NationStates Jolt Archive

Two of the biggest myths are that America is a "democracy" and that it is "capitalist." Neither of these are true!

America is, in fact, a socialist republic. A capitalist country is one where there is an actual "free market" economy. The government's job, in a capitalist economy, is simply to enforce business contracts. You sign something, but don't hold to your agreement, then the government's job is to settle civil disputes.

Well, in a socialist economy, the government's job is not just enforce contracts, but to regulate the economy, to make sure it remains stable and that there's a fair amount of social welfare. In America, we have the Federal Reserve (the "FED"). Their job is to regulate interest rates on loans and various other things. After America was taken off of the gold standard, the value of our money is not determined by anything material, but rather, what economists determine what it is. In other words, to my knowledge, they print as much money as they believe would be good for our economy. Taking us off the gold standard pushed us even further towards Socialism. There was a benefit to this, though, because "gold" is not the only thing of value in America, and was really just an arbitrary way of measuring wealth. Labor laws are also as a result of Socialism.

And, of course, we have public education. Wait, let me rephrase that... Education in America is socialized. And then, of course, there's welfare. More than that, though, even Conservatives who claim to oppose "Socialism" or any government involvement surely can't deny the benefits. The goverment helps businesses in bankruptcy (such as with the airliners after 9\11), they give certain industries subsidies (such as the tobacco companies), and even on the smaller scale, they offer farmer subsidies, just as they do in Britain. So, clearly, we are not capitalist, but socialist.

Now, about "democracy." We do have democratic elections and we are technically a democracy, but "democracy" is far more complicated than that. Our form of government is a "representative democracy." There are many people, mostly minorities like Libertarians, Communists, and Anarchists, who believe we should have what's called a "participatory democracy", where the people directly vote on every issue. Because "democracy" is a very broad term and doesn't even imply a head of state, like the President, it would be more correct to say that we are a "Republic" (sometimes, we're called a "Democratic Republic").

So, in conclusion, America is neither capitalist nor a democracy. We are a socialist republic. Although, in America's beginnings, we were a capitalist republic, it would be idiotic to try to return to that. Because repealing things such as child labor laws and ending all public education or welfare would be insane. The difference between America and European socialists is how extreme their socialism is.

Two of the biggest myths are that America is a "democracy" and that it is "capitalist." Neither of these are true!


Ok, good points and bad.
Thank you for making the statement, though. American History pisses me off. A large part of the determination for creating it is inspiring patriotism. :rolleyes:
I don't think you can quite catogorize it so succinctly, though. I think that's what makes the U.S. so stable is our versatility. We're not a capitalist economy, but neither are we socialist. And we're in a constant state of flux. Back and forth, but always somewhere in the middle.
Representative Democracy is a crap phrase. It's just an excuse to champion Democracy. We are a Republic where we get the honor of electing our representatives. I see true democracy as a third world concept that just doesn't hold up in a progressive society. I mean really, do you think it would be practical for each and every person to vote on each and every tax law in this country?

Ok, good points and bad.
Thank you for making the statement, though. American History pisses me off. A large part of the determination for creating it is inspiring patriotism. :rolleyes:
I don't think you can quite catogorize it so succinctly, though. I think that's what makes the U.S. so stable is our versatility. We're not a capitalist economy, but neither are we socialist. And we're in a constant state of flux. Back and forth, but always somewhere in the middle.
A socialist economy does not need to be completely run by the government, but just regulated. We regulate the economy, therefore, we are socialist. There is no "gray area" between socialism and capitalism.

Capitalism = free market economy
Socialism = regulated economy

We regulate, so we're socialist.

Representative Democracy is a crap phrase. It's just an excuse to champion Democracy. We are a Republic where we get the honor of electing our representatives. I see true democracy as a third world concept that just doesn't hold up in a progressive society. I mean really, do you think it would be practical for each and every person to vote on each and every tax law in this country?
It doesn't need to be that way, though. What would you think of adding another "house" to Congress, made up of the people? In other words, there'd still be checks and balances and they'd be lower than the House of Representatives, but could still write bills and pass them. And they'd be voted on by the people. If the House of Representatives didn't agree with them, or the Senate, then they could vote against them, just as the Senate can vote against the House of Representatives' bills.

