A Facebook friend made an excellent point in the debate of socialism versus capitalism.
The "No pure Socialism" vs "No pure capitalism" argument misses something very important.
Capitalism--i.e., free markets--is inherently a granular phenomenon. It exists at the level of the individual and nowhere else. Anywhere two people voluntarily exchange value for value without external constraint, a pure free market exists.
By contrast, Socialism, being a collectivist phenomenon, can only exist at the collective level, and to the degree it is implemented, it destroys wealth and destroys lives. Minimal Socialism is bad, but can be tolerable for periods of time. Pure, system-wide Socialism, to the extent it is possible at all, is always catastrophic.
System-wide free-market capitalism is possible, it's just unlikely. But the assertion that "pure" capitalism doesn't or can't exist misses the point rather badly
The original post was set to, "friends only," so a link is not included.
This argument strikes at the very root. Socialism is perceived as a societal shift, and many socialists advocate violently shifting society whether its members consent or not. It is a highly paternalistic view of humanity where the socialists know what is best for everyone else, and every one else must comply.
Free market capitalism, on the other hand, relies on individuals making their own choices, Who better knows your moment-to-moment wants, needs, capabilities, value assessment, goals, and other decision-making factors? You, not some politician or bureaucrat.
Of course, the term, "capitalism," is also used for modern corporate and political entanglements, rendering rational discourse difficult when people have a superficial understanding of the subject. When corporate war profiteering and the local farmer's market are both called "capitalism," it skews discussion. The anti-capitalist somehow expects the free marketeer to support Raytheon and Boeing, and cannot understand how they could be outside the scope of the debate.
The free market exists in its purest form whenever any two people engage in a voluntary trade for mutual benefit. If that is capitalism, then pure capitalism is what keeps the world running despite politics, wars, corporate corruption, greed, taxes, regulations, embargoes, and all the other interventions by the State.
If "capitalism" instead means a market stifled by those very political interventions for corporate interests and political power, then suddenly the debate changes from liberty versus authority to arguments over which boot should stomp on your neck. This kind of distorted argument pervades the internet, and demonstrates the dishonesty in most discussions on these topics. The echo chambers reinforce these biases, creating hate for ideas that don't really exist.
As for the socialists, they believe their intentions justify their actions. Dissent is looked upon as ignorance of, if not complicity in, the problem they want to fix. However, the belief in political legitimacy always results in systemic injustice. Look at what services we do have under a socialized government monopoly:
Of course, many of these flaws are blamed on "fascist capitalism run amok," a lack of funding due to hard-hearted capitalist pigs, or deemed unique to the USA. However, this is the direct, observable result of political monopoly: waste and abuse. Socialism, at least in the sense of political monopoly run by bureaucratic administrators, guarantees expansion of these problems throughout the rest of society, too. Any error made by these self-appointed saviors ripples through the system to cause widespread suffering, and their narrow scope of knowledge combined with massive influence can only guarantee instability.
Who do you trust to make decisions on your behalf? Some stranger you probably didn't even have a chance to elect, or yourself? The granular nature of the free market both limits the scope of individual error and directly rewards those who choose wisely. It is empowerment in the most direct sense. It in no way precludes voluntary communes, cooperative businesses, or any other voluntary association. It just denies the legitimacy of coercive force.
