Is the United States a socialist country? Why or why not?

Updated on : December 3, 2021 by Hannah Mcgee



Is the United States a socialist country? Why or why not?

America is VERY unique. It is not a type of something. In fact, history has shown that one type of something ALWAYS fails and that includes capitalism. The United States, like many countries today, takes the best of EVERY type of economic ideas from socialism, communism, fascism, capitalism, etc. to make a specific hybrid that works for the American people.

The best way to answer this question is with an example. Our highway system. Our highway system is an example of a socialist program in the United States. The roads are owned by the people in whom the government controls the means of production in these ro

Keep reading

America is VERY unique. It is not a type of something. In fact, history has shown that one type of something ALWAYS fails and that includes capitalism. The United States, like many countries today, takes the best of EVERY type of economic ideas from socialism, communism, fascism, capitalism, etc. to make a specific hybrid that works for the American people.

The best way to answer this question is with an example. Our highway system. Our highway system is an example of a socialist program in the United States. Roads are owned by the people in whom the government controls the means of production on these roads (traffic laws) while collecting taxes and revenue based on a percentage of their use and revenue.

If we lived in a pure capitalist society, the roads would be maintained and owned by private companies that would charge tolls for their use. The tolls would generally be the same for everyone, that is, $ 2 to cross this bridge or dive this road every 10 miles.

The problem with roads being private in a true capitalist society is that it becomes a tax burden for the poor and the middle class, as tolls represent a larger percentage of their disposable income. Also, private companies are not going to pave the roads next to your house when only a few cars are driving. It is not worth the money or the winnings. Furthermore, private companies would basically have monopolies on who and what can drive on those roads that prevent exit. What happens if Highway Company A enters into an agreement with Walmart in a city where Company A owns all or even half of the roads? They can tell Target that their trucks can no longer use the roads that only Walmart trucks have. Now,

So now take a look at how roads work today. We all use them to go to work and depending on your vehicle you pay taxes for the maintenance of those roads in the amount of gasoline you buy (trucks use more than personal vehicles and cause more damage by weight) and registration. The money also comes out of the general fund and corporate taxes. So companies like UPS and FedEx pay corporate taxes to maintain those roads. without those avenues, UPS and FedEx would not compete. (So ​​when Trump allows companies like UPS and FedEx to pay no taxes, the cost is imposed on you and me to maintain the roads they use and need, which is why people like me get aggravated.)

Now think of all the businesses and jobs that the roads create. Dealers, auto companies, repair crews, restaurants, hotels, Amazon, UPS, FedEx, vehicle parts and repairs, vacation destinations, etc., etc. People wouldn't use roads as much as they do if roads weren't. " free at the point of use ”, that is, free when you use them.

Now, the list that the US has for social programs is quite large, so I will name a few that are the biggest and most popular: military, USPS, national power grid, fire, police, public schools, public and community universities, National Parks. , Internet, water, sewerage, waste management, etc., etc.

So when a person asks a question like yours, they are not looking at the whole picture. You are not looking at it from the point of the United States Constitution where it specifically says "to provide for the defense and common welfare", which is a vague term for "socialism."

There are only a few programs that are better and more efficient when it comes to public goods. For example, health INSURANCE, not healthcare, but INSURANCE. Right now, we support hundreds of competing companies all wanting to make a profit. Profits are not a bad thing EXCEPT when it comes to your life and the lives of citizens. For Toyota to make a profit is a good thing because their innovation sold more cars and they will continue to innovate. Cigna healthcare doesn't innovate, it just worries about passing most of the cost to you and denying you coverage, even if your life depends on it. An average of 68,000 people die each year in the US from curable medical conditions simply because they cannot afford treatment. Therefore, conservatives often speak of "death panels" In a single payer system, HOWEVER our current system is that you can pay for the treatment and drugs you need or you die. The "death panel" is directly associated with their wallet and social net worth, where they believe that the life of a 70-year-old like Bloomberg is more valuable than that of a 10-year-old from a poor neighborhood.

So by having a single payer where everyone pays the same 4% and the employer matches, everyone can get free health care paid for by the private insurance fund Medicare for All. The only problem is that a person who makes $ 60k a year pays much less than Bloomberg. So the costs are offset by Bloomberg, rather than the middle-class family. This is one of the reasons they fight so hard. That and insurance companies make more than 100 billion PROFITS a year. That's 100 billion they should pay for medical treatments. Also, people will not obstruct the ER, so the costs are lower because they can go to Urgent Care or a doctor. Thus reducing hospital costs. The same goes for paperwork.

