Capitalism is great because it divides decision-making authority in resource distribution to many people who can't distort the market on their own.
The disturbing trend I see is more and more decision-making power collecting to relatively few people, whose power is enough to change the market environment rather than reacting to it.
Our democratized political environment is far from perfect, but I'll certainly choose that over Communist despotism, and I fear if we don't do something we'll continue our slide to privatized oligarchy/despotism.
The problem is that American culture has a permanent belief that any form of socialism is guaranteed to come alongside totalitarianism, and an end to liberty. Which isn't necessarily unfair to believe- the two have a history of correlation.
But the result of that fear it's a form of corporate totalitarianism. You're free to choose your fate, but the options were dictated ahead of time by those in power, those with wealth. And all of the options will give them more power, more wealth.
The system exists today, sadly, in a form where those with wealth and power are also able to strongly influence culture, beliefs, society. And once you control those, you can control a democracy.
There's no such thing as a permanent belief. The strong association between socialism and totalitarianism only started in the late 1940s as a reaction to the horrors of the USSR. Before that, socialism had been expanding in America with widespread public support.
I'd say a major turning point was the Bolshevik Revolution, which was instantly demonised in the US, and led to Wilson's "red scare" - which effectively destroyed organised labour. It rose again in the 30's only to be crushed again after WW2
I'm not an American, but I don't despise socialism because I think it will bring totalitarianism. I think it's an unnatural and unfair system. And I think this mismatch with natural order always results in failure and collapse, which has many forms. One of those is totalitarianism.
There is a natural order to this world, and those who try to upend it do not fare well.
The natural order is the law of the jungle. The strong eats/exploits the weak. Would you agree that this is the most natural order? I think the whole point of civilization is that we can do better than that.
Let's define socialism as the collective control and ownership of the means of production and their profits, and capitalism as the private ownership of these things. In this case I'm not sure which is intrinsically more "fair". I care deeply about individual freedom and not having some collective telling me how I should live my life. But at the same time I care a lot about social justice and not having the rich and powerful grind the poor for personal profit.
It seems obvious that a good system would be one that strikes the right balance between these conflicting interests. It certainly isn't whatever is most "natural". Nature serves no purpose.
Also, a force we have to contend with is the development of technology. I think it has the consequence that the "right balance" is shifting more towards intervention from the state: due to increasing automation, the capital is getting an ever greater share of profits. At some point the state has to intervene to enable some redistribution of wealth.
> Let's define socialism as the collective control and ownership of the means of production and their profits
> I care deeply about individual freedom and not having some collective telling me how I should live my life
Indeed, you're critiquing an inherent characteristic of socialism, that you even mentioned in your own definition in the first quote. Good so far.
> capitalism as the private ownership of these things
> I care a lot about social justice and not having the rich and powerful grind the poor for personal profit.
... Wait what? Capitalism doesn't prevent social justice and doesn't mean that the rich and powerful grind the poor for personal profit.
This is a textbook false equivalency.
> At some point the state has to intervene to enable some redistribution of wealth.
Not really, in a true capitalist society the producers would know that they need consumers or else they'll lose their income, it's self-correcting. A state is tangential to that.
The reason the USA might or might not be going into a totalitarian oligarchy is because of the state, not in spite of it.
See for us the difference between socialism vs Capitalism is like the difference between eating unhealthy (but tasty) food vs eating healthy food.
Not everyone who eats unhealthy food dies, nor does not everyone who eats healthy food lives to see 100. But fundamentally looking at other people who have managed to live despite of eating unhealthy food or some combination of these isn't the way to go.
The people who have lived to see 80 despite of eating McDonalds burger everyday, have done that due to a combination of good genetics + some other redeeming qualities. This does not mean that everybody should eat McDonalds or anyone talking about harmful effects of unhealthy food should shut up because clearly there are people enjoying their lives while eating unhealthy food.
Take for instance, an African country trying same socialist policies will not see the same effect as a European country trying them. Same thing goes with Capitalist policies.
Socialism in Russia was very 'Russian', and when they got Capitalism, it's again very 'Russian' in nature. In fact when you go back to Tsar's times, you'd find the same 'Russian' entity about their culture.
You make an important point. Those with the most power in this country are perhaps the decision-makers of media companies (NYTimes, WaPo, CNN, FOX) and online platforms (Google, Facebook, Twitter). Funny that their political leanings are mostly homogeneous.
And, unfortunately, you've just demonstrated a common problem in economic and political discourse: that issues quickly descend into one dimensional, black & white, us vs. them absolutionism.
Not surprisingly this seems to occur most commonly where public education is underfunded or nonexistent: you end up with an undereducated electorate putting undereducated people into positions of leadership who then make underinformed decisions.
Sociological, economic, and political issues are multidimensional and must be treated as such.
TL;DR Education is important. Stop electing dumb people.
However, I would surmise that a better educated society, having learned how to apply rational thought, would reduce the likelihood of that occurring and/or would minimize the damage when it does (and it would.)
Their own benefit is 1) getting re-elected, and 2) being remembered through history as one of the great leaders.
Politics are a horrifically inefficient and error prone way of enriching yourself. To the extent that politicians value money, it's usually about getting elected again, possibly to pursue higher offices where they think they can have more impact.
Our corruption problem is not so much about money for politicians to spend personally, but to spend on further campaigning.
> Capitalism is great because it divides decision-making authority in resource distribution to many people who can't distort the market on their own.
There are plenty of cases where it's rational for participants with the necessary resources to participate in some portion of the market to work together to "distort the market." This is why antitrust law is designed not just to target monopolists, but also cartels.
Communism and socialism are very different systems.
Communism includes centralized government control over markets, and pseudo-religions. It falls apart because sane people come to power and realize just how stupid it is.
Socialism, as practiced in some European countries, has free markets. That's a critical difference lost on people who bring up communism in these kind of discussions.
> Communism includes centralized government control over markets, and pseudo-religions. It falls apart because sane people come to power and realize just how stupid it is.
You mean state-capitalism. Communism is where the people, not the government, own the results of production. An example on a much smaller scale, existing inside a different system, would be workers being given shares in the company that they work.
The funny thing is that your "disturbing trend" has been the status quo for a long time and not far from a more efficient version of the Communist despotism you fear.
Also, your statement that the "democratized political environment is far from perfect" was the understatement of the century.
The disturbing trend I see is more and more decision-making power collecting to relatively few people, whose power is enough to change the market environment rather than reacting to it.
Our democratized political environment is far from perfect, but I'll certainly choose that over Communist despotism, and I fear if we don't do something we'll continue our slide to privatized oligarchy/despotism.