Capitalism, socialism and reason

[shomino]

Why is it impossible to have a reasonable discussion about what capitalism and socialism actually are in this country? Perhaps the knee-jerk positive or negative reactions to economic and social theories that are not really completely understood by the populace are contributing to the current political climate.

I'd like to see more in-depth, reasoned discussion about political and economic theory so that we can fully comprehend these issues instead of throwing words like: "capitalist", "corporatist", "socialist", and "communist" around without a deeper understanding of their meanings and the history of the thinkers behind these concepts. (Adams, Mises, Marx, etc..)

I see a convergence between the anti-authoritarian left and the anti-authoritarian right, and am disappointed that we haven't been able to use this convergence to protect liberties in the United States. Perhaps it is the misunderstanding, ignorance and even misinformation about these concepts that has contributed to libertarian leaning elements being turned against the Democratic Party instead of working for us.

If we can't get honest discussion about capitalism and socialism from the mass media, perhaps we can get it here.. online.

Thoughts?

[leftstreet]

1. It would help if we had a viable Left in this country

There hasn't been since the 60s. Add to that the death of unions and the corporate M$M takeover - there's no way for people to identify with political groups/concepts.

Capitalism, socialism, communism are all just 'ghost' words in the US.

[Cal Carpenter]

2. I agree

although honestly after several years of reading and sporadic posting here, I think it's a tough task to try. People here are generally much more enthralled by the party politics back-and-forth and attempts to clarify definitions are (in my experience) usually responded to with charges of an agenda. It's hard to get at basic truths here sometimes. But it is, by definition, a party politics site so I'm not stating this as a complaint or criticism.

That said, the bottom line is that there can be no social/political democracy without economic democracy and until we start focusing on the economics we will never get past the little narrow pendulum swing of the Dems vs. Repubs. Because ultimately (as we are seeing with Obama and we saw with Clinton as well, as far as recent history goes) the fundamental economic positions of the parties aren't all that different. Even the official party platforms reveal this.

[leftstreet]

4. +1

That said, the bottom line is that there can be no social/political democracy without economic democracy and until we start focusing on the economics we will never get past the little narrow pendulum swing of the Dems vs. Repubs. Because ultimately (as we are seeing with Obama and we saw with Clinton as well, as far as recent history goes) the fundamental economic positions of the parties aren't all that different. Even the official party platforms reveal this.

Well said!

[shomino]

6. Economics

It does all come down to economics doesn't it? Economics is a very difficult subject to understand, perhaps that contributes to the confusion. Economic theories abound, and their connection to how people actually live their lives can seem tenuous at times.

[blindpig]

30. There is this book...

Capital, by Karl Marx, which explains it to a nicety. Some of the early chapters can be pretty tough sledding but the logic is compelling.

[Kalun D]

3. the dumbing down

You can't have an intelligent discussion in this country on a mass level due to the general dumbing down. Civics is no longer even taught in public school.

[shomino]

9. True

True, but that doesn't stop us from teaching civics to each other. Perhaps because of the vacuum in public education it becomes our responsibility to educate each other, and ourselves.

[Nederland]

5. My $0.02

I've said this numerous times on DU and I'll say it again now: the debate between Capitalism and Socialism ended decades ago and they both lost.

The world as a whole has embraced a hybrid model where some industries are in the public sphere others in the private sphere. A quick review of all first world economies reveals that almost every country has a public sector that consists of 30%-40% of the whole economy, with the remainder being in the private sector. The outlier in this is the United States, where the public sector is around 23%. This low number is due to one thing and one thing only: health care. Put health care in the public sector and the US economy becomes indistinguishable from France. This is an exaggeration of course, but is meant to convey my main point: the big debate is over. The debate has shifted to minor quibbles about how much control government should have in different sectors of the economy.

From an academic standpoint, the foundation for the hybrid model was laid by Paul A. Samuelson. He is usually the first to be credited with outlining what things should be considered public goods and what should be considered private goods. His paper "The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure" was written in 1954. There is a decent wiki page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good

[shomino]

8. Government control

Why is socialism necessarily tied to government control? Can't economic factors be influenced by societies without the control of the government?

