Capitalism + Socialism = Democratic Socialism
I’m going to try and make this somewhat succinct so it can be shared as a primer if needed since the establishment is trying to confuse everyone by forcing a binary view between Capitalism and Socialism. In reality they are the two sides of the same spectrum and except in the extreme cases are always blended to some degree, so by trying to pick one or the other, the Overton Window is being pushed to the two endpoints and ignoring the entire spectrum between.
The reason this is being done is because we aren’t choosing between the two end points, in fact very very few even consider wanting either pure socialism or pure capitalism and what people are really choosing from are those very points in between that they are trying to push outside the window. They are trying to leave two false choices while trying to hide all the real ones so they can push us ever closer to the capitalist extremes by making anything else the socialist extreme.
Socialism
Extreme socialism has no private sector at all where everything is owned by the ‘collective’ and though this can have a lot of success on the smaller scale like on a Kibbutz, it seems as the scale gets larger and larger, it gets harder and harder for individuals to have any sense of association with all other members. So when everyone can personally know everyone it works very well and when everyone can at least have a real sense of association with everyone it works okay, but once the collective is so large in naturally splinters into subgroups, there is a tendency for stagnation as individuals feel no reason strive for someone else’s benefit.
Thats just pure socialism though and other forms of socialism we experience everyday and as a rule most people like these things. Roads, traffic lights and highways are socialism as are the police and fire departments, public schools and parks are socialism as is the free clinic and even the CDC. Our military is actually socialism and the truth is government itself is socialism. Anything we pay for as a collective, but use as needed is socialism by definition, so we already have lots of socialism in our lives while living in a very capitalistic society.
Capitalism
Now the idea of extreme Capitalism isn’t what people think it is, because you can’t have capitalism without government, see business is a game and government makes the rules and acts as referee. Tort law and the courts that handle it are government as are corporate charters that allow them to even exist and most importantly currency the medium that allows capitalism to even exist is government, so you cant have capitalism without government no matter how much they tell you otherwise.
The closest we can get to a pure capitalistic state would be fascism where financial interests control the government and if you are paying attention you will have notice we are moving in this direction over the last half century, but even in fascism some aspects of socialism will still exist making the concept of actual ‘pure capitalism’ a myth. Having socialistic systems in no way makes capitalism not capitalism, you have to get to the very extreme of socialism before capitalism is removed from the system. As long as there is a private sector capitalism exists and its just a matter of which aspects of society we wish to socialize.
Democratic Socialism
There is no extreme of this because its basically all the points between pure Socialism and Fascism, the whole spectrum they are trying to hide behind the binary choice between the two extremes. We live in a Democratic Socialist nation right now, where the economy is capitalism, but we have chosen to have certain social systems socialized.
The problem we face right now is we have drifted so far to the capitalism side of the spectrum that business is now choosing what we socialize, instead of the people doing it. That is why banks were bailed out but homeowners weren’t and capital gains taxes are lower than employment income, money is now getting to make all the choices on what systems we socialize.
So what the media is calling ‘socialism’ is really just the people wanting to be the ones who get to decide what is socialized and what isnt for the interests of the people, instead of the moneyed interested who only look out for the interests of money. So this isn’t about some ‘socialist revolution’, but about reevaluating where our money goes, so instead of banks getting saved from bankruptcy due to bad bets, people are getting saved from bankruptcy due to bad health.
Tips, flames, corrections and kudos are all welcome 😀
No.
The equation is not right. The production is more worker driven than individual profit driven, especially with the manipulation of finance through technology.
The type of capitalism you describe is neoliberalism. Government plays a role in it, especially on social issues for justice, but the role is medium at most in scale. But it too exploits workers. Capitalism is authoritarian in organizational styles whereas socialism is more collective.
Our government was very socialist during the New Deal era. JFK changed it by reducing the taxes and during Nixon, HMO’s were set up to help insurance companies manage the health insurance of companies to contain costs and give more profits to the company. Further, capitalists posited the theory that executive compensation should be exercised through finance, based on shareholders. Shareholders gave more financial power to boards and executives, who in turn exploited the system via workers and technology. They have no interest in workers, it’s more Darwinin in approach.
