Both Capitalists and Socialists Should Just Can It

Ah. Smell that? That’s the stank of the ol’ socialism and capitalism debate emerging from the crypt. An aged-old question between two counter warring screeds that have been boring everyone except for the long-bearded for a full century.

 And now I’m here to bore you, too.

Because this debate seems oddly stuck in the spotlight.

We see universities full of fuming 19-year olds aiming megaphones at passerbys screaming about the atrocities of capitalism and its social amorality. Then we watch conservative political commentators deliver televised speeches on said campuses bashing the tyrannical management of its administration and their preponderance of socialism.

I’ve personally witnessed students proudly wearing “socialism sucks” shirts in the style of Bernie Sanders campaign lettering and seen others with shirts laced with Das Kapital quotes—on the same campus.

Boomers scratch their heads wondering why an argument largely laid to rest has any steam whatsoever. And even more bewildered to see a frizzy-haired, octogenarian bang the podium for bigger government, with ferocious, revolutionary tenor (of course, his campaign Berned out last week). All while a near-standup comedian, with even weirder hair, jokes from his presidential podium at the absurdity of the argument altogether.

Ladies and gentlemen, it’s a weird time.

Though I opt to remain objective, I agree— the argument is absurd.

Because, in reality, the argument against capitalism and the argument against socialism are dead wrong.  

Well Then, What’s All the Hootin’ and Hollerin’ About?

In order be thorough (and to properly bore you)—let’s define each position with eyewatering simplicity. These definitions are from a pure economic standpoint (as they should be).

 (I know there are infinite ways to define each, please bear with me.)

American Capitalists prioritize a free market system in which commerce is driven by private businesses, mostly uninterrupted by the state or federal government.  Capitalists might phrase it as “freedom to conduct business as I dang-well please in the freest society of all time, protected under the law.”

 American Socialists (from the common viewpoint) prefer an assertive government that places heavier regulation and increased taxes on the private sector and repurposes that money to serve further bureaucratic efforts, presumedly in the interest of the public. Socialists might rephrase it as “taking superfluous money from avaricious penny-hoarders and giving it back to the community, especially the underprivileged.”  

During the worldwide coronavirus pandemic, we witness both the private sector and the government handle their individual efforts based on what each has the power and aptitudes to do. Yet, even still, capitalists and socialists think the other is “the root of all evil.”

 But why would anyone use words like “evil?” Is it hyperbole, or are they right?  

The arguments are thus. Welcome to the debate.

“Capitalism Only Benefits the Few”

Modern capitalism was born from the establishing of New York City in 1625.  That Hudson port became known as a “business colony,” where the prioritization of profit was the common ground between its patrons, not race or religion; this was extremely unique for the time.  It welcomed all creeds, ethnicities, faiths and citizenships as long as they were just looking to make a buck. And make a buck they did.

Eventually, the British took over and applied its government to this novel “capitalist” colony.  But that government was mostly lackadaisical. And that lax approach became the chief appeal to its inhabitants and to the droves of immigrants that came on and on. When the Stamp Act threatened the “free” part of the market, those inhabitants and immigrants resisted.

As such, the protection of those hard-earned profits from government fingers became the philosophy of the American economy.

And this is exactly why some started to criticize this new system; it prioritized economic growth over all else. A focus on growing capitol inevitably excludes people who weren’t born into socioeconomic or social hierarchical opportunity. The rich few profit, while the poorer worker gets left in the wake. How can someone work a 12-hour shift and earn just an embarrassing fraction of what his employer makes?

That question turned into an answer—and that answer into a movement. 

“Socialism Only Benefits The Man”

As mentioned, socialism developed as a response to capitalism. Reportedly first used in the 1830s, the word “socialism” was first used as “the opposite of individualism.” Our modern American idea of socialism largely stems from a bearded man named Karl Marx’s interpretation, which attempts to rectify all perceived inequality induced by capitalism. Marx appealed to the working class as a way to counterbalance the income gap between them and business owners. His coined “Marxian Economics” hinged on the idea that capitalism provides surplus in resources, and that surplus ought to be used to prop up those in the lower class. In his legendary, three volumed, Das Kapital, he contends that buying and selling has no inherent morality and thus commerce is utterly void of it. And so, the government must insist on its ethicality by regulating it. And it must also ensure that the distribution of capital is not lopsided.

And this is exactly where some started to criticize this movement. In the free-marketer’s eye, taking power from the people by rendering them dependent on bureaucratic whims through high taxes and economic babysitting is digression in its fullest. It’s a blatant infringement on freedom to designate the bulk of profit, earned by a business or individual, to Uncle Sam who then redistributes that money based on who’s in office. Furthermore, how would it benefit the worker, if his employer is taking in less cash flow? And why would the worker ever want to venture out and start a new business (if he does not like his pay, for example) if the potential for success is already owed to Washington?  Your “big idea” should not already be partially owned by the government before you bring it fruition. It promotes the very thing that the founding fathers and countless citizen-soldiers died to prevent.  

(Again, I know I am boiling this down to cringing simplicity. To be thorough would mean writing a serious book series, which I could happily refer you to.)

So, who’s right?

Asleep yet? Ok, you can wake up now. 

On their own, both arguments for each are true. 

But they are also dead wrong.   

Because our social and economic problems will never be remedied by a total take over by either or, the remedy is already in place—which is to employ both as a balance to one another.

Individually assessed, their flaws become apparent—which is from where each argument is born. And this is why the arguments are absurd. Because neither currently operate independently. Together they work as a harmonious pair. One does what the other cannot.

For instance.

Could the private sector have delivered $1,200 to every American, or sustained the entire small business sector? Would they have? No and no way.

Could our government have developed a COVID-19 test that delivers results in 5 minutes from farm to market so quickly? If you’ve braved a DMV line, you know the government doesn’t do anything “so quickly.” No way, no how, hombre.

Both achieve what the other cannot. This is why neither one is bad nor good.

At the risk of over-illustrating the point, socialism may be too powerful on its own, but it does things like stop monopolies. Even capitalists would agree those are bad right? It does protect the environment and incentivizes private companies to so as well. On the other hand, capitalism provides astonishing advances in technology and creates boundless opportunities for employment.  These are all necessary, right? Right.  Like a marriage, it only works because they work together.

Both only function in unison. And that word, “unison,” seems to be a pretty great reoccurring theme in this American country. It’s part of why we’re so diverse. It’s in how we respond to national crisis. Heck, it’s even in our name.

And this is exactly why your hippie daughter who’s “feelin’ the Bern” and your snowy-haired, KAG-hat wearin’ friend need to both, officially, can it. Unless we need something to put us to sleep, that is.