I'm not going to disagree with the idea of the state redistributing wealth via taxes/benefits or even nationalized resources (e.g., mineral rights or FCC spectrum). Both have been features of US capitalism almost since the founding.

But if you're saying the US is a successful communist country... well, I promised I wouldn't argue.

▲

Retric 43 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

> I promise I wouldn’t argue

Fair, to be clear I wouldn’t actually call the US a communist country either. I would say it’s more communist than modern day China, granted that’s a low bar.

What’s IMO worth considering is just how much more communist it is today than in 1776. 22 million Americans work directly for the government (fed, state, local, post office etc), that rises significantly when you include research grants, government contractors, farm subsidies, etc. K-12 education, Qualified immunity (1967), banking laws, etc the government is both getting a stranglehold on the economy and continues extending its reach.

We are closer to nominally capitalist than I think anyone wants to admit and in ways both parties quietly agree with. That isn’t to say we need “smaller government” just understanding of what’s happening.

▲

gacgacgac 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I'll argue -- socialist is not the same as communist. Norway is not a communist country (despite arguably being a socialist one).

▲

GMoromisato an hour ago | parent [-]

I agree. Moreover, socialism and capitalism are not antithetical--they are orthogonal. Norway and the US have socialism (e.g., Social Security) and capitalism (e.g., people invest their capital to fund industry).

Socialism without capitalism is communism--the state owns everything.

Capitalism without socialism is anarchy: if you don't socialize a legal system, law enforcement, and national defense, then you don't have a country.

	▲	Retric 24 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		East India company and its armies are something of a counter argument to your second point.