NON-FICTION: The Hindrance of Categorization: Capitalism and Socialism

 I have just read through five pages/articles, 1 2 3 4 5 , on whether or not Sweden is Socialist.

And, anyone who reads this is likely already inclined to an answer, and ready to choose a category.

The funny thing is that so much analysis of Sweden, that I've seen, appears to use the facts of Sweden's legal and economic systems to argue for its exclusion from or inclusion into ill defined categories: Capitalism and Socialism.

The principle that puts observation and comprehension before assessment of value is one that humans generally have a hard time keeping to.  Thus, we often tend to merely jump to categories, and away from the actual complexity of the phenomena we are referring to. 

Moreover, these categories are daily employed in a manner that unconsciously obfuscates their prescriptive and descriptive variants, their doctrinal variants, and their taxonomic variants.

When a Trotskyist argues for socialism, she likely has a clear definition of what she means by that.  She is likely arguing that it is a good thing for a party of people to acquire power over the economy and government in the name of the proletariat/workers.  But when she talks of capitalism, she is more likely to regard the proposals for economic systems put forth by Carl Menger, by Adam Smith, by Mitlon Friedman, by Wilfredo Pareto , by Friedrich Hayek, by Ayn Rand,or the actual policies enacted by administrators of the various capitalist systems as all more or less the same thing, and unworthy of separate consideration.

Conversely, proponents of capitalism, particularly the anti-analytical, shaken up sheep that one sees all over the t.v. denouncing Obama as a socialist are generally ignorant of both the classification and particulars of the policies they oppose as well as the conceptual delineations and history of the ideas they propose.

What in the world does it mean to describe countries as socialist or capitalist and on this basis argue for the superiority of either supposed system?

I have, for the last few years increasingly felt that, at the base of our crumbling ideological fortresses are merely actual policies and facts of our existence, which would be much more intelligible without the convoluted artifices that we construct around them.

I have also noticed that a fundamental flaw in the debates over political ideology carried out in our culture on the small level as well as in the popular media is that it aims at little efficacious consequence, and is almost entirely carried out for the purpose of rhetorical victory.

The ideologues and faction lovers that comprise much of the discussion of what to do on the national level are often entirely lacking in the drive towards achieving mutually agreeable outcomes.

Such agreement is also considered disloyal to the ideologies.  It is perhaps a legacy of the our great Christian tradition that we consider allegiance to wide conceptual schemes, constructed to guide our behavior, more important than the success of that behavior.

It is not enough for the ideologue and enlightened person to find mutually desirable outcomes.  It is not enough to agree on mutually desired goals, as anarchists and therapists recommend.

For many of us, the important thing is allegiance to ideas.  This is why a discussion of how to provide poor people with medical care becomes a grand debate between competing visions of the universe.  (The opponents said, "We all want everyone to have healthcare, but...."  A teenage student of mine once told me "In Chinese, when you say 'something, something, but...' That means everything you said before but is nonsense." )  What most people are incapable of is saying.  I want health care, you want health care, let's start from there, and be open to revision at each step of the way. If this inability to deal rationally with each other at the national level is obvious, you should then wonder why you still cannot fix it.

The vast array of politicians, the vast array of powerless commentators, and the vast array of financial interests could not simply agree on a common goal.  Rather, the public was given the choice between Government Takeover and Health care For All.  We were asked to choose between these alternative perspectives.

The actual problem of providing health care to poor people was inaccessible in the popular dialogue.

But something was accomplished.  In all the fighting and confusion, there was a group who united together in natural solidarity.  That group was the health care lobby.  Many of the aides who helped shaped the health care legislation were registered health care lobbyists, and the the health care industry gave generously to most everyone involved in the debate.

And, in the end, it seems that the healt hcare industry was most successful.  People who own stock in HMO's are also getting something from this, as HMO stocks have been doing quite well.

There is no irony in this.  Our economic system, as well as our society creates a framework in which manipulation of the government for financial gain is utterly reasonable. It was so with Hamilton's crew, and Jefferson's crew, and all who came after them. 

I know of many proponents of Capitalism that oppose this, and all opponents of Capitalism also oppose this.  Nonetheless, it is a constant feature of our country, and most countries, that has been with us throughout our short history.

Rich people have disproportionate power over the government.  And, generally, bosses have more power than employees.

Now, this is something that people would benefit from talking about.  Should rich people have more influence over the government?  Many, perhaps most of those among the first generation of our Nation believed that they should.

Likewise, there are still many people that believe it is fair for the employer to have more decision making power in the company than the employees.  There are also many who support unions.

And, as for the desired political ideology, we ought to take a break, for at least twenty years, and instead focus on profitable questions.

There is no Real Capitalism in existence today.  If you doubt this, go to misses.org.   Proponents of capitalism argue for systems that don't exist, and have never existed.  The same goes for proponents of socialism.

There are some people who thought the Soviet Union was the best system imaginable, or who thought the British system was the best, or the Dutch, or the French, or, of course, the American.

But, generally, the people who grasp the system for what it is and work with it are regarded as unprincipled, wishy-washy, and unscrupulous.  Many of them are.  There are also those, who really do want to effect positive changes in the lives of their fellow citizens.  There are people who want to make others healthier, happier, more comfortable, and more educated.

These people are much more valuable than socialists denouncing false-trotskyists, marxists villifying corporations, O'Reilly denouncing Oberman, etc.

At the very least, we ought to preach to each the other the doctrine of first delineating the varieties of the beliefs we oppose, even, god forbid, when that extends to theology.