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.

[Huck]

Would you charactarize the Controlled Substance Act of 1970 as socialism?

[Dr. Frank fan]

Would you charactarize the Controlled Substance Act of 1970 as socialism?

I don't know, because I don't know what that is. Is that the act that set up the current list of banned substances / mechanism of enforcement?

Let me assume that it is. In one respect, then, it is "socialist" (to ban controlled substances). Namely: if I am a farmer, the government is telling me I cannot grow certain crops on my own land. If I happen to possess such a "controlled" substance, the government is telling me I cannot exchange it with other people in return for something I desire more (for example, a sum of money). In fact the government is telling me I cannot possess it altogether, and if I am caught with it, it will be taken away from me (plus other bad stuff will happen to me too, i.e. I will be tossed in jail :)

So in this respect, yes, controlling substances is "socialist".

However, I would say it is much more than that. Calling it "socialist" only tells half the story, because such laws are about more than collectively using/disposing of the property. Such laws are about dictating which activities are moral/allowed, and which aren't. I guess what I'm saying is that anti-drug laws, like Prohibition laws and anti-prostitution laws, are at heart moralistic laws - legislated morality.

For what it's worth.

[John SBM]

Sorry to disagree, but when the governmenr takes 50% of your paycheck, re-distributes a significant part of GNP, regulates businesses every activity, and doles out favors and punishments via the tax code, it is more than a "safety net"!

[John SBM]

Fun comment! And you've hit a great point! Individuals are not permitted to steal. But they can get together and vote for someone who will steal in their name, calling it promotion of the genernal welfare, and it is suddenly a righteous thing!

[jeremiah]

This country is indeed great, but it is now a shell of its former self. While our military is still strong, the individuals manning the posts within the govt are corrupt. The course of our nation, closely mirrors the path taken by Rome. We too are in danger from the hordes within, while the ones charged with protecting the borders are occupied in other lands.

[jamaksin]

Yes - no bout a doubt it!

[John SBM]

Wow, great response to a misguided point. The issue is one of the generally accepted viewpoint, not whether we are 100% socialist. Too many people today believe economic rights should be primary and individual rights should be secondary, to advance the "public good". That philosophy is not one of individual rights and capitalism, but of collectivism. When you adopt that position part way, you are saying that socialism is superior to capitalism, but we "can't go all the way, only as far as we should to improve capitalism". The point is again, when you abandon one principle (capitalism) you are endorsing another (socialism).

[beavus]

Socialism: a righteous way to steal.

That's pretty good. We should put it on some billboards--maybe next to a pretty smiling young woman drinking a glass of milk.

[Yardstick]

Hey Huck and Dr.Frank , I just looked up "socialism" in an old Merriam-Webster dictionary from 1974. It has:

a theory of social organization based on government ownership, management, or control of the means of production and the distribution and exchange of goods.

I just thought I'd toss this in an illustration of the variability of "objective" definitions of terms and concepts -- this definition of socialism is less strict than the one cited earlier.

[tm22721]

You are taking our freedoms for granted when you say that the country is 'socialist'. Are you trying to imply that survival of the fittest (Darwinism) is a good thing ?

BUMP

[John SBM]

I'm not sure how you came to this conclusion. Our freedoms are what is being taken away the further we move away from capitalism to adopt socialism. "Survival of the fittest" is how we get new products, new businesses, growth and employment. It is the successful in this world who provide the jobs and the opportunitities. The extent to which government acts to remove the natural drive to compete in a free society is the extent to which that society is suppressed, increasing the number of those who end up dependent not on their ability, but in the government's handouts. I'd rather have survival of the fittest than dependence of the repressed.

[FlyVet]

This question is usually evaded because we don't want to admit the reality.

What's to evade? In truth, the Democrats should change their name to Socialist (Communist after they confiscate the guns) or the "People's Party", or the "Labor Party", complete with hammer and sickle, and the Repubs should at least change their name to Democrat, if not worse. Except for a very few individuals such as Bahr (sp?), Kyle, and a few others, it should be obvious, the sleeping giant hasn't awakened. Will it ever, before it's too late?

[John SBM]

I think evasion is the right term, because the parties don't use the names you cited, even when they really are more descriptive of their platforms. But we just don't want to say the word socialist, even when we adopt socialist policies.

[FlyVet]

Re: 233 It's time for Rush to replay the Hubert Humphrey speech, and also the JFK tax-cut speech. Wish he'd do that every day for about a year, just so people can see how far we've fallen. Both speeches were awesome, in light of this garbage we have going on now. X-Gens, it may be up to you....

[Ima Lurker]

"....rather too many Americans just haven't thought about it."

Or too many Americans benefit from it on the backs of others.

[Huck]

Well, if there is no objective definition of the term, then the discussion is pointless. We might as well debate whether or not the USA is ghfdsiel country. I say that clearly it is, and I can prove it. What nonsense. Every definition of socialism says it entails not mere gov. regulation but gov. ownership. The one I posted and the one you posted, and probably any other you will find. Trouble is, we also haven't agreed on what "ownership" means. Dr Frank thinks taxation=ownership, some others seem to think that when taxation excedes a certain %, it becomes ownership (I think that % would be 100%), but I don't think there is agreement on that. So, people aren't really even debating anything. They are projecting onto some murky words whatever they want it to mean. Pointless.

[Huck]

"You raise up your head
And you ask, "Is this where it is?"
And somebody points to you and says
"It's his"
And you say, "What's mine?"
And somebody else says, "Where what is?"
And you say, "Oh my God
Am I here all alone?"

--Ballad of a Thin Man, Bob Dylan

[Teacher317]

When the government fears the people, there is freedom. When the people fear the government (the IRS, FBI, CIA, BATF, DEA, etc.)

How much does it cost to rent a billboard? I'd love to put this quote of yours on I-70 for a few months. It's a very strong truism, and we Constitutionists need to start getting our message out. Unfortunately, that beloved 200 year old document is regarded as a museum piece, and not as a message to live by today.

(As has been stated, those controlling the pursestrings in government and the media certainly aren't going to help, so we'll just have to start doing it ourselves. Those 'Messages from God' billboards are now nationally known and recognizeable. Why can't we do the same?)

[FrdmLvr]

America is a mixed economy.

[Teacher317]

If you're all gonna answer "yes" that the USA is a socialist country, and if the USA is the greatest country there ever was and is, what does that say about socialism?

The real question is "if the USA is the greatest country there ever was and is, and America was founded as the LEAST socialist country ever, what does that say about socialism?"