Topic: Economics
Socialism and Capitalism Endless confusion has resulted from the re-definition of the terms "socialism" and "capitalism".by Dan Clore
(libertarian)
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Socialism and Capitalism
by Dan Clore
One must be careful to make one's intended meaning known when using the terms "socialism" and "capitalism" (as well as related terms) because they have undergone polemic re-definition over the decades that can cause a great deal of confusion.
In the traditional sense, "capitalism" means the ownership and control of the means of production by a class of "capitalists" (in the traditional sense, the owners of capital, or means of production used by workers other than the capitalists/owners themselves) and an economic and political system that favors this.
In the traditional sense, "socialism" means the ownership and control of the means of production by the workers themselves, whether as individuals, cooperatives, collectives, communal groups, or through the state, and an economic and political system that favors this. One should note that this does not necessarily mean by the people as a whole, nor does it necessarily mean state ownership, nor does it necessarily imply a non-market form of organization; historically, anarcho-individualism (e.g., in the free-market form advocated by Benjamin Tucker) has been an important form of socialism.
In the later re-definition, "capitalism" means the private (non-government) ownership of the means of production, and more generally the absence of central planning by the state.
In the later re-definition, "socialism" means the ownership and control of the means of production by the people as a whole, generally by means of the state, or simply the ownership and control of the means of production by the state, or more broadly any form of central planning by the state.
Matters have become especially confused because these terms have been used in ways that include both the traditional sense and the later re-definition of the terms. Thus, Marxist-Leninists will define "socialism" in the traditional sense, but at the same time refer to examples of "socialism" in the later re-definition, in order to gain support for totalitarian Bolshevik regimes that actually destroy any examples of "socialism" in the traditional sense. Likewise, their "capitalist" opponents will do the same, in order to support the belief that There Is No Alternative (TINA) to "capitalism" other than a tyrannic despotism. (In this connection, one should note that according to Marx and Engels, the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is a transitional stage between capitalism and socialism/communism, which will not exist until the state has withered away to nothing.)
In the same way, advocates of "capitalism" will define the term with the later re-definition, but actually refer to concrete examples that instead fit the original sense, even citing dictatorships such as Pinochet's in Chile as positive examples. And just as with "socialism", some opponents of "capitalism" will do likewise in order to discredit it in the sense of the later re-definition. At present, state-corporate globalization, in which there is rule by states, corporations, international financial institutions (IFIs), and the like, is the typical form of "capitalism" actually advocated by most avowed capitalists, rather than a truly free market. This effectively means that there are (at the least) three common usages of the terms "socialism" and "capitalism", and so it behoves one to make clear in what sense one is using these and related terms, and to what empirical examples one refers.
One should also note the term "state-capitalism", used by socialists (in the traditional sense) to refer to state ownership and control of the means of production in varying degrees ranging from capitalist dictatorships such as Pinochet's through to Marxist-Leninist dictatorships such as the Bolshevik regimes. This extends the traditional sense of "capitalism", as the state (at least partially) replaces the traditional "private" capitalist class to varying degrees.
The views expressed in this
article are those of Dan Clore only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Dan Clore is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Dan it's a great piece, but my simple mind says being a Capitalist, is generally one who believes in private investment, ownership, and production as a free enterprise and the system is Capitalism. A Socialist, is generally one who believes in Public or community investments, ownership, and production as a member thereof, and the system is Socialism, one small step from Communism
Not more comments? You just elucidated what I have thought to be true for a long time! Bravo! As always, memetic engineering is just as crucial to understand as any other instrument of debate. In this case, the way we redefine words has caused arguments to take place on false causes.
I myself have long argued that socialism is not this nightmarish system that many hardcore libertarians decry it to be, the only distinction being that there is no element of "capital" in socialism. And you articulated it quite well. Again, splendid job.
I'm just curious if anyone can tell me why this article is so popular. It's by far the most popular of my own columns, getting many more hits than any other. And as I write, it's the most visited column on Nolan Chart for the past two days.
I do think that I did a good job explaining something that needs to be explained, to clear up popular misconceptions.
But I've written other columns that I think deserve as much attention as this one.
While there may be technical differences between these "isms", I don't think people want to go there mentally. They might not think it matters much.
On another site a "progressive" was explaining a tea party event he attended and saw a sign "No to socialism" which angered him. He asked the woman "do you even know what socialism is" ? The woman replied "No! And I don't want to know". Which angered him more. He wanted to choke her. She was "stupid".
I think most people know socialism means shared work and shared wealth, seen over by some group. Most people in this country do not believe in that. They know instinctively that this system ends up corrupted and eventually fewer and fewer people do the work for the shared wealth. The cadre at the top do fine, the rest of the people share the misery.
As that russian worker once said "they pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work".
Yes I know that was Communism.....it holds true for the other socialism. IMO.
Socialism does not mean shared work and wealth overseen by "some group" unless its run by the state, which isnt much different than working for someone else, having no say in the decisions that effect your life and being subject to economic coercian.Whether the rule makers are a small group of rich people or a government or a government controlled by a small group of rich people makes little difference to me.Anarchist socialism can manifest in as many different forms as the people involved set about to organizing themselves."Shared wealth" is also misleading, giving people the idea that there is no personal property,which is untrue.You can have a town library and still own your own books.If I'm working in a collective company and my fellow work associates and I decide to create a healthcare package for ourselves we actually have more say on the nature of that package than if I'm waiting for or demanding a handout from a privately owned business.The difference between anarchist socialism and capitalism is that everybody gets to work for themselves in as much as they have more of a say in the decisions that effect their lives while being a part of, rather than subjected to, economics.Perhaps a new word like free market socialism is in order.Another difference is that under capitalism hoarding excessively is often considered necessary and encouraged even though it contributes to an unhealthy social and political atmosphere and while I've heard every reason and excuse in the book as to why this is a good and just darwinian way to do things I've never understood why creating an envirenment that encourages using the excess created in one area to help other areas prosper, which would benefit us all, in the long run, is such a bad thing.I guess if your goal is to impoversh more than 1/2 the world so you can better take advantage of them then maybe it is a bad thing.Also, when profit is the only motive worth speaking of we tend to end up with lots of cheap and useless "stuff" and brilliant minds end up being funneled towards whatever is profitable at the time, rather than letting free and creative association determine one's creative future-unless your rich or are good at begging from the rich,which essentually capitalism does to the vast majority of people in the world,makes beggars of them.I'd like to live in a world where my education as well as libraries and other non-profit commons can be obtained without begging some rich foundation or asking for government welfare, secure in my knowledge that my labor and other contributions are worth more than the crumbs we currently compete for.Another myth I'd like to dispell is the myth that one can't operate independantly,you can be an independant artisan or whatever of any kind if you'd like, however if your goal is to own a piece of land the size of texas and make wage slaves of the people that live on that land you may find that what you call freedom and what they call freedom are two different things.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