So the fear behind socialism in the US is a terrifying thing, as socialism will never be a pure form. That will certainly fail as much as capitalism will, however, people who don't take the time to learn will continue to wiggle their gums by passing on fear and false information to others.

No.

Socialism is a system in which there is social control of the means of production. What about what you say? I'm pretty sure you're asking that, because if you had the slightest idea what "socialist" means, you wouldn't have asked the question in the first place. "The means of production" are the main tools and facilities used to manufacture and distribute things. In our industrialized economy, that means factories, cargo ships, communications networks, railways, etc. High-priced industrial facilities, basically. "Social control" means that they are controlled and used for the b

Keep reading

No.

Socialism is a system in which there is social control of the means of production. What about what you say? I'm pretty sure you're asking that, because if you had the slightest idea what "socialist" means, you wouldn't have asked the question in the first place. "The means of production" are the main tools and facilities used to manufacture and distribute things. In our industrialized economy, that means factories, cargo ships, communications networks, railways, etc. High-priced industrial facilities, basically. "Social control" means that they are controlled and used for the benefit of the people in general, who make up the workforce. This is different from capitalism, where the means of production are the private property of a small class of wealthy capitalists.

So are we socialists? Well, we still have private ownership of the industry and a voracious financial sector that buys and sells corporate stocks at tremendous speed and in very high volumes. This is done quite demonstrably for the benefit of the people who own large amounts of these shares, rather than for the direct benefit of workers and society in general. And we don't have ministers of industry deciding what products factories make or signing distribution programs, or hiring and firing workers and managers within industrial companies.

Now, there is blanket product regulation for things like health, safety, and environmental impact, but that's just setting very, very broad parameters in which the industry is free to operate, and that kind of regulation predates both the capitalism as well as socialism for centuries, if not millennia. Similarly, the public services offered by the government (care for the elderly, fire protection, etc.) are not socialism. Until the moment we nationalize Ford, Walmart, Exxon, and Silicon Valley, we will not be socialists.

Has the United States become a socialist country?

How fragile American capitalism is, that it can fall when the "socialists" have been in power for only a few weeks. That it can fall without Congress passing a single bill; without a court ruling on anything like that; with nothing more than a few Executive Orders. Capitalism, it seems, was erased at a stroke.

I would challenge someone to identify which Executive Order was signed in the last two weeks that accomplished this great feat, but frankly I have no desire to commit to someone who believes this has happened.

Let's be c

Keep reading

Has the United States become a socialist country?

How fragile American capitalism is, that it can fall when the "socialists" have been in power for only a few weeks. That it can fall without Congress passing a single bill; without a court ruling on anything like that; with nothing more than a few Executive Orders. Capitalism, it seems, was erased at a stroke.

I would challenge someone to identify which Executive Order was signed in the last two weeks that accomplished this great feat, but frankly I have no desire to commit to someone who believes this has happened.

Let's be clear: America, like literally all of human civilization, has a certain thread of interwoven socialism. We have socialized military, socialized police, socialized courts, socialized infrastructure: we have many important, indeed critical, aspects of our world in which the means of production are controlled by the state and the resources to make them a reality are bound by that very state. . The United States shares this in common with all functional nations out there.

Yet the United States is no more "socialist" than it was a month ago. Not what it was a decade ago, nor what it was fifty years ago. The degree to which America is socialist hasn't changed substantially in living memory, and even outside living memory, it has really only been a matter of degree and minor differences: whether or not utility companies should be publicly owned. , that kind of things.

It is telling that such reactionary protests manage to happen even when they respond to nothing at all. What we have is a large group of people who have been conditioned to shake and scream every time someone says "socialism" or "communism", and then their handlers push them and whisper "socialism" in their ears, and they have an obedient army. of people ready to fight the Red Menace - whoever they are told is the enemy today. I'd like to hope that at least some of these people will eventually turn against those who keep gambling, but so far that kind of independent thinking is beyond them.

Has the United States become a socialist country?

It largely depends on how you define "socialist".

According to Claude Henri de Saint-Simon, whom I believe coined the term, argued

that the needs of an industrial class, which he also referred to as the working class, had to be recognized and met in order to have an effective society and an efficient economy. Henri de Saint-Simon - Wikipedia

read more about it here:

Socialism - Wikipedia and you can search other sources

But the crux of Saint-simon's argument was that the working class needed protection from the "idle rich," also known as the aristocracy.

Karl Marx expands

Keep reading

Has the United States become a socialist country?

It largely depends on how you define "socialist".

According to Claude Henri de Saint-Simon, whom I believe coined the term, argued

that the needs of an industrial class, which he also referred to as the working class, had to be recognized and met in order to have an effective society and an efficient economy. Henri de Saint-Simon - Wikipedia

read more about it here:

Socialism - Wikipedia and you can search other sources

But the crux of Saint-simon's argument was that the working class needed protection from the "idle rich," also known as the aristocracy.

Karl Marx expanded on this ideology, proposing communism as a solution, that is, communal ownership of the means of production, and that "socialism" was simply an intermediate step from capitalism to communism.

The thing to remember is the context in which these men came to these ideologies, and that was in feudal Europe.

Feudal economy

Remember, for the most part, the King, also known as the government, owned and controlled everything, including the people of the kingdom. The King and the Aristocracy, that is, the Titled Nobility, ruled over the rest of the population. So Claude, Karl, et. Alabama. He developed his ideologies in this environment. So when they refer to certain things, it is in this context, a context that is completely different from today, or even the United States back then. Basically, for these guys, there was little distinction between the serfs and what they called the working class or the proletariat.

After Karl Marx, socialism assumed "communal" or social ownership of the means of production or capital. Again, remember, the industrial age is a recent era, only going back to the mid-1800s. So, at this time, little distinction is made between the serfs and peasants who worked the fields for the lord of the mansion and the "serfs and peasants" who worked in the factories of the bourgeoisie. Both Claude and Karl looked for a way to ensure that the servants had a benevolent "Mansion Lord" to protect them from the "evil invading horde" (whatever form it took) and an evil "Mansion Lord", also known as Capitalist. It should be noted that both men, Claude and Karl,

So is he referring more to a definition of Saint-Simonianism or one of Marxism? That is, a more "scientific" approach to sociology and economics or one of planned economy and social ownership of that economy?

Saint-Simonianism became known as progressivism in the US in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The progressives sought to apply the scientific method to solve social problems and to use the force of the government, that is, the legislation, to implement those changes. This is how we ended the 18th Amendment and eugenics, among other things. One of them is the Federal Reserve, whose purpose was to mitigate the boom and bust cycle of unregulated capitalism. The funny thing is that the United States experienced two of its worst economic downturns AFTER the creation of the Federal Reserve, and the Depression was actually worsened and prolonged by interference in the economy of government policies. Before this, while economic recessions were not uncommon, recoveries used to be very fast.

I should also note that Mussolini and Gentile copied much, if not from their ideologies, from American progressives, who had copied them from Saint-Simon and Bismark. So fascism is just another form of progressivism or Saint-Simonianism. Remember, none of this takes place in a vacuum and there are hardly any original ideas.

So modern American liberalism, progressivism, democratic / modern socialism, fascism, etc. they are all shades of the same. And that is anti-individualism and pro-collectivism, anti-freedom and pro-authoritarian.

So to answer your question.

Has the United States become a socialist country?

The answer is yes, and it has been for more than 100 years, contrary to what the United States Constitution allows.

Note¹: For those of you who don't understand authoritarianism, ask me this.

How much more authoritarian does a government need to be, if it can dictate what kind of toilet a person can make, sell and buy, before being labeled authoritarian? Low level toilet - Wikipedia

An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one that must not only be based on free principles, but in which the powers of government must be so divided and balanced between various organs of the magistracy, so that no one can transcend their legal limits, without being effectively controlled and restricted by the the rest . Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 13, 120-21

It seems that we have not managed to maintain this ideal.

No. Having a social safety net and publicly maintained infrastructure does not make it a "socialist country" by a reasonable definition of that word.

Hundreds of different ideologies over the centuries have been identified or created as subcategories of the huge socialist ideology. The United States has never been inspired by any of them. In fact, it was founded more or less according to the liberal movement of the Age of Enlightenment, so I would call it a liberal country.

Most socialist ideologies have the common point that they seek to overthrow a government perceived as unjust.

Keep reading

No. Having a social safety net and publicly maintained infrastructure does not make it a "socialist country" by a reasonable definition of that word.

Hundreds of different ideologies over the centuries have been identified or created as subcategories of the huge socialist ideology. The United States has never been inspired by any of them. In fact, it was founded more or less according to the liberal movement of the Age of Enlightenment, so I would call it a liberal country.

