What Do "Capitalism" And "Socialism" Really Mean?

Authored by Vincent Cook via Mises Institute,

The old debate between socialism and capitalism is back. It wasn't that long ago when socialist economics had been repudiated even by former Soviet insiders, businesses like Wendy's and Miller ran clever television advertisements poking fun at the once-mighty but by then grossly dysfunctional Soviet Union, and the remaining leftist political parties in Western countries pivoted to focusing on promoting welfare statism while admitting that government controls over the means of production is a losing proposition. Back in the day, even people lacking the keen theoretical insights of a Ludwig von Mises could plainly see that actual attempts to realize socialism, however well-intentioned they were originally, only delivered totalitarian tyranny and mass impoverishment.

Since then, schools haven't been so keen on teaching younger generations that a system based on individual liberty constrained only by peacefully-acquired private ownership rights is what delivers the goods and what enables competent adults to function as morally- and intellectually-autonomous individuals. Neither do they teach that politically-generated handouts, subsidies, privileges, and immunities, nor governmental fiat money creation or unrealistic governmental promises of future economic security are at the root of many of the worsening problems afflicting the productive classes in our society today. Instead, young people have been indoctrinated with a belief that "capitalist" private profit-seeking and the cultural and religious traditions spontaneously propagated in an individualistic culture are to blame for all of society's ills and injustices. They are taught that only by instituting "socialism" to overthrow capitalism and forcibly re-engineer America's culture to "woke" specifications can such problems be solved.

Many contemporary defenders of socialism deny that they have anything like the Soviet Union in mind when they use the "socialist" label (though there is a Marxist Unity Group within the Democratic Socialists of America that is overtly pro-Bolshevik), while they are quick to pin the "capitalist" label on an admittedly dysfunctional status quo that strongly deviates from individualist libertarian principles in numerous respects. Such rhetoric is driven in no small measure by clashing definitions of what "socialism" and "capitalism" are supposed to mean, since of course neither side wants to take blame for either the failed Soviet example or for the failing status quo. So how are we to understand this definitional conflict, and how can we resolve it? In what sense is the extreme Soviet version of socialism relevant, if at all?

Back when the socialist movement got started, the original premise was that private ownership of the means of production was intrinsically evil because only the owners of the means of production (the wicked "capitalist" class), not society at large, allegedly benefited from the existence of private ownership. Private property was smeared as being profoundly unjust. Earning a positive return on investments was erroneously portrayed as being a parasitic extraction of value from producers, not as enhancing productivity in any way.

"Socialism" in this early context broadly referred to any system for organizing production that prevents such private earnings on investments, instead reallocating them to the benefit of "society" according to whatever distributive outcome was considered just. As long as most of the public remains blissfully ignorant about how both private thrift and profit-seeking/loss-avoidance and private investment of the resulting savings actually increases the physical quantity of outputs produced, it is possible to conceive of all sorts of crazy schemes to replace "capitalist" profits with some sort of "socialist" alternative. Socialism, in other words, was originally defined in a negative way as the antithesis of private ownership of production, which rendered it hopelessly vague.

Likewise, narrowly focusing on private ownership of the means of production without regards to other important requirements for a productive profit-and-loss driven economic system-like ownership being based on peaceful acquisition, ownership rights being defined in terms of the owner's exclusive control over the use and disposition of his body and the owned things, and everybody being at liberty to do anything that doesn't violate other people's ownership rights)-leads to an overly-broad definition of "capitalism" as well. It conflates the genuinely productive laissez-faire variant of private ownership with the genuinely exploitative interventionist variants where the state rewards specially-favored private interests with subsidies, with privileges that enhance earnings by restricting the liberty of others, and with immunities that enhance earnings with exemptions from liabilities for violations of ownership rights.

Such fuzzy ambiguities give socialists an escape clause when confronted with evidence of how badly real-world socialist experiments work-"But that wasn't real socialism!" It also permits a conflation of interventionism with laissez-faire that incoherently indicts private ownership with evidence of exploitative outcomes arising from what are actually serious deviations from libertarian/classical liberal principles. With such a foggy conceptualization of the nature of capitalism and socialism, the underlying issue of the absolute economic necessity of private thrift coupled to profit-and-loss-motivated entrepreneurial investing in the context of competitively-generated market prices for capital goods and for factor inputs is never confronted.

The way to dispel this fog is to realize that an eclectic mix of government controls and of private profit-seeking (as is frequently encountered in concrete historical situations) is neither fully capitalist nor fully socialist. Appeals to the evidence of concrete historical examples are never fully persuasive because one can always invoke alternative causal factors to rationalize why things worked out as well or as badly as they did in a particular situation instead of treating the historical example as a decisive test of a given system. As Mises explained in his methodological work Theory and History, causal explanations of historical events always have to be preceded by a correct understanding of economic theory; data from complex, uncontrolled social situations does not permit rigorous logical inductions of causal generalizations like the controlled laboratory experiments of the natural sciences do.

This implies that the real battleground for a debate over different economic systems are rival theoretical understandings of how purposeful human action works, not the data of how different historical examples performed. Mises brings theory to the forefront by reserving the label "capitalism" to a system based on laissez-faire principles of liberty constrained only by peacefully-acquired private ownership rights, the label "socialism" for coercively-centralized control over the means of production (whether formal ownership itself is centralized or not, which gives rise to two distinct varieties of socialism), and the label "interventionism" for systems with selective government interference with certain aspects of production while leaving all other aspects of production to be self-directed, incentivized by private profit-seeking and loss-avoidance.

The crucial point to note here is that Mises avoids the customary ambiguities by narrowing the meaning of each concept to a particular idealized type of economic system where the properties of each system have been specified sufficiently so that a theoretical analysis of the consequences of each system can be deduced rigorously. Also, it is helpful other conceptual possibilities as needed to provide an exhaustive catalog of possible systems. Unlike the vague terminology that originally informed the capitalist/socialist debate, Mises's definitions are fit for the task of debating the merits of different systems.

While having a more highly-specified, robust set of concepts at one's disposal doesn't necessarily conclusively settle debates over how to interpret a particular concrete historical instance, such concepts do enable deductions concerning what consequences would follow from various changes to the current system, all other things being equal. It also obliges champions of more limited interventions, entitlement benefits, etc. to drop the pretense that because their vision of "socialism" doesn't involve full Soviet-style central planning, their "socialism" somehow doesn't suffer from yet other problems that arise in connection with interventionism, welfarism, etc. All things being equal, the consequences of each isolated type of intervention can be qualitatively predicted using Misesian economic theory too.

What really ought to be the focus of debate today is America's deindustrialization and the associated decline of America's productive classes while the ruling class and its assorted minions and clients have been flourishing. Simply blaming all billionaires (and the newly-minted trillionaire) and traditional American culture for all of America's ills (as progressives like to do) or blaming foreigners and "woke" culture (as MAGA conservatives like to do) does not add up to a coherent logical explanation of how economic exploitation actually works in our society or why it suddenly started becoming a problem a little over half a century ago.

Only a logic of purposeful action, which is self-evidently and universally true for all human beings under all social circumstances, can help us clearly understand how America went wrong and what we must do to reindustrialize America while ending the systemic exploitation of the productive by the unproductive. It is Mises's definition of capitalism, not the interventionist status quo often confused with capitalism, that conceptualizes what is lacking in America today and how America needs to be reformed to make possible liberty and prosperity for all.