Capitalism vs Socialism

Capitalism vs Socialism isn’t about the common good, though that is the usual main point of any argument, but is actually just a lever to manipulate people and gain their support. What it is actually about are two groups, the one in control and the one that wants control motivated by self-interest.

Self-interest can be described as wanting society, and the people of that society, to pander to their needs without having to work for the rewards of that labor. These people can be described as parasites and opportunists. The best example is the pre-Civil War plantation owner sitting back and sipping mint juleps while the slaves do all the work and suffer in poverty while the planation owner reaps the rewards and stature.

Self-interest can also be defined as devoting one’s life to an ideal and ignores any facts that run counter to that ideal or would undermine that ideal. If someone has devoted their life to overturning the established order, they are not about to admit any mistakes as it would completely undercut the foundation of their life and lead them to self-doubt and question everything they have ever done. Better to observe ignorance then honor.

Self-interest, at its root, is about whom controls the levers of power, individuals or collectives and the collectives, corporations and unions are the most notorious. You could say government is there to control the depravations, but it is one of these two groups who control the government and set the rules. There is no difference between the two, they are people just like any other people and while each group bad mouths the other, it should be remembered that, “we have met the enemy and they are us”.

Each of the two collectives constantly seek to undermine the other by blocking access to resources, usually money, used to convince people they have God on their side and that their strength is the strength of 10 because their heart is pure.

God leaves it to free will because these people don’t have pure hearts, just greed for money and power and never having to provide for themselves; to have a comfortable life at everyone else’s expense.

Although it can be argued that all nations engage in socialism, it can reasonably argued that all people, every day, engage in socialism when a person buys something and pays for it is a re-distribution of wealth. But for those that argue for a socialist form of government it is about a macro scale and that if a little bit is good, then a lot is better.

“A lot is better” . . . . not really. Anything done beyond moderation is done both badly and dangerously. It is like a junkie that has gotten hooked on drugs, it always takes a bit more and a bit more till finally they overdose . . . . like Greece did, and France, Spain and Italy have come close to.

Further, governments are notorious for running business badly. In Germany, at the beginning of the Internet Age, when all there was expensive dial-up connections, a company wanted to start a low-cost dial-up service, The company was small and plan to start small and boot strap from there. The service proved to be wildly popular but couldn’t be extended to everyone immediately and so the German government ruled if everyone couldn’t have it, then no one could and the company closed down.

For those that argue for socialism I would ask, that company had a service, offered at a low price that was popular, so why didn’t the government step in and help the company expand? It because the government supports the established companies, the big name companies because when is all said and done, politicians need to be re-elected and they need money to run for office.

In a capitalistic society the government would not have used it’s power that way to rule by fiat whether a business can exist. Yes, there are a whole host of rules, regulations and licenses for a business and a corrupt government can abuse it’s power, but they can be overruled by the courts, suffer monetary damages and embarrassment that could affect their career. Not so in a socialist state, the law backs actions such as the German government and a business would have no recourse.

Kind of heavy-handed, eh? That is government of any kind and something we could do without if it weren’t for so many unstable people in the world, people that will do anything, like Adolf Hitler or Josef Stalin, to gain and keep power.

If all people could be responsible for themselves and use common sense, courtesy and respect towards one another, we wouldn’t need government, but that is a Utopian idea. It is not the Pollyanna version that socialists have offered that an all-powerful central government would make life better for everyone. There is a word for that type of government and it is “totalitarian”.

So pick your poison, right or left. Both want to tell you how to live your life without having to be told how to run theirs. OR you could choose to live your life free of outside influence, responsibly.

So when someone says, “believe in us, we offer you more and better”, run as fast as you can away because all they want is what you have and will give you little in return, just enough to keep you on the hook to give more

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Capitalism vs Socialism

  1. Interresting post.

    To me socialism is not about “I get more”, but that we all should get sufficiently. Democracy is about we are all responsible for it to happen. And capitalism is about somebody trying to exploit others to gain more than his fair share. In my experience when someone says, “believe us, we offer you more and better”, the right reaction would not be to run as fast you can, rather to ask them how, and from whom are you taking this and are everybody getting their share.

    The reason why historically countries claiming to be socialistic have been totalitarian, is not that totalitarianism is somehow inherent to socialism, rather because the capitalism is such a powerfull and self protecting system, that in the lack of democracy throughout history it has been very difficult for socialism to compete with it other than through revolution and violence, wich often leads to totalitarianism. But we have plenty of examples of totalitarian capitalistic countries as well and some that are on the brink…

    The politicians should not be economically dependant on the capitalist. In true democracy the state funds sufficiently as for job well done, but not exessively so that nobody enters politics to gain wealth, rather to take responsibility for common issues. That is how we get the best and most responsible people to do the right jobs, and not the most greedy. The more democratic nations are in practice, the more socialistic their system is, regardless of the political lables their politicians and rulers identify with. And as the democratic process has more power, that power then needs to be less in the hands of very undemocratically powerfull capitalists.

    Does this make sense to you?

    • What you have to say is well reasoned but fits an earlier time of when self-sacrifice and altruism was in the majority and not the minority, a small minority nowadays. never forget we have entered the “Me” generation age where greed is good, though it never is

      “we all should get sufficiently” ignores those that would feed off the efforts of others with no effort of their own when they are capable of equal contribution. Those that contribute should share in the rewards. But what about someone who contributes more and makes the endeavor possible?

      Capitalism AND socialism both make use of the efforts of others, but it is people who exploit people regardless of the system. It is, as I mentioned, about moderation. When any system becomes excessive, corrections swing wider and wider, they have signed their own doom.

      “because the capitalism is such a powerfull and self protecting system”, any system is self-protective. People who have power want to keep it.

      “the lack of democracy throughout history it has been very difficult for socialism to compete”, socialism is an old world concept that evolved out of the abuses by the nobility and feudalism. Everyone pitched in but didn’t share equally and over the course of history, with revolution, that evolved into the forced sharing because they didn’t have a different idea.

      “The politicians should not be economically dependant on the capitalist”, which I think is a purposely limited view. Politicians are dependent on whoever has the money in a non-totalitarian state. In a totalitarian state, politicians are dependent on favoritism, cronyism and patronage. In neither case are politicians their own masters, nor are they suppose to since they are suppose to represent “the will of the people”

      “In true democracy the state funds sufficiently as for job well done, but not exessively so that nobody enters politics to gain wealth, rather to take responsibility for common issues.” FDR called this “noblesse oblige” the noble obligation of the wealthy and well educated to take care of the lesser masses. Definitely condescending when being rich insulates you from the every day struggle of the average working person.

      “The more democratic nations are in practice, the more socialistic their system is, regardless of the political lables their politicians and rulers identify with.” that is totally untrue. While governments collect taxes to fund different things, the citizens have less of a say how that money is used the more socialist a country is. And they have less to spend the way they would choose, which in anti-democratic.

      “And as the democratic process has more power, that power then needs to be less in the hands of very undemocratically powerfull capitalists.” Nononono, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. They needs to be less power and more decentralization of power to the local level rather then far away in an out of touch power center.

      You would create a system of enabling a culture of dependency, as would the left wing would like. One that is dependent on them. I would seek to empower people to be responsible in their own right and be their own moral authority.

      It is a local system of government that best knows the needs of its people and with closeness, a system of making sure the politicians stay honest. It is excessive size of any form of political system that causes failure. Perhaps it would be best to bring back city-states, but I’d prefer a course that evolves and emphasizes responsibility rather then dependence of the good will of someone that doesn’t understand my community.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s