Japan, Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, New Zealand and Australia are best described as capitalist welfare states. To call them anything else does a disservice to people who want to emulate them and allows socialists to falsely support their own failed ideology. Perhaps more Americans would be open to establishing a system more like those countries given their success.
Maybe you could better explain yourself by labeling yourself an "egalitarian capitalist" or "compassionate capitalist" or "peoples capitalist" or some other description more in line with your goal. I believe you shut out many good people with your current misunderstood label.
I'm not against using the term "capitalist welfare state" but I don't think it solves the problem since "welfare" also has a distractingly negative connotation in America. The sociologist George Lakey, who wrote a book on the Nordic economic model titled "Viking Economics," has argued that Americans think "welfare state" means a much stronger version of the U.S. welfare system when in fact the Nordics got rid of their American-style welfare system in the 1950s or so. Instead, they now have universal services so Lakey prefers the term "universal services state" for those countries. "Compassionate capitalist" certainly won't trigger people the way any use of "socialist" tends to do, but I also think most folks won't know what to make of that. You gain a better connotation but lose technical precision. By the way, I don't believe in applying the same system to all countries. What works in one country might not work in another. Gun legislation is a good example of this. What's the word for being a democratic socialist, depending on the country?
Ooh, I like "egalitarian capitalist." I may borrow that for myself. I'm a capitalist who is well aware that not all groups of people have access to participating in the market. Moreover, those who are putting up the barriers are left-wing. So generally I just stick with "politically homeless."
Thanks. I do have a rather radical view about simplistic labels. This practice has been weaponized so much that I can no longer standby. I know, for communications' shake, not being able to boil things down to manageable kernels is not realistic. We need better, though.
Why identify yourself as an adherent to any political / economy group? I have read a few of your posts. You are quite thorough in dissecting arguments and lending historical perspective. There is no need to do battle with anyone. The facts are teachers and you my new friend are doing great work. Thank you.
Thanks, Paul. I think discussing terminology is as important as the ideologies and movements they represent but you've definitely got a point about facts as teachers.
Gents, I am just a dumb engineer, but have always been quite obsessed with topics such as this. thanks. Now:
1. Mr. Volodzko, why use a term that you admit has polarized meaning, to describe yourself? if this term is so misused to the extent that it can literally mean opposite things, it has lost its usefulness, if not outright dangerous.
2. Having worked in big corps, plus at sweat shops when I was young, I see both sides of the problem - how to protect workers from exploitation, while nurturing the entrepreneurial spirit that has lifted the world to the abundance we enjoy today. The idea of democratic socialism that straddles opposing ideals may indeed have it merits. But, I think you need to invent a new name. Cheers!
The term is problematic but part of the problem stems from the fact that, as I note above, many people use "socialism" as a way to move the Overton window toward communism. Obviously we have to keep an eye on that but this doesn't mean we should become reactionary over technical terms. On the other hand, I try not to be too rigid when it comes to language so I'm happy to consider other terms.
MIchael Moore is a polarizing figure (for some, beyond the pale) but I was much taken by his film "Where To Invade Next." It's an exploration of the many benefits (guaranteed, cradle to grave) citizens in countries other than the U.S. have come to expect from their Welfare State social programs. Healthcare, maternity leave, vacation time, schooling, etc. What's shown may be rose-colored but what you see, if accurate, is anything but some slippery slope to the Gulag. Didn't MLK advocate for some form of Universal Basic Income? And on the other hand, didn't Ronald Reagan make a video with the message that Medicare, in effect, was just one step away from Josef Stalin? Wasn't FDR himself branded a communist? You could argue that Bernie's undoing was over the one word "socialism." Why are Americans so incapable of nuance on this particular subject?
We have lost some capacity for nuance on all sides, as Luna says, but I think you also have a point, Kevin—"socialism" in particular is an electrifying term in American political discourse, probably due to a number of factors such as the bloody legacy of communism, the McCarthyist propaganda efforts of the 1950s, a confusion over where Scandinavian-type socialism ends and North Korean-type socialism begins and the disgusting behavior of certain young Americans who identify as "socialist."
Thank you for your clarification! Most of the self-identified "democratic socialists" I personally know are communists who support the Cuban or Soviet model or at least insist such models are preferable to what Republicans want. It took me two months to come back and read this because I was bracing for a defense of such an approach and couldn't figure out how it would square with the rest of your articles.
I’m glad The Free Press featured you so could follow you David! I am amazed at the comments on the articles there. I think the problem is that people don’t want to do the critical thinking to understand. The people are not educated in government and politics. You probably couldn’t find 1 in 10 that could define socialism. They resort to repeating what they hear in their “tribe”. The US has many social programs and is a democracy. I call that democratic socialism. Maybe a primer on democracy and socialism is in order?
Nietzsche once wrote, "In truth, there was only one Christian and he died on the cross." Kierkegaard made similar remarks about the rarity of true Christian believers and I think the same can be said about nearly any ideology. For most folks, self-applied labels have more to do with virtue signaling and cultural norms than authentic belief.