Most socialist ideologies have in common that they seek to overthrow a capitalist elite that is perceived as an unjust ruler and replace liberalism with a state in which the means of production (fields, factories, etc.) are controlled by the workers. somehow. That is not the case in the US and the US It certainly does not seek to replace liberalism, which is its own founding foundation.

Having a state that uses tax revenues to support the poorest and to create infrastructure and sponsor education is not socialism, contrary to the belief of a surprising majority of American leftists. It really has nothing to do with it. This characteristic can be found in countries with a conservative, liberal, socialist and fascist base, so I would not call it exclusively socialist.

Note: when I speak of liberalism, I am not referring to the American term used to describe a leftist, I am referring to current classical liberalism.

Possibly. You can argue for a "yes". Combining the federal, state, county, municipal, and special district levels, and including all ad valorem, income and sales taxes, an extraordinary amount of wealth created by people is forcibly confiscated and reallocated. The federal budget alone is about 20% of gross domestic product. That's an extraordinary wealth leak considering how little of that money is used for central government functions, such as infrastructure, military, and law enforcement. The vast majority of that money is used for wealth reallocation through entitlements.

Keep reading

Possibly. You can argue for a "yes". Combining the federal, state, county, municipal, and special district levels, and including all ad valorem, income and sales taxes, an extraordinary amount of wealth created by people is forcibly confiscated and reallocated. The federal budget alone is about 20% of gross domestic product. That's an extraordinary wealth leak considering how little of that money is used for central government functions, such as infrastructure, military, and law enforcement. The vast majority of that money is used for wealth reallocation through entitlements. Add in local duties, and my rough mental calculation places about half of the product of people's labor in the hands of others.

Furthermore, the United States does not respect private property rights as intended. Eminent domain was intended to be a public works seizure mechanism. If a road had to be built, the government could keep that land, but it would have to pay you. In return, everyone can use the highway. Now, a private citizen can simply convince the government that its intended use of his land is better than his own and can take it by force for his benefit and not for public use. This is how private sports stadiums, pipelines, and modern residential developments are built. The public cannot use those things, but they can pay to play. Although this seems at first glance to be a non-socialist concept,

There are many other examples mostly related to the regulatory bureaucracy that would make Joseph Stalin blush.

No, and the United States is unlikely to become a socialist country. Rather than just discarding terms and names, I'll explain a bit about each one.

Just for reference, my wife and I met at Taras Shevchenko University in Kiev, Ukraine, I studied World Government at Grand Canyon University while working on my degree, and my wife was to take Marxist-Leninist theory when studying at Taras Shevchenko. University in the 1980s when it was still the USSR. We have both traveled in and out of socialist and communist countries.

That is why the United States is NOT a socialist country. Low Socialis

Keep reading

No, and the United States is unlikely to become a socialist country. Rather than just discarding terms and names, I'll explain a bit about each one.

Just for reference, my wife and I met at Taras Shevchenko University in Kiev, Ukraine, I studied World Government at Grand Canyon University while working on my degree, and my wife was to take Marxist-Leninist theory when studying at Taras Shevchenko. University in the 1980s when it was still the USSR. We have both traveled in and out of socialist and communist countries.

That is why the United States is NOT a socialist country. Under socialism, the government has control of all the means of production. Look at Mexico and Venezuela, BOTH countries nationalized oil wells, now Pemex controls oil production in Mexico. In the United States, the government does not own businesses, it has not nationalized businesses. Therefore, by the strict definition of textbooks, the US is NOT a socialist.

America leans toward fascism. In a fascist government there is private ownership of companies, but all means of production are controlled by the state.

When I go to work, my work is often governed by the FAA, OSHA, FCC, FMCSA, EPA, IRS, and the rest of the letters of the alphabet. This government control of all means of production is textbook fascism without the appearance of a totalitarian government. We still enjoy more freedoms than would be possible under a fascist government, but we are slowly moving toward fascism as personal freedoms are taken away and the government exerts more control over business.

Sorry for the long answer, but it was the only way I could explain it.

No, but FDR's move toward a socialist state almost survived if it weren't for the war and his need for the capitalists to save our country.

In 1933, the Roosevelt National Recovery Act (NRA) attempted to cartelize the American economy, just as Mussolini had cartelized Italy's. Under the NRA, Roosevelt established industry-wide boards with the power to set and enforce prices, wages, and other conditions of employment, production, and distribution for all businesses in an industry.

