I’ll take the socialism he doesn’t know already exists in American and has been that way since Social Security was introduced 100 years ago and more. These programs are the government’s responsibility to implement and sustain because we voted for their implementation. And there are so many social programs that we the people expect the Congress to implement that its hypocritical and devious for Trump and the Republicans to claim opposition. Even Trumps corporate friends benefit from corporate welfare that only the Republicans love.
What Trump is really telling us is that he hates all social programs and he feels the same about the American people. His lies are an effort to kill or hand off social programs to his friends to be private contractors for profit.
Socialism has been the saving grace for Americans. The Republicans have lied so long about the cost benefits that they have come to Belt eve their lies. And their evil intentions deny the expansion of programs that will increase the quality and accessibility to needed services. Why, because their states’ residents aren’t cared for any better. In fact they are suffering the most while the Party members are benefiting from their strategy of “blame government for being a disaster and incapable of caring for the people.
32
Been living without a pick-up truck for 64 years now. Haven't noticed anything bad yet.
24
I suffer every day due to government health care. The VA is a shining example of how single payer healthcare in the US routinely hurts and kills people. I will continue to fight to protect my children from this.
2
A lot of the left’s more extreme iideas are Socialism write large and should not be pursued. That said, the history of liberal (lowercase L) economic thought created the initial programs of the “welfare state” not out of any great altruistic feeling - but rather due to a recognition that capitalism was an imperfect system in practice vs the textbook versions with perfect information and everything balancing in the “long run”. Capitalist free market thinkers created things like unemployment insurance, etc because it was realized that labor resources could become dislocated and “stuck” to a point where they were not reaching their full productive potential. By creating programs that dealt with these dislocations, each labor resource could then use every capital resource at its disposal and the capitalist free market economy could grow at its fullest potential. Sad that “capitalists” of today are merely hoarders who bend the levers or power and create a crony system that is so far from true free market capitalism to be unrecognizable. It has given capitalism and democracy and bad reputation.
As far as health care. Heath insurance companies should be mutual (policyholders are owners), not public companies. Further insurance companies should compete across states on ACA exchanges and reinsurance should be allowed by other insurers to cover larger risks. Lastly the government should sit above the reinsurers as the retrocession provider to cover truly catastrophically costs
6
Mock him all you wish, but this Trump narrative of being the guardian of the American way and defender of free market capitalism against the Socialist horde (as evidenced by Green “New” Deal, Medicare for All, free college, etc.) will give him a second term. It is a brilliant strategy that plays well with middle America, where presidential elections are won and lost.
Forewarned is forearmed.
16
Let's all remember, ( Paul Ryan) and make it common knowledge that Ayn Rand died collecting Social Security and Medicare.
45
The red herring that the Scandinavian countries are “socialist” is to be expected from young American self-styled “Democratic Socialists”, who are proudly ahistorical. In the same breath, they mix admiration for Denmark - a capitalist country with a strong social safety net - with complaints about how capitalism has failed and needs to be replaced, and how “the means of production” need to be in the hands of the state.
You would think that Mr. Krugman would know better, but he chooses to perpetuate the same convenient confusion between social-democracy and socialism. One typical trick: describe “Medicare for All” as a benign, natural evolution of present-day Medicare. Look closer and you will see a radical program that will officially liquidate existing health coverage, destroy the health insurance business in a pen stroke, antagonize or put doctors and nurses out of business by dictating what their revenue will be. All that to create a health system run perfectly smooth and efficient by the government - just remember the disaster with web-based registration for Obamacare.
In case they can still be found in the NYT archive, please look for Mr. Krugman’s criticisms on behalf of the Hillary campaign in 2016 of Bernie Sanders’ socialist ideas.
7
The answer is, of course, that if the Republicans hate any policy like Obama Care, Gun Legislation, SNAP and other supports like Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare, most Americans are overwhelming in favor of it.
17
The problem with all these columns is that they are just an echo chamber. I've pretty much stopped reading them at this point. If you try to argue with a Trump supporter, they have their own facts about things and don't care a hoot about what Krugman thinks. The challenge for evidence and fact based policies is how to get the "trump base" to understand that most of what they think is obvious is simply wrong. That's a column I'd read over and over again.
Rgrds-Ross
9
American socialism is ONLY an effort to reduce damages caused by capitalism. Real socialism would get rid of capitalism, put all billionaires and millionaires in jail.
14
Recommended reading: "Viking Economics" by George Lakey. #thatisall
1
"Trump versus the socialist menace"
No, Trump is the menace; democratic socialism is not.
21
Mr. Krugman,
Clearly not all socialist leftists share your opinion of Venezuela. Several of them think that the problems in Venezuela are Americas doing.
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/01/24/open-letter-united-states-stop-interfering-venezuelas-internal-politics
9
Not sure I follow the attempted insulting sub headline. I read the green new deal and I think you all are coming for our pick ups.
1
Socialism and Fascism. Two sides of the same coin. In the end they constrain freedom and democracy.
3
Pointing out that Jesus Christ was socialist usually moves them off of this pretty quickly.
6
The only application of Socialism acceptable to the rabid right is when it is only applied to losses, but keep your greedy socialist fingers off of MY profits.
10
If you are in favor of a government that embraces both the basic values of equality and freedom, you're a socialist or, in America, a progressive Democrat. If you only value equality, you're a communist. If you value just freedom, then you're a conservative Republican. If you do not value either, as with Donald Trump, you are a fascist or authoritarian. Our Constitution endorses both values as in "equal justice under law," and equality by of race and sex, and "freedom of religion," "freedom of assembly," and "freedom of the press." It's not "Trump Versus the Socialist Menace," but "The Menace of Trump Versus Constitutional Democracy."
16
Where are Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, and yes, even "Uncle Joe" Stalin when we need them now!? We must have a deep socialism in America at this point to overcome the corruption and criminality of capitalistic democracy.
3
Stop sitting around waiting for the government to make your life better by making the life of your neighbor worse ....
6
Taking Stalin or Chaves as the faces of Socialism is much less honest than taking Rodrigo Borgia or Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker as the true faces of Christianity.
6
American Socialism and American Capitalism have simple definitions.
If the government helps me, that's American Capitalism. And is therefore good and right.
If the government helps anyone else and not me, that's American Socialism. And is therefore evil and wrong.
I figured this out when I was five years old. Until my mother spanked me and made me share my toys with my sister.
Darn socialist.
W
17
“Let’s just hope that the rest of the media report the clean little secret of American socialism, which is that it isn’t radical at all.”
Social Studies Social Workers Social Media
x
AI AR VR
________________________________
=
Democratic Socialism, 2020s-style
5
Policy discussions fly past Trump and Fox like a supersonic jet. Without Hillary to kick around. Lock her up, Benghazi and emails his record and future policies the main election topics might prove a hill too steep for the golfing President.
3
I long for the day where someone can effectively call out how socialist and actually fascist the desires of the MAGA crowd are. Alas they wouldn’t care as long as the can be assured the “proletariat” only includes whites.
6
"The Commies are coming for your pickup trucks."
Maybe not, but Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez and most Democrats are with the Green New Deal. What's your opinion on her proposal, Paul?
"On the other hand, we should never discount the power of dishonesty."
There's enough dishonesty on both sides of the aisle to choke a whale, Paul:
"Lie of the Year: 'If you like your health care plan, you can keep it'"
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/dec/12/lie-year-if-you-like-your-health-care-plan-keep-it/
1
A good column, but as with so many articles, op-eds, editorials, the NYTimes is preaching to a liberal choir. I’d like to read an article explaining, how large newspapers, media share articles. My Apple News app shows me selected stories from a variety of sources, but they pick which ones. What are the chances of that....stereotypical Repub supporter.... ever reading this column? Where will it be reprinted, should it be reprinted? Lafayette, Indiana? Moscow, Idaho?
I am clueless as to copyright, reprinting practices, but it seems media shouldn’t wait for politicians to travel the country making similar arguments - to their own choir of supporters, and then reporting on the speeches. I always laugh at the phrase, “reach out”, but perhaps the NYTimes, Politico, The Washington Post, et al, should reach out to small town papers, Farmer/rancher newsletters, and offer special reprint deals? Maybe start having some of your reporters call into all those talk radio stations- and argue a bit.
Columns like this, attempting to clarify, to counter generalized hype, or fact-checking articles- need wider circulation. Where is the liberal, 10-page competitor in the grocery checkout lane to the scandal sheets, to Alien Invasion headlines? Call it The Reach, The Conversation, The Other Fake News....The Real Fake News, but...reach out!!
4
Republicans are the party that regulates women, and nothing else.
4
Certainly, rap culture and its "scary brown people" is a great blessing for us all.
Never mind the commies: just start playing country music backwards, and your truck will be coming back ;-)
2
The appalling thing is that M.Krugman has to labor the obvious to a largely ahem... knowledge-challenged (phew!) US audience.
Those fine shades around the much-misused word "socialism" are unfortunately needed when milquetoast social-democrats such as, well, the Democrats, are routinely called communists.
The worst point being of course that total ignorants such as The President of the United States probably believe their own lies.
All the above being written by a French anarchist (a bit too old to join the Black Blocs, but not too old to stop hoping for an end to capitalism).
3
OMG, stop talking such plain and uncommon sense; you're making my head hurt after the SOTU.
4
The Socialists are coming! The 1% have been proclaiming that for years for fear of being losers in the money game. Communists is too blatant a word, so Socialists has taken its place but the meaning is understood anyhow.
6
Paying farmers to grow stuff they can't sell because of stupid presidential policies imposed in spite of opposition by a branch of the U.S. government which is supposed to be equal (congress) is not just socialism, it is Soviet style communism circa 1950. Trump is not just a socialist, he is trying to become a Soviet style Communist dictator in the mold of Khrushchev.
8
It is interesting that Mr. Krugman says that the right-wing media will portray the Democratic nominee as Leon Trotsky, a Jew ( born Lev Davidovich Bronstein) rather than Lenin or Stalin. I.m sure it was no accident.
1
I guess Paul wrote this before the Green New Deal was released?
1
My grandmother, dead now more than 40 yrs was a socialist. Strong supporter and worker for Vito Marcantonio - socialist/communist (depends on who you ask) from East Harlem. - Immigration changed the vowel at the end of her name from a to e because they did not understand Eyetailian. Illiterate Italian immigrant who raised a dtr (my mom) to go to college in the 1920's and become a teacher! Yes Donald my grandmother is coming for you and you should be afraid, very afraid
5
Trump will certainly volunteer to give back his 800 million in socialist subsidies.
5
“...Right-wing media will portray whomever the Democrats nominate for president as the second coming of Leon Trotsky...
And who might portray potential billionaire nominees as the second coming of Ross Perot...
*ttps://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/04/opinion/ralph-northam-howard-schultz.html
“...In any case, if there’s a real opening for an independent, that candidate will look more like George Wallace than like Howard Schultz. Billionaires who despise the conventional parties should beware of what they wish for...
OK – the third coming...
PS
Here’s the part you really like about Nordic law...
*ttps://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/26/world/europe/speeding-in-finland-can-cost-a-fortune-if-you-already-have-one.html
‘Fess up...
If that pickup truck is still sporting a These Colors Don’t Run sticker, but 18 years after 9/11 the owner hasn’t done a single enlistment, I’d be okay with the commies getting that pickup truck. Sometimes hypocrisy just has to hurt.
3
Dr. K’s obsession with the Scandi countries as a model for the US is farcical. Seriously. These are tiny, ethnically-homogenous countries. Please stop this nonsense.
5
(A) the Dems DID cut Medicare, by almost $1T, to prop up the execrable ACA;
(B) if Medicare – in the hole to the tune of $40T or so – is a success, how does one define catastrophic failure?
OF COURSE a free lunch (or checkup) is “popular”! Just like “Medicare for All” – right up until the people realize taxes will skyrocket to pay for it. If the left actually proposed to pay for Medicare, by clocking people AOC’s age with massive new taxes, query how “popular” the program would remain?
Which explains why AOC and the left never mention how to pay for their socialist utopias, except the profoundly dishonest “tax the rich”. But, heck, being a socialist requires one to be dishonest. Honest socialists don’t win elections.
Warren has expressly called for nationalization. (“Democracy” involves the right to vote, not the right to handouts. And AOC says she’s coming for ALL cars, not just pickup trucks.
But if you want to learn from the Norse, great! Sweden has universal school choice and no minimum wage. A good start.
More appropriate to a leftist, Denmark’s highest tax rate on “the rich” – 63% – cuts in at a princely $55K per year. THAT should be the leftist lead here. “You want what Denmark provides? GREAT! We’re taking 2/3 of anything above $55K.” Curiously, AOC and PK never mention that part.
You’re right: never discount the power of dishonesty. When you’re honest enough to actually mention the costs of your utopia, you can be taken seriously.
5
I'm against socialism - the word, not the concept. "Socialism" is one of those terms that has been so misused and distorted that, like a sweater that has been through the wash too many times, it no longer fits anything. Time to throw it out.
Here are some examples:“The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics” was a totalitarian communist state. The “Social Democratic Party of Germany" and "The National Socialist German Worker’s Party” (Nazis) were totalitarian states as well.
We went through a similar debauch of "liberal", a term that is now such a perjorative that we had to abandon it for "progressive".
3
If the base is so stupid that they believe it’s a good thing not to have health coverage, it’s a good thing not to have social security but build a wall that cost billions while your child goes to a school four days a week that is falling apart with uncertified teachers because Sam brownback a failed governor who destroyed Kansas who believes in economics from a milk carton not by going to school. Then you have the clown President you have longed for. He is a hater of democracy and a five time draft dodger but he’s going to Viet Nam wouldn’t serve his country but thinks he is the grand deal maker.
The rest of us who don’t believe in fairy Russian dust want a better life for everyone not just the white old elites who are in charge of stock buy backs instead of giving the tax cuts to employees
Better wake up and realize that this administration is in bed with the Russians and they don’t care about Americans. Listening to the new GOP member telling the parents of slaughtered children they would be removed if they continued to interrupt his wall speech shows that the GOP are all evil Russians and people who put children in cages.
Thank goodness we have New Democrats to save democracy because theses traitors yes traitors don’t care.
6
I’m sensing doubt and ingratitude here. The idea of socialism in America gives me the willies!
Some of you seem to be forgetting how well the free market has served America. How well it served Corneius Vanderbilt, the railroad baron, and J.D. Rockefeller, the king of kerosene. Great men. Great fortunes. Great monopolies.
In our own time, modern American capitalism has distinguished one of us —> an American is the richest man on the planet. Some say Jeff Bezos is the richest individual in human history.
Think of the value of what Jeff has done!!!
Did he invent the department store? Well, no!
Did he invent the mail order business? Well not that either.
The U.S Post Office. No.
The Interstate Highway system? Air Freight? The internet? Paypal? Credit cards? Overnight shipping? No.
But, the logical basis of the Devine Right of Kings obviously applies to Jeff “Oodles of Billions” Bezos. God wants Jeff to be the richest man in the world, because if God didn’t want him to be the richest, he wouldn’t be. Period. End of argument!
Folks who made great scientific discoveries, led world changing movements, created art, music and literature, invented inventions got their rewards.
The economic justice of 21st century American capitalism is unquestionable. Those who make the greatest contribution —> deserve the rewards of our corrupt, chaotic system.
You low lifes who pave the streets, empty the trash, and stock the shelves should shut up and take whatever you are given.
7
The upward tilt of Trump's chin in most photographs gives me the willies.
This comment is by no means off topic.
3
The Red Menace is BACK! Hey, Red baiting worked for Tricky Dick, Tail-gunner Joe, and scores of other Cold Warriors. And, as we painfully know today, fear-mongering works like a charm and generates humongous profits for those who monger.
3
Hey Krugman you old commie and all you other socialist remember something.
Socialists cannot invent the iPhone or Facebook or the Internet or any of the million other things you take for granted that require "capital" as in capitalism and the promise of profit. Ponder that when you are riding the AOC Green Express train to Hawaii
2
The only subject Steven Mnuchin could possibly give any credible advice about is how to marry a trophy wife, a subject about which absolutely no one cares.
3
Isn’t it frightening to you that this kind of incredibly dishonest and toxic messaging is coming fast and furious from so many liberals as well as from the right? I hope you will speak out against this in future as centrist Democrats fling “Putin puppet” and other McCarthy endorsed smears at anyone to their left on policy issues.
Also why does this paper consistently refer to only rich Russians as “oligarchs”? What about American billionaires? What are they?
The really "rich" thing the rich are pawning off is a version of "Call me by your name"...
I'm a rich fascist so I'll call you a commie to distract you from the real enemy of the state...that being me.
I'm boy friends with the real commies...and gladly take their money and their dirty tricks, but I'll call you a socialist to distract you from the truth...
I'm talking about unity, but acting in disunity...
Oh, and I'm not really as rich as I say I am...
Look at the birdy, look at the birdy...
6
Looks like Mr Krugman still thinks all conservatives drive pickup trucks and call liberals “commies.”
3
The chasm dividing us narrows considerably as you go down the age scale. The country is being divided by people on both the left and right fighting old battles that aren't relevant anymore. Paul Krugman, that means you, too.
Look at the sociological trends. Younger generations see education as a necessity. They feel doomed about health care and social security, and are angered at the oldest cohort in the country continuing to suck a disproportionate amount of resources. They consume less and invest younger, are better users of technology and information, look at income as a way to improve quality of life rather than quantity of stuff.
Gen X'ers have been saying for decades that all we have to do is wait it out until people start retiring. And we wait, and wait, and wait.
So I read a yet another column by some stubborn person hitting the upper registers of life expectancy arguing the same old stuff with other old mules. I find it a little exasperating.
If space would be ceded to younger politicians, editorialists, thinkers, doers, etc. there would be less acrimony and more polite disagreement, more compromise in finding answers.
Mr. Krugman, I love your effective use of sarcasm:"...apparently America itself was a socialist hellhole as recently as 2016. Who knew?" I laughed out loud.
Anyway, thank you for the clarification of issues and definitions, and how they are used in political discourse. Like so many Americans, I am not an expert in either politics or economics and I rely on articles like yours in which you argue for and against both sides. Very helpful, and I'll pass it on.
2
The Republicans parable about socialism is like the description of a scalpel. In the hands of a skilled surgeon it is a life saving tool. In the hands of a maniac, a weapon of death.I wouldn't compare the Nordic countries and Germany to say, Venezuela and Zimbabwe. Any form of government can be bastardized by anyone who lusts after power and greed. History is littered with them. Predatory capitalism isn't working.
2
Krugman's last paragraph is absolutely right. Republicans are trying to establish the false equivalence that anything not far-right extremist is left-wing extremist. It's the standard GOP playbook, because it's all they have. They would declare Richard Nixon an extremist for supporting environmental protections, and the America of the 50s and 60s a socialist hell-hole for it's tax rates on the wealthy.
I've even heard Republicans who are otherwise intelligent and reasonable, claim that Medicare isn't socialism, because we all pay for it with our taxes. Translation: "If it works and is so popular that we don't dare oppose it, it isn't socialism anymore."
6
WHO KNEW THAT TRUMP Is a Trotskyite? I'm sure that Trotsky would be appalled by any association with Trump. Countries in the EU have governments that are referred to as "social democracies," where the government has control over social programs. If cost and longevity were the prime factors, Europe would win hands down. There are always private providers for those who wish freedom of choice. But this is not about ordering a cheeseburger (of which Trump is reported to consume an inordinate number). When we needed to consult a specialist in France, our friends were able to get their personal physician the same day, a wonderful man with great warmth and empathy. The specialist was, likewise, supportive and empathic. The fees were negligible. I'd like to remind Trump that EU members to NOT live in "poop-hole" countries. Given the interest in cheeseburgers and in filthy speech, Trump should be surprised to learn that, as usual, the facts differ greatly from his descriptions. Question: Is it not costly for people in the US to keep their SUV's and other overly heavy and large vehicles filled up? My hybrid costs me between $5 and rarely $10 per week. The tank holds about 10 gallons. SUV's cost multiples of those numbers. Also, they contribute significantly to global climate change, which Trump denies. So he can take his plain out wrong view of Socialism and stuff it into his freedom-of-choice McD buger. Still, he's very well known for telling lots of Whoppers!
3
Freedom Fries! That's a little reminder of how scared republicans are of words. They re-named French fries to insult the French(look it up), use 'feminism' as a sneer, now socialism. It's like Obamacare; republicans thought it was a put-down. There is no trumpcare, have you noticed?
Dr. K's article is spot on, with actual demonstrable historical facts that nonetheless make many commenters sob about the S-word. The right's need to be loud instead of informed is weird, but trumpian.
3
Everything is relative. Nixon, Reagan, Bush Sr. all might qualify as socialist relative to what todays Republican party has become. The goalposts have been move so far to the right that what used to be mainstream conservative is now lefty, liberal, socialist.
3
It is the 21st century and the internet age. Responsible citizenship really should involve a bit of familiarity with the outside world, especially when one needs to look no farther than Canada to see that a lot of practical policies that are being labeled as "socialism" is normal in most of the developed world.
Sometimes, Americans really behave like inmates in an insane asylum, screaming out the window at passers by that they are crazy.
4
Our family served the navy 22 years they sent us all over the world to live ...I have used and seen how the socialists or Europeans and Asians provide for their populace, as far as I could see we were lagging terribly I also worked as a nurse 30 years and saw how our countrymen suffer and go bankrupt with poor or no health care. Why is having an army or police force not considered socialist? Or public libraries. When did we become so stupid that we don’t realize providing for people basic needs education and health provides a healthier richer populace.
9
If you haven't figured it out yet, the Republicans are trying to kill many of us by taking away our Affordable Care Act and Medicare and Medicaid. I mean it literally. With the art of the law and the flair of the pen, they strike us down using the law instead of answering to it.
4
America needs a functioning government, not a republican side show
6
In 2006 I had open heart surgery at the age of 72.. Things did not go as planned and i ended up staying 6 weeks in the hospital, 5 weeks in intensive care or some form of IC and one week in a regular hospital room. Then i was sent to a nursing care facility for 6 more weeks. (I am now fine.)
Thank the Good Lord i had Medicare. (Is He a Socialist?) Otherwise i might be living in a dog house.
12
I have lived in Canada or what the Republicans consider a socialist country my entire life. During my lifetime I have been a beneficiary of medicare, including access to no cost hospital services, no cost physician services and as a retiree, drug coverage. I have the choice of my doctor and through him my initial access to specialists. My family doctor is a member of a medical clinic, ensuring access to a doctor and my health records, even in my own MD's absence. I am proud to proclaim Canada as a social democracy and me as a Canadian.
Smoothing the payment for these services relies on a progressive income tax system. Low income people paying nothing with high income earners paying more becomes part of the social fabric. It is no burden to contribute and strengthens the public good.
During my career, I helped my employer, the Canadian arm of a US global firm, become the most profitable country around the world. All done despite higher income taxes. Social programs relieve employers from the burden of private payer programs. They protect people, but make employees more effective workers.
During my last 10 years in the employee benefits industry, I promoted an integrated public/private payer drug program - essentially a National Pharmacare program. The insurance industry agreed and some type of program may be introduced soon.
10
Americans need to be continually reminded of all of the "socialist" benefits and programs they enjoy and rely on already. Things like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, farm subsidies, most water and power projects in the West and Southeast, Interstate Highways, the Internet (thank you ARPA/DARPA!), the ACA its subsidies, and more. If people really don't want scary "socialism" then they should be prepared to give up its benefits that they already enjoy but take for granted.
13
I notice Mr. Krugman puts "socialist" in scare quotes because universal health care is not uniquely a socialist program. We have it in Canada, but we are not socialist by any means.
Socialism classically means the end of private enterprise, where virtually all enterprise is state controlled. How much free enterprise would be allowed is up to particular socialist governments.
I don't suppose pointing this out will stop Republican bozos from misusing the term, but maybe Nancy Pelosi could call them out on it in a way that will hit home.
9
I have employer-subsidized health insurance, yet when my L1 vertebrae was shattered in a car accident two days before Christmas 2017, my very first thought--right after "oh my God I had no idea pain like this was possible"--was, "How much is this going to cost me? I wonder if it's really that bad?"
Even with health insurance, that accident has cost me thousands and thousands of dollars. No one should have to try to personally assess if their broken back is something they can just "walk off" before letting a stranger call an ambulance. No one should have to run the numbers before letting ER doctors load them into the plane that will deliver them to trauma surgeons.
The American health care system as it stands now rips away your dignity when you have to weigh your health, mobility or life against the poverty that it can easily plunge you into. It's inhumane.
18
Krugman, move to any one of the Nordic countries that you mention. I'm sure there is a nice local paper there for you. I'll take the US and all that it can provide in opportunity and wealth. And, yes, I'll take the US over any Nordic country even with a lower life expectancy and lower "life satisfaction."
3
@David
Amen David—me too
1
I'm not the first to recall your hostility to candidate Bernie Sanders, but having had time to digest your article and readers comments, I wish you had written this way in 2016, instead of directing your fire on Bernie.
3
@mancuroc...Recall Professor Krugman's words "On the other hand, we should never discount the power of dishonesty". During the primaries he was trashing Sanders' ideas and touting the corporate centrism of Clinton. During Obama's administration, Krugman was a diehard Keynesian. The day after Black Tuesday, he denounced deficits as the ruination of Civilization. The good Doktor is nothing, if not an opportunist. Perhaps he is jockeying for a job in Trotsky's administration when the Socialists wash into D.C. on the crest of the Blue Tsunami.
4
@Albert Edmud
Sanders’ ideas still are trash!
I've spent extensive time in one of the idyllic social democracies that Krugman idolizes. It's indeed a very special place and I very much enjoyed spending the equivalent of years there during my life.
Wile many in the U.S. may think they want such a society, I believe most would recoil. The staggering tax burden, subtle but deep social controls over fundamental lifestyle and personal decisions, pressure for conformity, etc., all would clash with deeply-held cultural values here. Their systems also tend to rest on a common social foundation that values hard, concentrated work and mutual support--a foundation that is fundamentally missing in our culture.
8
"I think, therefore I am" - Descartes
"There is no such thing as society" - Margaret Thatcher.
Socialism is the political term for "fairness".
For fairness to be an issue you have to acknowledge that someone else, besides yourself exist.
After that you need to have some kind of relationship with that someone else. Once you enter into a relationship, then you take on duties or obligations as a result. For society we call it a social contract.
In my neighborhood we elected a democratic state representative. She simply talks about a kind of pragmatism that asks if a proposal or policy is fair, reasonable and decent.
They only thing that GOPers think is reasonable is extreme wealth concentration. However that is neither fair nor decent (nor reasonable nor in the long run, practical).
There were no progressives in the late Roman Empire to balance against the concentration of wealth and power (6 senators owned half of North Africa, alone) and so the wealthy and powerful used their influence to avoid paying taxes so that the Roman Empire lacked the political will to raise funds to raise armies large enough to protect their borders - to say nothing of their property rights - despite controlling ALL the resources of Western Civilization. It turns out the concentration of wealth and power, and the minimization of taxation, is just not practical, decent, fair, or reasonable. It's just the rich don't want to hear it.
12
@Tim Kane...What is "fairness"? Who defines "fairness"? Who judges "fairness"? Who polices and enforces "fairness"? What is the punishment for "unfairness"? Is the "fairness" so characteristic of all Progressives a genetic endowment from some higher entity, or can mere mortals acquire it through long years of deep meditation while wearing hair shirts?
What is wrong with health insurance, a pension, free education for all, no mass shootings in school? That’s what you get in most European countries. Maybe the reason for this also lies in the political system? When you have more than two political parties, chances are that they will need to compromise and really do what is best for the people - rather than the “winner takes all” outcome of a two party system. The US can learn a few things (not all!) from Europe.
5
Any good ideas on how to kick the insurance companies out of the health care equation? They will fight to the bitter end.
9
I agree about not making elimination of private health insurance a litmus test. But, not just for domestic political reasons. A look at other countries shows that all allow insurance usually to supplement the government program. Initially, the UK gave the National Health Service a monopoly. It later allowed private health care and private health insurance. Its interesting to note that Germany uses private health insurers operating under tight control to fund health care. It is important not to reinvent the wheel. Take advantage of others' experience.
3
@John Goudge...Look no further than America. Medicare does not cover all the cost of the services that it does provide. Private insurance is used by large numbers of Medicare recipients to fill the considerable gaps in Medicare coverage. Only fools, charlatans and profiteers think that free lunches are free. Caveat emptor.
1
Of course the GOP lies. Why wouldn't they? What price is there to pay?
Will Dems ever learn how to turn lies against liars?
How about an organized shout down? No, that would be too childish & unsuitable, wouldn't it? Maybe the new blood can figure it out. One can only hope.
6
@joel
And for god's sake don't bank on the mainstream media coming to the rescue. That went out with Vietnam.
4
It’s been a few decades since I traveled extensively in Scandinavia and stayed with families in these countries. I would note some differences so that comparisons between our society, our political history, and our economic stability can be seen in a more realistic light. The combined populations of these four countries is small and much less diverse than is ours. They are governed by parliaments. And these countries have contributed large numbers of previous generations to the immigrant population in America due to widespread poverty and inequitable land division in which the wealthy controlled most of the agricultural land and output. So, enough with comparisons to these countries.
A better comparison would be Germany and its diverse population of 85 million. Social democracy got its start in 19th century Germany after the failed revolution of 1848 against Europe’s monarchies. Many of the German revolutionaries – men like Karl Schurz – came to America and helped build our industrial, social, and political bases.
Americans fear “socialism” and Karl Marx because they have not read history. They know nothing about his economic analysis of 19th century Europe. Anything that smacks of a social safety net seems toxic to those among us that have good jobs, health insurance, and retirement plans, but the younger generation is looking back at their parents and then at their own prospects and seeing that the golden age of the Middle Class of the post war era is over.
15
From an Irish perspective what is called socialism in the US is just mainstream sensible policy: basic social welfare and medical care - and Ireland had never had a left wing government. The Human Development Index which measures life expectancy, education and income ranks Ireland fourth in the world, well above the US.
23
So here we sit in our highly inequitable corporatocracy with the rich getting richer, the middle class struggling and declining, and many young people in deep school loan debt and mediocre jobs.
Suddenly, Trump, the GOP, Fox et al. are petrified (esp. of the charismatic AOC) and are running around like Chicken Littles squawking "socialism, is coming; the Democrats are socialists," run, run away fast," And I can just hear old Mitch McConnell saying: "Socialism! oh no, the American people don't want that!"
However, the Democrats must be careful and use the term "democratic socialism," which is what a number of European countries have or at least elements of democratic socialism.
https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/what-is-democratic-socialism/
As Churchill said: "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing after they've tried everything else."
