Social, Socialism, Socialist - Communist?

#2 - most popular article - 17,347 reads on 26 October 2023

Mainstream English language media and politicians are confusing the terms "socialism" and "communism".

In nutshell form, this article clarifies the difference between socialism and communism, their purposes, core characteristics, historical context, and defines modern-day democratic socialism and social democracy.

- What is the difference between socialism and communism? - What is social democracy and what is democratic socialism? - What is the connection with capitalism?

I wrote the main text of this article in 2012, never having heard of Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Democratic Socialist, or Jill Stein of Massachusetts, Green Party, essentially also a Democratic Socialist. I do hope that this article has contributed to a better understanding of social democratic points of view.

Languages and cultures have always interested me, probably because I grew up with several of them. School added seven years of Latin. Then my work needed southeast Asian languages - Indonesian, Vietnamese and Thai.

Language and culture are closely connected. Knowing another language teaches you a lot about its people, culture and its society. It allows you to see similarities between languages, and to see very similar words having either slight differences or even opposite meanings in different languages. Looking into the background of such confusion can really be quite fun. This one turned out to be more "intensive".

The word social always appeared quite clearly defined to me. That includes its related words society and sociable, as well as socialism and socialist. Yet the other day I was stumped. I could not rhyme what US politicians where doing with the term "socialism". Looking into it more, it's not just US politicians, but virtually the entire US media, left and right. Let's have a look at it:

The Words

Social is an adjective that means something along the lines of being in harmony with fellow other individuals or with a group. It includes traits of tolerance, understanding and if needed, reciprocal assistance. As I see it, the word has a perceived positive connotation, that is many more people would say "it's good to be social" than "it's bad to be social". Its direct antonym is probably asocial, meaning not being attuned to others around you, possibly ignoring others and their circumstances. Next, antisocial goes a step further and actively attempts to disrupt the social behaviour of others. So far my understanding of the word.

I'm going to ignore the noun social as referring to an occasion, party or dance such as "she's attending a social". To me personally, this is incorrect usage of the word, possibly slang, and it's beside the point here. Let's also write off as irrelevant the term socialite.

Sociable is an adjective describing personal skills in communicating or otherwise interacting with other individuals, and is more based on how others perceive that skill. For example, if I were to say that someone is a sociable person, I mean that other people like the way that person interacts with others. The word carries a perceived positive connotation.

Society is an noun referring to a group where individuals share one or more same goals or traits, generally governed by some kind of formal organisational structure. The word has a neutral or positive connotation.

Socialism, is a noun referring to a set of norms and values referring to social behavior, or in other words, a system with social characteristics. Like all words appended with "ism", it is originally probably a neutral term.

Any positive or negative connotations may be subjectively inferred from the perception of whatever system the "ism" refers to, based on its content. For example, some persons value capitalism, others don't. It's a subjective perception.

Socialist is a noun that refers to an individual who actively furthers the way of thinking in social norms and values. Socialist as an adjective works similarly. Originally, the "ist" words such as artist, capitalist, chemist, communist, dentist, extremist, fascist, guitarist, islamist, monopolist, socialist, scientist, terrorist, typist would refer to a professional vocation within the field that is being appended with the "ist".

The use of "ist" to describe a professional in his or her field is originally a neutral term. Similar to the "ism", any positive or negative associations are subjective, based on valuation of the term's content from a specific point of view.

Atlantic Divide

In Europe, the words "socialism" and "socialist" have neutral to positive connotations. Perceptions of the term's norms, values and practices are generally neutral to positive. In other words, given the choice between "it's good to be a capitalist", "it's good to be a socialist" and "it's good to be a communist", the majority of Europeans will choose the second: "it's good to be a socialist".

In the US, the words "socialism" and "socialist" have a negative connotation. Given the above choice, Americans will most probably go for "it's good to be a capitalist". In fact, in some circles the term socialist is being used as a derogatory accusation, and even persons who follow socialist principles appear to be unsure if they should be identified with socialism.

Why this difference? Let's check the web. Result: Americans and Europeans appear to have different definitions of the term "socialism".

Outdated Definitions

Apparently most American definitions of socialism equal the economic element of communism.

A large number of Americans actually equate socialism with communism. Much of US media and literature easily substitute one for the other.

Just a few examples: Obama Is Remaking America Into Socialism, then Republicans Point Fingers While Enacting Socialist Policies, Is Bernie Sanders Too Radical for America? and What Is the Difference Between Socialism and Communism? (edit: somewhat improved definition), Why socialist societies deplete and destroy earth’s natural resources faster than free-market systems.