Interestingly, Mussolini viewed Roosevelt's New Deal as "boldly ... interventionist in the field of economics." Hitler's Nazism to

Keep reading

No, but FDR's move toward a socialist state almost survived if it weren't for the war and his need for the capitalists to save our country.

In 1933, the Roosevelt National Recovery Act (NRA) attempted to cartelize the American economy, just as Mussolini had cartelized Italy's. Under the NRA, Roosevelt established industry-wide boards with the power to set and enforce prices, wages, and other conditions of employment, production, and distribution for all businesses in an industry.

Interestingly, Mussolini viewed Roosevelt's New Deal as "boldly ... interventionist in the field of economics." Hitler's Nazism also shared many characteristics with Italian fascism, including the trade unionist front. Nazism also had full government control of industry, agriculture, finance, and investment.

"A socialist state?" No, but many ideas of "socialism" have been incorporated into our national institutions, such as the United States military. There have also been a variety of national efforts, starting with Theodore Roosevelt:

“In every wise fight for human betterment, one of the primary goals, and often the only goal, has been to achieve equality of opportunity to a large extent. In the struggle for this great end, nations pass from barbarism to civilization, and through it, people advance from one stage of enlightenment to the next. One of the main ongoing factors is destruction

Keep reading

"A socialist state?" No, but many ideas of "socialism" have been incorporated into our national institutions, such as the United States military. There have also been a variety of national efforts, starting with Theodore Roosevelt:

“In every wise fight for human betterment, one of the primary goals, and often the only goal, has been to achieve equality of opportunity to a large extent. In the struggle for this great end, nations pass from barbarism to civilization, and through it, people advance from one stage of enlightenment to the next. One of the main ongoing factors is the destruction of special privileges. The essence of any struggle for healthy freedom has always been, and must always be, to take away from some man or class of men the right to enjoy power, wealth, position, or immunity, which has not been earned by service. to his or his companions ".

Theodore Roosevelt, 1910

“At many stages in the advancement of mankind, this conflict between men who possess more than they have earned and men who have gained more than they possess is the central condition of progress. In our days it appears as the struggle of free men to win and maintain the right to self-government against special interests, which transform the methods of free government into a machine to defeat the popular will. At each stage, and under all circumstances, the essence of the struggle is to equalize opportunities, destroy privileges and give the life and citizenship of each individual the highest possible value both for himself and for the community ”.

“The practical equality of opportunities for all citizens, when we achieve it, will have two great results. First, every man will have a good chance of making all that is in him of himself; to reach the highest point to which his abilities, without the help of a special privilege of his own and unhindered by the special privilege of others, can carry him, and obtain for himself and his family substantially what he has earned. Second, equal opportunity means that the Commonwealth will obtain from each citizen the highest service of which they are capable. No man bearing the burden of the special privileges of another can render the community the service to which he is entitled. "

Now, this means that our government, national and state, must be freed from the sinister influence or control of special interests. Just as the special interests of cotton and slavery threatened our political integrity before the Civil War, now the great special commercial interests too often control and corrupt men and the methods of government for their own benefit. We must drive special interests out of politics. That is one of our tasks today. Every special interest is entitled to justice, full, fair, and complete, and now, mind you, if there was any attempt by mob violence to loot and harm the special interest, whatever it is, I dislike it the most. And the rich man, whoever he is, for whom I have the greatest contempt, would fight for him, And you would if you were worth your salt It should have justice. Because every special interest has the right to justice, but no one has the right to vote in Congress, to speak on the bench or to representation in any public office. The Constitution guarantees the protection of property and we must keep that promise. But it does not grant the right to vote to any corporation ”.

“The true friend of property, the true conservator, is the one who insists that property will be the servant and not the master of the commonwealth; who insists that the creature created by man will be the servant and not the master of the man who made it. The citizens of the United States must effectively control the powerful commercial forces they have created.

There can be no effective control of corporations as long as their political activity continues. Ending it will not be a short or easy task, but it can be done.

We must have a complete and effective publicity of corporate affairs, so that people can know beyond whether corporations obey the law and whether their administration entitles them to the public's trust. Laws must be passed that prohibit the use of corporate funds directly or indirectly for political purposes; it is even more necessary that these laws be rigorously enforced. Corporate spending for political purposes, and especially spending by public service corporations, has provided one of the main sources of corruption in our political affairs.