Can the right-wing GOP explain why advanced, smart countries--where the middle class fares better--are much further down the road and rank much higher in quality of life issues for people?
Why does the U.S., the richest country in the world, rank poorly and often last among advanced countries in areas such as:
health care (U.S. ranked #37 in world, between Slovenia and Costa Rica; France is #1),
infrastructure,
gun violence/safety (a health issue really),
a fairer distribution of wealth,
the environment or EPI (U.S. ranked #27; Switzerland #1, France #2, Denmark #3), under Trump and the GOP.
GOP
Finis
18
@PB
True --GOP propaganda makes "socialism" and "socialist" empty words for scary un-American policies, with "socialized medicine" the worst bogeyman of all.
But you can't advance an argument for improving life in the US by inaccurately conflating Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy: they aren't the same. Cautioning Americans to prefer the term Democratic Socialism is exactly what you DON'T want to do --especially when you cite the Democratic Socialist Party of America, a political party with an ax to grind, not a neutral source of basic information on varying forms of socialism, government, and policy.
Democratic socialism advocates political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production(*) emphasizing democratic management of economic institutions within a market or some form of decentralized, planned socialist economy.
(*) This will not sell in the US, and is NOT the form of government or economy in the admired countries of Europe which have left us in their dust when it comes policies that make citizens healthy, happy, well educated, secure -- and entrepreneurial.
Social Democracy is a political, social, and economic ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and capitalist economy
There's more to learn about this than Wikipedia, but it's a start!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy
1
I'm old enough to remember what the Republicans were promoting as an alternative to Medicare: keeping the Kerr-Mills Act of 1960, in which states were allowed to decide if they wanted to provide financial assistance for seniors' medical bills, and if so, which seniors would qualify. In some cases seniors had to apply individually after incurring large medical bills.
There were anti-Medicare ads on TV in which various seniors claimed that they were just fine because of the Kerr-Mills Act.
10
'Foggettaboudit' is one option in response to treatment costs and outcomes. That indifference characterizes for profit settings yet concern for those matters should be the norm as would more likely be the case in a Medicare for all health care system.
Competent, affordable, effective, empirically validated health care is already achieved in governmental institutions like NIH and NIMH.
Medicare for all with its empirical focus on outcomes rather than profit would save money while identifying and eliminating physicians who damage their patients through incompetence and malignant self serving conduct.
Centers that fail to identify, charge, sanction and dismiss such aberrant, incompetent, destructive and morally untethered physicians would be confronted in a Medicare system.
Today, we have Big Pharma utilizing DSM to justify multiple treatments individually priced often excessively yet in a Medicare treatment setting such a mode of charging for treatment would not be tolerated.
Our Nation deserves the best treatments available. They should be empirically validated and employed not for profit but for the well being of the patient. Medicare is more likely to achieve that objective.
Trump will never grasp these essentials but will side instead side with for profit enterprises. Profit should take a back seat to compassion in health care. That is not socialism. That is what our fellow countrymen deserve in a free and open democracy.
8
If the democratic party would support the Bernie Sanders, the candidate most likely to be able to have a chance against the re-election of Trump, your questions,definitions and fears on socialism by both party's would become more acceptable. Single-payer health care should also be a major issue on the agenda and policy enactment.The democratic party only offers hopeful candidates at this point....and the continued non support for Bernie Sanders will give Trump his stay at the WH for four more years. You show support for Sanders and the voters will most definitely follow the agenda. You have no one else at this time.
7
@Kerm
I voted for Bernie in the 2016 primary, and would vote for him again if he ran in November 2020. However, I would caution against "Bernie or nothing" in the coming primaries. I just don't agree that the Dems have no one else at this time. By contrast with 2016, there are several possible nominees who would carry the same torch in 2020, and maybe one of them will end up as front runner.
4
@mancuroc
Not a Bernie or nothing, a legitimate candidate who over 2 1/2 years ago started a 'revolution'. Most of his ideas would never have gone thru congress in 2016. Today we are in 2019 and the message is moving forward, with other democrats acknowledging what we did in 2016 finally. A candidate who funded a presidential bid on small contributions is and has to be one of the most amazing accomplishments for running a campaign and showing America true campaign finance reform. That is just the first item. Issues on Corporations,banking(s.2155)...if you supported Bernie in 2016 you know exactly what one is saying here and the program. And as in 2016 many felt he was the only one who could defeat Trump. Give him this time the necessary support from the DNC & DCCC, but these may be the same people who did not want him because? ...here we are today with 'his' program.
3
Dr. K,
Your readers might be interested in the final words of John Dingell, particularly his reflections on Medicare and Socialized Medicine:
"Think about it:
Impoverishment of the elderly because of medical expenses was a common and often accepted occurrence. Opponents of the Medicare program that saved the elderly from that cruel fate called it “socialized medicine.” Remember that slander if there’s a sustained revival of silly red-baiting today."
His full statement hours before his death as dictated to his wife Debbie,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/john-dingell-my-last-words-for-america/2019/02/08/99220186-2bd3-11e9-984d-9b8fba003e81_story.html?utm_term=.22d2ca036146&wpisrc=al_news__alert-national&wpmk=1
175
Common GOP definitions of "socialism" and "communism".
Socialism - The boogeyman who lives in the back of your closet and prevents you from getting out of your pyjamas and into your clothes in the morning so you can go to work.
Communism - The boogeyman who lives under your bed and will grab you by the ankles, thus forcing you to stay in bed in your pyjamas.
6
Mr. KRUGMAN has been drinking the far left Koolaide. A one payer system for healthcare? That is socialism. Free college for everybody? That is socialism. A job guarantee for everybody? That is socialism. Taxing the very wealthy at 70 or 80% as suggested by Miss ocasio-cortez? That is socialism.
4
70% above $10,000,000. And if you've got a problem with the word socialism, call it something else.
3
Did you go to a public school? Public library? Public park? Drive on public roads? Enjoy municipal water and sewer facilities? Do you have your own private security force or do you rely on the municipal police? Who would you call if your house catches fire? Alas, you are awash in socialism—at least as you describe it. (Hint: you’re incorrect. I suggest you check the dictionary.)
5
@Fatso
The top marginal tax rate was at 70% or above from 1936 to 1980.
Through all of those 44 years of socialist administrations, senates, and congresses.
You do understand the meaning of "marginal tax rate" I hope.
3
The subtitle is so patronizing that I decline to read the article .
3
Amusing to read all the comments simply yelling you’re a socialist commie at Paul. Rather like Donnie ‘a dishonest sotu speech. They never learn that louder is not synonymous with better.
11
As I understand it
A major reason conservative macroeconomist are out to end social security.
Is China has a competitive macro economic advantage because it has no social security
So the gdp needs to get that sixteen percent tax down to zero. And ponies for everyone.
It might be time to look at socialized medicine in Canada and extract the strong points from it, and avoid the long lines that occasionally interfere with timely care. Otherwise, socialism may be more sustainable in the U.S. than the current fear mongering going on within the right wing. Those prepper sites on Youtube are a good source for following right wing concerns, such as Kansas prepper.
1
I'm thinking of a bumper sticker - No Socialism? Then no Social Security. No public schools.
10
@R.S.
I am totally ok with doing away with both.
@R.S.,
...no military, no police, no fire dept., no interstate hwy., no food 'n drug inspections, no border wall, no farm subsidies, no crop insur., no, no, no...etc., etc., etc.,
Or maybe not.
2
The “road to serfdom” is unfettered capitalism, and our country is already a far piece down that road. Most of us are wage slaves with little hope of ever achieving financial stability, let alone a comfortable retirement. More than half of Americans couldn’t pull together $500 if they had an emergency. Bankruptcies spurred by medical debt have exploded. The is not a single state in which a person working only one full-time minimum-wage job can afford housing.
And yet the wealth of the superrich grows at a mind-boggling rate. Just three men in this country have the same amount of wealth as HALF of the rest of the population. Is it any wonder that American youth (and a fair number of us American oldsters) look to Democratic Socialism as a path to greater wealth equality?
18
Just look at the influence Roy Cohn, who was advisor to McCarthy, (he of the anti-American communist witch-hunt fame) had on Trump.
100
@M. Doyle
If Trump hadn't been influenced by Roy Cohn, his life would have been really/genuinely successful. His father also wasn't a good influence.
I happen to believe, Trump could have been a good, if not great president, had Cohn hadn't been in his life.
Cohn was bad for Joe McCarthy as well as for himself: Both became "parayas."
4
My two cent’s worth on socialism & Medicare for all: Tax the rich but modestly so that they won’t be scared: Leave the current tax-system in place, but at least have one other higher marginal rate of 45-50% on over $5-10million (on top 0.1-0.05% incomes) from all sources. Treat all incomes alike when the total reaches $1million. Cut payroll tax on the first $20K to 1-2% for both employers & employees, to be less of a burden for employers to raise minimum wage & a relief to the working poor. Lift the cap but cut payroll tax again beyond say $200K.
Strengthen Obamacare before bringing Medicare for All. Secure Medicare Expansion in all states. Gradually, raise the subsidies on Obamacare. Perhaps we can have a system of starting Medicare at 60, then at 55 & so on before having Medicare for All. If Obamacare is strengthened enough, that would be close to Medicare for All.
11
@A.G.
I may add, the principal reason why since the Reagan presidency taxes became so low for the rich was because it was too high prior to that. In late 1940s, the top 0.01% paid near 60% of their income in federal income tax, which came all the way down to 22% by 2005, thanks to GW Bush's 2003 tax-cut to 15% on capital gains https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e8/US_high-income_effective_tax_rates.png They resented it very much. When they secured a charismatic leader in Reagan who also didn't like paying taxes very much, they managed to cut federal income taxes for the rich. But the total taxes didn't come down that much. It shifted from the rich to the broad middle income groups. The bipartisan tax reform of 1986 had two brackets: 28% & 15%, the latter was too much of a burden to the middle class & former was a windfall for the rich. (White collar crimes proliferated too because if you bend the law to make as much as you can you get to keep some 40% more!)
So, I say don't be too "greedy" towards socialism. I'm actually for socialism; I admire Bernie Sanders, but what we can get in the near future ought to last for a long time.
Yes! Thank you Mr Krugman (again) for an excellent column. Years as a union organizer, then as a Commications Director with Occupy Wall Street, and now a researcher of the aesthetic, emotional fallout of oligarchies has left this 32 year old firmly in the belief that we must dramatically increase taxes on the wealthy, increase regulatory oversight of financial services, institute a Green New Deal and make Universal Health Care and Universal Basic Income protection the 21st Century embodiment of FDR's legacy. The New Progressive Era has begun.
12
This column is so important. If only all the news media would get this straight! The conversation is so confused because it proceeds before the terms are properly defined. The Democratic Socialists confuse matters and do themselves a disservice by calling themselves socialists. Is it too late to change? The word repels most Americans, who take it to mean that the government will take over all the farms, banks and factories and run the whole economy. If this isn't what the Democratic Socialists want, they should make it crystal clear. But why don't they just call themselves social democrats? Why call themselves something everyone hates? Or, if they wanted to attract the center-right, social capitalists? Maybe it is "only semantics," but semantics can be crucial. If all this could be cleared up, the Democratic Socialists would gain even more followers.
9
Paul Krugman: One reason the Republicans are able to make fun of our pols for being silly socialists is because some of them insist on saying they are socialists and, as I think most will agree, socialism as practiced is a failed economic system. I don't see any upside for AOC/Sanders types in calling them socialists if they are not. Other than that, I agree with everything you say.
3
@David
I think one read of the New Green Deal Manifesto will tell you AOC is not misrepresenting herself as a socialist. That is one thing she is right about, accurately portraying herself as a socialist.
Except... socialism hasn't failed. I live in Canada, a mixed socialist country, and our economy hasn't crumbled, our rich haven't fled, pitch forks and torches haven't been brought out against the ruling class. We merely provide a social safety net for everyone, which means we don't end up in insane situations such as a readily available medical treatment exists which could cure someone of a life threatening illness, but they can't get access to it because they can't cough up the 50k the treatment would cost
Do we pay higher taxes? Yes. Do we have a higher life expectancy, and higher rates of life satisfaction? Absolutely. The biggest complaint most Canadians have about our socialist system is that we need to expand it further to include things like vision and dental.
Furthermore, I would argue that capitalism has failed. Adam Smith assumed that the rich would look out for the common man, in the interests of avoiding revolution. Instead, the rich have employed a strategy of driving everyone that isn't the 1% against each other, distracting the populous from the fact that, though they eat up he vast majority of the wealth in the nation, they don't pay the vast majority of the taxes.
17
Completely agree! Classic socialism definition is government ownership and control of goods/services productions and distribution. I do not like or subscribe to this bent, it is insidious and dangerous for our country.
Dr. Krugman: very interesting shot you took at the University of Chicago and libertarian/conservative economists with your statement.
"If there’s a road to serfdom, I can’t think of any nation that took it."
Isn't F.A. Hayek's book, "Road to Serfdom", the libertarian's economic Bible?
1
We need candidates who can just laugh at the Republicans and ask if they really want to get rid of Social Security and Medicare, rather then getting defensive and denying that they are "socialists," thereby validating the propaganda.
11
@Michael
BRAVO !! Precisely my sentiment . Just dismiss it off hand .
Would someone please tell the
“darling “ of the freshman Democrat class , AOC this ? Personally , I think someone needs to reign her in . She needs to learn how to speak ! She is not doing us any great favors I’m afraid .
@Michael "Laughing" is not the response I think is best.
So the long and short of it is that Mr. Trump wants to stoke fear about brown people, and fear about healthy people.
Let's see what kind of mileage he gets with that.
2
You are discounting the intelligence of the average American. I mean look how beneficial tariffs have been, money just POURING into the treasury. Thank God Trump saw through those enemy nations selling us goods at reasonable prices. Of course Americans understand the underhanded and sneaky socialist way that Democrats wants to tax you for healthcare. They want you to pay THE GOVERNMENT for health care! No Thank YOU! I have every right to want to pay $1000 a month for prescriptions and $300 for an office visit. I am proud to support the greatest medical industry in the world... Say what now...? It's consumers who are paying the tariff money into the treasury...? Not those enemy nations like Germany and Canada...? I'm confused....
12
Uh? I'm having trouble understanding why the famous "Socialite" Don Trump is condemning "Socialism". Is it a diversion?
5
USA health care is number one in cost world wide. US health care is ranked 38th in quality world wide.
French Health care is ranked 34th in cost world wide.
French health care is ranked number 1 in quality world wide.
13
Socialism was a bogeyman made to rally the Americans into fighting back against Soviet interests abroad. I don't know if many Americans have realized this yet, but the Soviet Union is long gone. Today's true enemy is far more discreet and much closer to home: misinformation.
10
@Allen
"Socialism was a bogeyman made to rally the Americans into fighting back against Soviet interests abroad."
Ah, actually, Allen, in the first two decades of the 20th c., socialism and communism were attacked first of all because they were the parties organizing resistance - in the form of unions - in the capitalist industrial workplace.
1
A column titled, “ What is Socialism “ might go a long way toward denaturing the latent negative connotations of the word.
3
@RjW
"A column titled, “ What is Socialism “ might go a long way toward denaturing the latent negative connotations of the word."
A progressive social movement strong enough to say, 'Yea, so what?' would go further.
1
You can go back well before 1961--Republicans regularly attacked FDR for "socialist experiments." Just trotting out the greatest hits again.
10
@Tom Ward
Nuns in my Catholic grade school referred to FDR as a Communist.
Same song, different tune.
1
Paul you were wrong. A couple of 'socialist' countries have higher per capita GPD.
3
The Democrats are going to create a socialist nightmare where everyone is covered by health insurance, infrastructure is maintained, income inequality goes down, & the working poor get assistance. How will billionaires pay for their golden toilet bowls if this continues?
16
Can you please give us an example of such a Socialist paradise ? Not the Scandinavian red herring please, those are very much capitalistic countries.
1
I've been saying for a couple of years that American politicians self-identifying as socialist or "democratic socialist" (Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez, et al) really sound more like traditional, Rooseveltian New Dealers than true socialists.
The term socialist is among the most misused and misunderstood in American English. Even in France, the Socialist Party (Parti Socialiste) is not really socialist, but rather a center left, social democratic party in the European tradition.
In Marxist theory, socialism is the stage of political-economic development achieved after the proletariat seizes the means of production, and precedes the stage of communism, in which the state melts away leaving a communal society of workers living in harmony without the coercive intervention of a revolutionary cadre class. It's important to remember that during Marx's London years, in which his most important work was written, he rarely left the British Library, except to eat and sleep.
But even in Marx's day the word socialism had meaning quite different than the meaning Marx gave it. Marx was highly critical of the socialists, such as Proudhon, the Fabians and others. He viewed their social prescriptions as "bandages on a tumor," ineffective cosmetic solutions to the systemic cancer of capitalism.
Prof. Krugman is correct. No American politician of national profile takes this view. Maybe someone should?
6
@Squidge Bailey
I think you got that backwards. Socialism to Marx was the perfect society where the state has withered away. Communism is the state in which there is a Communist party which seizes power thru revolution and rules with the intention of creating a socialist paradise.
This is clear in Marx's "Communist Manifesto"
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm
Pretty patronizing to assume that I, as a young voter, want social democracy and that I don't actually know what socialism means. We know what both mean. It's socialism that we want.
Against the backdrop of impending climate change doom, tech corporations using big data to monetize and code every single moment and experience in our lives, and not to forget our hilariously fragile work opportunities as "permalancers," we actually do want to control the means of production. Boomers and their neoliberal politics clearly aren't going to save us. Some hopeful form of technocratic ethical capitalism isn't going to change the fact that there won't be fish in the ocean in under 30 years. We need radical change. Fast.
12
Rather than debating what socialism is or isn't, why not - as a recipient of the Nobel Prize for Economic Sciences - read through the Green New Deal and give America a topline estimate of its economic viability. You'd be performing a great service to the nation.
3
Instead of suggesting Trump is a racist for wanting a wall, I would prefer Dems brush his lie off as just that. He doesn't want a wall. He had the congress, courts and white house for 2 years and fumbled about til he was bailed out by a dem victory in mid terms at which point the Con brigade went into full fury about the wall.
Corporate billionaire profits swell when there is no wall. Why would republicans want a wall? Makes no sense.
So why would anything they say about socialism have any value at all? It doesn't.
Hwvr, it seems to me that Dems need to frame every issue solution in terms of helping everybody. Everybody needs health care and everybody knows how expensive it is. That's why it's a winner.
Why do socialist solutions to poverty help everybody? Because they can pay for their own insurance. They will be less dependent on narcotics thereby reducing the chance that the lawyer's son ends up trying it, etc. etc.
Simplify taxation and do away with the IRS, principally and let a corporation collect taxes like ADP does and have the state send individuals their returns and tell individuals to file it away or correct it if it is wrong. All this republican top heavy IRS bureaucracy is just there to protect billionaires. Lied to again. Government does do something well - protect the rich and the corporations.
1
I think "Compassionate Capitalism" has a nice ring to it.
2
@jeff
"I think 'Compassionate Capitalism' has a nice ring to it."
I think "Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest" has a pleasing ring to it myself, but maybe it's a personal thing...
1
This video claims the fall of communism was a charade. Even Lech Walesa of Solidarity was actually an agent of the communists.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1c_zVOBRmxw&t=530s
After watching it I realized I ddin't have the ability to prove it's wrong, but it is extremely implausible. If communism didn't fall, what kind of "communism" is going to rise in the future? It's hard to see how it would bear much resemblance to that of Marx and Lenin.
Another thought I have is that there may be a whole industry in the former Eastern Bloc of feeding Americans' paranoid fantasies. A lot of people realize the Cold War was a major factor in Americans' psyches for decades, and many Americans aren't ready to give it up yet. In some ways they need communism as a support for their own world view. They need to believe the world is a vast battle between the Religious Right and the Forces of Evil.
1
Why do conservatives cry socialism at the slightest mention of something related to economic equality?
For the same reason that Trump got elected; for the same reason that the Russians know they can influence elections by way of social media campaigns; for the same reason that the NRA can scare people into buying guns; for the same reason that tobacco companies still make fortunes and that car makers have made fortunes selling giant gas-gulping useless "off road" pickup trucks.
That reason is the ease with which 30 percent of the American public can be conned and duped. To paraphrase and adjust Mencken's wonderful quip: nobody ever went broke or lost an election by underestimating the intelligence and lack of education of the American public.
4
All of Trump’s “ideas” and goals are dependent upon his base not bothering to read history and economics.
3
@SCZ
Ironic. The history of Communism I've read always ends up with collapsed governments, starving people, and mass graves.
But hey, I'm just a deplorable. Albeit one with liberal arts B.A. in economic, M.S. in Finance, and CFA. Gess I juz learnt my histry rong.
Come to think of it, there is socialism in America, where the spoils are shared by all. It's called the NFL. Who knew?
We are a socialistic country-not purely but socialistic yes!
Unfortunately, the one word sound bite drowns out reasonable discussion. If the new "socialistic" measures are to take place, the country needs to be educated. The great minds of marketing can certainly come up with a series of ads directed not to only inform but to entertain. If they can do it for a boring Superless Bowl, they certainly can do it for a worthy cause.
In a nod to Senator Ernst, an ad in farm country with a talking pig saying "The Republicans are against socialism. Where would I be without socialist farm aid?" An ad along the southern coasts with a talking house saying "The Republicans are against socialism. Where would I be without socialist flood insurance?"
The examples are endless. Arguing the definition of socialism is boring. Fighting the one word fear-mongering needs something informative and entertaining. The anti-socialists need to be on the defensive and defend the programs that we now have that benefit millions of people.
1
If Dwight Eisenhower were around today, he would be called a socialist.
5
Socialism is being distorted into an "enemy" as part of 45's corrupting influence on our Nation.
3
The GOP's hypocrisy extends to this as well. For all of their purported fear of socialism, they worship the Pentagon, which is the single strongest socialist institution in this country.
So, they love socialism when applied to military spending -- it's just social spending socialism they hate. As ever, the GOP are kiss up, kick down in their approach. More taxpayer money to an already bloated Pentagon is fine; but taxpayer money for the weak, sick, and needy? Not okay to the GOP.
One hopes they'll pay real electoral consequences for their corruption and hypocrisy -- which is likely why they're fighting so hard to attack voting in this country.
3
@Daibhidh
"As ever, the GOP are kiss up, kick down in their approach."
'Servile to the rich, tyrannical to the poor' to paraphrase a...socialist sketch of the mass right under capitalism.
The old expression "be careful what you wish for" rings strong and true. One need only look at Western Europe to see
The other night (Wednesday, 2/6/2019) Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC during his "Last Word" segment discussed the NFL and how most stadiums NFL teams play in are financed with taxpayer money. As most of us know, or should, NFL owners are either multi-millionaires or billionaires, and an NFL franchise is a license to print money, but they are perfectly happy to stick their snouts in the public trough to fund their elaborate stadiums. The piece was noteworthy because the people of California balked at funding a new stadium for the Los Angeles Rams. So, the owner, in order to keep to his schedule of where the Rams will play their future home games decided to use his own money to build his stadium.
Is this socialism for all the other team owners, who don't use their own money? We don't have money for infrastructure, or an expanded safety net, but we sure do have money for stadia. What does that say about us as a nation? You won't hear that term, socialism, used by these owners, but what else is it? Take a moment and give it a name. Sorry, I looked for a link to a video or transcript of this discussion but did not find one.
2
The first casualty of war (or in this case politics) is truth. Dr. Krugman is correct that right wing pundits and politicians often fabricate and improvise the narratives of their opposition. I do tend to see more equivocation on issues on the right than on the left, yes, I avail myself of every angle of that is available regarding topical issues. This latest accusation of progressives rushing towards socialism is another twist of reality. The fact that conservative red states are the biggest beneficiaries of socialism is only an added irony. The fact that corporations privatize their gains and socialize their losses is yet another irony. Let's not forget that Trump has probably not paid federal taxes either. Right wing pundits rail against the so called power that the left wants to instill into government, on the contrary, accountable to the electorate is what is being demanded. The left want major corporations to have less power, economically, politically and environmentally. Conservatives push for unfettered capitalism where profit maximization by any means necessary is the ultimate benchmark of success.
Much of the wealth that the middle classes enjoy now were obtained by social programs, maybe the problem today is that the wrong people are getting them.
1
I flip the light switch in the morning and my electricity comes from Seattle City Light, a municipally owned utility. Green, and some of the lowest rates in the country, thanks to its own power production and purchases from BPA. Might put butter from Darigold or Land O' Lakes on my toast, both producer owned co-ops. Purchased at PCC, America's largest member-owned grocery co-op. Put on outdoor wear from REI, which I think is the largest consumer co-op in the nation. Bought some ice melt yesterday from the local Ace Hardware, a producer owned co-op. Used to be a member of Group Health co-op, now part of Kaiser Permanente, a mix of for-profit and non-profit entities. Socialism is already in the lives of millions of people and doesn't seem all that threatening.
2
Innovation is important and needs to be discussed much more. If we could leave our jobs and still get affordable healthcare, entrepreneurship would go through the roof!!
A few days ago I had a long-annoying skin cyst cut out by my GP - it was a 30 minute operation - I was surprised that it wasn't free - there was an 'equipment charge' - of $50.
We discussed top paying jobs reported in the media - cardiologist I'll see for annual checkup - she nodded without any doubt when I suggested he was probably making $1M a year.
So when I read that US doctors were not retiring as they feared they wouldn't have enough due to unknown uninsured medical expenses, I was glad I live in Australia.
Well, if by "socialism" you mean good roads, bridges, and other infrastructure; clean water and air; safe and healthy workplaces; a healthy and housed population; a good education system available to all no matter their economic standing; and a government that cares about the entire population, not just those who are wealthy -- well then I guess "I am a socialist."
If by "socialism" you mean a government that coddles corporations; spends freely only on military-industrial boondoggles, police and prisons; and a government that allows all but the wealthy to suffer and scrape as they can to survive -- well then, I guess I am against "socialism".
Extremist straw man arguments by "conservatives" who have never met a favor to the wealthy that they don't like just don't carry any standing for me. Why did Trump's "Tax Reform" have special provisions helping "pass-through" and "real estate" corporations so much...? Despite the wheelbarrows full of lies that tried to fool the public, pretty much everyone saw right through Republican attempts to paint that as a 'middle class' tax cut. Trump is fooling nobody but his own "base", who seem to actively crave being lied to.
If we really want to "MAGA" we need to Make America Great for Everyone. Trump's policies don't just not do that, they actively work against it. And so I actively work against Trump.
4
This strikes me as a golden opportunity to promote to your readers that they pay heed to an excellent book by a Finnish woman who married an American & lived in the US: 'The Nordic Theory of Everything: In Search of a Better Life' by Anu Partinen, Harper Paperback 2016. The gist of it that Nordic peoples' success is due to state (tax)-supported programs that inculcate individual responsibility and resilience, not dependence as Americans would tend to expect. Worth a read!
3
Americans, especially young, educated Americans, look around the world and see how much better off people in other democracies are, with healthcare for all, a good financial safety net and low-cost or free education. Naturally they want these things too.
America can have these social programs if its citizens are willing to pay taxes.
For example,SC has long been at the bottom of all states in such areas as education while at the top in domestic violence. Infrastructure, especially dams, is so-so at best. That's partly because SC keeps its tax structure very low. I pay less than 1/10 of what I paid in property taxes in CT five years ago. Yet people here complain they are too heavily taxed.
A reasonable tax structure would allow for improvements in services and infrastructure. It would allow for a good safety net. We could increase taxes on the wealthy again and provide good services to our people.
Having some good social programs doesn't mean we are a socialist country. It means we care about our neighbors.
2
Why would anyone want the vast happiness, world class healthcare, and social mobility and equality of the Nordic Model when you can have a system where 1% of the population owns 90% of everything instead?
I mean, just ask the 1% who control our government which system they'd prefer...
8
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
American culture, born of the Enlightenment, premised on "all men are created equal", shares some ideals with socialism. Reactionaries use this overlap to discredit those that advocate American ideals; thus do American liberals morph, in right-wing propaganda, into "pinkos", "fellow travelers", and "commie sympathizers" (terms used in the last century), and "leftist extremists", "liberal elites", etc., etc. now. There are those in America who don't believe in equality or democracy, and use their subsided media, sponsored think tanks, and bought-and-paid-for politicians to undercut efforts to promote equal rights and restore democracy.
It may be that every successful society trends towards plutocracy; but we are the spiritual descendants of Washington and Jefferson and Hamilton - do we surrender our legacy so easily?
8
The silver lining in this whole charade is that most Americans, regardless of political affiliation, no longer associate "socialism" with the bogeyman. I'm always surprised when Republicans (of which I used to self-identify as one) think this has a persuasive effect, but then again I don't own a silver spoon either. When facts don't work, use fear. I guess that's sort of a strategy.
8
@Medhat
" I'm always surprised when Republicans...think [labeling social safety net capitalism 'soicialist'] has a persuasive effect, but then again I don't own a silver spoon either.
Perhaps you belong to the spike in lower income Republican support for expanded government healthcare?
"The belief that the government has a responsibility to ensure health coverage has increased across many groups over the past year, but the rise has been particularly striking among lower- and middle-income Republicans."
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/13/more-americans-say-government-should-ensure-health-care-coverage/
Medicare and Medicaid supports a private free market healthcare system. It just happens to do it at a fraction of the costs that private insurance companies do because they are not profit driven. How Republicans can absurdly claim that it is socialism is laughable. Does our defense spending and payments to the private's companies of Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and others constitute socialism? Do our payments to farmers constitute socialism? I'm confident that if Americans could opt in to the Medicare system and opt out of their ridiculous high deductible private health insurance plans, and save a bundle in the process, the private insurance industry would go out of business.
10
Even “social democracy” sounds too similar to “socialism”. Let’s rebrand these priorities as something along the lines of “stability”. That’s what we’re all really after. Bonus it might even convince some of the republicans who cower at “progress” and change.
You don’t need Medicare for all. Just make Medicare available to everyone under 65 and then let private insurance compete with Medicare as a normal insurance provider. I’m bettering the majority of the under 65 group chooses Medicare. Now with younger healthier people buying their insurance from Medicare, this will help Medicare for us over 65 financially sound.
6
@jwgibbs Those 65 and older have had 2.9% of of earnings taxed over their working lifetime in addition to paying a monthly premium for Medicare. Additionally, Medicare has a lot of gaps that necessitate a supplemental policy.
1
It's hard to believe that even Republican politicians could make a case that rampant capitalism is better than social democracy--but I'm sure they'd try, because "make a profit" is their mantra.
4
@carrobin There isn’t no such thing as rampant capitalism. Our system is as regulated as any European nation.
