Capitalism vs Socialism

Capitalism:
Capitalists argue that businesses should be free to compete, the rich should be free to keep what they've earned and the government should just stay out of it. Power should be held by the rich - after all, they've earned the money and proven themselves to be the most worthy people in society. To some extent, capitalists argue that capitalism is the best form of democracy, except that you don’t vote, you buy.

However, within capitalism in its pure form there would be no free education, no minimum wage, no social health care, no welfare state – you’re on your own. A proper capitalist would argue that the benefits system just makes people lazy, while the fear of failure drives people to succeed. If you take away the fear of poverty, what reason have people go to succeed?

Capitalists believe that the government should just protect society from revolution and enforce the most basic laws. In some ways capitalism is a form of social Darwinism – where the strongest should be encouraged to survive, while the weakest should be trimmed to ensure they do not drag society backward.

Socialism:
Socialists argue that essential industry and public serves should be communally owned and managed to ensure that the products and benefits are shared equally amongst society.

Socialists argue that competition doesn’t work because people have advantages that come with their position at birth. Rich kids will more often go on to succeed more easily, not because they're more able but because they had better opportunities; poor children will be less successful, not because they're less able but because they had fewer advantages. Socialists argue that capitalism is inherently unfair and this unfairness inevitably makes society unstable. Many would also argue that the great achievements of human history were no born from competition, but cooperation; we didn't build society out of people fighting, we built it by teaching people not to fight.

Under socialism individuals can own their own goods (socialism is NOT communism!) but electricity companies, social networks, train companies, schools, hospitals, prisons, etc… should all be owned and managed by the state, for the people – not for profit. Also, things like the minimum wage, free education and free healthcare allow people to become productive members of society, they don't drag society backwards.

Capitalism:
George Birling perfectly summarises the capitalist ideology, and he has a number of quotes throughout the opening pages that support this. Fundamentally, he believes that people who are poorer are worse off because they’re irresponsible, incapable, less developed, or less deserving of better conditions. He believes that people should earn their way to the top, in the same way he did - and if he can do it, anyone can.

Also, though he never says it, I could imagine him arguing that you don’t see a lion giving an injured gazelle a head start! Life is tough and the fittest should be allowed to rise to the top without being shackled by socialism! Society is fair, it just doesn’t seem way to the unskilled, alcoholic layabouts who can’t get themselves a decent job! He believes that he pays them enough to feed them, and from there: they’re on their own!

Socialism:
The inspector is a kind of socialist pin-up; a hero of the left wing. He uses his position to educate the characters in the play and make some of them – the young (who even he admits are more prone to socialism than the older generation) – believe in his socialist agenda.

He believes that we are all here together, and that, regardless of your beliefs about why poor people are poor, he argues that they deserve help. He would argue that a young single mother, even one who got herself pregnant irresponsibly, needs our support because without it her child will grow up to become just as irresponsible as she was.

He believes that we need to see society as a mass of people who work together: “And I tell you that the time will soon come when, if men will not learn that lesson, then they will be taught it in fire and blood and anguish.”

Mr Birling

“But the way some of these cranks talk and write now, you’d think everybody has to look after everybody else, as if we were all mixed up, together like bees in a hive – community and all that nonsense.” – Mr Birling (Act 1)
He’s calling socialists cranks - a kind of patronising term for mad people - and denounces the very ideas of socialism, by saying that the entire system is weak, annoying and subhuman (insect like, like bees.) Capitalists also attack socialism as they say it degrades human individuality, suggesting that socialists require us all to live like one enormous machine with no individual rights. Mr Birling’s comparison to bees supports this - he’s saying that if we were to live collectively, as the inspector wants, we’d be no better than a hive of insects.

“But take my word for it, you youngsters – and I’ve learnt in the good hard school of experience – that a man has to mind his own business and look after himself and his own – and –“ – Mr Birling (Act 1)
This again shows how he thinks he knows it all, as he thinks of himself as an elder teaching the younger generation which will succeed his, evident by his use of the term ‘youngsters’, and portrays his arrogance and capitalist views, and he’s cut off right after by the sharp ring of the doorbell. This is Inspector Goole, who, like the doorbell, cuts off the assertions of Birling like a sharp ring, implying that it may somehow cause pain – to the Edwardian hubris, and is used by Priestly to show that Mr Birling is disreputable, as it abruptly cuts him off.