In my opinion, increasing the amount of senators is important too, because they have many, many more issues to deal with than they did 200 years ago.

It doesn't need to be that way, though. What would you think of adding another "house" to Congress, made up of the people? In other words, there'd still be checks and balances and they'd be lower than the House of Representatives, but could still write bills and pass them. And they'd be voted on by the people. If the House of Representatives didn't agree with them, or the Senate, then they could vote against them, just as the Senate can vote against the House of Representatives' bills.

In my opinion, increasing the amount of senators is important too, because they have many, many more issues to deal with than they did 200 years ago.

More bureaucracy? I don't think so. There's plenty of elected idiots without adding more. I'd more likely go the other way.

Well, you'd better be quick smart and get rid of the last little rags of legislation you have left which serve to protect the general public from multi-national corporations.
Those poor, poor American corporations, regulated and taxed within an inch of their lives. How is a corporation supposed to fuck over the lives of millions of people for the wealth of two or three people with all of America's oppressive laws?
Get rid of the government! Bill Gates and Donald Trump would make much better dictators... I mean... slaves to the desires of the free market... of course...

The US isn’t a perfectly capitalist or democratic state. That's true. But there are no absolute democratic, or capitalist governments out there, anyway (the closest to a pure democracy is Switzerland, I believe). The most effective descriptors in political comparisons are just that: comparisons, relative relationships with the rest of the world.

It isn't really worthwhile to talk about how the US doesn't practice absolute capitalism, or absolute democracy because these are impossible, “asymptote” measurements anyway. The most constructive observations are observations comparing one country to another. For example: the US is more capitalist than Canada. Or the US is less directly democratic than Switzerland.

In the case of Switzerland, I might as well point out that the near-pure democracy there would never work in a country the size of the US. The US, or other larger nations, use representation as a conversion factor between the people's will, and government action. That way, the people are represented, but executive decisions don't take weeks, months to make. If they didn't have representatives in that gap between the people and actions of the country then there would be no real ability to make timely decisions and the entire country would be a morass of referendums and general assemblies. Also, pure capitalism is unworkable in any compassionate society. As long as people feel for others, there will be a social net, however large or small.

That said, the US is about as democratic as it can be, and more democratic than quite a few nations around the world. Also, it's the most capitalist nations I can think of. I have no problem with those that call it a capitalist democracy, because it does exude the characteristics of a capitalist democracy--often more than most others--even if it isn't a "pure" capitalist democracy.

The US isn’t a perfectly capitalist or democratic state. That's true. But there are no absolute democratic, or capitalist governments out there, anyway (the closest to a pure democracy is Switzerland, I believe). The most effective descriptors in political comparisons are just that: comparisons, relative relationships with the rest of the world.

It isn't really worthwhile to talk about how the US doesn't practice absolute capitalism, or absolute democracy because these are impossible, “asymptote” measurements anyway.
Not impossible, but impractical on a large scale in modern society. The main point of this thread, though, was to emphasize:

#1. America's ideals are just as "socialist" as it is "capitalist", if not more. And really, our government regulates the economy. There is no "free market." For example, if your company gets too rich, then you're a monopoly, and the government breaks your company up (or they're supposed to, anyway).
#2. There are different forms of democracy than what we have. "Democracy" is a broad term. Republic fits much better.

In my opinion, it should be taught that capitalism does not work. With the amount of times that the government has stepped in to fix things (as above), this concept of a "free market" clearly cannot work. Obviously, a completely government-controlled economy wouldn't work, either, because that's not Socialism. That's Pure Socialism. The current government that works best is a mildly Socialist government, which we are. Just because we're less socialist than a lot of other countries does not make us non-socialist.

