Among our current economic systems, I think socialism *should* work the best, and I have thought so for quite some time.
Capitalism might *sound* the best in theory, but in practice, I feel that it falters significantly. Capitalism seems to create an environment in which those who strive their hardest reap the benefits of their hard work and "naturally" rise to the top. But what actually happens? A capitalist system--essentially by definition--creates a separation between those who have capital and those who do not have capital. It makes the path from the "have-nots" to the "haves" extremely difficult because, frankly, if you don't have capital (whether economic, intellectual, or manual) to start with, how the hell are you going to create it from nothing?
I also feel that Americans are afraid of socialism because we collectively-think that capitalism naturally punishes the lazy/unskilled by having the capitalist system eventually putting them in an economic downturn while rewarding the harder-working with constant sources of income. I'm going to use anecdotal evidence here to show otherwise. For an example of an arguably-undeserving individual who is definitely on the extreme edges of the "haves," Paris Hilton anyone? Even so, careers in the entertainment field (movies, television, music, pornography, etc.), sports arena (football, baseball, etc.), and business corporations can be extraordinarily lucrative. But what about more respected jobs like the President of the United States, teachers, doctors, and journalists? These people generally make significantly less than the high-achievers in the entertainment/sports/business fields. And about what about those extremely hard-working but unfulfilling jobs like waiters, checkers, and various blue-collar positions? These people are among the most marginalized economically.
So what I'm saying is that our economic resources are allocated in a highly non-ideal manner in our "capitalistic" society. This is where I think socialism (although admittedly with its own faults) can counter many of capitalism's faults.
Some people are going to be naturally high-performing individuals who, in a capitalistic system, will be extremely well-off. (And of course, there will be people who will just be "born into wealth" and stay there.) But I ask you, is this right? Should it mostly matter based on one's skills/achievements where one fits in the economic spectrum of things? I'm skeptical to say that it should. Here in America, we hear a lot about why the government sends our troops overseas and sends food/money aid to other countries when we apparently can't even feed our own hungry or shelter our own homeless or whatever. I mean, if we're the richest country in the world, we should be able to do that, right? Right?! Well, as I've said, our economic system doesn't really give us the means to do so.
Generally, in a socialist system, we pool all our resources/capabilities/etc and then take what we need/want based on our input. Obviously, there is a vast variation among socialist thinkers on how we would do this, how much we put in, how much we take out, and so on and so forth. But the key thing to pick up on here is this: no matter how much you put in, you will put in what you can, and the system will (try to) take care of you. So going back to the previous paragraph, those high-performing individuals will definitely put in more than they take out, but this is the way it should be. Those at the upper echelons of human ability should be helping out those in the lower cohorts of society. We shouldn't have a "I earned this and I'm keeping all of it" mentality; such a mentality will not lead us on a progressive path. And likewise, those in a capitalist society who would constantly always just be making it would no longer have to worry about making it to the next month's bills as long as they're contributing to society what they can (through being janitors, car-washers, sandwich makers, or whatever). They wouldn't have much left over to live as "lavishly" as those who are contributing to the system more.
Of course, there will always be slackers and people who try to (and maybe succeed to) cheat the system. There's no fit-all net. Please do not give me bullshit about lazy people who just ride off society's backs. There are plenty of possible measures to attempt to combat this: new laws, "job checks," the creation of some sort of job investigation office, etc.
To wrap up, I support socialism. I'm not saying that I want to overthrow capitalism in favor of socialism or that socialism is a winning system. I'm just saying I support socialism. I have no idea how American politics have demonized it so much.
Unrelated, but I'm currently listening to the British DJ band Friendly Fires' "Kiss of Life":
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What's sickening is that we can't have a sensible debate these days. Socialism is misrepresented, as is capitalism and the need for relatively-free markets. The need for public goods (think infrastructure, defense, health care etc) in a society is paramount; these are things that markets simply cannot provide, yet they are things that we collectively "deserve." The easy sort of question is "do we need a [insert favorite essential public good]?" The hard question is "do we need a *bigger* one?"
ReplyDeleteThe only way to sensibly answer the "how much" questions is by assessing the status quo in relation to potential costs/benefits of reducing/expanding/reforming whatever the relevant program or service is. That being said, we need a lot of reform. Sadly, no one quite agrees on how much or in which direction; the government probably spends too much *on the whole*, but I feel that it grossly underinvests in many things (e.g., healthcare and quality education). Ohh, and policy wonks and the media usually do more harm than good—providing unreliable information to the same mass audience that they claim they want to inform, but that's a whole other issue...
Slight digression: I've done a lot of thinking about what might constitute a “fair” tax policy--and yes, you need one in either system, implicitly or explicitly. Part of what matters for behavioral incentives, of course, is your marginal tax rate; but what is the philosophical justification for a progressive tax code? The normative criteria that could justify it are just as arbitrary as the criteria that could justify a regressive tax code. Of course the latter would outrage the majority of people, even if one could prove that regressive taxes would be "better" than flat or progressive ones. But since nobody knows what "better" even means, we can't objectively make progress (think about the opportunity costs: if you never know what would have happened and why, you can never know if actual policy outcomes are better than they otherwise would be).
Guess the bottom line is that this is an intellectual problem as well as a logistical one. How do we satisfy unbelievably diverse preferences over freedom/security/welfare etc? Do we simply marginalize certain ones as senseless, and proceed to do what we assert is right? Also, how do we want to allocate *power* itself?