Is it possible to be both a socialist and a capitalist?

[Subotan]

I've always regarded myself as a generic social democrat, and I've been comfortable with identifying as both a socialist and as a capitalist since time immemorial. However, this dicussion (http://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/comments/hcp9d/is_dominque_strausskahn_your_idea_of_what_a/) has given me pause, as the Socialism sub-reddit is full of people who utterly reject capitalism and seek to overthrow it. Seeing as I have no wish to be part of a movement that consists solely of intellectual dinosaurs, I've been wondering if it is possible to reconcile capitalism and socialism (And not in a fascist way thank you very much), or if they are diametrically opposed to one another, locked in battle until the end of time. Although I want to agree with both, is it actually possible?

[Cute Wolf]

you simply choose the central path, the enlightned, that knows too far socialism is nuts, and too far capitalism will torture commoners

[Lemur]

Hmm, I hate to sound like a first-year philosophy major, but first we need to define our terms.

"Socialism" literally means state-owned means of production. As in, you car is built by the government, your food is farmed by a collective that answers to the government, etcetera. In its purer forms it has always been and will always be a disaster.

Pure capitalism generates far more wealth, and creates great advances, but it also created great misery and nation-destabilizing inequity. There's a very good reason that Karl Marx's utopian claptrap emerged during the industrialization as a reaction against the excesses of pure capitalism. (And likewise, a very good reason that Ayn Rand formulated her vision of utopian capitalism as a response to the excesses and evils of Soviet socialism.)

Anyway. Every first-world nation now functions as a synthesis of socialism and capitalism, to varying degrees. So I don't know that there's a "reconciliation" required; it already happened. Seems to this lemur that only die-hard Randians and communists see a diametric opposition, when a synthesis has clearly benefited millions upon millions of people. The energy and advancement of capitalism? Check. The safety nets of socialism to prevent destabilization? Check.

Thoughts?

[Louis VI the Fat]

China is world champion in both government control communism and in consumerist capitalism. Nothing contradictory about that, depending on one's definitions.


Countries such as post-war South Korea and France by neoliberal standards must be considered mixed models, yet the high speed trains run on time, on nuclear energy too.
Even Britain and America, whose rightwing ideologues present Reagan-Thatcherite ultracapitalism as ancient, eternal Anglo virtues, had top income tax rates into the eighty/ninety percent for much of the twentieth century.

[jabarto]

Most of the things that people view as socialist (redistributive taxation, government regulation, welfare, etc.) have nothing to do with socialism and are, in fact, integral elements of capitalism dating back to Adam Smith. The whole "we need both socialism AND capitalism for a successful society" viewpoint is almost always born of ignorance and fallacy of moderation. Color me unconvinced.

[Kralizec]

Capitalism isn't an ideology. The term was coined by Marx to denote what he opposed, and encompassed basically any society that's both industrialised and allows having "means of production" as personal property. Basically, it's a slur. In marxist ideology, there's no such thing as a half-capitalist or a half-socialist state.

But then again, marx is not the founder of socialism as a movement. Most self-described socialists outside the ol' eastern bloc aren't marxist and usually don't question the right of property as such, either. So going by that, it's possible to reconcile the two. But like Lemur said, it all depends on the definitions of the terms.

[Lemur]

The whole "we need both socialism AND capitalism for a successful society" viewpoint is almost always born of ignorance and fallacy of moderation. Color me unconvinced.
Well, do we believe in a government-funded and controlled military? Most do, a few loons don't (http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/4304479/glenn-beck-privatize-it/). Roads? A safety net to prevent instability?

Some elements of society are better managed by the government. Only the most diehard libertarian would argue otherwise.

[jabarto]

Well, do we believe in a government-funded and controlled military? Most do, a few loons don't (http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/4304479/glenn-beck-privatize-it/). Roads? A safety net to prevent instability?

Some elements of society are better managed by the government. Only the most diehard libertarian would argue otherwise.

Right, but what I'm saying is these aren't hallmarks of socialism.

[Beirut]

In answer to the thread title: yes.

I am one and both. :cool:

[HoreTore]

Of course you can, and that's what socialism has been about for decades now; the mixed economy.

[Rhyfelwyr]

fallacy of moderation.

It's everyones favourit fallacy and it is particularly common with the socialism/capitalism issue.

First off, I don't think 'pure' socialism with state/collectively-owned means of production is of itself, as Lemur said, going to produce disastrous consequences. Most of the disasters of socialism have been due to people trying to implement it at a completely inappropriate time. Sure people say this is a cop out from socialists.

But a bit more honesty will show that this is hypocrisy. Marx obviously thought that human society progressed through certain stages, and that capitalism has its role at one point - a point where the conditions were not conducive to a socialist model. But if right-wing people think this is a cop out, maybe they should look back to their own theorists. It is not well known, but capitalist theory itself was always rooted in a deterministic view of history. If you look at Adam Smith and his stadial theory he talked of IIRC 4 stages of economic progress before capitalism prevailed - almost exactly the same as those proposed my Marx, who happened to stick a socialist utopia on at the end.

Because even a capitalist must admit that neoliberal capitalism as we see it is completely inappropriate for certain points in societies economic development. Primitive economies in particular often have a large collective element to them - if you were to replace that with pure capitalism it would be disastrous.

The socialist argument, is, like the capitalist one, based on the idea that is only works with a certain level of economic development. Which is why I think it is fair for a socialist to dismiss the 'disaster' arguments based on China's misfortunes under Mao etc.

Anyway, the "mixed economy" mentioned in this thread is not so much a blend of capitalism/socialism across the industries, but rather their division into clear spheres with some being state-run and some privately-run. And both types of these types of sphere have been ran successfully and shown to be viable long-term ways of doing things. Oddly enough, it is when you try to produce mixed models that blend socialism/capitalism (as opposed to giving both different spheres), you get the worst results from the half-heartedness of it all (see: QUANGO's)

So, in answer to the OP, you can be both a capitalist and a socialist, if you support one for certain parts of the economy, and one for the others. Although a very good question to ask would be why certain sectors seem to perform better with different models. Why does private health care suck? But then why did the UK need a wave of privatisation a few decades ago for many of its industries?

IMO the answer to this is complicated and probably due to particular circumstances in these particular industries, in a particular country, at a particular time - as opposed to something inherent in the socialist/capitalist models themselves.

[Beskar]

Economic Democracy is what you are looking for, Subotan?

[Fragony]

Of course you can, it's easier to herd a dog around a pile of meat than a socialist around a bag of money as we say here.