That said, the US is about as democratic as it can be, and more democratic than quite a few nations around the world.
Not true. I think that there should be a third house in Congress, (the "House of Citizens"?), as explained above.

That said, the US is about as democratic as it can be, and more democratic than quite a few nations around the world. Also, it's the most capitalist nations I can think of. I have no problem with those that call it a capitalist democracy, because it does exude the characteristics of a capitalist democracy--often more than most others--even if it isn't a "pure" capitalist democracy.

But let's call a spade a spade. Despite that we're as "democratic" as we can be, we're not a democracy, we're a republic. Recite your Pledge of Allegiance. It's just another trick to fool school children to make them feel better about living in the U.S. Like that bogus ride of Paul Revere.

#1. America's ideals are just as "socialist" as it is "capitalist", if not more. And really, our government regulates the economy. There is no "free market." For example, if your company gets too rich, then you're a monopoly, and the government breaks your company up (or they're supposed to, anyway).

I disagree. Yes, in certain terms, the US has not an absolute Free-market economy and not an absolute Command economy, falling somewhere in the middle of the "Socialism" net. But in more appropriate terms, comparative terms, economies are not so dictionary-defined.

Here's the technical, dictionary ranking of economies, Control and Free Market as extremes and Socialist as anything in between (the x’s stand for economic no-mans land, impossible to attain):


Command |xxx|------------Socialist------------|xxx| Free Market


According to these terms, every economy in history is a socialist economy (as surely there have been no absolute Command economies, either). Here's the comparative Political Science's ranking


<~~~~more Command~~~~~|xxx| Socialist |xxx|~~~~~more Free Market~~~~>


There are no unattainable "Free-market" or "Command" poles here, just a sliding degree of "free-marketness" or "commandness". As long as the US exudes certain characteristics of a free-market economy it is fair to call it that (just as it's fair to call some gay people feminine: they aren't purely feminine, but they exude characteristics of it). It isn't important that an economy is purely on one side if the spectrum, but that it is somewhat on one side, and that it is more on that side than other economies we're comparing it to.

And compared to quite a few western economies, the US is more capitalist (no national healthcare, fewer restrictions on business, less help for unemployed, lower taxes, government controls few essential markets)

#2. There are different forms of democracy than what we have. "Democracy" is a broad term. Republic fits much better.

Regardless of how much one fits more than the other, both are reasonably accurate and I'm about to get nit-picky with my peers over which is the "correct" term. Sure, I'll recognize it as a little more accurate, but not by enough for me to impose it upon others.

Hah! America is not socialist, prehaps 60 years ago under FDR it was socialist but it really is not at the moment, Socialism you involve the state nationlising all firms providing merit goods ,such as Education and Health care, and as far as i know both universities and health care are private firms. So nahurr(game show negative noise) america is not a socialist republic . Yes it has elements of socialism, i belive mostly left over from FDR like social security but as opposed to actual socialist republics like Spain, France Germany and U.k it pales in comparison. (all education, waste management, health care you name it evey merit good is run by the goverment.) well expect rail transport, but we shan't go there ok.

And for it to be a completely free market, there would have to be a very small or even no goverment becuase even taxes are a market interfearance so a real 'free market' state would basically be a capatalist anarchy, America is about one of the free's market countries in the world mind you.


Edit: Socialism is FAR more towards the command side of the spectrum than it is free market, the enitre point of socialism is to protect the poor from the pitfalls of the freemarket

I disagree. Yes, in certain terms, the US has not an absolute Free-market economy and not an absolute Command economy, falling somewhere in the middle of the "Socialism" net. But in more appropriate terms, comparative terms, economies are not so dictionary-defined.