[Nederland]

10. Here is why

When the economy is controlled by "societies" instead of government, it's called "the market", and that isn't socialism by most people's use of the terms.

[shomino]

15. One example

One example of what I mean is the civil rights movement. African-Americans were desegregated and some progress was made towards economic equality (although there's still a long way to go) I would argue because of social pressures that influenced the government to change, not the government influencing society.

[Nederland]

26. I would classify that as political

I know we might just be arguing semantics here, but I view the civil rights movement first and foremost as a political movement, not an economic one. The reason is that while the people that made up the movement had widely differing views on economics, they all agreed that African-Americans were being denied their due political rights. That is what united them. Once the movement achieved its goal eliminating segregation and ensuring fair access to voting, the movement fell apart. There was a fair percentage of people in that movement that believed that once African-American were allowed access to the same schools and guaranteed the same rights as whites (to open businesses, get bank accounts, etc.) the economic disparities would disappear. I.e., those people believed in equal opportunity, not equal rewards.

[Swede]

12. And that mix of 30-40 public - 60-70 private seems to work the best.

Democracy is a work in progress,but that mix is the best we got right now.

[Cal Carpenter]

14. Socialism and Capitalism

are opposing systems. There can be no hybrid of them. This isn't some agenda-driven commentary, it is basic economic theory. What you are talking about is some sort of capitalism with a prettier facade (at least prettier for some people).

The world as a whole has embraced no such model. There are some capitalist countries which treat their own citizenry better than the US does but still participate fully in the global economic capitalist system which expropriates labor and resources from the 'have-nots'. History quickly reveals that any nation or community that tries to escape this system is attacked relentlessly via sanctions, embargoes, coups, and war. Is this what you mean by a hybrid?

[Swede]

18. The most successful countries are hybrids.

The Western democracies are the best we have. Like he says in his post. It's the best we got so far.

[Cal Carpenter]

20. The best who has?

Those 'western democracies' have what they have due to the expropriation of labor and resources through violence and injustice in the rest of the world. Centuries of colonialism and war.

This may be 'the best we got so far' but if it is the best we can imagine, well, that's pretty pathetic. Human rights and justice are universal concepts - not just available to people from wealthy countries with wealthy corporations.

eta: okay, so much of the 2nd paragraph above is revealing of my 'agenda', but regardless of my personal opinions about this it is simple, basic economic theory that Socialism and Capitalism are OPPOSING systems. There can be no 'hybrid'. That is not my opinion - it is the most basic (un-propagandized)definitions.

[shomino]

21. Europe

Indeed, Europe has come a long way but we must not forget where they came from... which is actually a pretty horrible place morally and economically when you think about it. Imperialism, colonialism, slavery, kings and serfs. They've made a lot of progress but these elements are still present.

Think about it... why does the UK still have a "royal family"? What purpose does this serve other than to further reprehensible ideas of unchecked authoritarianism?

[Swede]

22. It's the best we have. But of course it's not the best we can imagine.

Democracy is a slow work in progress,but it is progressing. Wealthy nations can tax their citizens to pay for the common good.

[Cal Carpenter]

23. Again, WHO's common good?

Their OWN people - while others around the world suffer for THEIR wealth. That nationalistic exceptionalism is present in western Europe as it is in the US, the main difference being that they've had more time to mellow it out and make it more palatable, more subtle.

"Democracy is a slow work in progress,but it is progressing". It is? As corporate forces become even more entrenched in elections here in the US? Democracy is progressing? No, more and more people are being disenfranchised. Half of America rarely votes and PLEASE don't go blaming the victim on that point. You think we have real choices in politics? We have no democracy. The machines we vote on, the propaganda that seeps deep into our brains (just recognizing it is propaganda isn't enough - it goes way too deep into our upbringing and our daily lives), the money money money that rules DC...democracy? Think again.

In my earlier post on this thread I said there can be no political/social democracy without economic democracy and I want to repeat that. We call wars in Iraq and Afghanistan efforts to 'spread democracy'! How far we have come...come on...think about what you are saying.

