I spend my time in two different worlds. The dividing line between these two worlds is how they view the terms “socialism” and “capitalism.” One thinks that the former is good and the latter is bad, while the other holds the reverse. As it too often tends to be, much of the discussion between these two camps is impeded by different terminologies. To make matters worse, each group often presents definitions of these two terms that actually distract from the main ideas. I am going to try to clear up some of this confusion in hopes of facilitating better communication.
This discussion is not about the extremely online or extreme fringe. Instead, this divide is largely parallel to the divide between the progressive and moderate wings of the Democratic Party. When I talk about socialists here, I’m not talking about a ten person Maoist study group in Portland that will disband in a month over disagreements about if China is still a properly communist nation or not. I’m talking about Bernie Sanders, the Squad, and their supporters, as opposed to Joe Biden, the New Democrat Coalition, and their supporters.
There are two keys to clearer discussion that I will present. The first is that the definitions of socialism and capitalism are often unintentional red herrings. The second is that the ethical concerns of many American socialists are a bit deeper than typically elaborated.
Key 1: Semantics
American socialists bear only a tangential relationship to the socialists of old. Karl Marx and Eduard Bernstein would have been quite peeved to see American socialists call themselves socialists. To the socialists of yesteryear, socialism was understood to be a worker’s state, where things are controlled by and for the proletariat (roughly, those who do the physical work, in contrast to those who administrate). American socialists would balk at this. They don’t want a worker’s state; they want a state where you can be well-off without working very hard. Socialists like Mikhail Bakunin would have liked to see a society where labor is central, and where you can only be well-off if you exercise your full capacities. Socialists today push for shorter workweeks and, simultaneously, higher pay. They do so because working sucks and they think we can afford to maintain current or better standards of living while doing less labor. And so, the ideal state of the contemporary American socialist looks almost nothing like the ideal state of the socialists of the past century or two, generating linguistic confusion.
A related problem occurs with “capitalism.” To American socialists, capitalism is not the name of some particular structure of the means of production à la Marxism. Capitalism is the name of an economy where, by design, some people flourish while others suffer in preventable poverty. Many in the moderate group described above might counter that the dominance of capitalism has corresponded with greatly lowered poverty worldwide, but this kind of misses the point. These are two different capitalisms. The capitalism of the socialist is what inspired a robust literature of “my boss sucks” jokes, while the capitalism of the moderate is what replaced mercantilism and subsistence farming.
I strongly believe that this is semantic confusion, despite appearances to the contrary. American socialists heard the traditional call to replace an unjust economic system, said “I agree,” and walked away before it was explained that the next economic system is the one where only people who engage in heavy labor have prosperity and political clout. Having missed the second part, they seek further justification for their own ideas from Marx and Bakunin. This is like trying to graft a branch from an oak tree onto a daisy. It’s not going to work.
Understanding this and staying firmly on-topic when discussing socialism with the Democratic left will help you avoid useless rabbit trails.
Key 2: Ethics
What is the ethical prompt for socialism? If you ask them, you’re likely to hear about gross unfairness regarding wealth distribution. To use Bernie Sanders’ terminology, the typical diagnosis is that the the economy is rigged, with billionaires and millionaires not paying their fair share while millions live paycheck to paycheck. The cure is high taxes to fund social programs and reduce the number of extremely rich, with strong regulations to make sure the power of the rich is kept in strict check.
But while talking with and listening to socialists, I noticed there’s something else that they’re concerned about. For many of them, work itself is oppressive, at least in its current structure. The tight regulation of their behavior on (and sometimes off) the clock and limited autonomy in deciding how to go about things comes up very frequently. They don’t feel like they’re being treated as people; they feel like they’re being treated as machines, and entirely disposable ones at that. This is related to the first ethical concern, to be sure, but isn’t entirely covered by it. Someone can have a substantial amount of money, but earn it through brutal amounts of overtime under soul-crushing conditions. More than just not having a fair amount of material goods, their very life feels compelled to be wasted by people more powerful than them.
This is a deeply liberal concern. Autonomy and freedom in general, and not just from the government, has a solid place in the history of liberal thought. Trying to navigate the tension between government overreach and social and economic oppression is a tightrope walk intrinsic to liberalism. You might feel differently about how important it is to increase the daily freedom of people in menial work, but it is still a concern born out of a liberal ethos. It is a place where there might be productive dialogue between the moderate and progressive wings of the Democratic Party.
I understand this might sound a bit like I’m talking over socialists or trying to “sane-wash” them. However, when I’ve brought up these points to socialists, they’ve actually been quite positive about them. It also makes sense, historically speaking. A few decades ago, the American left had contingents who were articulating the above points. They believed that the economy had the capacity to provide a comfortable living for everyone just by virtue of them being human, and that freedom is excessively stymied in many workplaces. It’s no surprise that the American left today resembles the American left 50 years ago.
I also understand that some of my readers might feel like there’s no point in listening to those on the political left, or maybe any other extreme, or possibly even anyone who isn’t ideologically similar to them. This is a huge mistake. Being able to communicate effectively with and understand your fellow citizens is incredibly important to participating in a democracy. Additionally, refusing to engage with opposing ideas leads to intellectual stagnation. The eternal nature of politics is that the current situation is never quite good enough, so we need to do something new. If you enclose yourself in a cocoon of familiar and comfortable ideas, then you willfully make yourself a political eunuch.