Democratic socialism is about the masses working through a system in which people pay taxes based on income and the taxes are distributed more fairly. The more one makes the one should be levied to pay for programs that benefit society the most. Also, coalitions are built (which was what I think you were getting at) to find mutual interests and to regulate for the betterment of society as well as individuals. For example, the Bakken Pipeline cuts through properties that belong to people, yet the government has been given the power to take property rights away to give to companies. Small family farms are affected because pipelines cut through their property and invariably, it causes pollution that tax payers end up paying for, rather than companies who cause it.
Democratic socialism is about the long game. Capitalism, in the form of neoliberalism, used to be about the long term. But not anymore. It’s all about government giving more props to business and the least caring among us.
From DSA:
Im confused where you think we disagree?
The equation.
In what way?
It simply says Capitalism + Socialism = Democratic Socialism
What is disagreeable about it?
The two intersect but they aren’t combined. Capitalists believe profit above the needs people. Democratic socialists intersect with them in the form of unions because they believe workers should have a voice in how a company is run and compensated.
I think you are confusing it with social democracy. See wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism
BTW, I don’t mind the debate at all.
“Capitalists believe profit above the needs people.”
This is where we disagree for i think you are applying a current belief sub system into a broader spectrum. I agree the current crop of capitalists are mostly this way, but thats not how capitalist have to be.
What I think you really mean is Corporatists believe in money first, but they just happen to be the capitalists that are in charge right now.
What I mean is, for example, the current crop of American Christians are mainly new born who take the Bible literal and act very un Jesus like, but that doesn’t mean Christians have to be that way, they are just one kind of Christian.
Corporatists are just one type of capitalists, but thats not all kinds and for example by broad terms i’m a capitalist who believes in the abolishment of corporations for they are the true scourge without conscious, remorse or mortality. They are most closely akin to vampires of myth.
Capitalist just means believes there should be a private sector, a place for private industry to compete, it doesnt mean that should supersede a clean environment and living wages etc..
(I welcome the debate as well so long as its sincere and not devils advocate :P)
There is a place for the private sector but not at the expense of what government can do better for a greater good. So for example, you make widgets. They are widgets that people want to consume. That’s OK.
What is not OK is when capitalism is used to buy power. Example: today it was announced that the DNC has reversed its position of taking large donations from fossil fuel companies. Even if it is only 20% of what the RNC accepts, fossil fuel companies expect something in return for that vote: to exploit the planet and workers.
So perhaps where we agree is that there is a place for smaller businesses to compete (ie innovation, but I don’t think government should give incentives for business to compete, but it should prevent anti-trusts and monolopies).
I would prefer to disrupt insurance companies (which are capitalists) to not pay for healthcare. I would prefer to pay my taxes and know that it is always available to me and everyone. I don’t want insurance companies making my health decisions and while the government is not perfect, they should have bargaining power for goods and services related to healthcare, education, cleaning up our environment and to manufacture defense systems for our security. I do think R & D is fine to be paid out of our pockets but mainly for education.
You are confusing the concept of capitalism with the current corruptions to it.
In a way I feel like you read my title but not the diary.
I have been thinking about this a lot and trying to figure out where this broke down and I think what you dont understand is business (capitalism) is just a game and government sets the rules, so capitalism isnt just our current rule set.
Our current rule set is designed by greed heads and so it is a greed based system, but that doesnt mean that is the only way capitalism can be. If we control the government then we change the rules to not be greed based.
Unless you believe the government should take over the whole economy then you too believe in capitalism, I dont know if we agree on every thing that specifically should be socialized (i agree insurance companies add nothing to the system except more cost) but for some reason you treat capitalism as a dirty word and me as a foul mouth for using it.
This is an excellent/important discussion, and you two are arguing about the definition of corporate fascism? T and R!! Kudos, too, TLitC!! I don’t see where Benny calls you a “foul mouth.”
