This is probably (well, almost certainly) not the most politically correct thing to say. But this is, in one very important sense, what this election is about. Here’s what I mean:
While socialism and capitalism are both complex economic theories with many variations, one way of defining the difference between the two is this:
Socialism asks: “Is this good for society?”
Capitalism asks: “What’s in it for ME?”
(Put in political rather than economic terms, democracy asks the first question, while autocracy asks the second one. But democracy can also ask the second question, which is why I chose socialism / capitalism instead. And yes, the questions are a caricature, but they do illustrate the point that socialism is more inclined to look after the welfare of the whole community while the nature of capitalism leads it to focus on the individual.)
The US has always mixed socialism and capitalism. Public schools are socialist. Police departments are socialist. The interstate highway system is socialist. (All in the broadest definition of the term.) Medicare is socialist, as is social security. More annoyingly (to some capitalists) regulatory agencies are socialist — their job is to protect society at large from individuals (persons or corporations) trying to pull a fast one.
Wall Street is capitalist. Main Street is largely capitalist. Wealthy family dynasties are capitalists. Of more concern to our democracy, poor people who have been convinced they are “temporarily distressed millionaires” are capitalists — to their own detriment, because they, more than anyone else, need the benefits of socialism (look at the list in the previous paragraph).
When “socialism” meant Marxism and then communism (which is not the same thing), it was easy for capitalism to make socialism into The Enemy. And there was some justification for that, in that communism intended to force itself on the world, and in addition was partly a cover for Russian imperialist objectives.
But we have overcome the extremes of communism. (China is only superficially communist, and while Russian imperialism hasn’t changed much, its techniques are no longer communist.) What we face now is extreme capitalism, “end-stage capitalism” as we might call it. The veneer of noblesse oblige — the concept that great wealth creates an obligation to do good with that wealth — no longer even gets a mention; if someone did raise it, they would be mocked out of the room. Now the rule is purely “What’s in it for me?” and heading toward “everyone for themself.” The next stage after that, which is already making an appearance, is “each against all.”
Consider a partial list of the players operating on end-stage capitalist principles:
- Donald Trump aka The Orange Mousselini
- Vladimir Putin
- King Jun-Un
- The Koch family
- The Mercer family
- Bibi Netanyahu
- Ron DeSantis
- Greg Abbott
- Greene, Gaetz, Rubio, Cruz, McConnell, R. Scott, ad nauseum
- New Apostolic Reformation and other fundamentalist groups
I specifically include religious groups (I’m of two minds about the US Conference of Catholic Bishops here) because their intention to impose a theocracy on the country is a kind of end-stage capitalist attitude — “mine, all mine” — with no attention given to what others might want (though they cover it with a pseudo-socialist veneer of saying they know what’s best for society).
There are many ways to look at the stakes in the upcoming election; this is only one of them. But I submit that it is a useful one in that it highlights the supreme selfishness of the players and their ultimate uselessness to those of us who must choose in November between Biden who wants what’s best for all of us and Trump who wants what’s best for himself.
A final thought: I said above that the next stage of “end-stage capitalism” is “each against all.” I have been reading a lot of history about Scotland lately (we just got back from there), and came across an observation that goes right to this point. Until recently, according to one historian, “patriotism” did not mean loyalty to a nation or state; it meant loyalty to a family. The wars that ravaged the British isles back then had little if anything to do with preservation of the nation; they had to do with keeping one’s family alive and in power. (Or in Trump’s case, alive and out of prison.) Of that list above, I will grant Putin this slight acknowledgement: while he is acting in large part for himself, he is also acting to restore Russia to what he sees as her rightful place in the world; he wants revenge for the fall of the USSR. Not that this in any way excuses him, but in some small way it makes him a bit of a patriot in the modern sense. The rest of that list, no way.
What that means, if the authoritarians get their way in November (or in 2025, or 2028, or whenever), is that they will some time after that devolve into some level of warfare as “each against all” becomes the motto of the new age.