Why is the US pursuing socialism?

 “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” -Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride

Before one can argue about something, I think it’s a good idea to define what it means, yes? Merriam-Webster defines socialism as “any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods; a system of society or group living in which there is no private property.”

So, let’s be crystal clear about something: no major political party in the US is promoting collective ownership and administration of production of goods. None of them.

Supporting a higher marginal tax rate on the rich is not socialism. If you don’t understand marginal taxation**, that indicates you’re not able to contribute intelligently to this discussion, so please, kindly, shut up.

Support for unions is not socialism.

Support for the some sort of health care reform is not, in and of itself, socialism. True socialized medicine would involve all providers of health care becoming direct employees of the government***. And, again, no major political party is suggesting this. The most radical solution being suggested is Medicare for All. If you object to that, well, fine, that’s your right. But I expect you to decline your Medicare coverage as soon as you retire, then.

Finally, let’s be crystal clear about one thing: the Democratic Party is not endorsing collective ownership of the means of production. The most radical platform from today’s Democrats is actually somewhat more conservative than that of the GOP during the 1950s. To wit:

Yes, members of the John Birch society called this socialism, and worse. But said members were purged from the ranks of respectable conservatism by the likes of William F. Buckley, Barry Goldwater, and Ronald Reagan, among others. If you’d like to align yourself with the Birchers, please, feel free to do so. But consider your company.

-Z

** In marginal taxation, only income above a given level is taxed at a higher rate. To use an oversimplified example, let’s say you have a system in which income at or below $100,000/yr is untaxed, but income above $100,000/yr is taxed at 100%- complete confiscation. So, if you earn $100,000/yr, you pay no tax. If your income goes to $100,001/yr, you pay… $1 in tax. Because only the income above $100,000/yr is taxed, everything at or below that remains untaxed. If you don’t understand this, please don’t talk about the evils of taxation.

*** The US has had a long-term study of three different health systems: single-payer (Medicare), the Veterans Administration (socialized medicine), and whatever you’d call the mess that everyone not 65 or older or a retired veteran has. The results are in: the mess most people are in gets the most expensive and least consistent results. While the VA’s failings receive ample press coverage, much of that is due to how huge that system is. It’s like air crashes vs. car crashes- while a single airliner crash may kill a bunch of people, individual car crashes add up to kill fare more people.