that have negative connotations, regardless of whether or not they make contextual sense.
 
Sep 2018
653
185
cleveland ohio
#74
The more a society doesn't understand economics, the more socialist it becomes.
In 1932 Walter Duranty won the Pultzer Prize for his reporting of the Five Year Plan. In his acceptance speech he argued: "I went to the Baltic states viciously anti-Bolshevik. From the French standpoint the Bolsheviks had betrayed the allies to Germany, repudiated the debts, nationalized women and were enemies of the human race. I discovered that the Bolsheviks were sincere enthusiasts, trying to regenerate a people that had been shockingly misgoverned, and I decided to try to give them their fair break. I still believe they are doing the best for the Russian masses and I believe in Bolshevism - for Russia - but more and more I am convinced it is unsuitable for the United States and Western Europe. It won't spread westward unless a new war wrecks the established system." (14)
 
Sep 2018
653
185
cleveland ohio
#75
The more a society doesn't understand economics, the more socialist it becomes.
The increases in production were dramatic. During the first five year plan (1929-1934) there was a fifty percent increase in overall industrial output and an average annual growth rate of eighteen percent. These statistics, however, do not take into account the poor quality of the goods produced. By emphasizing output only, and by intentionally setting the target output levels unrealistically high, the Soviet leaders created a system in which poor quality done quickly was preferable to producing quality products at a slower rate. Part of this had to do with the constant specter of the secret police hovering over the country, ready to declare “treason when economists pointed out the irrationalities in [the] plans or argued that impossible goals were bound to create crises, which in turn led to waste and inefficiency” (Kenez, 90).
 
Sep 2018
653
185
cleveland ohio
#76
The more a society doesn't understand economics, the more socialist it becomes.
Still, despite all its failures, the rabid industrialization did close the gap between the Soviets and the West, and it is doubtful anything short of this kind of mass mobilization would have given Russia the means to withstand the Nazi onslaught a few years later.
 
Sep 2017
4,409
5,334
Massachusetts
#77
And when I say socialist I mean ln the Western European sense not like the ussr or cuba
In 1906 German sociologist Werner Sombart wrote an essay entitled Why Is There No Socialism in the United States? that sought to explain why the US, alone among industrialized democracies, had not developed a major socialist movement.
Today, however, we need to pose a different question: why are there socialists in the United States? In this nation that has long been resistant to socialism’s call, who are all these people who now suddenly deem themselves socialists? Where did they come from? What do they mean by socialism? <- from --> Why are there suddenly millions of socialists in America? | Harold Meyerson
I think we've long been socialist, in the Western European sense.... it's simply a question of degree. Consider all the things in the US that could be called socialist, including:

Social Security
Medicare
Medicade
Minimum wage laws
Overtime laws
Family and Medical Leave Act
OSHA rules
Subsidies for farmers
State-financed primary and secondary education
State-run universities
State-subsidized college loans
State-provided healthcare for government workers
The consumer protection agency
The consumer financial protection bureau
Collective bargaining laws
State-run foster care systems
Public parks
Public administration of the airwaves

.... and so on. Overall, we're something like 1/4 socialist, if you judge by the percentage of our GDP that goes to government spending. Western European nations tend to be somewhere in the 1/3 to 1/2 range. The differences tend to be not conceptual but merely of degree. For example, the US has socialized medicine for old people, children, the severely disabled, government workers, and a large portion of government retirees. That's about 1/3 of the population. Other wealthy nations just manage to cover the other 2/3 as well. Similarly, FMLA limits the ability of most employers to fire someone during a maternity period, though they aren't made to pay. Other wealthy nations cover everyone with pay. They're both socialist. One is just stingy socialism while the other is more generous socialism.
 
Sep 2018
653
185
cleveland ohio
#78
I think we've long been socialist, in the Western European sense.... it's simply a question of degree. Consider all the things in the US that could be called socialist, including:

Social Security
Medicare
Medicade
Minimum wage laws
Overtime laws
Family and Medical Leave Act
OSHA rules
Subsidies for farmers
State-financed primary and secondary education
State-run universities
State-subsidized college loans
State-provided healthcare for government workers
The consumer protection agency
The consumer financial protection bureau
Collective bargaining laws
State-run foster care systems
Public parks
Public administration of the airwaves

.... and so on. Overall, we're something like 1/4 socialist, if you judge by the percentage of our GDP that goes to government spending. Western European nations tend to be somewhere in the 1/3 to 1/2 range. The differences tend to be not conceptual but merely of degree. For example, the US has socialized medicine for old people, children, the severely disabled, government workers, and a large portion of government retirees. That's about 1/3 of the population. Other wealthy nations just manage to cover the other 2/3 as well. Similarly, FMLA limits the ability of most employers to fire someone during a maternity period, though they aren't made to pay. Other wealthy nations cover everyone with pay. They're both socialist. One is just stingy socialism while the other is more generous socialism.
there are no socialist systems there are no capitalists systems, some are more capitalist some more socialist but all are mixed to some extent
 
Likes: Arkady
Sep 2017
4,409
5,334
Massachusetts
#79
there are no socialist systems there are no capitalists systems, some are more capitalist some more socialist but all are mixed to some extent
Agreed. I'd go further to argue that the best systems (judging by actual quality of life outcomes), have mixes of between 1 part socialism to 3 parts capitalism (e.g., the US), at the capitalist end of the spectrum, up to a 1 to 1 mix (e.g., Denmark), at the socialist end, with the sweet spot (judging by how many high-quality-of-life countries are clustered there) being around 1 part socialism to 2 parts capitalism (e.g., Germany).
 
Sep 2018
653
185
cleveland ohio
#80
Agreed. I'd go further to argue that the best systems (judging by actual quality of life outcomes), have mixes of between 1 part socialism to 3 parts capitalism (e.g., the US), at the capitalist end of the spectrum, up to a 1 to 1 mix (e.g., Denmark), at the socialist end, with the sweet spot (judging by how many high-quality-of-life countries are clustered there) being around 1 part socialism to 2 parts capitalism (e.g., Germany).
if you look at quality of life compared to socialist/capitalist mix you find many "socialistic / social-democratic nations at the top of the list These countries have the highest quality of life Top 10 Most Socialist Countries in the World - Peerform Blog
 
Likes: Arkady