Are You Both a Capitalist and a Socialist?

[Sunstone]

I consider the best social, political, and economic system to be a mix of both capitalism and socialism. Thus, I consider myself both a capitalist and a socialist, since I support a mix, rather than one system to the exclusion of the other. What about you? And, if you too support a mix of capitalism and socialism, what kind of mix do you support?

Please Note: This thread is in the Socialist DIR. If you are not to at least to some extent a Socialist, please do not debate in this thread. You are welcome, of course, to start a thread elsewhere on the board on the same subject so that you can debate it.

 

[GabrielWithoutWings]

I consider the best social, political, and economic system to be a mix of both capitalism and socialism. Thus, I consider myself both a capitalist and a socialist, since I support a mix, rather than one system to the exclusion of the other. What about you? And, if you too support a mix of capitalism and socialism, what kind of mix do you support?

I'm still developing my platform since I've joined the whole political game late in life.

There's has to be some kind of gain or people would never set and achieve goals and no one's quality of life would ever improve.

From what I understand, Scandinavia seems to have found the sweet spot between socialism and capitalism.

 

[Sunstone]

From what I understand, Scandinavia seems to have found the sweet spot between socialism and capitalism.

I suspect you might be right about that. I would certainly like to find out more about the Scandinavian models. Especially Norway and Sweden, but also the others.

And I, too, for the record, am still developing my positions on these issues -- pretty much for the same reason as you: I didn't become interested in it until later on in life.

 

[Sunstone]

I know I'm not a socialist, but I just wanted to comment that that is the general direction modern structuralists are going. Capitalism is the economic structure the world at large operates under, and just about everything is going to have to exist under it in some way.

I'd have to agree that a mix of two would be the most effective system if you were going to advocate for socialism at all. Which I'm not, of course.

This is the Socialist DIR. Are you asking a question of the Socialists on this board?

I find your opinion valuable, but I fear it's in the wrong forum.

 

[Alex_G]

I consider the best social, political, and economic system to be a mix of both capitalism and socialism. Thus, I consider myself both a capitalist and a socialist, since I support a mix, rather than one system to the exclusion of the other. What about you? And, if you too support a mix of capitalism and socialism, what kind of mix do you support?

Please Note: This thread is in the Socialist DIR. If you are not to at least some extent a Socialist, please do not debate in this thread. You are welcome, of course, to start a thread elsewhere on the board on the same subject so that you can debate it.

Im going to declare my socialism and parry the swift assassination that could otherwise result!

Im always quite unsure of myself with political standpoints, probably due to my general lack of knowledge and experience. What is it that inspires your view of socialism and capitalism combined? And how do you see them combined? If anything, you would be contributing to my learning and development. I shall give you a rare and priceless Michalangelo stick-man sketching if you kindly indulge

Alex

 

[Sunstone]

My thoughts on this are still evolving, Alex, so I have more questions than conclusions. But in general, I support a strong social security net combined with the forced break-up of any companies -- especially financial institutions -- that are so big that their failure could sink the world economy -- or at least the national economy. But, like I said, I'm more open to ideas about those things than I have firm conclusions about them.

Meanwhile, I'm signing off for a while to take care of a problem that's required me to call a customer service group.

 

[Mathematician]

I mostly identify as a socialist but I have no objections to market competition. Whether one wants to call that "capitalism" is up to that person's preferences, although I view capitalism through a Marxist lens so I find it more desirable to distinguish the two.

It all boils down to how one fits a description to each word. Socialism can mean "welfare state," Soviet "communism," or free market worker co-ops, among other things.

 

[Vile Atheist]

I'm very socialist leaning. I did a political compass test a few hours ago. I'm to the left of the Dalai Lama, Gandhi, and Nelson Mandela and just about as libertarian as them, if not more so. I'm ALMOST as left as Stalin, but obviously, far, far, far more libertarian.

