Philosophy Now Forum

Although their most extreme forms situated at opposite ends of the political spectrum are ethically/morally unacceptable, both capitalism and socialism in their moderate constructs should not simply be dismissed as forms of societal structure that are too flawed or dangerous to implement.
Having said that, however, through observation one might realize that it’s the hostile mentality behind the physical enforcers of such ideology that is seriously flawed, often to the point of monetary corruption and, far worse, genocide.
There’s also the school of thought that perceives the human mind to be innately prone to compromised ethics and morals. Indeed, as a collective, Biblical followers and theologians go a large step further by teaching that humankind has passed down from generation to generation an ‘evil seed,’ which came to be when Adam and Eve, be they figurative or literal, ate of the forbidden fruit of Eden.
In a nutshell, it’s not capitalism and socialism in their moderate formats that are necessarily bad; rather, it’s when we humans take the two ideals and corrupt them with fiscal and physical abuse. On one side, there are compromised ideals with the likes of ‘corporate welfare’—i.e. very profitable corporate entities that receive billions annually from our governments under the guise of stimulating job growth (which when they are created, they’re mostly in Asian sweatshops that also hire children). On the other side, there are the likes of Champaign socialists—i.e. Vladimir Lenin, who readily treated himself to a British ‘capitalist-pig’-produced Rolls Royce—and even some zealous proponents of a universal inheritance tax.
When I attended college in the early 1990s, I was taught that the political spectrum, when drawn upon paper or a chalkboard, is quite similar to the shape of a horseshoe. The greatest lesson that I gained from that college course is that, beginning from its moderate middle the further one’s ideological mission extends in either direction along that horseshoe-shaped spectrum, the more the two ‘opposites’ become alike, albeit in a violently totalitarian state of being.
At one end or extreme and regardless of how pacifist such ideology was theoretically meant to be, there is communism, which typically appears in the form of physically enforced socialism or ‘universal equality.’ In its most vile form, the Josef Stalin ‘utopia’-gone-horribly-wrong Soviet Union comes to mind, as readily does post-Vietnam Cambodia’s fanatical, maniacal Pol Pot via his genocidal “killing fields.”
At the other end or extreme, is unfettered big capitalism, which brings to mind, as a good example, the Victorian era of Great Britain and aristocracy, both well depicted in Dickensian literature. However, it is perceived and taught by many in academia that this extreme of the political spectrum pretty much belongs to Mussolini and especially Hitler’s 1920s-40s Fascism, although Nazi Germany’s Gestapo often involved a mish mash of various twisted beliefs from all over the said spectrum, the worst of which was blatant imperialism through naked military aggression, eugenics, death camps and, of course, genocide.
But simply because the two above-mentioned examples of the ugliest of extremes are for the most part removed from the developed world, it doesn’t automatically translate into the status quo being acceptable.
For certain, it is a great injustice when people who may already be seriously afflicted with formidable clinical depression and/or intense anxiety over the stresses of just maintaining consistent nutritious meals on the family table, must also suffer the added worries of losing their entire home and savings due to mortgage payment default and thus bank foreclosure. (Indeed, a close relative of mine befriended a former Canadian soldier who was left severely traumatized after serving in Afghanistan. Having resultantly turned to heavy alcohol consumption while subsisting on a small disability pension and nowhere near sufficient PTS counselling, he defaulted on his mortgage payment schedule and lost everything.)
Nowadays, already very profitable large corporations are moving the bulk of their jobs to third-world-status counties, where extremely cheap labour is the order of the day, thus leaving unemployed countless people in the developed nations—hence, vulnerable to losing all that they (would) own simply because they lost their job and sole source of mortgage-paying income.
Is this really the way a humane society is supposed to function? What is the purpose of ‘society’ at all if it’s filled with so much mental turmoil basically over a decision to put one’s money into monthly mortgage payments instead of tossing it into a black-hole-like monthly rent with noting solid to show for it some years later in life?
To me, it doesn’t feel anywhere near right, thus it shouldn’t be perceived by a truly humane society—be it capitalist, socialist or a combination of the two—as somehow being acceptable.
Really, I cannot imagine the Creator as having intended ‘the meaning of life’ to so frequently being about health-deteriorating stress over maintaining one’s job, lest he/she perish along with his/her foreclosed mortgaged home. And just as important, the abovementioned ideas should not be conveniently dismissed by way of political/ideological taboo buzzwords, such as ‘commie’ or ‘corporate fat cat,’ but rather they should be discussed as, how is universal humane humanity most likely to be achieved someday by all nations?*


Frank Sterle Jr

FrankGSterleJr wrote:Nowadays, already very profitable large corporations are moving the bulk of their jobs to third-world-status counties, where extremely cheap labour is the order of the day, thus leaving unemployed countless people in the developed nations—hence, vulnerable to losing all that they (would) own simply because they lost their job and sole source of mortgage-paying income.

First of all, it's not the responsibility of companies to employ anybody at all, it's their responsibility to maximize profits for shareholders. People in industrialized countries are better off with less expensive products, people in third world-countries are able to earn a living, and workers here who do lose their jobs have the opportunity to get new jobs that do not face foreign competition. Free-market capitalism is really the only answer to economic problems anywhere in the world.

There are reasons to cast some doubts over the usefulness of these two concepts of capitalism and socialism, as "oppossite ends of the political spectrum". Problems arise both from the abstract theoretical perspective and the practical or empirical grounds for this supposed dichotomy.

The first problem lies, of course, in how we define the term "ideology", which seems to designate here some form of political theory or idea of society. Subjects are supposed to be perfectly aware of this ideology, because in some way or another, it drives their conscious decisions. Capitalism is then an option among others, in a menu of political or economical practices. There is here an implicit rationality, in which social structures are "implemented" as a direct or indirect result of a political program. There is, however, that other concept of ideology which challenges this view: social structures are the result of social action, but the ideas that people get of what's going on in society, have very little to do with what is really happening. From their individual, limited, one-dimensional perspective, they cannot see the deeper relations that shape their societies, because most of these relations are hidden under the layers of dominant culture. Ideology becomes then false consciousness, which is assumed within the general culture, is internalized as part of common, everyday routine, so much that the individuals won't notice the political implications of their actions, which they see as taking place outside of institutionalized politics.

So, capitalism is not what you find after the implementation of a political program, but a form of society shaped by partially concealed social relations, in which one class (the bourgeoisie) rules with total hegemony, both by forceful means and by way of cultural domination (Gramci's classic theory of Hegemony). In that sense, capitalism is totalitarian by definition, as was well understood in the social theories of the Frankfurt School (which was also very critical of the Cold War polarities). This is all independent of the forms of administration that the state may adopt within one nation (neoliberalism, keynesianism, state-run economy, etc), but independent as well of the balance between such political or economical programs in any group of nations, since capitalism is a world system, as Wallerstein has accurately pointed out. Differences among countries are determined by their relative position in the global division of labour, but at the end, they all pay tribute to the god Mammon. Ultimately, Mark described capitalism as the society where economy finally has become the center of all, the system that "has left no other nexus between people than naked self-interest, than callous "cash payment". It has drowned out the most heavenly ecstacies of religious fervor, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation."

It's worth saying also that we don't have to point our fingers to Hitler or Mussolini to find examples of unfettered, vile, nauseating capitalism and imperalism: we may as well point at the rule of the Kennedys, Reagans, Clintons, Bush or Obamas. As part of an orwellian system that encompasses the whole world (even where sprouts of socialism are thought to have emerged), it can't hardly be argued that the "ugliest extremes" of capitalism have been removed from the developed world, just a couple of years (or months) away from bloody and criminal military interventions, spying scandals, human rights violations, etc.

