Some Guy
Deregulated User
- Jan 19, 2010
- 2,437
- 426
- 130
Good post, but there's a bit of a catch 22 in there. It is in societies' best interest that everyone (or as many as are physically and mentally capable) be as productive as possible. While capitalism pushes the monetary power up to the hands of a few, it also keeps the populous motivated to be productive. Add some socialist elements in there that allows people to make a living off the backs of others makes the society as a whole less productive, thus bringing everyone down a bit.Obama's not a socialist. I've been corresponding with the head of the American Socialist Party ever since I read his article where he addresses that canard point by point. And as time has gone on, it's only become more true. Unless you're a conspiracy nut and think "he's lying to you to advance the Socialist agenda" go read the article which is easily googleable.
One of the things I've noticed on this board is that people don't understand that a belief system or political system can touch in part on an idea, but not fully equate with said idea. Socialism is a perfect example. Just because you want a measure of equality for all citizens doesnt mean you are a socialist.
Yes, according to Marx, socialism is a stage of development on the way from capitalism to full communism, but it can be a political system in and of itself. In fact to be a distinct stage it would have to be able to be isolated. It's also worth noting that socialism has an element of incentivism that's essential to it - one of the myths going round of course is the idea that a socialist system takes all the incentive out of achieving.
The idea of employee ownership has actually come up during the last 30 years as a great way of incentivizing the work force. When the workers own and get the profits from the company they're toiling at they have a sense of pride and personal investment. (Libertarian Marxism anyone?)
But this sounds like more apologetics for socialism. They system we have...and will always have...will be a hybrid between capitalism and socialism. Why? Because the essential role of government is to band together for the collective good.
That's it. Not much brain surgery required to understand it. And because banding together for the collective good is similar to socialism, one element of the public will always push the government towards that extreme.
Personally, I favor a capitalist economy, but I'm not so naive as to think that huge corporations always have my best interests at heart and wont use their power and leverage to make a buck at my expense. I'm also not naive enough to think that government always has my best interest at heart and wont try to gain more power at my expense. I know that there are lazy bums who wont work and who will live on the hard work of others...but I also know that the poverty of some effects the bottom line of all of us..and that private charity isn't enough.
So there I sit...in the middle. With socialism not being so bad when taken in small doses, if by socialism you mean some amount of charity for those who truly need it and some amount of contribution for the collective good.
That's the problem i have with the whole "we should all be equal" thought. You can't take the incentive to succeed out of the equation and not expect the result to change. If the rewards are great, then someone is going to be a lot more likely to work very hard for it. If the rewards aren't worth it, then why bother? Obviously that'll vary by personal beliefs, but the more you forcefully take from the top to give to the bottom, the more you discourage the top from providing anything to be taken.