I think the problem is that politicians (especially more conservative ones) have hijacked the term "capitalist" to really imply "corporatist". Corporatism is horrible and is what the right wing GOP and Conservative Party in Canada and the US support.

In the world, you have two competing interests: the consumer and the business. It is the objective of the business to take as much money from the consumer as possible for a product. Sometimes this involves lowering their price to be competitive with another business. Sometimes this encourages things like bulk-buying that benefit both the business and the consumer, or other such measures.

Ultimately the consumer wants to keep as much of their money as possible and this is supposed to be the check against businesses raising their prices to an objectionable level. If consumers don't have enough money to spend on a product, they can't buy it. If they can't buy it, or won't because they feel they aren't getting enough value for their money, the business loses money. Businesses compete with each other for money, which also in turn lowers prices.

Theoretically, this sounds awesome (and to a large extent, it is). However, it ignores the fact that optimizing price is not the only way a company can make money. A company can also make money by saving it. It can do this by lowering workmanship on their product, laying off workers and automating jobs, or sending jobs overseas to where labour is cheap (China, Bangladesh, etc.), and lower the quality of their product.

When we're talking about inane everyday items like tables and chairs and paper plates, this doesn't really have much of an effect on our lives, especially when the price of the product is so low that it can easily be replaced at a low cost to the consumer. But when we're talking about important products and services we consume (like healthcare), it is a MAJOR problem. When you introduce a profit motive into a system like healthcare, you encourage companies to lower their costs by denying treatment to people wherever possible, lower their coverage, perform unnecessary tests and procedures, and charge heavily for the services they do provide. In short, it screws over the consumer and the consumer has no recourse to choose a better competitor because all the companies do this - they have a massive profit motive.

Strategic resources like oil, water, and even food can sometimes have their prices artificially raised by market speculators and the result is a massive cost of living increase for the consumer. When you have such an important resource as oil that controls the price of many other things (because many other things depend on transportation to markets), it's highly dangerous to have private companies have too great a control on the price.

So nationalization of some strategic resources (oil, water, food) and services (healthcare) makes sense because governments can then better control the cost and, in the case of healthcare, food and water, quality. (An example of the bulk-buying I mentioned before: Prescription drugs are cheaper in Canada than in the US because the provinces take advantage of bulk-buying, which lowers the cost. In the US, there is no bulk-buying because individuals are left to purchase their drugs individually at a massive markup from what the drug is actually worth.)

In the case of corporatism and the inane "trickle-down economics", the only thing that has trickled down is the fecal matter from the rears of CEOs upon the consumer (and I have toned down the language for this post). The theory is that governments should give massive tax breaks and subsidies to big business because then the businesses will have more money and that will be an incentive for them to create more jobs.

Problems with trickle-down:

1. It ignores basic supply and demand. If I own a shoe factory and I produce a certain number of shoes and the government comes up to me and says "Defender of Justice, we will charge you NO corporate income tax! Please create jobs!", I'd gladly take the money, but I wouldn't create jobs unless there was an increased demand for shoes and I needed to up my productivity to meet that demand. But I might not want to do that anyways because a smaller supply for the same or increased demand means a higher price. An employee is very expensive to hire. I have to pay him or her wages and benefits and unless I can sell more shoes to justify it, I have no need for more employees.

2. If it does create jobs, it certainly doesn't create jobs here. Companies want to lower their operating costs and one of their biggest costs is their workforce. Companies will go where the labour is cheaper (China, Bangladesh, etc.) Why would they pay someone $30 an hour to do a manufacturing job in Ontario when they can pay someone in China $2 an hour? Another thing that affects it is the relative strength of the nation's currency. In short, they will create jobs in China.

3. The recipients of this corporate welfare are usually companies that are raking in record profits (oil and gas industries) and they do not need and more profit motive to create jobs. If they needed any more employees, they certainly have the capital to obtain their increased workforce.