Here's the technical, dictionary ranking of economies, Control and Free Market as extremes and Socialist as anything in between (the x’s stand for economic no-mans land, impossible to attain):


Command |xxx|------------Socialist------------|xxx| Free Market


According to these terms, every economy in history is a socialist economy (as surely there have been no absolute Command economies, either). Here's the comparative Political Science's ranking


<~~~~more Command~~~~~|xxx| Socialist |xxx|~~~~~more Free Market~~~~>


There are no unattainable "Free-market" or "Command" poles here, just a sliding degree of "free-marketness" or "commandness". As long as the US exudes certain characteristics of a free-market economy it is fair to call it that (just as it's fair to call some gay people feminine: they aren't purely feminine, but they exude characteristics of it). It isn't important that an economy is purely on one side if the spectrum, but that it is somewhat on one side, and that it is more on that side than other economies we're comparing it to.

And compared to quite a few western economies, the US is more capitalist (no national healthcare, fewer restrictions on business, less help for unemployed, lower taxes, government controls few essential markets)



Regardless of how much one fits more than the other, both are reasonably accurate and I'm about to get nit-picky with my peers over which is the "correct" term. Sure, I'll recognize it as a little more accurate, but not by enough for me to impose it upon others.
Alright, then. So, since you conclude that there are huge gray areas and a government is neither a command economy or a free market, but rather more towards one or the other (according political science), wouldn't you agree, then, that labeling countries as "socialist" or "capitalist" is irrelevant? Because it means nothing, except the general tendency.

And who defines that middle point? Who defines when you make the jump from "more free market" into socialism? Someone here used the average, compared with all the other countries, and says we have one of the most free economies. Well, if all the countries of the world became socialist, would that redefine the middle point? No. That's irrelevant. Our relative stance in reality means nothing in political theory. What you need here, are clear definitions, not subjective gray areas that can be easily re-defined by people's opinions.

So, what makes a country "more" free-market or "more" of a command economy? Which industries would a "socialist" be more likely to take control over? No, this subjective definition doesn't work. It is exactly this kind of thinking that Conservatives use to turn progressives into socialists. Even Newt Gingrich repeatedly uses obscure language like this, where he doesn't really clarify what he means. For example, once, on the O'Reilly Factor, he called Canada a "radical" nation. Radical!? The host asked him what he meant and he said, "Well, what I meant was, Canada is becoming more radicalized." OK, Mr. Gingrich, then what does that mean? He said it has to do with all of their progressive, anti-religious liberals. So... Being a progressive liberal makes you a radical? That lumps us in with all of the TERRORISTS!

I swear, Newt's parents named him after the size of his brain.

But no, you need to clear language. If there is such a middlepoint and a scale like that, there needs to be clearly-defined and concise definitions, not meaningless, subjective, rhetoric.

Hah! America is not socialist, prehaps 60 years ago under FDR it was socialist but it really is not at the moment, Socialism you involve the state nationlising all firms providing merit goods ,such as Education and Health care, and as far as i know both universities and health care are private firms. So nahurr(game show negative noise) america is not a socialist republic . Yes it has elements of socialism, i belive mostly left over from FDR like social security but as opposed to actual socialist republics like Spain, France Germany and U.k it pales in comparison. (all education, waste management, health care you name it evey merit good is run by the goverment.) well expect rail transport, but we shan't go there ok.

And for it to be a completely free market, there would have to be a very small or even no goverment becuase even taxes are a market interfearance so a real 'free market' state would basically be a capatalist anarchy, America is about one of the free's market countries in the world mind you.


Edit: Socialism is FAR more towards the command side of the spectrum than it is free market, the enitre point of socialism is to protect the poor from the pitfalls of the freemarket

Your definition of socialism is to narrow, which, I think is PC's point. There are varying degrees of socialism. In Europe, socialism means government monopoly of certain services or industries. In the U.S., socialism means mitigating the effects of the free market through social services and welfare.

Even in the nations you list as being paragons of socialism, there is an understanding that government ownership of industry is a recipe for inefficiency and waste. Countries are getting away from the government providing "merit goods". That's what de-regulation and privatization is all about.

