Would you say that the USA is a Social Democracy in reverse?

[RadioRaheem84]

What I mean by that is that most Economic textbooks agree that the USA is a mixed-economy. There is never a mention of it anywhere as being a true free market society. Yet, most of the social gains of government intervention and subsidies in the past 30 years have gone to the very rich or people with enough political clout to influence public money to stream their way. In essence while social spending was drastically cut, defense and corporate spending has risen to a height that far surpasses the Great Society or the New Deal.

I mean if you were rich and could muster a politician in your pocket, then the state served you more than your average citizen. It provided tax cuts, subsidies to grow your industry, protection from the public, and numerous political connections.

Doesn't this seem like Social Democracy in reverse? The ideology seems to be that if you uphold the very top then the rest will just trickle down to you and I. The United States does practice a form of social democracy but the democracy seems to be at the very top like a Ancient Greek Polis.

Any thoughts?

[Yehuda Stern]

I don't know - what you describe is pretty much just monopoly-era capitalism. The days of free initiative and free trade are long gone, and the situation of capital being connected intimately to the state is a global phenomenon since WWII.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

A truly "free market" has not existed - for good reason (to capitalists). It wouldn't look anything like what we see today... theoretically. The libertarian love fest with the 19th century is quite peculiar, since it was mostly the corporatism we see today, without the welfare concessions.

I see the corporations withdrawing from its welfare protection out of necessity. They realize this may anger everyone else, but what are you going to do - wreck the economy? Give up profits? :laugh:

[Yehuda Stern]

I disagree - there certainly was free competition in the 19th century. The change came in the early 20th century, when monopolies and imperialism became the defining characteristics of world capitalism, and theses monopolies prevented all truly free competition. The libertarian's ridiculous conception is that capitalism can be reformed so as to no longer have monopolies. Experience proves that that is not possible.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I disagree - there certainly was free competition in the 19th century. The change came in the early 20th century, when monopolies and imperialism became the defining characteristics of world capitalism, and theses monopolies prevented all truly free competition. The libertarian's ridiculous conception is that capitalism can be reformed so as to no longer have monopolies. Experience proves that that is not possible.

Uh, what? The scale of corporations increased dramatically in the 19th century as federal governments consolidated power and started subsidizing private railroad, steel, and later gasoline programs. Mercantilism expired as a preference game, but pre-War capitalism developed - all the benefits of mercantilism were simply extended to a larger scale of companies. Where corporate charters weren't present, companies formed their powers as trusts. There really has not be a "free market." I agree with libertarians in that regard; however, they think it's reasonable to support intellectual property, absentee landlordlism, and unlimited property acquisition, which is authoritarian.

[jake williams]

To the OP: in a sense, yes, in a sense, no. The idea of "social democracy", particularly under its common essentially Marxist conception is that a bourgeois society, where the capitalist class controls society, nevertheless offers some benefits to workers, even though the workers themselves have no control over the society. In America however, the capitalist class still runs the society but does so almost solely and completely in its own interest, without even any pretense of trying to make life better for workers. The picture is far more complex than that, but that's the general idea.

[Yehuda Stern]

GeneCosta: You're right that in the 19th century, there were already signs of future monopolies consolidating their power - otherwise Marx and Engels would not have been able to foresee the imperialist age. But this was still a time when things were open, though not as open as a century before. There could still be competition in this age.

[chegitz guevara]

I disagree - there certainly was free competition in the 19th century.

Every government had tariffs and regulations, which pretty much means not a free market.

[spice756]

[quote=GeneCosta;1259758]A truly "free market" has not existed - for good reason (to capitalists). It wouldn't look anything like what we see today... theoretically. The libertarian love fest with the 19th century is quite peculiar, since it was mostly the corporatism we see today, without the welfare concessions.[quote]


How so? I was reading a book in the 1800's people where working 18 hours a day that is only 6 hours of sleep in a day.Kids where working and no free education to kids.

People in slum housing very dirty and not clean.There where diseases and poverty was very bad.

The capitalists had a major problem of over production to point of businesses going under.There was no laws or planning.The government was suppressing pro-worker books.

No way the US or Canada will allow this today.