By Jimmy Will

One of the biggest problems with America’s debate over democratic socialism is that we often argue about the word socialism without defining the economic system behind it.

Medicare gets called socialism. Social Security gets called socialism. Public schools, libraries, public transportation and government bailouts get called socialism.

But government spending is not automatically socialism.

America already operates as a mixed capitalist economy. Private ownership, private investment and competitive markets remain the foundation, while government taxes, regulates, provides public services and redistributes some income.

The question is not whether government should ever intervene in capitalism. It already does.

The more important question is: How much economic ownership and decision-making should move from private individuals and businesses toward government, workers or collective institutions?

That is where democratic socialism becomes different from simply supporting a larger social safety net.

What Democratic Socialism Actually Means

American democratic socialists generally argue that democracy should extend beyond elections and into economic life.

That can include universal healthcare, stronger unions, affordable housing, tuition-free public college, higher taxes on wealthy households, public transportation and stronger regulation of corporations.

But organizations such as the Democratic Socialists of America go further than simply expanding government programs. DSA explicitly argues for moving beyond capitalism toward greater democratic and collective ownership of economic resources and important industries.

That distinction matters.

There is a major difference between saying:

“Government should guarantee healthcare.”

and saying:

“Major portions of the economy should no longer be primarily privately owned.”

The first proposal can exist within capitalism.

The second begins changing the economic system itself.

Not Every Socialist Country Is Running the Same System

Another problem is that completely different economic systems are routinely grouped together as evidence that socialism either succeeds or fails.

China, Vietnam, Cuba, Denmark, Sweden and Norway are not operating the same economic model.

China officially describes itself as having a socialist market economy. It remains governed by the Communist Party and maintains significant state ownership, but private businesses, foreign investment and markets now play major economic roles.

China’s enormous reduction in poverty occurred alongside decades of economic reform that expanded markets, trade and the private sector.

Vietnam provides an even clearer example.

Vietnam remains a socialist state, but its economic transformation accelerated after the Đổi Mới reforms beginning in 1986, which expanded private economic activity, international trade and market mechanisms.

That is an impressive development story.

But it is also evidence that introducing more market incentives—not simply expanding central planning—was an important part of the success.

Cuba Shows the Other Side

Cuba demonstrates why the discussion needs balance.

Cuba has achieved substantial social outcomes in areas such as literacy and health.

Those accomplishments should not simply be dismissed because Cuba has a socialist economic system.

But neither should they erase Cuba’s longstanding economic constraints, limited private enterprise and much lower levels of consumer choice and income than advanced market economies.

A system can produce strong outcomes in one area while performing poorly in another.

That is why political labels by themselves tell us very little.

The Nordic Countries Are Different Again

Then we get to Denmark, Sweden and Norway—the countries most frequently cited in American political debates about democratic socialism.

These countries have extensive welfare states.

They provide broad public services, strong social protections, substantial worker protections and relatively high levels of taxation.

But they are not centrally planned socialist economies.

They are market economies with private enterprise, private investment and competitive businesses operating alongside large welfare states.

Norway is especially difficult to use as a simple blueprint for the United States because its fiscal strength is also tied to enormous petroleum wealth and its sovereign wealth fund.

These countries demonstrate that capitalism can coexist with a much larger welfare state.

They do not demonstrate that eliminating capitalism produces the same results.

Social Democracy Is Different From Democratic Socialism

This distinction may be the most important part of the entire conversation.

Social democracy generally keeps capitalism and uses taxation, regulation and social programs to redistribute some of its benefits.

Democratic socialism ultimately seeks deeper changes in economic ownership and control.

Those philosophies overlap on many policies.

Both may support universal healthcare.

Both may support stronger unions.

Both may support affordable housing.

Both may favor higher taxes on wealthy households.

But they have different destinations.

A social democrat might say:

“Keep private markets, but regulate them and build a stronger safety net.”

A democratic socialist may say:

“Markets alone give private owners too much economic power, so ownership itself should become more democratic or collective.”

Americans should know which argument they are actually being asked to accept.

America Does Not Have to Choose an Entire Ideology

This is where I believe the American discussion goes wrong.

If Denmark has a healthcare policy that works, study it.

If Germany has a stronger apprenticeship system, study it.

If Sweden has a successful family policy, study it.

If another country has a better transit system, study it.

