Actually you're very wrong. The US is probably the one nation which practices the most pure (unbroken) form of capitalism. *That's* why things are so shitty there, capitalism *must* be broken (by healthy amounts of socialism) if you want more than a handful of people to have any quality of life.
The whole point of capitalism is to try to end up with all the money/resources by exploiting as many people as possible. It inevitably destroys itself because, if left running long enough, all money/resources end up in so few hands that society must either abandon capitalism or collapse, and the...
collapse might be inevitable even if capitalism is abandoned if it was left unbroken for too long. What we are seeing in the US is capitalism left unchecked/unbroken for far too long. Unless the US starts major reforms *NOW*, its society may very well collapse.
I'm not sure what you're saying is wrong. We agree that the U.S. form of capitalism is problematic. I agree that it will break us, and soon. We can practice capitalism in the way that our European partners, and others, practice it - with strong social safety nets to protect citizens. /1
This is a question, not a challenge. Where is effective Socialism practiced? The nations we call socialist keep reminding us that they are capitalist with strong controls and stronger social safety nets/policies - free health are, education, etc. The problem is greed in every system. /2
Is it a coincidence that a nation that cries out most about its Christian foundation (exaggerated and problematic) also embraces greed?
Effective socialism is practiced in exactly those countries you mention have effective mitigations on capitalism. Because those mitigations *are* socialism. They'd also be more effective if capitalists weren't trying to block back more of those socialistic policies or even roll them back.
I'm not sure we are using the same definition of socialism but we agree on most things. U.S. voters love safety nets. Call it socialism and they think you are trying to dismantle everything they've ever known. Then they vote for the party that really is dismantling their lives.
What else should I call services provided by the government because it owns the means of producing it? Things like education, military, healthcare, and basic necessities. Things all governments should provide, at or below cost because they're funded by taxes.
Socialism, as I've always understood the term, uses "means of production" to include a lack of privately owned businesses, etc. No European nation refers to itself as socialist. This is interesting b/c I wonder if older voters understand that ppl use two different definitions. I didn't until now.
Yes, all those things I listed *can* be provided by private businesses. In some places they do. Private schools, mercenaries, for profit healthcare, landlords, electric companies, etc. Shit we *need* to live should not have a profit motive and in fact every single time private has taken over that...
which we need to survive and function in the modern world only gets enshitified and price gouged. When the government is the main, biggest, and/or sole provider of these staples of modern life, there's far less focus on profit and almost only focus on service. Socialism.
I wish we were the humanitarians we think we are. No one should have to explain why healthcare, housing, education and food security should be guaranteed. Yet here we are in this "advanced" society. All explanations have to include cost savings projections and even that is not enough for change.