Is the US drifting into Socialism?

[MorkandMindy]

This may seem a really stupid question when the COVID crisis package went mainly to companies and to support the stock market, people in the lowest section of the economy live on average 14.6 years less (men) 10.1 years (women) than those higher up.

But I'm hearing the continuous move to the right described as losing the fight against socialism (weird, but I've heard it said), so here's the statistic known as GINI, a measure of income inequality over time in the US.

GINI is a bit unusual, a rating of 0 means no inequality and 1 means all the money is with one person, so numbers are mainly in the .40 to .50 range.

there it is, more equal in 1957 and even more in 1968 then a big move to the Right.

 

[Albion]

First of all...

what do you mean by "continuous move to the right" of which you speak??

 

[Speedwell]

First of all...

what do you mean by "continuous move to the right" of which you speak??

The assumption being that the Right favors an increasing GINI, which is not exactly true.

But to me, the most interesting thing about that graph is that the years of American "greatness" (to which Trump ostensibly wants us to return) are years of declining GINI--struggling out of a depression worse than most of us alive today have ever known, fighting the "good war" and enjoying the material prosperity of the 50s.

 

[Albion]

The assumption being that the Right favors an increasing GINI, which is not exactly true.

No, it wouldn't be. But because the graph reads from left to right, I thought there was a chance of the reference being about that...or maybe even something else.

 

[JackRT]

When I was growing up in the 50s and 60s the pay of the CEO of a large business or industry was typically about 10 times that of the lowest paid full time worker. That has changed dramatically over the decades since. In some cases executive remuneration is sometimes hundreds of times higher.

An extreme example is the bankruptcy of NorTelCom. The company went into receivership. It was something like seven years before the workers were paid for their last shifts but during all that time the executive officers continued to receive their full remuneration including their annual bonuses. Such excesses and mendacity are not unusual at all.

When such extremes become the norm they are frequently corrected in rather dramatic ways as in the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution.

In the meantime democratic socialist policies are needed to curb the worst excesses of capitalism.

 

[Albion]

When such extremes become the norm they are frequently corrected in rather dramatic ways as in the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution.

In the meantime democratic socialist policies are needed to curb the worst excesses of capitalism.

And yet, for all the years of my life when the political Left has been in control of the presidency and the houses of Congress, they did not remedy the situation.

Oh yes, I have to admit that there were a few cosmetic changes, tokens really, but nothing like what these guys promise every time there is an election. But we are expected to think that it's because of the political Right that this is the case.

What's more, the legion of multi-millionaires and billionaires who are supporting and financing the Democratic Party certainly does not show us that they think they'll be hurt if the government changes hands.

 

[MorkandMindy]

It's true, the multi-millionaires and billionaires and the corporations via their lobbyists pretty much run both parties. In 2016 the 'Democratic' Party was further toward inequality and pain, the Super Delegates reduced democracy in the primaries as did the DNC. The Republican Party with Donald's verbal support of those who had lost their manufacturing jobs made a connection with the low paid which HC damaged with her talk of a basket of deplorables and total failure to visit or mention manufacturing workers.

Her support of every war available turned me off (I'm a registered Democrat) completely, and the rest just finished the job.

That was 2016 with Democrats out on the crazy right, this is 2020.

 

[Albion]

Again, the use of the word "right" mystifies me, but I agree with most of what you said in that post.

 

[jayem]

It depends on how you define socialism. If you mean strict state-socialism—where most all economic activity and means of production are owned and managed by government—I don’t see that happening in this century. If you mean establishing a number of tax funded social safety net programs, then we’ve had that for decades. I.e., Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment Insurance, and SBA loans, to name several. You could call these socialistic programs. Or maybe socialism-light. I prefer the term collective. They’re well-accepted and extremely popular. As I’ve said, see how far you get if you run for office on a platform of repealing SS or Medicare.

The next collective enterprise will be health insurance for the general population. It won’t be Medicare for all, but it should be based on the Medicare model. Which is a hybrid. If properly structured, people can still have choices regarding levels of coverage. And private insurance should still be available as optional supplementary coverage, if desired. Our current mish-mash of publicly, privately, and employment funded health insurance is obsolete, incoherent, and hugely cost-ineffective. I’m absolutely certain that it will be phased out by 2050. And hopefully earlier.

 

[Albion]

It depends on how you define socialism. If you mean strict state-socialism—where most all economic activity and means of production are owned and managed by government—I don’t see that happening in this century. .

I hope you will agree, though, that we have recently had a number of elected politicians of some importance urging us and planning, if given the change, to move us significantly in that direction, however. This was almost unthinkable only a few years ago.

 

[Speedwell]

I hope you will agree, though, that we have recently had a number of elected politicians of some importance urging us and planning, if given the change, to move us significantly in that direction, however. This was almost unthinkable only a few years ago.

And as exaggerated by doom-crying conservatives.

 

[Albion]

And as exaggerated by doom-crying conservatives.

Yes, that is what most apologists for oppressive government like to say.

 

[rambot]

Is the American right's understanding of "Socialism" drifting towards "Socialism"?

Answer:
No. Further away.

 

[Speedwell]

Yes, that is what most apologists for oppressive government like to say.

I've never heard you say it.

 

[Albion]

I've never heard you say it.

Nor are you likely ever to hear it from me.

 

[JackRT]

I've never heard you say it.

Come to think of it, neither have I.

 

[Speedwell]

Nor are you likely ever to hear it from me.

So you're not like most apologists for oppressive government. OK.

 

[jayem]

I hope you will agree, though, that we have recently had a number of elected politicians of some importance urging us and planning, if given the change, to move us significantly in that direction, however. This was almost unthinkable only a few years ago.

I’ve heard of calls for stricter government regulation of social media and news web sites. I’m not aware of anyone saying the government should own these businesses.

But there have been proposals for the federal government to assume the job of new drug development. One variation would have all the R & D departments of Big Pharma transferred to a new federal agency affiliated with the NIH. All the researchers would become federal employees, and all the lab expenses would be paid by the feds. The government would also fund all the phase 1, 2, and 3 clinical trials. And the government would own the patent on all new products. Any drug meeting FDA standards for safety and efficacy would be put up for bid. Whichever pharmaceutical company submits a bid to manufacture and sell the drug at the lowest price, wins the exclusive rights to do so until the patent expires. Obviously, the purpose here is to lower drug prices by relieving the private drug companies of the very expensive burden of new drug development. The intention is commendable. But it’s anybody’s guess if it would really work in practice.

 

[mark46]

I hope you will agree, though, that we have recently had a number of elected politicians of some importance urging us and planning, if given the change, to move us significantly in that direction, however. This was almost unthinkable only a few years ago.

Please list the trends where Democrats support government owning the means of production.

 

[Kentonio]

The US, a country where the supposed 'left' party would be on the right in pretty much any other western democracy, but hey they're slipping into socialism. Ok then..