Sorry if this sounds like a crazy jumbled rant but I've bit my tongue about this stuff for a few years here now and since I let myself open this can of worms my typing fingers won't stop.

[Swede]

24. Not at all jumbled.

You are making your points nicely. By progessing slowly I mean long term,hopefull in our lifetime. I live in Canada,a country politically left of the US. Our medicare today took decades to become what it is today,another work in progress (also constantly under attack by the right,here and abroad).

[Nederland]

28. That is a very 19th century view of wealth

The modern view of wealth extends far beyond simple natural resources. It is certainly true that most African countries had their natural resources exploited by colonial powers, but to say that all the wealth of the west derives from those natural resources is simply not true. Add up the cost of all the raw materials in an automobile and you'll quickly realize the value (wealth) is not in the raw materials, it is in the design and fabrication. That is where the real wealth lies, and it does not come from the third world, it comes from the people in the first world.

The one exception is probably oil, but last time I looked, OPEC wasn't being exploited by Western Europe and the US.

[Cal Carpenter]

33. A few things

First - I didn't specify 'natural resources' that I recall, but since you bring it up, I'd recommend googling 'Congo Coltan Cell Phone' for a recent example, or maybe 'Bolivia Water War', for an example from another continent. This still happens.

I did, however, mention 'centuries of colonialism and war' - this has been going on for a long time. If we look at something from the 19th century as ancient or irrelevant due to age, well no wonder we can't see forward more than 15 minutes. This wealth didn't just show up unannounced - it was created by exploitative means and those who hold it (regardless of national boundaries) will crush anyone who challenges it's right to continue growing at their expense.

Next, regarding your reference to OPEC, that's the thing about capitalism - it is a theory and system based on an assumption of unlimited progress and growth, at it's core this is true. It goes way beyond any nation's boundaries. It isn't just about the US, or western Europe, those were just the examples being discussed in earlier posts.

This 'third world' you refer to wouldn't BE what it is had the 'first world' not ravaged it to become what it currently is. And god forbid the people in these places try to rise up and take control back or refuse to participate in the capitalist economy. That's when the US and certain other nations dive right on in (basically exploiting their OWN people's labor and resources via tax dollars for war or less official military action) to support the agenda of the extremely wealthy and large corporations (see all the recent articles on Haiti's history of the last couple hundred years or other examples of the IMF, World Bank, etc)

[Nederland]

35. You didn't address my point

I do not dispute that the natural resources of the third world still get exploited. What I dispute is that that exploitation is the reason for the wealth of the western world. The wealth of the western world lies in it's educated workforce--that is where the true value is. Let me repeat my claim: the vast percentage of the value in an automobile is in its design and fabrication, and those things do not come from the third world. Wealth is created by labor, and the more skilled the labor the more wealth it creates.

Why is the third world poor? Because its people are not free to make their own economic decisions. I would concede the reason its people are not free to make their own economic decisions is in part due to western meddling. In other words, is the third world poor because of actions by the first? Yes. Is the first world rich because it exploits the third? No.

A quick review of history shows that there is comparitively little money in exploitating people. Who ended up richer, the North, with all it's free labor, or the South, with all it's slaves? During the 18th century, US spent a lot less money on it's military than the colonial powers of Europe, and did not focus anywhere near the resources that Europe did on colonizing, and yet who did better economically over that time period? England made far more money trading with a free United States that it ever did taxing a colonial America.

Again, wealth comes from labor. The problem with spending a lot of time and effort exploiting people is that people that are exploited don't work very hard, and therefore don't produce much wealth.

[Kalun D]

37. thoughts

""while others around the world suffer for THEIR wealth.""

It's the people at the top taking exponents more than their share that causes the suffering. You can have a lower-middle class lifestyle without causing the suffering of others, the industrial age has allowed that to happen.

