Is America a Socialist Country?

Bumper Statements web site, Editor's Corner ^ | December 13, 2001 | The Editor@BumperStatements.com

[John SBM]

Socialism is still a dirty word in American politics. But, like an obese person who looks in the mirror and see a thin reflection denying they are fat, America is in a state of denial. If we look the evidence is there, but rather than admit it we refuse to acknowledge the word. Does evasion of the fact change the reality?

Every major historic period can be categorized by the dominant philosophy of the time. We know them. The Dark Ages, The Renaissance, The Enlightenment. And we know what each label represented as the dominant, generally accepted ideas of the time. These labels are attached however, not during the period, but after, when we can see them in the context of history. Whether we label our current period as Post-Modern or whatever, in historic context it could be labeled as The Altruist Evasion.

Altruism is the dominant, generally accepted idea underlying all of our political and cultural discourse, and it permeates both political parties. The ideas that economic rights are the basic rights of all Americans, that the government exists to promote the welfare of some at the expense of others, that we owe “service” and must “give back” to society – these are the basic premises of every issue. And Pragmatism rules every action – action for the sake of the emotional benefit of action rather than the result. Altruism demands pragmatic approaches, because it is based on emotional arguments and collapses when faced with principled challenges. Altruism is the underlying support for socialism, where group rights are primary, individual rights are disposable.

Take a look. The tax code exists to transfer wealth; the total tax burden exceeds 50% and is the single biggest expense for most working Americans. Politicians gain power through the give and take of economic rights and benefits – look at the economic stimulus debate. We talk of the right to housing, to health care, to prescription drugs, to guaranteed retirement, without ever asking “at whose expense?”

Ayn Rand summarized this very simply – when you abandon one set of principles you adopt another. We have abandoned the principles of individual rights and accepted those of economic rights – the degree of socialization doesn’t change that fact. We can evade the word “Socialism”, but that doesn’t change the reality.

[lodwick]

YES

[John SBM]

I attempted to post an article that uses the ideas Ayn Rand proposed interpreted by me. I did not cite her as an authority, but used one of her ideas as a stimulus to the points I raised. I still think you can use ideas put forth by people who may have flaws. Is there a perfect person putting out perfect ideas?

[DallasJ7]

Agreed. We are trending socialist, and the political debate generally favors the more socialist alternative. But still, when you look at the way our economy works, overall we are more capitalist than socialist. Profits gained by corporations, accumulated and reinvested, are still what drive our country.

[KentuckyWoman]

Take a look and this and see where you think we are:

The Political Spectrum

TOTAL                   LIMITED                   NO
 Government                Government             Government

Socialism     Democracy     Republic              Anarchy
 X
We Were Here in 1776
If you're happy and you know clank your chains!

 

I have seen a progression of governments down through the ages that goes something like: first republican, then democratic, then socialistic, then communistic/fascist, then monarchy, then anarchy, then repeat. It seems to fit in this particular instance. We're well on our way to being communistic/fascist....

[John SBM]

My View of the Income Tax!

[Doctor Stochastic]

The great problem is that both the Left and the Right are each trying to use the Government to push their respective agendas. The agendas may be different (but not necessarily, vide Patriot Act) but both groups believe that a bigger government will help their side. Many people that I know, who tend to vote Democrat, do so because they do not like the Republican tendency to pry into and try to control their social activities. Many who vote Republican do not like the tendency of the Democrats to pry into and try to control their economic activities. Thus, both parties get to increase their controls alternately.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Perhaps the Republicans could be renamed the Christian Socialist Party and the Democrats could be renamed the Democratic Socialist Party.

[harpseal]

I treally do like your cancer analogy the Socialists are a cancer on this nation and need to be excised.

Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown

[Carry_Okie]

The problem with Rand is that she was a better critic of political control systems than she was a philosopher of political economy. In her writings she never addressed the need to manage externalities of production, educate the poor, or care for the sick. Hank Reardon's factory made no pollution, the fire there produced no injuries, Francisco's mine produced no tailings, and Dagney never got pregnant.

That oversight never dealt with the entire justification for intrusive government. It is thus an incomplete philosophy and is thus rendered merely a powerful form of political criticism, all the cheerleading for free-markets to the contrary.

[mlocher]

we should all pay taxes equally

i must respond again! i am in violent agreement with you!

i can live with sales taxes, or i can live with income taxes, but the hidden taxes are a sham. as you alluded to, think how pissed off people would be if they realized how much of a tax burden they are paying so the liberals can enjoy living their fallacies. further, if we get rid of the business tax, just think at how many people we could employ and hw well we would compete in the world market place. the rest of the world would not stand a chance, unless of course, the cleaned up their acts as well.