Just imagine a "socialist" feature of the legal system where, if a business began to falter, the owners could petition the court to force creditors, in a logical order, to take less than they were owed, protect the business against lawsuits while it got back on its feet, and, when all that was accomplished, discharge the debts for the owners, thereby giving them and the business a "fresh start."
Now imagine that instead of a tool of socialism it was called "bankruptcy court," a was a place where Donald Trump spent a good deal of his "business" career.
6
@Dan88 I wouldn’t call government as an intermediary between a business and it’s private business creditors a feature of socialism. It’s not as if the court system is inherently socialist. Courts, judges, and the legal basis for bankruptcy precedes Socialism.
1
Whenever I get into an argument about the merits of Capitalism vs. Socialism I like to compare it to which side of the road your country has chosen to drive on. One is not inherently better than the other. What makes the difference is the driving quality of the people behind the wheel.
Socialism and/or Capitalism can produce excellent results if the people in charge know what they're doing. The opposite is also true, Venezuela and Greece being good examples.
Right now America has the worse kind of people in charge, ones whose hubris prevents them from considering any ideas other than their own. Remember, it was when the Republicans were in charge that we eventually found ourselves in the two worse economic down turns of the past 100 years. Also the country turned to the Democrats to find a way out of those economic swamps.
4
Hey Paul, instead of replaying both sides of an argument why not delve into the background reasons both sides have for supporting their positions? Perhaps (given who you are) you could start with what monies are at stake. You could use this theme on virtually every conflict.
3
Dr. Krugman forgot to bring up one very important characteristic of those Nordic countries--economic mobility. Plenty of good evidence indicates that in those countries a person can more easily improve their lot in life based on their willingness to work and their talent rather than the income class they were born into. And for me this speaks volumes to the real reason trump and the ruling elite are so threatened by "socialism".
10
@PJM: Well, he mentioned entrepreneurialism... facilitated with good results in the Nordic countries, where people don't end up clinging to their unloved job, just for the health insurance for their familes...
1
"The markets will implode if Trump is elected." Krugman. My magic 8 ball is more accurate that Mr. Krugman.
2
“Socialism” as it’s extremely poorly understood in the US merely means the expansion of its claims to “freedom” and “democracy” to the citizens of the United States.
Those terms have been used to disguise capitalism and colonialism for almost 100 years now.
“Freedom” has meant freedom to exploit and profit without any annoying restrictions, like health protections or a living wage for workers. Freedom for business to profit, no matter what the cost.
“Democracy” has meant the right of the business class to overthrow any government that gets in the way of their profitability and exploitation, anywhere in the world.
It is simply time to rid this country of such hypocrisy, criminality and lying, and replace it with true, economic democracy for all.
Surely this should be seen as a deeply American Cause; and those opposed to it should be considered traitors to our principles, and tried as such.
All the lies about the “failure” of communism and socialism should be put to rest by the naked fact that in a mere 20-30 years, China has caught up to and surpassed the progress it took the West 150 years to accomplish. Russia has remained technologically and militarily competitive as well. Both were impoverished, agricultural societies until recently. Pretty amazing, for “failed” systems, eh???
Truth is quite clear to the majority of us here; those stuck in 1982 should be carried off to an island where they can relive their fantasies until they die.
Capitalist Fantasy Island.
5
@Steven: Speaking as a socialist of some sort myself, I have to say, the argument about China catching up miraculously fast doesn't really work. China (and Russia, earlier) had the model of modern industrialized society ready to implement, and it was that model that had been developing for 150 years. (If you want to call it 150 years.) It didn't take 150 years to build the factories of the American auto industry, it took 150 years to get around to starting to build them. Once you have the designs, and the global transportation systems and so on, they go up pretty fast.
(This is a theoretical point, when the important point is the brutal repression and death toll of the "progress" of Russia and China. Of course, the West had its own repression and massive death toll, but the Russians and Chinese compressed theirs into a short span of time. Obviously it's more complicated than that, but still...)
It's pretty disappointing when you think about it, that Russia and China, supposedly the great socialist experiments, seem to have only managed to replicate the western model of industrialism, complete with managerial classes and high levels of inequality. Where are the specially socialist qualities? They don't seem to have shown up. Not there, at least.
4
It is unfortunately that someone as accomplished in economics as Professor Krugman is, would act so irresponsibly as a journalist under the guise of opinion.
Every article is full of vitriol and so one sided. It fires up the liberal base, but heavily contributes to demonization of the "enemy" and increase partisanship.
Cuba, Argentina have tried socialism and see their economies go down the toilet. Venezuela has 10 million percent inflation and no food or basic supplies.
Yet liberals always love to point to Scandinavia, a collection of countries with a population of about NY state, with vast resources, and tremendous lack of social diversity that would make a Republican Yacht club look like the rainbow coalition.
Immediate confiscation of all assets of every US billionaire would not pay for 1 year of "Medicare for All". Also note that even the GAO acknowledges that Medicare for All would have to dramatically cut coverage of current Medicare recipients, and this would be not be done by Satanic Republican Conservatives.
6
@nydoc
Why on earth would you think that providing health care to all the people of the US would somehow turn the country into Venezuela or Cuba?
Health care for all is not a liberal or conservative thing and has nothing to do with any base. Providing it is just the right thing to do--and somehow easily done by so many other nations yielding better heath care outcomes..How could it be wrong?
The "please die now" and "profit before health" system which you seem to tout is just cruelly unethical.
2
@glennmr
Look at Canada. You have to put caps on salaries of doctors and hospital charges to make it work. We have 54% income tax, 13% sales tax, various carbon and energy taxes on home utilities and yet we still have to limit what surgeons and specialists can charge in a year.
American surgeons an specialists will have to see a cap in annual billing in any single payer scheme.
This will cause a problem for some richer Canadians because when we are willing to pay for better healthcare in the US, one of out premiers and richer citizens chose to travel down south because your healthcare is better for those who can pay. Don't lose that like we did.
Instead of trying to nationalize it all, why not try to make it affordable and subsidize the middle class and the poor? There are many countries with 2-tiered universal healthcare and they've covered everyone, and still preserve a higher quality overall system.
Some have even provide a profitable medical tourism industry where mult-millionaires choose to travel regularly to.
US politicians are not leading, nor are they following the will of the people on healthcare. They are taking care of themselves and wealthy donors at the expense of everyone else. They will not even have a thoughtful debate about how socialized medicine works well throughout the world. Worst of the worst these so called "leaders."
3
Stridently anti-fascist Trotsky was exiled, then assassinated, by the Soviets under Lenin, whom he had denounced as having betrayed the ideals of the revolution that ousted the tsar.
There are lots of worse role models to follow; unfortunately, one of them is currently in power in the US.
@BobAz Read some history....under STALIN not Lenin. Uncle Vlad died in1924, Trotsky was ice-picked in 1940.
@Sipho Yes, you're right on dates, but the point's the same.
@BobAz If you truly had studied your history, the claim of the good-hearted communist destroyed by the evil usurper who corrupted the noble ideals of marxism is not an exception --- it's the rule. It always happens.
Collectivism, the centralization of power is a system that encourages the worst human beings to kill off their weak opponents in order to achieve absolute power. Mao and Stalin did not happen out of accident, it's written in the DNA and the natural law of the Marxist system. Run the experiment 10 times, the same thing always happens.
Anyone who says these experiments were run wrong and that there is a correct way to implement marxist socialism is really saying "If I (or Trotstky had won) was in charge, I would do it right and usher in Utopia".
(1) You are not. Because no-one stays incorruptible that long with absolute power. And Trotsky is not incorruptible either.
(2) If by some accident you happen to be truly kind and benevolent, someone more ruthless than you would have eliminated you within a short time.
So many people throw about comparisons without actual proportionality. Trump is an evil person worse than Lenin or Stalin? Did Trump kill off tens of millions of people yet? Has anyone who disagreed with Trump ever been dragged through the streets naked and hung by lamp posts yet?
I'm not saying Trump is a good person, but comparing him to the worst butchery in history and pretending that they are even comparable is extremely dishonest.
I love the health care plan the Republicans are advocating. Here, let me explain it to you...
2
What most who like to self-describe as socialists need to do is (1) learn what historians and political scientists call socialism (2) stop saying that most Americans are socialists when they are really advocates of a mixed-economy (3) accept that America needs a government that most people (ie, non-nut jobs) can at least partly like and agree to compromise on labels by not calling our economy socialist--unless they really want socialism, which Mr Krugman suggests they don't.
Can't we all just get along--even if it's only by ditching incendiary labels?
3
I don't know if modern high schools offer Civics anymore. Back when they did, it seems to me that we learned about the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, what a Republic was, what Democracy was and what a Representative Democracy was. It seems to me that we also learned the differences between Socialism, Communism, Totalitarianism, Dictatorships, Representative Democracy and a Monarchy, as well as the different layers of government in this country. If high schools are no longer teaching Civics, then students are missing a huge and necessary part of their education.
6
I do fear, that the new Republican buzz word, i.e.,socialism, will speak to many base voters will embrace and embellish upon as they do not read enough to understand what socialism is. To them, it truly means communism as most of them truly have no idea what totalitarianism is.
Honestly, I have to say that after Trump's election, I have lost faith in the Republic. Maybe if the electoral college were abolished once and for all so we could have a truer democracy, a little of my faith in the electorate could be restored, though for the moment, I fear they will believe any doublespeak that comes from the double speaker in chief.
3
@Manuela
God I hope so. If AOC is the face of the Democrat party, nothing could please me more.
Remember the Koch brothers old man was the founder of the anti-communist John Birch Society. The super-rich fear any move toward higher taxation and re-distribution of wealth, and use the scare language that the Birchers perfected in the McCarthy era. In fact, once the public starts to understand how they are being snookered by those superrich, the re-distribution may actually become more prevalent and pronounced. So the propaganda machine has to be kept cranked; the far right congresspersons and Senators, and POTUS are on the payroll for these superrich - and those in the cabinet are amongst their ranks, so also fear the masses becoming enlightened.
5
@David Yes, people get to be rich by either selling goods and/or services or by investing in businesses that do. I didn’t know this was a big mystery.
Having spent some time in several European countries, I noticed there is a distinct lack of tension over health and health care. Medicare was a huge advance for our society. It was unpopular with Republicans and southern Democrats then and is still a prime target. Companies like United healthcare et al. and the other companies that market so Medicare advantage plans have rigged the system to undermine Medicare and further enrich the few. I believe they are largely criminal enterprises. Call me a socialist? Fine by me.
4
The problem with socialism, if you can call it that, is its vulnerability to corruption. When you write a bill like Medicare for All, the opportunities for special interests to siphon off money is almost impossible to avoid when the government is as corrupted as it is now. Just the one corruption of not allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices cost us almost $100billion per year. What is sad is that anti corruption measures enjoy enormous bipartisan support.
1
Sure, “Medicare for All” is a potentially inspiring slogan (at least inspiring to some), but it doesn’t effectively capture the reform our health care system needs.
What Americans require is the absolute guarantee of health care at a cost that won’t bankrupt them. Medicare is a system for delivering health care to older Americans. Perhaps there is a good chance that it can be modified to be the guarantor of health care for all, or perhaps such a change would prove it incapable of shouldering the burden.
Either way, D’s need to, at some point, attack the real core of what guaranteed health care would mean: how to fund it. It is deceptive to say say that we can’t afford Medicare for all. We can’t, if all we do is expand Medicare and charge the bill to the taxpayers. But, as Mr. Krugman has often pointed out, we already pay more for health care than most other wealthy countries do. We just allow that money to flow to for-profit organizations. The real task, and it’s a big one, is to rearrange the flow of money that we already spend in such a way that it covers the guarantee of health care for everyone.
Guaranteeing health care for all shouldn’t be more expensive that what we now spend, so it is myth that we can’t afford it. D’s should immediately begin striking back at R’s who use this claim to portray this as an unaffordable dream.
It will not be simple to divert the flow of profits, which is why Obama crafted the ACA the way he did, but it can be done.
2
The Democrats are almost always right on the issues and wrong on the message. Right to Choose or Right to Life? Tax Cuts or Tax Relief? I'm With Her or MAGA? They're stepping in it again with socialism. It's a bad word with lots of baggage. Why keep defending it by trying to explain legacy programs, like Medicare, as examples of socialism when no one sees them that way, or cares? Let's call it something that sounds new and hopeful, like Compassionate Conservatism (or Clean Coal). Bad ideas but really well branded.
6
Socialism: a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
This drives me crazy. Democrats need to get their nomenclature right or we will never achieve Medicare for all. Mr. Krugman stated clearly that few Americans want the definition of socialism above, but actually want "social democracy." This is a super important distinction that if we do not begin to state correctly we will be never be able to overcome the communist tinged definition it currently holds for most people. Even commenters here are using the word socialism to describe social democracy. Seriously. Wake up. Call it social democracy now if you ever want Medicare for all. By the way, this doesn't mean that I think that cooperative corporations aren't the bee's knees. They are, but that is the next step and it would be voluntary. There is nothing to fear in social democracy at all.
4
@Jojojo It's only extremely recently that the word socialism has been used openly in American electoral politics. Democrats talked about the Safety Net, and Infrastructure, and Public Education and so on, and sometimes, after hours, it might be mentioned that these, and the police and fire departments, could be called "socialism" if we didn't have a taboo in this country. There were hardly any open socialists, and still the Republicans railed about socialism, and Communism, for that matter. It's not just about us getting our vocabulary cleaned up.
Whether the Soviet Union, China under Mao, Cuba under Castro or Venezuela under Chavez what all these countries that “went” communist had in common was a populace at their wits end that saw no future beyond dreary misery.
At that point people can be expected to say, if I can’t aspire to a position above my current state, then let’s bring the privileged down to my level. This works vis a vis the current wealthy aristocrats, unfortunately the replacements that fomented the revolution end up being no better that the previous overlords.
Today’s .001 % would do well to ponder this while vacuuming up as much money as possible, if walls and gates can be erected they also can go in the opposite direction in a much faster fashion.
2
@doug Good point. What I cannot understand, (and I am by nature a conservative), is why/how the Feds allow the wealthiest man in the world to continue to expand his greedy pursuit of accumulating every remaining dollar. Why did Bezos need to take over Whole Foods? And all of his other money-grabbing exploits - Is there no government oversight that MIGHT want to consider DISAPPROVING any further acquisitions by this man?
I get Free Enterprise, I really do. And I am against the basic concept of Wealth Redistribution, (Libs grabbing a large chunk of hard-earned pay of the working class, to hand out to those unwilling to work, "Career" Welfare recipients, etc). But shouldn't there be some kind of Common Sense limits to how much wealth hording we must allow? I think the top 100 (maybe 1,000) earning companies (and/or people) should be strictly limited in widening their reach for business/profits, unless they can document that they are filling a void, AND not harming other people or business competitors. When all we have left to buy from are Amazon and Walmart, we will be their slaves.
This was literally the “rationale” of Trump voters. It’s already happening. Batten down the hatches and polish up those escape plans to New Zealand and Mars.
Really the forces that are driving progressives and the slow building popularity of their ideas are so fundamental and strong that its eventual political success is inevitable. With each election cycle in the coming years it will gain more and more of the power in government across the country. The reason for this is the failure of conservative and neoliberal (Republican, the Clinton's, the DLC) policy, especially in the face of huge economic shifts with automation and globalization and the high tech industry. As these policies have no indication of changing direction or doing anything new, they will continue to fail to the point that even demagoguery will no longer work as a distraction. All the progressive ideas, better access to education, possibly public college without tuition, single payer healthcare, more public investment and higher tax on the rich, support for labor, and what else, are eventually going to get tried.
3
I hope the sudden re-emergence of this word won't sweep Trump back into the WH in 2020, but I fear it will. Because it isn't really socialism when we talk about establishing certain socially desirable positions, like a guaranteed job at a living wage, universal health care outside the for-profit sector, extended public support of education, and a concerted effort to stem the existential threat of global warming. It is merely common sense. But now we're calling it "socialism," and that will only serve to harden and extend Trump's base of ignorant, fearful xenophobes. Look for Republicans to use that word in every utterance for the next 16 months.
1
I don't understand Republicans' fear-mongering and their faux outrage about so-called socialism. They have already established socialism in the United States, but it's only for corporations. Profits are privatized and costs to society are socialized. The problem in this country is this one-sided socialism.
4
@Pectinaria No one is giving corporations money as a general rule. They make profits by selling goods and/or services.
1
Did you read the comment? There are more ways to socialize costs than “giving money”. Deregulation comes to mind. As well as allowing unprecedented consolidation, limiting competition.
3
"Socialism", the word, is toxic in our current political landscape, conservatives see it as progressives see the word "fascism", the word itself is repugnant. Progressives should re-brand the concepts of socialism to something else, "Western European Socialism" doesn't cut it since the word is still in there, I suggest "Modern Capitalism".
3
@OldManKeith: The curious thing is that the word "socialism" suddenly seems less toxic than it has been for as long as I can remember (which is a long time). I don't want to feel any foolish optimism, but at the same time that open racism is getting toxic, and LGBTQ acceptance seems to thrive, which, who could have predicted that a few decades ago? Open discussion of socialism actually seems possible. Amazing, and let's welcome it.
2
Thank you Mr. Krugman for writing this article and explaining what a lot people already know if you stop to think intelligently about this subject. As an American living in Paris, I see that obviously the United States is far away from being close to any kind of socialist state. Even President Obama who the Republicans pegged as left left-wing, a die-hard socialist and often as a communist, could have never gotten elected in a country like France. He wouldn't have been nearly "socialist" enough. A "trick" indeed as you say! Shameful.
2
I sure hope most Americans now realize the truth lies somewhere in the middle... Whenever you read an article by a very liberal (or conservative) writer, warning you about "the power of dishonesty" from the opposite end of the spectrum, just know that they, too, are slanting and twisting facts and words as well. I think we are all smart enough to know the self-proclaimed "Socialist" politicians are mostly not that. But they ARE nearly all clueless idealists. What we need to fear, is the "California/New York" brand of "Socialism", which is quite ruinous for anyone who is NOT part of the wealthy "1 Percent". I just returned from a visit to Los Angeles, where the taxes on everything are so extreme, that gasoline costs MORE THAN DOUBLE what it does here in Dallas. (I paid $1.79/G here Wednesday, and $3.89 there on Tuesday). I heard someone complain that a single pack of cigarettes cost them $10.39. A gallon of milk there is almost TRIPLE what we pay. Talk about working poor, I met several folks who make what I would consider to be a very comfortable middle-class income ($60-75K), and they have NO home ownership, savings, or retirement funds. It takes every dime they earn, to register and fuel their car, pay rent, and fund all of the ridiculous liberal Cali govt expenditures, including far too many handouts to people who do not belong there. THAT is the "Socialism" the conservatives are worried about. The Working Homeless. Coming your way soon, if you elect "Socialists".
5
The facts are simple. The American people appear to be profoundly stupid. We pay at least twice as much per capita, TWICE AS MUCH, for our "health" industry as anyone else in the world and have one of the very lowest outcomes among all "industrialized" countries (Switzerland, which has a system somewhat like ours, is the only one where the costs are even near to ours). That includes virtually all of Europe. That is outcomes measured on average life expectancy (now going down in US), infant mortality, and maternal mortality (now going up in US). We could adopt the system of any European country, or Canada, whole cloth, and do much, much better. There is no other word but profoundly stupid.
2
@Donald E. Voth: And yet, objectively, we're not actually stupid. So, what is happening when reasonably smart people act in really stupid ways? Well, I don't know. Maybe religion? Tradition! Politics?
The very rich NFL owners love their socialism...mega stadiums build with taxpayer monies! Farmers love the government checks! For conservative, rich, republicans they love their socialism. The bad socialism are those give away programs for those other folks.
3
Let us remember the "toxic" word: Communism. Because of this word, we needlessly created a war in SE Asia and caused the death of millions of people. At the same time we cuddled "communist" China and now they are the biggest threat we face economically. Go figure how politicians can distort words to mean something good or bad depending on how they want to manipulate the system to suit their power grabbing needs.
1
I'm not scared of socialism when it comes to a Democratic nomination.
Quite the opposite.
The last Democrat president was a CorporateGlobalist. He was willing to sell out American jobs for the benefit of the corporations. The middle class was decimated during the Obama era, losing 80 percent of it's wealth.
Now the nominee's are swinging on an extreme between socialism and the same old establishment candidate.
Nobody close to a down the middle candidate this independent would consider.
4
Most American's don't even know what "socialism" is, so discussing the topic with them is virtually impossible. To them socialism = communism = leftism = progressivism.
Most conflate total market socialism with socialism as a whole, this is factually incorrect, but good luck getting people to understand that.
Is the way our military is structured and paid for socialistic; and should we privatize it?
@Frank Salmeri: They are, and it's one of the worst things that's happening. Behind the scenes lately, but it's happening.
Americans have been sold a lie that poor people can all make it if they just work harder.
But those countries like Denmark, Canada, etc. all have better economic mobility, the ability to move up the economic ladder.
In the US, the biggest predictor of how well one will do is how well their parents did.
2
The headline says “Trump and the Socialist Menace.”
Why is it only Trump that motivates our columnist to grapple with our distorted definitions of the word ‘socialism? Where has he been?
Our columnists and TV media have let the GOP and our mega donor dependent lawmakers define socialism. This has scared Americans so they’re distrusting their own govt as a threat to their freedoms.
Pretty nifty piece of propaganda, as the 1 percent mega donors to elections set the norms of policy making---in taxes, regulations, jobs, health care, education, you name it.
We the People don’t have any clout in what was once the world’s great democracy.
If these distortions had not been allowed by the media to dominate voter perceptions of what govt owes the public, maybe our rw extremist GOP wouldn’t have been dominating our 3 branches of govt.
And maybe the FOX News monopoly wouldn’t have been able to grow to such influence across the land.
And maybe Trump wouldn’t have been elected. We wouldn’t have inflicted on us such a warped speech given by an American president.
When the eminent British political/satirist commentator Johnathan Pyle was in New York recently and walking around Manhattan and environs, he stopped for a moment in front of the Fox News HO and while the camera panned up and down the building, he stated in his usual British understatement:
"Fox News, whose temple and its occupants are fully dedicated to the dumbing down of America".
So it would seem based on far too many of the totally uninformed comments on this issue I read here, it is very clear that the Fox News(and Republican Party) approach is having the desired affect.
2
THE NEW DEAL, not a green one, FDR's NEW DEAL.
I now have to refer to myself among professional colleagues as "a Democrat but not a Socialist".
If the lefties keep it up, I will join Howard Schultz in the center and see how they like that.
the Millenials are taking the Dems overa cliff into a McGovern-like landslide, the wrong way
Complete miscalculation and egotistical world views.
3
Has anyone, commenting here, lived in socialist/communist country? The best example of a catastrophic and miserable society is only 90 miles away from United States, Cuba. People’s opinions, comparisons with other socialist countries, given from the comfortable, enjoyable society we all share, don’t tell the true story. It takes to live among the people who are suffering such a regime. YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU GOT, TILL YOU LOSE IT. DON’T LET THE RHETORIC CONFUSE US
3
America already has the worst possible form of socialized medicine for those under 65 - private insurance.
They milk their customers all the way to bankruptcy, and I've read that EACH of the top 3 insurance company CEO's make north of $130,000 PER DAY.
These companies charge us usurious rates when our health care expenses are at their lowest, then dump us on to medicare as our costs rise.
Why Americans would continue to tolerate this, and call themselves fiscally responsible is beyond me.
1
I was at a party a while back -- while Obama was still in office -- talking to a police officer, who spouted off about Obama and the ills of socialism and how inept the government was. I then asked him whether he considers the police inept, to which he replied incredulously about a question that seemed ridiculous to him. I then responded by reminding him that he a government employee, which is something that I'm quite sure never crossed him mind. He replied that while he worked for his town, that his town was not the government.
Needless to say, it's really tough arguing with people who really have no understanding what "socialism" or "government" is.
2
Trump's bogus use of the term "socialism" assumes we are too stupid to know otherwise. He may be right, given the dismal state of social studies education in America. We are the most undereducated of all the wealthy countries.
1
Always with the Scandinavian countries. Both Denmark and Norway have a population of 5 million people. The US has 325 million. NYC alone has a population of 8+ million. How does what 'works' in those countries have any remote relevance to us? And why are you even comparing us to those overwhelmingly white countries? Are they somehow better/smarter because they're white? My my, Mr Krugman.
4
Hahaha, very good. The two words in political discussion that make me chuckle spontaneously are "socialism" and "libertarian." The former because most people who start throwing the term around have no idea what it means (hint: it's not an "ism" with distinct goals written in stone, it's better described as an attitude or frame of mind). The latter because it's a fantasy game enjoyed by privileged white boys who somehow think they would survive the ideology's natural conclusion, that being a club across the skull by someone much stronger than you.
1
Mr Krugman takes exactly the right path here. It's easy many to hate a foggy concept that some probably even confuse with communism.
But when one talks about specific policies the fog lifts and the sun shines bright and proud.
Public schools are "socialist." Medicare is "socialist." The national highway system is "socialist".
2
I'm surprised a lot of people, and even Sanders/Ocasio-Cortez themselves, would even use the term 'socialism' to describe any socially liberal proposals especially since they should know of the Boomers' shell shock from the Godless commies in the 70s-80s. Welfare-state Liberalism is less of a misnomer. Unfortunately it doesn't have the sting that the word *socialism* entails.
Joe McCarthy, Roy Cohn, Nixon and now Trump got nothing on the cabal Republicans have always led to assure we don't help the less fortunate among us, or care for the elderly, or educate our children, or prevent egregious wealth accumulation and the South American plague of 1% vs 99% dictatorships and corruption.
Socialism, really? Exactly what do you mean by that tagline? That as a country we take care of each other? No, better it be the market driven predators and corporate moguls who lay waste to the country and the world in pursuit of greed.
Not only is it not socialism, it is a democratic reaction to GOP-style fascism, which at the moment is sweeping the country under the Trump autocracy. No American is fooled by the cheap, rabid rhetoric of wannabe sexist billionaires in ill-fitting suits running around like Chicken Little shouting socialism because they can't compete with the truth or get a date with the delightful AOC.
Thank you very much, Paul. Your essay is most helpful and clear—so much so that I believe even my 15 year old grandson can understand it. He’s recently and unfortunately become enamored of our divisive, prevaricating President, as well as his lies about the “evils” of (democratic) socialism. My grandson is indeed very bright and such a good kid with such a good heart that it pains me to see him influenced by his peers in this manner. So I truly appreciate your essay’s down-to-earth writing style, and can only hope that it will open his eyes in some small way.
1
"Venezuela" isn't what you get when socialists take over but rather what you get when Trump-like corruption seizes power.
Like what you see in Caracas? Then you'll love the U.S. if Trump isn't driven from office, jailed, and those who supported him driven from public life.
5
@JDS: Right! Instead of just ignoring that monotonous right wing "socialism=Venezuela" thing, we should point out that what's wrong in Venezuela is more for lack of socialism than because of socialism: it's authoritarianism and corruption.
According to Marxist theory, socialism is the necessary gateway from capitalism to communism.
Krugman attempts to excuse contemporary socialists by claiming that they really don't know what "socialism" is and that they are really just looking for government bailouts. I'm sure he's right about that.
2
@JOK when was Marx right ?
Paul, you must give credit to Trump and his munchkins. They certainly can find the right words to stoke fear. Caravans! Mobs! Venezuela! Most recently; Presidential Harassment! And who could forget; Leprosy!
The phony Marketer-in-Chief knows his target audience very well. He knows they don't read about Scandinavian socialism because he doesn't either. And anyone who went through elementary Sunday School knows about leprosy. So, don't expect him to change. Keep presenting us with the facts. And quite frankly, if Scandinavian socialism lets me live longer, pay less for health care, take more vacations and have a national sovereign oil fund to ease my financial struggle in later years, I'm onboard.
1
Unsurprisingly, Mr. Krugman manages to throw plaudits to Scandinavia while conveniently ignoring how expensive it is to live there. He also conveniently ignores the wealth generated in Norway by the North Sea oil field, which the left in our country would seek to shut down as part of a "Green New Deal". I'll trust Margaret Thatcher on socialism more than Paul Krugman.
5
We have two of the largest socialist economic systems in the world operating here in the US. No one, including so-called liberals like Krugmahn will talk about them being socialist. The entire US agricultural system which is 100% PURE socialism which, not surprisingly is most strongly defended by the overwhelmingly hypocritical Republican representation of farm states. Note how the biggest economic problem touted in the trade war with China is not being able to sell our socialist produced agricultural products to China. This enormous system of socialism has been taken over by so-called “capitalist” corporations. Then you have the US Military - the largest socialist enterprise in the world.
After health care, what could be more important than the protection of Anericans’ legal rights and abilities to express themselves.
Therefore, all private law firms should be abolished and the government should provide everyone a lawyer when needed. All government lawyers—the only kind remaining, of course—should be paid equally.
Next up, we can all agree that large media sources such as the NYTimes, are way too rich and have way too much more than a fair share in forming public opinion.
Therefore, all media having assets worth more than a generous $1,000 should be nationalized, and their Boards appointed in Washington. Columnists should be appointed on a random draw on a daily basis, albeit only the opinions approved by government “helpers” should be allowed expression. And above all, all writers and columnists should be paid the same amount.
After the same rules are applied in order to the first remaining 100 largest enterprises in America, the next lust of 100 can be teed up and we move on so on and so forth until the job is completed.
But lawyers and media first.
2
The democrats or at least the ones getting all the headlines call themselves "socialists" and they do favor a government-control top down approach (i.e. a socialist approach) to fix all the ills in the USA and the world (e.g. the recently proposed green initiative). So for good or for bad they do have appropriated the socialist mantle.
Chavez as we all know started as a democratically elected leader that was also going to fix all the ills in Venezuela, Latin America and the rest of the world by implementing 21st century socialism in Venezuela. For this he was adored by progressives, usually outside Venezuela. Now 20 years later the results of this experiment are impossible to hide.
So if somebody doesn't like being criticized and associated with socialism what about start by not calling yourself a socialist?
3
@bruno no defense of Chavez or Maduro but those that they replaced had set Venezuela on a path to disaster - massive income inequality, correptuon and a whole nation bending to the oil plutocrats. Hmm - sound familiar ?
I hope Trump and Pence are not correct in their assumption that all US voters are incredibly ill-informed.
@Bill Wilson
Not a fan of Trump here, but I do believe that the democrats calling themselves socialists and proposing ridiculous wishful thinking fix-all no-plans such as the green initiative are shooting themselves in the foot and working for a Trump reelection.
By the way I do support Obama-care, initiatives to establish a single payer health care system and taking solid steps towards a green economy but the devil is in the details and details is what is lacking.
