#

[Tennessee Jed]

The Opposite of Socialism is...

Just off the top of my head…

The historical opposite of socialism is definitely capitalism. Here is a history lesson on the opposition of socialism vs. capitalism.

Historically, modern capitalism arose in the 1760s or so with the start of the Industrial Revolution. (Prior to that was Mercantilism.) Meantime modern socialism arose in the 1820s or 1830s as a reaction to the abuses of modern capitalism. "The Communist Manifesto" was written in 1848, and it addressed the abuses of post-Industrial Revolution capitalism.

The trouble with socialism in the late 1800s and early 1900s was that it didn't actually address how to run a socialist economy. So early socialist/communist economies resulted in state bureaucrats running every facet of the economy and punishing everyone who didn't obey all the rules, resulting in police states.

To resolve that problem, modern social democracies call a truce in the war between capitalism and socialism and allow both to coexist. The result is a "mixed economy." Wikipedia defines social democracy as "a predominantly developed capitalist market economy and liberal democratic polity that expands state intervention to include income redistribution, regulation and a welfare state.

So capitalism and socialism are the original true "opposites." But it's pretty much agreed these days that a modern state needs a mix of both: A degree of capitalism to allow people freedom to choose their own path, but also taxes and social transfers by the government and a welfare state to help the vulnerable and underprivileged.

***************************

As for all the rest of the terms, I suppose you could define them and then maybe set up other types of "opposites." For example:

1) The social psychologist Haidt suggests that Liberalism vs Conservatism represents the "opposite" social values of freedom vs security.

2) Collectivism vs Individualism could be seen as kind of a social mindset "opposition": The social networker vs the independent loner.

3) Populism vs Libertarianism: These are vague terms that mean little more than "for the people" vs. "for the individual." So they are kind of another way of saying "collectivism vs. individualism." (Before Ayn Rand, Libertarianism was associated with anarchism, in other words, personal freedom to the point of having no rules whatsoever.)

***********************

Then you get terms like fascism and authoritarianism. Both represent breakdowns of the "rule of law," and both can arise in any environment.
--Fascism has been around since Rome and Plato; nowadays it represents a breakdown of the "rule of law" that equates to Nationalism: an embrace of racial or class elitism as a unifying theme, usually to dispossess a minority for the benefit of the majority.
--Authoritarianism is a breakdown of the "rule of law" that cites reasons of political expediency (national emergency, for example) as a unifying theme.

In old times, there was no "rule of law," so all kinds of abusive political systems could arise and be considered semi-legitimate. But once a modern consensus arises on what constitutes "rule of law," governments that don't observe "rule of law" increasingly get labelled fascist or authoritarian or whatever.

Again, both fascism and authoritarianism can arise in any environment (socialist or capitalist or whatever). So they don't really have opposites. They just equate to two different varieties of breakdown of the modern concept of the "rule of law."

Again, this is all just off the top of my head...

 

[Virtual ghost]

Really? I thought the thread was about definitions, did you miss the poll?

I suspect "socio-democracy" could be a translation error, the only approximation of it I'm familiar with is social democracy, like the German Social Democrats.

There are plenty of sources which describe non-repressive varieties of socialism. Some see socialism as a means or methodology to achieve individualism for all, as opposed to individualism as the preserve of a few.

I get that the thread is about definition. Yes, socio-democracy is incomplete translation from "Socio-demokracija", my mistake. For me it is possible to have none violent and functional leftism but I don't put socialism anywhere into that mix. For me Socialism is a little bit milder Communism, which apart from religion and private property to some degree has basically same foundation as Nazi ideology.



This is why I like this graph. Since it very nicely solves certain ideological problems.

 

[Lark]

I am true Socialist (Far-Left, Slightly Authoritarian)

Authoritarian, Far-Left - Communism
Slightly Authoritarian, Far-Left - Socialism
Slightly Libertarian, Far-Left - Democratic Socialism
Libertarian, Far-Left - Anarchism

I am against political parties because they are useless for the society. They are tool for manipulations.
I am pro-state oriented because none is the stronger then the state. People forget meaning of the state and what state can do.
I am for exponential taxation and limit of the wealth of individual for $1.000.000. Everything you earn above will go to the state.
I am for investment (give a freedom) to science and art rather then give the freedom of corporations and see another Bill Gates.

