If someone chooses to take all their hopes for a better and more just society and bundle it up in the name of “socialism,” [then] any criticism of “socialism” will be viewed as an attack on their dreams and desires. Conversely, pretty much no one ever has said that “capitalism is the name of my desire.” The arguments for capitalism are typically made in terms of machine-like functionality, emphasizing what works and doesn’t work under capitalism. And of course, the arguments for capitalism emphasize how it has actually raised the standard of living for average people over recent decades and centuries, not how it summarizes one’s dreams for the future.
“not how it summarizes one’s dreams for the future.”
What? Ridiculous. How about “American Dream”?
I get that part of the point is that “Socialism” doesn’t actually mean anything concrete to most people who think they are in favor of some ideal, the name for which, like ‘justice’, produces universal warm and fuzzy feelings, but for which all the actual details are in contentious dispute. But for those who do understand the meaning and difference with capitalist, these are parallel cases.
The “American” part in there is not orthogonal to capitalism! Free enterprise, private property, legal protections, the works. Indeed, one often sees comparisons between “The American Dream vs The Socialist Dream” in commentary going back a long way.
Though it would be perfectly descriptive, the reason we just don’t call it the “Capitalist Dream” is only because the left has smeared the connotation of the term so much that one can’t help but imagine Mr. Monopoly Uncle Pennybags twisting his evil mustache at the prospect of taking bread out of his workers mouths. So we are stuck with less accurate but more positive-sounding real-estate agent verbal manipulations like “free” and “American” instead.
Rand and the Objectivists tried to redeem the word, just like others are trying to re-claim “liberal” and “progress” from the left, but he who controls connotations controls the public meaning of words, and if you aren’t holding a giant megaphone, good luck.
Does one think some guy stuck poor in communist Cuba who wants the freedom to open up his own body shop or restaurant or gym doesn’t have a “Capitalist Dream”? Go ask some of those old guys in Miami – they’ll tell you all about those days of dreams, and how they were able to make them come true in a capitalist society.
That capitalist dream is the opportunity for an ordinary decent person to make a good life, and for extraordinary people to make it big by incentivizing effort and excellence. Work hard, obey the law, pay your taxes, and a person of determination and talent will have as good a shot as anyone, anywhere, anytime to get a fair shake at a secure existence and building a prosperous life for themselves and their families. A lot of the opposition to socialism is indeed the reaction to the awareness that someone is threatening and coming right at one’s dreams. “Success Is The Name Of Our Desire”.
Socialists make all kind of instrumental and mechanical arguments against capitalism and free enterprise, free markets, and free trade too. Like I said, parallel.
But there’s a difference. In capitalist social arrangements with a high degree of personal liberty, if you and your friends was to take a shot at a more just and communal existence, you all can set up a kibbutz or co-op or company town or religious community bound together by a big volume of contracts that the capitalist system and its courts will actually enforce for you.
Now, old-school Socialists have all kinds of arguments against this as you might imagine, “race to the bottom” in order to stay competitive and many others, but the point is that putting aside the question of viability, the prospect is still clearly officially tolerated as a legal matter without having to seize anything or force anyone’s entire life to be under the complete control of a coercive regime. Not so much the other way around. When actual Socialist Dreamers get total control over a state, they don’t let a bunch of people establish their own Special Economic Zone on their own initiative.
Excellent! Socialists do claim to that they can perfect humanity. Also, most people argue for socialism in moral terms. They’re very willing to become a little poorer if society can be moral in their eyes. But all they have done is elevate envy to a virtue.
This is not my experience. They’re very willing for others become poorer to reach that goal.
But unfortunately, it’s the appeals to emotion that resonate and not the appeals to reason. Which is, at best, generally defined as “Those arguments that support my pre-existing world view”.
I call it “Virtue-al Socialism”.
“The arguments for capitalism are typically made in terms of machine-like functionality, emphasizing what works and doesn’t work under capitalism.”
Would Rothbard, Rand and Nozick disagree?
Economist are so accustomed to their consequentialism that the seem blind to any valid deontological arguments. Isn’t freedom to exit is just as compelling as efficiency?
You won’t be ‘desiring’ what you already have. Those of us in the capitalist west will either be content with capitalism or desire something else. In Vietnam, by contract, desire for capitalism is almost universal.
https://www.pri.org/stories/2015-03-12/it-turns-out-communist-vietnam-loves-capitalism-more-us-does
The right yay word for capitalism is freedom.
Everyone wants to be free.
Capitalism itself is a term largely rooted in a Marxist misconception of basic economics. I support the aspects of “capitalism” that are much more properly called a “free market” more than I do the primacy or accumulation of “capital”.
So “freedom” is more precise.
It is also more generally useful because non-economic senses of freedom are also preferable.
“the term “capitalism” was coined by its greatest and most famous enemy, Karl Marx. We really can’t rely upon him for correct and subtle usage.” — Murray Rotbard
Oddly enough the word “capitalism” is not to be found in Marx. See, for instance, Dennis Wrong, ‘Disaggregating the Idea of Capitalism’, Theory, Culture & Society, Vol.9, (1992), 147-258.
Then where does it come from?
Sombart, Weber and political debates around German socialism at the end of the C19th — and then, especially, post-1917 Soviet Communism. Marx talked about “capital” and “class” and “Bourgeois society” — but not about “capitalism” or “the capitalist system” or “capitalist society.”
So there’s no “it was said first by this person in this writing”; it was just something “in the air” among people who talked about such things in end of 19th century Germany?
Thank you, John Seed, for this information. Perhaps Capitalism is the English translation of kapitalistisches System? I found that idea in an answer to a question on Quora — definitely not authoritative(!), but apparently well researched. Here’s an excerpt:
The initial usage of the term capitalism in its modern sense has been attributed to Louis Blanc in 1850 and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in 1861.[43] Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels referred to the capitalistic system (kapitalistisches System)[44][45] and to the capitalist mode of production (kapitalistische Produktionsform) in Das Kapital (1867).[46] The use of the word “capitalism” in reference to an economic system appears twice in Volume I of Das Kapital, p. 124 (German edition), and in Theories of Surplus Value, tome II, p. 493 (German edition). Marx did not extensively use the form capitalism, but instead those of capitalist and capitalist mode of production, which appear more than 2600 times in the trilogy Das Kapital.
Marx’s notion of the capitalist mode of production is characterised as a system of primarily private ownership of the means of production in a mainly market economy, with a legal framework on commerce and a physical infrastructure provided by the state. He believed that no legal framework was available to protect the laborers, and so exploitation by the companies was rife.[47]
Everyone wants to be free.
I don’t think that’s true. Everybody finds some kinds of freedom unsettling worrisome, scary. Everybody wants some security, protection, some “X will take care of it.”
The rising day care generation, who have grown up with institutions taking care of them, have less of a positive attitude toward freedom and a more positive attitude toward a socialism of “providing for my needs”.
Taylor is always worth reading and this is a great example of a reason why.
The “what we stand for” page at the Socialist Party USA site illustrates the “hopes and dreams” aspect nicely:
“The Socialist Party USA strives to establish a radical democracy that places people’s lives under their own control — a classless, feminist, socialist society free of racism, sexism, homophobia or transphobia, in which people cooperate at work, at home, and in the community. Socialism is not mere government ownership, a welfare state, or a repressive bureaucracy. Socialism is a new social and economic order in which workers and consumers control production and community residents control their neighborhoods, homes, and schools. The production of society is used for the benefit of all humanity, not for the private profit of a few. Socialism produces a constantly renewed future by not plundering the resources of the earth. “
Globally, though, Socialist parties of different stripes have done well for themselves with a more pragmatic approach.
A favorite example is Uruguay, a country with the excellent motto “Freedom or Death.” Per Wikipedia”
“Uruguay is ranked first in Latin America in democracy, peace, low perception of corruption, e-government, and is first in South America when it comes to press freedom, size of the middle class and prosperity. On a per-capita basis, Uruguay contributes more troops to United Nations peacekeeping missions than any other country. It tops the rank of absence of terrorism, a unique position within South America. It ranks second in the region on economic freedom, income equality, per-capita income and inflows of FDI. Uruguay is the third-best country on the continent in terms of HDI, GDP growth, innovation and infrastructure. It is regarded as a high-income country by the UN. Uruguay was also ranked the third-best in the world in e-Participation in 2014. Uruguay is an important global exporter of combed wool, rice, soybeans, frozen beef, malt and milk.” And “
Uruguay is regarded as one of the most socially advanced countries in Latin America. It ranks high on global measures of personal rights, tolerance, and inclusion issues. The Economist named Uruguay ‘country of the year’ in 2013, acknowledging the policy of legalizing the production, sale and consumption of cannabis. Same-sex marriage and abortion are also legal.”
All this despite having a presidential system of government. Of course being the second smallest country in South America geographically with a population of 3.5 million is a decided advantage as is having a less diverse population (92% white) in which not every waking moment need be taken up with oppressor-oppressed race-hate narratives. And some might argue that a strong early history of dirigisme got Uruguay off to a fast start in the early 20th century much as it would later in Korea, Japan, Taiwan and China. And having the rivers to support enough hydroelectric projects to power the nation was fortuitous as well.
Politically, Uruguay is also advantaged by having three strong parties producing stronger accountability than in quasi-democratic two-party kleptocracies like the USA. This is made possible by a system of proportional representation. And with 99 representatives and 30 senators, a voter in Uruguay has much more influence than in the USA.
The socialist Broad Front coalition won control of Uruguay for three consecutive 5 year terms, ending with the 2019 general election in which a 47 year old center-right liberal, Luis Lacalle Pou, won on a platform addressing crime and the national debt. Reason magazine recently reported:
“Instead of taxing wealth creators, Lacalle Pou decided to place an additional 20 percent tax on any state official—himself included—that earned over $1,900 per month: “We wanted to signal that the state has to make an extra effort, not private individuals. Because, once this is over, the state won’t provide for the population,” he said in the video, “it’s the individual who will rev up the engines and move the country onwards.””
But getting back to the socialist Broad Front, during its 15 years, enjoyed a generally prosperous economy and built up welfare programs and the national health care system, concentrated on addressing the needs of the poorest 20 percent through programs like purchasing laptops for all school children, and appealed to libertarians by legalizing abortion, marijuana, and gay marriage. Of course the prosperous economy couldn’t support the debt load racked up in undertaking these programs, hence the eventual fall from power. But by eschewing whole scale revolutionary “hopes and dreams” fervor and more or less working incrementally to address social problems, the Broad Front was able to avoid killing the goose that laid the golden egg for about a decade. Kamala, Liz, Bernie, and Joe could stand to take a page from the Broad Front book.
From the comedy Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery. Austin had been cryogenically preserved in the Swinging Sixties to battle future evil and has just been unthawed thirty years later. He bristles at seeing a Russian intelligence officer with Basil Exposition, his former and current boss.
Basil Exposition: Austin, the Cold War is over!
Austin Powers: Finally those capitalist pigs will pay for their crimes, eh? Eh comrades? Eh?
Basil Exposition: Austin… we won.
Austin Power : Oh, smashing, groovy, yay capitalism!
Sounds socialist, yes. But at the heart is a no taxation without legislation. The regulated banking network is shutting, money is tight. Before the covid, the Fed tax collected by retail banks was 100 billion a year. Now I expect it t go at least 150 billion, with no end in sight. Not a single vote to approve the tax, it is entirely set by the Fed and almost entirely passed down to retail banking.
Off Topic:
Interesting viewing.
The Avengers – Season 4 Episode 24: “A Sense of History” (1966). An economist gets murdered proposing what would become the EU and his theories of economic history.
They even mention Carlyle in the story.
Timothy Taylor correctly asserts that “the arguments for capitalism emphasize how it has actually raised the standard of living for average people over recent decades and centuries” and that proven record of past results should be the main argument FOR a capitalist economy. Conversely, most socialist economies have not proven successful. As Margaret Thatcher remarked socialism is fine until the government runs out of money.
However, the terms socialism and capitalism have been used poorly–corrupted. Many people think and argue that a caring government with a safety net and various disaster relief programs is socialistic. Not true; almost all capitalist nations offer such supports to their people. And many people criticize (also correctly) the corrupted forms of capitalism such as our current “crony” capitalist economy. Like everything, the devil is in the details.
True capitalism, as presented more than half a century ago by Karl Popper, is best described as an open and fair market place. Socialism is best described as a system controlled and primarily managed by a central bureaucracy. History’s many examples of these systems pretty well show that the free market works better than an overly regulated business environment.
The problem is that elites who want to get an unfair advantage will always work to corrupt the free market which makes the excluded public more susceptible to socialistic claims. The solution is to clean up the capitalist regulatory system which should be aimed strictly at providing an equal and open environment for everyone.