4. This idiocy is extremely dangerous during a recession. But how does a recession work? It doesn't make sense that a market that has a relatively constant demand for things and a relatively stable supply would suddenly enter a recession? How does it work?

Consider an analogy of a large neighbourhood getting together to form a babysitting co-op. There are about 150 couples in this co-op. It's clear that managing this co-op would be very difficult. How are you going to keep track of all those people and assure that nobody shirks their duty? The system works like this: Each couple gets a coupon for one free hour of babysitting. When they use it up, they give their coupon to whatever couple babysat. When they babysit, they receive a coupon from the couple they babysat for. This system is shirk-proof.

But what happens when one or a few couples have many free nights in a row and are able to babysit and are unwilling to go out? Well, they babysit because they want to accumulate those coupons to save them for a rainy day. But as they keep accumulating coupons, other people are deprived of their coupons. And if the couple(s) that accumulate the coupons are unwilling or don't have much of a need to go out, the others get deprived of their babysitting time.

Now, in order to be able to go out, those couples without a coupon must try and babysit for another couple, but if everyone else doesn't want to go out because they don't have coupons, how will they get more coupons? In effect, this mini-economy has suffered a recession. People want to stay at home and build up coupons (capital) and so there is no demand for the product (babysitting service).

The central bank of a country (Bank of Canada for Canadians, Federal Reserve for Americans, in this case, who ever issues the coupons) controls the flow of the "coupons", subtracting and adding as needed in order to ensure there is a steady supply to prevent recession.

But what governments who love trickle-down do is basically give all the people who have acquired all the coupons, and are unwilling to spend them, more coupons. In effect, it exacerbates the problem. Instead of giving the extra coupons to those without them, which would tame the business cycle again, they give them to the people who are swimming in the coupons already in an effort to convince them to spend the coupons.

In short, it fails utterly and is merely a proxy for politicians to scratch the backs of their campaign donors.

I am a capitalist at heart. I believe that the system does work, but like any sport, you need referees to make sure the game is played fairly and nobody cheats and the game doesn't get out of hand. The role of the government is to be that referee and place regulations and other protections for the benefit of the consumer. Sometimes that may mean it costs a business some money, but that is the price of ensuring the game is fair and just.

In the case of important products and services as I mentioned before, I believe it should be completely government controlled to mitigate the damage that businesses can do to a nation. Businesses are amoral machines that only care about profit. They are not patriotic entities and we shouldn't expect them to be. They need to be policed like everyone else and sometimes, the government needs to come in and ensure the cookie jar is securely on the top shelf where they can't reach it.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Are You Both a Capitalist and a Socialist?

I believe in Capitalism tempered by responsible Socialism.
Many of the best and most successful businesses behave, to a limited but crucial extent , very much like socialists.
For example, the company I work for uses Open Book Management and shares all profits with contributing employees. When individual and group goals are met, monthly bonuses are added to employees regular paychecks. Profits from the company are used to enhance contributing employees monthly checks.
All records for the company are open to all employees. From the CEO to the receptionist.
In the last three years since our start-up, profits have grown by over 400%.
As profits increase, benefits are enhanced.

Funny thing is, our CEO is a hardcore conservative Republican and successful restaurant mogul. Our COO is an Australian liberal Socialist and successful government contract manager.
Together they have built their most profitable business yet, with an extremely low employees turnover rate.

 

[Willamena]

Please Note: This thread is in the Socialist DIR. If you are not to at least to some extent a Socialist, please do not debate in this thread.

Does just being Canadian qualify us?

 

[sandandfoam]

Nope. I'm a full blooded communist

 

[Penumbra]

I consider the best social, political, and economic system to be a mix of both capitalism and socialism. Thus, I consider myself both a capitalist and a socialist, since I support a mix, rather than one system to the exclusion of the other. What about you? And, if you too support a mix of capitalism and socialism, what kind of mix do you support?

I definitely support a mix of socialism and capitalism.

Basically, I support a fairly free market tempered with:
-universal single-payer health care
-plenty of public resources for educating the population
-progressive taxation
-substantial regulation: consumer protection, animal protection, environmental protection, financial security, etc.
-tax incentives for cleaner tech and better infrastructure, possibly also cap and trade or something equivalent
-increased transparency
-a population that cares for shareholder advocacy and corporate accountability

My thoughts on this are still evolving, Alex, so I have more questions than conclusions. But in general, I support a strong social security net combined with the forced break-up of any companies -- especially financial institutions -- that are so big that their failure could sink the world economy -- or at least the national economy. But, like I said, I'm more open to ideas about those things than I have firm conclusions about them.

Meanwhile, I'm signing off for a while to take care of a problem that's required me to call a customer service group.

In my thoughts towards this, I'm favor of a different way of dealing with big banks. I'm not particularly comfortable with the idea of forced break-ups strictly due to size.

Rather than forced break-ups, I support increasing regulatory requirements and tax burden as financial corporations increase in size. There are a number of metrics that should be considered, and the specific model would have to be determined by a regulatory panel of experts, but for simplicity here I'll use equity/asset ratio to say what I mean to anyone reading.

As a bank has assets and liabilities, its equity is the amount left over when liabilities are subtracted from assets. I'd be in favor of having stricter equity requirements for large banks than for small banks. So for instance, I'd say a small bank must have an equity/asset ratio of at least 10%, while a medium bank must have an equity/asset ratio of at least 15%, while a large bank must have an equity/asset ratio of at least 20%. (Specific numbers not relevant, just the general idea, plus there would be more metrics and requirements involved.) In addition, I'd possibly be in favor of higher tax burdens for larger tanks. The effect would be that it's not necessarily as profitable to be a big bank- so most banks will choose to split up and remain medium-sized for optimal profitability, and if a bank decides to grow big anyway, it will be held to very high standards of regulation.

In addition, I support the Glass-Steagall Act (which was repealed in 1999) rather than the current weak regulation. The Glass Steagall Act keeps commercial banks and investment banks separate (which would split some aspects of the big banks up too). There should be some banks that can fail (investment banks), and other banks (commercial banks) that have more conservative operations that have layers of protection against failure.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I believe a healthy combination of the two is for the best. Both have great economic benefits, and both have great economic repercussions when taken too far, and both are good for balancing each other.

 

[Darkness]

Modern Socialists are essentially capitalists. It's the same way most liberal and conservative parties have accepted centralised-government regulation. The original socialists were purists, wanting capital to be owned by those who labour on the means of production. Likewise, the original liberals were pretty much market right-libertarians. The prominent sociologist Anthony Gidden felt that "socialism today should be viewed, not so much as an alternative economic system to capitalism, but as its 'alter ego.'" In other words, socialism is what makes capitalism humane. Modern Socialism (which I ascribe to) believes that socialism is essentially ensuring that the basic needs of society's members are met: food, clothing, shelter, access to health care, etc. I am proud to brandish the Red Flag. I love Marx, but we cannot remain chained to his ideas, any more than we can afford to be chained to the ideas of the Founding Fathers. Social Democracy is the main term used for modern socialists, but democratic socialism is also used to refer to social democrats. Yet, democratic socialism can also refer to those who desire an abolition of capitalism instead of a synthesis, as social democrats desire. While I am tempted to join the abolish capitalism class, I am sticking with an old-school social democratic approach. We keep fighting for reforms and if we can chip away at capitalism without causing damage to productivity, but do not rock the boat for an ideal. Be realistic. A gradual approach is preferable to reform. Maybe in another hundred or two hundred years capitalism will be obsolete, but for now let us utilise its productive capabilities to redistribute to the poor and least among us.

 

[Penumbra]

I consider the best social, political, and economic system to be a mix of both capitalism and socialism. Thus, I consider myself both a capitalist and a socialist, since I support a mix, rather than one system to the exclusion of the other. What about you? And, if you too support a mix of capitalism and socialism, what kind of mix do you support?

