Socialism vs Capitalism: Anthony's Post

I would like to begin by saying that I do not believe that either absolute capitalism or absolute socialism can provide the maximum benefit to society. Each system has serious flaws that cannot be counteracted if one system is practiced in entirety. Using a capitalist term, you must hedge or better yet diversify a system to protect against vulnerabilities. That is why I still advocate that a balance between socialist and capitalist principles is both possible and practical to providing the maximum benefit to society. My response to your entry will be governed by that overriding principle.

First, I would like to state that we do indeed live in a capitalist society. It is not one that adheres completely to the tenants of capitalism, but the world and specifically the western world, follow its basic principals. The evidence for our society being more capitalist than socialist, in my eyes, is overwhelming. We are market driven: the engine for the world is in the trade and growth of commodities and assets. Societies are stratified: there are stark distinctions in the population when it comes to assets, educational levels, access to health care, and earnings. Society is materialistic: the pursuit of goods or of services of increasing quality is the base motivation for occupation. Society is merit based: those that add the most value are rewarded in our current system through increased salary earnings, access to limited resources, and social standing. If you wanted to do a quick check on whether our society is socialist or capitalist leaning, ask someone why it is that they work. If they answer so that I can make money, or so that they can buy food or any other answer linked to their survival or comfort level in life, you are in a capitalist leaning society. A socialist nation's answer is more likely to say, so I can serve my nation, so that I can do my part for the whole, or because the government told me I have to do this. Just because there are aspects of socialism in our capitalist society (i.e. taxes, government regulation, welfare, etc.) does not negate the fact that our society is largely capitalist.

What happened in the past eight years has not been much different from the past 100 years. I don't think that 'good ole boyism' was much greater under Bush than anyone else, perhaps more visible because of his lack of tact. Officials who are bad leaders or liars or who are in office just to have an office were put there by their electorate just like they always have been. People who made it to the top of their corporations were not given the shoe in by a George Bush memo or by anyone else for that matter. They were put at the top because the corporation felt it was in their own best interest. There are examples of exceptions such as Halliburton or Supreme Court nominations, but overall our government and business leaders were put there because their constituents believed them best capable to represent their interests. I am not saying cronyism does not exist, but that it has always been there and always will be. It is a matter of powerful groups or individuals protecting their own interests. This is an area where Capitalism is especially vulnerable.

If a rich businessman reaches a point where he needs to choose a successor for his company, he may be presented with a choice. Pick the most capable person who will grow the company to its maximum potential, or pick a friend of yours who is nearly as capable who will ensure that you are included on the board and get a nice fat check every year in the process. Most people would pick the latter, thus submitting to cronyism. There really is no way to stop this phenomenon in Capitalism, and here is why. The businessman is justified philosophically because he is doing what is in his best interest. Secondly, he has the capability to make it happen through financing, influence, or any other form of using his power. This is just one illustration of the ultimate flaw in Capitalism; there is no moral incentive… more on that later.

Power begets more power. On a search to find if I had heard that somewhere, but I ran across an equally useful quote: "It seems there exists a growing compulsion to use power merely to beget more power, money merely to beget more money, irrespective of the true cost to the nation's soul. And it is this sickness, a kind of moral blindness, commerce without conscience, which threatens to strike at the very soul of this nation." The danger of Capitalism is for the powerful to simply leave behind everyone else. And this brings us to that question, so what?

I disagree with Ayn Rand's conclusion that altruism is the overriding philosophy of humanity. I do believe that altruism is pervasive throughout humanity, but I think the philosophy or the cause of that altruism is self-preservation. I believe survival is still the basis for all human behavior, and I believe that this selfish inclination is the cause of humanities altruism. We help others because we will want the same done for us at another time. In our symbiotic relationships with others, it comes down to the belief that what you give is what you get. The masses have a reason to fear a truly capitalistic system. It would lead to the marginalization of the vast majority of the human population.

Extreme socialism would do the opposite. In an attempt to make everyone relevant, they restrain those with potential, and embolden the ordinary. An extreme of socialism, which I believe would look more like communism, would also have the detrimental effect of stunting progression and enticing complacency. I still point out that this is sort of social structure was present in the cradle of humanity. The tribe was the ultimate socialist manifestation, and it worked best for a long time. It largely became outdated because of population and resource constraints, but I do not believe bitterness, corruption, or even laziness as the source of that shift.

I believe that socialism can compliment capitalism if both are moderated. The main argument for this is in human capital. This has been studied to death by economists and sociologist who agree that providing the basics of survival (food, shelter and a livelihood) would be a great boon for the long term progress of humanity. The reality in the world and in this country is that people are not born on an even playing field. The basic assumption of capitalism that the best will raise out of mediocrity is not valid when a large part of the population is handicapped from the beginning. I have no intentions of defending socialisms tendency to let people 'get by' on the hard work of others, because that is indeed a pitfall of a true socialist society.

Your question of the playing field is very dangerous indeed. The reason most are afraid to entertain the topic is because attempts to answer this question in the past has been disastrous. Is it a fact that some people do not belong on the playing field? Absolutely not. Deciding who is 'worthy' or to the 'benefit of humanity' is the basis of nearly every genocide or ethnic cleansing in the world, and while you are not directly supporting these actions, assuming that some are indeed unworthy of 'playing' can lead to those perversions. The question is valid, but I believe the answer is a clear yes that everyone belongs on the playing field. The reasons are very clear.

In any attempts to cull humanity of its less desirable traits seems like a reasonable task only on the surface. It would be akin to asking someone to cut the perfect circle out of a square piece of paper. The first circle would be better than the original square, and the second circle would be better than the first. But no matter how well the circle is cut, a new flaw would point itself out. So you cut again and again, until you eventually run out of paper. That is an extreme analogy, but it shows the basic catch, humanity would never be free of flaws to cut out. Rather than going down that slippery slope, the more manageable way of improving humanity is as a whole. Which brings about the next question: what would that look like?