An interesting issue. The question may concern the legitimacy of a possible change of capitalism into socialism, as it was done in some countries in the first half of the 20th century. Of course, the formulation of such questions can only be relevant to theoretical considerations, for the purpose of comparisons between different models of mixed economies in which the capitalist system has been combined with elements of social, social and socio-economic policy.

In addition, only in some countries did it function and in a few countries there is still a political and economic socialist or communist system. In a country where there has never been a socialist system, in a country that represents a model of an economy with a high level of marketization, such considerations may be particularly interesting from the scientific point of view.

Taking into account the economic conditions, currently in many countries there are different forms of the mixed economy model dominated by economic processes realized in specific market structures referring to the classical economy. On the other hand, however, there are also strongly developed social and social functions of the state towards citizens and governments use specific instruments of fiscal and monetary policy as the main types of state intervention instruments used as part of socio-economic policy permanently or in the event of economic crises.

Apparently, American economists answer questions related to the solution of social problems and problems of national welfare. People will always dream of more just societies that ensure equality, freedom, human development, but more often than not ..it is a utopian projects and companies!

"In the U.S. many politicians keep saying that "socialism is NOT the answer." But what is the question that they are answering?" Those who are saying "socialism is not the answer" are not answering any question; they are rejecting what they see as an answer others are making to THEIR questions. Those who ARE talking about socialism, or about the adoption of socialist policies, at this point, are asking either 1) how to make capitalism more humane or 2) how to get beyond capitalism. What they MEAN by socialism varies from person to person, group to group. For some, who belong to identifiable groups, such as AOC who is a member of Democratic Socialists of America, you can consult their literature, debates, etc. AND examine what the woman is saying, the kinds of policies she is supporting. Start probing and you will discover NO consensus on what moving in the direction of socialism means but rather endless debate. Today, the primary points of real-world reference are policies enacted in Europe, Scandinavia and elsewhere that constrain capitalist exploitation and violence in efforts to render it more humane. As always, few in the US consider Soviet-style regimes examples to be followed. There are, also, a wide variety of experiments with non-capitalist ways of organizing virtually every aspect of society. They are not utopian projects but experiments that include discussion and efforts to upscale them - albeit rarely arguing for any one alternative be adopted universally. One byproduct of 20th Century Soviet-style socialism, i.e, state capitalism, has been a rejection of singular solutions that always require being imposed on those with other ideas. THAT is seen as repressive, as replacing one form of social domination with another. So there is spreading acceptance of the idea of building new worlds (plural) instead of the old idea of replacing one kind of society with another kind, e.g., capitalism with socialism. Among the many sources of this new attitude, besides rejection of the Soviet example, has been the indigenous renaissance of the last few decades with original people demanding acceptance of diverse forms of social and cultural organization. The Zapatista movement, which was organized by a variety of culturally and linguistically distinct communities, has been an important point of reference, but not the only one. Their slogan "One NO, many YESES!" has been widely adopted. The one NO is to capitalism, the many YESES are to the creation of diverse but peacefully interacting worlds - something capitalism has never been able to construct..

How useful are the two terminologies (socialism and capitalism)? Has the flow of time rendered the two terminologies fuzzy? How do the terminologies map out the dynamical space of the state, market and society? The two served a taxonomical purpose in the cold war era. The terminologies don’t seem to inform any rigorous analysis today. Bring in the social and technological force called the fourth industrial revolution (4IR). In every country, the interaction of the state, market and society is facing the excitation of 4IR. No agent of the state can take complete control of that space? That is a simple verdict of physics. So, should we really labour with deterministic placements under socialism and capitalism?

Communism: the state ownership of production and means of production. Socialism: public ownership of production and means of production. Capitalism: private ownership of production and means of production. Fascism: the state control of private production and means of production.

USA is fascistic. China is fascistic. Russia is fascistic. Are there any countries in the world these days which are not fascistic?

Every ism is wrong.

Capitalism implies free market but free market is impossible in the presence of the state. Only black market is truly free market.

Joseph,

The question may be: What political ideology is best to deal with the current social, economic and political problems in the United States?

I think it's about looking for the ideology best suited to the real situation of a country (in this case the US) at a specific time (2019).

Perhaps the principle can be applied that the best ideology to be applied, in general, by a political party, is the one that manages to harmonize maximum freedom with greater equality. It is said that the left (socialism) emphasizes equality and the right in freedom. Possibly the most adjusted solution would be a non-statist center-left political program. However, we must consider two important factors: the scale of values ​​(axiology) and accept and act on the basis that the end does not justify the means.

The question, in particular, could also be: How to improve the current situation in the country? It is about achieving the optimal balance between freedom and equality within a real democratic system.