The United States has two fundamental philosophies: Capitalism and Democracy. In everyday life, these ideals don’t seem to collide much. We still get to vote for our mayor, our governor, our local representatives, and we still go to work for a boss who makes a profit off of our work, and gives us a wage in return. They seem like almost independent concepts, coexisting with each other and not at all mutually exclusive.
However, this couldn’t be further from the truth.
However, this couldn’t be further from the truth.
What Capitalism Means
To explain why these two concepts are so diametrically opposed to each other, we must first define precisely what they are. This is often way more complicated than it would seem from the outside, and often definitions are vague, with many people interpreting them in many different ways.
Capitalism is an economic system where capital is owned privately. What the heck does that mean? Well, an economic system is essentially how work, money, and the economy as a whole is managed, in the same way that a system of government is the way people and power are managed. Capital is anything that generates profit for anyone who owns it. Businesses are capital. Factories are capital. Human work is capital. Capital is sometimes called the “means of production” or “private property”. When socialists talk about “abolishing private property”, they do not want to take away your toaster, or share the People’s Toothbrush (gross). Rather, they want to seize the means of production and have those who operate capital (the workers) manage it (more on this later).
What does it mean for something to be owned privately? For capital to be owned privately, it must be owned by an individual (a CEO) or multiple individuals (LLC members, Partners, Shareholders). These individuals obtain the capital by buying it, or by buying the resources/equipment necessary to make it function. They are responsible for hiring employees to tend to the capital (working, manufacturing, cleaning, basically all of the work) while they merely get to sit back and enjoy the profits, as they are legally entitled to them because they own the capital in question (more on this later).
Democracy is a system of government where the people are allowed to have a say on decisions that affect them. Democracy can take many forms, such as direct democracy, parliamentary democracy, or pluralist democracy. But the core goal is to give the most people possible a say in as many things as possible that are important to all of them. Where the balance of allowing people certain rights–and disallowing people certain rights to protect the rights of others–is a line many governments have drawn in many different places.
Capitalism is an economic system where capital is owned privately. What the heck does that mean? Well, an economic system is essentially how work, money, and the economy as a whole is managed, in the same way that a system of government is the way people and power are managed. Capital is anything that generates profit for anyone who owns it. Businesses are capital. Factories are capital. Human work is capital. Capital is sometimes called the “means of production” or “private property”. When socialists talk about “abolishing private property”, they do not want to take away your toaster, or share the People’s Toothbrush (gross). Rather, they want to seize the means of production and have those who operate capital (the workers) manage it (more on this later).
What does it mean for something to be owned privately? For capital to be owned privately, it must be owned by an individual (a CEO) or multiple individuals (LLC members, Partners, Shareholders). These individuals obtain the capital by buying it, or by buying the resources/equipment necessary to make it function. They are responsible for hiring employees to tend to the capital (working, manufacturing, cleaning, basically all of the work) while they merely get to sit back and enjoy the profits, as they are legally entitled to them because they own the capital in question (more on this later).
Democracy is a system of government where the people are allowed to have a say on decisions that affect them. Democracy can take many forms, such as direct democracy, parliamentary democracy, or pluralist democracy. But the core goal is to give the most people possible a say in as many things as possible that are important to all of them. Where the balance of allowing people certain rights–and disallowing people certain rights to protect the rights of others–is a line many governments have drawn in many different places.
THE PROBLEMS WITH CAPTALISM
The people actually working are usually only compensated with a small portion of the profits, such as a wage or salary. If a worker tries to fight for higher pay, the boss(es) can always threaten to fire the worker and replace them with a more desperate person who is eager to fill that position. Workers have had some success through collective bargaining, using labor unions (large associations of workers who agree to make decisions together) to organize strikes and protests. After all, filling the job slot of one rebellious worker is an easy task, but filling the jobs of 80,000 unionized workers is a much more daunting and financially disadvantageous task.
However, in recent years companies have come up with new and creative ways to destroy collective bargaining. Union-busting, as it is known, seeks to misinform workers about how unions fight for their rights. For example, they might exaggerate the cost of union dues, which are small contributions of money that are necessary for unions to fight for workers rights. In the long run, however, unions will make workers more money than if the union had not been there. If these attempts prove unfruitful, the companies will simply fire workers who try to unionize. Because US law prohibits firing workers for the sole reason of attempting to form a union, companies will come up with phony claims of decreased productivity or not showing up to work enough. Despite the often obvious false nature of these obvious claims, US politicians tend to be rich capital owners, and thus turn a blind eye to these union-busting measures.
However, in recent years companies have come up with new and creative ways to destroy collective bargaining. Union-busting, as it is known, seeks to misinform workers about how unions fight for their rights. For example, they might exaggerate the cost of union dues, which are small contributions of money that are necessary for unions to fight for workers rights. In the long run, however, unions will make workers more money than if the union had not been there. If these attempts prove unfruitful, the companies will simply fire workers who try to unionize. Because US law prohibits firing workers for the sole reason of attempting to form a union, companies will come up with phony claims of decreased productivity or not showing up to work enough. Despite the often obvious false nature of these obvious claims, US politicians tend to be rich capital owners, and thus turn a blind eye to these union-busting measures.
Politicians in the US have a habit of pretending that politics and economics are two completely different things; on the contrary, the economy affects much of our everyday lives. It decides whether we are able to afford a house and food or not, whether we can afford to entertain ourselves or not, and whether we can afford to lead happy lives or not. Thus, the economy is something that the people should have a say in, according to democracy. When you are at work, you have very little say in anything you do. You do not get to decide your working conditions or safety, your pay, how your work is managed, or what your hours are, among many other things.
Imagine, for a moment, that you are a farmer. Everyday, for 10 hours, you are hard at work, sowing seeds, operating dangerous machinery, watering soil, and tending to livestock. You receive $72.50 at the end of the day, barely enough to feed you, your wife, and your kids, pay your rent, and afford basic necessities, maybe not even enough for all of these things. Every month, a rich man in a suit comes down from an urban area, watches you for a day or so while he talks on the phone, then goes back to living in luxury. He is the one who collects the vast majority of the value your work generated, despite you being the one who did all of the work, simply because he happens to own the farm. This is miserable. But what is your alternative? You could stop working, but if you did you would not have enough money to afford food, and would eventually starve and die. This is not an option. Either you accept your rights being trampled on and your hard work being exploited, or you die. This is the cold reality of capitalism.
This same story is true of the coal miner, or the steel worker, or the automobile manufacturer, or the accountant, or the schoolteacher. They put in all of the hard work, only to be given just enough to show up to work the next day. This is not democracy. This is not giving people a decision in something that very much pertains to them. This is slavery.
Imagine, for a moment, that you are a farmer. Everyday, for 10 hours, you are hard at work, sowing seeds, operating dangerous machinery, watering soil, and tending to livestock. You receive $72.50 at the end of the day, barely enough to feed you, your wife, and your kids, pay your rent, and afford basic necessities, maybe not even enough for all of these things. Every month, a rich man in a suit comes down from an urban area, watches you for a day or so while he talks on the phone, then goes back to living in luxury. He is the one who collects the vast majority of the value your work generated, despite you being the one who did all of the work, simply because he happens to own the farm. This is miserable. But what is your alternative? You could stop working, but if you did you would not have enough money to afford food, and would eventually starve and die. This is not an option. Either you accept your rights being trampled on and your hard work being exploited, or you die. This is the cold reality of capitalism.
This same story is true of the coal miner, or the steel worker, or the automobile manufacturer, or the accountant, or the schoolteacher. They put in all of the hard work, only to be given just enough to show up to work the next day. This is not democracy. This is not giving people a decision in something that very much pertains to them. This is slavery.
The Alternative
The alternative to capitalism is something called socialism. This word may conjure some negative connotations, perhaps an image of a totalitarian dictator controlling people's lives, but the truth is that this image is simply not true. In fact, the vast majority of Americans are not even aware of what socialism is. So what is it?
Socialism is an economic system where the means of production are owned publicly. This means that the people who actually maintain capital and put in all of the work are the ones in charge. Socialism is merely the natural extension of democracy to the workplace. Workers vote on company policy and decide the budgeting of the capital (including their pay), the working conditions, and the structuring of the workplace. This is what seizing the means of production is. It does not have to be through a violent coup or a revolution. It can be through democratic means (although our current system allows for very little democracy) or through peaceful protest. This is how we achieved unions, how we achieved the Civil Rights Act, and how we achieved women's suffrage- and it will be how we achieve socialism.
“But what about small businesses?” some critical thinkers may ask. “What about my dad’s pizza place?” These are excellent questions. The truth is that socialism is not an immediate change, like flicking a light switch; on the contrary, it is a gradual and fluid process. Chances are, if your dad does just as much work as the employees, and does not excessively profit off of their labor, he is probably safe for now. Would it be better if his business was democratically run? Of course! But if he did a good job of running the business previously, he may even be elected by the workers as the new operations manager of the team.
“But haven’t most socialist states failed?” This is grossly untrue. Anytime a socialist state has failed, it is because every other capitalist state on earth seeks to destroy it. Cuba, for example, only turned to authoritarianism after its most essential trade partner, the USA, cut off all trade with it. The embargo on Cuba is still ongoing, and remains to be repealed, even after desperate calls from the U.N. and socialists the world over. Cuba even still maintains some level of democracy, in the way people can elect local leaders who in turn elect national leaders. It isn’t ideal, but for a country starved of trade of any kind, it is certainly impressive. Not to mention the many socialist nations that didn’t buckle under economic pressure, such as Chile or Burkina Faso. The leaders of these countries raised the GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of their respective countries, increased statewide education, fed the many impoverished and starving, and put women and minorities in positions of power. The capitalist nations, seeing the staggering success of these nations, were frightened at the prospect that this new economic system might work, and the socialist leaders of Chile and Burkina Faso (Salvador Allende and Thomas Sankara) were killed in western sponsored coup d’etats.
Not to mention that most capitalist nations that have adopted free-market policies have failed even more miserably. Take a look at the post-colonial states in Africa, Latin America, and Asia embroiled in civil war. I would much rather live in socialist Cuba than in modern-day Somalia. This failure was not the fault of the people of those countries, but rather of their former colonial oppressors. They encouraged these nations to adopt capitalism, and for a reason. Keeping these former colonial states poor and desperate actually allows colonialism to continue. This is known as Neo-Colonialism, where wealthy states steal the resources of poorer countries by arranging one sided deals that the poorer countries must accept out of desperation. In fact, those rich countries actually became rich because of more socialist-leaning policies, such as labor union protections and welfare.
Before we head to our conclusion, I would like to clear one thing up. Many people conflate the words “communism” and “socialism” and use them somewhat interchangeably. What is “communism” really? Communism is merely a sect of socialism that believes that the ideal society exists without currency, social classes, or a government. Communists believe in different ways of achieving this ideal society, and they are known as Marxists and Anarchists. I won’t explain much further, because if you continue on long enough, labels become meaningless and nothing makes sense anymore. All you really need to know is that communism is a certain type of socialism.
Socialism is an economic system where the means of production are owned publicly. This means that the people who actually maintain capital and put in all of the work are the ones in charge. Socialism is merely the natural extension of democracy to the workplace. Workers vote on company policy and decide the budgeting of the capital (including their pay), the working conditions, and the structuring of the workplace. This is what seizing the means of production is. It does not have to be through a violent coup or a revolution. It can be through democratic means (although our current system allows for very little democracy) or through peaceful protest. This is how we achieved unions, how we achieved the Civil Rights Act, and how we achieved women's suffrage- and it will be how we achieve socialism.
“But what about small businesses?” some critical thinkers may ask. “What about my dad’s pizza place?” These are excellent questions. The truth is that socialism is not an immediate change, like flicking a light switch; on the contrary, it is a gradual and fluid process. Chances are, if your dad does just as much work as the employees, and does not excessively profit off of their labor, he is probably safe for now. Would it be better if his business was democratically run? Of course! But if he did a good job of running the business previously, he may even be elected by the workers as the new operations manager of the team.
“But haven’t most socialist states failed?” This is grossly untrue. Anytime a socialist state has failed, it is because every other capitalist state on earth seeks to destroy it. Cuba, for example, only turned to authoritarianism after its most essential trade partner, the USA, cut off all trade with it. The embargo on Cuba is still ongoing, and remains to be repealed, even after desperate calls from the U.N. and socialists the world over. Cuba even still maintains some level of democracy, in the way people can elect local leaders who in turn elect national leaders. It isn’t ideal, but for a country starved of trade of any kind, it is certainly impressive. Not to mention the many socialist nations that didn’t buckle under economic pressure, such as Chile or Burkina Faso. The leaders of these countries raised the GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of their respective countries, increased statewide education, fed the many impoverished and starving, and put women and minorities in positions of power. The capitalist nations, seeing the staggering success of these nations, were frightened at the prospect that this new economic system might work, and the socialist leaders of Chile and Burkina Faso (Salvador Allende and Thomas Sankara) were killed in western sponsored coup d’etats.
Not to mention that most capitalist nations that have adopted free-market policies have failed even more miserably. Take a look at the post-colonial states in Africa, Latin America, and Asia embroiled in civil war. I would much rather live in socialist Cuba than in modern-day Somalia. This failure was not the fault of the people of those countries, but rather of their former colonial oppressors. They encouraged these nations to adopt capitalism, and for a reason. Keeping these former colonial states poor and desperate actually allows colonialism to continue. This is known as Neo-Colonialism, where wealthy states steal the resources of poorer countries by arranging one sided deals that the poorer countries must accept out of desperation. In fact, those rich countries actually became rich because of more socialist-leaning policies, such as labor union protections and welfare.
Before we head to our conclusion, I would like to clear one thing up. Many people conflate the words “communism” and “socialism” and use them somewhat interchangeably. What is “communism” really? Communism is merely a sect of socialism that believes that the ideal society exists without currency, social classes, or a government. Communists believe in different ways of achieving this ideal society, and they are known as Marxists and Anarchists. I won’t explain much further, because if you continue on long enough, labels become meaningless and nothing makes sense anymore. All you really need to know is that communism is a certain type of socialism.
It is of utmost importance to fight for socialism. Democracy cannot exist without a change in the economic system, and that change needs to be to an economy where workers control their work, instead of a person who merely profits off of their work without doing anything themselves. Capitalism is what fuels the current destruction of the planet we live on, and many of the wars we are fighting. We cannot have a better world without destroying capitalism.
Workers of the world unite, for you have nothing to lose but your chains!
Workers of the world unite, for you have nothing to lose but your chains!
Erik Wilberding
