Socialism and Capitalism Are Compatible Because They Are Economic Systems, Not Political Systems

     Socialism - just like capitalism - is an economic system, not a political system.

     Sure, there's a popular perception out there, that socialism and capitalism each imply a certain political system to go along with them. Most people believe that socialism requires a centrally planned economy, while capitalism requires a "minimal government" to regulate fraud in the market and protect people's property. But that is not necessarily so.
     In this essay, I will explain why socialism does not require centralism, nor strict controls, and why it can be achieved without political action; and I will also explain why the fact that socialism and capitalism are economic systems - rather than political systems - means that they are incompatible. I will also explain under what conditions they are compatible, and the ramifications of synthesizing them both with and without the guidance of the state.

     Nearly every economic system which has been proposed - socialism, capitalism, and others - have both anarchist and statist variations. For example, some socialist and communist turn out totalitarian and quasi-fascistic (usually because they adopt central economic planning, and then resort to political repression, privacy invasion, and social controls to enforce the laws which that economic planning requires).

     But when governments operate in the favor of capitalists - that is, the owners of land, loans, capital, and enterprises - capitalism resorts to political repression, privacy invasion, and social controls, every bit as often as corrupt socialist governments do. Oligarchy is the statist variant of capitalism, while anarcho-capitalism, Agorism, and market-anarchism are some of the anarchist variants of capitalism.

     While some socialist regimes do end up "totalitarian communist", socialism has anarchist variants just like capitalists do. These include anarcho-syndicalism - including its "autonomist" tendency - as well as anarcho-communism, libertarian Marxism, libertarian socialism, and others. Those schools of socialist thought value maximizing local autonomy and worker autonomy; and promoting mass individual and collective ownership of the tools and machines which masses of propertyless people depend on in order to survive.

     Libertarian socialists, anarcho-communists, therefore, support not central planning (which free-marketers despise), but decentralized, polycentric planning. This should be enough to satisfy free-marketers' economic and financial concerns about socialism, because polycentric economic planning of society is much less economically risky than centralized economic planning is. Decentralized planning of the economy helps the people organize production (including its ecological impacts) in a manner which is suitable for the area and environment which they live in, know well, and depend on directly for survival.

     Decentralized planning would require much less political repression in order to enforce, because it would adopt the original principle behind the federalist form of government, which valued deferring as many matters as possible to the most local level of government competent enough to handle them. This principle expresses itself in the form of several political ideas; namely localism, subsidiarism, dual federalism and triple federalism, "polyarchy", and others.

    Lenin explained that his goal was to have social planning of economic production; any "government" which would exist after the abolition of the current state should be created by and subject to the will of the regional governments, just like the original idea behind the American system. Additionally, such a government would not primarily be for social control, but for the planning of economic production by the whole of society in communication with one another. Lenin wanted for the Soviet Union the same sort of delineation between central and regional duties which the Americans originally had; he just had different ideas about which issues which level of government ought to regulate.

     Communism is the political system which most socialists - especially Marxists - believe that socialism implies. Many capitalists are aware of this fact too. But what most capitalists, and some socialists, don't know, is that socialism doesn't always lead to communism, socialism does not always lead to a totalitarian regime, and communism is not totalitarian.

   Socialism doesn't always lead to communism; sometimes it leads to fascism. I would warn capitalist critics of socialism that they cannot claim "socialism always leads to communism" without accidentally admitting that socialism doesn't lead to fascism. And the idea that socialism leads to fascism tends to be an important part of the capitalist critique of socialism.

     Moreover, communism is not totalitarian, because Marx originally envisioned the end goal of socialism and communism to be "pure communism" or "free communism". Thus, communism is not only compatible with freedom; it has freedom - and the full abolition of the state - as its main goals. Pure communism, or free communism, aims for the eventual full abolition of the state, and along with it, the borders which the states establishes and protects, and the money which the state creates and issues. Additionally, the abolition of the class repression and social hierarchy,  which are created by the citizen/"illegal" distinction and the rich/poor distinction which those border and monetary systems create.
     The goal of free communism is to create a stateless, borderless, moneyless society, which would have no need for the state, nor its borders, nor its currency, nor anything else it creates and establishes.

     That is not very far-off from the goals of radical libertarians, market-anarchists, and "anarcho-capitalists", who support abolishing the state and its monopoly on the issuance of currency. That's why anarcho-communism and anarcho-capitalism are compatible. But only if the state and its economic interventions are fully abolished, and permanently; and "ancoms" and "ancaps" can compete for resources and legitimacy in a truly free, stateless, "free market" for alternative proposals to reorganize the economy.