I think the two can co-exist in your model, as long as capitalism does not become laissez-faire. However, most believe that concept because of market efficiencies and do not accept what workers should be minimally paid to make a decent living. But I do not think those two combined are democratic socialism. Democratic meaning a robust discussion and voting. However, I think it’s possible that more millennials are interested in social democracy, which is what you are describing.
I agree with Benny, and think the crux of the issue is your definition of capitalism: it does not stand for the idea of having a private sector. Socialism can include the idea of having a private sector as well – as you said it’s a spectrum.
Capitalism is the economic version of might makes right: that everything should be settled by markets without interference by the state. That is why the equation is problematic – it misstates the Dem Socialist position as some kind of centrist compromise between Capitalism and Socialism, which it really isn’t.
I think what you’re trying to say is that Dem Socialism is no the same as Marxism or pure Socialism, which is fine.
Im sorry but this is the definition of capitalism
cap·i·tal·ism
ˈkapədlˌizəm/Submit
noun
an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
Thats it with the state setting and enforcing the rules and anything else you read into it is just a reflection of the current rules. Democratic socialism is exactly what I called it, a hybrid of capitalism and socialism, why some of you take such issue with that has left me dumbfounded.
I just dont know what to say unless you are a real socialist who wants the state to take over everything, then you to are a capitalist who does want a private sector, albeit not with the current cold hearted greed based rule set we currently have.
Democratic Socialism is capitalism in some things and socialism in others and thats all I said.
The title alone suggests to me that it would be better than the situation that we now find ourselves in right now.
ps Here is a kudo for you. LOL
Im contemplating posting this on TOP since I recently noticed I didnt get banned 😛 (I really thought for sure my post calling them out to take responsibility for helping get Trump elected would get me the boot and never looked until recently when LD linked his defense of S King took me back there for the first time since my post lol)
It seems pretty tame to me but you never know what kind of reaction that you might get over there.
Well im not one to pull punches, so im not very popular with the establishment clique there and have already been psuedo-banned once (My original id was eventually pulled into some weird sexism thing as a way to get me banned that was so tenuous but drummed on about that MB just said to reregister with a new id so it would go away) and they love my new id no more than my original lol.
I don’t recommend publishing this at TOP. It’s misleading.
What I take from the title is that democratic socialism is a combination of both capitalism and socialism not a scenario that is being pushed by Republicans and many Democrats.
Capitalism uses money to buy political power as opposed to using it to pay workers and themselves for producing a good or service that is wanted.
Thats not ‘capitalism’ thats corruption.
That’s correct. Excessive out-of-control greed is the corrupt extreme of capitalism.
Well given how poorly it went over here its probably just as well i dont 😛
Don’t feel that way. The subject you bring up is vitally important. The only fault of your diary can be helped by proofing/some copy editing. 🙂
I enjoyed your post. The ‘shades of socialism’ that I see on twitter, for example, tells me that many people are confused about capitalism, socialism, democratic socialism, and well all of it! I follow some who call themselves Marxist-Leninists that are always schooling people about what THAT really ‘means’ (or what it means to them?).
I’m still learning (that’s for sure!), but I will say that ALL this lefty talk that includes the word ‘socialism’ is okay by me!
When I moved to the U.S. from Canada I was often quizzed about Canada’s systems, and I would tell people that Canada was more socialist than the U.S., and just using that very word would get me startled looks, and I had to wonder, by their strong reactions, if they thought I was a communist!
But, of course, what my unsophisticated self was trying to express was that our government-funded social programs were far stronger in Canada, the tax system was more progressive, and that the Canadian government has strong regulations designed to rein in what would have otherwise been the unbridled capitalism we have in the U.S. What I was calling ‘socialism’ was basically the system practiced in so many Nordic countries.
I’m glad there is so much conversation around this topic nowadays.
The waters have becomes so muddied that some people are even becoming wary of using the word progressive to describe themselves!
https://twitter.com/samknight_one/status/1029324470576664576
The baroness tried to co-opt the phrase. Didn’t work with many of us.