Recently lawyer Mitch Jackson here on Substack gave a very good argument on what "social ism" really means in the American context that everyone should read to gain understanding of how it applies to our current experience.
The beginning of our socialism is rooted in the Constitution. Do you understand that? In the wording and intent of our founders.
Simply, it's part of our social contract with ourselves. It revoles around our ability to take care of ourselves, our families, our larger community up through our States and our Federal governments. To wit: the wording of certain establishments, the Post Office and Post roads. Washington used this wording to begin naming the Post roads to help commerce amongst the localities and the intra and interstate to become more efficient and increase simple trading. The post roads were deemed important because they helped everyone under that social compact. Jefferson did the same by establishing light houses up and down the coast to aid navigation beneficial for all. Eisenhower after World War Two created the Interstate Highway System. We all contributed to these as part of our "socialism " compact. Without a simple use of socialism in the American context we wouldn't have free highways but a system of private roads under onerous tolling systems. We would not have a rudimentary postal system but a set pf service providers based solely in profit motives. We contribute to our society, our social order under Constitutional socialism because it works for all.
Jackson's analogies delve much deeper in his explanations.
Another one was a very simple safety explanation that Benjamin Franklin expanded upon even before the Constitution layed it out. Volunteer fire companies. Going from the community and neighborhood safety of bucket brigades in those Colonial times to our modern fire service throughout this nation. Where people provide the manpower to fight fires but the community socialism works together to fund the stations, the bunker gear worn and the expensive apparatus driven to the scenes. In urban areas the salaries and benefits are tax payer supported, still part of the original social compact for the benefit of the whole.
For the benefit of the whole. That's American Socialism. The roads, the public schools, the Interstate Highway, the Post Office, the military that we have chosen to protect our way of life, the Space Program from the beginning that put the first humans on the moon, all the spin offs from every endeavor that could be seen as a positive for the benefit of the whole.
Go read Mitch Jackson's essay on what socialism is in our context.
For the benefits of everyone that has planted their feet in this land from the very beginning. It's not what you may have thought or been exposed to recently. His is from the legal and Constitutional aspect based in the readily seen evidence of history of these United States of America. The Founders had ideas to form a more perfect Union and used principles based in the Enlightenment to create a documentary framework to give us a workable social compact to achieve it. American Socialism is unique. It's not anyone else's. It's ours to use for OUR BENEFIT.
My pleasure to bring Mitch Jackson's most eloquent essay to your attention. His expansive writing on this important subject as we approach the mid terms needs to be opened up and examined by everyone that has a stake in our democratic processes... Meaning EVERYBODY!
It's a challenge to those ignorant of this basic philosophy of what a simple benevolent, not malevolent, sense of social order is when looking at it from the USA form in an historical perspective. I'm of the mind that our 'socialism' has long been wrongly equated to more repressive, wrongful draconian ideas more representative of communism in its worst forms. That is a failure of education and nothing else.
Unfounded fear based, as well as poor and ill defined, interference in getting some major problems solved seems to have been way more influential in recent times because of broadly excoriating " socialism " as a political buzzword. Jackson clears the fog and cuts through the crud. I hope you find him informative.
One example is the paragraph beginning with, “Baker kept the alarming number and dropped the answer.” I’m not sure what the answer refers to, for example. It’s too implicit. And that continues throughout
I do understand that the huge split between small businesses and big corporations was the more important side of the poll. We can imagine being an individual with a dream vs. something that is an impersonal high level abstraction which has gained such enormous power over us in so many areas of our lives.
I’m on Medicare with AARP UnitedHealth as my supplement. Try to find a psychologist with just Medicare. I’ve had to move twice and at my age (82 in a week), this means finding health care for nearly every body system. But if you require two services from the same doctor, you have to make a second appointment which usually means between 2-3 hours with travel and waiting. My joke is that my social life consists of health professionals.
You found the mechanism under the example. "The answer" was pointing three sentences back at the Fed authors' no, and I could see the chain, so I assumed you could. I do it at every seam — close on a compressed verdict, open on an ordinal, nothing carrying you across. Fixing it this week.
Your framing of the 95-against-37 split is better than mine. I gave the numbers and left you to feel them. You said what they're made of.
And your third paragraph is the argument, lived — three hours per appointment, one problem per visit, two moves, one body. Edges, all of it, and it still gets read as poor planning.