In the U.S., there is a fair amount of government services at the local level. City and county governments will provide water or waste collection. More likely, the governmental entity will contract for that service with a private concern on a franchise basis. There are many variations throughout the USA which is one thing that makes the USA unique. Local services are provided locally in a variety of different ways. The national government does not dictate directly on how to provide those services.

Alright, then. So, since you conclude that there are huge gray areas and a government is neither a command economy or a free market, but rather more towards one or the other (according political science), wouldn't you agree, then, that labeling countries as "socialist" or "capitalist" is irrelevant? Because it means nothing, except the general tendency.

In a way, yes, labeling things is "irrelevant", because there's no absolute measure. But people still use labels for various purposes all the time, often biased and rhetorical purposes. The key is that the use of these labels doesn't conclude anything.

And who defines that middle point? Who defines when you make the jump from "more free market" into socialism? Someone here used the average, compared with all the other countries, and says we have one of the most free economies. Well, if all the countries of the world became socialist, would that redefine the middle point? No. That's irrelevant. Our relative stance in reality means nothing in political theory. What you need here, are clear definitions, not subjective gray areas that can be easily re-defined by people's opinions.

If I had to revise the scale I'd make it more like this:


<~~~~more Command~~~~~reference economy~~~~~more Free Market~~~~>


Absolute position is pretty unimportant in studying economies of nations, because thoughts on economics differ so much. It's much more constructive to compare and contrast economies against one another factor by factor (how much control one economy has over healthcare than another). Since the US, in some's eyes, is more capitalist in many factors than quite a few European nations (and other nations around the world) it makes sense that some consider it “capitalist”.

My point is that it isn't a sin for people to refer to the US as a "capitalist" state, because, according to many, it is "capitalist" in many regards.

No, this subjective definition doesn't work. It is exactly this kind of thinking that Conservatives use to turn progressives into socialists. Even Newt Gingrich repeatedly uses obscure language like this, where he doesn't really clarify what he means. For example, once, on the O'Reilly Factor, he called Canada a "radical" nation. Radical!? The host asked him what he meant and he said, "Well, what I meant was, Canada is becoming more radicalized." OK, Mr. Gingrich, then what does that mean? He said it has to do with all of their progressive, anti-religious liberals. So... Being a progressive liberal makes you a radical? That lumps us in with all of the TERRORISTS!

Gingrich’s relating “progressive” and “radical” is just him trying to activate his base by incorporating “liberals” with terrorists. I’m not sure how it relates to economic relativity.

My point is that meaningful definitions of economies are mostly just met by comparison. Getting picky about the US's absolute status as "socialist" is pointless, because it doesn't tell us anything. If we put the US in context with the rest of the world by comparing its economy with the various world economies we can make some real assessment. In that context it is just as valid to say that the US has a "capitalist" economy as a "socialist" economy.

America is not socialist, you could say we have state capitalism, but not socialism.

Your definition of socialism is to narrow, which, I think is PC's point. There are varying degrees of socialism. In Europe, socialism means government monopoly of certain services or industries. In the U.S., socialism means mitigating the effects of the free market through social services and welfare.

Even in the nations you list as being paragons of socialism, there is an understanding that government ownership of industry is a recipe for inefficiency and waste. Countries are getting away from the government providing "merit goods". That's what de-regulation and privatization is all about.

In the U.S., there is a fair amount of government services at the local level. City and county governments will provide water or waste collection. More likely, the governmental entity will contract for that service with a private concern on a franchise basis. There are many variations throughout the USA which is one thing that makes the USA unique. Local services are provided locally in a variety of different ways. The national government does not dictate directly on how to provide those services.


Kablaaa! Socialism is a set thing is doesn’t suddenly change when you cross an ocean. Perhaps certain facets of American Politics have 'socialist' like policies, this dose not make them socialist, more likely they are social liberals, there is a marked difference, Socialism means to turn the economy into a command one to more evenly distribute wealth and to nationalise essential businesses to do so, I can see no sign of this in America

i always thought it was a corrupt nationalist dictatership...until recently of course.. :)

Kablaaa! Socialism is a set thing is doesn’t suddenly change when you cross an ocean....