     Communist and capitalist compromise is not without barriers and stumbling blocks, though; free communism would feature no government protection of private property whatsoever, and the only way a capitalist can get on board with that idea is if he is an anarcho-capitalist. This is to say that he must oppose not only state action to help protect property, but also the use of violence by anyone in order to protect property. In a free society, we would change each other's behavior through peaceful conversation and instruction, not through violent repression.

     Socialists and communists of all kinds, just as well as most supporters of free enterprise, oppose fascism and Nazism. That matters because fascism is intrinsically much more likely than socialism and capitalism to require statist intervention, violent enforcement, and central economic planning, in order to exist. It's not that "anarcho-fascist" systems haven't been proposed, however; "National-Anarchism" advocates non-violent "voluntary segregation" in order to avoid the need for statism, imperialism, and centralism, which they staunchly oppose.

     But the vast majority of people with racial supremacist and fascist ideologies, do support the state, do appeal to the state for legitimacy, and do resort to enlisting the help of violent government enforcement arms to protect their often dubious property claims. On the other hand, that is not to say that they won't resort to violence, or even violent revolution, in order to get what they want; the Spanish fascists' overthrowing of the legitimately elected social-anarchist government in the 1930s proves that.

     Fascism requires a strict hierarchy and high centralization of power in order to enforce its economic policy. The fascist economic policy is "dirigism", which etymologically refers to the government's direction of the economy. Under Nazism, for example, just like social and political issues, economic issues were subverted to the Fuhrerprinzip; the idea that the whole society should be organized so as to prioritize the needs of the Fuhrer (that is, the leader or "father" of the country). The need for military hierarchy under Hitler was used to justify the government's economic needs, and social repression was used to make it easier to enforce them.

     At the turn of the twentieth century, socialists such as Charles Maurras and Georges Sorel - as well as "war socialists" in the Russian Duma who supported World War I but rejected wholly dissolving the monarchy's power - began to articulate visions of socialism which required such strict enforcement of "labor discipline" (essentially, strict controls on workers and their production) that it bordered on fascism. This was typically justified by the supposed need for more strictly enforced and organized production during a wartime economy, in which resources must be prioritized so as to support the military's capability of defending itself. Not the "Fuhrer", mind you, but the country's defense capabilities. That tends to be what causes honest, reform-minded, progressive socialism to veer off-course and turn fascistic.

     The point being - to reiterate - socialism doesn't always lead to communism, because socialism sometimes leads to fascism. It doesn't always, but socialism - and fascist regimes parading as socialists - can turn fascist. Hitler was a fascist parading as a socialist. Mussolini was socialist as a youth, but became a fascist later in life. With the Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty, Stalin made himself look like a fascist by tricking Hitler into thinking he was going to give him everything he wanted. Franklin D. Roosevelt worked with Stalin, and imprisoned over a hundred thousand Japanese-American citizens who did nothing wrong, and at the end of his presidency wrote a letter decrying the selling out of the American people to foreign banking and business interests (which he helped facilitate).
     Socialism and fascism do go together sometimes. But that means that socialism doesn't always lead to communism. Because socialism can lead to fascism too.

     To be perfectly honest, in my opinion, it's entirely possible that the American presidential office could come to be occupied by a socialist or socialist-influenced candidate, and it could go off-course and end up fascist.
     I think that because I know that Bernie Sanders has voted for numerous military involvements in Africa and the Middle East - in at least nine countries - over his last 25 years in office. I am reluctant to support him for president - as "less bad" than Trump as that would be - because of those votes, and because I'm worried that he would dismantle American imperialism much more slowly than it needs to be dismantled.
     Based on what I've observed, instead of justifying the need for socialism on the need for military spending (as the "war socialists" did), "democratic socialists" like Sanders tend to excuse "a little" violent imperialist conquest, in order to placate the military-industrial complex lobbyists. I suspect that some self-described progressives and democratic socialists view this as necessary because they know that those lobbyists influence politicians so much, that the people can't strike a deal for a decent social safety net, unless the military and countless businesses are subsidized and supported (and rescued from bankruptcy time and time again) by taxpayers; such that there's a "balance" between warfare and welfare.

