Only a Sith deals in absolutes. Nearly every real-world economic system sits somewhere on a spectrum instead of neatly slotting into one category only.
Sure, but the difference is that they (European countries) do not profess to be staunch Capitalists (and staunchly anti-Socialist), whereas by large America does. That is a big difference, because it informs policy drastically. There’s a reason we’re much much closer to a corporate oligarchy than European nations are, and it’s our idealization of a system that literally is based around Corporatism.
America is the one dealing in absolutes. “Are you or have you ever been a member of…”, “better dead than Red”, etc.
This is incorrect. When the concept of the social market economy was first brought to the public attention by the conservative German CDU in the late 1940s, it was meant to be a counterpoint to the “unsocial command economy”. Being staunchly anti-Socialist was a core policy of most large democratic parties in Western-European countries, not just West-Germany, as a reaction to the massive and very close threat from the East. Relations only began to thaw in the 1970s, only for the Cold War to heat up in the 1980s.
Yes, I know, this is the past and today, things are different in terms of rhetoric on the old continent, but this was when the economic systems that are still in place today were created.
the concept of the social market economy… in the late 1940s
I feel like we’re glossing over important parts of 1800s European history, and it being the literal birthplace of Socialism and Anarchism as philosophies, to just go to the 1940s emergence of the postwar Western Europe economies. The backlash against Monarchism and mercantile economies saw a lot of support for all sorts of new forms of government in the 1800s, and various forms of Socialism were chief among them and incredibly well liked and influential among citizens.
That it took 2 world wars shattering the remaining vestiges of the mainland European monarchic powers (who were very anti-Socialist for obvious reasons), and allowed Socialist ideas about the responsibilities of government to its peoples to actually take hold at a government level, is a story about Monarchic influence clinging to power against the will of its people until being forced out, not about citizenry being anti-Socialist.
And yes, that reticence is very much a thing of the past now, and most Europeans are vocally proud of their social programs and their societies’ focuses on social welfare and community.
So, still not Capitalism tho
Only a Sith deals in absolutes. Nearly every real-world economic system sits somewhere on a spectrum instead of neatly slotting into one category only.
Sure, but the difference is that they (European countries) do not profess to be staunch Capitalists (and staunchly anti-Socialist), whereas by large America does. That is a big difference, because it informs policy drastically. There’s a reason we’re much much closer to a corporate oligarchy than European nations are, and it’s our idealization of a system that literally is based around Corporatism.
America is the one dealing in absolutes. “Are you or have you ever been a member of…”, “better dead than Red”, etc.
This is incorrect. When the concept of the social market economy was first brought to the public attention by the conservative German CDU in the late 1940s, it was meant to be a counterpoint to the “unsocial command economy”. Being staunchly anti-Socialist was a core policy of most large democratic parties in Western-European countries, not just West-Germany, as a reaction to the massive and very close threat from the East. Relations only began to thaw in the 1970s, only for the Cold War to heat up in the 1980s.
Yes, I know, this is the past and today, things are different in terms of rhetoric on the old continent, but this was when the economic systems that are still in place today were created.
I feel like we’re glossing over important parts of 1800s European history, and it being the literal birthplace of Socialism and Anarchism as philosophies, to just go to the 1940s emergence of the postwar Western Europe economies. The backlash against Monarchism and mercantile economies saw a lot of support for all sorts of new forms of government in the 1800s, and various forms of Socialism were chief among them and incredibly well liked and influential among citizens.
That it took 2 world wars shattering the remaining vestiges of the mainland European monarchic powers (who were very anti-Socialist for obvious reasons), and allowed Socialist ideas about the responsibilities of government to its peoples to actually take hold at a government level, is a story about Monarchic influence clinging to power against the will of its people until being forced out, not about citizenry being anti-Socialist.
And yes, that reticence is very much a thing of the past now, and most Europeans are vocally proud of their social programs and their societies’ focuses on social welfare and community.