No, it isn't actually. Language and definitions are democratcially decided. If the majority of American people use and consider socialism one way and that differs from the European concept of socialism, then, guess what, "socialism" is something different in the US.

Consider this. In Eastern Europe, as democracies were emerging from previous authoritarian and totalitarian regimes they had different uses for "conservative" and "liberal" than are usualy held in the western world. A "conservative" tended to favor a gradual decline from communism to democracy, while a "liberal" tended to want to do it fairly quickly. They used the same words the rest of the world uses in a different way. Are they wrong? No. Are we wrong? No.

In America, Football (as it's called in Europe) is called Soccer. The same sport, different words used. Are they wrong? No. Are we wrong? No.

Language is democratically decided, dictionaries and definitions are merely trying to record peoples' decisions.

No, it isn't actually. Language and definitions are democratcially decided. If the majority of American people use and consider socialism one way and that differs from the European concept of socialism, then, guess what, "socialism" is something different in the US.

Consider this. In Eastern Europe, as democracies were emerging from previous authoritarian and totalitarian regimes they had different uses for "conservative" and "liberal" than are usualy held in the western world. A "conservative" tended to favor a gradual decline from communism to democracy, while a "liberal" tended to want to do it fairly quickly. They used the same words the rest of the world uses in a different way. Are they wrong? No. Are we wrong? No.

In America, Football (as it's called in Europe) is called Soccer. The same sport, different words used. Are they wrong? No. Are we wrong? No.

Language is democratically decided, dictionaries and definitions are merely trying to record peoples' decisions.


sort of like...a-broad?

No, it isn't actually. Language and definitions are democratcially decided. If the majority of American people use and consider socialism one way and that differs from the European concept of socialism, then, guess what, "socialism" is something different in the US.

Consider this. In Eastern Europe, as democracies were emerging from previous authoritarian and totalitarian regimes they had different uses for "conservative" and "liberal" than are usualy held in the western world. A "conservative" tended to favor a gradual decline from communism to democracy, while a "liberal" tended to want to do it fairly quickly. They used the same words the rest of the world uses in a different way. Are they wrong? No. Are we wrong? No.

In America, Football (as it's called in Europe) is called Soccer. The same sport, different words used. Are they wrong? No. Are we wrong? No.

Language is democratically decided, dictionaries and definitions are merely trying to record peoples' decisions.


Yes but being conservative and liberal are attitudes, things like liberalism and Socialism are defined theoryies with frameworks.

In America, Football (as it's called in Europe) is called Soccer. The same sport, different words used. Are they wrong? No. Are we wrong? No.

I always wondered, how the hell did we get "soccer" for "football" in the US?
As far as I know, it has no real meaning in English.

US is 'mixed market' Economy.

Plus it's how you define things.

Some view capitalism as pure capitalism Lasseiz Faire.
The more common use of the word Capitalism nowadays is market economy.

But like socialism, capitalism and others, there are degree's to it. So 'Mixed' is the better word.

Yes but being conservative and liberal are attitudes, things like liberalism and Socialism are defined theoryies with frameworks.

People can still view them or use them differently. Liberalism and Socialism are both words, which means that individual societies can use them as they wish. It also makes sense that if the definition of "liberal" is allowed to differ from area to area that the definition of "liberalism" is equally as relative. If a people collectively choose to define the theory of Liberalism differently than obviously you feel it should be, they're allowed to. People have different takes on theories anyway, regardless of the cultural relativism present in language.

If you want to refer to a more specific definition of socialism, which you seem to feel as the "correct" one, you should specify it.

US is 'mixed market' Economy.

Plus it's how you define things.

Some view capitalism as pure capitalism Lasseiz Faire.
The more common use of the word Capitalism nowadays is market economy.