America does not have to accept an entire political philosophy simply because one policy works somewhere else.

We have always borrowed ideas.

Social Security did not abolish capitalism.

Medicare did not nationalize hospitals.

Public schools did not eliminate private education.

Interstate highways did not eliminate private transportation.

The United States has repeatedly taken ideas from different political traditions and adapted them to our own constitutional and economic framework.

That should continue.

America Has a Different Government Structure

There is another issue that deserves more attention: our government is not structured like Denmark’s or Norway’s.

America has more than 330 million people, 50 states, thousands of counties and municipalities, separate federal and state bureaucracies, independent courts and enormous political divisions.

That does not mean America cannot operate large public programs.

It means implementation matters.

A program that operates efficiently in a smaller, highly centralized country may produce a very different administrative structure when layered across federal agencies, state governments, local governments and private contractors in America.

So before transferring more economic power to government, Americans should ask not only:

Would I support this policy?

But also:

Which level of government controls it? Who administers it? What happens when another political party takes power?

That last question is especially important.

Never Give Government Power You Wouldn’t Give Your Opponent

Political control changes.

The government you trust today may be controlled by people you strongly oppose tomorrow.

That is one reason Americans historically divided governmental authority among branches and levels of government.

Greater government ownership or control of economic resources also means greater political control over those resources.

Supporters of democratic socialism see that as increasing democratic accountability.

Critics worry that it can concentrate enormous economic authority in political institutions.

Both concerns deserve examination.

A useful test should apply regardless of party:

Would you still support giving government this power if the political party you dislike most controlled it?

If the answer changes depending on who holds office, that should tell us something about the power itself.

The Nordic Model Has Costs Too

Another misconception is that large European welfare states simply tax billionaires and corporations to pay for everything.

They don’t.

Their systems depend on broad taxation and a population willing to pay substantially for universal services.

There is no economic model where benefits do not have costs.

The debate is over who pays, how much they pay, what incentives are created and which priorities receive fewer resources as a result.

Defense Is Part of the Equation

America also carries responsibilities that complicate direct comparisons with many European welfare states.

For decades, European NATO members could devote comparatively fewer resources to defense while relying partly on the military capabilities of the United States and the broader NATO alliance.

That does not mean American taxpayers directly finance European healthcare.

European taxpayers pay for their own welfare states.

But military security has an economic cost.

If European countries had to replace significantly more American military capability while simultaneously maintaining their welfare systems, they would face harder budget decisions involving taxation, borrowing, defense and domestic spending.

That belongs in any serious comparison.

What Does the Evidence Actually Show?

The global record does not support a simple slogan that “socialism works” or “socialism always fails.”

It shows something more complicated.

China achieved extraordinary poverty reduction while expanding markets and private enterprise.

Vietnam remains socialist politically but experienced dramatic economic gains after introducing market reforms.

Cuba produced strong literacy and health indicators while struggling with other dimensions of economic performance.

Denmark and Sweden built expansive welfare states without eliminating capitalism.

Norway combines markets and social programs with petroleum wealth that few countries possess.

Those are completely different models.

Treating them all as interchangeable examples of socialism makes the discussion less informative.

Borrow the Policy, Not Necessarily the System

This is where I ultimately come down on democratic socialism in America.

We should not reject a good idea simply because democratic socialists support it.

Universal healthcare deserves to be evaluated on healthcare economics.

Public transportation should be evaluated on transportation policy.

College affordability should be evaluated on education policy.

Worker protections should be evaluated on labor-market outcomes.

Tax reform should be evaluated on revenue, growth and fairness.

If an idea works, we can incorporate it.

But adopting successful individual policies is different from concluding that capitalism itself should be replaced.

America has spent more than two centuries evolving a mixed system that combines markets, private ownership, public institutions, regulation and social programs.

It is imperfect.

It should continue evolving.

But reform and replacement are not the same thing.

The better question for America isn’t:

“Does socialism work?”

It is:

“Which ideas work, under what conditions, what do they cost, and how can we incorporate them into the American system without unnecessarily replacing the parts of that system that already work?”

That is a harder question than a political slogan.

It is also a much more useful one.

America can borrow the ideas without replacing the system.

—

Disclosure: Written by JA Williams Jr., d/b/a Jimmy Will, and edited with ChatGPT for research assistance and content editing. The cover image was created with ChatGPT.