As mentioned in these articles most Americans - even politicians and media writers - appear to define socialism as "a system of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods are owned by a centralized government that plans and controls the economy. Both Webster and Random House identify socialism as a 'Marxist theory' ". You might think, wait a moment, wasn't Marx a communist? Isn't this the definition of communism? Yes, it is. Apparently they are saying that socialism equals communism. Simply said, that's false. Fans of political correctness might prefer the term misleading or disingenuous misrepresentation, but in my understanding, that's just simply lying.

Communism in Short

Communism was born around 175 years ago as a result of capitalist exploitation of workers during the industrial revolution. At the time workers were replaced with machines on grand scale, high unemployment ensued, the workers that remained in factories were exploited to the hilt, the rich owner capitalists became very rich, and everyone else very poor. Many saw capitalism as unworkable. As a direct reaction, Karl Marx, supported by the prevailing Zeitgeist (spirit of the time) and intellectual sympathizers, worked out the theory of communism to do away with capitalism. At the time it was one of the first real, analytically underpinned theories with a vision and road map, for the purpose to achieve or regain equality. "Das Kapital" was a life's work, covering three volumes, the first published 1867, the last two published posthumously.

It contained three core elements: production means owned by government as a representative of the people, a centrally planned, controlled economy to distribute the goods equally, and change-over by worker rebellion, that is a revolution.

As part of these precepts it advocated a classless society and it repressed religious beliefs. All actual implementations of communism removed the prevailing political system and installed authoritarian single-party rule, ostensibly by the people. The first communist revolution was about 75 years after Marx devised the vision.

Some examples:

- In 1917, Lenin led the Bolshevik communist revolution in Russia while the country was at war (WWI). As WWI ended, all direct members of the monarch's family were executed and civil war ensued, which was won by the communists. A bloody and repressive regime ensued under Lenin's successor, Stalin. - in 1949 communist rule was established in China under Mao Zedong's leadership, after a long civil war between the proponents of newly introduced western style capitalism and communism. A bloody and repressive regime ensued. - Ethiopia, Yugoslavia, Vietnam, Cuba

Socialism

Definition of Socialism

There is no clear definition of the term "socialism". A formal survey conducted by sociologist Werner Sombart in 1920 already then yielded 260 definitions.

The variety of the term's meanings is exacerbated because it can refer to a purpose, a method, a socio-political movement, a specific phase in history or current society, as well as disingenuous misrepresentation.

German Wikipedia shows the following as the common denominator of most definitions:

"A political concept as a counter-model to capitalism that aims to change the existing social relations with the aim of social equality and justice, a society organized according to these principles, and a political movement that seeks this social order."

In short, socialism's purpose is social equality and justice. The methods of achieving this purpose vary, and lead to the profusion of definitions. The variations cover four points: ownership, circulation of goods, governance, and evolution or revolution.

On one side of the spectrum we have social equality and justice for all people with private property, profits and free market economy, achieved through democratic voting. An example of this is social democracy.

There are, obviously, a lot of options in the middle of the spectrum.

On the other side of the spectrum is the endeavor for social equality and justice without private ownership, with a centrally planned economy, and dictatorship installed by revolution. An example of this is communism.

Socialism's Roots

Socialism did not evolve out of the void. In modern day society it has its roots in 14th to 17th century Renaissance Humanism which espoused the general emancipation of the individual, intellectual freedom and individual expression (Dante, Petrarch, Machiavelli, Montaigne, Thomas More).

Humanist philosophy and educational programs aimed to enable the individual and society to recognize their true potential and reach an ideal state of society. This ended the so-called Dark Ages in Europe, in the midst of the misery of poverty, famine, plague, and war of the late Middle Ages.

En early example containing socialist concepts of this time is the fictional best-seller Utopia by renaissance humanist Thomas More, published in 1516 before he became Lord Chancellor of England. It depicts an ideal society which does not know private property, houses are not locked, agriculture and village life is favored over industrialization and large cities, women do the same work as men. Aside from agriculture every person must learn a skilled trade (i.e carpentry, masonry, weaving), hospitals are free, there is general welfare and freedom of religion, the society avoids war. Society's punishments for premarital sex, adultery, and criminal actions are milder than the contemporary Tudor punishments, for example "enslavement" instead of death by beheading, hanging, stake burning, boiling, etc. Unfortunately, Thomas More himself was finally beheaded for refusing to accept the King as Supreme Head of the Church of England.

Renaissance humanism led the way into to the age of enlightenment and humanitarianism of the 18th century.