     The idea that these people are "democratic socialists" should bring shame to real socialists who value peace, and it does. Real socialists, who value freedom, support peace in all cases; they only support war against fascists and ultra-nationalists. Real "free communists" would never justify social control - nor political repression, nor the use of violence (except in self-defense) - in order to achieve either socialist economic goals or sufficient support of the need for collective defense. Thus, a self-described "communist" who supports any form of military spending, aggression, money, borders, or class distinctions, is an "impure" communist by the standards of Orthodox Marxists.

     The people of the Paris Commune took up arms, and bore them in public. Modern Libertarians and Marxists alike criticize Ronald Reagan for repressing the Black Panthers for insisting on being armed in public. The divide between libertarians and the far-left thus seems to be shrinking.
     Many radical Marxists now realize that the right to be armed in public is valuable, because they know that it is necessary for the most vulnerable people in our society to defend themselves, when the tools of social and racial oppression against them are deadly. There were even murmurs of "Tenth Amendment solutions" - that is, states' rights, Jeffersonian nullification, and "devolving" federal duties to the states - in some Democratic circles in early 2017. Andrew Yang is running for president as a Democrat, yet has a noticeable libertarian following.

     Some communists and socialists are coming around to libertarian ideas; while others are not. The opposite is true as well; many American libertarians are realizing that capitalism isn't working, and are turning to ideas like "free market anti-capitalism" and "markets, not capitalism" for answers and solutions. Once convinced that totally free markets imply statelessness while capitalism too often relies on subsidies from the state, many of these libertarians turn to quasi-socialist economic theories like Georgism and Mutualism for additional answers. From there, it's a short leap to stateless forms of socialism and communism.
     The reason why I am one of these libertarians - that is, one whom is interested in socialism, and not afraid of communism - is because I know socialism and capitalism do not always have to result in some certain political system, with certain modes of oppression. They are economic systems, which can be mixed, especially in an environment which is free of the state, and free of its repressive social and economic agenda (which further its aims of control and centralization of power).
     Additionally, I know that classical liberals were grouped together with leftists in the late 19th century French parliament, and that the original "libertarians" were the late 19th century and early 20th century European social anarchists.
     Democrats, socialists, and communists do not need to be rejected and maligned by libertarians, nor threatened to be thrown out of a helicopter. Democracy is not harmful if it is consensus-based, and has a concern for the minorities' rights and the right to opt-out and dissent. Any and all democrats, socialists, and communists who care about these things, and local needs - as well as individual human rights; such as our needs for social freedom and to defend ourselves, and our needs as workers to own the machines on which we depend on for survival -  should be considered potential friends of libertarians.
     That's because those leftists value what libertarians care about most: diminishing the ability of the centralized state to use violent enforcement to control our society and our economy without the consultation of the local population. They might have slightly different reasons for doing that at times, but Agorist Wally Conger explains in his book Agorist Class Theory that radical libertarians basically want to achieve the same goals as Marx did, but through different means and methods.
     This might help explain why Ron Paul was called a "communist" by some Republicans (mostly for his non-interventionist foreign policy); it's because libertarians and socialists are that strongly opposed to fascism, that to a Republican, they are difficult to distinguish (especially on issues related to the use of the state and military, and their violence, to give preferential treatment to one economic system or another, especially when that system is fascism).
     For all these reasons, and more, anarcho-communists and anarcho-capitalists should not be at each other's throats, claiming that each other's economic system always leads to fascism, while denying what they themselves did to allow that to happen by setting a bad example. To the contrary; ancoms and ancaps should be working together to build a new and better economy, based on the freedom-minded ideals which they determine, through negotiation, that they have in common.

     There is a way to reconcile capitalism and socialism, after all, without it leading to fascism. The way to do that is to refuse to rely on the state to moderate, arbitrate, or supervise such negotiations.

     The time for more communication across economic schools of thought is now. I encourage my readers to read about, and study, alternative economic proposals and systems, especially the anarchist and libertarian varieties. Especially - for the purposes of this essay - Mutualism, market socialism, Georgism, Geo-Libertarianism, panarchy, and anarchism of the "autonomist" and "platformist" varieties. Additionally, economic theories which reject the need for left-vs.-right systemization, such as gift economies, "post-scarcity economics" and "post-scarcity economics" and related topics.
     The dispute between minarchists (advocates of minimum government) and anarchists, is unnecessary; the minimum amount of government is zero. Just think about how much taxpayer money the government would save, if it did nothing at all.

Written on August 28th, 2019

Originally published on August 28th, 2019
under the title "Socialism is Compatible with Capitalism
Because They Are Economic Systems, Not Political Systems"