Integrating Socialist ideas has worked well in the West

[Starlight]

Western countries over the years have integrated various socialist ideas into their capitalist economies. Some have gone further than others, and countries that have as much socialism as capitalism in their economies are often called 'mixed economies'.

On the whole, the countries with those mixed economies have been very successful. They tend to rank as the happiest, freest, least corrupt, most democratic nations.

I would say that, looking at the performance of different Western countries through the 20th and 21st century, the empirical data is fairly clear that a mixed economy, combining both elements of socialism and capitalism in approximately equal amounts, yields the optimum results in terms of success, prosperity, happiness etc.

I notice that US conservatives in this forum seem to be pretty ignorant of this. They seem to have little to no knowledge of Western nations that have done well by incorporating socialist ideas. The only socialism they seem to know or talk about is when corrupt dictators in uneducated dirt-poor nations have tried it, and it turns out even socialism can't make corrupt dictators in uneducated dirt-poor nations not suck, so I don't find that very interesting to discuss.

Yet, on the other hand, US conservatives often seem to dismiss the policies and politics of Western European nations out of hand as 'socialist' without really thinking through what they're actually saying and acknowledging by that dismissal. They use the word in a dismissive way in order to not bother thinking about the policies of Western European nations, and perhaps to justify their ignorance of them. Yet, by saying this they are literally acknowledging that the majority of the world's most advanced and successful nations, are, by some measure, 'socialist'. That those nations have, far more so than America has, incorporated successfully some sort of socialist ideas, and have not been destroyed, corrupted, or collapsed by this.

In my own country of New Zealand, which the US Libertarian Cato think-tank ranks as the freest country on earth (US 15th), the most popular historical leader of the nation was a Socialist, PM Michael Joseph Savage. In 1938 Savage's socialist government passed a universal healthcare and social security law, making New Zealand the first country in the world in which the government provided healthcare for all citizens, and the first country in the world where there was a social security system covering everyone. This socialist invention of the welfare state would endure and spread across the Western world. Savage was adored during his lifetime, and in 1999 was named the greatest New Zealander of the 20th century by the biggest newspaper here. I also note that my country's current socialist PM, Jacinda Ardern, is immensely popular both nationally and internationally.

I note that in America, the president most heavily influenced by Socialists and who promoted many policies at the behest of Socialists, was FDR. His extremely popular and successful New Deal was massively influenced by socialist ideas. FDR remains one of the most popular presidents in US history to this day.

Isn't it interesting how the most beloved leaders in Western nations are the ones who introduced socialist ideas into their economies and who were the most socialist? Isn't it interesting how Western nations do really well by mixing socialist ideas into their capitalist economies?

Perhaps instead of flogging dead horses like "China bad, USSR bad, Venezuela bad", we could advance the discussion slightly by looking at successful Western nations and seeing how they have prospered by blending socialist ideas and elements into their economies? When I read Marx's original list of at-the-time radical proposals in his Communist Manifesto, what I am most struck by is just how many of his ideas are now standard practice in every Western nation, America included. The West over time has embraced more and more socialist ideas, and they have been incredibly successful.

[seer]

Western countries over the years have integrated various socialist ideas into their capitalist economies. Some have gone further than others, and countries that have as much socialism as capitalism in their economies are often called 'mixed economies'.

But let's be clear socialists programs live off the capitalist economies. If you look at the growing wealth in India, China, Vietnam, the Asian rim in general, even some areas of Africa, that is all being generated by capitalism. Not socialism.

[Sparko]

Socialism bad.

But yeah some of what you call "socialist" service are needed in society. It's what we call "welfare" -- using tax money to care for the needy. I have no problem when they are used sparingly and correctly. Heck I have even said I would be for socialized healthcare if it were done right and didn't end up with worse healthcare and long waiting. But everywhere I know, it ends up being a bureaucratic nightmare. Costing more and more, to the point that the government starts limiting available treatments and surgeries to save money. Having doctor shortages and people having to wait months for routine services.

But actual socialism? As in a socialist state? That has always turned out bad. When it starts to impact the economy and markets, then it always fails. For government services, it is a mixed bag, some is needed but too much or not well regulated and it is terrible.