Enlightenment championed the concepts of liberty, progress, reason, equality, tolerance, fraternity, justice and ending the abuses of church and autocratic /monarchic state (John Locke, Cesare Beccaria, Voltaire, Benjamin Franklin, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, David Hume, Adam Smith, Immanuel Kant, Thomas Jefferson, Jeremy Bentham).

Humanitarianism brought moral kindness, benevolence, and sympathy for all human beings, without distinction of gender, sexual orientation, race, caste, age, religion, ability, or nationality. Humanitarianism also put into practice the idea that mankind could be improved by deliberate social change and reform.

Important humanitarian steps were made in changes to public opinion and enacting legislation for social justice in the form of the abolition of slavery (John Woolman, the Quakers, William Wilberforce, Harriet Beecher Stowe), labor conditions (Robert Owen, Anthony Ashley-Cooper), criminal punishment (Voltaire), prison reform (John Howard), abolition of torture (Grand Duke Peter Leopold II, Frederick the Great, The Dutch Republic), child labor (Mary Harris "Mother Jones"), women's rights (Dorothea von Velen, Olympe de Gouges, Mary Wollstonecraft), treatment of the mentally ill (Anthony Ashley-Cooper, Philippe Pinel), treatment of animals, the formation of the Red Cross.

The founders of the Iroquois Confederacy established a bill of rights and duties for its six member nations and individuals in the form of a Constitution named the Great Binding Law. It is said to have influenced the American founding fathers for the American Constitution and Bill of Rights. Which in turn influenced the French revolutionary Constitution.

The air was ripe with enlightened, humanistic, humanitarian, socially oriented thinking and action, when the first political thinker and activist was identified as a "socialist".

Early Socialism

The American Revolution of 1776 and the French Revolution of 1789 had just been completed, bringing the first codifications of democracy, equality and justice to the people.

For some French revolutionaries the revolution's results did not come fast enough. In the aftermath of the 1789 French revolution, political unrest continued, the currency devalued, and economic conditions became worse, not better. As if this was not enough, skilled tradespeople and citizens were beginning to find themselves unemployed with the effects of early industrialization.

With a Journal for the Freedom of the Press, the People's Tribune, and thereafter the Society of Equals, the first activist to be called a socialist, François-Noël Babeuf aimed for immediate equality in fact and not only by proclamation. He and his sympathizers argued for the reinstatement of the more socially and democratically oriented French Constitution of 1793, if needed by insurrection and revolt, and for the inclusion of women into the political "clubs". With his publications, his popular tune "Dying of Hunger, Dying of Cold" sung in French cafés, and talk of the French Revolutionary Army joining his insurrection, he was picked up and, after armed rescue attempts, guillotined by the French revolutionary Directorate.

Other early socialists fared better. Prominent active socialists were, in order of appearance: William Godwin, Henri de Saint-Simon, Robert Owen, Bertrand Rusell,Charles Fourier, Thomas Hodgskin, Louis-Auguste Blanqui, Johan Karl Rodbertus, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Moses Hess, Karl Grün, the Chartists.

They advocated equal and just social concepts with political governance ranging the entire spectrum from democracy to anarchistic federalism and quasi-dictatorship. As high profile authors, protagonists, members of parliament and ministers they actively pursued, and factually implemented socially equal and just practices. These early socialists were not then or now regarded as communists.

Split

Socialism was on its way and doing well.

In 1847 Mr Marx and Mr Engels came along and joined the "League of the Just, a small London group of predominantly utopian socialists consisting of German emigrant tailor journeymen. This relatively small group had fled Germany in the aftermath of the so-called Tailor Revolt (joined by many other trades), as the tailor trade lost work and income to industrial factories using the new much improved sewing machine. Marx and Engels quickly transformed and renamed The League of the Just to the Communist League, so-called due to it being organized in small cells of 3-10 persons called "communes", its smallest organizational unit. Marx set about writing its manifesto. Main program points were the overthrow of the bourgeoisie (roughly meaning the affluent people), establishment of the rule of the proletariat (roughly meaning the working people), and the construction of a new society without private property and social classes. But Marx was slow working out the details he himself and Engels had espoused for the program, and within three years strong disagreement arose. The League's members accused Marx and Engels amongst others of "halfwitted political daydreaming" (in original German: "halbgelehrte politische Träumereien").

Marx's and Engels ideas, concepts and methods were too extreme and radical not only for their original League of the Just communal groups, but more importantly for most other contemporary socialists.

