3 ms·

There is nothing socialist about the US. The workers do not own the means of production. Labor union membership is in the single digits. We have some very limi

by sh34r 3y ago

There is nothing socialist about the US. The workers do not own the means of production. Labor union membership is in the single digits. We have some very limited vestiges of social democracy, but social democracy is not socialism. Socialists and social democrats were not allies. Google the meme: “SocDems killed Rosa.” What you’re observing is what unregulated capitalism will always devolve into. It goes by many names: capitalism, crony capitalism, neoliberalism, corporatism, oligarchy, fascism. But the idea is the same. Labor is violently oppressed. The State only serves the interests of capitalists. The State and Capital are often indistinguishable. There is no competition. There are structural barriers that stifle small businesses and enrich rent seeking trusts. It’s a new Gilded Age, brought to life by a new Lochner era for the Supreme Court. I have good news and bad news: this system, whatever you call it, is extremely unstable. Its collapse is inevitable, well within the span of a single human lifetime.

anonym29 3y ago
>There is nothing socialist about the US Except for the half of the entire federal budget that is spent strictly on wealth redistribution to enhance equity between the rich and the poor - Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. Seriously, these three programs are fully half of all federal spending. Not to mention all the state wealth redistribution programs, that cover housing (section 8), food (food stamps), education (public school system for k-12, pell grants above), utilities (utility vouchers), healthcare (ACA), telecom ("obamaphones", broadband vouchers), and more. I've seen estimates that in the most progressive states, welfare benefits can amount to as much as $42,000 a year for a small family. You can argue that on a PPP & CoL basis, that isn't much money in e.g. Bay Area (where that is well below poverty level), but that's also a global top 10% income. To say there is "nothing" socialist about the US is disingenuous, politicized, and pedantic at best. There is substantial social wealth redistribution and there exist substantial worker protections in the USA. You can find plenty of countries with a FAR less socialist nature. In fairness, it is likewise hyperbolic to describe the USA as a communist or even "fully" socialist country.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  I would add that significant portion of the remaining budget is spent on defense, which is a classic economic public good utilized by every citizen.
  - anonym29 3y ago
    Defense spending accounts for only a little over a third of what remains, or a bit over a sixth of all spending. Grossly eclipsed by wealth redistribution. We also spend about a sixth on interest payments. Everything else the entire federal government does combined is only about one sixth the federal budget.
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      Indeed. There will be fascinating to see an analysis of how much of the federal budget goes towards programs that all citizens and or do utilize. I suspect the numbers would shock a lot of people
- sh34r 3y ago
  If Medicaid and Medicare were "socialist" in any way whatsoever, we would have Medicaid for All for a fraction of the cost. These programs are so expensive because the "healthcare" system in this country is designed to funnel money into the oligarchs' pockets. It is a capitalist scam that presents the single greatest barrier to American entrepreneurship. The UK NHS is a socialized healthcare system. The profit motive is not allowed to corrupt any part of the system. Pharmaceutical prices are strictly controlled (none of this $26k/year Alzheimer's drug nonsense). It is fully nationalized. Nationalizing an entire industry in peacetime is often (but not always) associated with socialism. Even Canada's single payer system is not socialist in any sense of the word. It's just a government-run insurance plan. There are many multi-payer insurance systems in the world that perform far better than ours. Single-payer is not a panacea without price controls. Price controls are somewhat socialist. Funnily enough, the last US president to enact price controls was Richard Nixon, known friend of Marxists across the globe /s. There's nothing socialist whatsoever about Social Security. It does not redistribute wealth. The tax is infamously capped at the first ~$130k of income you make per year. Any income above the cap is untaxed by Social Security. Your benefits are proportional to what you paid into it. Social Security is definitely not "wealth distribution." It is an income tax. It's income distribution if anything, but that's still pretty ghoulish framing for a stipend for retired folks that barely keeps them out of poverty. > I've seen estimates that in the most progressive states, welfare benefits can amount to as much as $42,000 a year for a small family. No citations, just some half-remembered statistic from a right-wing propaganda outlet that conveniently adds up to the weed number. Very believable. Very representative of the average person's lived experiences. I cannot overstate how pathetic you have to be, in order to be resentful about welfare benefits while making a tech worker's salary.

by sh34r 3y ago

anonym29 3y ago

>There is nothing socialist about the US Except for the half of the entire federal budget that is spent strictly on wealth redistribution to enhance equity between the rich and the poor - Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. Seriously, these three programs are fully half of all federal spending. Not to mention all the state wealth redistribution programs, that cover housing (section 8), food (food stamps), education (public school system for k-12, pell grants above), utilities (utility vouchers), healthcare (ACA), telecom ("obamaphones", broadband vouchers), and more. I've seen estimates that in the most progressive states, welfare benefits can amount to as much as $42,000 a year for a small family. You can argue that on a PPP & CoL basis, that isn't much money in e.g. Bay Area (where that is well below poverty level), but that's also a global top 10% income. To say there is "nothing" socialist about the US is disingenuous, politicized, and pedantic at best. There is substantial social wealth redistribution and there exist substantial worker protections in the USA. You can find plenty of countries with a FAR less socialist nature. In fairness, it is likewise hyperbolic to describe the USA as a communist or even "fully" socialist country.

s1artibartfast 3y ago
I would add that significant portion of the remaining budget is spent on defense, which is a classic economic public good utilized by every citizen.
- anonym29 3y ago
  Defense spending accounts for only a little over a third of what remains, or a bit over a sixth of all spending. Grossly eclipsed by wealth redistribution. We also spend about a sixth on interest payments. Everything else the entire federal government does combined is only about one sixth the federal budget.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    Indeed. There will be fascinating to see an analysis of how much of the federal budget goes towards programs that all citizens and or do utilize. I suspect the numbers would shock a lot of people
sh34r 3y ago
If Medicaid and Medicare were "socialist" in any way whatsoever, we would have Medicaid for All for a fraction of the cost. These programs are so expensive because the "healthcare" system in this country is designed to funnel money into the oligarchs' pockets. It is a capitalist scam that presents the single greatest barrier to American entrepreneurship. The UK NHS is a socialized healthcare system. The profit motive is not allowed to corrupt any part of the system. Pharmaceutical prices are strictly controlled (none of this $26k/year Alzheimer's drug nonsense). It is fully nationalized. Nationalizing an entire industry in peacetime is often (but not always) associated with socialism. Even Canada's single payer system is not socialist in any sense of the word. It's just a government-run insurance plan. There are many multi-payer insurance systems in the world that perform far better than ours. Single-payer is not a panacea without price controls. Price controls are somewhat socialist. Funnily enough, the last US president to enact price controls was Richard Nixon, known friend of Marxists across the globe /s. There's nothing socialist whatsoever about Social Security. It does not redistribute wealth. The tax is infamously capped at the first ~$130k of income you make per year. Any income above the cap is untaxed by Social Security. Your benefits are proportional to what you paid into it. Social Security is definitely not "wealth distribution." It is an income tax. It's income distribution if anything, but that's still pretty ghoulish framing for a stipend for retired folks that barely keeps them out of poverty. > I've seen estimates that in the most progressive states, welfare benefits can amount to as much as $42,000 a year for a small family. No citations, just some half-remembered statistic from a right-wing propaganda outlet that conveniently adds up to the weed number. Very believable. Very representative of the average person's lived experiences. I cannot overstate how pathetic you have to be, in order to be resentful about welfare benefits while making a tech worker's salary.