BRIDGES ARE SOCIALISM

Language is remarkable, because it allows us to misunderstand each other with incredible precision. A single word can mean three things, unless spoken in the wrong tone, in which case it means seven, two of which are somehow insulting. This is why arguments are rarely about what was said, and almost always about what was heard, which is rarely the same thing. Grammar tries to impose order on all this, but punctuation is really just emotional traffic management. A comma says breathe, a full stop says that this bit is separate from that bit, an exclamation means you have to read that again, but shout it, and a semicolon says you’ve either studied English, or have never heard of it. Nothing unites people – and simultaneously divides them, quite like language. Except football, football can divide people quicker than a guillotine can divide a person. But in football, recently, the great divide wasn’t about who’s the best, or even what the sport should be called, instead, it was about logistics. Europeans online, discussing plans for the World Cup, casually mentioned they’d simply walk to the stadium, Americans responded with something equivalent to the Windows error sound. For as Americans later explained, this would be impossible – there are no pedestrian routes, which, in turn, prompted Europeans to respond with their own version of the Windows error sound. Now, I’m skipping over an entire online drama here, that I suspect is a bit of a fallacy of ambiguity. The word “why” was being used in two different senses – mechanical vs systemic. Europeans asking why isn’t infrastructure designed for walking, whilst Americans took the why to be questioning the physical obstacles that would stop them, like Europeans were claiming to be some kind of superior mountain-goat-like species, and not just questioning the lack of a bridge. Europeans don’t see the freedoms of a bridgeless society, they just see bad parenting. You can imagine a bridge to be something that connects two lands, but between Europe and America, the lack of a bridge not only highlights the logistical barrier, it also represents the core difference between the two lands, for here, a bridge, you see, is socialism. Not the dramatic Hollywood version with ominous facial hair, but socialism in its most mundane form, – infrastructure. The kind of infrastructure where a government quietly builds something useful and nobody gets to become a billionaire just because you crossed it. A bridge allows movement without transaction, one can just… walk across it, for free, but if every road assumes the citizen owns a car, eventually the citizen does not choose a car, they require one. And this is the truly fascinating evolution of market societies. In theory, capitalism revolves around competition and choice, but in practice, it tends to evolve into elaborate dependency ecosystems, where participation in daily life requires continuous financial extraction from the citizen. The irony, is that Americans often describe this arrangement as freedom, precisely because the burdens are individually owned, but ownership and freedom are not synonymous. A man forced to purchase a vehicle because no bridge exists is not necessarily freer than the man who simply walks across one, if anything, he’s swapped his freedom for cupholders. Even Freedom House, ranks “The Land of the Free” below much of Europe on its own freedom score, which is awkward for the merchandise. The OECD places the United States among the more unequal of rich countries, and on healthcare, the contradiction becomes almost comic, for America spends more per person than any other OECD country, yet remains the only wealthy nation without universal health coverage. If I were to be frivolous with definitions, and a little contradictory in its conception, America is essentially a third world country, but with a ton of cash. And it isn’t just economics, capitalism is the culture. There’s a strong cultural emphasis in America on contributing to the collective good, often framed through ideas like civic duty and national pride, – worker ants for the colony. But running alongside this is a deep-rooted belief in individual responsibility and self-reliance, reflected in ideals like the “American Dream,” and that classic line, “Ask not what your country can do for you.” – Which, conveniently, also functions as the customer service script. This creates a peculiar tension, for concepts like social welfare or collective support become viewed as undermining independence. But America also reveals what happens when market logic becomes the organising principle of reality itself – the richest nation on Earth normalised medical bankruptcy, cities where luxury apartments loom above tent encampments like a cyberpunk remake of Dickens, food safety is nothing but a label companies pay for, where lobbying can literally bypass poisoning entire cities, and education, in some states, is essentially vibes consisting of nothing but blind patriotism and religion, – something the foundation of the founding fathers was absolutely against. And yet, despite all this, the citizens remain fiercely protective of their liberty, whilst possessing remarkably little practical ability to exist outside commercial dependency. Which is the real irony beneath all this, – the nation most terrified of socialism, tolerates the highest levels of enforced private dependence instead. Free to choose anything, except the option to not be paying for it. If I were a sceptical man, and I am, I’d be concerned that the alignment between social conditioning and the capitalist infringement that follows, seems a little too convenient. But what do I know? As a European, our “nanny state” can feel a little intrusive at times – but at least we have bridges.