The factor that limits the population of the 1st world is a finite environment. It's physically impossible for everyone to have a car and eat meat 3 meals a day, the earth could not support it. Therefore by whatever manner the expansion of the 1st world population has been limited since the mid 60's. This translates into suffering because the 3rd world population with no birth control has exceeded the capacity of the local environment to support it on a 3rd world basis. I think for instance that the invasion of Iraq had a subtext, millions were shifted from the 1st world to the 3rd, by accident or design?

and I agree with you, democracy in this country is not progressing, it is regressing.

""Socialism and Capitalism are opposing systems. There can be no hybrid of them"

disagree, it's not black and white, there are grey areas where they intermix. It depends what degrees of socialism and capitalism you are referencing. Is it predatory capitalism or a mediated meritocracy capitalism? Is it a communist socialism or is it merely public services like social security, medicare, public utilities etc? In this country there is some capitalism(which is increasingly turning to fascism) and there is some socialism and they co-exist.

It's easier for a capitalist company to exist within a system where the electrical grid, the transportation grid and the health care system are socialized, because the socialization of these sectors is more efficient than privatization. I think it depends on the individual sector, some stuff is better off privatized, some stuff is better socialized. Things go wrong when the wrong system is applied to any particular sector, Enron privatizing electricity is one example. Duplicating an electric grid side by side would be entirely wasteful, but privatization guarantees monopoly because there is only one grid. Monopoly is an antithesis to capitalism, therefore the socialism must exist to guarantee the health of the capitalist sector.

[Nederland]

25. Definitions might help

Here are how I define the terms:

Socialism: public control of the economy.
Capitalism: private control of the economy.

Using these definitions, it is undeniable that every first world country in the world has an economy that is a socialism/capitalism hybrid. The fact that they are opposing systems is irrelevant. Government decides which aspects of the economy it is going to control and which it will leave in private hands.

[shomino]

27. Public vs government

But, is "public control" necessarily "government control"?

[Nederland]

31. According to my definitions, yes

When I say "public control", I mean anytime a party other than the buyer and seller mandates anything regarding an economic decision. In order for a third party to mandate anything, it must be in a position of power to enforce it's mandate, which by conventional definition means government.

In my opinion, the fundamental question is this: when any economic transaction occurs, who is involved? If the only parties involved are the buyer and seller, you have a market (capitalist) system. If government or some other sanctioned party (for example, a union in a city that mandates union labor for certain things) is involved, you have to some degree a socialist model. The degree of socialism can vary. If government is controlling every aspect of the transaction (volume, price, etc.) you have a pure socialist model. If government is merely slapping a small tax on the transaction, you have a very slight socialist model, especially if the tax is a broad based tax that is applied uniformly to a wide range of goods (i.e. a sales tax). A targeted tax, a tax specifically on cigarettes for example, represent a more socialist model because it represent the state exerting more control over individual choices. The state is basically saying, regardless of how individuals feel about cigarettes, we believe they are bad thing and we are going to make the price higher in an effort to discourage it. In sum, it is all about control. Are decisions being made only by the buyer or seller, or are there third parties who have mandated power to force certain things.

Not to belabor the point, but I believe that when asked who should be involved in any economic transaction, the people of the world have universally responded by saying "it depends". Sometimes government is hardly involved at all, like when I buy a piece of software. Sometimes government controls quality but not price, like when I by food or drugs. Sometimes government controls the price, like when I buy electricity. Sometimes government controls pretty much everything, like with the fire department.

For the most part, people have decided that the price of things should be set primarily by the buyer and seller and that government should keep out. The percentage of goods that have price controls on them is fairly small in first world counties. There are certain exceptions, such as health care, where people have decided that the balance of power between buyer and seller is inherently unfair because a person who is dying will pay anything to get better. For this reason, even in the US, all sorts of price controls and regulations tend to surround health care transactions. It is, in my opinion, a sensible distinction. Government has no business telling me how much I should pay for a shirt, or if a piece of clothing is well made or not. I can make those decisions by myself fairly competently. Cardiac surgery? Not so much. I need help making sure I'm not going to be exploited because I'm desperate, and I need help making sure that the surgeon is qualified because I have neither the time nor the expertise to figure it out for myself.

