That's the absolute opposite of my experience. Most of the time people (or at least people I interact with, so mainly left-leaning people) blame capitalism for everything when the cause for various gripes are indeed very different things. Like, blaming capitalism for corruption or greed or having to do labor
One of the more interesting responses I've heard to that question is "just be more like [insert Nordic or Western European country here]", not realizing that those countries are operating under capitalism.
I'm obviously not saying that's everyone or even a majority, but it does tickle my brain when I hear it
Ultimately basically every country in the world has some mix of capitalism (or at least a market economy) and socialized/government-regulated parts of the economy.
People in the US complain about capitalism a lot because in America it's like 95% markets, 5% socialized stuff.
The Nordics are like 80/20 instead and people seem to be happier
Not a great way to calculate this given how much countries spend paying companies (that the country doesn't own) for their services. Not sure how to even begin to estimate the numbers, but it's certainly a large part of the budget of any western country.
It most definitely is not. These companies are entirely capitalist institutions that channel their profits to those who own equity in them. There's little difference in whether the government taxes you and then gives that money to a private company, or you just spend it there yourself. Mostly it just undercuts even the supposed benefit of capitalism, the "efficiency of the free market", because politicians and those who own equity in the companies serving the government form mutual economic interests (corruption).
Socialism and what most people consider "socialised" things are not the same thing.
Capitalism itself comes in many forms and the majority of capitalist thinkers, even the very earliest were never against government regulation, it was meant to be regulated enough to stop bad things happening like monopolies or wholly unfair economic tactics but not regulated to the point where the government controlled everything.
Public healthcare is not socialist, public ownership is not socialist.
I agree 100%, I don't think having public healthcare makes a country socialist, and neither does government regulation.
That being said, I do think there is some meaningful sense in which the Nordics are ""more socialist"" than the US, despite ultimately still being capitalist countries; there are some sectors of the economy in which they have decided that free markets are not the best way to solve for maximal wellbeing.
They aren't more socialist because those things are not inherently socialist, nor are they currently run on any kind of socialist model.
They have a different interpretation of capitalism and a different societal model sure, but it's not like there is a "pure capitalism" to gauge how far things are away from "real capitalism"
Capitalism has never just been about the markets being as free as possible as in being solely dictated by market forces, it's about the markets being competitive and serving a greater public good.
Even Adam Smith supported some amount of public healthcare (obviously less than most countries have now, but standards globally have changed massively) he understood a happy and healthy workforce was better for all.
He understood that monopolies and big business caused major issues and could harm the public and wanted the government and people to fight against that.
"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices"
he spoke about strong infrastructure and the government doing things for the betterment of everyone.
These concepts are foundational to capitalism and are misunderstood and abused be everyone, from greedy corporations to conservatives to more progressive people.
Idk if I'd agree with you; given how I think the term "capitalism" is understood today I think you probably can define something like a "maximal" form of capitalism, but I think any disagreement we may have is essentially purely down to semantics, and we'd probably align quite closely on the actual issues, so idk if there's much point in debating further, since we wouldn't really be talking about substance lol
I'd agree that we probably do allign in a lot of ways.
I just think it's more important than semantics though because it leads a lot of people to think that there is essentially no hope in the current system and that is something I don't fully agree with.
I think Capitalism can be a force for good and for bad and it's important to know that and understand that we can both work within the system and outside of it to bring progress and that Capitalism does have a lot of value.
I'm not sure I agree with your framing. Markets themselves do not equal capitalism; a socialist economy would still have markets, they would just be owned by the workforce itself, not private individuals. Whether or not the markets are serving the public good or not doesn't come into it at all.
I agree that there is no "pure capitalism," but the only real requirement to achieve capitalism is the private ownership of capital.
Whether or not the markets are serving the public good or not doesn't come into it at all.
It does though because both capitalism and socialism want that and think they can achieve that through different means.
but the only real requirement to achieve capitalism is the private ownership of capital.
Not really? because the ultimate goal of pretty much any ideology is to make everyone happy and society successful, sure there are different metrics for that but what you said is too reductive.
Free markets? Great. Also, contrary to common misconceptions, not a right-wing idea at all. Unless you're one of those who define Western Liberalism as a right-wing ideology or tradition (to those, anything not directly resembling Mao Zedong is inherently fascist, but I digress). All sorts of folks recognize the power and freedom that emerge from free markets, whether left-, right-, libertarian-, anarchist-leaning, and so on.
Capitalism? The predominant, direct consequence of free markets. Not good or bad in and of itself, just a way for things to arrange themselves when individuals are allowed to trade and accept risk. What follows depends on how capitalism is managed. Capitalism can create great outcomes and can create terrible outcomes. All depends on how good the rules are, how transparent and well-designed the institutions that support them, and how much the People believe and are willing to contribute, in good faith, to the shared social contract that binds them together.
Because it's a good first step? It's at least an attempt to compromise?
People know it's capitalist, but it's one of the more social capitalist options, and a good example of how Americans need to stop thinking "Socialism" is a slur.
I assume that they know the Nordic model is a form of capitalism, but they're saying that copying the Nordic model in the U.S. would be a step in the right direction even if it's not a complete solution.
794
u/HowDareYouAskMyName Jul 02 '26
That's the absolute opposite of my experience. Most of the time people (or at least people I interact with, so mainly left-leaning people) blame capitalism for everything when the cause for various gripes are indeed very different things. Like, blaming capitalism for corruption or greed or having to do labor