“a man has to mind his own business and look after himself and his own – and…” We hear the sharp ring of a front doorbell
Mr Birling perfectly summarises his capitalist sentiment when he tells Gerald and Eric that “a man has to mind his own business.” Here, he is instilling in Gerald a set of masculine values that are, basically, just about being selfish. By adding the phrase “his own” he attempts to make it seem less selfish by bringing a family into it, but, fundamentally: he’s telling his son and soon to be son-in-law to look after themselves. It is at this point when the stage directions announce the arrival of the Inspector with a “sharp ring of a front doorbell” – the sharpness bringing about the man who will now correct Mr Birling’s attitudes. It’s also worth noting that the Inspector is described as imposing and powerful and that these are things that masculinity would have traditionally valued so it’s fair to say that the inspector, despite his care and compassion, is no less ‘traditionally masculine’ than Mr Birling!

“Well, it’s my duty to keep labour costs down”– Mr Birling (Act 1)
He makes it seem as if he has a moral obligation to be rich, and stay upper class, as if capitalism, or his purist view on it, is what keeps society together. This is a common view of capitalists, and right wing people in general: that they have a responsibility to work for their own ends; that it is their duty to compete for the best, as it is through competition that society advances. Socialists think progress is achieved through cooperation, capitalists believe that progress is achieved through competition.

“Look, Inspector – I’d give thousands – yes, thousands-” – Mr Birling (Act 3)
Still as capitalist as he was before, as he thinks money can cover for a dead girl. He, like Scrooge, only sees things in terms of their material worth. Also, depending on how this line is delivered it could be seen as a bribe to the inspector?

The Inspector

(massively) “Public men, Mr Birling, have responsibilities as well as privileges.” – Inspector Goole (Act 2)
Inspector Goole is saying that ‘public men’, such as Mr Birling, who has societal responsibilities, have great responsibilities, due to their great power. This attitude could also be applied to celebrities today – they earn a lot of money and have a place in the public eye, but doesn’t that mean they also have a responsibility to behave in a socially responsible way?

“Don’t stammer and yammer at me again.” – Inspector Goole (Act 2)
This is demonstrative of the fact that the Inspector is unconventional for the Edwardian era, as he doesn’t care about class differences. He's using direct, imperative language to Mr Birling, but also colloquialisms like "yammer" which emphasise how much the inspector insists on remaining his own man.

“You see, we have to share something. If there’s nothing else, we’ll have to share our guilt” – Inspector Goole (Act 2)
The inspector is highlighting how the Birlings share nothing, but if they should share something, it should be their guilt over their actions, otherwise they wouldn’t be able to cope with it. He’s saying that the responsibility is not hers alone.

Inspector’s Closing Speech: This is the KEY MOMENT for the inspector and socialism in general
“But just remember this. One Eva Smith has gone – but there are millions and millions and millions of Eva Smiths and John Smiths still left with us, with their lives, their hopes and fears, their suffering and chance of happiness, all intertwined with our lives, and what we think and say and do. We don't live alone. We are members of one body. We are responsible for each other. And I tell you that the time will soon come when, if men will not learn that lesson, then they well be taught it in fire and blood and anguish. Good night.”

The inspector’s final speech opens with a long, complex sentence that reminds us of all the “Eva Smiths and John Smiths” there are in the world, and which emphasises the extent to which the themes of the play are not specifically about this situation. Also, the warning travels across time – from 1912 to 1945 – and it is increasingly true again today after a decade of austerity has left the use of food banks and zero-hours-contracts rising. The use of emotive language “hopes and fears … suffering … chance of happiness” all twig at the audience’s heart strings while the use of polysyndeton – the repetition of “and” in the phrase “think and say and do” – allows the actor to emphasise the key point: that our thoughts and actions and words all help to create the world we share.

Priestley follows this with three simple sentences, which summarise his lesson. The use of the simple imperatives breaks up his main point and makes his lesson clear and concise – “we do not live alone… we are members of one body” – so that with the right delivery it seems too obvious to argue with. It also allows an actor to break between each point which would allow them to add gravitas to the performance – perhaps even looking out across the auditorium to remind the audience of their involvement in this sham.

The inspector goes on to make a prediction about what will happen if “men will not learn that lesson.” (Here, we have to assume that he is referring to “mankind” and not just “men,” though it’s worth noting the irony of the fact that the character in the play who learns the lesson most successfully is actually a woman.) But, he claims that if the lesson is not learnt then we will learn it in “fire and blood and anguish.” This is a reference to the decades of war that would be fought in the years between when the play was set and when the first performance occurred. In this respect, Priestley is using quite a cheeky strategy: he’s making the inspector prophetic – almost divine – in 1912, but only because Priestley knew what went on to happen. It’s also interesting, however, that Priestley is suggesting that disaster is inevitable if humans don’t change the way we behave. In this respect he is similar to Karl Marx, the founder of communism and a key socialist thinker, who argued that it the poor would inevitably rise up against the rich if equality wasn’t pursued. Both thinkers, Marx and Priestley, claim that change must happen or disaster will inevitably strike. For the audience the dramatic irony of the inspector’s prophecy would have been very powerful, while his use second use of polysyndeton makes the list seem longer and emphasises the extra item: “anguish.”

