Definitions, part I: Capitalism
How many political isms can you think of? Socialism might be the first one that comes to mind, since, after all, you are reading a socialist blog. Next you might think of the word capitalism, which is often thought of as a sort of opposite of socialism (though this is inaccurate; see below). And after that, the most likely words to come to mind would be liberalism and conservatism, probably the most common political terms in use today (especially in North America).
What exactly do all these isms mean? First of all, it is extremely important to remember that, by themselves, they are just labels. You might have heard people talk about true socialism, or what a true conservative would do, or some such things. That is all pure nonsense. It makes about as much sense to debate the true meaning of socialism as to debate, for example, whether "orange" is a colour or a kind of fruit. "Orange" - like "socialism" - is a word. And people sometimes use the same word to mean different things. This happens particularly often in politics. Every time you hear someone talk about socialism, or capitalism, or any other ism, you should never let them say another word before they explain to you exactly what they mean by that ism. If my definition of "socialism" is different from your definition of "socialism", then there is a great potential for misunderstanding (and/or manipulation). Before we can talk about socialism, we must agree on exactly what it is that we're talking about. Just because I am a socialist does not mean that I will agree with anything that some people choose to slap the label of "socialism" on. The same holds true for liberals, conservatives, etc.
And, in that spirit, I will dedicate this post to explaining the definitions I use for some terms that will crop up again and again in my future writings. I have already defined socialism and Christian socialism in my previous post; now I should talk about capitalism.
The word socialism can refer to either a political ideology or a socio-economic system that is advocated by that ideology. Capitalism, by contrast, always refers to a socio-economic system. In a nutshell, capitalism is the socio-economic system based on private property over the means of production and an impartial code of law. "Private property over the means of production" refers to the fact that the means of production - the things we use to produce more things (for example factories) - are the private property of individuals or groups of individuals, rather than being shared by the workers who use them or by the entire community around them. In other words, the production of goods and services is controlled by certain individuals rather than society as a whole. This separates capitalism from socialism. But private property over the means of production, by itself, is not enough to define capitalism. After all, the means of production were private long before capitalism developed.
To complete the definition of capitalism, we must look at the difference between capitalism and the socio-economic system that preceded it: feudalism. The fundamental difference lies in the structure of the laws used by the two systems. Feudalism had a complex set of customs and privileges that gave more rights to some people (the aristocracy), less rights to others (the free peasantry and city dwellers), and no rights at all to the majority (the serfs). Essentially, feudalism had different laws for different classes of people. Capitalism, on the other hand, has one set of laws that apply to all people. Thus the second defining feature of capitalism is an impartial code of law.
Capitalism is not the only socio-economic system that features private property over the means of production, and it is not the only system that features an impartial code of law. But it is the only system that features both at the same time. The relationship between socialism, capitalism and feudalism - and their defining features - is best expressed by the simple diagram below:
However, this doesn't mean that socialism, capitalism and feudalism are the only economic systems, or that the code of law and the issue of property over the means of production are the only defining features of such systems. It is possible to draw many other circles on the diagram above, in order to show more economic systems.
Finally, notice that an impartial code of law is something that capitalism and socialism have in common. As such, there is usually no debate over it. Most debate between socialists and capitalists focuses on the fundamental difference between the two socio-economic systems: the issue of property over the means of production.
How many political isms can you think of? Socialism might be the first one that comes to mind, since, after all, you are reading a socialist blog. Next you might think of the word capitalism, which is often thought of as a sort of opposite of socialism (though this is inaccurate; see below). And after that, the most likely words to come to mind would be liberalism and conservatism, probably the most common political terms in use today (especially in North America).
What exactly do all these isms mean? First of all, it is extremely important to remember that, by themselves, they are just labels. You might have heard people talk about true socialism, or what a true conservative would do, or some such things. That is all pure nonsense. It makes about as much sense to debate the true meaning of socialism as to debate, for example, whether "orange" is a colour or a kind of fruit. "Orange" - like "socialism" - is a word. And people sometimes use the same word to mean different things. This happens particularly often in politics. Every time you hear someone talk about socialism, or capitalism, or any other ism, you should never let them say another word before they explain to you exactly what they mean by that ism. If my definition of "socialism" is different from your definition of "socialism", then there is a great potential for misunderstanding (and/or manipulation). Before we can talk about socialism, we must agree on exactly what it is that we're talking about. Just because I am a socialist does not mean that I will agree with anything that some people choose to slap the label of "socialism" on. The same holds true for liberals, conservatives, etc.
And, in that spirit, I will dedicate this post to explaining the definitions I use for some terms that will crop up again and again in my future writings. I have already defined socialism and Christian socialism in my previous post; now I should talk about capitalism.
The word socialism can refer to either a political ideology or a socio-economic system that is advocated by that ideology. Capitalism, by contrast, always refers to a socio-economic system. In a nutshell, capitalism is the socio-economic system based on private property over the means of production and an impartial code of law. "Private property over the means of production" refers to the fact that the means of production - the things we use to produce more things (for example factories) - are the private property of individuals or groups of individuals, rather than being shared by the workers who use them or by the entire community around them. In other words, the production of goods and services is controlled by certain individuals rather than society as a whole. This separates capitalism from socialism. But private property over the means of production, by itself, is not enough to define capitalism. After all, the means of production were private long before capitalism developed.
To complete the definition of capitalism, we must look at the difference between capitalism and the socio-economic system that preceded it: feudalism. The fundamental difference lies in the structure of the laws used by the two systems. Feudalism had a complex set of customs and privileges that gave more rights to some people (the aristocracy), less rights to others (the free peasantry and city dwellers), and no rights at all to the majority (the serfs). Essentially, feudalism had different laws for different classes of people. Capitalism, on the other hand, has one set of laws that apply to all people. Thus the second defining feature of capitalism is an impartial code of law.
Capitalism is not the only socio-economic system that features private property over the means of production, and it is not the only system that features an impartial code of law. But it is the only system that features both at the same time. The relationship between socialism, capitalism and feudalism - and their defining features - is best expressed by the simple diagram below:
However, this doesn't mean that socialism, capitalism and feudalism are the only economic systems, or that the code of law and the issue of property over the means of production are the only defining features of such systems. It is possible to draw many other circles on the diagram above, in order to show more economic systems.
Finally, notice that an impartial code of law is something that capitalism and socialism have in common. As such, there is usually no debate over it. Most debate between socialists and capitalists focuses on the fundamental difference between the two socio-economic systems: the issue of property over the means of production.
Labels: capitalism, socialism
posted by Veshgard at 9:13 PM
6 Comments:
I suppose the comments section is the place to get a bit off-topic, so....
you mentioned other economic organizational systems besides feudalism, capitalism, and socialism. What are some examples, and have they met with any substantial success?
Well, I was thinking first and foremost of the systems that preceded feudalism (for example the slavery-and-conquest economy of the Roman Empire), and which have their own unique characteristics. On that note, I should mention that the longest lasting economic system in the existence of the human species has been tribalism. Humans have spent more time living in hunter-gatherer tribes than all the time they spent in all other economic systems and forms of social organization put together.
But you're probably asking about the kind of economic systems that would be suitable to an industrial society; in other words, systems that could replace capitalism. Besides socialism (and communism, which I will define in my next post), I would first have to mention stalinism - the term I use for the system that existed in the Soviet Union and other similar countries. Stalinism has some things in common with socialism, but, while socialism requires the people to be directly or indirectly in charge of the economy, stalinism relies on an unelected elite to make economic decisions.
Among the other proposed economic systems, the most prominent is syndicalism (a market-based system in which every firm is the property of its employees - unlike socialism, where firms are the property of the whole society, and capitalism, where there is a distinction between employees and employers). The various schools of anarchism also have their own economic models, but I'm not very knowledgeable about those.
Regarding success, how do you wish to measure it? It could be measured by the amount of time that a certain system has been in place in certain countries; or by the number of supporters of a system; or by the influence that a social movement inspired by a certain system has had on history and world events; or by the number of countries in which there has been at least one attempt to implement that system over the past X number of years...
I figured you were talking about tribalism in part but yes, I was asking primarily about "modern" alternatives.
I would measure success by the wealth they created for their citizens (if they've ever been successfully applied) as well as the evenness of the distribution of the wealth.
What do you think about syndicalism? It seems like a bit of a compromise between capitalism and socialism.
Many capitalist states grant special immunities to politicians. And would you call the segregation-era American south a feudal society?
I would also argue that every capitalist legal system (that I can think of anyway) has built in benefits for the rich and penalties for the poor. Take a look at white collar theft vs. 'criminal' theft in the US legal system for example. The racism and class consciousness of judges as well as the benefit of a high-priced lawyer further serve to make a mockery of a capitalist legal system's pretensions to impartial legal systems. An impartial legal theory is irrelevant in the face of contradictory practice.
I cannot agree with this dialectical-diagram. Firstly, feudalism shares certain traits with socialism as opposed to capitalism, namely, (1) that workers work not for themselves but for a higher power, and (2) there may be private property but little to no incentive to increase wealth, so no serious profit motive. I think this is related to why many Christian Socialists in England hark back to the English Civil War and are such defenders of the Crown. It is not because the Court had no corruption, but they believed the capitalism and fanaticism the Puritans wished to usher would lead to anti-Christian consequences, despite its veneer of austerity and seriosity.
Secondly, it is true that under liberal capitalism there is formal equality under the law (as in, there is one formal code), but this is in reality no more true than under feudalism. The economic elites of capitalism have the power to control the organs of the State, therefore they are, to varying degrees, protected from the State by owning the State. Look at countries with raw capitalism like Russia in the 90s, there capitalists literally got away with murder.
Hello everyone, I'm Patricia Sherman in Oklahoma USA right now. I would like to share with you my experience of borrowing USD $200,000.00 to clear my bank draft and start a new business. It all started when I lost my house and I took my stuff because of the bank policy and I met some bills and some personal needs. So I became very desperate and started looking for funds in every way. Fortunately for me, a friend of mine, Linda told me about a credit company firm, I was intrigued by the fraud, but I was intrigued by my situation and had no choice but to get advice from my friend about this company. contacting them really doubted me because of my past experience with online lenders, did you know that little? '' mrlorenzodiegoloanfirm@outlook.com This company has been very helpful to me and my colleague and today, thanks to this credit company, the proud owner of well-organized work and responsibilities, they smiled back at me. So if you really need to grow or start your own business, or if you really need to borrow money in any financial hardship, we recommend you find a financial development opportunity in your business today. {E-mail:} mrlorenzodiegoloanfirm@outlook.com .
Post a Comment
<< Home