Red state Blue state

Post Reply New Topic

Dox, are you just completely and utterly ignorant of 20th-century American history? You realize that we have had multiple "Red Scares," right? I'm sure you've at least heard of McCarthyism and the constant socialist witch-hunts of the Cold War? And that's without even touching on the history of labor relations, where anyone advocating for decent treatment of workers (or unionization) would be labeled a socialist and risked being blacklisted or even murdered.

Only if you're blinkered enough to believe that socialism has a single connotation. In much the same way that 'Liberal' or 'Republican' both cover a wide range of views, this is simply not the case.

There are aspects of Socialism that are both practical and compatible with Capitalism. You only need look at those socialist aspects of the UK, Canada, France or even the US that get it right (although none of the Western systems are without fault). A blanket rejection of all Socialism on the grounds that you only understand it to mean 'pure' Socialism shows a worrying degree of ignorance.

I wouldn't consider any of the systems you mentioned to be "socialist," even taking a relatively broad view of socialism. I am well aware that socialism has a range of meanings, but any meaningful definition includes command economics and (usually) worker control. The notion that socialism and capitalism are compatible is laughable and demonstrates a "worrying degree of ignorance." Socialism as an ideology (in all its variations and incarnations) emerged explicitly in opposition to capitalism. "Capitalism with a social safety net" and "capitalism with some regulation on industry" are not "socialism."

Maybe I'm just giving the general populace more credit than you are in thinking that more people can see the manipulation behind calling someone a socialist vs a racist. I'm fully aware of the history of red scares and McCarthyism, but at this particular juncture in time I stand by that racism is a more scandalous accusation that socialism. Another good point that's been raised is that socialism isn't in and of itself pejorative, some people (probably a minority but still) view it as a positive, while racism is far more universally condemned. Just turn to Hollywood, how many socialist villains have you seen in the last 10 years vs racists?

Although the Conservatives sold off a large number of publicly owned industries during Thatcher's time at number 10, Britain retains state funded education and the NHS alongside alternatives in the form of private schooling and health insurance. Prior to Thatcher, Britain had been a socialist state for some 3 decades. What we have here now is an awkward, yet functioning balance between Socialist and Capitalist values.

France is more or less the poster child for European Socialism, however much you would 'consider' otherwise.

Canada is renowned for its nationalised health service, though the conservative US media would have you believe that it kills thousands of people on a yearly basis through underfunding or understaffing.



I'm assuming you mean a Command or Planned Economy, which we already seem to have - hence the assertion that our governments can lead the world out of recession via regulation of public spending. If you assert that Welfare is a significant factor in the economics of a country, and accept that the decision making power over Welfare is in the hands of the government, you have a Command Economy.

Worker control: Such as the trade unions which, although neutered in some sectors, still hold considerable sway in several European countries - including Britain and France.



There is no economic model in the world that is either purely capitalistic or purely socialistic. In part, this is because a large percentage of politicians and political ideals have converged towards centrism. Here in the UK, the three main parties are almost indistinguishable from each other, except in terms of their most extreme extremists.

Socialist Capitalism would be an adequate description of 'Third Way' politics, including those of Clinton when he was in power.



Socialism emerged in opposition to the Industrial Revolution and imperial feudalism, and was primarily concerned with fighting the exploitation and suffering of the poor - including children who were working 14+ hours per day with inadequate food, clothing or shelter.



Any system which blends a free market with welfare or nationally owned enterprises is a blend of Socialism and Capitalism. It can be called neither Capitalism nor Socialism if you wish to be a purist.

It's easy to debunk an idea if we choose to only accept an extreme version of it as representative of all forms of that concept.

Dox, people actually have had their careers destroyed by mere rumors that they might be communists or communist sympathizers. For charges of racism to cause anyone trouble in their professional life, they pretty much have to be caught on tape shouting racial slurs, at which point there isn't much question over whether the accusation is well-founded or not. There are far fewer examples of false accusations of racism doing someone serious damage than there are with socialism. Hell, Robert C. Byrd was a member of the KKK and he managed to stay in the Senate longer than anyone else in American history. Find me a former Communist Party member who has been accepted as an honored statesman and whose previous affiliations have been completely forgiven. Associations with communist groups is much more of a career-killer than ties with white supremacist groups.

When was Britain ever a socialist state? You mean the British government at some point actually nationalized all major industries? Or was the market still responsible for the great bulk of economic activity?


Again, when did France nationalize their industries and adopt central planning of the economy?


You're saying that Keynesianism is socialism? I normally wouldn't expect to hear something that ridiculous from anyone other than a segment of extreme right-libertarians.


Far more than unionization, as the worker control demanded in socialism actually requires that the workers be owners and in charge of business decisions, rather than just acting as a collective bargaining unit. Unions did arise out of the early socialist movements though, so I'll grant that point half-way.


Purely socialistic: North Korea and, until recently, Cuba (Raul is introducing some limited market reforms).
Purely capitalistic: I would argue that the USA and several other Western nations come fairly close, largely because I don't classify social welfare programs as "socialist." Some of the first such programs in Europe were initiated by Bismarck, who is one of the biggest poster boys for the European right wing in the 19th century.

Basically, I'm not including mild redistribution of wealth as socialism. Socialism would have to include direct state control over industry. The socialists I know agree with this interpretation.


I've heard such systems described as "social democracy," and from what I understand most European nations fall roughly into that category.


Remove the bolded part and I would mostly agree. Nationally owned enterprises are socialistic. Britain with its NHS could be considered a mixed economy, though they are clearly still much more capitalistic than socialistic.

Socialism =/= Communism.

Granted, though the two names have been used interchangeably to the point where it is hard to pin down the distinction. The various Red Scares have targeted socialists and communists equally without knowing or caring about the difference.

You are, sadly, quite correct. US politics contains far too much mud-slinging and smearing for my liking.

I'm actually going to generally affirm that socialism in practice does equal what is labeled as "communism". I mean, it is worthy of note that the USSR had one S stand for socialist. Even further, socialism, until the modern era, NEVER just meant a welfare state, but rather meant outright economic change including the worker control of industry. (not the mere existence of labor unions)