Donald Trump's most recent State of the Union address doesn't merit heaps of scrutiny, considering that consisted almost entirely of empty bluster. But one particular point he made is worth digging into, since we're likely going to hear a lot about it, mostly in ominous tones from members of his party, over the next year or so. “America was founded on liberty and independence," he said, "and not government coercion, domination, and control. We are born free and we will stay free. Tonight, we renew our resolve that America will never be a socialist country."

His treasury secretary, Steve Mnuchin, echoed Trump's words in an interview on Wednesday—sort of. From CNBC:

"The U.S. economy is doing terrific," Mnuchin said from the White House. "And as the president talked about last night, his economic plan is working. We're not going back to socialism. We're going on an economic plan for America that works."

"We don't believe in a centralized planned economy where the government puts restraints on it."

The phrase "going back to socialism" is a curious one given the country's history, but it aligns with the bizarre right-wing talking point that capitalism somehow stops happening when you raise taxes slightly. Really, Republican politicians and pundits have spent the past decade or so calling everything any Democrat did "socialism," to remind people of the late, autocratic Soviet Union. This habit ignores that many developed countries have established socialist parties and instituted socialist programs without instituting gulags, too. "Socialism" isn't a clarion call for state-administered capitalism, where the well-off still call the shots while also occupying the highest positions of power within the government. Socialism instead refers to small-d democratic control of resources, where a greater number of people have a say in what society does with its wealth.

In his speech, Trump focused on Venezuela, where his administration has declared its opposition to the incumbent socialist government by recognizing the country's opposition leader as the rightful president. Conditions in Venezuela are disastrous, and for conservative pundits, it seems to vindicate their assertion that no viable alternative to pure, unfettered capitalism exists. However much some people might suffer under capitalism, they claim, at least they aren't starving.

Writing in Current Affairs magazine, however, Nathan J. Robinson points out that under Nicolás Maduro, Venezuela is socialist in name only. The country's leaders have shown no interest in fighting inequality, and instead have taken to hoarding wealth while public services and institutions fall apart. As Robinson writes: