So, a friend of mine linked a debate he watched between some capitalists and some socialists on whether capitalism is a blessing, and I think I find this as a good way to discuss this topic more in detail in general. As you guys know, I'm nominally capitalist, but open to at least market socialism, and tend to think beyond both, thinking this whole debate is outdated. And this specific debate, just reinforced it. Honestly, it's a bit of a crapshow.
On the capitalist side was the former CEO of whole foods and some editor of Reason Magazine, a libertarian rag that's not really worth reading. And on the socialist side, we have Richard Wolff, who I at least somewhat respect and an editor of Jacobin, a socialist rag that's almost as cringey as reason these days. So yeah, libertarians (right wing ones, not sophisticated left wing ones like me) vs socialists. I wonder who will win? I at least feel qualified to be relatively impartial given I have a view in between both of these guys, and willing to discuss the merits and flaws of both ideologies.
So, the capitalists start off pushing decent notes regarding capitalism. They discuss how it greatly reduced poverty around the world, and how it provides freedom, while socialism is oppressive. I mean, pretty bog standard arguments, that works against tankie socialists and hard socialists at least. I dont deny capitalism has created more wealth than any other system ever devised, and that ON PAPER provides a lot of freedom. It's just that the devil in in the details isn't it? And like all systems, it doesnt live up to its ideological promises. Anyway, despite both of these guys being hard libertarians with far right views googling them, they seemed to triangulate a lot, pushing the idea that social democracies are capitalists and not good examples of socialism.
Then the socialists make good arguments of their own, pointing out that capitalism is inherently unjust and that it has been socialists that have improved things. They quickly triangulate to the center too, flatly rejecting the command economy models of communist nations to argue that they're arguing about ownership of the means of production, not markets, and that socialism can exist within markets. I gotta say with me as an audience member I gotta give them credit there, because with this framing I'm far more sympathetic to their arguments. My attachment to capitalism is primarily through markets, not ownership of the means of production, and I'm at least nominally okay with cooperatives, even if I don't highly value worker owned means of productions given my own ideology. Still, socialists argued that they did a good job improving markets within their paradigm, and that without them a lot of western countries would be worse off. I can't deny this either, and this is why these debates come off as pointless. Both sides are correct. Capitalism (markets) is the best system ever devised for most forms of commerce and wealth creation, but they are flawed, and socialists often can improve things within "capitalism" (markets).
Which is really where this debate goes south. The socialists outright rejected centralized ownership of the means of production, and embraced markets, which removes most of my objections to their ideology. And then the capitalists...insist that no capitalism is markets and socialists are evil because communism. Yeah, round two the capitalists literally started framing it like that. Which is a strawman. The socialists literally rejected those models and then the capitalists are like "nuh uh, capitalism is markets, muh freedom, what if I dont wanna participate?" Which...dont get me wrong, being a fusion of left and right wing thought with my social libertarian orientation, I'm pretty sympathetic toward. i certainly dont want to force people to work on any state mandated socialist project, and I do believe in freedom and autonomy. I AM a libertarian after all. Just not a right wing one. But I sympathize with the right wing on this one.
Which...led to discussions by the socialists in wage slavery. Which...again, being a left wing libertarian, I also am sympathetic to. Why should we be subject to working for autocratic institutions for most of our waking lives and being subject to their demands? It's not very liberating and many people spend their lives outside of work trying to forget about the tyranny that IS work. But this is where I do tend to disagree with the socialists a bit. I mean, my ideology should be clear right now, but my argument is more along the lines of "if only markets actually had actual voluntary participants, then they would actually work here". Socialists focus so much on democratizing work places, which don't get me wrong, is a worthy goal, but I do think it's overrated and not the end all they think it is. I tend to believe that no matter the organization of work, as long as participation is forced its tyrannical, and to reflect Reason lady's libertarian opinion, what if I wanna do something else? I dont believe capitalism really lets us be free to not participate, hence my support for UBI and other universal safety nets that guarantee needs while respecting and expanding individual freedom, but for me, socialism is just...not the answer. It isnt democratic workplaces that are important, it's freedom from work and its institutions itself. Remove forced participation and I dont care if we have "capitalism" or "socialism" in this paradigm. As long as you have markets, I dont care who owns "the means of production" and whether workplaces are democratically owned and operated or whatever. I value freedom from work as more valuable than socialism, and thats why I can never call myself much of a socialist. I am actually sympathetic somewhat to many socialist arguments against capitalism, honestly, hard forms of socialism are scary just as the libertarians argued here, and soft forms like market socialism are nice, but are they any better than any "capitalist" approach to solving issues with tyranny in the workplace like UBI, or regulations, or unions? I'm not really sure.
Anyway, moving on. The debate just kept getting worse and worse as it went on. With the capitalists demanding to see a successful form of socialism, richard wolff pointing out successful worker cooperatives, just for whole foods guy to ignore the evidence, even dismissing it on the basis that his company is bigger and more successful (lol?), and demanding evidence. And let's face it, given we are basically down to discussing successful examples of socialism WITHIN capitalism....the socialists were killing it. And the capitalists were just pushing weird strawmen.
Ultimately, the socialists won the debate for me due to this. They argued much better, and were more willing to discuss their ideas reasonably and provide examples of their ideas in practice, while the capitalists would just push the same old cold war strawman talking points that are valid against like...tankies and the like, but they were just unable to adjust their talking points when discussing more moderate forms of socialism.
Either way, the debate was kind of a crapshow both ways, and here's why. The capitalists were right about MARKETS, and they clearly admitted capitalism wasnt perfect and needs some regulation and the like. They were mostly arguing against socialism and arguing social democracy was on their side of the aisle. meanwhile the socialists ceded the whole argument about central planning to the right, and focused on pushing socialism...within capitalism as I see it. Again, the big disconnect between the two sides was that the capitalists were arguing in terms of markets, and the socialists acknowledged markets, but focused on who owns the companies and who makes the decisions within the companies. That said, they were both talking past each other, and both sides seemed at least nominally happy with social democracy and variations thereof. Socialists just wanted more just markets and the capitalists...wanted markets. And I like markets. But I also acknowledge the points the left makes about their flaws, and my own fixes are based on my own specific ideology of left libertarianism, focusing less on socialism and who owns the means of production and more on UBI and freedom from oppressive institutions in the form of the option to not participate. So to me, both sides had their points and i actually agreed with both, but they were largely talking past each other. But if I had to choose a winner, I'd say it was the socialists who won, simply because they argued better and relied less on strawman arguments and broad vague virtue signalling. I mean, most debates, it isn't about who is RIGHT. it's about who argues better. From a correctness perspective both are correct and arguing for similar things and I dont see their ideologies as inherently incompatible with each other outside of ideological circlejerking. From the perspective of who actually argued better....definitely the socialists.
And yeah, that's my opinion on this debate. Capitalism in terms of markets is good, but there are problems within capitalism that socialists have a decent historical track record in solving. You need both perspectives to really have an optimal society, and such optimal society would be a melding of both in the middle somewhere.
No comments:
Post a Comment