Socialism or Capitalism?

I knew that would get some attention.

Political literature, particularly that emanating from the US, is currently in a white hot frenzy about the dastardly Socialist Democrats or the Evil Republican Capitalists, as the case may be. Well, a pox on both their houses.

The frenzied arguments make no more sense than a battle to the death over whether air is better than water, green is better than orange, or Jupiter is to be preferred over Saturn. The capitalist writers describe the worst outcomes of Stalinism and Maoism, the socialists speak in Dickensian terms of starving waifs and workhouses. And while they are screaming at each other, important stuff is not getting done. Like saving the planet, for example.

Suggesting that America is a full-blown capitalist society is just as silly as saying that Sweden is a full-out socialist paradise. In the United States, the military, the police, the highways, primary and secondary schools (all told, the lion’s share of budgets) are owned by the people. Twenty-eight percent of American land is owned by the federal government, and more by the states and local governments. Combined public ownership of the land runs from three or four percent in the older states to as high as 89% in Alaska, that great bastion of rugged individualism.

On the other hand, calling Sweden a socialist paradise makes no more sense. Volvo, SAAB, IKEA, Electrolux, Ericsson, Husqvarna, and Spotify? Yes, all privately owned and globally competitive.

Anti-socialists love to tell us that only with untrammelled private ownership will you see wealth creation, yet they are the first to whine for subsidies and tariffs when they get out-competed fair and square.

Wealthy industrialists have never had qualms about sending publicly supported militaries, mainly composed of poor folk’s kids, into small countries to quell popular uprisings against their fully-owned banana dictatorships. Public support’s a wonderful thing when somebody else is paying for it and you’re benefiting.

Was the USSR a socialist paradise? Well, if you were a well-connected Party functionary, you got a dacha, a limousine, and servants. Otherwise, you got by as best you could by working the black market and keeping chickens and a garden. Doesn’t sound much like socialism to me.

How about China? The competition amongst young people to be accepted into the Communist Party and a life of privilege is fierce. Party membership is otherwise hereditary. Sounds not unlike raw capitalism to me, just different labels.

On most indices of quality of life, including education, medical care, longevity and contentedness, the mixed-economy nations of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Europe invariably grab all of the top spots. If it’s true that money can buy happiness, then it would also be true that if you spread the money around, you also spread the happiness around.

Of course there’s a need for the incentivisation of private ownership, but there’s also a need for the grace and compassion of the common wealth. Deng Xiaoping probably said it best: “It doesn’t matter whether a cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice.”

So let’s stop this hair pulling and name calling. The pot and the kettle are both black, but each can boil water. Smart cooks have some of each.

I’ll bet if we could stop all the useless talk about the exclusive merits of socialism or capitalism, we could reduce global warming by five degrees.