But like socialism, capitalism and others, there are degree's to it. So 'Mixed' is the better word.
But who decides what separates a "mixed market economy" from socialism?

What is the defining factor?

But who decides what separates a "mixed market economy" from socialism?

What is the defining factor?

There is no defining factor. Or I guess for our sake.. Use Wikipedia. :p

Kablaaa! Socialism is a set thing is doesn’t suddenly change when you cross an ocean. Perhaps certain facets of American Politics have 'socialist' like policies, this dose not make them socialist, more likely they are social liberals, there is a marked difference, Socialism means to turn the economy into a command one to more evenly distribute wealth and to nationalise essential businesses to do so, I can see no sign of this in America

That may be what the old hack Karl Marx meant by solcialism, but I don't think that is the modern definition. I believe PC has done the best at describing modern socialism.

Your definition is now described as "communism", which has been discredited through numerous 20th century experiments, which all failed.

The US is not socialist. If it was, would the poor be denied decent health care? The US has a market, a working class, a capitalist class, and currency. It's definitely capitalist. Just because it has regulation in some areas doesn't mean it isn't capitalist. If you use socialism so broadly, the word becomes meaningless.

The US is not socialist. If it was, would the poor be denied decent health care?
...which is why there's medicare and medicaid. Let me say this again. NOT ALL SOCIALIST COUNTRIES NEED TO HAVE ECONOMIES COMPLETELY CONTROLLED BY THE GOVERNMENT.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism#An_...p_of_ideologies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism#An_ideology_or_a_group_of_ideologies)
some self-described socialists, especially those who identify as social democrats, but also including (for example) the reform-oriented Euro-communists (Marxists, but by no means Leninists), advocate a mixed economy rather than a complete re-working of existing capitalist economies along socialist lines. These views also extend to many who would not describe themselves as "socialists."

The U.S. is not capitalist because of:

The Federal Reserve, which regulates interest rates.
The Department of the Treasury (no gold standard, economists decide)
Subsidized housing
Homeless shelters
Corporate subsidies (tobacco companies, etc)
Farmers' subsidies
Federal grants, for businesses and research
Labor Unions
Child labor laws
Workers' Legal Rights (no discrimination, workers' compensation, etc)
Environmental protection laws
Public education
Public libraries
Government-funded college scholarships and loans
Welfare
Medicare
Medicaid
No Child Left Behind
The G.I. Bill


The US has a market, a working class, a capitalist class, and currency. It's definitely capitalist. Just because it has regulation in some areas doesn't mean it isn't capitalist. If you use socialism so broadly, the word becomes meaningless.
You don't need a command economy, in order to be Socialist (see above). No Socialist countries today have truly "command" economies, and no capitalist countries are have "free market" economies and it would be barbaric to do so. So, really, "capitalism" and "socialism" should either both be defined according to the same scale (absolutes--command\free market) or Socialism should be defined as modification of Capitalism, seeing how Capitalism as a free market economy came first, and a "mixed market economy" came through Socialism later.

People mention that we have one of the most free economies in the world. Well, as I said, that's irrelevant. If all countries became command economies or free market, would the "gray area" change? No. Governments are examples of political theory, not definitions in and of themselves. The difference between America and Canada is the extent at which the government regulates the economy and how. Either way, our governments are founded on the same principles, but we just go about them differently.

Here is what I mean, when I say our relative economic freedom is meaningless:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism#Si...market_failures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism#Size_of_government.2C_taxes.2C_regulations_and_market_failures)
The last century saw a very large increase in these variables in western countries. Combined U.S. government spending increased from 3-4% of GDP to 33%. An average for 16 industrial nations jumped from 8% of GDP to 45%.[6](http://mwhodges.home.att.net/intl-spend.htm) Thus it can be argued that the degree of capitalism has seen a remarkable decline in Western nations.
Most governments have become Socialist, because it makes a great deal more sense. Not a "command" economy, of course, but government regulation is good, which is why government spending has increased tenfold.

