There are many liberal republics and socialist republics doing fine all over the world. This is just trendy neo-feudalist rhetoric. The US is dissolving due to inadequate democracy where people feel they have no control over their government or life's destiny.
Are there any democratic 'socialist republics' not social democratic (or social market economy) ones but actually socialist? Scandinavian countries are definitely not socialist they have strong social safety nets and high taxes which results in a relatively high government spending to GDP ratio (44% in the US vs 58%, 54%, 53% in Norway, Denmark and Sweden) but that's about it. And if we're talking about "neo-feudalism" Sweden for instance has one the highest wealth inequality coefficients in Europe, it's even slightly higher than in the US, so from a purely cynical perspective they are just giving their 'peasants' enough to keep them quiet while a huge proportion of all private wealth in the country is held by a few families.
The US and European social democracies are not that different.
Sure, the US government and the insurance/university lobbies screwed up education and healthcare prices - but all western countries steal an inordinate amount of money to profit creating citizens and waste them around giving little back to the country.
According to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_..., the US is higher than Sweden now, before taxes and transfers, and that gap only widens if taxes and transfers, the primary mechanism governments have to reduce inequality, are taken into account.
Socialism is more of a process than a particular governmental form, but it does mean that the workers have control of society to the point that the capitalists are powerless (an inversion of the current situation). Other socialists would criticize me sharply for this, but I'm still trying to decide if stateless communism is practically achievable.
I was thinking in mind Cuba or Vietnam. I'm still trying to decide if China is still socialist or not, but there are good arguments in favor (they still control the commanding heights of the economy and are improving life for ordinary people at a rapid pace but things are far from perfect).
> liberal republics and socialist republics doing fine all over the world
These are policy preferences. One can have a liberal, conservative, socialist and/or capitalist monarchy, oligarchy or democracy. The latter talk to how power is divided. The former to how it used.
Naturally, some power divisions tend to lead to certain policy preferences. But that is a correlation
> just trendy neo-feudalist rhetoric
This is the cultural amnesia I'm talking about. These ideas aren't new. From Federalist No. 10:
"From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.
A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.
The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.
The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people."
> these are the very ideas I've been complaining are part of the US's constitutional DNA in this thread, so we'll have to disagree
I think we agree. There is meat between the archetypal framework and the working, practical government. The framework is neutral. But the implementation details are not.
My core point is that more democracy = good is a misreading of American, and in fact world, history. We have a mixed system. Denouncing one system over another for being less democratic is thus a straw man.
> One can have a liberal, conservative, socialist and/or capitalist monarchy, oligarchy or democracy. The latter talk to how power is divided. The former to how it used.
I don't think you can make such a separation so easily. Legislative power is almost dwarfed by the power of capital. When you have a “liberal democracy”, the two parts are in constant conflict. (I don't mean to say socialist democracy wouldn't have similar problems, just that the structure of power is deeper than just elections.)
