Imagine No -isms

Capitalism. Socialism. Communism. Fascism. Despotism. Are you terrified yet? Each of these words evokes fear in some subset of the American audience. Would you believe that they don't have to?

Okay, fascism is a hard sell. But…think about the military structure and chain of command. That’s about as fascist as it gets, and honestly, there’s not a lot of room in combat for second-guessing who’s in charge. But mostly I want to delve into the old Capitalism vs. Socialism debate, but in a roundabout way.

So you’ve got the neutral -isms: capitalism, socialism, communism, authoritarianism, fascism, despotism, etc. I didn’t get into the racism, misogynism/misogyny, etc, and I’m not getting into them here either. Those are the negative -isms, and there are similar ways to think about them, but I limit these essays to about eight hundred to a thousand words, so I’ll confine myself to the neutral -isms this time.

We’ve talked about the differences between, say, socialism and communism, and capitalism on our podcast. We’ve gotten deep into fascism for a number of podisodes as well. We haven’t touched on despotism much at all, but I personally believe people conflate despotism and authoritarianism to the point that there’s not much reason to bother with the distinction in common conversation.

I’ll get into it for a paragraph here because I brought it up, and it’s irritating to me when people bring up stuff but don’t elaborate. Authoritarianism is concentrated power at the top, but may have institutions even to the extent that they can operate independently to some degree. Think of Putin’s Russia, or China, and its special economic zones. These are clearly authoritarian states, but if it’s not always apparent, whereas in a despotic country, it would be clearly obvious because all decisions would be made by dear leader, and not hidden under the guise of organizational structures that seem independent…until they overstep.

My point in writing this Imagine series essay isn’t to denigrate China or Russia, but to ask you, Reader, to imagine better. In the discussions even in our press, which in my opinion should know better, there’s an undercurrent of “capitalism versus socialism.” It’s almost unavoidable.

So…what do all these -isms have in common? Purity tests and true believers. There are those true believers who believe capitalism will solve all of our woes if left unencumbered by the rule of law, or, restated, unencumbered by the oversight of the people. Then there are socialist true believers, who think that all of capitalism is evil and that the workers should not only encumber free trade, but should own the means of production, so they should have all of the power over commerce for goods. Then there’s communism, which is a bit more extreme, pushing for a classless, stateless society (meh, kind of, the real difference is more nuanced). But a true believer in communism would never advocate for socialism, and a true believer in capitalism would never advocate for either.

But the truth is, we need all of these. In some areas of commerce, it’s fine to have unfettered capitalism. Things like decorative book-ends, for example, are hardly going to kill someone if they’re built incorrectly. For other areas of commerce, the people need some say because they’re dangerous, like cars and guns, for example. For still other areas of commerce, profit makes absolutely no sense, like non-elective medical care, whereas other purely cosmetic care probably can be more free market. My point here is that, to the purists, they have found the golden hammer that turns everything it touches into a nail. This, of course, isn’t the truth. The truth is that maybe sometimes you need a hammer, and sometimes you need a wrench. But try arguing the benefits of capitalism to a socialist true-believer. And…just to be fair…have you ever tried arguing the benefits of socialism with a capitalist true believer?

We breed ideologues here in the United States. I’m not sure if it’s like this everywhere, but here at least, we tend to get into the trenches on behalf of our favorite -isms. We need to do better because trying to solve the wrong problems with the wrong -ism is a non-starter, but being ideologically pure can make the right solution impossible to achieve. The example is simple: healthcare. Healthcare as a for-profit industry has created a condition in this country called “medical bankruptcy.” In some countries, they haven’t even heard of that term—can you believe that? It’s true. Why? Because they aren’t trying to solve health care with capitalism. Once we admit to ourselves that we, as humans, are entirely unwilling to just let our loved ones die, however bad their health might be, then we start to see the problem.

How much would I spend to keep my child alive? Easily, everything I own. I suspect it’s the same for all of us who have children, and many of us who have pets. A spot of levity, but you get the point, right? Decisions like that can’t be served by capitalism because there’s no equality at the negotiating table. There’s no room to haggle when the choice is “spend all your money” or “let your loved one die.” In fact, that’s a fair litmus test for the boundary between capitalism and socialism generally: if someone’s life hangs in the balance, maybe capitalism isn’t the right move? I’ve got so much more to say on this topic, but I’ll close with this: let’s be smarter than prior generations. Let’s recognize what a hammer is good for, and acknowledge the fact that banging a threaded bolt into its home with a hammer will only strip the threads. It’ll never secure anything.

Sometimes you need a wrench.

And sometimes…you need a touch of old-fashioned worker controlling the means of production. Just a thought.