12 Comments

Great essay, Professor. Question: How do you define socialism?

Expand full comment

Government ownership and operation of some important part of the economy. Merely regulating aspects of the economy doesn't rise to that level. The feds regulate food safety, for example, but they don't own and operate farms or food processing plants. But public education does qualify, since here the government (including the states and local school districts) actually owns and runs the schools and universities that educate most of America's young people.

Expand full comment

Thank you, sir. That's more specific (and probably more accurate) than my definition. I always defined it as something you got for nothing. Inherited wealth? Socialism.

Expand full comment

Thank you for defining socialism. That was the same question I had after reading the essay. It seems this discussion always falls into arguing about that definition. (“That’s not socialism!” “Yes it is!”). I’d be curious to know if there any other institutions or government programs in America that you would consider socialism. Thank you.

Expand full comment

The military is the biggest unified one. And it's worth noting that most Americans think highly of the military. Highways, roads and bridges are owned and operated by government, but at different levels (federal, state, local). Airports and the air traffic control system are owned and run by government. Medicare and Medicaid constitute a very large chunk of the health care sector.

Expand full comment

Interesting. Thank you for the response. I’m far from an economics expert, but I wonder how useful it is to think of the military and the other things you mentioned as socialist. And they arguably don’t fit the Merriam-Webster definitions, although I realize you have a slightly different definition that has the words “some important part of”. Many would simply think of them as government-run programs that are compatible with a capitalist system, whereas socialism refers to countries where the government runs everything, like Communist Cuba or socialist (but not communist) Venezuela. It seems desirable and rational to distance ourselves from these disastrous systems.

Expand full comment

My point is that no countries are all socialist or all capitalist. There are privately operated restaurants in Cuba. And lots of private things in Venezuela. Those countries are dominantly socialist, just as the United States is dominantly capitalist.

Expand full comment

I take your point. Thank you.

Expand full comment

Hear, Hear!, Prof. Brands. But I am left with a question: after these discussions with your students--about a central factor in their immediate lives--did you see or hear any evidence that they were drawn to reconsider their attitudes about the many other (Socialist!!) government policies which (at least can) improve lives for the broader public: healthcare, communications and transportation, clean air and water, industrial supports, etc., etc.? And--dare I say it--maybe childcare and early education?

Expand full comment

In some cases it did. Although my students are fairly conservative, I sense they are more open to new ideas than their parents. But that is probably just the nature of youth.

Expand full comment

I hadn't realized that withdrawal of government support had caused the sharp college cost increase.

Expand full comment

There have been other causes, but that is the single most important one.

Expand full comment