Rudy Rodriguez, a LinkedIn follower, recently asked me if the United States is moving toward something he called “Republican Socialism”—a system, to paraphrase his thoughts, that seems to favor people at the top of the economic ladder. I liked the question because he is sincere, and today we often use terms like capitalism, socialism, and communism without much explanation. To answer Rudy’s question, let’s step back and look at the primary economic systems that have shaped our world over the last 300 years.
Adam Smith, known as the father of capitalism, wrote The Wealth of Nations in 1776. He argued that productivity, trade, and money could drive prosperity. Smith supported free trade and a limited government role. He often referred to the “invisible hand,” where people pursuing their own interests would lead to better results for everyone. In short, people take responsibility for their choices. Additionally, Smith was a firm believer that the factors of production – land, labor, and entrepreneurship - should be in the hands of private individuals.
During the Great Depression of the 1930s, economist John Maynard Keynes stated that markets do not correct themselves. Without government help, a recession could grow into a depression, putting millions out of work. Keynes believed that governments should step in with spending—for example, by building highways or dams—or by reducing taxes, so people had more disposable income. He also argued for monetary policy, adjusting interest rates to encourage borrowing and spending. These are tools the U.S. still uses today in times of crisis.
Later in the 20th century, Milton Friedman wrote Free to Choose, which emphasized the importance of managing the money supply, controlled by the Federal Reserve. Too much money, he said, causes inflation; too little causes recession. The Fed manages this through open market operations, buying securities to increase the money supply or selling them to decrease it. Friedman supported limited government and free markets, including international trade, but believed that sound monetary policy was essential for capitalism to function.
Henri de Saint-Simon, Charles Fourier, and Robert Owen promoted socialist ideas such as shared living and equality. Socialism is usually defined as government ownership or control of industries and resources. In practice, socialist states such as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR, 1922–1991) operated as centrally planned economies run by bureaucrats who often failed to create real value. The Soviet system collapsed because it could not meet basic needs, tried to compete militarily with the U.S., and faced nationalist movements within its republics.
For example, Soviet central planners told taxi drivers to log kilometers but never told them to carry passengers. You might recall a 1980s Wendy’s commercial that mocked this inefficiency, showing a fashion show where the same plain dress was presented as day wear, evening wear, and swimwear—illustrating the lack of consumer choice.
Since 1959, Cuba has operated under a socialist planned economy model. Citizens often face rationing and shortages. Every time I get an Uber driver from Cuba, they say the same thing—the economy is a disaster, and they can’t wait for a system like ours. Some progress has been made with farmers’ markets, small restaurants, and tourism, but Cuba is still far from a functioning market economy.
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels believed that society progressed through stages: slavery, feudalism, capitalism, socialism, and ultimately communism. Communism envisioned a stateless, classless society where property was collectively owned. This might be a surprise to many, but no country has ever achieved this. The USSR and China were often called communist, but they were actually socialist states governed by centralized parties.
When I visited Marx’s birthplace in Trier, Germany, I thought about the inequality he witnessed: peasants in 200-square-foot huts while aristocrats lived in palaces like Versailles, which is roughly the size of seven Walmart stores. Marx’s ideas stemmed from real injustices, but the countries that attempted communism never matched his theory because they were organized as states with class structures.
The United States is not a pure capitalist nation. We have a mixed economy that blends free markets with government programs. Tax dollars support public schools, state universities, and community colleges, making education more accessible. Programs like Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment insurance—created by both Republicans and Democrats—help stabilize the economy and protect people in need.
In 2008, during the financial crisis, both parties supported measures to protect car manufacturers, banks, and insurance companies. During COVID-19, both parties approved relief programs. These actions were not socialism; they were fiscal steps to prevent economic collapse.
So, what about Rudy’s question? The phrase “Republican Socialism” is not an actual economic system. It’s just a label some use to describe today’s inequalities. What people often mean is that government policies, whether from Republicans or Democrats, sometimes benefit large companies or wealthy individuals through tax breaks, subsidies, or bailouts. Those policies can be debated, but they are not socialism. In socialism, the state owns and controls the economy. In the U.S., private ownership remains the foundation. What we see are choices in how the federal budget is managed—and sometimes those choices favor the powerful.
Meanwhile, our national debt continues to grow, a concern both parties should take seriously. Debt is not socialism; it comes from spending more than we collect, often to support growth or provide services people expect.
At its core, the American economy remains one of the world’s strongest. Where poverty exists, it is often tied to people lacking the education or skills to succeed in a complex system. Government programs can help, but long-term solutions depend on preparing people with the tools to thrive in an economy that rewards productivity, creativity, and adaptability.
So Rudy, “Republican Socialism” is not a recognized economic model. The U.S. has a mixed economy—capitalist at its core, with government programs to prevent collapse and expand opportunities. Sometimes those programs help the rich; sometimes they help the poor. The challenge is finding a balance, and that is worth debating. But socialism is not in our DNA, and I don’t believe that is where America is headed. Our challenge is to increase prosperity by making education more accessible so that all citizens have a better chance of achieving a greater share of opportunity.
Editor's Note: The above guest column was penned by Mario Reyna, a retired captain in the US Air Force, a retired dean of business and technology at South Texas College, and current coordinator for the Prosperity Task Force.