Being so the case, the whole idea of socialism as the other end of the political spectrum, has no grounds either. The label is itself misleading, since there are a lot of political programs that are called or call themselves "socialism", even though they have very few things in common. Obama is labeled as a "socialist" by his right wing critics, while Chavez, Lula and Maduro in South America friendly welcomed the term, at the same time they were maintaining free market policies. And now capitalism found an oasis in China, supposedly under communist rule. European Social Democratic parties also call themselves socialists, but even welfare states belong to the worldwide network of capitalism.

If I had to propose the poles of a political spectrum, I would suggest considering capitalism and communism as different realities, each one with its own spectrum:

Capitalism:
<--Neoliberal capitalism ---------- Welfare State capitalism-->

Communism:
<--State socialism ------------ civil Society socialism-->

Conde Lucanor wrote:There are reasons to cast some doubts over the usefulness of these two concepts of capitalism and socialism, as "oppossite ends of the political spectrum". Problems arise both from the abstract theoretical perspective and the practical or empirical grounds for this supposed dichotomy.

:
:

If I had to propose the poles of a political spectrum, I would suggest considering capitalism and communism as different realities, each one with its own spectrum:

Capitalism:
<--Neoliberal capitalism ---------- Welfare State capitalism-->

Communism:
<--State socialism ------------ civil Society socialism-->

Very interesting post CL! Gave a good overview of different philosophical thoughts on politics, in the light of capitalism and socialism You have obviously read a lot on those subjects (philo pro?).

Being a happy amateur, not having read too much political theory, I am still curious of the picture of possible steering mechanism of a state (or such) defined by the coordinate system spanned by the capitalism and socialism. First of all, those were "discovered" back in the 19th century or earlier(liberalism too). Nothing big seem to have happened since then in the world of "ruling isms"? Has everything been explained? (Obviously - religion is another coordinate axis, but I will not say more about that)
Those 20 century philosophers or political theorists you mention, were they basically all elaborating within the systems of Smith and Marx?

If so, there are a few things that strikes you. Or at least me.
You cannot rule without Power. The socialist state is about state control over people, and capitalism is the control that the wealthy class gets when the state does not interfere.
Naively, I could think of other control mechanisms, like a state where people got rewarded for work done, no ruling wealthy class or socialist regimentation. Simply people living of the fruits of their labor, as defined more or less valuable to the total whole, to survival of mankind. United Nations rule, like. Or a state of love, epicureanism, benevolence. But that does not seem to work. Is power needed or is it due to the alpha males who always have had the strongest biceps and jaw lines?

What "ground mechanisms" are needed to make it going, so to speak? In my humble philosophical reading I have only come across some old guys, Platons "the Republic" and maybe Machiavellis Prince. But there should be more to say. Why does captalism and socialism seem to make up the coordinate axis for like every economic system?

Being a happy amateur,

That makes two of us...

...not having read too much political theory, I am still curious of the picture of possible steering mechanism of a state (or such) defined by the coordinate system spanned by the capitalism and socialism. First of all, those were "discovered" back in the 19th century or earlier(liberalism too). Nothing big seem to have happened since then in the world of "ruling isms"? Has everything been explained? (Obviously - religion is another coordinate axis, but I will not say more about that)
Those 20 century philosophers or political theorists you mention, were they basically all elaborating within the systems of Smith and Marx?

Since we still live in a capitalistic society, the coordinate system seems to be pretty much the same. In a very broad sense, it has evolved as expected:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM#t=1

One might expect that steering mechanisms of the state within the system will be constantly swinging between laissez-faire and keynesianism or populism (which some will label "socialism", as explained above), depending on the historic circumnstances. So even after facing up to the current crisis, it looks as if no radical transformations could be expected. I do think, however, that during times when Social Democracy grasps the power of the state, it can help build the historic circumstances that eventually will lead to more radical changes.

