America socialist?

[OntheWindowStand]

more and more people are beginning to turn to the government to solve their problems. Who think America will become a socialist nation soon

[Aedes]

This isn't black and white, socialist or not socialist.

The Coca-Cola Company and Trump Enterprises will always be private entities.

The Military will always be a socialist entity so long as it is funded by taxes. If you wanted a non-socialist military, we could go back to having militias as we did in 1775.

If you'd like to retire at 65 or 70 rather than working until you're 85 years old, then you're going to see value in paying into medicare and social security.

And unless you plan to spend time personally repaving the highway and building bridges, much of our infrastructure will depend on tax-funded government initiative.

It's a balancing act. It doesn't come down to a label like socialist versus not-socialist.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

It is not becoming more and more socialist, it is becoming more and more corporatist.

[Didymos Thomas]

The nasty truth is that Mr. Fight the Power is right.

[Theaetetus]

The United States is pretty much a pseudo-democratic corporatocracy. I find it funny that socialism is demonized when it comes to health care and education. The when it comes to public works socialism (roads, military, police) socialism is called something else entirely.

[Didymos Thomas]

Some of us in the US still feel the Red Scare - which was irresponsible fear mongering during the Cold War. It's a quick step from communism to socialism in the minds of many.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by Theaetetus

The United States is pretty much a pseudo-democratic corporatocracy. I find it funny that socialism is demonized when it comes to health care and education. The when it comes to public works socialism (roads, military, police) socialism is called something else entirely.

Politicians appeal to voters by promising government services on regulations, but they implement these "changes" by working with lobbyists. What you end up with is interest groups pushing for government action and big business providing the services; instead of universally provided healthcare, we have mandatory subsidized health insurance; instead of socially responsible market sector, we have cartelized big business that self-regulate and entrench their own market control like big sugar.

I am against government control and regulation altogether, so perhaps I am not the most unbiased opinion, but this half-assed socialistic drive of modern liberalism has not created a more free society, but a society more dependent upon government, and ironically, a society more dependent on its entrenched, cartelized, and inefficient big business.

The book The Triumph of Conservatism by Gabriel Kolko is a good read on this.

I also would like to add the issue of immigration to list of socialistic tendencies from those who rail against socialism. There could be nothing more (stereotypically) socialistic than the restriction of labor supply in the interests of wage control.

[Didymos Thomas]

I am against government control and regulation altogether, so perhaps I am not the most unbiased opinion, but this half-assed socialistic drive of modern liberalism has not created a more free society, but a society more dependent upon government, and ironically, a society more dependent on its entrenched, cartelized, and inefficient big business.

No reason to point the finger at modern liberalism. Over the past 40 years, Republicans have dominated the White House.

It's not a matter of liberal or conservative policies winning the day - it's that both liberal and conservative policies are ultimately corrupt given the moral bankruptcy of the vast majority of major political players and the influence of big business, especially the military industrial complex.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

this half-assed socialistic drive of modern liberalism has not created a more free society, but a society more dependent upon government, and ironically, a society more dependent on its entrenched, cartelized, and inefficient big business.

That rhetoric may have worked until maybe 1984 or 1985 when it was the mantra of fiscal conservatives, until Reagan came along and mid-term decided to raise taxes.

I find it very hypocritical that liberals are accused of this in a country where the conservative party wants to pass constitutional amendments about flag burning and gay marriage and abortion, where the conservative party is willing to sign off on all kinds of unchecked executive powers nominally for security purposes, where the conservative party is so down the pants of military industrialists (like Lockheed) and military contractors that they'll give them tens of billions of dollars in questionable projects, and where the conservative party will bend over backwards to appease their oil industry sponsors with the promise of new oilfields everywhere from Alaska to Iraq.

So here we are with bigger government than ever, with a disproportionate amount of money going into defense and big business. And it's virtually all the result of conservative policies. So how does this jive with your values about individual freedom and liberty? At least you can argue that liberal policies, like civil rights and education and health care, will enhance the individual's self-actualization if the programs work. Can you make the same argument for Halliburton?

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

No reason to point the finger at modern liberalism. Over the past 40 years, Republicans have dominated the White House.

It's not a matter of liberal or conservative policies winning the day - it's that both liberal and conservative policies are ultimately corrupt given the moral bankruptcy of the vast majority of major political players and the influence of big business, especially the military industrial complex.

I am not simply blaming modern liberalism. I am apolitical and certainly distrust your modern conservative just as much. I simply attack modern liberalism, because the modern mantra of mandated equality lies more in the realm of what I was talking about, because I feel it brings about this equality through means that establish dependency as well.

It is mainly modern liberals (note that I am referring to progressives that can extend back well over a century) that have pushed for and taken credit for these social welfare policies.

I can certainly rail against the conservative movement supporting the other end of the welfare-warfare state (see Robert Higgs for good reading on this), but that is not really what I interpreted this discussion as being about.

Also, Kolko is a historian from the New Left movement, and his title is an attempt at revisionist history.