If there is a problem with that amount of personal wealth being controlled by individuals would it not be just as much a problem if it where controlled by a single state official? What is the problem with capitalism in the first place or in personal wealth in the first place? What is the meaning of the state? What can the state do? What do you mean by none is stronger than the state? Why is strength important and what way do you define that?

 

[Lark]

Other: Anarcho-capitalism.

The mafia? Really?

A private tyrant is still a tyrant.

No matter how renegade or outlaw a capitalist is going to get I think a mob boss is still likely to be less preferable.

 

[Virtual ghost]

The mafia? Really?

A private tyrant is still a tyrant.

No matter how renegade or outlaw a capitalist is going to get I think a mob boss is still likely to be less preferable.

For me Mafia doesn't really fit the "anarcho" part, stereotypical mafia is more like slightly authoritarian and totally to the economic right.

 

[Falcarius]

There is a difference between socialism as an ideology and it as a political system. The opposite of socialism as an economic system is capitalism, but the opposite of socialism as an ideology is not really capitalism. The ideology opposite could be conservatism, libertarianism, or fascism depending on what one's bias is when they think of socialism as a political theory. Falcarius doubts many people would describe their political ideology as capitalism.

 

[ceecee]

There is a difference between socialism as an ideology and it as a political system.

Yeah I think that's the what people are missing in this thread.

Carry on.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Are you aware of the twelve point program that the Nazi Party adopted before they took over the government via emergency powers measures and never abandoned?

It outlines their economic policies and none of them would be considered centre left. I know that the centre ground of politics has been moved very far into the right wing of the political spectrum. Since politicians, in the english speaking world at least, are able to boldly talk about how little they care about the lives of their constituents and that they would not spend public money to save them or extend their years of life. However, even when the centre ground of politics permitted the discussion of a mixed economy, nationalization/state ownership, those policies would have been further left.

The bankers who sponsored Hitler probably didnt think he was serious about his rhetoric but provided they resembled Nazi ideas about identity enough they could trust their legacies wouldnt be interfered with.

In my part of the world political programs and constitutions are useless and generally irrelevant documents that prove nothing (sorry). Instead you should judge what the person has actually done and that is that he didn't fundamentally ban the private property but he took plenty of property in nationalization from various undesirable minorities (from what I gather). Plus you couldn't operate if your goals didn't match with those of the state. He has risen huge army that is fundamentally a government project. Etc.


For me Hitler is when you go to the center or perhaps very slightly to the economic left and hammer that completely into authoritarian side of things. (in the atmosphere of mid 20th century)

 

[Lark]

Just off the top of my head…

The historical opposite of socialism is definitely capitalism. Here is a history lesson on the opposition of socialism vs. capitalism.

Historically, modern capitalism arose in the 1760s or so with the start of the Industrial Revolution. (Prior to that was Mercantilism.) Meantime modern socialism arose in the 1820s or 1830s as a reaction to the abuses of modern capitalism. "The Communist Manifesto" was written in 1848, and it addressed the abuses of post-Industrial Revolution capitalism.

The trouble with socialism in the late 1800s and early 1900s was that it didn't actually address how to run a socialist economy. So early socialist/communist economies resulted in state bureaucrats running every facet of the economy and punishing everyone who didn't obey all the rules, resulting in police states.

To resolve that problem, modern social democracies call a truce in the war between capitalism and socialism and allow both to coexist. The result is a "mixed economy." Wikipedia defines social democracy as "a predominantly developed capitalist market economy and liberal democratic polity that expands state intervention to include income redistribution, regulation and a welfare state.

So capitalism and socialism are the original true "opposites." But it's pretty much agreed these days that a modern state needs a mix of both: A degree of capitalism to allow people freedom to choose their own path, but also taxes and social transfers by the government and a welfare state to help the vulnerable and underprivileged.

***************************

As for all the rest of the terms, I suppose you could define them and then maybe set up other types of "opposites." For example:

1) The social psychologist Haidt suggests that Liberalism vs Conservatism represents the "opposite" social values of freedom vs security.

2) Collectivism vs Individualism could be seen as kind of a social mindset "opposition": The social networker vs the independent loner.

3) Populism vs Libertarianism: These are vague terms that mean little more than "for the people" vs. "for the individual." So they are kind of another way of saying "collectivism vs. individualism." (Before Ayn Rand, Libertarianism was associated with anarchism, in other words, personal freedom to the point of having no rules whatsoever.)

***********************

Then you get terms like fascism and authoritarianism. Both represent breakdowns in the "rule of law," and both can arise in any environment.
--Fascism has been around since Rome and Plato; nowadays it represents a breakdown of the "rule of law" that equates to Nationalism: an embrace of racial or class elitism as a unifying theme, usually to dispossess a minority for the benefit of the majority.
--Authoritarianism is a breakdown of the "rule of law" that cites reasons of political expediency (national emergency, for example.) as a unifying theme.

In old times, there was no "rule of law," so all kinds of abusive political systems could arise and be considered semi-legitimate. But once a modern consensus arises on what constitutes "rule of law," governments that don't observe "rule of law" increasingly get labelled fascist or authoritarian or whatever.

Again, both fascism and authoritarianism can arise in any environment (socialist or capitalist or whatever). So they don't really have opposites. They just equate to two different varieties of breakdown of the modern concept of the "rule of law."

Again, this is all just off the top of my head...

A very interesting post, I think Haidt is an absolutely atrocious, generalizing author BTW, I really wish that less people would take anything he has to say seriously as he perpetuates a number of very false dichotomies, such as the one you mention or the freedom/security one, which I think is equally mistaken. Collectivism/individualism and populism/libertarianism I think are false dichotomies too.

I also think that while no socialist is likely not to argue that society is ontologically a priori to individuality/individualism there are at least a few who would not (rightly I would think) consider a vaguely defined concept of society as an end, at least not wholly and completely.

I do believe that socialism was a popular response to industrialism, urbanism and individualism, in many ways I think those things are the opposite to socialism, I do think originally it was individualism was the opposite. A lot of the people flooding the urban centres looking for work tried to or wished to recreate the pastroral, village, small township communities. Its why there's all the confused "virtue ethics" ideas still embedded or easily attributed to socialists and socialism.

Marx spent more time criticizing that in his communist manifesto than he did anything else, really, that book could be subtitled "Capitalism!! Fuck, yeah!!!" and you're entirely right about how and why the "communism turn" resulted so quickly in police states.

I am not so sure about your description of mixed economies though. The taxes and transfers are not simply about helping the poor and vulnerable. Capitalism isnt working if there are poor and vulnerable to begin with as its supposed to be a self-regulating, self-contained system, achieving optimal allocative efficient and equitable distribution for all. A spontaneous order. The problem is that, as fine in theory (not to mention appealing) as that is its not so much in fact.

The mixed nature of any economy, and they all are, is a reflection, largely, of attempts to fix things piece meal. In engineering that can sometimes be referred to as "Kluges", temporary fixes which prove useful and become permanent. One of the biggest things about capitalism, at least mass market capitalism, is it needs/requires consumers, consumers with spending power, and thanks to successive industrial revolutions (including the AI one) it probably needs consumers more than it does producers even. At least in the older sense of labour. So welfare states and public services are one of the few remaining ways in that scenario to circulate money at all (let alone fast enough) that the economy can continue to function. Circulating money in the economy is probably the biggest reason for welfare states surviving.

Otherwise what you've got is a sort of institutionalized charity, which I do think a lot of people and politicians think of tax revenue/public spending/services as, creating no value or accomplishing nothing but behaving as a drain on legacies, banks, whatever via tax.

I'm also not sure that "capitalism", whether its a degree or whatever of it, really permits freedom of choice, I definitely do buy that its the rationale for it and a lot of people definitely do believe that. Tellenbach on the forum here is a great example of someone who does. Although I dont.

