MultipleTentacles
14th September 2009, 03:23 PM
If I'm not mistaken, democratic socialism means the public ownership of capital. Public ownership of capital to me means that the capital, real or otherwise, is not owned by a small group of people, which means that the benefits of owning capital--profits, or interest--goes directly back into the hands of the public. Another benefit is that the use of the capital is governed by the people, and therefore is less likely to be exploitative of the public. Thus socialism sees capital as a public asset, not a private asset.
On the other hand, there is at least a hair-thin distinction between socialism and regulated capitalism. Regulated capitalism, as I envision it, allows for the private ownership of capital, but regulates its use. I'll allow for progressive taxation--the rich can be taxed more than the poor, which is justified based on the idea that the rich really don't have anything important to do with 30% of their money anyway. I'll also allow for trust-busting, as this is a form of regulation.
The only possible argument that regulated capitalism is in fact socialism rests on the assumption that any law or regulation reflects a degree of public control, and therefore, in a sense, regulated capitalism is really some degree of public control of capital. But I think this argument falls apart because I'm speaking of laws which protect the safety of the public, not direct control of capital, and every nation on earth, no matter what system of government or socio-economic system you choose to identify it with, has laws to protect the safety of the public. You therefore can't use such laws to discriminate between different socio-economic systems or systems of government.
That said, I prefer regulated capitalism to socialism for a couple of reasons:
1) Having money and influence is just sweet. I know this sounds silly, but the idea should not be discarded. I think there is real public benefit to having a class of people who have more money than they know what to do with. It shows just how good life gets, and motivates the public to improve their position. It is also, obviously, beneficial to those people who have the money. They get to enjoy life, and I think that's good for everybody.
2) Strict regulation should be enough to prevent abuses of capital. You don't have to resort to public ownership to prevent these abuses.
3) Regulated capitalism is a negative law system. Socialism is a positive law system. I don't mean that regulated capitalism is bad and socialism is good. Rather, I mean that in regulated capitalism, you have a large list of "do not"s--laws which negate something, or negative laws; and in socialism, you have a small list of "do"s--laws which allow for only a few possible courses of action, which everybody must adhere to. Generally, I prefer societies that have negative laws rather than positive laws. Positive laws are usually constricting and dehumanizing.
4) Public ownership will probably end up looking an awful lot like private ownership anyway. When you're dealing with day-to-day decision making, you can't always put everything to a public vote. Therefore, one person or a small group of people, obviously, is going to be in control of the capital anyway. So why even bother? I know that separating the guy in charge from the capital may prevent abuses--if the guy in charge has to say, "I can't do that, it's not mine," then he may be less likely to exploit people. But rich and powerful people should practice saying that anyway--"I can't do that, it's not mine." This is the basis of all morality. I think the only case where taking capital from its owners is justified is if there is direct evidence of hereditary or cultural abuse of that capital. But you can do that by throwing the owners in prison. You don't have to change the entire socio-economic system.
I realize that exploitation by the rich and powerful is a problem. For example, consider the AP article which reports that banks are beginning to take on high-risk investments again, almost immediately after the economic meltdown. But I don't think that the solution is to socialize the economic system. The solution is to regulate the economic system. I think people should have the freedom to raise and use capital, so I would like to see a system which protects that freedom while it prevents abuses.
On the other hand, there is at least a hair-thin distinction between socialism and regulated capitalism. Regulated capitalism, as I envision it, allows for the private ownership of capital, but regulates its use. I'll allow for progressive taxation--the rich can be taxed more than the poor, which is justified based on the idea that the rich really don't have anything important to do with 30% of their money anyway. I'll also allow for trust-busting, as this is a form of regulation.
The only possible argument that regulated capitalism is in fact socialism rests on the assumption that any law or regulation reflects a degree of public control, and therefore, in a sense, regulated capitalism is really some degree of public control of capital. But I think this argument falls apart because I'm speaking of laws which protect the safety of the public, not direct control of capital, and every nation on earth, no matter what system of government or socio-economic system you choose to identify it with, has laws to protect the safety of the public. You therefore can't use such laws to discriminate between different socio-economic systems or systems of government.
That said, I prefer regulated capitalism to socialism for a couple of reasons:
1) Having money and influence is just sweet. I know this sounds silly, but the idea should not be discarded. I think there is real public benefit to having a class of people who have more money than they know what to do with. It shows just how good life gets, and motivates the public to improve their position. It is also, obviously, beneficial to those people who have the money. They get to enjoy life, and I think that's good for everybody.
2) Strict regulation should be enough to prevent abuses of capital. You don't have to resort to public ownership to prevent these abuses.
3) Regulated capitalism is a negative law system. Socialism is a positive law system. I don't mean that regulated capitalism is bad and socialism is good. Rather, I mean that in regulated capitalism, you have a large list of "do not"s--laws which negate something, or negative laws; and in socialism, you have a small list of "do"s--laws which allow for only a few possible courses of action, which everybody must adhere to. Generally, I prefer societies that have negative laws rather than positive laws. Positive laws are usually constricting and dehumanizing.
4) Public ownership will probably end up looking an awful lot like private ownership anyway. When you're dealing with day-to-day decision making, you can't always put everything to a public vote. Therefore, one person or a small group of people, obviously, is going to be in control of the capital anyway. So why even bother? I know that separating the guy in charge from the capital may prevent abuses--if the guy in charge has to say, "I can't do that, it's not mine," then he may be less likely to exploit people. But rich and powerful people should practice saying that anyway--"I can't do that, it's not mine." This is the basis of all morality. I think the only case where taking capital from its owners is justified is if there is direct evidence of hereditary or cultural abuse of that capital. But you can do that by throwing the owners in prison. You don't have to change the entire socio-economic system.
I realize that exploitation by the rich and powerful is a problem. For example, consider the AP article which reports that banks are beginning to take on high-risk investments again, almost immediately after the economic meltdown. But I don't think that the solution is to socialize the economic system. The solution is to regulate the economic system. I think people should have the freedom to raise and use capital, so I would like to see a system which protects that freedom while it prevents abuses.