Please Note: This thread is in the Socialist DIR. If you are not to at least to some extent a Socialist, please do not debate in this thread. You are welcome, of course, to start a thread elsewhere on the board on the same subject so that you can debate it.

I figured I'd elaborate more on my political and social philosophy, to more fully explain my views.

In terms of how to bring about socialism and what form this socialism should take, I think in terms of two things- political mandate and social change. Political mandate is basically what I think should be government-enforced (through a democratic republic, of course)- like taxes, regulations, government services, etc. In contrast, social change is how I think a society should voluntarily operate through reason, and how people should adapt from current behavior, but that should not be mandated as part of official political/economic policy, either out of principle or impracticability. Put another way, the political part is what I think is realistic, and the social change is what I view as an idealistic scenario that should be promoted.

Socialism encompasses a vastly diverse set of political/economic models ranging from authoritarian state-planned economies to anarchic, decentralized, stateless cooperation. At its core, socialism means that workers own the common means of production.

Most countries we think of as "socialist" are much closer to social democrat than truly socialist, meaning they operate with capitalism that is tempered with a very robust welfare system, wealth distribution, and sometimes a fair amount of state-owned operation (often in the area of natural resources). These have proven themselves to be among the finest of political/economic systems, but a lot of workers in these economies still have fairly low ownership. So it may be a great system, but still isn't quite socialism, and so there are socialists that advocate against this approach.

Political Mandate
My political views are those of social democracy. This is the part that I think should be politically mandated, because I think the government is best at operating these things.

That is, I support a democratic republic with:
-A mixed economy mostly based on private ownership, yet the government operates some industries. In particular, I think the government should have a much stronger ownership of natural resource production because I think this is an area where long-term planning is key, and that in more philosophical terms, belongs to everyone anyway.
-Strong regulation for consumer protection, and robust laws for labor rights and shareholder rights
-Increased regulation for key industries, including finance, and adoption and enforcement of transparency laws
-Universal single-payer health care, social security, education subsidies, child protection, etc.
-Vastly increased environmental protection
-Liberal/progressive/nonrestrictive social views
-Progressive taxation
-Fair trade

I think these government-enforced/provided systems are fairly necessary for honest and moral wealth redistribution and economic stability. Everyone should have a reasonable level of dignity in life, the opportunity to be educated and pursue their chosen livelihoods, and their medical needs taken care of without question of payment or medical debt. I think natural resources should be significantly more in the hands of government rather than corporations, since the state and the people should philosophically own these resources of the land anyway. I suspect this would reduce pollution, increase long-term energy planning, and increase sustainability.

This is the core that provides opportunity and wealth redistribution that is necessary for the second step of social change.

Social Change
Once the political/economic foundation is in place that ensures certain rights, freedoms, and enough wealth redistribution (in the form of progressive tax burdens, education opportunities, medical coverage, and strong labor rights), then I think it is up to voluntarily intelligent social change to pursue true socialism. Once the foundation is in place, things are "good enough", but workers still may own fairly little of the means or production. But, I think that this system provides all the tools needed for people to own the means of production.

When people have more buying power and a higher standard of living, they can afford more savings. They can buy company stock. Currently, most stock is held in index funds, mutual funds, ETFs, and by institutions, which people voluntarily submit to by buying these various investment products even when given the opportunity to buy individual stock. So, people are voluntarily forfeiting their voting rights in these companies by buying index funds and other group funds rather than individual common stock. There are employee stock ownership plans, but they are often restrictive and poorly organized. By not owning individual common stock, people don't have any voting rights in corporations. This social refusal to participate in the corporate governship process is worse, in my view, than the problem of low voter turnout in government elections. The tools are there, but people are not taking advantage of them.

So, once a reasonable degree of wealth redistribution is in place, I promote a social shift towards saving and ownership, where people increase their savings rates and put long term savings into owning company stock, which they take responsibility to vote with. Then, people truly own the means of production and the benefits thereof, and have a say in the process.

That leaves the problem of businesses that do not have publicly purchasable ownership units. There is still a clear owner/employee divide there. But this can be changed with a social shift as well. For example, nowadays, employee health benefits are expected for salaried professionals. That is, it's not necessarily government-enforced, but it's used to acquire talent to remain competitive. Unfortunately, smaller businesses are less likely to offer it (but reformed health care helps, and the proposal of universal health care would fix this anyway). Regardless, the point is, some things become expected by a society, and I think ownership rights should become one of those expected benefits.

If there was a large enough shift in public view towards socialism, business ownership would be expected for many employees. For professionals, they would expect significant employee ownership plans which allow them voting rights and profit sharing. For working class people, labor unions could help ensure that they get ownership stakes as well, along with the voting rights and profit sharing that come with it. Currently, businesses that operate like this are in the minority, but with a social shift, the businesses that do not operate like this could be in the minority.

This doesn't mean that every single business would agree, and that's ok, but the social shift would hopefully be large enough to be meaningful. It would be decentralized cooperative socialism. The end result is that, there is still capitalism, and particularly the freedom to innovate and start new businesses, and there are still wealthy people. But wealth is redistributed to a certain degree, necessary services are guaranteed for all, certain industries are state-controlled, the environment is protected, and a societal view shifts towards expecting ownership rights has occurred.

I advocate socialism, but I think socialism is best built from both the top down and the bottom up. From the top down, centralized social democracy can provide the foundation and the tools, and then those tools can be used in a decentralized manner to build something closer to true socialism from the bottom up.

 

[Tarheeler]

I consider the best social, political, and economic system to be a mix of both capitalism and socialism. Thus, I consider myself both a capitalist and a socialist, since I support a mix, rather than one system to the exclusion of the other. What about you? And, if you too support a mix of capitalism and socialism, what kind of mix do you support?

Please Note: This thread is in the Socialist DIR. If you are not to at least to some extent a Socialist, please do not debate in this thread. You are welcome, of course, to start a thread elsewhere on the board on the same subject so that you can debate it.

I know this is rather old, but I have a question...

Wouldn't that result in something similar to the Bernstein's social democracy?

If I understand it correctly, he shifted away from orthodox Marxism and saw capitalism as providing a peaceful avenue towards socialism and negating the need for violent revolution.

 

[Me Myself]

I know very little of politics, but what I`ve heard of mxture between socialism and capitalism sounds like it can eb the very best of both worlds, and the type of government I would like to live in.

 

[Sunstone]

I know this is rather old, but I have a question...

Wouldn't that result in something similar to the Bernstein's social democracy?

If I understand it correctly, he shifted away from orthodox Marxism and saw capitalism as providing a peaceful avenue towards socialism and negating the need for violent revolution.

Good question! I'm not sure whether Bernstein argued for the inevitable movement of capitalism towards socialism. If he did, it's at that point that I disagree with him. I don't think capitalism will inevitably move towards socialism. I see it as more likely (in the US) moving towards fascism -- but only for historical reasons and not because of any inevitability. In Europe, it might be moving towards socialism more than fascism, though.

 

[Tarheeler]

I'm pretty positive he still saw the end goal as full integration into a socialist system. But I have read that he felt the goal was worthless; it was the movement towards it that was important. What I've read on it certainly has some positive parts, and I could see the benefits to it in both economics and society.

You know, before I decided to go back to school, I was satisfied being a libertarian. But after learning how to actually study and evaluate political theory, it's become a lot harder to figure out where I fit in the political spectrum.

 

[Sunstone]

But after learning how to actually study and evaluate political theory...

I think it would be quite fascinating to hear of your political evolution sometime. A couple decades ago, I was rather libertarian myself in the sense I was for a very small role for government in almost all matters. Then I started paying much more attention to politics and economics.