2
Trump is probably right in saying that the US won't become a 100% socialist country. The other side of the coin is that the US will not become a fascist state either.
Krugman, from the nation of the founding fathers of Communism, is saying what Marx has already written; i.e. that communism will likely triumph in economically developed nations. Krugman definitely doe snot know the famous paradigm of communism "the inequality of equality." This paradigm plays equally on any nation, and my guess, this is what Trump is addressing in his speech.
1
By the Trumpian logic, following the Gospel of Jesus would be considered socialism. True Christians of all denominations do not believe that. they know the fundamental teaching of the New Testament is to love thy neighbor as thyself and take the steps necessary to ensure that the hungry are fed, the naked are clothed and those in poverty get the help they need to get out and be successful. Excellent column.
2
The only parallel between present-day proponents of social democratic policies and Leon Trotsky is that after Fox and other right-wing media get finished tarring them as traitors to the American ideal, they might suffer the same ultimate fate.
Denmark's population is a little over 5 million. Sweden's is a little over 8 million. Both countries are very homogenous with little diversity. To ignore these facts when alluding to how well this all works in their small population countries is remarkably dishonest.
4
I would willingly vote for Paul Krugman for president.
“What Americans who support ‘socialism’ actually want is what the rest of the world calls social democracy.” That’s it. American “socialists” know what they mean, but of course, the right uses the term as a pejorative weapon and as fuel for demagoguery. Democratic socialism has nothing to do with communism – the “Ruskies” are not coming.
This is all a labeling and marketing problem. American socialists should embrace the terms “social democracy” and “Democratic socialism” and use them consistently, rather than just the term “socialism” which puts off people who are uninformed – which is the majority of Americans.
Democratic socialists respect democracy; they just want it to play fair. A plutocracy is not democracy. You cannot have a viable society with vast income and resource inequality. And of course, as many have pointed out, we already enjoy the benefits of socialism in many ways that people would not want to give up.
Socialism, society, social – all refer to the collective, to the group, the community. It’s about everyone, not just a few. Does America want to be a cohesive society, or a disparate collection of individuals?
Many European commentators have noted that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez would be considered a moderate in their countries. It’s time America caught up with the rest of the developed world. Democratic socialism is here to stay.
2
@Michael....our media, including Krugman have avoided making the needed comparisons you state. AOC and Sanders, etc would be moderate centrists in the dozens of other capitalist democracies with generations of health care for all.
When individual investors throw money into a pot, forming a corporation, which is a collective to make profit from selling goods or services---this is American free enterprise, our doctrine of private property and American freedom/prosperity.
When average citizens of a country throw their money into a pot through taxes and organize programs for essential benefits and services for all that private profit can’t provide, such as health care or education, etc…..this is called overbearing big govt leading to tyranny, compromising our freedoms and self reliance.
So the corporations incorporate into a body, combined with huge resources and political clout to protect their power.
But We the people stay individualized, unorganized, unfinanced, unprotected, with little clout ---but proudly 'free'.
2
Those socialists better not touch my Social Security & Medicare!
1
The Commies (NPR fund drive) are welcome to my pickup truck. I left it in the driveway. The door's unlocked, the paperwork's signed, there's a couple gallons of gas in the tank, and the key's in the ignition. I've taken up bicycling, given up fast food, no longer smoke, and (if the nuclear bombs don't fall) hope to make it to my retirement both happy and healthy.
1
Once more, thank you Professor Krugman.
Labels. If you really want to find out what it's like to live in a real socialist country, go there for a nice long stay. Cuba is a fine example. Health care and education are wonderful. Everything else, not so much. None of the Scandinavian countries consider themselves socialist. Norway and Canada's economic base, oil, has more in common with Russia, and Saudi Arabia than Germany. Socialized medicine can be great, it depends on how you get there, and what else you chose to pay for. Our massive military budget is an economic impediment to social change. I suspect we cannot afford both. IF the good professor does, he should lucidly illustrate it by more than saying more debt is ok. Where America spends its money, more than any moralizing rhetoric, which is cheap, determines who we are and what we actually value.
5
The US operates two of the largest socialist enterprises in the world and these socialist enterprises are defended tooth and nail by Republicans. The loudest complaints about the trade war with China are that we cannot sell our socially socialist produced agricultural products to China. The entire US agricultural system is 100% pure socialism. The same is true for the US military. It is no surprise that Republicans who represent farm corporations and military corporations never want to see the government handouts to their industries end. How can a republican from Kansas be against socialism when that is what keeps his state alive? How can a republican from Alabama or Mississippi be against socialism when they are always fighting on behalf of their military industries there?
1
When individual investors throw money into a pot, forming a corporation, which is a collective to make profit from selling goods or services---this is American free enterprise, that upholds our doctrine of private property as the main factor in American freedom and prosperity.
When average citizens of a country throw their money into a pot and organize programs to provide needed benefits and services for all that private profit can’t provide, such as health care or education, etc…..this is called overbearing big govt leading to tyranny, compromising our freedoms and self reliance.
So the corporations incorporate and are super organized with huge resources and political clout to protect their power.
But We the people stay individualized, unorganized, with little political clout, unprotected ---but proudly 'free'.
This has been a calculated American ideal promoted to protect the power of elites---just the opposite of what our country was created to oppose.
3
For the sake of their own effectiveness, the Democratic Socialists need to rename themselves something like the Democratic Liberal Party. I have lived in a socialist country and unless these people favor public ownership of the phone company, electric company, shipyards, steel, oil companies, all of the railroads (not just the unprofitable part like the US owns) and the airlines, they are not socialists. They need to find a name that matches who they are, not one that is simply intended to irritate others.
1
@TH, Bernie and co. are the equivalent of a Nordic Social Democratic Party, the parties who intro'd the egalitarian democratic model that has held as the governance paradigm in those countries for about a century.
We are not Denmark, nor are we becoming more like Denmark. I think that recent events demonstrate that we're becoming more like ourselves and Denmark is becoming more like itself. And Denmark of course benefits greatly from the security provided by a nation with very large military expenditures- us. These expenditures would probably not be sustainable in a social democracy. Trump seems to understand this, with his complaints about the costs of our foreign commitments. Could he be our first social democratic president? At least, he may be setting the stage.
2
Thanks for pointing out that when critics complain about the U.S. becoming a socialist government, they really don't know what they're talking about.
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics under Stalin is the only socialist country I know of. Just as China under Chairman Mao was the only truly Communist country.
The great thing for us old folks in Medicare is that when all ages are paying premiums, Medicare costs will plummet. To make profits, insurance companies need young people who don't often use health services as customers. That's why they wouldn't insure old folks before President Johnson came up with Medicare.
Also, folks will be amazed at how efficient standard (not Medicare Advantage) Medicare is.
Since Medicare's creation,the GOP and Republican mission has been to "privatize" it (remember Paul Ryan and his vouchers?). Same goes for Social Security - George Bush was talking privatization just before the global financial world landed on his head. The bogey man, Reagan, often ranted about us losing our "freedom" if we dared support Medicare. Funny how the Republicans never rescinded their charge that FDR and Social Security made us a socialist country.
So, single payer health care and government sponsored (not funded) old age insurance do not make for a socialist government.
3
@mwalsh5: Medicare Advantage is far better than "regular" Medicare.
Regular Medicare has a 20% deductible with NO CAPS or lifetime limits. If you need $100K of cancer care….you owe $20K. For a senior on SS, that is a bankrupting expense.
Advantage plans have low or NO deductibles. That alone is a huge savings. And they are capped, at a maximum out of pocket around $4500.
You may be mixing up MEDIGAP with regular Medicare. Medigap covers your expenses, and things regular Medicare leaves out and has a cap. But it costs $350 a month, vs. $0 for Advantage.
BTW: Medicare is a minimum of $135 a month PER PERSON -- no family policies. Plus you must buy Part D coverage or face a lifetime penalty. So that's another $100. Now you are up to $235 PER PERSON. A family of 4 people would be looking at $1000 a month, with no Medigap or Advantage to help out.
Is that affordable? $12,000 a YEAR for a family of four? with deductibles and copays and a donut hole?
Progress has generally been made incrementally. Then came along Trump and Sanders, with their endless campaign promises, demanding "revolution" and insisting on politics as a zero-sum game. This "all or nothing" approach has completely halted any potential progress on important issues.
Instead of demanding Medicare for all, how about we propose Medicare for everyone over age 50+? Then, after some negotiating, we compromise on Medicare for all over 55? This would provide millions of additional people with healthcare they currently don't have and be a significant achievement.
Instead, we have nothing but our current ridiculous, employer-based coverage and people on both ends of the spectrum boasting of their ideology with zero to show for it.
3
@Andy Buitron: my suggestion for Obamacare (not that anyone listened) was instead of a complex system of subsidies and high deductibles….
Instead lower the age for full Medicare to 62. That's only 3 years, but would help an amazing number of people who are often subject to age discrimination, can't find good jobs and are a burden to company's health care plans due to their high risk category. It would mean you could start BOTH Medicare and SS at the same age, a huge benefit.
Then you could have lower it, two years at a time, down to 55 or thereabouts. Again, this would help the worst victims of age discrimination and permanent job loss.
Then you could implement a plan for children up to age 18. Children are very cheap to insure, as 99% of them are very healthy and need little more than immunizations.
That would take care of 1/3rd or more of the population -- COVERED. Then we could work on various plans to help those 19-54.
Such simple changes would have been popular and passed easily and cost relatively little.
The worst amendment to the US Constitution, was the 16th; that amendment authorized a general tax on incomes, that the original Constitution explicitly (and wisely) forbade. The malevolent power of that amendment did not become clear until the 1960s, when the income tax (previously used to fund expenses of war) first began to be used on a large scale to take from one group of citizens, and transfer to another. Nothing, not abortion, not gay marriage, not civil rights, has proved and will continue to prove as divisive, as politicians who bribe the electorate with the electorate's own money, in the form of tax cuts, or direct transfer payments.
5
I think their propaganda is past it's sell-by date, and is starting to smell. Most people can tell that it's no good, more and more people as time goes by...the old "socialism!" imprecation won't work, most people realize that the word no longer has one meaning. One more thing: for those of us who live in the far-flung midwest, down an icy little dirt road in the woods, by the lake, Pick up trucks with their four wheel drive capability, are dead useful, especially in the winter...newer models get quite good mileage.
3
To quote Dr. krugman, "If there’s a road to serfdom, I can’t think of any nation that took it." I think our nation may be the one exception. This belief is "Free Market Capitalism" a complete unreality in action, is definitely why I am considering socialism. Thank you, Dr. Krugman.
5
Missing from our news media has been information from more advanced capitalist democracies that we could use as positive examples to reform US politics. This is very strange in an internet connected world, where all info on all things is available on millions of computers.
In the internet age, America has been cut off from the advanced world by 2 huge oceans and a Canadian border.
US voters are not informed on how the rest of the advanced world has moved on, while the US has regressed. The international GINI Index shows Americans lagging other nations in upward mobility and middle class security---which we were once famous for.
Could our international newspaper, the NY Times, break with precedent and send a few reporters over the Canadian border to interview some citizens and lawmakers?
Ask Canadians how they pay for and use their health care, made universal starting in the 1960s.
In 2019, the US has 39 million uninsured, and rising insurance rates, as our taxes are forced to subsidize insurance profits.
I read that Bernie Sanders once escorted a bus load of Americans patients from Vermont to Canada to buy cancer drugs they couldn't afford here.
Also ask Canadians why their banks refused to merge with US big banks and thus Canadians avoided the 2008 Crash that almost destroyed our economy. And which many Americans haven't recovered from yet.
Give us some real people stories on how other govts have different definitionso of left/right/center.
1
@George
Or you could use the Wikipedia definition of Socialism: "Social ownership can be public, collective or cooperative ownership, or citizen ownership of equity. There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them, with social ownership being the common element shared by its various forms."
Choosing part of the first definition that shows up on Google does not mean a good definition. (That would embrace the mis-presumption that Google's choices {and the OED's} are unbiased.) Your choice hardly describes the Fabian socialism of G. Bernard Shaw, for example.
1
I went to Spain in February 2016. They had 20% unemployment at the time. There GNP per capital is a fraction of ours. Still the people were friendly and everyone had health care insurance - from cradle to grave, even if they ended up with expensive cancer treatment.
Our country is an expirement in cruelty.
12
@Tim Kane: so is that the trade off? you get free health care, but you must agree to massive Depression-levels of unemployment and a low GNP in order to get it?
1
Why would anyone want to eliminate private health insurance? Medicare for all simply means every American would have their health care needs covered by the plan. Anyone wanting private insurance over and above that is welcome to spend their money. And just because there would be no need for private insurance involvement in the delivery does not mean anyone wants to eliminate private insurance. The companies would be able to continue offering their plans in a competetive environment, something they have currently eliminated.
2
Without giving up private healthcare insurance, providing adequate and reasonably-priced healthcare to everyone will be expensive. The welfare of our health insurance industry and our healthcare industry in general requires keeping things very expensive compared to other countries.
The healthcare sector of our economy is very successful. Like any sector of the economy, it competes with every other sector for a greater share of the economy's resources. It wins much more of our resources than in other countries, and our unfulfilled healthcare needs give it a chance to win even more. As we age and put providing healthcare for everyone on the table, this sector can hope for 20 or even 25 percent of the economy.
The rest of the economy could fight back, but only by establishing a precedent that the free market cannot be left to run itself. So to preserve the whole system, the other sectors must put up with having their pockets picked as the income of their consumers is diverted from the goods and services they produce into health care. And they are; even grumbling about the power of the health care sector would tend to discredit the whole system, so they suffer in silence. This is called class solidarity, and the lack of pushback against the health care sector shows how strong it is among the investor class.
1
Listen - you wonderfully well meaning liberals are not seeing the whole picture. I’m Danish ancestry. Nordic countries have “the law of Jante” and you feel it there. It means “don’t try to stand out and think of the whole” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante. I know you guys would Love it if that was our culture here - but it isn’t. If it was, we wouldn’t have had the spirited culture we have that includes powerful and important art, tech and entrepreneurial leadership unparalleled, having been a super power, etc etc. Also - the cohesiveness needed to make it work, not to mention everyone needs to be naturally embarrassed to not work, is falling apart. Open borders in Sweden have put a huge strain on the economy- same goes for Denmark. The UN Migration Compact, signs by most “polite” countries not only mandates almost entirely open borders - it asks that you advertise your country’s services to migrants and ease their transition and travel to your country. If there is media in the country opposed - the pact asks that you suppress it by offering heavy subsidies to media it deems friendly open and fair to mass migration. Canada has signed the pact and Hillary would have as well. Once America settles in to socialism, with things like the green new deal, and we have in combination- open boarders, we won’t really recognize ourselves anymore. Those of you saying defund the military.. well without it Russia and China will be in charge of the world.
5
@Sue Loft
Danish ancestry isn't the same as first hand experiences, and by they way, not one liberal is for open borders, they want a comprehensive immigration policy not what we currently have. Which is a bunch of politicians that use them to garner votes, either by pandering to them, or by vilifying them, as we see from Trump and other republicans, which as always been the republican trope. Yet Mexicans were here long before whites were.
But no liberal, progressive, has ever said we want open borders. Speaking of subsidies, tax payers already subsidize corporations, via the tax code . Netflix, posted the largest profit ever, and paid a whopping zero dollars in federal taxes, and it's worth noting, Netflix, actually got a 22 million dollar tax refund. Who do you think id going to make up the difference in the drop in federal revenues. We the people will, in fact many of the deductions we have left, will be phased out by 2025, yet the tax breaks for the 1% have been cast in stone, locked in.
Yet the people have yet to benefit, we hear it's the shareholder we care about, but here's the thing, if you have any kind of a retirement account, 401K 403B IRA, you are a shareholder too, yet, people are so stupid as to think of a shareholder is someone holding millions of shares, forgetting that they are also shareholders and the same rules apply to them as the ones holding millions of shares.
https://hbr.org/2014/09/profits-without-prosperity
Oh...those nasty "socialists!" What about Medicare, public schools, the Post Office, the fire departments, the police departments etc. etc. ??? And for some real 'socialist' evil, see that Russia has devised a five-year, $100 billion plan for developing...wait for it...INFRASTRUCTURE:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/06/business/russia-economy.html
Ask why your roads are full of potholes, why NYC subway stations are without escalators, why public lavatories are filthy with no toilet paper, why Detroit was not rebuilt and reformed as the nation's high-speed rail center after GM's fall in 2008, why the United States' airports are always in disrepair and not at all efficient, why a government shutdown lasts over-a-month, and why the November 11th Veteran's Day (already a holiday) can't be the U.S.'s "Election Day."
Ohhh....those "socialists;" they're going to destroy neoliberal economics and the Constitution!!! The folks that supposedly jiggered U.S. elections are investing $100 billion in infrastructure, and the U.S. can't even guarantee newly-paved highways to be damage-free for ten years! Wrap your heads around that and then wake up.
A Pocohantas-snare for Warren; encouraging independents like Schultz to split the Dem-vote, and now a Trotskyite-scare to seal-the-deal in 2020 for "the 45" and the now-deeper 'swamp.' Sink-holes AWAY..........
3
Our media columnists should have long been making the comparisons Krugman starts to make here. Krugman himself has avoided using advanced countries' data to inform Americans who are vulnerable to GOP propaganda that serves the mega donors to the party.
If this objective information had been even discussed in our politics, then political pressure could have made our politicians more responsive to the needs of average citizen, not the elites.
The Dems and the media only weakly countered GOP manipulation of information. That may be how Trump got to be nominated and elected-- to take over the Republican Party, bringing their worst out of the woodwork.
Politicians dependent on private mega donors internalize the values the donors demand and stay within their policy limits. This then becomes a political NORM. Then true representation of the citizen majority becomes distorted---defined as LEFT WING and SOCIALISM. Our media stays careful.
Average citizens can't compete, so we get little representation for our taxation. Thus the US is the ONLY modern nation still without affordable health care for all, which other countries achieved in the 20th Century. And why our students are in huge debt after college. And why a small group of elites own most of US wealth.
Step 1: Follow other democracies and start more public financing of elections to free the US from megadonors. Will Krugman and other media ever grapple with this cause/effect factor?
4
Paul Krugman should dispense with the false analogies to Nordic nations and their economic policies. Those have little or no application to the US. Those countries have niche economies, like Norway, with huge oil reserves to play with (think Alaska), or or are small homogeneous nations, like Denmark, Sweden, and Finland. Or both. Those nations have a Lutheran puritan background, and are not inheritors of a feudal seigneurial system, with all the class conflicts it creates. Unlike the US, they have no entrenched corrupt urban bureaucracy to contort achievement, and their government employees are genuinely dedicated to public service.
If you want to see how the US would look after conversion to AOC's "democratic socialism" look at France. That nation has a full-fledged, diverse economy, a diverse population with intense divisions based on religion, race, and economic status. Like AOC seeks with her Green New Deal, France has a governing class that considers itself so much smarter and well-informed than average people that they should have a free hand to stuff their enlightened policies down the throat of the general public. As we have seen in the last two months, those policies don't even work in France.
7
Socialism is great. Just ask the greatest socialist institution in the U.S. -- our military. Reduced cost groceries and hard goods, free medical care, free on-base housing, free moving services when you change jobs. Free airfare for R&R flights. A single-payer health care system would not end our care by favored physicians, but it would shift payment to one entity, empowered to curb runaway costs and collusion between medical providers and insurance companies (who now pass those costs along to us in premium increases). Health insurance is the great con job of the 20th and 21st centuries. Cut these leaches from the system, and providers would still get paid, we would pay less than we do now for coverage (likely by way of withholding taxes), and everyone could get the care they need. The current system isn't about health care -- it's about enriching people who offer insurance at over-inflated prices, restrict access to care, and pay way more than fair market for over-inflated services and products (see Steven Brill's "Bitter Pill." https://bit.ly/2vGtPJY ) Let's end this current system. Maybe then your employer could afford to give you a decent raise.
6
@Stu Watson, our military is not a good model for comparison of a Socialist enterprise, since it is funded by the tax base of a population more than 100X the size of the military. I do absolutely agree with you on the Medical and Health Insurance industries.
I always cringe when I hear Republicans try to explain the evils of a national health care system and how it will result in death and destruction with the odd one explaining how it works here in Australia. Their explanations are typically rubbish and often just plain lies. They clearly have no idea how the Australian national healthcare system works or is funded. By and large it works, everyone paying tax, pays a minimum of 2%of taxable income (https://www.ato.gov.au/Calculators-and-tools/Host/?anchor=MedicareLevy&anchor=MedicareLevy&anchor=MedicareLevy/questions#MedicareLevy/questions ,+ a surcharge if earning over a quite high threshold and you don't have private insurance as well) in that everyone has access to a doctor, hospital and medicines, employed, unemployed, poor, rich or otherwise. Granted it has it's flaws and could be improved, there is waste, some state federal duplication and some rorting by medical practitioners, pharmaceutical companies and users and is often a political football. However, having family and friends in the USA, I have seen first hand the good and more often bad side of the American health system. The cost is unbelievable compared to what we pay in Australia. My sister once told me that when she had her first child, her medical insurance (a decent policy) would pay for 24 hrs in hospital, no more unless there were complications, The money figure she quoted would have gotten her a week in a good hospital here in Australia.
4
Given the base level of education in the country and our anti-intellectual and libertarian tendencies (for better or worse), it's pretty clear that ANY proposal ending in "ism" is DOA here. Americans are willing to accept many public-owned institutions and enterprises, as well as worker-owned companies and cooperatives. If these are considered and added individually, rather than as a grand, totalitarian whole, Americans will probably like what they see (as those in other countries have seemed to.)
2
There is absolutely nothing that prevents California and Northeast states from adopting Single payer healthcare, free in state college, basic income, and to tax the wealthy in their state to cover it all. Why don’t Democrat’s start at the state level in places where they actually do have overwhelming majorities?
6
@John
What’s stopping single payer healthcare is the cost. Vermont tried it and gave it up as they couldn’t afford it without raising so much that the already heavily taxed citizens of the state would balk.
As for all the other free stuff you’re looking for plus high taxes - see which states are losing their affluent populace to states like Florida with no income tax.
Margaret thatcher was right - socialism is fine until you run out of other people’s money.
6
@new conservative California has the population and an economy larger than most European nations that Democrats want to emulate. If they are correct that the vast majority want this then they should have no problem making California a beta test for all of us to see the results.
3
@John
California is rapidly turning into a failed state. It only supports the wealthy and the poor - the middle class has largely left as its unaffordable. It has the highest poverty rate and the worst public schools in the nation. Homelessness is out of control. If that’s your idea is success go at it!
4
Terrific op.ed. Nothing much needs to be added, so I won't try.
But, ok. We should really have a serious nation wide discussion of the topic. Even social democrats abroad have ran out of intellectual steam, and for important structural global reasons. Socialist and social democratic parties are declining all over Europe. Perhaps we here are in a good position to rethink and intellectually reconstruct "feasible social democracy".
Andrew Arato ([email protected])
1
As a true conservative the first thing to go should be the free government education at any age. Next we should stop pampering veterans. As Trump said, they knew what they getting into. If they didn’t want to serve they could have had their doctor give them a note for bone spurs. Next no politician should be allowed to get socialized healthcare at Walter Reed. You know, socialized medicine, where the government directly pays the doctor. After that we can take on Social Security and Medicare.
3
In the last Presidency, many Americans were convinced that a President who gave money to private banks to keep them private, who gave money to a car company to keep them afloat and private and who devised a health care plan where people had to pay a private company for their health care was a "Socialist".
It only strengthens my contention that our fragile experiment with Democracy is a failure.
Democracy takes an informed electorate.
Who wants to make that case after the results of November 2016?
7
I would think more people and would get on to the health care train safety net. Imagine all you could do if you simply had a safety net below. I have an OK job with good health care and I have considered finding something better, but our current health care scares the heck out of me. While a new job would probably also have decent care, what if I were to be laid off from the new job? What then? It's simply not worth the risk and I stay put. I have also considered starting a new business, but again, the risk is too great considering my family responsibilities.
With the high costs of health care, I used to assume that big business would also get on board, but now I'm starting to wonder whether they like the high risk that keeps employees from wandering away.
7
If one accepts the premise of socialism diminishing GDP, a not so hidden question develops: is high GDP (as compared to other developed countries) more important than a quality healthcare system, a robust safety net and protections for vulnerable populations?
3
If the republicans want to run against socialism, bring it on! If they want to repeal social security and medicare, tell that to the voters. What was the tax rate when America was great the last time? Eliminate the five day week and unemployment insurance? The list of "socialist" policies goes on and on. If they won't tell the truth about what running against "socialism" means, I would hope the media and the democrats will shout it out loudly.
9
What's truly amazing is that people are still gullible to believe that the GOP cares about anything other than lower taxes for the wealthy is mind-boggling. I suppose they also want to turn this nation into a freedomless war zone with their stance on guns too, but that's a whole other story.
4
Dr. Krugman, am I a "socialist" if I oppose the establishment of an American plutocracy?
And Dr. Krugman, if I swear allegiance to the US Constitution, including the establishment of the government's authority to "lay and collect taxes" as outlined in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, am I a "socialist."
Just trying to figure out what I am these days? I don't mind being called a "name" if it is an accurate description.
3
For the G.O.P., its misuse of terms that everyone should understand, with only a high school education, always comes back to one motivation--- convincing folks to reduce taxes for wealthy people. The G.O.P. asserts "socialism" as the predicate for, "Watch out, government wants to take away your money!" "Socialism" will lead to "class warfare" or, to the G.O.P.'s favorite scare, "wealth redistribution."
The G.O.P. also has always acted as if the "pie" we call our great economy cannot be cut up differently because a bigger "piece" (in any given year) for someone means a smaller "piece" for another (usually a smaller piece for the rich). The G.O.P.'s insecurity about keeping more wealth in the hands of the wealthy ignores real economic growth, by any measure, of our American economy from our founding the present. The G.O.P. will keep fighting against T.R's Progressivism, F.D.R.'s New Deal, Johnson's Great Society, and even Nixon's enlightened agenda about the environment, even though those programs are essential parts of the greatness of our United States, essential to the growth of our great economy.
3
College doesn't need to be totally free, just cheap like it was when I went to college (slightly before Paul), so that just about anybody can afford it and we don't ever again accumulate a multi trillion dollar debt among graduates.
9
@John Mardinly along with affordable college, we can also add that none of anything matters if we don't begin to rid ourselves of fossil fuel. climate change must be, and i couldn't be more serious here, the number 1 issue to address if we are to leave our children and grandchildren with a liveable planet. what's wrong with republicans that they sit on their thumbs and allow our planet to burn, to flood, to destroy, to wreak such havoc? mcconnell and his tribe of weaklings are to blame for our problem.
By socialism I believe most people mean programs that empower the government to solve our problems, and provide us with security and happiness, as opposed to guarding individual freedoms and liberties and permitting private people to seek security and happiness for themselves.
Chavez did not initially confiscate private businesses, but ultimately his form of government did. Castro promised a form of government that would help all Cubans, he ultimately murdered and imprisoned thousands and plunged Cuba into permanent economic despair. The Bolsheviks rose to topple the aristocrats and give power back to the people, and its government murdered millions of its own people, oppressing human rights for decades on a scale never seen before.
How arrogant of us to think we are different.
Socialistic plans ultimately grow into things not imaginable at their inception. Government implemented plans to fix people ultimately result in institutions focused more on sustaining themselves than helping private individuals.
Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security: all such programs are living on borrowed money and time. Survival now depends on taking even more resources from private people that initially projected and paying less than initially offered. And it is no more sustainable here in the USA than it was in Venezuela, Cuba or the former Soviet Union.
4
@Bill. Thank you for acknowledging openly that conservatives want repeal our Social Security and Medicare because they are "socialist" programs.
Why are conservatives anti-social ?
4
How ignorant to think that we are not capable of electing our own Chavez (ahem, Trump). Or that the MAGA crowd are not American bolsheviks. These groups are far further along the path to authoritarianism (as long as it’s their authoritarians) than anyone else.
1
And when do you project that any of this will happen in Denmark or France? You seem to be ignoring everything the good doctor said, as well as redefining "socialism" as the very existence of government.
You say: " But neither the politicians nor the voters are clamoring for government seizure of the means of production. "
Over here on the other coast we have a city council member, Kshama Sawant, who does. In reference to local employers Amazon, Microsoft and Boeing, she has said that we need to " take these behemoths into democratic public ownership, so that they are run not for profit for a few, but in the interests of the majority of working people and of society."
4
So now make sure that you never again refer to stockholders as "public ownership," as used in publicly traded stock. A fluid definition of public ownership is as dishonest as a fluid definition of socialism.
I did a couple of music tours of Scandinavia back in the day, and knew many Scando entertainers, etc. There are plenty of wealthy, and even down-right rich, people there. I never saw any outward signs of poverty. I never felt unsafe, anywhere, at any time. They didn't seem nearly as stressed, indignant, angry, etc as so much of our population seems to be. One time the band leader got a bad cold/flu, and had not one wit of trouble seeing a doctor and getting a scrip, at no charge (don't know if that was policy or just generosity to an blues notable)...
3
The fundamental fear is that democracy is a counteracting forces against social Darwinism. There are a lot more poor and middle class people then there are rich people. If everyone voted, finding that balance between “extreme hardship limited by a social safety net and extreme inequality limited by progressive taxation” would probably lean more on the side of people with more to loose. This is probably why the Republican Party, the party of the rich, is so anti-democratic. The see progressive taxation as stealing while redistributing wealth from the many to the few is just rewards.
I have heard it said that any argument, if it goes on long enough, will eventually devolve into a definition of words. What do we mean by 'socialism'? Here is the dictionary definition:
"A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."
Who in America has ever advocated for that kind of government control? Basically no one. If we did not even think of becoming socialist during the Great Depression, it's not about to happen now.
Krugman makes one intriguing argument for having a broader social safety net. It actually supports more aggressive capitalism, as the risk of failure is not catastrophic for individuals trying their hands at entrepreneurship. Social Democracy making Capitalism more viable? Who woulda thunk it?
1
“Or regulated”. We have that. It works. Capitalism should welcome government regulation to save it from its catastrophic excesses. Government should respect the energy and innovation capitalism contributes. Just get the balance right.
There are some things that capitalism does well and some that socialism does well. In a free market capitalism works but it has to be a truly free market. A dozen orange sellers react to capitalism well, a buyer is free to chose, but a man having a heart attack is not free to choose, healthcare does not lend itself to capitalism. Business monopolies are another case where capitalism falters, only one oil company was not a free market, a buyer did not have a choice. As a democracy we can make the rules for capitalism and for socialism, neither are gods that can be one and only one thing.