After this, almost as a joke, the inspector leaves with a courteous “Good night,” which could be seen as the Edwardian equivalent of a mic drop.

Capitalism:
The western world today is primarily run with a capitalist agenda. Big businesses exert more power than they have ever done before. Today, the richest 26 people have more money than the poorest 3.5 billion – half the world’s population.

In 2019, the combined wealth of the ten richest people in the world is greater than the entire worth of countries like Saudi Arabia, Switzerland or Turkey. And since the lockdown began, the richest of them (Jeff Bezos) has seen his worth almost double. At the moment it would seem that the richest individuals are more powerful than many governments, which is why we are, primarily, a capitalist society. In America socialism is seen as a toxic philosophy, and many people use the word as an insult.

Capitalism has many benefits, however: although it is unfair, capitalism is allowing humans to develop new technologies at an astonishing rate. Some would argue that because humanity is facing catastrophic ecological disaster we need to concentrate wealth into small areas to allow those people to develop the technologies needed to escape.

For example, Elon Musk (age: 45; wealth: $87bn; primary source of wealth: PayPal) is currently investing a lot of his money developing electric cars, which will help reduce carbon emissions and could slow global warming. He is also developing SpaceX which is looking to start mining asteroids to extract natural resources that may allow us to live more successfully on earth, or to develop colonies on other planets should earth become uninhabitable. Capitalists would argue that Musk is doing a better job at managing a large fortune than many governments.

Socialism:
The western world today is primarily capitalist. At the moment, the rich are getting richer at a frightening rate. At the same time, ecological disaster looms. Socialists would argue that, regardless of our wealth, we all contribute to global warming and deforestation; we are consuming the planet at a terrifying rate and this even more true for the richest parts of the world.

Some socialists may argue that it doesn’t really matter how many electric cars we have, or how successful our genetically modified crops are; it doesn’t matter how much we reduce, reuse or recycle; the bitter truth is that our planet cannot cope with 7bn people. And the only proven way of managing population growth is to equalise wealth and opportunity. Poorer families tend to have more children, and so it makes sense that we equalise wealth and opportunity to bring population down.

In short, a socialist would argue that capitalism – which has consumption at its core – has gone far enough; we can’t carry on consuming in the way we are doing. The rich are rich enough, and wealth doesn’t fairly reflect contributions to society – some of the richest people on earth are oil barons, who contribute to the global warming which threatens all our lives.

Socialists argue that the time has now come when we need to work together to support one another and work towards a better future. If we don’t do this, then we are all – rich and poor alike – doomed.

This is strictly for those interested in the themes beyond the play...

Below are two videos from the Oxford University Debating Society, in which John Redwood (a Tory politician) attacks socialism, while Jeremy Corbyn supports it. Though the two speeches are full of waffle, it is interesting to see just how much the two sides struggle to find any common ground. It's as though a lot of the debate these days has ceased to be intelligent, insightful or about actual ideology and has become a sparring match where only one side or the other can be right.

Throughout his speech, Corbyn is far more sincere and angry - I think he sounds a bit like the inspector - while Redwood jokes around about socialist ideals, ridiculing them in a way that really does make him sound a little like Birling! Is it fair to say that Birling & Redwood have the luxury of treating social issues as though they're jokes BECAUSE they're privileged; while the Inspector & Corbyn's sincere anger - which can come across as being a little pompous - comes from an understanding of the suffering of the poor?

A few notes:

- John Redwood calls it Socialism vs Freedom, as he sees socialism as a thing that oppresses us while, he says, capitalism offers anyone the chance to achieve

- He talks about how capitalism has been responsible for creating the HUGE range of products and opportunities that we enjoy in the west

- He talks about Socialism as being like a traffic light, that just stops EVERYONE, regardless of whether people are waiting; while capitalism (or freedom as he calls it) is like a roundabout that allows people to go when they're ready

- Corbyn's big change comes at 1:28, after he's responded to Redwood, and then he really goes for the heartstrings

- There is a common attack against socialism which is based on the idea that it doesn't work - in its purest form (which is communism) it hasn't worked in Russia, Venezuela, China and a number of other countries - but it is worth saying that this was almost always Communism and not Socialism. And it's always worth remembering that socialism is a spectrum, which means that there are all kinds of levels of it. In extremis it might not work, in moderation it certainly does: free education is the perfect example. Really, the question isn't socialism OR capitalism, it's how much of either capitalism or socialism is the right amount?

It's also worth reading some of the comments underneath each video if you really want to understand the depth of anger that exists between capitalists and socialists in today's world.