Please note that what follows contains many sweeping generalizations about both the US and Europe. However, I feel comfortable that it accurately reflects opinions on both sides of the Atlantic.
I think I am finally getting a handle on explaining European attitudes on economics. When I read about, say, South American economics, I constantly hear "capitalism versus socialism". So much of the debate about how to manage South American economies is described in terms of these abstract ideals rather than concrete proposals. I'm not saying they don't have concrete proposals; I'm saying that their comments which make it to this side of the pond are heavy on ideology.
I haven't lived in the US for years, but when I did I don't recall that I heard European economic discussions being continuously framed that way and now that I live here, while political parties often organize around an economic philosophy, the actual day-to-day economic decisions seem to be organized around a different, practical thought, but one which is all but dead in the US. More on that in a moment.
If you haven't grown up in the US, you really can't imagine some of the "debate" — I use that term loosely — about economics that we have. I grew up mostly in the deep South and I recall one of my earliest political/economic statements when I was about eight years old (around '75): I was explaining to one of my playmates that everyone in the Soviet Union was a slave.¹ Naturally little children generally don't have strong opinions about weighty geopolitical issues; that's just the sort of indoctrination that Americans received, particularly myself as a military brat. Even today, you'll find many Americans view socialism as being little more than Satanism (that's a link to Google search results, not some random blog!).
In fact, when I was trying to research American's views on socialism I discovered two rather unsettling facts:
- Americans aren't sure exactly what socialism is
- ... except that it's evil incarnate.
But what is socialism? In a nutshell it's government control and/or ownership of the means of production and/or distribution of goods and/or services.
² So by this (mouthful of waffle) definition, there's no question that the highly successful National Health Service in the United Kingdom is socialism. No one denies that the USSR's "five year plans" and control over all Soviet industry was socialism (and not many people deny that it was a disaster).
However, if you're really, really honest with yourself, you have to admit that in the US, the police provide a government controlled service. The US military provides a government controlled service. Social Security provides a government controlled good. Prisons are generally a government controlled service. Public school education is a government provided service. Food stamps are a government controlled good. The National Highway System of the United States, space program, the Rural Electrification Act are all examples of government provided goods and services which have more than paid for themselves many times over.
In other words, socialism is alive and well in the US and it's providing strong economic benefits which many Americans won't let you take away — so long as you don't use the word socialism. For Americans, simply brand a bill with the scarlet letter "S" and there's a good chance that it's dead. For Europeans, it's merely another piece of the puzzle.
Here in Europe, socialism doesn't have quite the taint it does in the US. However, I think the word doesn't appear to be bandied about as much as it is in South America because European economies aren't struggling to succeed. They're already doing quite well and it's merely a matter of management. As a result, the "practical thought" around which many economic decisions revolve is simple: is this function better served by government?
So for rational people, there's generally an assumption that government does better than the market at some things and worse at others; all but the most rabid Cato Institute fans would object to a privatized military. So when we find out that the UK government's flagship private prison has the worst level of violence of any UK prison, we shouldn't be surprised. A private corporation has every incentive to minimize costs. In fact, a corporation has great incentive to lobby the government to criminalize more activities and enact "mandatory minimum" sentencing. They may have no incentive to rehabilitate prisoners because it's against their long-term interests. Thus, privatization of prisons tends to be more common in "pro-market" countries such as the US, the UK and Israel whereas countries which have a stronger sense of balance between government and the market tend to reject private prisons.
Because the role of government in Europe is not automatically assumed to be a negative one, we have some very strange differences. For example, I was once discussing economics with a British Libertarian and pointed out how the their "socialist" National Health Service was doing a far better job in providing services and containing costs than the US system. His response? "But health care is a basic right and the government is there to protect that."
Get that? A self-proclaimed Libertarian, a.k.a, "anarchists in ties", is defending Socialism. I can't say that this is a universal attitude in Europe, but it's hardly unusual. Even David Cameron, head of the British Conservative party, promised not to privatise the NHS (though it looks like he is changing his tune as British Conservatives are rushing to adopt the US model of propping up corporations at the expense of the people).
It's so refreshing to live someplace where the political debate isn't dominated by "government is always bad" or "socialism is never good" arguments. Zealots are fond of the words "always" and "never" and zealotry is alive and well in the US. Curiously, I find that for European voters, it's not that they're more intelligent or better educated than US voters. I find that they're less likely to wall off large portions of political options out of maniacal zeal.
1. What shocks me to this day is remembering two things about that. First, I thought to myself "I'm just repeating that, I don't know it's true." Second, I was too embarrassed to admit that to my playmates. At eight years old, I was already learning to question authority.
2. It turns into communism when said control/ownership reverts to people on a communal basis. Thus, those nations you may have called "communist" weren't. They were socialist and I doubt that a large-scale communist society can really exist.