After the Second World War, the Labour government in the United Kingdom nationalized the Bank of England, the Coal Industry, Railways, Steel, and so on. Under Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative government in the 1980s, the UK privatized almost all of the nationalized industries.When Labour regained power, they did not re-nationalize the privatized industries. However, Britain retains one major aspect of socialism – “the cradle-to-grave welfare state,” where caring for the welfare of the people is a task for the government, not for the individual. Welfare states do not trust individuals or businesses to “do the right thing,” but instead tend toward government control of many aspects of life with a regulatory regime that is administered by a large bureaucracy.
America has not been fertile ground for nationalized industries, although our bureaucracy and regulatory apparatus can be as oppressive as those in a socialist state. But our “welfare state” grows and grows. About half our population receives support from the government (that is, taxpayers). We are over $18 trillion in debt. The New Deal, the Great Society and Obamacare were created by and supported by the Democrat party (although not exclusively – many Republicans have boosted big government, crony capitalism, the welfare state and heavy regulation as well; and many Democrats support the free market).
In America, nationalization is seldom practiced, but instead we have our version of it: abundant examples of crony capitalism, support for favored industries or sectors of the economy, and use of the tax code to punish certain behaviors and reward others. Again, although some Republicans have championed those policies, their implementation is associated more with the Democrats. “Socialism” by that name has never had much support in America – Americans, historically at least, instinctively reject “socialism,” but many seem to have less of a problem with “socialism by any other name”; that is, big government, and government control of industries, not through ownership, but through regulation, favoritism, and punitive taxation; assault on traditional values and institutions, and attacks on free markets.
Had a Republican been asked to define the differences between his party and socialism, he would have given an answer very like the first two sentences of this editorial, and added that his party supports free markets and doesn’t believe in nationalizing industry. Had the question been asked of the DNC leader a few years ago, he would have said the same thing, and emphasized the dangers of socialism. The leaders of our political parties should say Socialist economies are terrible at producing wealth, but apt at confiscating it; that they stifle innovation and pump resources into dying industries; that Socialist states are less flexible and their degree of individual freedom is less. Ms. Wasserman-Schultz was not able to give that answer, and we all should tremble that the spokesman of one of our two great parties hesitates to distance herself from socialism.