[Starlight]

I would be for socialized healthcare if it were done right and didn't end up with worse healthcare and long waiting. But everywhere I know, it ends up being a bureaucratic nightmare.

Well my country has now had socialized healthcare for over 75 years. In my lifetime I've used plenty of health services and the only bureaucracy I can report ever personally seeing was twice in my life I was handed one page forms where I filled in my name and some emergency contact details. As far as I can tell the average American engages with more bureaucratic nightmares in a single year when they do the paperwork of signing up for private health insurance, than any New Zealander does in their entire lifetimes of using government-provided care.

Costing more and more, to the point that the government starts limiting available treatments and surgeries to save money. Having doctor shortages and people having to wait months for routine services.

Well then it becomes, at worst, like America, where you ignore the government hospitals and go pay for it yourself and have it done at a private hospital.

But actual socialism? As in a socialist state?

As it has never been tried in any Western nation, we have zero data points. As far as I can tell from current data, the optimal mix is about 50/50 socialism/capitalism. However, the lack of data points from any Western nation where the amount of socialism is above 50% or so, means we can't really draw any strong conclusions.

The fact that bad nations were still bad even after adopting a socialist state doesn't really tell us all that much.

[seer]

Well my country has now had socialized healthcare for over 75 years. In my lifetime I've used plenty of health services and the only bureaucracy I can report ever personally seeing was twice in my life I was handed one page forms where I filled in my name and some emergency contact details. As far as I can tell the average American engages with more bureaucratic nightmares in a single year when they do the paperwork of signing up for private health insurance, than any New Zealander does in their entire lifetimes of using government-provided care.

Well then it becomes, at worst, like America, where you ignore the government hospitals and go pay for it yourself and have it done at a private hospital.

As it has never been tried in any Western nation, we have zero data points. As far as I can tell from current data, the optimal mix is about 50/50 socialism/capitalism. However, the lack of data points from any Western nation where the amount of socialism is above 50% or so, means we can't really draw any strong conclusions.

The fact that bad nations were still bad even after adopting a socialist state doesn't really tell us all that much.

Again Star, where do you get the monies for these socialist programs except from the underlying capitalist system?

[Sparko]

Again Star, where do you get the monies for these socialist programs except from the underlying capitalist system?

they just print it!

[seer]

they just print it!

Then it is useless, eventually.

[CMD]

But everywhere I know, it ends up being a bureaucratic nightmare. Costing more and more, to the point that the government starts limiting available treatments and surgeries to save money. Having doctor shortages and people having to wait months for routine services.

Those countries all spend significantly less than the U.S. See: https://data.oecd.org/chart/629e

As of 2019, U.S. per capita spending was $9,306. Norway and Germany, the next biggest spenders, were $5,673 and $5,648. The U.K, Finland, Australia and New Zealand are all in the low-to-mid $3,000 range. All per capita, so accounting for population differences.

With https://data.oecd.org/chart/629f we can go all the way back to 1970. Naturally every country has seen increasing costs, but from 2013 to the present, the U.S. has sky rocketed past everyone else. And from about 1990 on, the U.S. has gone from middle-of-the-pack expensive to the upper end, overtaking more and more countries until we get to where we are now today.

[Sparko]

Those countries all spend significantly less than the U.S. See: https://data.oecd.org/chart/629e

As of 2019, U.S. per capita spending was $9,306. Norway and Germany, the next biggest spenders, were $5,673 and $5,648. The U.K, Finland, Australia and New Zealand are all in the low-to-mid $3,000 range. All per capita, so accounting for population differences.

With https://data.oecd.org/chart/629f we can go all the way back to 1970. Naturally every country has seen increasing costs, but from 2013 to the present, the U.S. has sky rocketed past everyone else. And from about 1990 on, the U.S. has gone from middle-of-the-pack expensive to the upper end, overtaking more and more countries until we get to where we are now today.

If they have socialized medicine why are they spending anything at all? I thought it was supposed to be free for the people? And is this just the out of pocket for people in the USA or including what the insurance companies pay to the health providers?

[Sparko]

If they have socialized medicine why are they spending anything at all? I thought it was supposed to be free for the people? And is this just the out of pocket for people in the USA or including what the insurance companies pay to the health providers?

Ah never mind I found my own answer. That is government spending.

