Why debates about “Capitalism vs. Socialism” don’t make any sense. (Because everything is a spectrum).
By Optimistic Harbinger (CAKovalik)
The debate of “Capitalism vs. Socialism” is essential for us to carefully plan essential reformations of capitalism so we can adapt to the impending Fully Globalized and Post-Automation Age.
Unfortunately most debates are over simplistic and fail to discuss pragmatic solutions. They rely on using one-word labels to summarize some of the most complicated philosophies that are completely at odds with one another. With each extreme (pure capitalism and pure socialism) there are extreme “goods” and extreme “bads” that go with each.
So instead of discussing whether we want to explore “on the surface of the sun” bright or “in the depths of vantablack space” dark, we should discuss a balance of light and dark that is workable and helpful. Let’s compare each of “capitalism” and “socialism” via their respective Yin’s and Yang’s to illustrate how they are complete opposites:
Yang (the “light”) of Capitalism is that individuals can own things. It allows for private property and the uninhibited pursuit of maximizing profit. Capitalism is the primary reason the Western world is as prosperous as it is today and that one of the most Capitalistic countries, our very own USA, has been one of the most prosperous and innovative. In fact, because the USA is so prosperous it is also one of the most charitable in the world in terms of giving financially or with volunteer hours.
Yin (the “darkness”) of Socialism is that no one will own things (except the government). Your pursuits are no longer allowed to be in your self-interest but whatever the government allows you to do for the greater good of society. There is zero financial incentive to inventing or innovating, so it must be created for the sake of itself. This philosophy explains why countries that were socialist during the Industrial Era, the era of massive productivity boosts through innovation, could not compete with capitalist countries and had to resort to corrupt and catastrophic, oppressive policies to survive.
And:
Yin (the “darkness”) of Capitalism is that the maximization of personal profit supersedes any societal benefit. Capitalism is also the primary reason why “revenue per employee growth” has always and will always outpace “average employee salary growth” (the ratio these stats’ base metrics is an statistic I am personally very troubled by). While companies continue to innovate, cut costs and raise prices, houses sit empty despite the homeless. Food goes to waste despite the hungry. Our education system is about to reach a tipping point of critical failure despite the self-explanatory need for a country of smart people to fuel future innovation and prosperity.
Yang (the “light”) of Socialism is that wealth inequality becomes a thing of the past. People who are squandering or hoarding resources will have them evenly distributed. As long as previously incentivized production is maintained, no one will starve, everyone will have a home, and everyone will be equally aligned to maximize our benefit to society (this is a big “if” since now no one is paid).
It’s clear to see why each side is so compelling when juxtaposed against the other’s weakness. Therefore, it is oversimplistic and a waste of time to limit your discussion to this level of depth. Instead, we need to dive deeper to carefully consider which elements of “Capitalism” and “Socialism” we need in our society so we achieve a balance that is desirable. Pragmatically speaking, it means deciding what elements of society are subsidized and paid for by the government.
Rather than chose one end of the spectrum, let’s find an option in the middle:
As I understand it, these requirements are axiomatic of the middle point:
We need to be globally competitive: This means having an educated and well-incentivized environment to create a hotbed for innovation; and
We need to provide equal opportunity: This means Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs must be fulfilled (shelter, food, health) so our people actually have an equal opportunity focus on their personal purpose to achieve their life goals, enjoy civil liberties and pursue personal happiness.
But now that we know were the middle is, how do we pick and choose ideas from each? Where do we start?
What you might appreciate at this point is that oversimplification is not just an issue with our debates about Capitalism vs. Socialism - the need to balance extremes applies to decision-making broadly. Today couples, coworkers or Congressmen at odds with one another debate like a metronome bouncing between two extremes because when one side proposes an idea with merits by touting its Yang (the “light”), the other side protests about its Yin (the “dark”). Since all things have a Yang and Yin, this does not seem like a productive use of time, because it frames the Yin as a blocker or an unintended consequence that must be prevented to the point we don’t benefit from the Yang either.
Instead, in our discussions we must be honest and embrace that the Yin (or “darkness”) is an integral component and should be considered unavoidable. If a Yin is significant enough it can and should should be addressed via a separate action or clarification - of course this subsequent step will carry its own Yin and Yang.
If we can agree to move forward where the Yang’s of an idea outweigh its Yin’s, progress will be achieved iteratively and a middle ground equilibrium will be met as we successively address the Yin’s of each previous step with a new solution.