Debate:Socialism vs. anti-capitalism

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Debate.png This is a Debate page.
Feel free to add your own spin on the story. Please keep it civil!
Information icon.svg This debate was created by Edacelis.


Those that refuse to embrace the term Socialism are part of the problem. They'll talk about capitalism's failures but are too afraid to embrace the word Socialism because they are: One, too afraid of being ostracized; or two, are simply too conservative and actually just want a watered down version of capitalism.

Isn't the premise false?[edit]

"Those that refuse to embrace socialism because pure capitalism has problems" is a false dichotomy. Economics is not a yes/no question between pure capitalism and pure socialism. It's a balance between enough freedom to benefit everyone, and enough regulation to discourage the crooks.

Lunatics like to make you think that any touch of government intervention/regulation at all either is, or a very quick slippery slope, to pure socialism. Very few realize they get benefits from transparency and regulations to protect consumers on a daily basis. One should ask them if they had accounts in a bank that suffered losses recently. Reserve requirements (buffering operational risk) and the FDIC (insuring deposits) make life decidedly less interesting then the 1800's, when if banks ran out of liquidity even on a short term basis all the depositors lost everything. The SEC certainly helps shareholders and analysts evaluate what is happening in public companies, which is lacking in places like China...where few people know what's anything till the company folds. It still happens in the US when people aren't on top of things, and no one says the hundreds of pages of filings are easy, but it's better then a giant middle finger.

What people need to do is to stop screaming that supporting regulation is socialism, and capitalism is purely no regulation. It's strange people get intimidated by this crap because not even the right definition of socialism. Words actually having meanings, even if a number of idiots don't know the definitions of words. Some people just scream every pejorative term at another till they throw their hands up and walk away. ~ Subsound ~ 05:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

It is very true that not all critics of capitalism (and hardly any critics of laissez-faire capitalism, which has only a fringe element for supporters) are socialists; notwithstanding, if someone is nattering about the evils of "capitalism," using that word, he is very likely to be a pinko (or possibly a Red, although there are much fewer of them these days). The reason for this is that the pinko sees the fault as being rooted in capitalism, while others might not even try to plumb a "deeper cause."
As for the misuse of terms, as originally defined by socialists, capitalism is everything except complete State/popular ownership of the economy, which makes the current Tea Party misuse rather ironic. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 05:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Socialism is more popular in America than you'd expect from listening to the media and politicians. According to a Gallup poll, 36% of Americans viewed 'socialism' positively. That's compared to 61% who had a positive view of 'capitalism'. The thing is: 1) socialism (or even a move in that direction) is not in the interest of the wealthy and powerful, so it gets a lot less attention 2) organizations like labor unions, which helped the push towards socialism in other industrialized nations, have been pretty much dismantled in America.
It is important to note that even within 'socialism' there is much division. For example, a state-run economy vs. decentralized, worker-managed economy or socialism "from above" vs. "from below".
As for not all anti-captialists being socialist, there is one interesting exception I came across in my internet travels. This guy recognized the problem of the wage-slavery and class warfare, but thought the answer was agrarian feudalism and Catholic monarchism. I know you're thinking Poe, but this guy had been consistent with this sort of thing on that blog for over a year. Even after he was banned he tried to sneak back in to add pro-Catholic comments. So he was either legit or a very dedicated parodist. --Night Jaguar (talk) 07:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
About that poll and the definition of "socialism": the result may be because some people are overusing it as a smear word. --ZooGuard (talk) 08:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I have a different problem with the premise. It begins:

  • Those that refuse to embrace the term Socialism are part of the problem.

I rather think the we need to be told exactly what "problem" these people are part of - and for that matter what makes up the rest of the "problem". Without this, the sentence makes little sense.--BobSpring is sprung! 08:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)