My point however was not who created it, nor was I suggesting that the EU didn't have a capitalist system of sorts. When I used the term Western Socialism, I was more referring to the level of government control prevalent in Europe, Canada, and parts of South America.
Ah right. You'd actually be surprised at some of the economic policies of European nations, some have a very laze-fare approach to capitalism.
South America though, ehh. One example, Venezuela. Chavez isn't the best spokesmen for Socialism, he's a fat moron who uses the word as a tool for the support for the lower and working classes. Having said that, I think he's only partly applied certain principles of Socialism to appease the working and poorer classes, in the end, it's still the powerful oligarchs that control all the wealth in Venezuela, not the people.
The point I was trying to make, was that Europe (in particular) is coming from a position of 100% government control and authority, and moving in the direction of more personal liberty and responsibilities. It's a slow change, but if you take snapshots at 25 year intervals over the past say... 500 years, the trend is undeniable. The further this trend moves, the more successful Europe becomes.
I agree with your statement in principle, however I would like to clear up a few things.
One of the earliest documents outlining individual freedoms and executive accountabilty was the Manga Carta, written in the 13th century in England. The Magna Carta, influenced many of the freedoms outlined in the Bill of Rights in the United States. Specifically:
No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
The system of government that many European 'nations' had back 500 years ago, bore no similarity to what we have today. Ruled by monarchs and the religious elite. These 'nations'. These rulers has no accountabilty to the people, enacted edicts that only favored the ruling class and had a security apparatus that could quickly put down any dissent in the population.
N.B. I've put the word 'nation' in quotes because back then, the concept of nationalism and nationhood were in infancy.
In the 18th century, with events like the French and American revolutions, the concept of democracy and a government 'for the people, by the people' gained traction, and by the mid-late 19th century, democracy had been acknowledged as a serious political tool and was applied more aggressively. This was also at a time, where capitalism was evolving as an economic system.
It should also be noted, that by the 20th century, both the U.S and Europe had 'limited democracies'. Blacks and women were excluded from voting, and while fundamentally the working-class had the opportunity to vote, but those rights were curtailed.
Now comes to the part where I disagree with you with your assertion that Europe and the rest of the world is 'catching up to the United States'. Many political and democratic movements outside the U.S heavily contributed to the system of democracy we have today. South Australia was the first place in the world to allow the women to vote, and the first place to provide the 'secret ballot' (If you've ever wondered why it's called the 'Australian Ballot' that's why. However, the French constitution made after the French revolution included provisions for the secret ballot to be used in elections, but it was not used until the early 1900's).
The chartist movement in England helped create new standards of accountabiliy in Parliament (Congress), and the The Eureka Rebellion in Australia, helped extend universal male suffrage in this country.
Obviously, these political movements and idea's move over and apply to other jurisdictions. Such as the United States.
When the European North American colonies rebelled in the 18th century, the new government of the United States was a quantum leap in terms of personal liberty and responsibility. That is unfortunately (IMO) a leap that has steadily been reigned in, but the success of that early rebel nation is unmatched in history in terms of success vs. time.
Also true. Documents such as the U.S Constitution and the Bill of Rights were very politically significant.
With those two pieces of knowledge, I wonder why it isn't more clear to more people that strong government involvement is very nearly the opposite of national and social prosperity.
It depends on your political perspective. Me for example, I believe that since the government is elected and held solely accountable to the people (in theory), that they are in the best position to provide services to the people. And can be used as a force of social justice to act in the public interest and increase prosperity.
On the other hand, private entities are only held accountable to their shareholders, and therefore must be strictly regulated. Otherwise they will act against the public interest and potentially cause harm. For example, it's almost indisputable that HMO's in the United States, act against the pubic interest.
Having said that, i'd like to know your perspective.
I was asking for an analysis from a left leaning American, or centrist European/Canadian of those two thoughts.
I'm a left-leaning Australian, so hopefully I've provided you with some good information.
