What do you Americans mean when you say "socialist"?

Question

I noticed that "socialist" and "socialism" is used most extensively and more loosely in USA political debate than it is in Europe.
This fact causes some misunderstanding when, for example, a non-American speaks to an American.

What is in your opinion a socialist policy? What countries are socialist ?

Yes, I agree about Venezuela.
But what about advanced democracies as Sweden where economics is run by private owners but government provides social services?
In europe we call them socialdemocracies: you pay an hoard of taxes, but it is what people wants.And they are democracies.

And how you would call a system where Government manages economic activities for a different goal than reallocation of wealth to lower income classes?
where economics were heavily regulated and many economic activities were run by (and reserved to) Government. But this was not to get a fairer wealth allocation, but for the sake of the ruling elite. So it was during the Ancien Régime. So is the professional regulation in most European countries today.
Or a Country can need it for a weak economic sector in a peculiar event (eg railways aren't developed by free market: how can industries and trade develop?)

Even US government run directly an economic activity: US mail service.
Are USA socialist?

Answer 1

I don't blame you for being confused.

The reactionaries in America (mostly "Republicans" but some "Democrats" too) have tried to paint ANY social programs whatsoever as "socialist." The conservative liberals (mostly "Democrats"), unable to present any kind of real alternative, are frightened of confronting the reactionaries and have thus encouraged this.

Our wealthy have not had to face any kind of a mass working class movement since the 1930s. Therefore they are unfamiliar with the social democratic tactic. They haven't needed "social bribery," giving some social benefits in order to stave off rebellion, in many years.

This has warped the political dialogue in the USA. Programs that even reactionaries in other countries would allow are thought of as "socialist" here.

That is why there will never be a mass social democratic party in the USA. If Americans ever get over their phobia about "Socialism," we will go so far to the left that we will make the Soviets look like conservatives.

Socialist countries? Well, by the classical Marxian conception, you can't have socialism in one country. However, I know what you mean. I would say that Stalinists have poltical power, and have a workers state to pimp of off, in Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam and China. In Venezuela there is a workers government, but not a workers state.

Cuba is partially democratic, as the revolution of which the Stalinists seized control, is still historically recent. China is trying to make a "cold" capitalist reversion, but I believe they will fail - either the state will fall and a strictly capitalist one will arise, or a new socialist revolution will occur. Vietnam appears to be taking the Chinese road, although at a slower pace. North Korea is so isolated that the worst of capitalist/feudalist vices, a dynasty, has emerged, and destruction of their socialized economy cannot be far behind. In Venezuela, where the changes are not systemic but in the hands of one individual who is, at the moment, in charge of the government, things could go back to the right at the drop of a hat. Like the Sandinistas in Nicaragua did, Chavez is trying to dance down the middle between capitalism and socialism, and sooner or later must come down on one side of the line or the other - probably on the capitalist side.

The system that you describe, where the government controls the economy but does NOT use that control to redistribute wealth to the poor, is "corporatism," or "fascism," isn't it? The Nazis controlled production, but left the businesses they gave orders to under private ownership. In other words, the state insured the profits of the owners - that's state capitalism.

There has never before in history been a world-girdling imperialism that even the other imperialists recognized as their master, even for a short period, such as from World War 2 through the 1970s, when the U.S. position as "number 1" received its mortal wound. You must understand that my fellow Americans have been dealing with a unique situation, and one that is even now changing to a more classical model.

Now that the USA is losing its position, this will change, but our political culture is behind the political reality. That is why there was such shock when the CIA's former employees attacked the USA on Sept. 11, 2001. That is also why political terms are used differently here than anywhere else in the world.

Until recently, we could AFFORD to be wrong - the errors due to sloppy thinking could be made up for with an undefeatable military machine. Now that we have suffered some defeats, such as Vietnam, Iraq, etc., you will begin to see a change in the situation.

Until that change is fully under way, our masters will be even more unstable and threatening. Be careful -- they will attack anywhere! If capitalist Europe, for instance, wishes to remain independent and not under U.S. occupation, it would do well to federalize and have a central army that can defend itself. The attack on Iraq was actually aimed at Europe - U.S. companies don't use much oil from there. European and Asian companies do. You might call the two Gulf Wars the "warm-up" for World War 3, when the U.S. will attack its competitors in Europe and Asia.

Sorry - we can't stop our owners -- YET. But give us time. The country in which the May Day holiday was invented cannot remain in the hands of the "liberals" and "conservatives" forever.

Answer 2

It's a term that means what its user intends it to mean. If you think a person uses "typical American" in an exclusionary way, probably that's how that person uses it. I was stuck in a small town in England for several days after 9/11 with some other people who couldn't get home from vacation. All strangers to each other, we went around together, helped each other with phones & money machines & airlines. We were typical Americans. Two naturalized citizens from Portugal, a nice white lady from Georgia, a Jewish professor of psychology, etc.

Answer 3

*I* mean workers' control - individually or collectively - of the means of production. It's a perfectly good definition and a fairly widespread one among socialists.

As far as I'm concerned, an economy of self-employed people is socialism and an economy of bosses and proles is not; "state socialism" is just another name for state capitalism.

Answer 4

It is obvious from the answers by right-wingers here on Yahoo Answers that they haven’t the slightest idea what socialism means. They use it to describe any type of government program or to describe people with whom they disagree.

Definitions of socialism are available all over the Internet from reliable sources but the right-wingers use the term loosely as a means of attack.

Answer 5

Most countries of Europe have a socialist country, maybe all.
The Canadians have a socialist country. Because of the New Deal and the Great Society, we Americans have a socialist country.
I think it is a bad idea to maintain any socialist policies. Socialism seeks to control the market and the market doesn't allow itself to be controlled. That's why hoodlums from le banlieu almost burned France down and we Americans have so many decaying inner cities. Socialism is very similar to a monarchy where the king takes care of his subjects, there isn't anything enlightened about that.
Socialism does have one lure, the illusion that you're getting something for nothing.

Answer 6

A socialist is one who believes in the government owning, distributing and controlling all goods and property.
It is the stage beteen capitalism and communism. It abhors individualism.
Socialist countries are: Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela, Vietnam with substantial ties to Cuba and Venezuela, and China still has a subtantial amount of state owned industry.

Answer 7

Venezuela is a good example of a socialist country.

A totalitarian regime that has seen the need to nationalize it's companies and take ownership of it's media.

Lead by a ruler who rules by decree. His is the only opinion that matters. If enough of the Venezuelan people are opposed to him, the only way they can bring about change is through revolution or a coup.

Socialism also involves a large and stifling central government, economic subsidies, trade restrictions, travel restrictions and immigration restrictions. Control over education, information, communications, internal migration, individual ownership, religion, entrepreneurship, the right to assemble and political action.

In other words, it is in direct contradiction to the US charter and intent of the founders. Their intent is a tried and true best practice in government that has yielded success never before seen in the history of the world. Steps toward socialism are criminal acts.

Answer 8

Socialist. One who advocates government ownership of the means of production (i.e. business). Often misused by right-wing ideologues who confuse regulation of certain aspects of the economy with government ownership of business.

Answer 9

It doesn't mean anything to anybody, especially Republicans. To the GOPers its just a catch-all to describe "wasteful spending" and anything outside of the "tax the rich less, tax poorer people more" worldview. also throw in stuff about the old USSR, how France sucks, and so on and thats pretty much it.

Answer 10

When I think of socialism I think of way too much Government control and way too many taxes.