Hefty controversy and arguments ensued, collaborations and friendships broke apart.

Socialism forked into three separate major directions: - communism - anarchistic socialism - social democratic movements

The split among democratic socialists, anarchistic socialists and communists was as severe as it remains enduring.

But, regardless of all that, revolution was in the air.

Civil Revolutions of 1848 and 1849

Poverty and inequality, brought about by growing industrialization, autocratic government and crop failures, began to cause widespread unrest in Europe's civil populations who already understood the benefits of enlightenment, humanism, democracy, social equality and justice. However, Europe's industrialists and monarchies only met the unrest with repression, further fueling the unrest.

In 1848 and 1849 a Wave of Civil Revolutions swept across Europe with demands for participation in government, democracy, social equality and justice, freedom of speech and press, carried by merchants, guilds, independent and employed tradespeople, impoverished industrial workers and unemployed. The wave of Civil Revolutions was ultimately quelled by the establishment (royalty, aristocracy, industrialists, army, and the church) as "the People" were not well organized. Tens of thousands were killed. Activists were persecuted for their roles. A wave of emigration occurred, predominantly to America. Yet the revolutions did result in significant changes, some immediate, others in their aftermaths. In the following decennia, the continued dissent gave rise to the founding of Labor, Social Democratic and Socialist parties throughout Europe.

The Netherlands, Denmark, Austria and Prussia instituted constitutional reform immediately, as a direct result of the unrest. Over the following 20 years European middle classes achieved political and economic improvements. Prussia's chancellor Otto von Bismarck - a conservative pressured by the Socialist Workers' Party (today's mainstream Social Democratic Party) - instituted wide-ranging social programs that later became the basis of the modern welfare state and a model for many other countries. From 1883 to 1889 Bismarck introduced workers' health insurance, accident insurance, disability insurance, and a retirement pension.

The small Communist League, its members persecuted and internally divided, fell apart immediately after the civil revolution. Marx turned to further developing his theory on capitalism and expanding his radical ideas, the first volume to be published fifteen years later.

The vast majority of socialists, the democratic socialists, staunchly expanded the democratic constitutional reforms that the civil revolutions had eked out.

The democratic socialists understood quite clearly that not everyone is created equal and people should enjoy the fruits of their labor according to their own input. Plus, no revolution, instead, evolutionary reform. Changes towards equality should better be made within the democratic system. Democratic socialism has evolved ever since, becoming mainstream in European politics.

Let's underline one thing: Modern democracy itself is a result of early socialism and the democratic advances that were part of humanist, socialist ideals. In Europe it took the French revolution and the people's revolutions of 1848/1849 to push these ideas further and put them into practice.

Practical Adjustment

Let's be quite clear, many early socialists did not initially discard the idea of public production property and central planning. Yet from socialism's inception, these two elements became more or less mute with the main focus on the evolutionary, step-by-step approach to changes within democratic, capitalist societies. Mainstream European socialist parties later dropped the two elements of public ownership and central planning as principal goals.

Yet in keeping with its general principles and purpose, for important public services socialism is more likely to choose organizational forms that elevate the principle of "people" benefit over "profit", in whatever form it is efficient.

So the definition of socialism used by some US media and politicians equals the historic and current state of communism, an early (flawed and failed) radical faction of socialist concepts, highly criticized 175 ago by contemporary social democratic socialists.

Equating socialism with communism - as the majority of English language definitions and descriptions do - makes it appear incompatible with democracy and capitalism, tacitly implying a danger to society. Nothing could be further from the true state of modern socialism.

Modern Socialism

Most Europeans define socialism in the modern (revisionist) context of democratic socialism and social democracy:

Definition of Social Democracy

"a system of social organization that strives for equality, solidarity and justice among all individuals, with self-determination of individuals in politics and the work place, through social and economic reform"

and

"there is no socialism without freedom. Socialism can only be realized through democracy, and democracy can be achieved only through socialism"

The definition closely follows the German language definition by Social Democratic Party of Germany, the largest political party in Germany sourced in German Wikipedia at Demokratischer Sozialismus (Democratic Socialism) and Sozialdemokratie (Social Democracy). Similar definitions are found in French.

Modern socialism is compatible with democracy, capitalism, private ownership, and religious beliefs, while it may be said to idealize labor-owned production and services (i.e. self-determination) in economically efficient form. Social democrats are major players in all European governments and often form ruling majorities.

Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy

We could split hairs over the issue - and some clearly would, but Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy are the same thing, and a Democratic Socialist is the same as a Social Democrat.