Here is the out of pocket costs for the actual people using the healthcare. Seems like the USA isn't much higher than most other countries that offer "free healthcare" meaning what is the point? All I care about is what it is costing ME. If I have to still pay nearly the same with "free healthcare" then it's not free since I am still paying out of pocket AND paying more in taxes too! Together I would be paying MORE than I am now with insurance which is mostly paid by my employer.

out of pocket.jpg

[Charles]

Again Star, where do you get the monies for these socialist programs except from the underlying capitalist system?

Did you actually read his post? Hint: Yes, you missed important parts.

[seer]

Did you actually read his post? Hint: Yes, you missed important parts.

No, the important part is that none of it works without capitalism.

[seanD]

Western countries over the years have integrated various socialist ideas into their capitalist economies. Some have gone further than others, and countries that have as much socialism as capitalism in their economies are often called 'mixed economies'.

On the whole, the countries with those mixed economies have been very successful. They tend to rank as the happiest, freest, least corrupt, most democratic nations.

I would say that, looking at the performance of different Western countries through the 20th and 21st century, the empirical data is fairly clear that a mixed economy, combining both elements of socialism and capitalism in approximately equal amounts, yields the optimum results in terms of success, prosperity, happiness etc.

I notice that US conservatives in this forum seem to be pretty ignorant of this. They seem to have little to no knowledge of Western nations that have done well by incorporating socialist ideas. The only socialism they seem to know or talk about is when corrupt dictators in uneducated dirt-poor nations have tried it, and it turns out even socialism can't make corrupt dictators in uneducated dirt-poor nations not suck, so I don't find that very interesting to discuss.

Yet, on the other hand, US conservatives often seem to dismiss the policies and politics of Western European nations out of hand as 'socialist' without really thinking through what they're actually saying and acknowledging by that dismissal. They use the word in a dismissive way in order to not bother thinking about the policies of Western European nations, and perhaps to justify their ignorance of them. Yet, by saying this they are literally acknowledging that the majority of the world's most advanced and successful nations, are, by some measure, 'socialist'. That those nations have, far more so than America has, incorporated successfully some sort of socialist ideas, and have not been destroyed, corrupted, or collapsed by this.

In my own country of New Zealand, which the US Libertarian Cato think-tank ranks as the freest country on earth (US 15th), the most popular historical leader of the nation was a Socialist, PM Michael Joseph Savage. In 1938 Savage's socialist government passed a universal healthcare and social security law, making New Zealand the first country in the world in which the government provided healthcare for all citizens, and the first country in the world where there was a social security system covering everyone. This socialist invention of the welfare state would endure and spread across the Western world. Savage was adored during his lifetime, and in 1999 was named the greatest New Zealander of the 20th century by the biggest newspaper here. I also note that my country's current socialist PM, Jacinda Ardern, is immensely popular both nationally and internationally.

I note that in America, the president most heavily influenced by Socialists and who promoted many policies at the behest of Socialists, was FDR. His extremely popular and successful New Deal was massively influenced by socialist ideas. FDR remains one of the most popular presidents in US history to this day.

Isn't it interesting how the most beloved leaders in Western nations are the ones who introduced socialist ideas into their economies and who were the most socialist? Isn't it interesting how Western nations do really well by mixing socialist ideas into their capitalist economies?

Perhaps instead of flogging dead horses like "China bad, USSR bad, Venezuela bad", we could advance the discussion slightly by looking at successful Western nations and seeing how they have prospered by blending socialist ideas and elements into their economies? When I read Marx's original list of at-the-time radical proposals in his Communist Manifesto, what I am most struck by is just how many of his ideas are now standard practice in every Western nation, America included. The West over time has embraced more and more socialist ideas, and they have been incredibly successful.

America HAS incorporated socialist ideas. In fact, we know longer have a free market capitalist system. At best we have a federally controlled economic system (command and control economy) that allows some aspect or parts of capitalism, but is primarily driven by a central bank (hence the stock market highs as exhibit A).

Yet, folks in America don't seem happy.

[Charles]

No, the important part is that none of it works without capitalism.

So, you are still missing the fact that he is not talking about 100 percent socialism... Even though it is painfully obvious. Read the text next time, my friend.

[Leonhard]

Social Democracy