I think there's a lot of private checks on freedom and free choices, probably as many or more than there is simply in law. In part this reflects scarcity or did reflect scarcity, a lot of people want that sentiment or assumption of scarcity to carry on whether its really a thing or not. It is interesting to think of fascism and authoritarianism as arising from the break down of law and order. I do think that's highly significant.

Although, I also think that there's a lot of fascism and authoritarianism which arises form people forfeiting freedom, their own or others, that fear of freedom gives rise to a sort of "friendly fascism" or "social sado-masochism", which involves "kiss up, piss down" relationships among people, there's always got to be a superior to serve and inferiors to hate on. If there's any relationship between capitalism and fascism/nazism (I dont split hairs about the minutia of those creedos) its that capitalism allows that fear of freedom to survive and fester, in marriages, relationships, social factionalism, management culture, business culture etc. until such times as a crisis hits and fascism bursts upon the scene ready to take advantage of it. Its like a two speed drive to the same destination.

 

[Lark]

For me Mafia doesn't really fit the "anarcho" part, stereotypical mafia is more like slightly authoritarian and totally to the economic right.

Authoritarian sure but they arent government so fine from any anarcho perspective.

It might be dismissed as semantics but I'd suggest voluntary capitalism could be a better definition than anarcho-capitalism, or "capitalism between consenting adults", I think that's what that dude called it in "Anarchy, State and Utopia".

 

[Lark]

There is a difference between socialism as an ideology and it as a political system. The opposite of socialism as an economic system is capitalism, but the opposite of socialism as an ideology is not really capitalism. The ideology opposite could be conservatism, libertarianism, or fascism depending on what one's bias is when they think of socialism as a political theory. Falcarius doubts many people would describe their political ideology as capitalism.

If conservatism is purely about keeping things as they are then its going to look pretty different in a society which is communist to one which is capitalist.

 

[Lark]

Yeah I think that's the what people are missing in this thread.

Carry on.

There probably is a difference between capitalism as system and ideology too.

Although it does interest me how much individualism has gone out of vogue and remained out of vogue despite the rise of libertarianism, free market fantasy etc.

 

[Norexan]

If there is a problem with that amount of personal wealth being controlled by individuals would it not be just as much a problem if it where controlled by a single state official? What is the problem with capitalism in the first place or in personal wealth in the first place? What is the meaning of the state? What can the state do? What do you mean by none is stronger than the state? Why is strength important and what way do you define that?

You are not socialist.

 

[Tennessee Jed]

I also think that while no socialist is likely not to argue that society is ontologically a priori to individuality/individualism there are at least a few who would not (rightly I would think) consider a vaguely defined concept of society as an end, at least not wholly and completely.

I do believe that socialism was a popular response to industrialism, urbanism and individualism, in many ways I think those things are the opposite to socialism, I do think originally it was individualism was the opposite. A lot of the people flooding the urban centres looking for work tried to or wished to recreate the pastroral, village, small township communities. Its why there's all the confused "virtue ethics" ideas still embedded or easily attributed to socialists and socialism.

Marx spent more time criticizing that in his communist manifesto than he did anything else, really, that book could be subtitled "Capitalism!! Fuck, yeah!!!" and you're entirely right about how and why the "communism turn" resulted so quickly in police states.

I think I get what you're saying here. Early socialism wasn't so much about economics. As you say, there was a social vision there as well, a desire to turn back the clock, escape the urban slums and the sweatshops, and "recreate the pastroral, village, small township communities." Early Socialism theory contained a huge component of idealism about the perfectibility of man, and how mankind could be brought to an ideal state of happiness if we could just escape the shackles of capitalism.

In fact, the same could be said about Capitalism--Capitalism is in fact a theory about the perfectibility of man. It's about more than just money and profits. Capitalist theory contains a big idealistic component as well: new technologies and labor-saving devices lifting the masses out of poverty, bringing transportation, leisure, cleanliness, and better health to the people, creating a stable, healthy, educated middle class to act as both high-tech workers and willing consumers, etc.

Same with early theories about Democracy, the division of power among the three branches of government, federalism, etc. If you read the original papers of the U.S. Founding Fathers, you see that same idealism: The perfectibility of man, if you can just find the right political formula.