4
Krugman is right to counsel not making "single payer" a litmus test for Democratic nominees. The 41 Democrats who flipped competitive House seats formerly held by Republicans generally ran on defending the Affordable Care Act. Democrats in 2020 should run on Obamacare with a public option.
There are a number of comments claiming that single payer is used by virtually every other advanced nation. That is not true. The health insurance systems of Switzerland, Germany, and the Netherlands are similar to Obamacare, and produce the results we want, starting with universal health insurance and better outcomes.
The problems with Obamacare reflect Republican obstruction; the answer is to vote out Republicans. The Democratic Party's stance on Obamacare should not be "repeal and replace" - that was the GOP mantra.
4
What needs to be emphasized is that everyone is a socialist to some degree. National defense, public schools, public roads, police departments, and fire departments are socialism; benefits paid for and provided collectively by citizens where private alternatives are either impossible or too expensive. What our society hasn't fully accepted yet, but is getting to is the realization that health care is one of those things. Our privately-funded health care system is a disaster, delivering care at a higher cost than anywhere in the industrialized world and wasting a huge percentage of the money spent on it while at the same time, leaving a large percentage of the population without access. Obamacare was the "foot in the door" that made people across the political spectrum realize that health care is a right and a responsibility of a civilized society to provide. Many of our politicians have not yet realized this, but they will have plenty of time to think about it after they are voted out of office.
5
There is a real difference between a program like Obamacare which leaves a dysfunctional industry intact and provides heavily means tested subsidies for this industry and Medicare for all which provides a basic benefit for all residents through government administration. One leaves all the dysfunctions of private control for profit intact, The other eliminates these inefficiencies.
I would be the last person to argue that all production should be under social control but health care finance is one industry that should be.
3
Most of the critical voices screaming about the high taxes, the long lines, the horror the horror of "socialized medicine", don't know what they are talking about for the simple reason they have never lived in a country with such services. As an American living in Sweden I would like to say: don't get fooled. Again.
Do I pay higher taxes than you do? Probably. But not only do I and my family have guaranteed health care at 20 bucks a pop, (ingrown toenails or brain surgery it costs the same), but we have a yearly cap on drug costs of about $300. After that, we pay nothing. We have 5 weeks paid vacation. Our kids are guaranteed loans for college (which is mainly for living expenses as the education is rather cheap.) We also take in more refugees per capita than any other country in Europe. We also have 1 year paid leave for maternity which can be divided in any way between the parents. Free day care. I could go on, but you get the idea. Do I pay more tax, probably, but I get a lot of service from my adopted country for those kronor. It is not perfect, but I have lived in both the U.S. and Sweden and I know what I am talking about.
18
@Kevo, thanks for sharing. But I am afraid the open borders policy is going to quickly ruin the nice deal you have there now. I'll bet you can already see the culture changing, (more like disintegrating). And the massive financial burden of those immigrants will drastically alter your current cost structures for the worse, AND seriously impact the level of services you have come to expect.
Not Xenophobic, just realistic and truthful.
1
"Socialism at other times, however, means Soviet-style central planning, or Venezuela-style nationalization of industry, never mind the reality that there is essentially nobody in American political life who advocates such things." Really, Krugman . . nobody?
AOC's new deal is seeking the means of production. Elimination of fossil fuels and nuclear energy. Reconstruction of every building in America to be ultra energy efficient. Construction of high speed train lines everywhere. Single Payer health care. Elimination of beef.
That is pretty darn close to seizing the means of production. And there are 60 Congressman behind this.
Maybe it's not a majority but this socialist lunacy is what Trump was referring to.
5
Apples and oranges. Believe it or not having national priorities is not the same as owning the means of production.
6
"The trick ... involves shuffling between (word) meanings and hoping people won't notice." Spot on. Krugman is talking about the word "socialism" here. But with the possible exception of "be afraid, be very afraid" the Republican playbook favorite is doing all they can - not just hoping - to ensure people won't notice lots of things.
People who are not Socialists should quit calling themselves Socialists. If you believe in a market economy and higher taxes you are not a Socialist. So, quit calling yourself one or quit saying you are for Socialism. This has given people the ability to bash you for something you really do not believe.
6
@Robert The problem is that some of them do believe it. Some actually do what to nationalize medicine, energy, etc. They are careful to only test people’s acceptance without putting forth any concrete policy plans. The devil is in the details. If these plans are so popular then show them off. Give us a detailed plan.
2
Unless you can read minds, how do you know what any of them want?
The right is forever doing this: attributing goals that no one lays claim to, and objecting to those things, instead of the actual question at hand.
Minimum wage, why not $100/hour? Higher taxes on the rich? Why not on everyone? Legal, regulated immigration, and fair treatment of asylum seekers? Ah, but what you really want is open borders. Admit it!
The actual question at hand here is Medicare for All. Let’s argue about the means of production when there’s an actual proposal instead of a conspiracy fantasy.
1
Conservatism is holding humanity back
2
There is another pair of definitions for Socialism and Communism, frequently used by Republicans.
Socialism is the boogeyman who resides in one's closet and Communism is the monster who lives under the bed.
With the former, you are safe to get out of bed but must stay in your pyjamas. With the latter you're trapped in bed.
1
@J Jencks Communism is the plague that killed over 100 million and that’s not just talk.
Golly.
Why would a republican mind electing Leon Trotsky when they are already on the payroll of Putin.
If you want a rabid Leninist we can let you have Corbyn by the way.
No charge.
He loves socialist Venezuela.
Has for years and completely denies the capitalist corruption.
5
@Richard Bradley It’s a sad state when Corbyn is the best leftist politician a country can produce. He makes Teresa May seem like Barack Obama by comparison.
To get a better handle on where we are and how we got here a couple of good books might help. I have in mind Elizabeth A. Fones-Wolf’s 1994 book, Selling Free Enterprise: The Business Assult on Labor and Liberalism, 1945-1960 (University of Illinois) and Susan George’s 2008 book, Hijacking America: How the Religious and Secular Right Changed what Americans Think (Polity Press).
1
Socialists have better parties.
2
Donald Trump can;t define socialism let alone spell it.
3
Unfetered capalitism??.. how about calling it, what it is: feudalistic capitalism or even democratic feudalism!
1
@rupert America has a heavily regulated capitalist economy so I am not sure what’s being referenced here.
1
wasnt this was about the dirty word socialism?? Which the action is needed to tone down our U.S. CAPITALISM as it unfairly stands today and NO since Reagan we have not had any needed 'modifiers' on u.s.a capalitism, like i said we are begining to look feudalistic, with 'the king that has all the money rules', and you think that is fine?!
The Republicans were lying long before Trump came along and tried to perfect the art. One of their biggest lies was that socialism is an evil institution that helped to pave the road to hell. The social democracies of Europe do far more to benefit the welfare of their citizens than does this country. The Republicans do nothing in that regard for anybody other than the wealthy which is where they get the money to operate. As far as I am concerned, socialism does the greatest good for the greatest number.
2
I guess this was written before the emergence of the "Green New Deal" a few days ago. When self described Socialists in the Democrat party begin advocating for uber-massive government programs which mandate what citizens have to do and how they do it, that is virtually the same thing as control over the means of production. Alarmingly, many of the Socialists in the Democrat party are intertwining race into this equation, exploiting grievance and calling for "justice"....so there is your slippery slope to totalitarianism.
You simply can't put lipstick on this pig....it is Socialism, it is immoral, and it won't be allowed to happen here.
2
Irony how Danes are frequently at the top of happiest people lists in spite of their social-democratic system, while the richest billionaires in our nation are some of the grouchiest people on earth - no doubt complaining at the cost we all are to them. They try to convince us that we are the cost and not them - the costliest humans in history.
Nothing sucks the individualism, independence and freedom from a person like perpetual debt, lack of healthcare, hunger, and a poor education that enables the corporate masters and Republicans to easily scam you out of your money and your vote.
Think of how much socialism can encourage individualism, "free enterprise, free markets and freedom" because your not affraid of monopolists crushing you and dictating the terms of business through their government control, and the freedom to pursue your enterprise, health and education without fear of going bankrupt, in poor health and no education leaving you gulible to their propaganda. In a capitalistic system run amock, unless you are at the top, you are merely a cog in the totalitarian-capitalistic system keeping the wealthy rich and the rest poor - how individualistic and free do you feel when you are in debt? Homeless? Sick? Uneducated? Hungry?
2
How about you simply don't call yourself a socialist if you're not a socialist?
1
Worse yet, the Commies are coming for our guns!
Thank you for not letting the right pretend Venezuala is "socialist", and Nordic countries are to be feared.
1
“What Americans who support ‘socialism’ actually want is what the rest of the world calls social democracy: A market economy, but with extreme hardship limited by a strong social safety net and extreme inequality limited by progressive taxation.”
So then liberals, progressives, Democrats who correctly support such a system should call themselves Social Democrats, the far more accurate term, than Socialists, an incorrect term with an enormous amount of historical baggage.
Look, the Republicans, who have largely lost their collective minds and now fully endorse Trump’s constant fear and hate mongering, will smear liberals, progressives, Democrats as socialists, communists, un-American, criminal and terrorist (only brown criminals and terrorists, of course, since Republicans are perfectly okay with white criminals like Trump and white terrorists who routinely commit mass shootings and murder in exercising their 2nd Amendment rights) sympathizers. So in that sense, the semantic difference between Social Democrat and Socialist doesn’t matter.
But remember, Social Security is not called Socialism Security. It’s Medicare not Socialist Medicare.
Nazis did not call themselves Nazis (a derisive term), they called themselves National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or NSDAP).
USSR was Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
The term Socialist belongs in the dustbin of history.
Be proudly and accurately Social Democrats instead.
2
Comparing a country that has the most diverse population in regards to race, cultures, and with multiple geographical climates to a countries with homogeneous populations smaller than most states is completely disingenuous.
The thoughts of a kumbaya moment of all 325 million citizens in regards to a collective version of our society is just not going to happen.
5
@RobWi Can't start with a negative, bro. We were the same country when we got Medicare and Social Security, just the demons that were part of our myriad masses were then defined as african americans, Irish, Jews, and homosexuals. How many of those are now the non-conforming rabble? None!
This myth of only being able to do democratic socialism in homogeneous countries is an old wives tale, and belied by current day Germany, for starters.
5
@grace thorsen: Germany is not a "Democratic Socialist" country first of all, I actually work out of Nuremburg and have first hand knowledge of that.
Second, a country like Germany is most definitely homogeneous. Refugees do not have the same rights as citizens, nor do they participate the government social programs. Each state has it's own form of health care coverage and it is not 100%. Government does not dictate to business, business dictates to government. And the government is extremely tribal, protect Germany from global predators...they have huge tariffs on imports called VATs. The "guest" workers have more of a chance finding a snowball in hell before becoming a citizen.
Germany is most certainly a homogeneous society.
"[V]oters overwhelmingly support most of the policies proposed by American 'socialists' including...making Medicare available to everyone (although they don’t support plans that would force people to give up private insurance."
"Warning" to Democrats from Krugman, don't "make single-payer purity a litmus test"?
Prob' is, if we always listened to Dr. Krugman, we wouldn't be debating medicare for all now - after years of scolding progressives to be realistic, he only changed his tune after a social movement that ignored him drove the conversation left.
Reminded of a story about the American writer Sherwood Anderson who - considering the dif. between Socialists and Communists - said he 'guessed the communists [meant] it.'
Same might be said of caustic - but, ultimately, cautious - propriety-minded, ostensively 'realistic' left liberal scolds like Krugman today who take care never to demand what is not 'realistically' on the table.
3
Thanks. It’s good to be reminded that while we may sort of share ideas like democracy and socialism with people, some are far too busy grinding axes, hurling accusations, and demanding purity to ever, ever be allowed into positions of power.
1
@Jackson I find it interesting when people say that voters overwhelmingly support something that they have not voted for. A slight majority (53.5%) of Americans voted for Democratic house candidates in the 2018 mid terms. I am not aware of a nation wide referendum on single payer that earned an overwhelming percentage of votes. Yes, more progressive candidates were elected than in the past, however moderate Democrat Representatives still did better and make up the majority of the party ‘s representation. All Krugman has to go on is polls. Polls are notoriously inaccurate.
2
@Robert
People like Krugman will ratify but not lead was my point, Robert.
Until recently, Doctor Krugman dismissed calls for single payer; then, in one column, lamely asserted it was Obamacare that truly paved the way for the present discussion of healthcare for all - not the Democratic insurgency triggered by Sanders (who Krugman also ridiculed), without which 'medicare for all' would still be in aspirational limbo under the name of HR676.
Krugman ridicules "purity," but, in fact - his progressive ideas notwithstanding - he cannot deal with the the 'impurity' of actual movements.
Krugman has his place - it's just not at the head of any progressive movement.
1
“The Wealthy aren’t like you & I. They are soft where we are hard. The make messes of other peoples lives & then retreat back into their money to avoid consequences.” -F. Scott paraphrased.
The GOP has only one prime directive: the ever greater concentration of wealth & power on behalf of the wealthy & powerful. They have been immensely successful at this.
The way they go about this is undermining other groups bargaining power: unions for workers, affordable quality education for middle class, ACORN (they destroyed) for the poorest amongst us.
Morality/ethics is a middle class characteristic (the rich don’t need’em & the poor can’t afford’em). So the GOP says they protect morality. They get elected then xfer bargaining power to the rich & so the middle class (& morality) contracts.
The median wage has remained flat since 1972 (over 45 years) & in 2014 the middle class shrank below 50% (GOP politics reacted by down shifting into Trumpist nazi-esque degeneracy politics - banking on racial & ethnic hatred as a cause for poverty & shrinking prospects).
The flat median wage was unsustainable. Sooner or later some monster like Trump/Putin or worse would come along & exploit the seams it created in our society.
On a certain level bargaining power manifests itself across the entirety of society through federal politics & programs. GOPers know that reactions to wealth concentration are coming. They are preparing. They aren’t going to give up their baubles w/out a fight.
5
If we had Medicare for all, why would anyone want to instead have private insurance where they would pay more for the same or less? Wouldn't employers rather pay less for Medicare for their employees than more for private insurance?
2
Our public schools are quite socialistic in their approach to funding.Since most public schools are funded with property taxes, rich property owners pay higher taxes, but their children receive the same education as others in the town. Even children of people who rent receive the same education. In other words funding is based on ability to pay, the service is provided to all in need (the children). If that is not socialism, then I don't understand the fuss over federal level programs. The unwritten message is race!!
At the local level since towns tend to be homogeneous, people are willing to share. But at the national level they don't want to help brown and black folk. In fact I believe once Medicare for all is established people will accept it and will not turn back. This happened to Medicare for seniors as well!!
3
@Sankaran Rich folks in Texas don't pay higher property taxes because they generally get an Agricultural Exemption for having a few goats on their property. That way they can live high on the hog and not have to pay their fair share of taxes supporting their little brown brothers.
The property taxes that owners of rental properties pay is reflected in renters’ payments to owners. So they’re not getting free ride on education. Also, parents of means do send their children to private schools if public ones aren’t up to their standards.
Marx and Engels did not write 'The Socialist Manifesto'. They were Communists, believers in workers owning the means of production. That is the difference between socialist and communist. Communists have allied themselves early and often with those who believe that government and society as a whole, not just the aristocracy or the owners, should have a say in how we run our businesses, schools, taxes, etc.
Socialists and progressives in general have long recognized that anarchic business behavior causes economic Panics (SEC, Fed Res), pollution (EPA), unsafe workplaces (OSHA), and bad products (FDA, CPSC, CFPB), and can be very bad for society. Public schools, colleges, and universities have made American education and the economy vastly better. Public courts, public police, firemen, and prisons help keep us safer. The US military is public. Want to do away with those to end 'Socialism'?
Bad government is bad. Good government is good.
6
Because socialism has so many definitions and in different context means different thing to different people, it has been successfully used to scare people and disparage against common sense social policies and economic protections..
Those democrats that may call themselves socialists have never meant that to include state owning all production means. Never heard about it. What virtually all of them propose is health care for all Americans, affordable college (free tuition) paid by taxes on the rich Americans. Basically well regulated capitalism akin to what is a prevailing model in Europe.
2
@CarolinaJoe "Because socialism has so many definitions and in different context means different thing to different people, it has been successfully used to scare people and disparage against common sense social policies "
Agree w/much of your post, CarolinaJoe, but not w/how you tee off - imo, the word "socialism" can be stigmatized in the US not because of its variegated history, but because the US is right wing.
In France or Italy, if you name-called someone arguing for improved government healthcare a socialist, the response would more likely be, 'Uh, yea, obviously I am...and your point is?
Only in right-leaning countries like the US can progressives be put in the position of twisting uncomfortably to disassociate themselves from the word.
2
I watch a lot of British TV and it is plain to see from the street scenes that England is still a nation of shopkeepers. They are free to take the chance to open a tea shop or a paperclip shop or whatever because if they fail they don't lose their health insurance. In one story and old woman moved from her farm into a home in town as soon as she hit retirement age because work on the farm had become too hard. There didn't seem to be any problem with finances. She had led a life that contributed t the general economy and she deserved a dignified retirement I still have enough letters to mention that there are wind generators everywhere and they are not ugly at all when you get used to them.
4
@shiboleth: do you seriously not see small American businesses? Coffee shops (we don't drink much tea) and gift stores and craft shops and so on?
I live in the RUST BELT and I see that all around me. Americans started things like Apple Computer in a garage! Mark Zuckerberg started Facebook in his dorm room!
The idea that Americans are not entrepreneurs is laughable.
Also: all Americans get Social Security and Medicare in old age -- much earlier if disabled! -- so yes, an American woman could move from a farm into a house in town, if she felt she could not manage the work.
People literally do this in the US all the time. Are you really unaware of this?
Do you not realize that the ONE GROUP of Americans who has had Single Payer health care for 50+ years are SENIORS OVER 65????
Oh and there are 5 wind generators (the huge kind) within a 5 mile radius of my home, again in the depths of the Rustbelt Midwest.
1
@Concerned Citizen You are living in the past. Apple is now one of the most highly capitalized companies in the world the coffee shops have all gone to Starbuck's and Leaf and Bean. Small and medium businesses live in dread of the annual health plan negotiation. One thing you don't see in the TV shows from the UK is twelve acre megabox stores with employees on welfare.
Someone needs to explain to me why people over 65 deserve to get the obviously socialistic health plan called Medicare while children should be left to the vagaries of whatever health coverage their beleaguered parents, living paycheck to paycheck, can cadge together. The social inequity here is further compounded by the fact that the vast majority of Medicare dollars are spent in the final months of beneficiaries’ lives. From a societal point of view, this is madness – we are shoveling huge sums at marginal patients whose death is imminent while we ignore the needs of the children who will be the future of the society. At this point, when most people understand that we are confronting economic inequity on a gilded age scale, I hope that the word “socialism” will have lost the faux scary stigma with which the Republican lackeys of oligarchy have worked so hard to imbue it. Certainly younger Americans have no illusions about the historically crummy deal they are getting, especially when compared to just about all the other developed economies, notably England, continental Europe and Scandinavia. If Medicare for all is too big a stretch for the timorous, let’s start with a government option under Obamacare and watch the stampede as people vote with their feet.
4
"Trump Versus the Socialist Menace
The Commies are coming for your pickup trucks."
this makes no sense. Socialism is distinctly different from Communism. and both differ from Redistributionism. The only thing they share in common is their opposition to individual freedom.
1
Hey
You say, "Green New Deal"
I say, "Space Force" just found it's budget.
yours truly,
America
2
Q.#1:How many FBI informants are now on the Federal payroll infiltrating and informing and acting as agent provocateurs to disrupt the Democratic Socialists of America?
Q.#2: Why is the media not interested in this question?
Better Trotsky than Trump.
2
We have a nefarious socialist institution in our small town, its tentacles reaching throughout the county: the public library. Oh the horror! We're on Hayek's road to serfdom up here. This is how it starts.
7
Next time you get into a debate with your Trump-loving office co-worker or your drunk uncle over Thanksgiving dinner about “socialism,” ask them this one question: What’s the biggest, baddest socialist program in the US today? Answer: The US military. That’ll shut ‘em up.
But seriously, does anybody believe that Fox News and Right-Wing Hate Radio will suddenly stop their blatant dissembling? The strategy is clear: Ignore them and get out the vote. Young people, minorities, women—all the non-Fox-watching voters—will be our salvation.
3
When I was a young person in Nova Scotia in the 1950's, there was a radio programme called "I Was a Communist for the FBI", which presumably came from somewhere in "The States". It scared the bejesus out of me. Maybe Trump 2020 can find tapes (I know they're good with tapes) in the vault?
2
I'll take Socialism over repressive Right-wing Dictatorship any time!
1
Love those sport stadium built with socialist tax payer money and that socialist army.
1
Al the GOP has to do to sink any call to 'socialism' is to tell white people that black and brown people will also benefit.
4
East Germany had free health insurance, free University education, absolute job security - you could not be laid off no mmatter ow laazy you were -- subsidized housing, subsidized basic food, and two weeks of vacation in a State owned resort.
And guess what ?
People did not like it once they realized it came with a low standard of living.
Once you remove competition entirely, no one works hard
3
East Germany also had communism and was a dictatorship. People were forced into career paths, and most were not allowed to go to university. Not what we are advocating for here. This is the false equivalency trump supporters and republicans like to make.
Better model would be the current Germany - free (or at least close to) university, free high schools, healthcare for all, higher wages and also a high standard of living, and a free market.
2
@Martin; Americans are not charged for high schools. EVERY American child gets 100% free K-12 education (up to age 22 if they flunk a lot) at taxpayer expense, and this includes many millions of illegal aliens. In LA, 65% of the enrolled children in public school are ILLEGAL ALIENS and by law, we must pay for all their education in BOTH languages.
1
Since Norway is on every socialists lips:
By the way, officially it is the Kingdom of Norway.
Population 5,300,000.
90 plus % homogenous by race and culture. Very strong and singular culture. For all practical purpose, it is a tribe.
How exactly will you graft the Norwegian ways on the USA?
5
@Just Saying; EVERYTHING in Norway -- the health care, the luxe benefits -- all paid for by North Sea Oil.
"On the other hand, we should never discount the power of dishonesty. Right-wing media will portray whomever the Democrats nominate for president as the second coming of Leon Trotsky, and millions of people will believe them."
Indeed they will. If you've worked most of your life in a professional role, living in a prosperous coastal city or the groves of academe, it is hard to come to terms with the gullibility of most of the populace and the power of loaded language. Just look at how the house erupted in cheers during the State of the Union when the president affirmed "America will never be a socialist country."
3
We have Socialism whether you believe it or not. Here are some examples: Public power (Columbia, Tennessee, California, etc., private utilities of all kinds with government, Medicare, State and Federal regulation, zoning land use, etc. Socialism is "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." The KEY word is regulated. We, the Americans have our democratic ("We the People.") government have regulation at all levels from the Federal to State, to county and city. Check it out.
2
I see Krugman has "found" the importance of strong Medicare for All across the nation.
Too bad that through 2018 he attacked the idea with preposterous claims about how much the public likes private medical insurance.
1
Krugman says neither politicians nor the voters are clamoring for government seizure of the means of production. I like to see that more thoroughly examined. Sanders and Schumer recently said that corporations should be restrained from stock buyback and even dividends so that corporate profits are used more productively instead of rewarding stockholders. I think Krugman (who is not a socialist) needs to respond.
2
That’s nothing like government seizure of production. It’s regulating corporations so they don’t only enrich their majority shareholders
I have noticed that Mr. Stephens has no qualms about equating socialism to Venezuela's catastrophe.
How is that for intellectual honesty?
3
Actually the most socialistic America has ever been was during WWII. There was central economic planning, wage and price controls, factories full of women, a national daycare program, rationing and recycling, “victory gardens,” etc. And the deficit just about went into orbit. They needed to do all that to win, and there were few complaints at the time.
1
@Thollian: and it lasted 3.5 years, during the biggest war in history. How long could we have maintained that giant deficit?
@Concerned Citizen The huge deficit was due to extreme military spending, not enhanced social programs. Thank God it was just temporary, though it's interesting that deficit did not sink the economy and was fairly easily rectified in the years following.
Probably the best way to achieve a single-payer system is to modify ACA to include a public option. Nancy Pelosi tried to do this when she was House Speaker back in 2008-2010, but the so-called "Blue Dog" Democrats in the Senate took it out. And where are they now? Anyway, it's encouraging that at least some states are trying to introduce some form of public option for healthcare. It's a good way to keep healthcare insurance rates from skyrocketing, and also offers a potential bridge to Medicare for all. It could help us get there eventually, in any case.
3
Thank you Paul Krugman for sober words. It is too bad that they need to be said. But as you mention US culture has had these elements for a long time. "I'll see it when I believe it." US looks bad next to Scandinavia and Canada. Some day even China will look better. Meantime we should look at Brazil and Argentina and keep our fingers crossed.
2
I have read most of the comments and I must be living in a different America. I was born here but my father was an immigrant from Scotland whose first job was in the WV coal mines. Being born and raised in upstate NY, I enjoyed excellent public education through high school, graduating in 1954, when the US was on top. I managed to earn 5 university degrees, including 2 MIT masters degrees, all in engineering and physics, with no college debt. In fact, I earned a salary while attending college, and my first retirement was at age 44 with a generous pension. My wife and enjoyed single payer low cost healthcare, with no copayment or deductibles. After retiring at age 44, I entered a new career, and earned a second pension, and I am now comfortably retired. My healthcare plan enables us to see nearly any doctor, and Meds are either free or very cheap. The career I followed is open to nearly all citizens. I received a commission in the Air Force via ROTC, and retired as a colonel in 1980. The Air Force sent me to NYU for one year, MIT for two years and the University of Washington for three years. My second career was at Boeing for 24 years. Of course, the Air Force paid me a salary while in school, and paid my tuition and bought books. My healthcare is provided by Medicare and TriCare, a program for military retirees. I have had no contact with the VA. Medicare pays the initial 80% and TriCare pays the remaining 20%. It works great. I love my Uncle Sam, even in VN
1
@JSK: the military is not THAT generous anymore, due to the end of the Cold War, but yes -- for the right person it can be a terrific career. Retire as young as 38 with a pension, and have a second career.
BUT…everyone can't be in the military. It is not the answer for 100% of all people.
Green New Deal is quintessential millennial. Great branding but filled with unicorns. When everyone gets a trophy no one learns to win, and the resulting work products are shreds of a fantasy.
7
From the Green Plan:
"The right to accessible and affordable utilities – heat, electricity, phone, internet, and public transportation – through democratically run, publicly owned utilities that operate at cost, not for profit."
"...publicly owned utilities that operate at cost..." are a significant part of the "Commanding Heights" however you define socialism. Sounds great, but what does "operate at cost" mean? In a government owned and operated anything there is no one to control costs other than political appointees - no market incentives imposed by stockholders who can move their capital around with a click of the keyboard. It's entirely possible that "cost" in a publicly owned utility would be higher than cost at a private sector utility.
2
Too, there are multiple definitions of Capitalism. Adam Smith wrote about the dangers of anti-competitive market forces.
What does Corporate law even have to do with true Capitalism?
Given massive consolidation in some market sectors with only one or two titans 'competing', we have reached the age not of Corporate Welfare but of Corporate Socialism? Instead of state-owned industry, today we witness indomitable private entities who enjoy automatic profits and spend great resources to keep public law favorable to them while squashing upstart competition.
Government's role is not only to provide our common defense against external threats, but also to guard our people against predatory and anti competitive market practices, and set the rules so the system benefits the widest net possible.
3
It would be good to have an honest dialogue about the shape We the People would like to see our Nation's future take. There will be no future if things just go on like they are now, so that discussion is necessary.
The problem is that honesty in just not in the republican party's DNA. They have distorted what it means to be American to such a degree that their base can't tell up from sideways or black from green.
What passes here for a free market is anything but. There is plenty of socialism for the industries that are despoiling our air, water and land; but for poorer Americans there are food banks and drive by clinics run by charitable souls. (Or according to Wilbur banks to loan them money.)
What we need are fewer billionaires and more voting rights.
5
Trump is a socialist. He believes in privatizing profits but socializing costs and externalities, for example with fossil fuels. Therefore he is a socialist! (Maybe we should call him a nationalist socialist.)
5
@Don
I think Trump does everything wrong in the world, and he is not really a capitalist --he is more like a socialist.
Most of all, Trump supports protectionism, which is exactly what socialist countries have been doing. Socialism is against world trade. Global trade is a hallmark of capitalism.
Trump is also against democracy and openness, which is the consequence of socialism. He even openly admires all kinds of dictators.
2
IF only Americans would study their own history. In 1929 and repeated again in 2008, because of corruption, greed and lack of regulation, Capitalism came crashing down, only to be saved by a government who believed in a a"socialized"approach to saving the economy, hence, as FDR stated afterwards that he actually "saved Capitalism". So here we are once again, yet, it seems Americans have still not learned from their own history and FDR must be rolling in his grave.
The crash will happen again, it is inevitable, so "dig deep" America, once again, it will be bail out time for the "too big to fail" guys.
4
It is really hard not to use sarcasm when speaking about the dangers of socialism. This is especially true when the arguer gets to define the words. I will try to limit the sarcasm. Use of the idea that socialism creates a slippery slope to anarchy and totalitarianism is like saying that Democrats are for open borders and that will lead to hoards of rapists and job stealers entering the country. Well, ok, I said it was going to try to limit the sarcasm, I didn't say I would succeed.
3
Universal health care for all children from the time we know they are coming until they graduate high school:
— administered in the school by nurse teams (older experienced nurse with younger nurse)
— all immunizations, well-child checks done there as well as education reference drugs, smoking, exercises, bullying, sex / reproduction, etc
— nurse teams have hotline to ER, Poison, Ortho, Derm, PEDIATRICIANS...and, of course, OB-GYN would be included.
Many parents readily say “I love my child to death,’ and “I would do anything for my child.” How could legislators say otherwise?
2
@eanmdphd. It is not my job to pay for children people CHOSE to produce. That is the job of the parents.
A few years ago one of your editorial writers penned the following: America is a market place; Canada is a community. It was true then and more so now.
5
Already seeing this newest Trump dictate pop up in angry comment attacking by State Senator for his support for the Green New Deal.
1
The following are points taken from Ocasio platform:
A Federal Jobs Guarantee
Medicare For All
Housing As a Human Right
Higher Education / Trade School for All
I don't see a difference between the above and the items you would find in any communist party platform or actual communist country legislation. I know, because I lived in a communist country.
8
If you are honest, the truth related to life under a totalitarian government and that related to successful social democracies are radically different. Marx was a 19th century economic philosopher, not the inventor of the gulag.
