The revolutionary idea of democracy was that people got a vote in who led them and what standards they would agree to. Consent of the governed.
There have always been smaller and limited versions of this in history, but applying it to large populations over wide territories was—and remains—revolutionary. That’s democracy: government by the consent of the governed. It has its flaws and failures to be sure, but at its core is the moral imperative that people should have a say in how they live—rather than being ruled by bullies, no matter how grand their titles.
For democracy to work, those that participate in it must know and uphold the fundamental values of its government: not just the right to vote, to consent to leaders and laws, but also the foundations on which those stand. That is, we must clearly define those rights and obligations which constitute our country’s norms, and to which all leaders and laws must conform. That’s called a constitution. It upholds the rights and obligations of our democracy.
When we raise children, or in small groups, we can share and reinforce our values orally, even generation to generation, “this is who we are and what we believe.” But much more is needed for a widely dispersed and diverse nation—or world—if our core values are to be understood and transmitted clearly and consistently. A constitution does this. Of course we need to be wise about what it says, and how it can be interpreted and evolve, but it gives substance to our values and hopes.
Economic Systems
Separate from governmental systems (democracies, monarchies, tribes, religions…) there are economic systems—and theories about them and how they should operate. These are models for organizing how people live and work, often to serve a ruling class, a favored group, or ideally, the common good.
I’ll mention five major economic systems here—not to describe them fully, but merely to give a quick picture of what each purports to be, so we can then look at them in relation to the common good, and especially to mutual care. Without understanding these distinctions, we can be too easily fooled by wild claims, misdirection and propaganda about any of them.
A really important distinction: Democracy is not an economic system. It’s a method of determining leadership and supervision, governance, and it can and does coexist with various economic systems in diverse countries around the world.
We can usefully debate which economic systems are most effective, productive or equitable, but we shouldn’t confuse them with how leadership is put in place or governs. Both are important, and correlated, but they are different categories of organization, different dimensions of our common life. (More detail on government and economic structures at Organizing Ourselves in Sources.)
The oldest economic system is the Hunter-Gatherer model—typically based in families or tribes—and its evolution into Farming, where families plant, harvest, and raise animals for themselves or in cooperation with others. These systems still exist in isolated parts of the world, where contact with larger societies is limited or avoided. Leadership varies: sometimes hereditary, sometimes chosen, sometimes imposed. And yes, bullies, parasites and slaves appear here too. The romanticized “noble savage” is a largely Western fiction.
Feudalism, the most widespread large-scale economic system in history, centers on landowners and serfs. The serfs live and labor on the land but own little or nothing. This is a common model worldwide and throughout history, and the bullies, parasites and slaves are readily visible in its structure. This pattern—of domination and dependency—has repeated in plantations, indentured servitude, sharecropping, trafficking, and monarchies everywhere.
In contrast to these ancient models, three relatively modern systems—Socialism, Communism and Capitalism—have been defined and attempted. These terms are now so overused and misapplied that they’ve lost clarity in public discourse. So let’s quickly define their core ideas before we examine them more closely.
Socialism is defined as an economic system where the major and vital industries are owned collectively, that is, by the government (i.e. “by the people”), and decisions are made by elected or appointed officials without personal reward to the officials. In other words, personal profit doesn’t drive or influence the decisions—just an objective evaluation of needs and resources. Ownership of smaller or non-critical businesses is permitted and even fostered, but subject to regulations that help ensure fairness and the common good.
Communism is defined as an economic system where all the means of production, even of non-major and non-vital industries, are owned collectively, by the government (or “The State”), and all decisions are made by elected or appointed officials without personal reward based on their outcomes. Local officials may oversee businesses and make decisions, but they do not own or profit from them personally.
Capitalism is defined as an economic system where owners and investors control production, and profit is the primary motive. Decisions are made not by public officials, but by those with “capital”—money and the power that comes with it. Hence the name.
Those are the three dominant modern theories of economic systems. We can argue about the successes and failures of each—and we should—but those are the plain definitions and basic theories of each. In reality, no country fully conforms to any of these three economic systems. Each incorporates elements of the others.
Even during the most draconian phases of communism under Stalin and Mao, “The State” never fully achieved total control. It and its leaders simply could not and did not control everyone everywhere—though they tried! Entrepreneurs eventually emerged and launched their own businesses. Today, both Russia and China are home to billionaire capitalists who influence, and sometimes direct, government decisions. They may fight at times, but make no mistake: Capitalism is very much alive in so-called communist countries.
A number of other countries declare themselves to be socialist, and implement this to a greater or lesser degree, but in these as well, small and large entrepreneurs own and run businesses, and billionaires are present and highly influential. Capitalism also lives in socialist countries.
Even in capitalist nations, governments typically own or regulate major sectors—armed forces, transportation, healthcare, food safety and more. These regulations aim to ensure justice and public safety. In that sense, elements of socialism and communism are embedded in capitalist systems.
In practice, every system is messier than its definition. All three economic models allow for ambition and entrepreneurship—especially when it serves those in power. Every country blends aspects of socialism, communism, and capitalism, though usually one is dominant.
It’s a lot to take in, but it helps us think more clearly about what’s broken in our own capitalist system. Capitalism nurtures creativity and entrepreneurship—but we must also face its failures honestly. One of the greatest is its frequent neglect of mutual care. Let’s look at that now.
Economic Systems, Democracy and Mutual Care
First, let’s observe that any economic system can be chosen and function by the democratic election of government leaders. And any economic system can be imposed by bullies, drained by parasites, and then exploit slaves to do all the actual work.
As much as we might rail against the evils of communism, socialism or capitalism, our complaints usually come down to this: how they are exploited by people willing to advance their own interests through force and deception. It’s always about the bullies and parasites—who steal, twist and manipulate any economic system to suit themselves.
One of the go-to accusations by bullies and parasites who are thriving within a capitalist economic system is that any movement toward mutual care and the common good arises from socialists or communists and therefore must be rejected outright.