The main difference lies in practical issues and semantics brought about by language and culture of the great Atlantic divide:

In French, both terms are used, Social Democrats "sociaux-démocrates", and Democratic Socialists "démocrates-sociaux", while the French Socialist Party "Le Parti Socialiste" is generally considered to be social democratic. In German the term Social Democrats "Sozialdemokraten" is almost exclusively used, ostensibly because transforming it into a single word (as the German language requires), and turning it around, would not be pronounceable. In the UK English, the words "socialist" and "democracy" are avoided, replaced simply by "Labour Party" - also not unfitting: The "Worker's Party".

In the US the term "Democrat" is occupied by the "Democratic Party".

If someone were to call themselves a Social Democrat, they may be immediately identified as a member of the Democratic Party. Of course, the Democratic Party does have social democratic roots, but if you're an independent, a libertarian or republican Social Democrat, voters might indeed be scratching their head.

The term that remains in the US is Democratic Socialist. It really is as simple as that.

Capitalism in Short

Whereas "capital" has existed for ages, the term "capitalism" was first used by a socialist and member of the Provisional Government after the French Revolution of 1948, Louis Blanc: "what i call 'capitalism' that is to say the appropriation of capital by some to the exclusion of others".

Then by socialist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in 1861 as an "economic and social regime in which capital, the source of income, does not generally belong to those who make it work through their "labour". At this time Karl Marx was already working on his theories, referring to the "capitalistic system" that robbed labor of its rightful share of value-added, thus causing poverty and inequality.

Definition of Capitalism

Capitalism is defined as "an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit". Classical economic theory defines the factors of production as: land, labor, capital.

This raises two issues:

1. Labour cannot be privately owned. 2. The owner of land and capital awards himself all profit. Labor is left out in the cold.

Clearly there's something wrong here. Socialists see this as well, while Karl Marx is given credit to have theorized and proven the point.

Capitalism's defense is a play of words: Private ownership does not refer to economic theory's "factors of production", It refers to "means of production". Means of production include the major elements of labor's equipment, material, and outcome, not labor itself. That definition expels labor out of the economic system.

There is a third issue. Land is in the same position as labor:

3. Land, as in the natural environment, is destined to be used and destroyed for profit.

Socialism - Capitalism

So, is socialism compatible with capitalism? Of course. While they may be said to be opposing forces, they are certainly compatible with each other. Just think of your sound volume slider with socialism on the quiet side and capitalism on the loud side.

The danger for capitalists is, of course, that socialism does strive for capitalism's and any other system's reform to gain equality, solidarity and justice for all.

Capitalism's interest groups, with accumulated money, power, political and media influence,

are fighting modern socialism with hands, feet and teeth. What better way than to befuddle and confuse the issue with false definitions, obfuscations, innuendos - equating current day socialism with communism.

Biased Literature

Let's have a look at English Wikipedia. We have an article "Social democracy". The only acceptable part of it is its introduction. For the rest it is practically unreadable, and appears to somehow describe social democracy in relation to Marxism, mentioning communism's Marx and Marxism over 100 times, then going into eclectic theories on its future, and criticisms by Marxists, Stalin and unnamed other critics. Worthless and misleading. Not one word on social democracy's widespread global mainstream prevalence.

Adding to the confusion, communist propaganda did not help socialism by branding its own communist system outwardly as socialism. Thank the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) for that. National Socialists have not helped either. Hitler's single party dictatorship was both, highly anti-capitalist and anti-communist, and anti-socialist, disbanding the social democratic party, disbanding prevailing workers unions and sending their leaders to concentration camps. Socialism was defined as an individual's commitment to the national community, which then acted as a bloody and repressive regime. Then, former East Germany called itself the German Democratic Republic, while its communist one-party rule was anything but democratic. It was only a bit less bloody, but highly repressive with a machine-gun protected wall around the entire western border of the country to prevent people from getting out. (I was there and hacked a piece out of it).

To digress for just one paragraph, similar misuse of terms is displayed on the other side of the spectrum. Ongoing and worldwide, central banks are naming themselves "Federal" while they are, in fact, private, monopolistic organizations, owned and controlled within the private capitalist financial system - feeding itself on "interest" - in both biblical and islamic terms equaling forbidden usury. The reason for this historic prohibition is that the interest system relies on both servitude to pay back more than borrowed, and the resulting requirement for continuous - and finally unsustainable - economic growth. Without economic growth the system breaks down - similarly to a Ponzi scheme. - Yet when you look for a theoretical basis of why this growth is needed, you'll hit a wall: There is no sensible explanation for the need for growth except the need to pay back more than you borrowed. It is an artificially created need to fill power and pockets for the top echelon of the financial sector. Who then uses that power and those profits to ... guess: a) profit by manipulating oil and food prices, b) profit by eliminating public schooling, c) profit by eliminating pensions and elderly care, d) profit by forcibly arming all citizens with guns and causing general anxiety, e) profit by artificially multiplying the money in the banking system and lending it out at interest, f) safeguard profit by turning your country into a police state, g) profit by stoking and engaging in wars.