Do you really think that the socialism-scared voters of Trump remember who Trotsky was?
5
It is strange that while the dangers of "socialism" are part of the state of the Union, "fascism" is not. While VZ/Russian Central planning may have done harm to their citizens fascism has done harm to us all. Fascism is the governance and ownership of the state by corporate interests often formally. We resemble a kakistocratic, plutocratic rule by corporate elites more than a USSR style socialist state. Both are not good for its citizens. Trump would be wise to talk about the difficulties of creeping plutocracy. The state doesn't in general nationalize failing corporations, it bails them out.
4
Ummm are we talking about Socialist Venezuela...corrupt authoritarian regime whose economy was juiced by exploitation of fossle fuels and the advice of unqualified economic “experts”, or some other more familiar country?
The footnotes of the smarm report suggest those brilliant economic minds might have been gleaned from the National Enquirer’s staff.
1
Title should read: “President Obama/Democrats Got Us Into This Mess, and President Trump/Republican Wii Get Us Out of It”
The USA has a crushing national debt, that we can agree on, that was greatly contributed to by President Obama’s $831Billion “stimulus” bill that was supposed to reduce unemployment below 8% from over 10% (oops, it did not move unemployment at all). President Obama, the first Socialist President, Increased the Nat’l Debt from $10 trillion @68% of GDP, to $19.5 trillion @ 104% GDP. President Obama managed to dig our deficit hole almost twice as deep as all previous presidents, 95% deeper in debit.
4
Virtually none of this has any honest relationship with reality.
I left France at the age of 20 and have kept up with some of my boyhood friends most of whom wake up angry and go to bed mad at something. In between they march with yellow vests. So much for the french model. No thank you, thankfully so.
3
I like to remind some of my West Texas relatives that they've engaged in socialism thru their wool, mohair and other cooperatives. Insurance is socialism. And of course there's always the foolish reality that so many, who yell about socialism with great feeling I might add, are of course on Medicare or Medicaid, or their relatives are. I don't know many who turn down social security. Nor refuse their aggie exemptions so that their neighbor can benefit more. And of course as Krugman points out visit a socialist country, or just read about them, and one can see the benefits. It's such a foolish and outdated tone to set, so false, so ridiculous. Yet there it is, trumpeted by no one less than the current POTUS.
Cited as a successful example of democratic socialism is Norway.
Norway's entire population is about the equivalent of New York City. It is a tiny country which is very nationalistic... they love their heritage and intend to keep it pure... very, very small amounts of immigrants, and to immigrate there takes extreme effort and time. They want their Norwegian blood to remain pure. For this and the benefits of living there, Norwegians are content paying very high taxes which are distributed to a tightly controlled population and border.
This system simply will not work in our vast country with a crazy quilt of a social fabric that cannot even agree or care about basic facts of our country's founding much less how to manage 360 million occupants.
If you want democratic socialism, try and immigrate to Norway.
First task, speak the language fluently.
5
Making billionaires great again.
@Priscilla
They were also once considered a backwater until they struck oil. And they produced A LOT of the stuff.
We all pay school taxes. We all pay for the police and fire departments. We all pay into and receive Social Security and Medicare. We all pay for the military and for the roads to be fixed. We are collectivists. We are socialists. The anti-socialism rhetoric is just another chapter in the vilification wars - caravans, murderers, rapists, anti-free marketers, etc etc.
There are really only two end-member types of government in the world, European social democracies and dictatorships. Everything else is a variation on those themes. I'll take the former. Right wing republicans who use voter suppression and the electoral college to rule over a center-left country (Trump lost 2018 by 8.6%!) seem to prefer the latter.
4
@McG
trump won 304 to 227
1
So why don’t Sanders and AOC market themselves as social democrats, which they are, rather than as socialists, which lets opponents easily demonize them and neutralize their message? Doesn’t Democratic messaging sometimes have the look and feel of a suicide wish?
2
Uh...they do.
So many of these wealthy people who denounce socialism also claim to be faithful Christians.
They conveniently forget that their religion is named after a man whose very life expressed socialism!
1
You cannot ignore the fact that Socialism leads to Communism leads to Dictatorship. Case studies like Venezuela, Russia, Germany, Argentina, and Cuba. All eventually dissolve into Dictatorship and failure. All ignore the human element in application of theory. The Party elite in Russia and Venezuela Cuba and others were always rich and corrupt. Replacing the capitalists with party leaders just reinforces corruption and decline. The best present example of government run medical care is the VA. Corrupt and inept. If you start with the assumption that government does everything poorly except Defense and imposing taxes you do not wish them to be overly involved. Krugman is a theorist who couldn't run a coffee shop.
6
Minor technical detail: Russia, China, Cuba, were never socialist. Hard to evolve from socialism to communism that way.
I wish you guys’d learn some real basic history. Krugman was quite right: their appalling communism evolved out of thugs like Bautista, the Tsar, the Emperor, not out of democracies.
1
For some, even the bare belief that there is such a thing as a society counts as "socialism."
1
I think what scares people regarding this subject is the people newly elected to Congress who seem to have all the answers and proposals to make everything better, when in fact, they don't. How about learning first about life, then what your job is and then come up with some ideas. The State of the Union speech sort of showed what craziness really is when it comes to youthful enthusiasm (remember the "nurses" practically dancing? And that Muslim woman /representative who couldn't even look at the president with her hands folded over her face! What alternate world is she in? And they just got elected! What else is in store in their whacky minds? Glad my WWII father is not around to see this insanity.
2
Yeah, because a President who was born immensely wealthy and spent a big, big six weeks, “pouring dry wall,” on one of his daddy’s construction sites is a lot more connected to reality.
Republicans and their base have a minimum daily requirement to ingest a dose of "fear and lies" to maintain their "bubble mindscapes."
Their beliefs are unshakeable and resistant to facts. As John Adams wrote: "Facts are stubborn things" but what did he know?
Every thinking person knows that "economic insecurity and healthcare insecurity" are not on the pathway to "the pursuit of happiness."
1
Imagine the amazing world we could live in if conservatives weren't in the way.
2
there are a significant number of voters in America who are not smart enough to take the time to understand the social democracy of Scandinavian countries. these are the folks Trump will appeal to. In addition, he and the GOP will of course weave God into their lies, so that Capitalism is God-like and any hint of Socialism is evil. let's hope the majority of us remember our nation's initial motto, E Pluribus Unum, which was changed in 1954 to "In God We Trust", in order to counter the Red Scare of Communism. We are indeed a nation whose people are largely like lemmings who follow scripts written by fools rather than truly think for themselves. The most recent example is the frat boy antics on display at the State of the Union speech in which our "elected reps" jumped up to clap every second sentence and yell "USA, USA"! what an embarrassing display of idiocy.
1
The only menace we have to fear is The Donald's menace itself, as it threatens everyone's rights and freedons, common sense and decency.
Scandinavian style socialism would be a great improvement over the corrupt self serving billionaires boys club tyranny.
Those photo-ready Danes, one of the last "pure races" left, uber-white almost to the man. It may have occurred to Krugman that he's promoting one of the last holdouts of uber-white privilege.
Muslims live in parallel societies there. All tribes are "socialist" by definition. France is multi-ethnic--and multi-socialist. Again, what Krugman proposes is mere tribalism. To make it work requires a heavy hand: Venezuela. The Socialist Republic of Russia was a mix of ethnic tribes held together against their will. As soon as they could, they bolted. The Business is always "tried" and then "untried" "again." The Left always collapses under its own weight of (as the weather denier Bolsonaro says) "socialism, the inversion of values, statism, and political correctness." It sounds good until it's tried. Krugman's job is safe.
4
I have talked to many socialist as I lived through college and worked in academia with them for a while. I have often found that they are essentially people with good intentions.
When bad things happened under socialism or communism (they are essentially identical), some have chosen to modify their belief and question the compulsion part along with the wisdom of collectivism and central planning. Ok, so don't take all capital allocation from the market, only increase taxes until you reach equality of outcome. Or equality of opportunity. Some ideas I agree with, some I question.
However a tiny set of people truly believe that Stalin, Mao got it wrong, and that they didn't really follow the correct type of socialism. By now I realize that what these people wanted to say was : "If I was running the revolution, I will do so much better and I will bring about Utopia". I think this is the ultimate form of conceit.
When you study the history of maoist china or stalinist ussr, there's a large cast within the leadership who were executed or otherwise done away with through accidents or alleged suicides. Some claim that these were the good souls who are incorruptible. We will never know. I do suspect however that everyone is corruptible.
The outcome is determined by the collectivist system of compulsion and the subsequent power aggregation.
This is why the collectivist system itself is evil and must be called out as such.
In other words, decades ago you briefly talked to a few people who dodn’t know what they were talking about, yelled at anybody who did and never heard a thing they said, stuck all this together with assorted propagandas, and came up with a ridiculous claim that all attempts to figure out a reasonable society inevitably lead to the Gulag.
I doubt you’ll care, but here’s the deal with socialism, okay? Nobody sane says it’ll make the world happyhappy bunnyland where every day is pink roses.
What we say is that rationality and work could build us a world where we have adult problems, adult disappointments, adult struggles, not these infantile terrors over food, health care, basic opportunity, and a decent place to live and raise kids.
There’s a nice semi-marx phrase for it: moving from the realm of necessity to the realm of freedom.
Sorry you object.
Can somebody advise the new democrats not to shot themselves in the foot by calling themselves 'socialists' if they really are social democrats.
4
Watch out. Here it comes. We're all going to be standing in long lines, queuing like Europeans for toilet paper and soap. Drinking Vodka to stay warm on cold Winter nights!
1
LOL...what Europeans are you talking about? I travel in Europe a lot & have never seen such a spectacle!
Contrary to what most Americans believe, capitalism is not enshrined in the Constitution. In fact, no one economic system is prescribed.
Use your imagination!
1
Tuesday night decoded and summarized.
You make me do what I do. It’s your fault.
Resistance is futile - and did I mention dangerous to the resisters?
Embrace the beautiful dystopia that my wonderful Republican Party is creating for you.
Crony capitalism so American.
Immigrants bad. Republicans good. Democrats cruel and partisan.
Unity!
Best President everrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
2
Brilliantly accurate.
utter rubbish. I understand his elitist attitude
but do not agree with it. yes the blue collar people's who live in flyover country as I've heard it called, love big trucks especially since
gas is still 1.85 there. But the thought of rich new Yorkers flying on far flung locations around the world to empathize better when returning over a 500 dollar bottle of wine.... please. different people, different culture, different Perspective,same country. get a grip Paul.
1
"the second coming of Leon Trotsky?"
Sign me up!
By the way:
"they’ve taken on board conservative rhetoric"
Bored conservative rhetoric? :)
"Sometimes it means any kind of economic liberalism. Thus after the SOTU, Steven Mnuchin, the Treasury secretary, lauded the Trump economy and declared that “we’re not going back to socialism."
Trump, the Genius, hires only the best people who are of low intelligence and have no morals or ethics.
Sadly, the whole basket of deplorables who need to read these factual and calming words will only listen to the fake news of FAUX "news" and the lies of the plutocrats and their minions who serve them with a big spoon.
"The forest was shrinking but the trees kept voting for the axe as its handle was made of wood and they thought it was one of them."
1
The Greedy Old Plutocrats are trying to stoke fear of totalitarian Communism to hide their own totalitarian agenda. They are the true radicals -- muzzling the press, suppressing voter rights, physically threatening anyone who dares challenge their royal authority. It is the old fascist tactic of accusing your opponent of what you are actually doing. It is so transparent that millions of voters are turning away from them. Unfortunately about a third of the electorate are either hardcore white supremacists or fanatical theocrats, and will therefore will vote GOP no matter what. But eventually the demographics will change. Lets hope that the planet will still support human life when these factions become irrelevant.
America faces Trump's Operation Burn the Constitution.
Our Department of Justice and Supreme Court have been so defiled, many Americans have lost any confidence in our Justice system.
Comrade Trump's "Soviet-style central planning", can be witnessed in a felon acting AG refusing to provide our Congress answers to their over sight questions, while interviewing for the Deputy Attorney General Job.
Perhaps this country would not have such a huge drug problem, with truck loads being smuggled across the borders and millions addicted and dying, if it took better care of its people.
Yet again, the GOP foments hysteria over an issue that exists only in their collective head.
"Sarcasm is sourced from the shallow mind"
When someone asks for socialized policies and advocate for socialism, don't be surprised when others call you a socialist.
Eliminating the entire health insurance industry in the US is a shade radical. Government run health care would be a radical change. Anyone hailing Medicare for all as free is either ignorant or has no idea what they are talking about. Maybe Medicaid for all would work. Stop lying to the public about what you are saying.
Bankrupting Medicare and Social Security be adding millions of claims and people that have not contributed is not a helpful discussion.
Eliminating or requiring every American that their existing automobile will be prohibited by the government in 10 years is a shade over the top. How long will it take to actually manufacture the replacement cars without electricity or transportation? How exactly will these new cars get to destinations? will the ban on fossil apply to ships. No imports! How does food distribution take place?
The government eliminating 80% of all electric generation in the US in 10 years is silly. No heat for homes. No air conditioning. Question: just how many solar panel will it take to replace natural gas?
The policies being talked about need to be developed and certainly anyone proposing implementation in 10 years is clueless.
Your sarcasm about the commies is misplaced, its the less than thought out policies being proposed that are coming to destroy the country.
1
It’d be a lot easier to hear you guys out if you showed the slightest interest in knowing what you’re talking about; it’s pretty hard to bother with somebody who doesn’t know the diff between “electricity,” and ways of GENERATING electricity.
1
"The slippery slope from liberalism to totalitarianism" is the same as the slippery slope from traffic regulations to car confiscation. Any time you don't want anything to happen, you just say it will lead to Armageddon. No wonder it's a conservative trope.
If you asked Republican voters if they were worried about same-sex abortions they would all say yes. It doesn’t need to make sense, you just need to throw in the right trigger words.
2
To depend on 'Americans" for ANYTHING is starting to look a little crazy. Just look at who the President they "elected" is and is still in office.
Socialism. Immigrants. Obstreperous minorities who have the temerity to want - demand - their rights. Taxes on the rich - the "job creators." Watch out! Medicare. ("It's broke.") Social Security. ("A Ponzi scheme") The "Monkey Trial"?
Granted, I'm from an older generation of Democrats: "The Worker." "The 8-hour working day." "Being able to support a middle class family on a 40-hr. job." "A 40-hour job - not three PT minimum wage jobs." "The middle class" (?)
The Republican Party is a moribund political action group that caters to the credulous, the poorly educated (we like 'em that way), the bigoted, the angry, the indoctrinated religious right which has become a political action group. It's over. It has lost the majority (moral or otherwise) and it it can do is lie, fearmonger, and stall for time. What else do you do when you're going under, drowning - grasp for anything that will keep you afloat for a minute, a second.
And the Democrats. Don't hear much about "the worker" anymore. Or, even the economy. This is the age of trending - of social media: Mee Too, Black Lives Matter, Police Lives Matter (after they murder black people), women's rights (the majority that's a minority), gay pride, same-sex marriage, four-dollar coffee. Might get a tickle out of global warming. Environmental justice (Flint water)? Maybe. Medicare for all? (Now, who's gonna pay for it?) The Arts? Later for that...
I don't care what the Democrats do...trendy or not...as long as they win...
1
Perhaps it is time to revisit the basis of democracy.
The cashed up masters of kitsch valiantly defend their moral integrity with lashings of cash to lawyers who engage with the sonorous and avuncular publications such as the publication of Mr Pecker widely read possibly on Sunday in the Pence Church .
Private peccadillos may be forgiven and are best kept private.
Sadly Trump has crossed a red line concerning deals and is a lame duck president.
The President is seriously compromised as impartial to foreign influence.
Mr Putin, Mr Xi and Mr Kim are far more successful concerning personal wealth and political influence.
These gents sadly will influence the world beyond Trump.
There was a cyber attack on the Australian Parliament today, seeking the most sensitive material.
China was mentioned as the culprit.
I note the indifference of the Trump Administration to this attack on my country.
I doubt Trump would even notice given his assiduous concentration and focus on allegations and his relationship with Mr Pecker.
I take any attack on the Australian Houses of Parliament very seriously.
Trump lacks the metal to respond to a serious challenge, now in his in-tray.
Best check for cyber attacks on Congress and Westminster.
The attack on democratic institutions is not as bad as failing to defend them.
Yes we must get rid of the cavalcade of lies and misleading hucksterism spread by those who championed the “free internet”, those who warned us that otherwise “the government can determine what you can see on the internet.” What they meant, it increasingly becomes apparent, is that the internet has remained open to “free enterprise” hucksters who have free rein to bombard us all with misleading advertising and fake news. I am sure the Russians are all for a “free internet” in the USA, in that it enabled them to influence our election in 2016. We desperately need government intervention to help control internet “news” and social media which has deceitfully been called “the free internet”.
Paul, didn't you get the memo?
Russia is fine with the trumpets.
1
"I like to pay taxes. With them, I buy civilization." - Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
2
One of my fantasies is to force every socialist-hating American to spend 30 days in one of the Scandinavian hellhole countries, preferably with some medical problem that requires significant intervention, and then interrogate them on the horrors of their 30-day torture after they return to America. It will never convert the die-hards, but it would, I think, make a small dent in the right-wing propaganda in this country that equates socialism with communism.
1
“You say you want free college tuition? Think of all the people who died in the Ukraine famine! And no, this isn’t a caricature: Read the strange, smarmy report on socialism that Trump’s economists released last fall; that’s pretty much how its argument goes.”
I thought you must be exaggerating. But no ... it isn't a caricature.
2
Maybe all of those Norwegian immigrants that Trump asked for are smuggling socialism in their carry-on bags. We need another wall.
The Republicans have become the party of name calling and schoolyard taunts.
"Socialist!" is just the latest epithet.
1
The Right-Wing-Propaganda-Machine is very effective. What is the counter to that machine?
Oh, c'mon, Krugman. The typical Trumpian has scarcely heard of Leon Trotsky, much less read a book about him. (Do they read? CAN they?)
Education and logical argument are lost on these humanoids. Disenfranchisement I'd the Republic's only hope.
And now you know why the USA doesn't get more immigration from Norway. Hard to equate the demographics in Scadanavia with the USA but basically Socialist countries try and view fellow citizens as comrades not rivals
You know what's socialist in this country?
• Social Security
• Medicare
• VA medical care.
And it turns out most of the public loves those things.
Yeah, we're gonna get more socialism -- and you're gonna like it!
1
Trotsky would be an improvement over Trump.
1
Spot on. The trouble comes from the RW garbage spewing from the radios of those pick up trucks. I want to play commercials on Rush and Ann that say: "Nordic Socialism, Try it, you'll like it."
1
The United States already has embraced socialism. Here's a partial list of what a "government shutdown" of USA! USA! USA! socialist enterprises would need to encompass:
>Sports industry stadiums in most USA! USA! USA! cities
>Interstate highways and state turnpikes.
>The Green Bay Packers
>Municipal water and sewer systems
>The USA! USA! USA! Air Traffic Control System
>USPS, vilified by right-wing Republican propagandists, globally recognized as recognized as one of the most capable and efficient in the world.
>Our local, city, and state first-responders.
>Betsy DeVos' brother notwithstanding and in a de facto sense, the USA! USA! USA! war department and armed forces.
>City and county public hospitals
>USA! USA! USA!, county, city, and town/village parks.
>The bulk of airports in the USA! USA! USA!
>The USA! USA! USA! public school and public university system, currently under attack and funding withdrawals by right-wing Republicans, fearing an educated lower- and middle-class.
>Feel free to add more, I haven't had my morning coffee yet.
(USA! USA! USA! are registered trademarks of The Trump Organization. Licensing rights may be purchased at The White House or any FEDEX or UPS store.)
What's nice to see is that they are wearing out the word "socialism."
They've meant it to mean "Communist." No one thinks it does any more.
And really, one word has very little weight against the plight of anyone who is having real trouble getting and paying for healthcare.
The need for healthcare is so pressing, people are saying, "Whatever. Now give me a doctor's appointment."
2
My Yankee grandmother never needed more than a sentence to get to the point. My 90-year-old father still remembers her unburdening herself when Franklin Roosevelt died in 1945:
“I’m sorry to say this, but it’s the best thing for the country.”
Like most people, her luck was mixed. My grandfather was a civil engineer and always had a good job during the Depression. But he died young, not long after FDR.
When my grandmother died decades later, she had cashed all of her Social Security checks. She didn’t quite live long enough to see me marry an Irish Catholic girl.
This reminds me of a complaint I overheard a woman make about Europe: "Their fridges are so small! They buy everything fresh at the market the day the eat it."
Quelle horreure!
9
If anyone took the time to study the work of some of the more prominent 19th century socialists, ie, Marx, and were open-minded, they would discover that they were democrats.
1
Definition of ‘socialism.
1. any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
@George
Or you could use the Wikipedia version: "Social ownership can be public, collective or cooperative ownership, or citizen ownership of equity. There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them, with social ownership being the common element shared by its various forms."
Choosing part of the first definition that shows up on Google does not mean a good definition. (That would embrace the mis-presumption that Google's choices {and the OED's} are unbiased.) Your choice hardly describes Fabian socialism, for example.
2
@George
That is definition of communism. Socialism has many definitions, from Social Democracy (capitalism mixed with extensive social protections) to partial ownership of means of production by the state.
Total ownership of means of production by state is communism.
1
Its hard to read the comments to this article and not be moved. They demonstrate that there is at least a group of Americans and citizens of other "socialist" states that strongly support a limited form of "socialism." In some ways the coming election presents an exciting opportunity that may not again be available for decades. Let us seize the day and begin to change our country by electing persons (Sanders, Warren?)
who are committed to changing the sad state of America.
2
Denmark and Sweden are tiny countries with relatively homogeneous populations...i.e. their citizens speak the same language and subscribe to the same cultural norms and values....and THAT is why their society succeeds.
The US is the polar opposite. We are a massive country...less a melting pot, but rather a mad cacophony of competing ideologies and interests and values and languages and cultural norms. We do not identify with each other as belonging to the same club. And that’s why we will never be a harmonious democracy like Denmark and Sweden.
3
Military brat here. Father came from great poverty- the army recruiter fed him so that he could make the weight necessary to enlist. In the army he was given three meals a day (new to him), free medical, and ongoing education. Sounds like socialism. Lifted him out of poverty. We are fine with ensuring that our people in the military have the basics they need to do their work- but we make it a problem when we consider everyone else. The military uses its programs to enable- why can we not think about programs for the rest of us that stand us on solid ground to do great things?
2
As erudite as Professor Krugman’s analysis is, it fails to emphasize, and it bears emphasis that socialism is an economic model having to do with ownership of capital, and democracy is a system of governance. These two ideas are not technically at variance. If a socialist President were elected, he or she could nationalize any industry they saw fit, given legislative approval. Conversely, if a totalitarian government, such as China, wants to implement some capitalistic economic practices, they will, and they do. So totalitarianism does not equate to socialism, and democracy does not equate to capitalism.
First and foremost, we are a democratic republic. Capitalism, as even Tucker Carlson has recently noted, is a tool in our arsenal. We can tinker with it any way we want, or even throw it out when needed, such as Defense.
Have the moneyed interests in our country fashioned a system of capitalism which may bring us all down if not drastically mitigated? Without question. And don’t accept the nonsense that this turns us into Cuba or Venezuela.
4
Undermining democracy from the Left is tricky. Since the Left claims to represent The People, Lenin was forced to come up with "The Party is the the Vanguard of the People" to justify overthrowing the elected Kerensky government.
Undermining democracy from the Right is much easier. The Right does not claim to represent the "huddled masses yearning to breathe free". The Right's efforts are focused on conserving power in the hands of the elites, those already in economic or social power. This is usually in the form of alliance with the army, business leaders, the Church(s), etc., through appeals to traditional (family) values.
When successful, The Right grasps and holds political power despite democratic rules, traditions, and by tactics that slant elections.
Once democracy is undermined, there is usually in a further power grab by an extreme faction or person that devolves into a Cult of Personality ("Only I can fix this."). From the Left or the Right that pattern has persisted for a century.
3
The Big Lie is alive and well in the Right Wing and the Big Money behind it. It's why they killed the Fairness Doctrine, took over talk radio, and created FAUX NEWS. They can't handle the Truth.
It's why the Green New Deal is a bold response. It's an attempt to shift the Overton Window away from 40 years of the orthodoxy that the way to make all Americans freer and richer is to cut taxes, deregulate, shrink government, and trust 'free markets' to magically fix everything.
Conservatives are making AOC the face of GND, when it has growing support among Democrats and people in general. It's an attempt to destroy it and her before it upsets a status quo that is not working for the majority of Americans and ignores Climate Change completely.
We need to change from governing on faith-based conservative dogma to fact-based reality, and it's not going to be easy. Insanity is the belief you can keep doing the same things and get a different result.
Changing that means that people now rich and powerful will become less so, and vice versa. There will be much anger and disruption. Centrism and compromise will be urged by those who are conflict-averse, but it will be as pointless as trying to find a halfway position between water being wet or fire burning.
The real worry is the observation that you can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've exhausted all the alternatives. We don't have a lot of time left to waste.
GND now = GOP gone. Make it so.
3
Social-democratic systems like we see in the Nordic countries will never work in the US, and here's why. Part of what makes the social-democratic boogeyman systems of Norway, Sweden, et al work is that they are much more homogenous in makeup. Most people in Sweden are Swedes, for example, and there are only 10 million people in the country at all. That in-group affinity lowers people's resistance to the taxation because they know that the proceeds support other people like themselves, in addition to the fact that they trust that those other Swedes' tax payments will support themselves as well. Swedes have the common history, identity, experience, etc that binds them to this social contract.
In the US - the most diverse and inclusive country in the world (and that's what makes us special!) - you can easily find large sections of the population who support social security, medicare, food stamps, etc as long as it affects their group (ex: poor white southerners), but are opposed to those same programs being available to people outside their group (ex: urban blacks).
In-group affinity is a simple fact of human social organization, and it does not exist widely enough here to support a welfare state like we see in the Nordic examples.
3
@Nick Really? I think we are quite homogeneous - please check out Super Bowl, July 4 celebrations, December holidays, and summer swimming..This same argument that oh the nordic democracies are so homogeneous first off has nothing to do with present day Germany, for example. And secondly, it is just air, a talking point, some idea someone came up with that has never been investigated and never proven, just repeated over and over, like an old wives tale.
3
@grace thorsen
No matter how you slice it the US is indeed a highly heterogenous country. And you also haven't actually addressed the content of my comment. People like benefits for in-group members and oppose them for out-group members. Call it prejudice, racism, what have you, it's a fact of human society. That's why progressives have such high minded ideals - they want policy to transcend or transform these deeply ingrained human tendencies for the greater good (another example being to challenge traditional gender roles). I say good luck to them but as far as it relates to building a system that distributes tax-based benefits across a wide range of demographic groups that don't feel any kinship with each other, I think it's a tall order.
The US has moved from a market economy to a market society - and that is what we "socialists" are against. It's completely acceptable to us that the market determine the variety of automobiles or toothpaste. It's unacceptable when a "market society" determines who gets healthcare coverage and who doesn't or who gets access to good education and who doesn't.
Capitalism is a terrific economic system, but it must have limits for an advanced, civil society to exist and function. As modern management theory points out, workers cannot be productive when they have concerns over basic physiological needs like food, shelter and healthcare. We "socialists" understand that better than many "capitalists" seem to!
10
Unregulated capitalism is as bad as fascism or communism. Unregulated capitalism means that profits go to a few while costs are paid by all.
2
It's almost as if the elected republican officials have all agreed on a Big Lie, replacing governance and governing philosophy, which I believe utlimately mean nothing to them, with a singular goal of personal profit for the few.
It's really an old story, the literary tellings of this story are myriad.
2
When my friends refer to the threat of Socialism by Democrats, it prompts me to look up the definition. Sure enough, the GOP is making stuff up as they always do when any evidence crosses paths with an irrational fear they were born with. When you think government is out to get you, then yes, you make up a line of reasoning to discredit it and "Socialism" is just one of many.
7
Mr. Krugman should know that socialism doesn't mean socialized medicine, which was first created in Germany in the 1880s under the Kaiser's regime. Socialism is an economic regime, where the tools of production belong to the workers. However, what has always happened is the the government takes over the "tools of production", i.e all business, "in the name of the workers". This kind of power has created dictatorships, often becoming the worst regimes in history. The claim that many European countries with socialized medicine are socialist is false as their economies are fully capitalistic.
3
Sigh. First, your definition is wrong; in socialism, the society as a whole owns the means of production, and makes decisions about the economy based on democratic elections and representation.
Second, as Krugman says: Russian and Chinese communism—not socialism, communism—evolved out of totalitarian dictatorships, not democracy. European governments evolved differently.
And third. The Right certainly thinks that countries such as Norway are socialist. And thinks that Medicare is, too. Hard to come up with better-examples of state-run orgs than that.
2
@Mike, words in a working language generally don't have a fixed meaning. Different people use the same word to mean different things. Much of this article is devoted to the various meanings in the US of the word "socialism". Krugman wisely points out that many of the definitions are incompatible with each other. He also points out, sadly, that some people use mutually inconsistent meanings in the same statement, as a way to confuse others.
Sorry, but to understand what a particular person means by a statement, you have to understand what their definitions are for the words they use.
1
You might want to read more carefully. Krugman begins by defining his term, distinguishing between socialism and social democracy.
Hardly a day passed during the Obama administration when someone didn’t call him or Obamacare socialist. As Krugman says, many have decided that if social insurance programs are socialism, then, ok, they’re socialists.
1
I remember when there was no Medicare and it was different then, almost no retire had health insurance and when serious illness struck they were in threat of losing their homes, car and life savings. I grew up in a middle/ upper-middle class community that was overwhelmingly Republican at the time. When people saw their family and friends on the verge of losing everything even the staunchest Republicans as my family was for Medicare.
Some of the same arguments being made against Medicare for All now were also made against the Affordable Care Act and the ACA did not suggest the entire system be dismantled. The ACA by most metrics has been a success and should be improved on not torn down.
All the discussion around the bill to be put before Congress talks about taxing the rich, but if one reads the bill, it includes new and increased taxes on the middle and upper-middle classes. If the Democrats move forward on this they pave the way for another Republican administration in 2020.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/676?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22medicare+for+all%22%5D%7D&r=1
2
As ever, the worrisome question is, “who pays?” Republicans can be depended on to denounce Medicare for All as a new tax burden. Democrats need to have a ready answer.
Taxing the rich will not finance universal healthcare. The simplest and least scary answer is that private companies will pay to the federal government an amount identical to their previous insurance premiums. A new tax, but a dollar-for-dollar swap: no increased expense.
The savings from Medicare’s 98% payout efficiency would enable it to immediately cover everyone with no deductible, cap, or co-pay. Once Medicare becomes the single payer, it can use monopsony power to control and reduce costs, and thereby over time perhaps reduce the tax commensurately.
This is why we can't have nice things here in America.
3
"socialism: noun
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole." - dictonary.com
I know that we can't control the slippage of word meanings, but I think it is worthwhile to emphasize this meaning to combat those who claim anyone to the left of Ayn Rand is a "socialist".
3
Republicans love to rail against "socialism" unless it's the kind of socialism that gives them low interest loans to build real estate fortunes like Fred Trump's or the gas and oil tax subsidies that build fortunes like the Koch's ... etc. etc. etc. The party motto should be "Socialism for the 1% and Better Off Dead for the rest".
12
Couldn’t agree more. I would just add that Australia is an often overlooked example of a democracy with successful policies that Republicans deride as socialist. Guns are strictly controlled, college tuition is paid by the government, and they have Medicare for all in combination with private insurance. In addition, voting is on Saturdays and it is mandatory (one is fined for not voting). Anyone scared to live in Australia?
10
Mr. Krugman covers all the bases here but I would like to see him focus and expand on one good point he makes, the fact that employer-subsidized health insurance stifles entrepreneurism, the lifeblood of American capitalism. I have often wondered why business leaders are not at the forefront of the single-payer movement. Why do they want to keep paying higher and higher private insurance premiums to cover their workers? Why do they want to be a social welfare agency for a third of Americans and the pillar of the healthcare system in America when their businesses have nothing to do with healthcare? The easy answer is, to compete for the best employees when workers have come to expect the insurance benefit. But the less obvious answer is, to keep those "best" employees from becoming their competitors in their market or going to work for a competing start-up company that can't afford employee health benefits. In every company, there are skilled, creative and ambitious employees who have good ideas and the "itch" to pursue them but they may also have families depending on their employee health insurance for access to doctors, hospitals and medicine. Starting a small business is always risky financially, but it shouldn't have to be a life-or-death risk for a person's loved ones.
7
In the US, great wealth brings the ability to (individually or collectively) buy politicians through campaign donations. This means the wealthy push--quite successfully--for ever lower taxes, because they don't need government support. Never mind that they're a small fraction of the population.
In addition to more progressive taxation, we need to limit the ability of wealth to skew our representative system or we'll get right back here next time the GOP is in office.
4
Mr. Krugman is a smart man but he can, I think, be fairly described as a socialist at heart..the old kind. He was in favor of nationalizing the banks in 2008. Nuf said. I would have preferred to punish them than nationalize them. What he proposes would create a monolithic, slow moving country that would lose the dynamism and the ability to react quickly to make necessary adjustments to capital flow. If you want to temper the excesses of capitalism, that's fine. Do it through the tax code--eliminate the passive interest giveaway to rich hedge fund operators which is unconscionable and indefensible. That is something that is morally required and is responsive to the populist discontent. Also, make tax deductions that have as equal an impact as possible. Limit the deduction for home mortgage interest which favors those with bigger mortgages. You could also limit the deduction for state taxes as has been done, but the limit should be higher to help the middle class. 10,000 is not enough in high tax states like NY and California. The middle class should not be burdened with these changes. They need to be targeted to those with the means to afford them.
2
Capitalism is not of one kind--there are many different kinds of capitalism. The kind of capitalism that the U.S. has now is just one of them.
So, Krugman's semantics is simply wrong. Just think about this--capitalism 100 years ago is different from capitalism now. The Netherlands, Denmark, Norway were pioneering capitalist countries with their world trade and business. When their capitalist systems started, they did not have strong social safety nets. But they do have now.
Universal healthcare and public school systems did not start in socialist countries such as China, the U.S.S.R. They all evolve out of capitalist economic programs.
I hate the Republican style capitalism because it betrays the original purpose of capitalism. The title of Adam Smith's book is "The Wealth of Nations," not "The Wealth of a Few." Just because there is a problem with the U.S. capitalist system we don't need to accept socialism, which all ended up totalitarianism. Cuba, Venezuela, China, the Societ Union, and North Korea all have socialist programs, and they are all totalitarian nations. Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Japan are not socialist countries. They just have better capitalist programs with much better social safety nets.
I liked the way you claimed that there are a lot of diff capitalisms, then cited Adam Smith’s book about how there’s just the one.
Here’s how this works, okay? Whether you’re Paul Ryan or Karl Marx, you believe that capitalism is a natural development out of human nature. The only diff is whether you think it’s the pinnacle of development, or a transitional stage.
As Marx pointed out and current history shows, capitalism eats everything else. It’s the Blob, and there ain’t but the one Blob.
We as a country, has a major problem with Semantics.
But first;
I ask a lot of people, friends and co-workers:
"Do we live in a Democratic Country of a Capitalistic Country" ?
Far too often I hear;
"It's the same thing . . . or What's the difference" !
There is a HUGE difference !
Our Democracy is a design of governing as brilliantly designed by our forefathers to protect "We the People" -
From all "ISMS"
Our particular Mechanism of Economy is based on:
Capitalism - which is essentially a financial construct.
Socialism is a different Financial Construct from our Capitalistic system -
Unfortunately, a portion of just the word; Socialism has found its way into our Public Citizen Services.
It appears that the Far Right, and much of the GOP cannot distinguish between these two very different concepts.
Our Democracy "takes care" of us citizens in many ways.
We want our military to protect our boarders -
We want our local police to protect our neighborhoods -
We want our government to assure we have healthy food -
We want our government to built interstate highways -
We want our National Retirement Program (Social Security)
We even want our garbage picked up -
All of the above, plus many more services we receive from our Democratic government is part of really makes America Great -
We citizens enjoy all these benefits which are payed for with OUR taxes.
Do NOT be duped by the GOP that any of the above is Socialism - IT IS NOT !
Nor is National Healthcare.
4
@Leonard Dornbush No one at all is stating that the Military, Police, Fire Department’s, etc amount to socialism. Most Republicans are in favor of maintaining Social Security.
A proper modern society has to strike a balance between capitalism and socialism. Or to put it differently, they have to do and own some things as a group, and some things as individuals.
The post office, schools, police, fire, and roads are socialized. So are Medicare and Medicaid. We pay taxes and the government spends the money providing those things.
Instead of having a rational political discussion of this, the word Socialism has been demonized by the right to bias the discussion in favor of predatory capitalism.
The centerist wing of both parties could do us a great favor by constructing a counter narrative to correct this bias, so we can talk about it rationally and make the decisions based on reality. For example, that discussion needs to include the idea that we don't need more regulation or less regulation, we need the right regulation, to curtail the cheaters without placing an undue burden on honest businesses.
Our system faces profound challenges, but we can't fix them until we can discuss them honestly, without misdirected emotionality. However the people who profit by these problems like it that way, and have constructed a narrative that keeps us unbalanced and off topic. We need to fix that.
5
There are two versions of Socialism.
One version is the Danish, Swedish and Canadian model; in this version, Socialism in a transparent democracy is successfully managed and relatively free of corruption.
The second version is the USSR, Cuba and Venezuela, where the corrupt government officially is Socialist, but actually Kleptocratic.
One can imagine the same dichotomy would hold true for the capitalist countries, with nations that are governed via lobbyists and money carry out their own Kleptocratic regimes, and real democracies which working to defeat the lobbyists and Kleptocrats.
3
@UTBG Nordic countries are just as capitalist as the US with less regulation actually.
1
How do you measure that?
I don’t care if Sweden is more or less regulated, capitalist or socialist. It is a country with a successful economy, a healthy population, free universities, and universal healthcare. Unemployment insurance extends for 6 months at 80% of salary. Paid family leave isn’t 12 weeks; it’s a year. Paid vacation is 5 weeks, not including plentiful holidays. What’s not to like?
For decades, to the present day, the right had claimed that high taxes destroy an economy. Yet, no country has taxed itself into penury. Governments have fallen; the rule of law has broken down. But mere simple taxation? Never the culprit.
To those who say their taxes are too high, I say: add it up. Add up what you pay in taxes to your three levels of government. Add your medical care costs. Add the cost of education. Don’t overlook your employer’s contribution of 7.5% for social security and its insurance premiums. Then see if it’s cheaper our way.
1
PK, I think it may be time to call capitalism with low taxes on the wealthy what it is: a transitory system doomed to failure that, without intervention, results in oligarchy, fascism, or (pitchforks raised, 1917-style) communism, or, with adequate taxation of the wealthy, sustainable capitalism (aka social democracy).
I’d prefer you (and AOC, etc.) refer to changing Transitory, Doomed Capitalism to Sustainable Capitalism, rather than to Social Democracy. Same effective thing except the socialist semantics alone, despite millennial support and AOC popularity, could turn off the Electoral College. Not everyone in America has a subscription to the NYTimes to read PK’s expert explication.
2
@JFM
I agree with this, especially after reading all of the comments in this section, many of which deal almost entirely with semantics. Since semantics seems to be such an important aspect of this argument, then we should indeed pay more attention to how we call this change to make it more palatable to that large block of voters who are emotionally susceptible to the s________ word.
1
I never see it pointed out that Medicare itself isn’t really a complete single payer system, and it isn’t free. It provides basic health insurance for a very reasonable premium, but it has deductibles and copays. And you can buy private Medigap insurance to help cover those and some services that Medicare doesn’t. And you can get Medigap plans at different prices to cover more or fewer of those things. Most people who can afford it have some kind of supplement. Another, cheaper option is “Medicare Advantage” plans, which are basically HMOS run by private insurers and medical groups, effectively subsidized by the government. So Medicare itself is a combination of public and private health insurance coverage, and real Medicare for all would still allow people to have private insurance; it would just be cheaper because Medicare would cover the basic care, including exams, hospitalization, surgery, chemotherapy, etc
1
@Linda and Michael Medicare Advantage however doesn't cover health care costs now because the companies running the plan have decided to make more money so are not covering many healthcare services. Many doctors and hospitals do not accept Medicare Advantage either. Privately run Medicare plans are not what they pretend to be.
And so says Bernie Sanders.
He will bring the benefits of Universal Health Care, free state-college tuition, control of the banks that brought on the 2008 debacle (reinstate Glass-Steagle) and a minimum wage of 15$.
Bernie didn't pop=up with this agenda now as a contrast to the tyrant we have leading the country now. He's supported it from the beginning, an agenda he's always supported and will continue to push for..
Democrats must win with Bernie in the next election ! Any other Democrat will be another Clinton-Obama, ignoring the true needs of the people and leading again to another trump.
3
We have socialized medicine: Medicare, Medicaid, VA, and EMTALA laws guaranteeing that anyone and everyone is treated when they arrive at the ER. It's a simple power grab for Dems to want to take over the 150M Americans whose healthcare is private.
Medicare, Medicaid and the VA combined cover about 40% of the population. An additional 8-9% are covered by Obamacare. The remaining 51-52% have employer funded insurance, or rely on EMTALA / the mercy of others. First point: Over 50% of America is ALREADY covered by government managed health care and those folks are glad to have it.
Point two. EMTALA, a symptom of the lack of proper US health care is expensive and inefficient. EMTALA, enacted in 1986 under Reagan (hardly the king of socialism) requires any ER to “treat and stabilize” any patient showing up, regardless of insurance status. In Texas alone, where I live, the annual unfounded medical costs faced by hospitals, largely as a result of EMTALA is $8 billion annually. Indigent folks are going regularly to the most expensive care facilities in America to have ongoing kidney dialysis and treatment of other preventable diseases. Why ? Because Ronald Reagan and Republicans could not stand to see Americans dying in ditches. You see, it’s about what kind of country you want to live in and how much you are willing to pay for it.
Sadly, would it not be far better, more cost effective and more humane to have these folks enrolled in some form of basic medical insurance, paying what they can pay and getting preventative treatment early on ? Oh, I forgot that’s socialism or a Democrat power grab. Please forgive me.
What power does it give the “Dems”? Seriously, if I’m a Democrat and Medicare for All becomes the law of the land, how is my power increased? How is my senator’s power increased?
Universal healthcare means not having to worry about health insurance anymore. It means being laid off doesn’t bring the added worry of COBRA payments and limitations. It means not worrying about what insurance company your employer uses or switches to, or which insulin is the flavor-of-the-month for that insurer. It means never having a claim denied, because there’s never any question about what’s covered.
Maybe you like your health insurance. Great! Can you keep it? For how long?
What if you change jobs, or move? What if you want to start a business? What if your employer decides to change insurers? What if your insurer decides to change what drugs it covers, or imposes new (always higher) co-payments?
In short, you have absolutely no control over the scope of your private insurance, or over continued coverage. Most of the above scenarios happen in the course of a career. Change is the only constant.
My kids had 5 different pediatricians while I moved, changed jobs, and weathered changes my employer made for me. I won’t tally the hours grappling with claims notices and surprise bills. I can’t wait to see the back of private health insurance, and good riddance.
When Mr. Trump is using the word "socialism" it´s always a combat term. It´s a travesty designed as a clear target based on the still well-known and wide-spread heritage of decades of Cold war. Don´t try to discuss it seriously as political term. It´s not meant that way. Trump is always propaganda, never philosophy or even political science
It´s a bad mistake when liberals are using this word for own political issues. Beside the fact that such projects aren´t really socialist in almost any cases it´s like moving into the shooting range willingly and deliberately lining up in front of the favorite target mark of all political opponents .
Please Read The UN Global Migration Compact. a UN compact is not legally binding , but it is a first step. This compact suggests that since migration is an unstoppable force of our future, that we should facilitate it and advertise our services as best we can. Dissenting media is to be punished by not being given subsidies. Trump didn't sign it - but the next dem in office will. It is the combination of open borders and Socialism that we object to. Also - the Nordic countries have deeply embedded in their culture something called "The Law of Jante" Which is"is a code of conduct known in Nordic countries, that portrays doing things out of the ordinary, being overtly personally ambitious, or not conforming, as unworthy and inappropriate." Read Angela Nagle's excellent article - from a leftist perspective on the real reasons for an open borders agenda. Remember - Hillary said it is her dream to have a completely borderless world. The real reason for it are not altruistic - it's bc it is what Wall St. wants. It benefits the bottom line of so many companies and it's being sold to you all as a moral high ground. Socialism is coming - the green new deal is very popular, AOC is very charismatic. Open borders + Socialism spells the end of America as we know it and have ever known it. Some of us aren't ready to see that happen yet.
@Sue Loft
I want to reiterate - this is Not a race thing. I want to accommodate as many people who want to come to America as possible. I also want their own countries to be safe and prosperous enough fro them to flourish there if they should choose to. What liberals, democrats, and progressives are not understanding is that conservatives are not racist. They simply are questioning the goal and wisdom of a world that is completely borderless. The goals of an open border agenda are to benefit the 1%. The 1% is not letting the truth get our bc they do control the media (see Bezos). Once you drive out the billionaires and multi millionaires from America - you won't see the kinds of great companies and accomplishments coming from here that you are accustomed to now. In it's place - you'll have an ever more panicky govt. trying to afford to help all the people who have migrated, and trying to afford the programs no longer funded by the richest ppl who have simply moved or have stopped innovating. At that point govt start clamping down on freedom of speech and civil rights bc they don't have another way to stay in control. The most powerful amongst us (who have been corrupted by power) see Socialism as the easiest way to keep and maintain that power for themselves and their families. And again - if America had "the code of Jante" ie "don't stand out" we wouldn't be who we are. We have always been vivacious, bold, wild and independent. That is our culture.
@Sue Loft
I want to reiterate - this is Not a race thing. I want to accommodate as many people who want to come to America as possible. I also want their own countries to be safe and prosperous enough fro them to flourish there if they should choose to. What liberals, democrats, and progressives are not understanding is that conservatives are not racist. They simply are questioning the goal and wisdom of a world that is completely borderless. The goals of an open border agenda are to benefit the 1%. The 1% is not letting the truth get our bc they do control the media (see Bezos). Once you drive out the billionaires and multi millionaires from America - you won't see the kinds of great companies and accomplishments coming from here that you are accustomed to now. In it's place - you'll have an ever more panicky govt. trying to afford to help all the people who have migrated, and trying to afford the programs no longer funded by the richest ppl who have simply moved or have stopped innovating. At that point govt start clamping down on freedom of speech and human rights bc they don't have another way to stay in control. The most powerful amongst us (who have been corrupted by power) see Socialism as the easiest way to keep and maintain that power for themselves and their families. And again - if America had "the code of Jante" ie "don't stand out" we wouldn't be who we are. We have always been vivacious, bold, wild and independent. That is our culture.
So well stated. This conversation about the evils of socialism ( taking care of society wholly first) is pathetic.
Venezuela is no more an example of socialism than the Soviet Union was an example of pure communism.
This gets down to dollars and cents and where we want the country’s extra money to go. The U..S has lots of it but most of it is at the top. We can argue for days whether they earned it or not, yes and no is the answer.
The debate doesn’t matter, what matters is there is enough money for normal people to have healthcare without going broke and have good education. Financial inequality matters less when these are provided for.
Two suggestions: either we tax the wealthy to pay off our huge deficit (then they won’t have to worry about wealth redistribution) or use higher taxes to build infrastructure, hire teachers, and make sure people stay healthy.
1
Mr. Krugman, a good column today. I would just ask that you consider another that just simply states & explains to your readers that the USA (and the EU) are now simply oligarchies. We no longer decide who will represent us; the political apparatus has been high-jacked by the same (few) people who have the money to inject into the "democratic" process of voting and governing. Unless that is changed quickly, we can be assured that the future will be quite ugly ... we only need to look back 100 years ago for an analogy.
3
In other words, you object to the way that capitalism has supplanted democracy. So do us commies.
"But neither the politicians nor the voters are clamoring for government seizure of the means of production."
Krugman is obviously trying to ignore the Democrat / Socialist " Green New Deal ".
1
Stop using words that end in "--ist" or "--ism" ; they only create targets for the opposition to carry on about. Explain political concepts simply, in descriptive sentences with real-life examples and explanations that can be easily understood. Resullt: progress. Maybe.
2
@Bill Recently a neighbor became enraged when I told him what he said was a lie. He said Dems are socialists and for socialism. So while your thought is good, it will not work down here.
If you really want to confuse conservatives just call it Nordic Capitalism.
4
@Bill smith In many surveys Nordic countries rank higher than the US in terms of economic freedom. They are indeed capitalist countries.
Social democratic policy also used to be described as an altruistic approach to governing. That is, the greatest good for the greatest number, as opposed to special interest policy making. Hence, those who fear it most and rail against it most tend to be special interest groups with a non-altruistic agenda. Canadians are very proud of our social safety nets. I would also point out that you have hidden "socialist" programs that no one labels socialist, like your mortgage interest deduction for home owners. Boy do we up here wish we had that one!
2
100% spot on, Dr. Krugman. Sadly the American social(ist) fabric is being voluntarily torn up by Republicans. Let's hope it can be repaired if not completely restored, but the threads to mend it are education and understanding, which are sadly in short supply. Thank you for helping to rebuild the stockpile.
3
For some reason, the majority of Americans support the concepts that: (1) taxing rich people is bad for the country, but taxing poor people is good; (2) that paying a decent wage to poor people is not necessary, even for those who work hard; and that (3) government should play no role in ensuring that all citizens have a decent life. These concepts result in: (1) massive hereditary wealth enjoyed by people with little/no vision or talent (check out the current occupant of the White House); (2) massive hereditary poverty suffered by people forced to send their children to inadequate schools because they had been forced to go to inadequate schools and could never get a decent job. These cycles continue and the current occupant of the White House has no intention of altering them. This is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind. We could learn more by observing what is happening in the more successful countries, but that would be "un-American".
2
You mean Bernie doesn't want to nationalize the production of peanut butter? Who knew? lol
Thank you for an important editorial, Dr. Krugman. What's particularly interesting today is that as the right continues to attack AOC, they're actually elevating those ideas into the public narrative. One hopes the Democrats have finally, FINALLY learned this lesson.
2
I love reading Paul Krugman's opinion pieces. His analysis is always on target, and he always backs up his interpretation with specific facts and sources that add to my understanding. As usual, I was already in agreement, and I still learned something new. He has a wonderfully clear and insightful writing style.
It is not surprising that people under 30 are more open to democratic socialism. An extreme fear of socialism fits more with an older demographic who lived through McCarthy, Nixon, fears of Soviet and Maoist expansion, and the Vietnam War. It is easy for young progressives (and sometimes not-so-young anymore progressives) to look to Europe and Canada and ask why we don't have a similarly broad social safety net, and why year after year, we seem to be standing still while other democracies progress. American isolationism and the worship of a heartless and extreme form of capitalism doesn't fit with the age of internet use by well-informed, open-minded people who see that America needs to break free of archaic and flawed constructs. Well founded fears about global warming add to our sense of alarm as we observes republican leadership's stagnation and ignorance. But I have hope. Tea Party republicans are dinosaurs who have lingered on into the present, but their days of influence are numbered. Their policies are shown again and again to be at odds with the views of the majority of Americans, and Trump has served to highlight the defects of the conservative agenda.
1
Democrats do a fantastic job of creating a false perception of American capitalism. Most Americans believe that the average corporation earns 36% profits. In reality, the average profit margin is 7.9%. Walmart only earns a 2.1% profit margin. Most Americans have bee fooled into believing that most corporations are like Apple and Google where the profit is significantly higher per employee that the employees wage. This is generally not true. Many corporations only earn a profit of a couple to a few thousand dollars per employee.
@John none the less, the Waltons are the richest family in the USA, but their employees depend on Medicaid and food stamps. How much stock did Walmart buy back after the tax bill passed by the Republicans and signed by Individual #1? If you give us statistical data, then back it up with references (and Fox doesn't count).
3
@John
Here's something fun to do:
1. Visit the page of your favorite search engine.
2. Type "capital vs. labor"
3. Click "Images"
What you will see are many graphs that illustrate in very certain terms the core of the issue. Fortunately, those three steps are very easy to do, and so more and more people are doing them, and they are waking up and getting rather upset. It is only a matter of time before those images change, and with the exception of maybe less than 1% of the populace, the hope is that they change in the direction that favors labor over capital.
1
Could Krugman at least once try and be honest. The medicare for all proposal includes with it the destruction of private insurance. It would rip private insurance from over 150 million Americans. It is government taking over an industry - that is socialism.
4
As someone who is switching from private insurance to Medicare, I say bring it on.
11
gee all democratic socialist countries have private insurance too to cover things the national insurance does not. think that's called capitalistic competition. keeps both providers striving to do better. imagine living where health Care is NOT an issue in anyone's life. what freedom
3
it seems to me that private insurance companies are the real problem with health care today - with their massive and costly infrastructures, highly paid CEOs (all of whom make millions more than any government worker), and their complete and utter control over what procedures we can have done, what doctors we cam see and where we can purchase our medications. Maybe in their desire to control this most important aspect of our lives, they are the "socialists".
5
It is amazing that the Red Scare tactics of the 50s still linger. How a word can elicit such visceral responses over 60 years later is amazing.... and depressing
4
@Bill -- Those with the strongest responses are the same people who can't provide an accurate definition of socialism.
@Bill This is with good reason. Communism was a failed system that killed and starved over 100 million people.
@John What you say is true however have you forgotten about the 60 million killed in World War Two -the combatants (except for Russia) were all from "capitalistic" countries, all of whom identified themselves as Christian.
Unbelievable that they are actually trying to use the pick-up truck reference NEGATIVELY. I've been pointing out to my Senators for two decades that a key reason why US carbon output per capita is so bad is because of lack of policies that discourage private vehicle use. I've also specifically noted that key examples of such policies and how effective they are come from Denmark -- 250% excise tax on private vehicles, 100% + excise tax on petrol, and heavy spending and subsidisation of bicycle infrastructure and mass transit, helping to deliver a per capita carbon footprint that is almost half the USA's along with a higher standard of living. Given that such policies are demonstrably successful, there are no sound reasons why the U.S. should not adopt them, yet now we have the Republicans trying to use this statistic as an argument AGAINST socialism???
4
@Gregory Smith America is far more rural than the vast majority of European nations. Eliminating private vehicle ownership would increase poverty and homelessness here.
@John Sweden is less urbanised than the USA (although Denmark is significantly more urban). But in any event, it's a 'chicken and egg' issue -- a key reason the USA is "far more rural" is because private vehicle ownership and operating costs are low relative to cost of housing in dense urban areas, which encourages low density urban sprawl, as people can buy/rent housing far from employment options and still have it be economical to drive long distances. Disrupt those economics with excise taxes and people will start concentrating in urban centers more efficiently served by mass transit.
1
Thank you Mr. Krugman! It has been extremely irritating to see so many people speak of "socialism" (the state owns the means of production), when they really mean social democracy or a social market economy.
I take issue with your focus on Scandinavian countries. Big capitalist success stories, such as Germany, have since the late 1940s been proponents of a social market economy, i.e., relying on a market economy corrected, as need be, to protect competition (antitrust laws), or to avoid unsocial results of a market economy (social law).
The European Union explicitly commits itself to a social market economy: "It shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth and price stability, a highly competitive SOCIAL MARKET ECONOMY, aiming at full employment and social progress, and a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment." Treaty on European Union, Art. 3 (3)
Brexit has come about, to a significant extent, because too many Englanders don't want EU success. Do they prefer an anti-social market economy?
Too many Americans, liberals included, do social democracy and a social market economy a disservice when they label as socialism or statism. They are neither, The EU cares about its people. Where speaking in terms of socialism will divide Americans, campaigning for social law for the common good should not. How many people opposed Obamacare but now want insurance for pre-existing conditions?
4
Paul,
A candidate for the biggest lie that the Right tells right now, is the lie that Dems are calling for VENEZUELAN socialism. Sift through all the comments of Bernie Sanders and AOC advocating socialism and the model they most often use is Denmark. And it's little d democratic socialism not the dictatorial, petro-socialism of Venezuela.
Even though there are many criticisms you could level at Denmark's brand of socialism from a conservative perspective (higher taxes most prominently), it says a lot about Republicans (and not just Trump) that they have to make their example more dire and existential by lying. They just can't help themselves.
5
Some thoughts from a Canadian citizen who would rather live in "socialistic" Canada than your country where it seems that the multitude truly believes that the best way is every man for himself.
The politics of fear in the USA so well promulgated by your president and the GOP make it extremely difficult for the average American to discern the difference between "socialism" and "communism" - the latter system where the government owns everything.
For any meaningful change to socialism in your country( where of course your much bragged about armed forces, police and fire departments, sewage and infrastructure maintenance, public schools etc. are socialistic entities) it seems to me a somewhat radical change in thought must occur. To illustrate this point as much as I loved living and working in the Big Apple from 1995 to 2006 at Columbia University (where presumably my fellow professorial colleagues were highly educated and therefore thought to be very intelligent) I was continuously shocked by statements from these same colleagues who, when we discussed Canada's excellent universal health care system. More often than not these colleagues would tell me that they thought why should they have to pay via taxes supporting universal health care which benefits everybody equally when Mr. Joe Blow down the street smokes and drinks too much, has a sedentary lifestyle etc.
Interestingly though they had no problem paying automobile insurance.
3
Norway and Denmark are very homogeneous populations compared to ours which is diverse. If we move to socialism we will have people asking the central planner to give them special status because they are American Indian. Would you rather be in a world where you couldn't afford a drug for 20 years while it was under patent or one in which the drug was never discovered in the first place? What are the major technological achievements of Norway and Denmark? $35 for a hamburger, minimum, which isn't a problem if you are a vegan. Benefits are popular but voting for them is a big danger to democracy. Let's hope we keep ours.
2
I don't believe the statistics that Krugman cites regarding the popularity of socialism--any kind--in this country. He says that young people under 30 want it but they are the same ones that are hoping to get the loans paid off by Bernie or whoever else. While the Republicans may exaggerate the impact of proposals, the socialism favored by Krugman would dramatically change our way of life by distorting incentives. With an economy draped by heavier taxation (it is already heavy if you live in New York or Ca), there is less incentive to take risks. You are spreading out the wealth--to some degree necessary--but by elevating the losers, you are disincentivizing the winners, who are the ones that are the catalysts for improvement. I don't want to be like Canada and have to wait an eternity to get what some non medical person decides is non emergency surgery. All men are NOT CREATED Equal and you will destroy the whole by spending too much to lift up the ones who can't carry themselves.
3
Professor Krugman, I’m not as sanguine about the fear mongering outcome that you suggest. The “fear” tactic has been the winning strategy of the Republicans for some time. It is underwritten by the likes of Charles Koch - with James Buchanan as his god - and implemented by ALEC. It’s based on well established Psychological theories. Here’s my problem with what I see, and what some are not so surreptitiously implementing.
I’m a “capitalist”; I must maintain this to retain legitimacy among friends and family. I was always “instructed” that the bedrock of Capitalism was a ‘free’ market characterized by continuing competitiveness. What I see is a market defined by growing monopolies; there are numerous examples (that I save for another appropriate opportunity)
Instead of burdening the body politic with the term “socialist” instead let’s use the more uplifting phrase “Fair Deal” that “quaint” motto used by Harry Truman - that farmer from West of the Mississippi. His program introduced in 1949 included in part: HEALTH INSURANCE; welfare and labor union support; aid to education and housing; aid for veterans and farmers; and infrastructure improvements. Alas, a Republican legislature denied him his vision. Too bad?
8
Thank you, Paul Krugman, for honestly stating the truth about the apoplectic dishonesty of those who yell about socialism. But you and others will need to regularly make such statements in order to counter the ultra-right distortions and accusation about this. The hypocrisy irony of the president (illegitimately) fear-mongering about socialism when he has done more to foster connection to and aid from the truly totalitarian leader of Russia to horribly affect our free elections is pathetically absurd. Please do not let this one column on the issue be your only one, sir. Thank you.
4
The Holier-Than-Thou Republican Party would do well to read its bible with an open mind, instead of merely thumping it. The New Testament's starring character would not be pleased with the GOP's stance on money distribution or its treatment of the poorest and weakest.
It's expensive to operate a pickup? Who knew? Fuel economy is not an often-stressed selling point. They wear bigger tires and wear them out more quickly than do sedans. They are no longer the spartan, 3-passenger, workhorses of the '50's but luxurious living rooms on wheels with entertainment systems, plush seats and a cargo area almost large enough to hold a 1951 Ford F-1. And the profit margin on them (and on their SUV and cross-over cousins) is what has kept what remains of America's auto industry off life support. They are expensive; it's as true here as it is in Finland. Over there, it's socialism; here it's masochistic self-flagellation of the "beat me, whip me, hurt me, make me write hot checks" school of "gotta have it" keep up with the Jonesesism.