Pure socialism isn't the answer, but neither is any pure "ism". Kind of like our experiment of 3 branches of government that are supposed to balance/keep each in check (a noble quest) - there should always be a check on the faults in any system (greed, laziness, exceptions, overzealous application of whatever rules one chooses). One builds with the noblest of intentions, surrounded by people trying to uplift the most possible- and there's a tendency to forget that there will always be ones actively working the edges for personal gain. I digress- 🤔 overthink is a hazard of viewing from such a high perspective trying to hold it all at once. Parables and simplistic explanations are too small. (My way of giving you credit for thoroughness- but you need a friendly translator to simplify your thesis)! Don't give up or burn out😊
Memorable. Chompsky said something like: that kind of talk just wouldn’t do in polite company. He also said the US doesn’t censor media because it censors itself. Also, I remember pop cutting in as I fumed about Bernie getting shafted by the D party to say: but we don’t need a REVOLUTION, pretending he hadn’t heard that talking point hammered home on MSNBC for weeks.
We left out communism. Now I have friends that grew up and lived in communism. They all were educated one an MD the other a pharmacist and it’s free, a home, vacation a long one, and both said you work like crazy in US. I personally would take Socialism
There are socialistic practices within capitalism, brought to you in the 1930's by a militant sector of communists and socialists. It's called "the social safety net".
There are socialistic practices within families, church parishes, towns, etc.
There are socially oriented businesses in the capitalist economy. Cooperatives are doing just fine like Mondragon in Spain and B-corps in the US.
No hard edges anywhere. It's not a switch you flip on or off. There is no either-or reality. These framings only serve capital in my opinion.
My father was a doctor and he decried "socialized medicine" for decades. Medicare for all, Canadian model, Euro models. He cried n cried. Then the 90s came and the medical industry reorganized vertically and my dad lost out, bigtime. His entire career his biggest checks came from Medicare, socialized medicine.
The answer's easier than it seems, but next to impossible to implement.
It boils down to Money and Accountability.
Early capitalism was based on Gold and other precious metals as money. Mercantilism was a form of capitalism. Kingdoms have since the advent of recorded history used coinage as a facilitator for transactions (exchange value). But it's heavy to carry around.
Paper money was actually first tried in China. When it came to Europe and the USA, the obvious question is, whose power backs the paper. So the Gold standard was introduced, in the USA in 1834. European monarchies had already outsourced their coinage to the private sphere. This is a second layer of issues (banking).
Contrary to common knowledge, the British empire was already in decline at the turn of the 20th century (check out Academic Agent on YT). The contrarian opinion is 'special interests' started pillaging the wealth of the British empire by the mid 1800s.
American exceptionalism and economic growth boomed throughout the 1800s, but it turns out foreign Gold entered the USA after the civil war era (or ploy to crash the Union failed) and ever slowly established itself and bought influence, culminating with the creation of the Fed in 1913, by coincidence a year before ww1 breaks out.
Contrary to popular opinion the roaring twenties in the USA wasn't a coincidence, incredible isn't it? The US government started issuing Treasuries in the mid 20s, which is another form of money, so bank lending standards were relaxed. The explicit reason behind this was capital was exiting the UK in droves for the USA. When the Gold standard was revalued in 1933 (devaluing the USD by 40% overnight), this helps us appreciate just how much excess liquidity was inserted in the US economy in the 20s, which gravitated to the stock market as there was no use for it (mortgages didn't really exist and credit cards didn't exist) and the stock market was already a form of legalized gambling.
In 1945 Breton Woods consecrated the USD as the global reserve currency, convertible into Gold, while Western Europe currencies pegged themselves to the USD and then proceeded to regularly devalue themselves to boost exports and production. By the 60s inflation was running hot in the USA, there's Vietnam and the MIC, but the Gold standard remained untouched until 1971 (blame the French for sailing a gun boat to NY to collect 300 tons of yellow metal 3 months before the announcement) when it went from $40 to around $800 over a few years, just so we get an idea of how much money was printed in the 50s and 60s. The irony of 'the golden 50s'.
Then in the 80s we get the digital revolution and instead of a printing press we can press buttons to create money.
Which brings us to today. It's easy to say money is broken and what the few real solution are, but since all real solutions mean accountability to some standard, at the end of the day someone needs to pay the bill. So it's much easier to kick the proverbial can down the road, issue more treasuries, print money and play pretend statistics, especially for inflation, and issue crypto stablecoins linked to treasuries and hope for the best.
Socialism sounds great because it's premised on free money.
Besides money, accountability also demands an end to corruption, especially an end of the revolving door between corporations and regulatory oversight agencies. American corporatism at the moment resembles what it was under Italian fascism: big business and government are indistinguishable in terms of service providers.
Recently lawyer Mitch Jackson here on Substack gave a very good argument on what "social ism" really means in the American context that everyone should read to gain understanding of how it applies to our current experience.