You may have noticed that most news these days isn't the news that it used to be. It is actually a hammering of misleading subjective viewpoints, often supported by misleading factoids or outright lies. To illustrate it with a comparison, most news today is what the orchestrated hammering between contestants at World Wrestling Foundation matches is to skilled sports boxing. As bad as it sounds, the correct term for it, without doubt, is "propaganda". Unfortunately propaganda not only polarizes, but (in)tends to dumb the mind of not only its consumers but its very activists. Next, if we were to take what has happened to the news as a general symptom of these times and project it to other areas like the economy, education and finance, we have a pretty nasty picture.

Similarly, the outdated, biased definition of "socialism" in America's dictionaries and web based media, is to the largest extent a deliberate simplification, designed to shock and awe any reader out of notions of organized social behavior and politics. This type of skewing appears to be much more wide-spread than you would expect. There is certainly a concerted effort to discredit socialism, especially in English language use. If you search the web for "purpose of communism" or the "goal of socialism", you'll find mostly shock and awe descriptions of dubious quality competing with each other - rarely a statement on the purpose or what they actually try to achieve.

Just to contrast it, in socialism's birth place and the basis of the social market economy, this would simply not be possible. In Europe, the concepts of socialism and social democracy are mainstream principles that a capitalist may oppose, but can't skew with.

Capitalism's Leap

While this article is not about capitalism, we'll need to look at some recent history related to it. Capitalism and communism held each other in check during the American-Soviet stand-off. The times of the cold war saw balance of nuclear missile power, the brink of mutual destruction and, among others, the Korea and Vietnam wars. There also was an ideological war. Ideologically, capitalism worked hard at making communism appear unattractive. Capitalism was making certain to show itself from its best, caring, mellow side, amenable to social ideas, concepts and programs. With arch enemy communism gone, the balance is lost. Capitalism no longer needs to appease social needs. The gloves are off. It is unleashed.

Purposes

Communism's purpose was and remains equality. As a means, communists believe(d) to achieve this by revolution, government ownership and a centrally planned economy, in practice directed by single-party rule.

Socialism's purpose is equality, solidarity and justice. For mainstream socialists, the means to achieve it is evolutionary social reform within the prevailing democratic system - which itself is a result of early socialist concepts. This social democratic form of socialism is a mainstream political movement in Europe. It lives within the British Labour party and (arguably) the US Democratic party - while in English language usage, and especially US usage there remains a stigma on the use of the word "social" for political purposes.

My purpose here has been to clear up misconceptions about these terms. All systems have their positive and negative sides. They cannot all be mentioned here. Do make up your own mind about these concepts. In doing so be sure to make a wide circle, and find objective, correct information.

Challenge

You've been bearing with me for this longish treatise. Are you ready for a challenge?

Find the purpose of capitalism. Not its benefits or shortcomings, ideas or characteristics, nor its results. The purpose in terms of a specific goal for human society, and how capitalism would achieve or contribute to that goal.

Edit April 2014: When I wrote this I had searched the web for the goals and purpose of capitalism. To my surprise, there was nothing. In the meantime there are a few attempts. They are limited in number, quality varies, and there still does not appear to be any specific description of capitalism's purpose.

My Opinion

Capitalism may be quite benign, if a) the markets were in fact free - which they are not, b) its markets actually operated on the premise of equality - which is not the case, and c) a good referee, the government, ensuring the interests of "the people" - which it can't.

It's a concept that is just as unworkable as the communist concept. The markets are manipulated by insiders and big money, everything is getting more unequal, and government is being corrupted by the very systems it is supposed to control.

The issue of "size" of government is neither here nor there. It needs to be a better and more accountable system of government to "we, the people".

Large financial and corporate systems are treading democratic principles with their feet under the guise of individual freedom, religious fervor and their call to get rid of the remaining government interference.

What about that religious fervor? Communism repressed religion because it posed a risk to the crucial role of its centralized government. With that same logic capitalism embraces religion as an indoctrination ally that can replace social values and institutions that should be supported by government. Social security, health insurance? Privatize it and let capitalism and the church share it. Education? Privatize it and let the church handle it.