Capitalism, socialism, democracy: All talking about achieving the same goals. The perfectibility of man, the betterment of mankind. So what's the common thread here? Answer: Romanticism.

The Romantic movement started with Rousseau in 1750 and officially lasted about a century. It was all about the perfectibility of mankind if you could just find the right formula that would allow mankind to flourish: Small peasant communities, nature, democracy, whatever. The Romantic ideal was alive and guiding the thinking behind all the great documents and movements of the 1700s and 1800s. Capitalism, Socialism, Democracy, and so on.

In many ways, the Romantic movement is still alive today. The title one of Ayn Rand's books is "The Romantic Manifesto," where she talks about how her political theories are outgrowths of Romanticism: Give man his economic freedom, and he will flourish.

The trouble with Romantic ideals is that they are mostly just ideals. Romantic ideals are very tough to translate into reality. So when you say that Capitalism is a failure, you are correct: It's a failure of early 1800s Romantic theory. Socialism is similarly a failure. Democracy is a failure at times as well. All three systems are Romantic theories that don't work very well when you try to translate them into real life.

So in the end, you have to jigger them a bit, make adjustments, find compromises, etc. No single theoretical system is going to work and bring mankind to Nirvana all by itself. It's all just Romantic theorizing. Reality says: Find compromises between Socialism and Capitalism so that you can curb the worst abuses of each and enjoy some of the benefits of both. Same with Democracy: Sometimes it works; other times (like right now with COVID-19), emergencies arise and democratic principles get thrown out the window in order to deal with those emergencies.

No theory is perfect. They are just guidelines. Ideals. Ultimately it's compromises that win the day. You tinker about and try to find a workable compromise that gets you a consensus, a daily system that everyone can live with.

So I agree with you: Capitalism fails in some ways. And so does Socialism. But if you make some compromises between the two…

Again, just theorizing off the top of my head. Just some brainstorming on a Sunday afternoon.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Authoritarian sure but they arent government so fine from any anarcho perspective.

For me that is irrelevant, authority is authority (laws are just subtype of authority). After all the wet dream of every mafia is that they will eventually become some kind of government in the end. Through which they will protect their "business".

You are not socialist.

Over the years I told him that a number of times. Maybe in his country he is but not toward mine.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

Some other ism. Me to dumb to know.

Beddar question. What do all isms have in commuhn

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

There is no exact opposite. Socialism is too general a word here. Which type of socialism?

 

[Z Buck McFate]

There is a difference between socialism as an ideology and it as a political system.

Yeah I think that's the what people are missing in this thread.

Carry on.

Yeah.

It's been years since I read Marx, but (IIRC) I'd say it's the opposite of unregulated capitalism. Like, by definition? And the original concept is the only one my mind doesn't instinctively reject since Socialism Misconception Fatigue set in about 10-15 years ago (because of people equating it with communism like bosses).

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

I understand that communism and socialism are actually different, although related, pointed in the same direction. Communism takes the concept of socialism much further. Every society has shared, public goods that by their nature don't fit with individual ownership. How much of a society's resources that are defined that way would result in degree of socialism, but every society almost has to have some socialist programs. Socialism also does not indicate that there is no individual ownership of property, but that production is community owned. It sounds like it extends the idea of commerce and production to the notion of public good because the efforts engaged in it are community oriented.

Economically there is the question of individual ownership, but that extends to the question of whether an individual can own the efforts, production, and property of another individual. Capitalism allows for individuals to exert ownership over other individuals to some extent - like Walmart's treatment of its employees which includes taking out life insurance policies on them without their knowledge, and not providing benefits like health insurance. That is a kind of exertion of ownership and rights of one individual thwarting another individual's rights.

I would say the opposite of socialism would be in the direction of libertarianism and the opposite of communism would take it further to anarchy. Both Libertarianism and anarchy allow for individual thwarting rights of other individuals because it does not put into place society level safeguards.

Socialism: a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Communism: a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.

 

[Lark]

You are not socialist.

If socialism isnt anything other than statism then I'd say you're right but its not, so....