Medicare has saved this country from financial disaster; it is not driving us into one. Give employers the ability to offer two options for the health insurance benefit it provides: Private, for-profit-driven or Medicare. Let the employee choose and, for those who choose Medicare, send the same amount to CMOS that is paid to the private insurance company for its premium.
That's common sense, not socialism.
7
"we should never discount the power of dishonesty"
And herein lies the problem. Conservatives have learned that if you repeat a big lie loudly and often enough people will believe it.
7
In 2015 I was in Denmark and Sweden for three weeks. Wonderful people by the way. I'm an archaeologist and have driven pick-ups in the field for 30 years (Toyota trucks). I saw plenty of pick-ups in Sweden particularly, many Ford F-150s, the worlds most popular truck, and quite a few Nissan Frontiers, a mid-sized truck like Toyota Tacomas, and some of those as well. Many were smaller two-wheel drive pick-ups that are not available here. They were most common in the country, not in cities, just like here, except for the American South where diesel pick-ups are a mall-crawler statement of the angry white men who really don't use them as a truck. So, the pick-up lie, is just that, one of the many manufactured by Republican talking heads to maintain the wealth and inequality they love so much.
4
Look at these old men standing like school boys before Ocasio. They are fooled by Ocasio to convert the US into a socialist country under the cover of global warming. These old men standing near her are ignorant of the fact that Ocasio is trying to convert America to another Venezuela or Cuba. Che Guevara is a hero of Puertorriqueños and she's a Puerto Rican.
Krugman has forgotten how Adam Smith's economic policies have made America an economic colossus not Marxian ideology that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The problem is that America does not look like the Nordic countries. Finland, for example, has a population smaller than Israel's (less people speak Finnish as their mother tongue than Hebrew!), it is more homogeneous, and they, as Nordics, have an ethos of community ("we're all in this together") that today's multi-cultural American definitely does not have. Therefore, what works in Finland has no chance of working in the USA. The ingredients for success are not present. Finnish culture is still largely influenced by the "Protestant Work Ethic," which of course is not exclusive to "Protestants." Few of them game the system, most of them are net contributors to the common lot. No so in America, where there is critical mass of people on the dole, and who will likely always remain on the dole. The sad truth is that the USA is too large, too diverse, too plagued with social unrest and lack of unity, for Nordic style Democratic-Socialism to ever work there.
2
There is one aspect of Medicare for all that would sell the concept to most of those against it.
That is, you would not be tied to a job you dislike because of the health insurance! You would truly be free to pursue your goals! Shout this from the roof tops!
And your taxes would likely be less than what you're currently paying for insurance.
The Dems never could sell.
7
I can't wait for, maybe, Devin Nunes to head the House Un-American Activities Committee to investigate disloyalty and subversive activities on the part of private citizens, public employees, and those organizations suspected of having socialist ties.
2
As a byproduct of the GOP-sponsored McCarthy Era, the term 'Socialism' became falsely equivalent to Communism. 'Progressivism' is the better choice.
3
In Australia we have apart from the Greens, (a relatively small party) there is the Labor Party and the “Liberals” (a grab bag of soft liberals, mild conservatives, true conservatives, libertarian minded wing nuts, and a few religious maniacs, and rural interest groups). We have a good safety net as described in the article, but no-one describes Australia as a social democracy. It’s basically a pretty good place to live in. It’s a civil society with a strong mixed economy. The US could learn a lot from us.
4
@Hugh Garner. Thank you. I was thinking New Zealand as well.
I recall that Donald Trump early on expressed a preference for immigrants form Norway. Bernie, we should have indulged him and populated the country with Nordic democratic-socialists. Nuts, we missed that train.
3
Don’t worry. In 300 million years, the next evolutionary species that achieves knowledge of science — The Lizard People, maybe — will “discover” oil (again), grow their population exponentially, and cause another great extinction.
And the argument over “freedom” and “socialism” will be had, again, and lost, again. And I’m an optimist!
2
Krugman's and his readers would be better served if he spoke the truth. Social Democracy? That my friends is another term for Democratic Socialism...which is democratically elected Socialism. Its still just Socialism...a doctrine that would never work in this country. Lincoln described slavery as bad because "you work, I eat" is a bad ideology. This is Socialism. If you like how it works in Denmark, then why isnt everyone clamoring to move there?
Socialism is getting something for nothing. Instead of raising everyone up, everyone is sunk. Who will pay? You dont care!
1
You work, I eat seems a perfect description of the US society today, with a minimum wage that would not support a single person, much less a family and a tiny percent of our population garnering 90% of our created income.
1
@Cameron Huff and somehow you are convinced that the ultra rich have who'se income did you say? Why is it that when its someone else's money, its "ours" but when its your money its "yours", lol. Capitalism raises everyone. Socialism plummets everyone. Its been proven over and over and over again. Shoukd Capitalism raise everyone equally? Why? How? Do you have a TV and a cell phone and the internet? Even the poor, who you talk about have these things. Under socialism, no one would have them. Be grateful for the system that created everything you have. If you want to help the poor, what are YOU doing about it...let me guess, you want to use other peoples money. This is the fallacy of social justice..."they march behind the banner of righteousness, while protecting their own interests". Very moral indeed.
2
You are right. Not even Venezuelans want to be in today's Venezuela which is not socialism. It is a communist failed narco State. It was corrupt before Chavez and now it has an absolutely corrupt organized crime government.
So in the State of the Union Trump delivered a new Buggy Man: Venezuela. He did not even notice how much he resembles Chavez in its populism and authoritarian ways. A far left and a far right "emperors".
Thank you, Mr. Krugman. Sensible as always.
I do think the GOP excels at creating bogeymen. They have been doing it for--goodness! a long time. I'm thinking of--
(1) the notorious Palmer raids of a hundred years ago. Russia had fallen to the Communists (and unimaginable miseries were around the corner), but a xenophobic DOJ saw revolutionaries under every bed.
The government put a stop eventually to these raids.
(2) FDR running in 1936. The Chicago Tribune (under right wing Colonel McCormick) gravely warned its readers: this might well prove the last free election in the USA.
(3) My own father who (conservative though he was) abominated Senator McCarthy--even imitating that snarling voice--"Point of order! Point of order!" Inveighing against "communists" (and carefully bringing out every syllable of that detested word).
(4) The late Mr. Bush (whom I do indeed admire) gently reproving "the liberal governor of Massachusetts" in 1988.
(5) And now--ta da! The socialists. Socialism.
I pass over the venomous PERSONAL attacks the GOP has to its credit over the years.
Does this inevitably come with moral and intellectual BANKRUPTCY? "We have virtually no ideas ourselves--and the ideas we DO have are unlikely to win elections--
"--therefore--"
And therefore that cornucopia of--
--BOGEYMEN!
Scary phantoms that (as you point out, Mr. Krugman)--
--don't scare people anymore. For which i say--
--thank God!
1
Republicans have absolutely nothing to offer but fear. Infrastructure? Nothing but empty words. Fantastic healthcare? Nothing but empty words. What amazes me is that, year after year, their voters can't figure out that the party they put into office does absolutely nothing for them. Republicans make it easy for them to buy a gun but the Democrats paved the highway to the gun store.
2
Well there is one sector of the economy that we leftists want to nationalize: the health insurance industry.
1
When will poor Americans in all those red state who continually vote against their own interests by supporting a party that cares only for the rich learn that socialism is not communism. Most democracies in the world today have a better social safety net than ours, one that protects the sick, the unemployed, the poor and the old. It is not a "Red Threat" but simply the hallmark of good government.
2
Betcha trumpie will use that permanent federal health insurance policy we the people provided him after he leaves office. Along with his Medicare, another socialist program.
2
If Trump is right, all this “socialist takeover” business started with Republican President Theodore Roosevelt and his push for laws that interfered with private enterprise in the food and drug industries doing whatever it wanted to make a buck, while leaving it up to the individual to ferret out what was safe to consume and what was not. Those were the “good old days”? Not this American’s cup of tea! Of course, there are plenty of weak-government countries available for those who wish to live in them.
Did anyone else notice the contradiction in Trump’s call for government reining in the drug industry’s pricing activities and his blast against “socialism” — which inherently includes a strong government that protects the interests of the citizenry?
Oy vey.
1
The Obama comment “you did not build it alone”, for which he was vilified, remains true. Success requires, infrastructure, rule of law, an educated population and reasonably honest functioning government. Without these things success depends on corruption and criminality. Think Russia and the instincts of tRump and his cronies.
3
It's a problem if people don't understand definitions at several levels. Socialism means the government owns the means of production which is neither social democracy, e.g., Western Europe, nor communism, which can be found nowhere except in the imagination. [The few states in the world that call themselves socialist states are actually dictatorships].
Perhaps the most serious problem with being ignorant of what words mean is that 2016 shows that anyone really can be elected president of the US, and now we have a government which is part plutocracy, part kleptocracy, part buffoonacracy, with the desire to be an autocracy . If an ignorant populace elects a president and a congress who really are socialist, they will get more than they bargained for.
I have long thought that Americans in general do not understand Socialism. I recall a TV interview with an elderly lady at a tea-party rally in Buffalo many years ago. Speaking of "liberals" in general and Democrats in particular she stated, "they better not touch my Medicare!" Medicare is, of course, a type of socialized medicine. Such ignorance is regrettable not to mention inexcusable. The noisy approval from the Republican side of the House when Trump excoriated "Socialism" during his State of the Union address is a sad example of how ignorant much of the American people are when the topic is brought up. Except, perhaps, for the cold climate, life in socialist Norway, Sweden and Denmark is far superior to life in these (dis)United States of America.
There is a public health reason to insure that everyone has decent affordable health care, namely the spread of infectious diseases. Edgar Allan Poe's story, "The Mask of the Red Death" nicely illustrates the folly of thinking that one can protect oneself from the rest of society by using your own resources, no matter how wealthy you are.
1
FDR's Second Bill of Rights, as set forth in his 1944 State of the Union message, is a darned good place to start.
1
Socialism is the economic system of communism. It entails state ownership and control of important industries. Welfare is not socialism. The difference between communism and "Democratic socialism", in theory, is whether you get there by violent revolution or through elections.
These people have to answer for themselves whether or not they embrace socialism. But they have to use the right definition. They are calling themselves socialists, and they must be taken at their word until they change their story.
Paul Krugman, an economist, is utterly deceitful.
What's wrong with socialism? Socialism works great!
Just ask any pro sports team owner, any banker, any farmer, any real estate developer, any pharmaceutical company (see: Bayh-Dole Act), to name a few. All those real estate developers who receive massive public subsidies for their projects deserve the Hero of Socialist Labor award! Starting with our current President.
The right's problem with socialism is not socialism per se. It's when the bottom 90% try to get their fair share of socialism.
3
Perhaps Bernie Sanders made a grave mistake by calling himself a Socialist instead of a Social Democrat. The Right Wing immediately latched onto this and screamed 'Venezuela'. If Scandinavia is mentioned, Republicans are quick to point out what small countries they are. And they get positively angry if you talk about the rest of Europe, Canada or Australia, immediately reverting to back to Cuba and Venezuela. As they say, it's a cult.
Decades ago (but in my lifetime) the wealthiest Americans, whose fortunes couldn't match those of todays' uber-rich, were taxed at a much higher rate. This resulted in good infrastructure, lower costs for education and more.
A Republican I know recently experienced a nasty bout with cancer, causing her almost crippling medical costs. Yet she still vehemently supports Trump as he advocate dirtier air and water and rejects any form of expanding Medicare. It makes no sense, but it's a cult, after all.
4
@Jill, it wasn’t what Bernie called himself it is Hillary’s campaign aided by media folks like NYT columnists, who spread misinformation about his messages. He has been saying the same things for 30 years!
But would a doctor under "socialized medicine" be able to write a letter excusing a young man from military service if that young man had bone spurs, very painful bone spurs? Not good.
European style democratic socialism arose from two social experiments, the first out of the chaotic destructive capitalism of Dicken's England and the second from the fascism of Hitlerism. They saw that neither severed the people and led to places antithetical to the people's everyday needs so the middle road of democratic socialism was born.
in America meanwhile we never learned this lesson. We fell it the Randian notion that 'individualism' and capitalist dogma would fix all our problems. FDR partially bucked this fallacy by reacting to the struggles of the Great Depression with Social Security and other social programs reinforced by the social revolutions of the sixties. But the fallacies remained inherent in the GOP which attempted to undo any help for the everyday people favoring their rich corporate puppet masters.
Democratic socialism is the true middle way and unless we acknowledge this we will continue to be condemned to the chaos of uncontrolled capitalism and possible fascism. We need government that is for the people rather than a slave to capitalist or fascist masters.
3
>>>...these days Republicans routinely (and falsely) accuse Democrats of planning to cut the program’s funding...<<<
Didn't Obama propose the "Grand Bargain"? As I recall, the Tea Party caucus voted it down because it wasn't an egregious enough bargain.
The only people I see flirting with soviet style governance is Trump and his followers. Just because Putin doesn't call himself a Communist anymore doesn't mean he''s changed since he was.
Yes but go down this road and the next thing you know, the government will control the mail. And no one wants the government to deliver letters to your address.
2
The millions who will believe Trump and his subservient Republicans that the socialists are coming in the night to eat their children are the same millions who already believe them. The rest of us need not worry.
Except we do. We need to worry about a system so badly rigged that the Constitution's "We the People" is gallows humor. Most of the current federal government is committed to making the world safe for capitalist exploitation, not democracy.
3
Thank you Paul for alerting America to the risk of socialism gaining a foothold in our country. Clearly because the people of Norway and Sweden espouse socialist policies, we must ensure that our borders are protected from any immigration from these two evil countries. We must urge Donald to quit focusing on the threat of illegal immigration at our southern border, and to redirect his efforts at the threat from Scandinavia. How about nationalizing Ikea for a start? Oops, maybe not, that might be construed as socialism.
1
Third graders could come up with plans more logical than AOC’s Green New Deal.
What’s scary is that Democrats are so lost they are not afraid of letting a half wit such as her dream up policy and then fall in line.
2
Swedes, Fins, Danish, Germans, etc. thrive under almost any political system when left alone. Pomerode is in Brazil and is clean, crimeless, orderly and run by Germans (much like Pella, Iowa and its Dutch).
So Socialism is not the reason Sweden is a clean safe land. It's because of the people and culture that it's a place Mr. Krugman might take his 12-yr-old kids.
A recent study showed that high school grads in the US who do not use drugs or have out-of-wedlock births have a 75% chance of becoming middle-, upper-middle, or upper-class. Socialism isn't necessary, thank you.
2
Well, when it comes to economic growth .. real GDP p/capita .. since the inception of our National Income and Product Accounts at BEA in 1929 through the Obama tenure, the "socialist" Dems have far outperformed the GOP .. by a wide margin.
In fact, The historical record of lousy economic performance is demonstrably skewed towards the GOP. Failure defines them ... whether you look at their record of economic growth, deficit growth, private sector job growth, recession propensity .. as compared to the “socialist” Dems.
Indeed, if facts mean anything, the real menace is Republicanomics .. unless you inhabit the uppermost decile of the income distribution.
3
The difference between capitalism and socialism are minute when compared to the worldwide paradigm shift in human thought that must occur if we are to survive as a species. As we renew the nuclear arms race, we come ever closer to our own annihilation. We are not showing signs of returning to sanity anytime soon.
In the near future, we will program the human mind in the computer based on a linguistic "survival" algorithm, which will provide irrefutable proof as to how we trick the mind with our ridiculous beliefs about what is supposed to survive - producing minds programmed de facto for destruction. These minds see the survival of a particular belief as more important than the survival of all. When we understand this, we will begin the long trek back to reason and sanity.
See RevolutionOfReason.com
1
"Let’s just hope that the rest of the media report the clean little secret of American socialism, which is that it isn’t radical at all."
Lets just hope that the media, led by the NY Times doesn't again fall into the role of giving the majority of its coverage to the most offensive loud mouth bully, swamping the message of the other candidates (I'm thinking of Sanders here).
Yes, your very own NY Times was instrumental in spreading the message of Donald Trump simply because it sold papers. Currently, this paper remains the lackey of the ratings wars by treating Democratic representative Alexandrea Ocasio-Cortez as a simple minded attention seeker rather than as a serious but inexperienced politician.
Fantastic explanation.
This should be standard reading for any Fox News fan, who would probably find a Trumpian non-truth to make up about it.
I wish Krugman would write about economics. I get exactly zero insight from this hodgepodge. And nothing Krugman writes will change anyone's mind on this issue given the utterly dismissive and condescending tone of the article.
By the way: there are plenty of real socialists in the democratic party. The idea that they adopted the name "socialist" to call out Republicans' misuse of the term is a lie that should not be printed in the NYT. Who said this? "Look, if I had my druthers, the city government would determine every single plot of land, how development would proceed. And there would be very stringent requirements around income levels and rents. That’s a world I’d love to see,"
“Soviet-style central planning ... Venezuela-style nationalization ... there is essentially nobody in American political life who advocates such things”
Apparently you are not paying attention to Elizabeth Warren’s proposals, and missed the Green New Deal plan rollout.
How about your friend, AOC, Paul? You don't mention her. Her idealistic ideas are pure and anti-pollution but how about not taking planes?
1
"The Commies are coming for your pickup trucks."
I just fell over laughing.
Side note to anyone who is genuinely concerned: I presently have both single-payer, publicly funded health care and a private, employer-paid health insurance plan. They are complimentary, rather than conflicting.
Socialism an the Beholder's Eye
Trump always seems to get it wrong. What can be more socialist than a leader who aspires to usurp the property rights of whoever has property on the U.S.-Mexico border? But then again, did I say "leader". That he ain't!
1
calling capitalism with welfare policies socialism, democratic or otherwise, is stupid marketing.
1
Not saying the socialism is around the corner, but, we are entering an era where the very rich have overplayed their hand---Trump actually started this socialists ball rolling--but the ball has rolled out of rally's and is now cascading all over the US landscape. The press, in its own way, is fueling this movement, with a daily barrage of super-rich foibles and purchases---260 million condos--come on---No matter how naive politicians are making AOC---she has hit a real populists nerve---one that has been rubbed raw by a decades worth of gilded age excesses.
2
Ironic that Krugman's opinion piece appears the same day as AOC's Green Program (yes, Krugman loves her) is shunned by the Democratic leadership and DeBlasio is shocked that tax collections are going down. Perhaps taxing everyone to death (except Nobel laureate economic professors) is not the best thing to do.
regarding "operation coffee cup": the process of making a carefully constructed fake grass roots movement and spreading it through media is referred to as "astroturfing", not "going viral".
Oh please. Socialism; Capitalism. Any country's economic system is a blend of both.
Plus-
Under each American roof, most families have a socialistic system. So, we're all a bunch of Commies. (But you'll have to pry my pickup from my 10 and 2 dead hands.)
And then-
When countries interact economically, it's capitalism, regardless of whether the countries are socialist or anything else.
The very fact that Krugman has written this column shows how stupid it is for democrats and progressives to label themselves as "socialist." If they stuck to talking about policies and not about how they label themselves they'd be much better off and not be constantly providing ammunition to the right-wing and Trump.
2
Isn't the rubbish justifying imposing tariffs, on steel and aluminum no less, quintessentially socialist?
Let's not forget the prosperous companies, farmers, and individuals who adore and demand their government hand outs as they laugh all the way to the bank.
Socialists gone wild!
1
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think the definition of fascism is when corporate interests control the state. Aren’t we Americans close to that after the “Citizens United” travesty?
3
I can only access the 25 oldest or the 25 newest comments (not counting the replies). This is new. Is it normal?
Krugman, a western educated economist plugging for socialism. It's like a person going to medical school then peddling snake oil.
1
" ... never mind the reality that there is essentially nobody in American political life who advocates such things."
And that's the problem. There are no real socialists or, god forbid, actual revolutionary communists who want to chop off the heads of the plutocracy. That's why we can't get simple moderate social democratic reforms -- universal health care, free education, child care. The rulers need fear for their lives in order to give up even a little bit of wealth and power. Twas ever thus.
Why is this true in the U.S. and not other developed countries? Hundreds of years of hard core entrenched racism. Since the times of slavery, it's been possible to convince enough American workers that their enemy is the blacks, or the immigrants, or the jews, or the hispanics. This has distracted them from their true enemy -- the plutocrats, the slave owners. We're still waiting for masses to get a clue.
3
Meanwhile, one opinion writer in this newspaper proposed "banning all billionaires".
politicians are suggesting that big government tell companies how to allocate capital by "banning share buybacks."
Politicians, of the socialist kind, are suggesting we move to one national payer system for healthcare; ie. obsolete your current health insurance provider. From the folks who promised you could keep your same doctor under obama-care?
The socialist suggestions are closely following the Hugo Chavez roadmap, no matter the spin from journalists.
Economic history is clear; socialism diminishes rights and also standards of living for all. Venezuela, Cuba, Marxist Russia, Maoist China, communist Vietnam and Cambodia, all had terrible terrible histories under socialism.
1
First it was government was coming after your fetus by promoting abortions. Then it was government coming for your guns. Now it is government coming for you wealth. It is always the unproven fear. That is the only way Republicans can win elections.
3
Mnuchin is a billionaire and socialism to him means that we will be coming after his money. Money he made thanks to us, by the way.
1
“They want us to look like Denmark or Norway, not Venezuela.”
I don’t want America to be like Denmark or Norway or like any European country for that matter. Good for vacation, but there is a reason why their economies are stagnant and why French Yellow Vests are rioting.
And a reason why despite their larger collective population, they don’t have a single tech company that even comes close to Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon.
3
Don't mess with my pick-up truck! And don't mess with my Mom's social security and medicare! And I don't like smart-alec liberals either. Just your normal walking contradiction voters.
2
The USA is already a socialist and welfare state - for corporations.
1
The good news is that only a sliver of the American populace has heard of Leon Trotsky.
1
Knock off on the pickups Paul, many a hard working liberal drive a pickup. We call ourselves artists...
1
Whenever I read Krugman I'm reminded of Ellsworth Toohey.
1
The same people gullible enough to believe the lies that spew out of Donald Trump's mouth will scream for the government to keep its hands out of their Medicare. And while they're at it, keep the government's hands out of their Social Security!
Ben Franklin said that we are all born ignorant, bu we must work hard to remain stupid.
The people who believe the bull that Trump was spinning at his State of the Union Address about how America "will never become a Socialist country" need to work harder at not remaining stupid.
2
Oh ya -I’m suuurrre the govt will have the self discipline not to keep taking more and more and more once something like the green new deal is on the table. No longer relevant to point to Scandinavia as example countries - their economies are straining from the weight of migration for the first time in a long time., oh and they are naturally rich w resources, have tiny populations and have a culture of embedded equality. It’s one of their cultural tenants to “try not to stand out amongst their peers as it’s bad taste”. These conditions have allowed a version of socialist democracy to exist there - it unfortunately it’s on its way out as a result of Europe’s migration policies. Once you have socialism here and you drive all the multi millionaires and billionaires and the businesses they created with them out of America - we’ll be left with less tax revenue which will cause the govt to become increasingly paranoid and authoritarian - then there will go freedom of speech etc. Socialism plus open borders will spell the end of America. The UN Global Migrant compact asks that we not only have completely open borders, but that we advertise our country’s services to migrants, and subsidize press outlets ( w the govt) that publish favorable press of immigrants / “to fight xenophobia”. So if there is anything going on we don’t like, we won’t know about it!! If Hillary were president she Definitely would Have signed this pact. Trudeau et all have.
1
Given that there is no "2nd Amendment of the Unnecessarily Large Pickup Truck", perhaps someone really can work in taking some of them away. After all, the best defense is a good offense. And really, undersized manhood is nothing to be embarrassed about. It's 2019!
1
The people most terrorfied by “Socialism” — Seniors— are its biggest beneficiaries. Social Security and Medicare’s hugh popularity prove it.
Democrats need to confront the massive disinformation campaign of Conservative Media.
Next time the GOP attacks “government bureaucracy” — something they never describe the huge and wasteful Pentagon as being — say darn right we support agencies like the SSA and HHS.
Why don’t you?
Our freedom and democracy survived Medicare just fine — things like “Lock her up!” are what *actually* threaten them.
The majority of Americans probably have no idea who Trotsky was. The president would probably yell "no collusion" if he read his name on your column
For those who don’t know the economic history, please read about Maoist China, Stalinist Russia and Chavez’ Venezuela.
All grand plans led to disaster.
Big big government
Happy sounding plans
Crushing of property rights
Power grabs
Crushing of human rights
Misallocation of resources
Poor planning
Inefficiency
Bureaucratic fiefdoms
Less incentives for entrepreneurs
Less wealth for all
Disaster
1
@Joe Yoh
Sounds like Trump's plans for the future USA to me.
Krugman long ago relinquished his role as academic and has fully embraced his new lot as a talking-head partisan. Same as Tucker Carlson, but credentialed.
Trump is just casting around for some new fear to harp on. His wall is losing it's punch. One of his problems is, he just takes an idea and does it to death. The wall, the wall, the wall. Enough already. Oops--socialism? Say, that's a new shiny thing to play with.
The thing is, like the wall, Trump doesn't care if we're socialist or not. If he can be the head of the government, he'd go socialist in a minute. As long as the applause keeps coming and he can look out to a sea of adoring faces, he doesn't care what kind of government we have. One where he could control the press would be good, and one without a pesky legislature to investigate him would also be good. Hmmmmm, maybe Socialism wouldn't be so bad...
1
Dr. K, there you go again: dissing single payer, universal coverage. We CAN be like Nordic countries instead of Venezuela. We put a man on the moon and brought him back safely. We can do health care with heart. But we need people to constantly, relentlessly, positively support and encourage it. It takes SEVEN positive comments just to neutralize ONE negative comment. Now, we need seven positive columns from you encouraging single payer universal coverage just to get back to level ground. Stop digging holes! Watch Michael Moore’s “Sicko” and start pounding out a positive message.
Such a stupid debate. Humans ARE social animals, so we are all socialists. What do you think government for & by the people means? Oy vey , such ignorance. The argument of many Republicans is WE want everything & give THEM nothing. Who WE & THEM are is up for debate. In our defined democracy , there is only US. All 320 million plus of US. WE are finally learning , WE are everyone on our planet, 7 billion plus . Climate change ,disease, wasting of resources will not care which humans die. It is not Socialism , just simple math , you can only split a hair or a planet so many ways. So stop this stupid argument.
“we’re not going back to socialism” choral is being sung by the right in Brazil also. Bannon seems involved in this movement. US&Brazil in a RUN TO THE BOTTOM!
1
There's socialism and socialism. Germany's 1930's National Socialism seems a model for the Steve Bannon, Ben Shapiro Donald Trump idea.
It constantly amazes me how people are so afraid of "socialism." What's so horrible about universal healthcare, social safety net, paid vacation etc
Interesting ..altho I am not clear as to why Ronald Reagan was the voice of this contra-initiative in 1961..we have many social policies to support the fabric of this country. Over the decades , the GOP has been apoplectic about "entitlements" explicity stating that blacks, illegals and freeloaders are "riding the system" while "you and I carry their water and pay their way"...this further degraded to the anti-gov right-wingnuts of the Freedom Caucus etc in recent years targeting immigrants in redstates. All this against the backdrop of whining and feigning abject hatred for deficit spending, balance budgets and our 22trillion dollar deficit..(see paul ryan)
Krugman describes it all pretty accurately, but he still can't bring himself to say the obvious "S" word: Sanders. C'mon Paul, you've come a long way since Clintonism, 'fess up.
2
A better term to describe a critical mass of progressive politicians in America today would be "Social Democrat" rather than "Democratic Socialist."
I consider myself a Social Democrat to the extent that simple labels usefully apply to anybody's political thought. That said, here's the message for my roadkill eating pals on the right fringes of the political spectrum: I don't want your GD pickup truck!
1
‘’So scaremongering over socialism is both silly and dishonest. But will it be politically effective?’’
In an election year, you bet it will......
1
Norway is more socialist than Venezuela, measured by government ownership of industry.
1
If you want to find out what hard line socialism, communist like, is look no further than south of your border. The new government is very rapidly moving towards it.
I know somebody who's very happy about this. By 2020 he's going to say "I told you so, vote for me".
I am so sick and tired of hesring the right whine sbout socislism. These people need to order their own house, and focus on creeping fascism within conservative circles. Trump is a wanabe fascist and he has company. In case anyone is interested, unfetted capitalism hadn't worked out too well for most Americans. the US spent almost 40 years arm twisting the world to adopt the American free market model with minimal regulation. as if that's a model worth emulating. I wonder if average Europeans question their leaders economuc decisons of the past 35 years. I'm afraid we all should be sdking questions.
Paul, you fail to see the difference between something for something, and something for nothing. You are talking out of your hat. Social Security and Medicare are financed by the beneficiaries. Presumably you get a salary, yes? You get a W2 each year, right? Did you ever notice the boxes which set forth Social Security tax and Medicare tax withheld? No? Go back and look again. As regards Medicare, beneficiaries pay premiums for Part B as well as premiums for a supplement plan or a Medicare Advantage plan. This is not socialism. Socialism is when you get something for nothing which someone else paid for. Ah, such is the liberal mindset.
2
The choice isn't between Capitalism and Socialism.
It's between Fascism and Social Democracy.
No large nation can survive without some socialist solutions.
.
1
I urge the Dems to remember Karl Rove’s mantra: go after their strong key arguments, not their weaknesses. That is what “swift boating” was all about. Claim the “socialist” label. E.g. “If good health care for all Americans is a socialist goal, then call me a democracy-loving socialist; If a good job for every American worker is socialist idea, then call me a socialist; if lower prescription drug prices is a socialist outcome, then call me a socialist......etc.”. Believe me, denying and arguing against the caricature will only reinforce the tactic. Dems, wiseup and learn from the successful Dean of Deflection, Mr. Rove.
The study krugman cites for Americans not wanting single payer actually says that’s 56% do, and that number is growing since the idea has become more mainstream. Krugman spends a whole op ed lamenting that’s conservatives are lying about the true picture of socialism, then unfortunately wraps it up by doing the exact same thing. It’s a clever way to pretend to present a choice but then later on set himself up to endorse the democratic candidate who’s for the status quo.
1
Norway Venezuela. Norwegians came together when forming their social safety net. Everyone understood the costs and benefits. They didn't demonize the rich or pit rich vs poor.
In Venezuela, leaders promised free stuff for the poor saying the rich would pay it while demonizing the rich
American leftist speak in the language of Hugo Chavez. "Punish the rich" promising free stuff while creating division for political advantage.
This sort of leftist language always ends in disaster.
2