[shomino]

34. Bureaucratic control

It seems to me that government control would in fact be bureaucratic control rather than true "public" control, because the government is not itself the "public" but an elected bureaucracy intended to execute the will of the public. Whether or not those actions are truly in accord with the "public will" or well-being is another matter entirely.

[Nederland]

36. What do you mean by "public will"

I can't think of a single issue where the "public" has a uniform opinion, so when you say "public will", do you actually mean "majority will"?

[Cal Carpenter]

29. Change 'the economy' to 'the means of production'

and your definitions would be clearer and more accurate in terms of existing economic theory.

Recognizing that economic systems reach much further than any one nation's boundaries would be another useful step.

[Nederland]

32. Not really

Again, you have a very 19th century view of things. What does "means of production" mean when I'm talking about judicial services? "Production" seems to imply only goods, which are a smaller and smaller percentage of the economy.

[Ozymanithrax]

7. Because most people haven't a clue what Capitalism and Socialism are...

Politics for most people works like religion, and those words carry positive or negative connotations because of their particular political religion.

If you want an intelligent discussion everyone has to agree to the definition of the words. If they don't agree to definitions, you are having a donnybrook or a prayer meeting not a debate.

[Fire1]

11. I had a "discussion" (for lack of a more accurate term) recently

regarding the lack of tolerance for "corporate fascism." It is my contention that "corporate fascism" cannot exist without "capitalism," as one is derived from the other. Thus, to eliminate corporate fascism, capitlism would have to be eliminated.
I'd be interested in your thoughts on this particular issue. I have to leave right now but will return shortly. Thanks.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7496673&mesg_id=7506984

[ChrisMCV]

13. I'd love to take part

I think your right, this is a very important topic. People on both sides tend to argue from the ideal position and do not see the fatal flaws reality always brings about.

Yeah, I am conservative, but discussion like this is important and I might be able to help show what the opposing viewpoint might say (valid or not).

It would be very important to speak from the standpoint of not judging any 'ideal' as right or wrong, just acknowledging that 'ideal' isn't what were discussing, its what can be done to achieve things in reality, hopefully taking the best of each system and protecting the people from the worst risks each one also brings.

[Festivito]

16. Such education goes against the security of the inheritor-class.

They won't allow such reasonable thinking without a fight.

Let's face it. They weren't the bright ones who created the family wealth, the only way they can continue in their god-given wealth is to stop anyone who might threaten it.

They must take all patents to themselves.
They must control as much information as they can.
They must squash small businesses before they become big.
They must buy out all small businesses that do manage to get big.

Whew. That's a hard days work.

Buffy! Buffy! Where's the butler? Oh, rats. Why is dad's grave constantly churning like that. Oh, well.

[alberg]

17. The convergence you reference is already happening.

This is part of the message from Massachusetts. It's no longer simply about party politics. It is now about what the majority of Americans want their country to look like. If you read the list of principles at the end of my reply to the average person in the street - the vast majority would respond: "Yes, that's the world I want to live in!". The problem before us is how to communicate these principles and make them a reality. We need leadership in order to do that. The necessary leadership has not yet emerged.

“In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

. . . America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens.”

--FDR's "Economic Bill of Rights.

[Festivito]

19. I like Thom Hartman's ways. Do you want a socialist fire department or not?

In case of fire, do you want someone to look up your record to see if your check cleared? How about your neighbor's house, he forgot to pay his and now your house is getting singed.

How about socialist police and courts. Do you want to allow the richest guy in town to take you to court and he pays the judge more than you can?

How about socialist voting. One man/woman, one vote? Or, should the richest guy in town get more votes than you, in fact more than everyone else in town put together. Do you like that? What if he changes the Constitution as says you are all slaves. Still like it.

(Well, Thom doesn't say it just like this.)

Haiti is one of the most privatized countries in the world.

Call me a socialist or call me an idiot.

Even large capitalist companies have an internal socialist environment. They get paid even if they sluff a bit. You have to offer a good smile to get some more out of someone. A candy bar helps as well.

Sure, let's educate people while our media pounds them with uncertainty about us.