If so, there are a few things that strikes you. Or at least me.
You cannot rule without Power. The socialist state is about state control over people, and capitalism is the control that the wealthy class gets when the state does not interfere.

Both at the practical and theoretical levels, I cannot support this view. The state is an essential component of capitalism, it's an instrument to preserve the common interests of the upper ruling class. If that was true in the early stages of capitalism, it is still true today in times of globalization and imperialism, when the interests of the ruling class go beyond the national frontiers. What is the famous "industrial military complex" if not the marriage between business and politics. The state also plays a key role in regulating the inherent contradictions of capitalism, which means, for example, that in times when collective goods (public works, education, utilities, etc.) are not highly profitable, they will tend to go to the public sector, but when they become profitable, will belong to the private sector.

As for the socialist theory of the state, at least in marxism (or at least in Lenin's version of marxism), the state is owned by the working class, exercising the same type of control that the bourgeoisie had over the state under capitalism. It is, in that sense, the dictatorship of the proletariat, which is supposedly a transitional, necessary stage, before the arrival of communism, when the state finally disappears and is replaced with a free association of individuals and groups in society (civil society). Of course, that's not what happened in the so called "real socialism", but that's another long story...

Naively, I could think of other control mechanisms, like a state where people got rewarded for work done, no ruling wealthy class or socialist regimentation. Simply people living of the fruits of their labor, as defined more or less valuable to the total whole, to survival of mankind. United Nations rule, like. Or a state of love, epicureanism, benevolence.

No wonder you call it "naive", because that sounds pretty much like the old 19th century socialism of Saint-Simon and Fourier, which later socialists called "naive" and gave it the label "utopian", with negative implications. Utopian socialism was though to be too idealistic and not based on the real material conditions of society. That might be true, but I still give it some thought as a reasonable scenario, considering that the whole project of Enlightenment, with its faith in inevitable human progress, has not shown to be entirely viable (I don't mean it's not, is just a big question mark). Maybe humanity is doomed to failure or cannot achieve its highest potential, and therefore a less technically developed society, which maintains a modest standard of living, is preferable. Surely, it sounds like conformism (or the romantic anti-capitalism that Mark himself criticized, and is typical of some hipster folks these days), but aren't today's masses labeled as conformist, uncritical, passive consumers anyway?

...But that does not seem to work. Is power needed or is it due to the alpha males who always have had the strongest biceps and jaw lines?

What "ground mechanisms" are needed to make it going, so to speak? In my humble philosophical reading I have only come across some old guys, Platons "the Republic" and maybe Machiavellis Prince. But there should be more to say. Why does captalism and socialism seem to make up the coordinate axis for like every economic system?

I understand you are perhaps asking what down-to-earth philosophical system can lead us better in understanding society and transforming it. Since postmodernism promoted the demise of all "grand narratives", that is, all major universal philosophical, political, economical systems, and replaced them with relativism and multiculturalism, it doesn't look like we can go too far building our discourse around Plato, Aristotle, Machiavelli or Marx. Perhaps you can get away with Nietszche. In part, I disagree with postmodernist intellectuals, since I still believe we need to rescue the universal project of Enlightenment, but on the other hand, I agree we cannot base any longer our knowledge and actions on strictly limited, self-contained, autonomous philosophical systems, but on a combination of disciplines or fields of study, from sociology to natural sciences, communication theory, language theory, neuroscience, anthropology, etc. Even business theory comes at hand, since it deals with organizations and strategy, key elements of political action. Philosopical problems are now embedded in all those disciplines as epistemology. Having said that, and at the same time acknowledging that the "coordinate system" of capitalism is basically the same, I will go along with Sartre in that "marxism is the unsurpassable philosophy of our time". From Marx I will take also a famous aphorism, related to Kant and Fichte (philosophers of idealism): "(they) reach for ethereal heights, look there for a distant land, while I just try to comprehend that which I found on the street". What we find in the street are the real existing material conditions of society.