Capitalism prefers for you to be dumb so that you are more and more susceptible to the advertising that makes you a willing tool, buy its products, and elect its representatives. And buy into its "private equity" politicians making fortunes with other people's money.

We are at risk of entering an era of "privatized corporate anarchy", where we become corporate fodder while religious fundamentalism replaces the tasks of the public government. Drill your kids to agree that the earth is a cube at the center of the solar system. Believe it or be sanctioned.

To be frank, socialism, specifically social democracy is what has made your life more equal in the world of capitalism. It is probably the best solution, with a proven track record, for what is happening in America and other parts of the world today.

Looking at how things have gone between socialism and capitalism, they have a positive effect as opposing forces. They appear to keep each other in check, given the chance.

About the author

janroe holds a Master's degree in Business Sciences from Rijksuniversiteit Groningen (RUG), the Netherlands. He directs a socially and environmentally responsible manufacturing and export company, and advises small businesses in market development combined with socially and environmentally responsible practices.

2018 PRRI survey: 43% of Americans say socialism is a system where the government controls key parts of the economy, such as utilities, transportation, and communications industries, whereas 54% identify socialism as a system of government that provides citizens with health insurance, retirement support, and access to free higher education.

https://www.prri.org/research/partisan-polarization-dominates-trump-era-findings-from-the-2018-american-values-survey

Five Myths about Capitalism - 2018-09-28 https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths/five-myths-about-capitalism/2018/09/27/3f0b72f6-c06f-11e8-90c9-23f963eea204_story.html

The Democrats Have Become Socialists (Opinion) - 2017-03-13 https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/socialized-health-care-in-the-us-suddenly-that-sounds-a-lot-less-crazy/2017/09/13/20b88d88-98cb-11e7-82e4-f1076f6d6152_story.html

Ayn Rand on Fascism - 2016-01-8 Smith explores Rand’s contention that America was sliding down a slippery slope to fascism [Fascism = Socialism. Because both are "collectivistic", inhibit "freedom"] https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/ayn-rand-fascism?

Peter Dreier: Jesus Was A Socialist - 2016-12-25 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-dreier/jesus-was-a-socialist_b_13854296.html

Jeffrey Sachs: Bernie Sanders Easily Wins the Policy Debate - 2016-05-25 https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/jeffrey-sachs-bernie-sanders-easily-wins-the-policy-debate/2016/05/25/224209a0-21ac-11e6-8690-f14ca9de2972_story.html

The Return of Democratic Socialism - 2016-05-24 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-wittner/the-return-of-democratic-_b_10110048.html

Why Bernie Sanders Is Our Best Chance to Beat Donald Trump - 2016-05-20 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/krystal-ball/why-bernie-sanders-is-our_b_10064830.html

This Is A Really Dumb Way To Fix Poverty, Hint: It involves taking money from poor people - 2016-04-07 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/global-poverty-free-trade_us_57068933e4b053766188ef6b

"Love Trumps Hate": Actress Rosario Dawson on Why She Supports Bernie Sanders for President - 2016-04-04 http://www.democracynow.org/2016/4/4/love_trumps_hate_actress_rosario_dawson

The Long March of Bernie’s Army - 2016-03-00 Where it came from; where it’s headed, by Harold Meyerson http://prospect.org/article/long-march-bernie%E2%80%99s-army

Why You Should Pay Attention to the 'Friedrichs' Supreme Court Case - 2016-01-09 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-johnson/why-you-should-pay-attent_b_8939004.html

Why the U.S. Could Soon Be the World's First Former Middle Class Society - 2015-12-09 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-e-stiglitz/us-middle-class-society_b_8759752.html

The Real Trouble With Bernie - 2015-11-27 http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/11/27/the-real-trouble-with-bernie/

Bernie Sanders Channels FDR To Explain What 'Democratic Socialism' Means To Him "Real freedom must include economic security." - 2015-11-19 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-socialism_564e281ee4b00b7997f9df76

Stop Calling Bernie Sanders a Socialist The Vermont senator is a "democratic socialist" — and yes, there's a difference - 2015-04-30 https://newrepublic.com/article/121680/bernie-sanders-democratic-socialist-not-just-socialist

Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens - 2014-04-09 - Scientific Analysis by Prof Martin Gilens (Princeton University) and Prof Benjamin I Page (Northwestern University) Scientifically proven: "In the United States ... the majority does not rule -- at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes. When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organized interests, they generally lose." BUT: This research paper is now reserved to the rich. You now have to pay 37.00 USD to find this straightforward quote. http://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materials/Gilens%20and%20Page/Gilens%20and%20Page%202014-Testing%20Theories%203-7-14.pdf

The Great Transformation - 1944 by Karl Polanyi The unnatural liberal market system's invention of land, labour and money as commodities at the onset of the industrial revolution disenfranchises society from natural economic behaviour in favour of dysfunctional and artificial "market mechanisms". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Transformation_%28book%29 http://www.bisa-ipeg.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/40_copeland.pdf http://prospect.org/article/karl-polanyi-explains-it-all

Social Democracy vs. Democratic Socialism - 2012-12-21 https://liamchingliu.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/social-democracy-vs-democratic-socialism/

The Problem of Plutocrats: What a 19th-Century Economist Can Teach Us About Today's Capitalism - 2012-10-21 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chrystia-freeland/henry-george-capitalism_b_1997899.html

Corporate America Running Ads That Tap into Our Anxiety About the Hell They've Created for Us - 2012-08-26 http://www.alternet.org/labor/corporate-america-running-ads-tap-our-anxiety-about-hell-theyve-created-us

The End of Reason: What Potatoes Say about the State of US Democracy - 2012-08-17 http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/the-political-potato-battle-shows-influence-of-lobbies-in-us-congress-a-843595.html

Healthcare-and-Human-Rights - 2012-08-09 http://www.scribd.com/doc/102418166/Healthcare-and-Human-Rights

Timothy Noah: Why the Rich Are Getting Richer and the Middle Class Is Disappearing - 2012-08-01 http://www.alternet.org/books/timothy-noah-why-rich-are-getting-richer-and-middle-class-disappearing?

Tom Frank: Mocking the Right's 'Free Market' Agenda Is Almost Too Easy -- A Real Problem Is That the Dems Don't Challenge It - 2012-07-20 http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/156298/tom_frank%3A_mocking_the_right%27s_%27free_market%27_agenda_is_almost_too_easy_--_a_real_problem_is_that_the_dems_don%27t_challenge_it/

Identity crisis for American capitalism - 2012-05-26 http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/identity-crisis-for-american-capitalism/2012/05/26/gJQACsRAtU_story_1.html

Why is Socialism Winning in France, But Demonized in the U.S.? - 2012-05-00 http://www.policymic.com/articles/8203/why-is-socialism-winning-in-france-but-demonized-in-the-u-s

This cynical Royal Mail and Post Office divorce will bring only misery - 2012-03-30 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/mar/30/royal-mail-post-office-unhappy-divorce

Why Is Europe a Dirty Word? - 2012-01-14 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/15/opinion/sunday/kristof-why-is-europe-a-dirty-word.html

True Enough - Message Force Multipliers - 2011-06-00 Columbia Journalism Review http://www.cjr.org/feature/true_enough.php

Ai Weiwei chat with opinion manipulator surfaces - 2011-05-09 China Media Project http://cmp.hku.hk/2011/05/09/12125/

Capitalist-US-vs-Socialist-Germany - 2010-08-27 http://benjamindavidsteele.wordpress.com/2010/08/27/capitalist-us-vs-socialist-germany/

“Were You Born on the Wrong Continent?”: America’s misguided culture of overwork - 2010-08-26 http://www.salon.com/2010/08/25/german_usa_working_life_ext2010/

What is Socialism? - Definition & Why It Is Logically & Morally Weak - 2010-03-28 http://www.slayerment.com/blog/what-socialism-definition-why-it-logically-morally-weak

Why socialism is evil - 2008-11-19 http://www.wnd.com/2008/11/81349/

Is Obama a Socialist? - 2008-10-18 http://www.wnd.com/2008/10/78330/

Wikipedia: Types of capitalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism#Types_of_capitalism

History of welfare states http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state#History_of_welfare_states

Social democracy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism#Social_democracy

Democratic socialism - two cultures, two descriptions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demokratischer_Sozialismus

Joseph Schumpeter - Capitalism's demise, democratic theory, entrepreneurship, innovation and gold http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Schumpeter#Schumpeter_and_capitalism.27s_demise

And now... Social Darwinism

Recently I came across this term. I had never seen it before: Social Darwinism. Trying to make sense of it the first thing that came to mind: "contradiction in terms". An oxymoron. Yet I see that the term is also being used to pejoratively refer to capitalism. Still, the term makes no sense. It's simply a disservice to the concepts of "social" and "natural evolution".