Japan, Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, New Zealand and Australia are best described as capitalist welfare states. To call them anything else does a disservice to people who want to emulate them and allows socialists to falsely support their own failed ideology. Perhaps more Americans would be open to establishing a system more like those countries given their success.
Maybe you could better explain yourself by labeling yourself an "egalitarian capitalist" or "compassionate capitalist" or "peoples capitalist" or some other description more in line with your goal. I believe you shut out many good people with your current misunderstood label.
I'm not against using the term "capitalist welfare state" but I don't think it solves the problem since "welfare" also has a distractingly negative connotation in America. The sociologist George Lakey, who wrote a book on the Nordic economic model titled "Viking Economics," has argued that Americans think "welfare state" means a much stronger version of the U.S. welfare system when in fact the Nordics got rid of their American-style welfare system in the 1950s or so. Instead, they now have universal services so Lakey prefers the term "universal services state" for those countries. "Compassionate capitalist" certainly won't trigger people the way any use of "socialist" tends to do, but I also think most folks won't know what to make of that. You gain a better connotation but lose technical precision. By the way, I don't believe in applying the same system to all countries. What works in one country might not work in another. Gun legislation is a good example of this. What's the word for being a democratic socialist, depending on the country?
Ooh, I like "egalitarian capitalist." I may borrow that for myself. I'm a capitalist who is well aware that not all groups of people have access to participating in the market. Moreover, those who are putting up the barriers are left-wing. So generally I just stick with "politically homeless."
Thanks. I do have a rather radical view about simplistic labels. This practice has been weaponized so much that I can no longer standby. I know, for communications' shake, not being able to boil things down to manageable kernels is not realistic. We need better, though.
Why identify yourself as an adherent to any political / economy group? I have read a few of your posts. You are quite thorough in dissecting arguments and lending historical perspective. There is no need to do battle with anyone. The facts are teachers and you my new friend are doing great work. Thank you.
Thanks, Paul. I think discussing terminology is as important as the ideologies and movements they represent but you've definitely got a point about facts as teachers.
You do have a point. Folks have to first agree on the facts and terminology definitions before they can discuss them intelligently.
Gents, I am just a dumb engineer, but have always been quite obsessed with topics such as this. thanks. Now:
1. Mr. Volodzko, why use a term that you admit has polarized meaning, to describe yourself? if this term is so misused to the extent that it can literally mean opposite things, it has lost its usefulness, if not outright dangerous.
2. Having worked in big corps, plus at sweat shops when I was young, I see both sides of the problem - how to protect workers from exploitation, while nurturing the entrepreneurial spirit that has lifted the world to the abundance we enjoy today. The idea of democratic socialism that straddles opposing ideals may indeed have it merits. But, I think you need to invent a new name. Cheers!
The term is problematic but part of the problem stems from the fact that, as I note above, many people use "socialism" as a way to move the Overton window toward communism. Obviously we have to keep an eye on that but this doesn't mean we should become reactionary over technical terms. On the other hand, I try not to be too rigid when it comes to language so I'm happy to consider other terms.
MIchael Moore is a polarizing figure (for some, beyond the pale) but I was much taken by his film "Where To Invade Next." It's an exploration of the many benefits (guaranteed, cradle to grave) citizens in countries other than the U.S. have come to expect from their Welfare State social programs. Healthcare, maternity leave, vacation time, schooling, etc. What's shown may be rose-colored but what you see, if accurate, is anything but some slippery slope to the Gulag. Didn't MLK advocate for some form of Universal Basic Income? And on the other hand, didn't Ronald Reagan make a video with the message that Medicare, in effect, was just one step away from Josef Stalin? Wasn't FDR himself branded a communist? You could argue that Bernie's undoing was over the one word "socialism." Why are Americans so incapable of nuance on this particular subject?
Right now, Americans are incapable of nuance, period. There is right think and wrong think, defined by political bent.
We have lost some capacity for nuance on all sides, as Luna says, but I think you also have a point, Kevin—"socialism" in particular is an electrifying term in American political discourse, probably due to a number of factors such as the bloody legacy of communism, the McCarthyist propaganda efforts of the 1950s, a confusion over where Scandinavian-type socialism ends and North Korean-type socialism begins and the disgusting behavior of certain young Americans who identify as "socialist."
Thank you for your clarification! Most of the self-identified "democratic socialists" I personally know are communists who support the Cuban or Soviet model or at least insist such models are preferable to what Republicans want. It took me two months to come back and read this because I was bracing for a defense of such an approach and couldn't figure out how it would square with the rest of your articles.
Oh my gosh no, I am not a fan of either!
I’m glad The Free Press featured you so could follow you David! I am amazed at the comments on the articles there. I think the problem is that people don’t want to do the critical thinking to understand. The people are not educated in government and politics. You probably couldn’t find 1 in 10 that could define socialism. They resort to repeating what they hear in their “tribe”. The US has many social programs and is a democracy. I call that democratic socialism. Maybe a primer on democracy and socialism is in order?
Nietzsche once wrote, "In truth, there was only one Christian and he died on the cross." Kierkegaard made similar remarks about the rarity of true Christian believers and I think the same can be said about nearly any ideology. For most folks, self-applied labels have more to do with virtue signaling and cultural norms than authentic belief.