Tuesday, April 6, 2010

Socialism And Capitalism

Those that advocate socialism almost always seek to take other peoples' wealth and resources and spread it around. How dare them! On the other hand, what is the inverse of this argument?

Those that advocate capitalism almost always seek to keep their own wealth and resources (with a few selectively chosen charities to support)*. Why is this any less maddening? It exposes the fact that humanity is a decidedly self-interested lot. If ONE is maddening, the OTHER should be as well.

One way to address this problem is for society to fracture itself into distinct groups. Put all those that favor capitalism together, and do likewise with every other distinct group.

What is likely to happen with this "fracturing" of society? Subversion from within. Why? Let's use capitalism as an example. The strongest supporters of capitalism are those that use it to their advantage maximally. How does one do this? By employing mostly "meager" souls to do the dirty work required of their enterprises, leaving them with most of the profit. This is how capitalism works! I am implying this to be NEITHER good NOR bad.....it just IS!

However, being that we now have a fractured society such that capitalists are living amongst only capitalists free of any stupid or evil "socialists" to stand in their way, there are no longer "meager" souls to "exploit". Bottom line, intentions have a way of going horribly awry! Imagine if everybody aspired to be like Donald Trump, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. If this ever happened (it never would but will merely be imagined to ponder its inevitable ramification), it would be a bloodbath of hyper-driven "Type As" all trying to usurp one another!

Of course one need not be a clairvoyant to surmise what would happen with the purely socialist group. Nothing would ever get done because PARASITES have no sustenance without HOSTS/PRODUCERS!

I am criticizing NEITHER parasites NOR producers. I am exposing the importance of BOTH! See the following blog entitled The Importance Of Balance.

*Capitalism despises any sort of tax by definition (especially when it does not support individually chosen "pet projects"). On the other hand, those that advocate socialism can more easily embrace the idea of wealth redistribution because generally it is not theirs to take and give away discriminately!


  1. I understand where you are coming from in your rationale however, I believe that your theories are based on some assumptions that aren't completely true. For example not everyone in favor of socialism is unemployed or even poor. As far as the poor workers in favor of socialism so that they can afford health care and healthy standard of living I think it is a little one sided to label them as parasites. A parasite is a being thriving by taking from a host. You could argue that the Donald Trumps of the world are thriving off of the work and talents of the people that they employ. Would they not in that since be parasitic? Jeff Koons for example employs people to make his art work. He makes millions of dollars of it and they get no credit for their work.

  2. There are very different forms of socialism. It is just a term of a uniform way of organizing economic decisions.
    Democratic socialism gives economic decisions to the voters. Everybody has a equal choice. It is used mostly by local communities to determine whether or not some land should be used to build a school or a library or something like that. It is very useful for community building and protecting the environment because most people desire those things to some extent.
    Libertarian socialism is the enumeration of economic decisions to every individual. That means individuals are not restrained by uninterested outsiders. For instance, a theater troupe best knows the value of its plays. It would be very sad if the government wanted through popular vote to replace their theater with a highway or something. Libertarians are very scared of the slippery slope of taking economic decisions from individuals because outsiders might restrain individuals to the point of inaction. This is a problem in India where creating a new business is extremely difficult because applications for new businesses are so carefully considered.

    I personally subscribed to a pluralistic, multilateral approach to government. I think people should be able to make businesses on the small level easily and large, future-changing decisions can be made by the voters. So many decisions are made aptly by voters and their representatives, it is sad that in America, they get so little credit. The government in actually is much like a business. It provides services and interacts with its consumers. The government is the principle business of a society of which it centers itself. Without government, fighting over land rights, cooperating between unions and employers, and responding to tragedy would be difficult. Because a democratic government is so dependent upon its people that its economic decisions are also dependent. Though government can become corrupt, those who become corrupt are targets of scorn and exile.

    A sorry this is quite long, it is just that I could talk for a long time about government and economics under my own philosophy. Just remember that different methods of handling economic decisions are already in place and will probably continue despite the debates on which pure system is best and only one to use.

  3. Brian, thank you for your response. I know that much of my assertions are very oversimplified and stereotypical. But that is just to make the point that the only way to approach these issues in the amount of detail that they deserve creates completely arbitrary answers to these kinds of issues. And additionally, they become overly complicated when every detail and exception worthy of being mentioned is accounted for. But alas, we have neither the time nor money to do this. My oversimplified assertions are about the only way things are approached these days.....just listen to talk radio or other sources of "opinion and rhetoric". I guess my overarching point is that unless it is "I" that am in control of these kinds of decisions, I respectfully acknowledge whatever decision is made (within reason) realizing that MY answers are no less subjective than somebody else's OPPOSING ones (at least necessarily).

  4. Eric J.S., thank you for your input. It is interesting to listen to die-hard capitalists drone on about the evils of government, but none of them that I know ever criticize police and fire protection, for example. But then beyond that, it gets very arbitrary according to individual preferences as to where the government "line of intervention" should end. See the following link: