It seems to me that neither “capitalism” nor “socialism” are well-known names. As I’ve mentioned here in the past, my experience is that most Americans who prefer “socialism” don’t actually prefer the dictionary definition of government ownership of the means of production, but instead something similar to the Scandinavian approach to government taxes and taxation. I prefer it. expenditure. But Swedes, who have lived closely with Soviet Russian-style socialism for decades, generally say that they are not socialists but follow their own form of capitalism. Sometimes ‘socialism’ becomes the name of a desire for a better world, while ‘capitalism’ is blamed for all the problems of modern life. In other words, you are comparing apples and oranges.
The meaning of “capitalism” is also confusing. Robert Fredona, Sophus A. Reinert, and Teresa da Silva Lopes address some of the issues below. “Form of Capitalism” (Business history reviewSpring 2024, 98:1, pp. 3-35).
Among the many examples they provide is a 1939 book by NSB Gras, a prominent Harvard Business School professor, who described six types of “capitalism.” business and capitalism: Electronic capitalism, petit capitalism, commercial capitalism, industrial capitalism, financial capitalism, state capitalism. Grass wrote:[T]The term capitalism must be discarded or differentiated from terms such as ‘rheumatism’ and ‘indigestion’. Certainly, discrimination in the use of a term undermines its promotional value. But our interest here is simply in a better understanding of the subject.”
In American politics, it sometimes seems to be assumed that ‘capitalism’ means the Republican Party and ‘socialism’ means the Democratic Party. But these terms do not exist as shorthand for 21st-century American politics, nor as a way to distinguish America’s economic and political systems from those of Northern Europe. After reviewing attempts to define capitalism and distinguish between various “capitalisms,” the authors write (footnotes omitted):
Mere dictionary definitions aside, after 150 years of well-intentioned efforts by some of our sharpest minds, we appear to be no closer to a meaningful consensus on the definition of capitalism or the historical boundaries of the phenomenon. The caution suggested by Weber in defining “religion” (“definition can be attempted only at the conclusion of the study”) should perhaps be applied to the study of “capitalism” in equal or greater proportions.
Some definitions seem too broad. For example, the NSB Gras definition is “a system of making a living using capital” and means “goods or trained abilities used to produce other goods or services.” More comprehensive is Deirdre McCloskey’s. She has grandly asserted that capitalism and the market economy, which “despite what you may have heard, have existed since the caves,” are synonymous. “Market participants are capitalists. For example, you are.” Some seem a bit exclusive. Despite his protests against it, Braudel’s insistence that capitalism (a separate world in which an exceptional kind of capitalism goes on, in my opinion the only true capitalism) must be separated from both material life and the market economy, and that it ” What one finds only in the “dark zone” of great merchants and monopolies “hovering above the sunlit world of the market economy” seems rigid and artificial (or at least overly Olympian). In stark contrast to McCloskey’s Paleolithic capitalists, some pushed the “dawn of capitalism” into the 1830s or ’40s. Rather than allowing all market participants to be capitalists, most definitions are more restrictive, such as David Schweickart’s definition. For him, a capitalist is “a person who owns enough productive assets to be able to live comfortably on the income generated by those assets if he wishes.” asset.” …
Many of capitalism’s most staunch defenders say that capitalism without competition is not capitalism at all. “In reality, capitalism and competition are opposites,” says Peter Thiel, a capitalist by every definition we read. The best definition runs the risk of being somewhat boring. The most interesting people seem to be more interested in the spirit of capitalism than in its form. This is what Wallerstein identified as an essential and inherently irrational feature of capitalism. That is, “the relentless quest for the endless accumulation of capital, that is, the accumulation of capital to accumulate more capital” and “a mechanism for punishing actors who try to act on capital.” Pursuing different values or goals”…
In capitalism, accuracy is neither always required nor always helpful. … Many of the newly invented “forms” of capitalism we listed above (perhaps especially the most unusual ones, such as “sugar daddy capitalism” or “candy crush capitalism”) may be a way to identify “forms of capitalism” in society that are not new. It is a new characteristic of capitalism, which has a traditional meaning but is defined in a large and multifaceted way. In the same vein, but from a different perspective, we might consider what characteristics ‘managerial capitalism’ and ‘loot capitalism’, or ‘commercial capitalism’ and ‘casino capitalism’ share. But from either perspective, we can say it like this: Capitalism shapes families.
Another possible approach to capitalism is spatial. It is no longer enough to think of society as a whole in terms of stages or as units of study, as Frederic Lane once did. He said, “Capitalism is a matter of degree. “It is difficult to find a society that is 100% capitalist or 0% capitalist,” he argued.
Naturally, some of these definitions of capitalism appeal to me more than others, but I won’t fight that battle here. I would note that, in my view, the world’s high-income countries are modeled after various forms of capitalism that embody different social trade-offs, but they are all “capitalist.” Fredona, Reinert and da Silva Lopes wrote: “I propose that we take a step back and rethink the origins of business history: NSB Gras’ declaration that we must either abandon capitalism or differentiate. Whatever it is, whenever capitalism begins, it seems to be more productive and more destructive than any other force in human history. It also seems like an unwieldy plural.”