Mixed economy = Socialist (not Capitalist)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism#Which_Economies_are_.22Capitalist.22_.3F
Some believe that it is inaccurate to call any of the major industrialized economies "capitalist" because of the level of government intervention in the economy. For example, some assert that the market in the United States of America is significantly less than "free", and that therefore it is more appropriately termed a mixed economy that is merely skewed more toward capitalism than most national economies, rather than being a true representation of capitalism.

A socialist economy does not need to be completely run by the government, but just regulated. We regulate the economy, therefore, we are socialist. There is no "gray area" between socialism and capitalism.

Capitalism = free market economy
Socialism = regulated economy

We regulate, so we're socialist.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Socialism

1) Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.


http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Capitalism

An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

Two of the biggest myths are that America is a "democracy" and that it is "capitalist." Neither of these are true!

America is, in fact, a socialist republic. A capitalist country is one where there is an actual "free market" economy. The government's job, in a capitalist economy, is simply to enforce business contracts. You sign something, but don't hold to your agreement, then the government's job is to settle civil disputes.

Well, in a socialist economy, the government's job is not just enforce contracts, but to regulate the economy, to make sure it remains stable and that there's a fair amount of social welfare. In America, we have the Federal Reserve (the "FED"). Their job is to regulate interest rates on loans and various other things. After America was taken off of the gold standard, the value of our money is not determined by anything material, but rather, what economists determine what it is. In other words, to my knowledge, they print as much money as they believe would be good for our economy. Taking us off the gold standard pushed us even further towards Socialism. There was a benefit to this, though, because "gold" is not the only thing of value in America, and was really just an arbitrary way of measuring wealth. Labor laws are also as a result of Socialism.

And, of course, we have public education. Wait, let me rephrase that... Education in America is socialized. And then, of course, there's welfare. More than that, though, even Conservatives who claim to oppose "Socialism" or any government involvement surely can't deny the benefits. The goverment helps businesses in bankruptcy (such as with the airliners after 9\11), they give certain industries subsidies (such as the tobacco companies), and even on the smaller scale, they offer farmer subsidies, just as they do in Britain. So, clearly, we are not capitalist, but socialist.

Now, about "democracy." We do have democratic elections and we are technically a democracy, but "democracy" is far more complicated than that. Our form of government is a "representative democracy." There are many people, mostly minorities like Libertarians, Communists, and Anarchists, who believe we should have what's called a "participatory democracy", where the people directly vote on every issue. Because "democracy" is a very broad term and doesn't even imply a head of state, like the President, it would be more correct to say that we are a "Republic" (sometimes, we're called a "Democratic Republic").

So, in conclusion, America is neither capitalist nor a democracy. We are a socialist republic. Although, in America's beginnings, we were a capitalist republic, it would be idiotic to try to return to that. Because repealing things such as child labor laws and ending all public education or welfare would be insane. The difference between America and European socialists is how extreme their socialism is.

Although I do not agree for a minute that America is socialist, I am glad that someone finally has the brains to realise that America wasn't designed a democracy. Well done. Although it has a large democratic element.

Mixed economy = Socialist (not Capitalist)
Anybody can write anything they want in Wikepedia...

Regards,
Gaar

Capitalism = free market economy
Socialism = regulated economy


Your definitions are wrong.

Capitalism = private ownership of the means to production
Socialism = public ownership of the means to production

Must capital in America is privately owned, therefore America is predominantly capitalistic.

The proper description of the US economy, at least according to economists, is a mixed economy. We have market features, and we have socialist features. We are neither.

And at least according to my experience, socialist systems, in it's pure form, involves government control of all the means of production. In the case of the US a large amount of the "capital" is privately owned. It's a mixed economy, it's neither socialist nor capitalist.

You're right it's not a democracy... The correct term for it is, in fact, a Democratic Republic, by definition.

But this country is just as much capitalist as socialist. It's not 100% either way, we still have a free market for the most part.