The beginning of our socialism is rooted in the Constitution. Do you understand that? In the wording and intent of our founders.
Simply, it's part of our social contract with ourselves. It revoles around our ability to take care of ourselves, our families, our larger community up through our States and our Federal governments. To wit: the wording of certain establishments, the Post Office and Post roads. Washington used this wording to begin naming the Post roads to help commerce amongst the localities and the intra and interstate to become more efficient and increase simple trading. The post roads were deemed important because they helped everyone under that social compact. Jefferson did the same by establishing light houses up and down the coast to aid navigation beneficial for all. Eisenhower after World War Two created the Interstate Highway System. We all contributed to these as part of our "socialism " compact. Without a simple use of socialism in the American context we wouldn't have free highways but a system of private roads under onerous tolling systems. We would not have a rudimentary postal system but a set pf service providers based solely in profit motives. We contribute to our society, our social order under Constitutional socialism because it works for all.
Jackson's analogies delve much deeper in his explanations.
Another one was a very simple safety explanation that Benjamin Franklin expanded upon even before the Constitution layed it out. Volunteer fire companies. Going from the community and neighborhood safety of bucket brigades in those Colonial times to our modern fire service throughout this nation. Where people provide the manpower to fight fires but the community socialism works together to fund the stations, the bunker gear worn and the expensive apparatus driven to the scenes. In urban areas the salaries and benefits are tax payer supported, still part of the original social compact for the benefit of the whole.
For the benefit of the whole. That's American Socialism. The roads, the public schools, the Interstate Highway, the Post Office, the military that we have chosen to protect our way of life, the Space Program from the beginning that put the first humans on the moon, all the spin offs from every endeavor that could be seen as a positive for the benefit of the whole.
Go read Mitch Jackson's essay on what socialism is in our context.
For the benefits of everyone that has planted their feet in this land from the very beginning. It's not what you may have thought or been exposed to recently. His is from the legal and Constitutional aspect based in the readily seen evidence of history of these United States of America. The Founders had ideas to form a more perfect Union and used principles based in the Enlightenment to create a documentary framework to give us a workable social compact to achieve it. American Socialism is unique. It's not anyone else's. It's ours to use for OUR BENEFIT.
Thank you for this extremely informative comment. This is a discussion worth having. I’ll be returning to this comment
My pleasure to bring Mitch Jackson's most eloquent essay to your attention. His expansive writing on this important subject as we approach the mid terms needs to be opened up and examined by everyone that has a stake in our democratic processes... Meaning EVERYBODY!
It's a challenge to those ignorant of this basic philosophy of what a simple benevolent, not malevolent, sense of social order is when looking at it from the USA form in an historical perspective. I'm of the mind that our 'socialism' has long been wrongly equated to more repressive, wrongful draconian ideas more representative of communism in its worst forms. That is a failure of education and nothing else.
Unfounded fear based, as well as poor and ill defined, interference in getting some major problems solved seems to have been way more influential in recent times because of broadly excoriating " socialism " as a political buzzword. Jackson clears the fog and cuts through the crud. I hope you find him informative.
I’ve read this, including re-reading parts, and I find it hard to follow. Your transitions sometimes escape me.
Thank you for taking the time to read it. I appreciate feedback. Is there a particular section or sections that lose you?
One example is the paragraph beginning with, “Baker kept the alarming number and dropped the answer.” I’m not sure what the answer refers to, for example. It’s too implicit. And that continues throughout
I do understand that the huge split between small businesses and big corporations was the more important side of the poll. We can imagine being an individual with a dream vs. something that is an impersonal high level abstraction which has gained such enormous power over us in so many areas of our lives.
I’m on Medicare with AARP UnitedHealth as my supplement. Try to find a psychologist with just Medicare. I’ve had to move twice and at my age (82 in a week), this means finding health care for nearly every body system. But if you require two services from the same doctor, you have to make a second appointment which usually means between 2-3 hours with travel and waiting. My joke is that my social life consists of health professionals.
You found the mechanism under the example. "The answer" was pointing three sentences back at the Fed authors' no, and I could see the chain, so I assumed you could. I do it at every seam — close on a compressed verdict, open on an ordinal, nothing carrying you across. Fixing it this week.
Your framing of the 95-against-37 split is better than mine. I gave the numbers and left you to feel them. You said what they're made of.
And your third paragraph is the argument, lived — three hours per appointment, one problem per visit, two moves, one body. Edges, all of it, and it still gets read as poor planning.
Happy birthday next week.
Pure socialism isn't the answer, but neither is any pure "ism". Kind of like our experiment of 3 branches of government that are supposed to balance/keep each in check (a noble quest) - there should always be a check on the faults in any system (greed, laziness, exceptions, overzealous application of whatever rules one chooses). One builds with the noblest of intentions, surrounded by people trying to uplift the most possible- and there's a tendency to forget that there will always be ones actively working the edges for personal gain. I digress- 🤔 overthink is a hazard of viewing from such a high perspective trying to hold it all at once. Parables and simplistic explanations are too small. (My way of giving you credit for thoroughness- but you need a friendly translator to simplify your thesis)! Don't give up or burn out😊
Memorable. Chompsky said something like: that kind of talk just wouldn’t do in polite company. He also said the US doesn’t censor media because it censors itself. Also, I remember pop cutting in as I fumed about Bernie getting shafted by the D party to say: but we don’t need a REVOLUTION, pretending he hadn’t heard that talking point hammered home on MSNBC for weeks.
We left out communism. Now I have friends that grew up and lived in communism. They all were educated one an MD the other a pharmacist and it’s free, a home, vacation a long one, and both said you work like crazy in US. I personally would take Socialism
I partially agree with Dr. Roy, above. But for me your transitions always escape me.
There are socialistic practices within capitalism, brought to you in the 1930's by a militant sector of communists and socialists. It's called "the social safety net".
There are socialistic practices within families, church parishes, towns, etc.
There are socially oriented businesses in the capitalist economy. Cooperatives are doing just fine like Mondragon in Spain and B-corps in the US.
No hard edges anywhere. It's not a switch you flip on or off. There is no either-or reality. These framings only serve capital in my opinion.
My father was a doctor and he decried "socialized medicine" for decades. Medicare for all, Canadian model, Euro models. He cried n cried. Then the 90s came and the medical industry reorganized vertically and my dad lost out, bigtime. His entire career his biggest checks came from Medicare, socialized medicine.
The answer's easier than it seems, but next to impossible to implement.
It boils down to Money and Accountability.
Early capitalism was based on Gold and other precious metals as money. Mercantilism was a form of capitalism. Kingdoms have since the advent of recorded history used coinage as a facilitator for transactions (exchange value). But it's heavy to carry around.
Paper money was actually first tried in China. When it came to Europe and the USA, the obvious question is, whose power backs the paper. So the Gold standard was introduced, in the USA in 1834. European monarchies had already outsourced their coinage to the private sphere. This is a second layer of issues (banking).
Contrary to common knowledge, the British empire was already in decline at the turn of the 20th century (check out Academic Agent on YT). The contrarian opinion is 'special interests' started pillaging the wealth of the British empire by the mid 1800s.
American exceptionalism and economic growth boomed throughout the 1800s, but it turns out foreign Gold entered the USA after the civil war era (or ploy to crash the Union failed) and ever slowly established itself and bought influence, culminating with the creation of the Fed in 1913, by coincidence a year before ww1 breaks out.
Contrary to popular opinion the roaring twenties in the USA wasn't a coincidence, incredible isn't it? The US government started issuing Treasuries in the mid 20s, which is another form of money, so bank lending standards were relaxed. The explicit reason behind this was capital was exiting the UK in droves for the USA. When the Gold standard was revalued in 1933 (devaluing the USD by 40% overnight), this helps us appreciate just how much excess liquidity was inserted in the US economy in the 20s, which gravitated to the stock market as there was no use for it (mortgages didn't really exist and credit cards didn't exist) and the stock market was already a form of legalized gambling.
In 1945 Breton Woods consecrated the USD as the global reserve currency, convertible into Gold, while Western Europe currencies pegged themselves to the USD and then proceeded to regularly devalue themselves to boost exports and production. By the 60s inflation was running hot in the USA, there's Vietnam and the MIC, but the Gold standard remained untouched until 1971 (blame the French for sailing a gun boat to NY to collect 300 tons of yellow metal 3 months before the announcement) when it went from $40 to around $800 over a few years, just so we get an idea of how much money was printed in the 50s and 60s. The irony of 'the golden 50s'.
Then in the 80s we get the digital revolution and instead of a printing press we can press buttons to create money.
Which brings us to today. It's easy to say money is broken and what the few real solution are, but since all real solutions mean accountability to some standard, at the end of the day someone needs to pay the bill. So it's much easier to kick the proverbial can down the road, issue more treasuries, print money and play pretend statistics, especially for inflation, and issue crypto stablecoins linked to treasuries and hope for the best.
Socialism sounds great because it's premised on free money.
Besides money, accountability also demands an end to corruption, especially an end of the revolving door between corporations and regulatory oversight agencies. American corporatism at the moment resembles what it was under Italian fascism: big business and government are indistinguishable in terms of service providers.