Sunday, June 24, 2012

Is The United States A Socialist Nation ?

We hear the word "socialism" thrown around a lot these days by those on the right. Some of them claim we are fast becoming a socialist nation, while many other right-wingers say we are already there. And some of them use the word "socialism" interchangeably with "fascism" and "communism" -- as though the three meant the same thing. They don't.

I thought with all of the ridiculous right-wing ideas floating around, maybe this would be a good time to explain just what socialism is, and examine whether or not the United States is a socialist country (or on the road to becoming a socialist country). The first thing that needs to be cleared up is that socialism, despite what many right-wing ideologues want you to believe, is NOT a form of government (like democracy, plutocracy, monarchy, dictatorship, etc.). It is an economic system. Further, it is an economic system that can only truly exist in a true democracy or a representative democracy.

First, let me define exactly what a socialism is. I will use the definition I learned back in college, because it is still the best definition I've heard. There are three aspects to socialism -- the socialist intent, the social safety net, and the government ownership of industry critical to the nation. To meet the definition of a "socialist nation", the "socialist intent" is required along with at least one of the other two aspects. So, does the United States meet this definition? Is it truly a socialist nation? Let's examine each of the three socialist aspects as they relate to the United States.

SOCIAL SAFETY NET

The United States has adopted at least a rudimentary social safety net, which tries to prevent any of its citizens from falling through the cracks of society into an abject and debilitating poverty. One of the oldest of the socialist programs in this country is free public education. Free public education has been a remarkably effective program, giving many a path to upward mobility and making this nation a leader in the world. The program is not without its problems these days (largely due to underfunding and community apathy), but I would venture to say that nearly all Americans approve of free public education and would not want it to go away.

Then there is Social Security. This program has brought us from a majority of the elderly living in poverty to less than 10% in poverty today. It has also been remarkably effective in achieving it purpose. Medicare is the same. Because of medicare, all people over the age of 65 now have a decent level of medical care. Polls have shown that a huge majority of Americans approve of these two programs and do not want them abolished -- even though they are socialist programs.

Another social safety net program is unemployment insurance. This prevents a worker who has lost his/her job through no fault of his/her own efforts, to have some income while looking for another job. Without the program, many of these workers would fall into poverty almost immediately. Again, this is a socialist program with large community support.

Then we have the programs designed to help the truly poor. Some of these people need help for only a short time (due to an economic or other tragedy in their life), while others may need help for the remainder of their life (because of some kind of disability). These are programs like Aid To Families With Dependent Children, Food Stamps, and Housing Assistance. There can be discussion over whether these programs work as well as they should, but only the hardest-hearted among us would want to abolish them altogether.

There may be other socialist safety net programs, but that is enough for this discussion. It is obvious that the United States has created and maintains the social safety net aspect of socialism. Whether it is inadequate, excessive, or at a correct level can be debated, but it is doubtful that most Americans would like to do without it.

OWNERSHIP OF CRITICAL INDUSTRY BY GOVERNMENT

This aspect doesn't need a lot of discussion. Our federal government does not own any industries -- critical or otherwise. Some state and local governments have assumed ownership of power plants or water suppies, but even most of these are owned by private interests. Critical industries, like the steel industry, are privately owned. And even in the huge military/industrial complex, which relies on government money to survive, production is controlled by and profits go to private owners. This aspect of socialism simply does not exist in the United States.

SOCIALIST INTENT

That leaves us with the final aspect of socialism -- the socialist intent (a requirement for a socialist nation). The socialist intent is to put individual citizens in charge of their own lives (including and especially economically). This would be true of the top 10% of Americans (and particularly the top 1%), but it is not true for the vast majority of the other 90% of Americans.

Most Americans are still at the mercy of corporations and businesses for their economic well-being, and they have little to no control over that. For a short while in this country, as unionism was growing, there was some movement toward this, but it has stopped. With the decline of unions and the rise of corporate power, the United States is actually moving away from putting individuals in charge of their own lives right now, and government policies like "trickle-down" economics has hastened this movement toward a corporate plutocracy (which is the exact opposite of the socialist intent).

The "socialist intent" has not been accomplished in the United States, and it is unlikely to be accomplished at any time in the near future. And the more this nation moves from a democracy to a plutocracy, the more it moves away from both the intent and reality of socialism.

CONCLUSION

Is the United States a socialist nation? No, it is not. While the United States democracy does have some socialist programs (programs that are popular even with Americans saying they abhor "socialism"), the United States is not a socialist democracy. It lacks both the government ownership of critical industry, and more importantly, the socialist intent.

5 comments:

  1. What a shame that most (all?) of those who so easily fling the term "socialist" around as an epithet won't be reading - or even care to read - this article.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Your preaching to the choir only Ted. This simply isn't going to register with the fanatical right but nice attempt none the less.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I "borrowed" this and posted it to my congressman's FaceBook page in the comment section. His name is Dan Benishek, (R) MI. The discussion was about the Affordable Health Care Act and it being another socialistic program. This article is perfect for all the whacko's who keep complaining about socialism.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I cited your blog in a class discussion on socialism. Thanks!

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED. And neither will racist,homophobic, or misogynistic comments. I do not mind if you disagree, but make your case in a decent manner.