[Cleburne]

Are we socialist? Are there Jews in Israel? America may not have plunged to the low levels of many European socialist communes, as we still have many semblances of our freedoms (compared to other societies), but we're going deeper and deeper every day.

[John SBM]

Good points! I agree her philosophy provides a good grounding, and like any other set of ideas needs to be integrated. She did however talk outside of Atlas in her other writings about the "goodness" of charity to deserving persons. How it is not a sacrifice to provide aid to those you believe are deserving. My own opinion is that some of the issues you cite can be handled either vis the free market rejection of a companies behavior, or via the courts. She always considered the courts to be an effective way to address grievances, at least that is my interpretation.

[John SBM]

I like to fantasize that if we all carried the same burden for government, then we would all have a stake in the size and scope. Then the Libs could not get away with much of what they do.

[mlocher]

thanks for the chart, and in one dimension i agree with your analysis.

my studies suggest that there are 2 axis that are important: laissez faire vs. centrally planned (measured by total taxes to gdp) and individual rights vs. goverment interaction policies (measured by number of laws on the books). typically a socialist government is also one that regulates interactions because they tend to like control of others, but this is not necessarily so.

[Doctor Doom]

If Ayn Rand and her philosophy is so pure and true, why was her personal life so messed up?

Have you ever failed in trying to live up to your Christian ideals?

Is the failure yours, or that of your Christian ideals?

[WRhine]

I admit to having always been fascinated with how the Dems get away with calling the Republicans fascists when they are the ones who advocate state control of privately owned resources.

You can add to that the democrats' ability to get away with referring to "trickle down" economics as a failure (even though this principle is the essence of capitalism) without so much of a peep out of the republicans. The same goes for supply side economics, budget cuts, etc. Last night Larry Kudlow on his new show with that idiot Cramer on CNBC let bigmouth Charles Wrangel (a four-star commie) go on and on with his bashing of trickle-down economics and Larry, who should know better, responded by going off on some weird tangent. This is so typical of the republicans. They let the democrats get away with a big lie like this and after a few years terms like "tickle down" economics become a dirty word in the public’s mind. The irony being that most Americans, especially those that risk capital to start a business, are the generators of wealth and trickle down economics. Their own paychecks are the direct result of trickle down economics. It just sickens me to see the democrats continually lie and misrepresent the very economics our country depends on to create wealth and spur innovation. But no, most republicans are too afraid of defending these principles because the democrats might call them selfish or greedy. What an upside down world we live in these days.

[mlocher]

bingo!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Doctor Doom]

You posted an article that uses Ayn Rand as an authority. What makes her an authority?

It's not a question of "authority."

That is for each to determine when they read her ideas and judge them for themselves.

This is not about personal annointments.

[KentuckyWoman]

typically a socialist government is also one that regulates interactions because they tend to like control of others, but this is not necessarily so.

It may not be true in all cases but it seems to be close enough for (pardon the expression) government work..

[x]

Socialist compared to what?

Compared to our past history (before 1913 or 1933 or 1965), yes. And you can see how the program of the old Socialist Party has been implemented here over time.

Compared to Communist countries, no. Compared to European Social Democracies, also no.

And compared to socialist theory, the answer is unclear. The state exerts control or supervision over very large areas of the economy and life, but the final step of state or social ownership of the means of production has not been achieved. State ownership was always taken as the definition of socialism, because otherwise, given the kind of regulation governments have always done, socialism would be very difficult to define. But is ownership still necessary if the government has control?

Maybe it might help to find a country that is now less socialistic than the US just to see what is possible here and now. It may be that states inevitably pass from traditional authority to bureaucratic control, with only a brief window of greater freedom in between. One can point to some less developed countries that offer great freedom, but once democracy evolves state control increases. The natural tendency of officials to control the resources of their countries meets the natural desire of the discontented to use politics to get a share of those resources (or to deprive others of those resources) with predictable results.

Our experience of putting oceans, mountains and deserts between our families and those who would rule us was very different from that of Europeans and Asians who always lived in sight of the castle or in fear of invasion, so our attitudes towards socialism and the state differ.

Another question is: what about the idea of Peter Drucker, Mortimer Adler and others, that the US has achieved or could achieve a "pension fund socialism" as employee stock trusts and pension funds come to replace the old rich as the largest shareholders in enterprises?