“It has become completely clear that we must have government oversight of capitalization, not only of public service corporations, including, in particular, the railroads, but of all corporations that conduct interstate business. I do not want the nation to be forced to take ownership of the railroads if it can be avoided, and the only alternative is rigorous and effective legislation, which will be based on a full knowledge of all the facts, including a physical appraisal of the facts. . property. This physical appraisal is not necessary or, at least, it is rarely needed to set rates; but it is necessary as a basis for honest capitalization.

We have come to recognize that franchises should never be granted, except for a limited time, and never without adequate compensation to the public. I personally believe that the same type and degree of control and supervision that should be exercised over public service companies should also be extended to combinations that control the necessities of life, such as meat, oil, or coal, or that deal with them. on a major scale. I have no doubt that the common man who controls them looks a lot like us. I have no doubt that you would like to do well, but I want to have enough supervision to help you realize that desire to do well.

I believe that officers and especially directors of corporations should be personally liable when any corporation breaks the law. "

“Of that generation of men to whom we owe so much, the man to whom we owe the most is, of course, Lincoln. Part of our debt to him is because he predicted our current fight and saw the way out. He said: -

"I maintain that as long as man exists, it is his duty to improve not only his own condition, but to help improve humanity."

And again: -

“Work is prior and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor and could never have existed if labor had not existed first. Labor is superior to capital and deserves much greater consideration. "

If that comment were original to me, I would be even more accused of a communist agitator than I will be anyway. It's from Lincoln. I'm just quoting it; and that's one side; that's the side the capitalist should listen to. Now let the worker listen to your side.

“Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other right. … Nor should it lead to a war against landlords. Property is the fruit of work; … Property is desirable; it is a positive good in the world. "

And then comes a phrase completely similar to Lincoln's:

"He who has no home, let him not tear down another's house, but work diligently and build one for himself, thus ensuring by example that his own will be safe from violence when it is built."

It could be just you. There are people who claim to be more socialist, but probably those people are mixed capitalists. Socialism by definition is an economic theory that "advocates collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods" 1 2 3. While many people might be advocating for free healthcare or free college education, the country will not be socialist unless the people decide to force the government or a cooperative to have direct control of the nation's industries and private property. . Many American 'socialists' speak of making our country a

Keep reading

Footnotes

1 Definition of SOCIALISM 2 substantive socialism - Definition, pictures, pronunciation and usage notes 3 http: // Collins English Dictionary - Complete and Unabridged, 12th edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014

It could be just you. There are people who claim to be more socialist, but probably those people are mixed capitalists. Socialism by definition is an economic theory that "advocates collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods" 1 2 3. While many people might be advocating for free healthcare or free college education, the country will not be socialist unless the people decide to force the government or a cooperative to have direct control of the nation's industries and private property. . Many American 'socialists' talk about making our country socialist and point to Norway as an example, but Norway is a mixed economy 4 that still allows private property not regulated by the state, so it is far from being 'more socialist'. Basically

Footnotes

1 Definition of SOCIALISM 2 substantive socialism - Definition, pictures, pronunciation and usage notes 3 http: // Collins English Dictionary - Complete and Unabridged, 12th edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014 4 The Norwegian Economy 5 Was university ever free in the United States, as Bernie Sanders says?

What most free countries have discovered is that a balance between capitalism and socialism is needed to build a successful society.

We often call this social democracy.

The United States has an ultra-capitalist Republican Party and an increasingly socialist Democratic Party.

He has no moderate options, so his government is in opposition and never compromises for the common good.

There are no countries with such a costly and laborious electoral process, which is why the United States is at the top of money-driven political systems.

You have a difficult choice in 2020. Socialist or what increasingly seems to be fascis

Keep reading

What most free countries have discovered is that a balance between capitalism and socialism is needed to build a successful society.

We often call this social democracy.

The United States has an ultra-capitalist Republican Party and an increasingly socialist Democratic Party.

He has no moderate options, so his government is in opposition and never compromises for the common good.

There are no countries with such a costly and laborious electoral process, which is why the United States is at the top of money-driven political systems.

You have a difficult choice in 2020. Socialist or what increasingly appears to be fascist. There is no minority party moderation or balance of power in a strict two-party system.

As your parties have polarized, so have your people.

There is no place on Earth like America, especially politically.

Other Guides:


GET SPECIAL OFFER FROM OUR PARTNER.