This is another one of my multi-day explorations of some ideas we find filtering through the political topics of the day when we're not busy trying to argue about church placement.
Socialism: An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity.
What ... does this have to do with any party in the United States? The answer really is "it doesn't" but the use of the word Socialist as an attack on Obama during 2008 has proven viral and now tends to crop up in any discussion where the government seeks to manage economic affairs. For the next few entries I want to explore one of the core differences between true conservatives and progressives: The level to which the government should be involved in economic systems.
To start, let's put the other two biggies out there:
Capitalism: An economic and political system characterized by a free market for goods and services and private control of production and consumption.
Communism: An economic and social system envisioned by the nineteenth-century German scholar Karl Marx. In theory, under communism, all means of production are owned in common, rather than by individuals (see Marxism and Marxism-Leninism). In practice, a single authoritarian party controls both the political and economic systems.
Now don't panic if you don't get what 'means of production' or 'free market' specifically refers to. I'm going to break these definitions down for the purpose of examining how they creep into our political discourse. Whether you watch CNN, Fox or MSNBC, you should have a pretty good idea when I'm done of what's being batted about.
Let's start first with Capitalism and the Capitalist problem.
The United States is a capitalist country. This is to say our economics are driven by free enterprise and competition - the idea being that anyone can attempt to offer a good or service at any price to any one and if they find the right combination of variables that draw others to pay for their work, they reap the benefits. To encourage that, Americans are allowed to 'keep what they kill' which is to say they ideally the dollars they make are theirs to use as they see fit.
The theory behind capitalism as a dominant economic system is that success is an 'aura'. That is, like light, it radiates out from the successful and allows others around them to benefit from that success. So with an absolutely free market, those who find success will bring it to others. So a Hotel success hires employees, creates opportunities for cleaning service businesses and travel agencies, and encourages others to follow in their footsteps filling a needed demand. Capitalists are kept sharp by competition: If you do it wrong or too expensive or are shoddy, someone else will do it better, take your customers, and drive you out of business.
However capitalism depends on greed.
Hold on while I beat the Libertarians back with a stick.
There. Okay. Where was I?
Capitalism depends on greed. This is not to make the Biblical moral judgment about greed, but rather that everything a capitalist economy depends on is founded in the desire by people to possess and control resources regardless of their NEED for those resources. Business are started, expanded and compete to control their markets and to acquire as much money as possible which is passed on to those in control or with a 'vested' interest in the business group - the investors.
This appeals to human nature. The animal inside every one of us seeks daily to acquire the resources we want and need, so taking that model and applying it outward has a natural feel to it. It is, arguably, why capitalism has been so successful to date. Nothing about a capitalist economy asks us to do much over and above our basic animal instincts - just do it smarter, better, faster, and more.
However capitalism suffers a natural problem: The more successful someone is, by definition, the more power they have to influence the economy itself. That economy rewards those who find the best way to do something whether or not 'best' means healthy, friendly, or constructive. This means there is a slow pooling of resources in the hands of a few who are then perversely motivated to do whatever it takes to maximize further gain even if those gains come with social costs or even long term economic costs that might prove disastrous to the society. Pollution, exploitative labor practice, theft, even murder are all on the table if Capitalism is left completely unregulated.
The United States has been faced with the consequence of under-regulation of business time and time again. The Great Depression is best known example, giving birth to the 'administrative state' where government stepped in to create organizational safety nets after unregulated capitalism nearly destroyed the nation. But since then, we've really struggled with knowing where the 'sweet spot' is as to how much regulation and control the government should exert over private enterprise.
So here's what I'm going to try to do starting tomorrow.
First, I'm going to talk a little bit about what kind of Capitalism we have and what role the government plays in our private enterprise.
Second, we'll talk about socialism: What makes it different, and why is it Americans can't seem to differentiate between a Socialist and a Marxist.
Third, I'm going to make fun of the Tea Party and Libertarians using what we cover in prior. This should prove fun for most of us because really both groups have no idea what they're asking for and seem to have a borderline sociopathic misunderstanding of what role government must play in economics in a modern world economy.
Sound fun? See you tomorrow then!
Socialism: An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity.
What ... does this have to do with any party in the United States? The answer really is "it doesn't" but the use of the word Socialist as an attack on Obama during 2008 has proven viral and now tends to crop up in any discussion where the government seeks to manage economic affairs. For the next few entries I want to explore one of the core differences between true conservatives and progressives: The level to which the government should be involved in economic systems.
To start, let's put the other two biggies out there:
Capitalism: An economic and political system characterized by a free market for goods and services and private control of production and consumption.
Communism: An economic and social system envisioned by the nineteenth-century German scholar Karl Marx. In theory, under communism, all means of production are owned in common, rather than by individuals (see Marxism and Marxism-Leninism). In practice, a single authoritarian party controls both the political and economic systems.
Now don't panic if you don't get what 'means of production' or 'free market' specifically refers to. I'm going to break these definitions down for the purpose of examining how they creep into our political discourse. Whether you watch CNN, Fox or MSNBC, you should have a pretty good idea when I'm done of what's being batted about.
Let's start first with Capitalism and the Capitalist problem.
The United States is a capitalist country. This is to say our economics are driven by free enterprise and competition - the idea being that anyone can attempt to offer a good or service at any price to any one and if they find the right combination of variables that draw others to pay for their work, they reap the benefits. To encourage that, Americans are allowed to 'keep what they kill' which is to say they ideally the dollars they make are theirs to use as they see fit.
The theory behind capitalism as a dominant economic system is that success is an 'aura'. That is, like light, it radiates out from the successful and allows others around them to benefit from that success. So with an absolutely free market, those who find success will bring it to others. So a Hotel success hires employees, creates opportunities for cleaning service businesses and travel agencies, and encourages others to follow in their footsteps filling a needed demand. Capitalists are kept sharp by competition: If you do it wrong or too expensive or are shoddy, someone else will do it better, take your customers, and drive you out of business.
However capitalism depends on greed.
Hold on while I beat the Libertarians back with a stick.
Capitalism depends on greed. This is not to make the Biblical moral judgment about greed, but rather that everything a capitalist economy depends on is founded in the desire by people to possess and control resources regardless of their NEED for those resources. Business are started, expanded and compete to control their markets and to acquire as much money as possible which is passed on to those in control or with a 'vested' interest in the business group - the investors.
This appeals to human nature. The animal inside every one of us seeks daily to acquire the resources we want and need, so taking that model and applying it outward has a natural feel to it. It is, arguably, why capitalism has been so successful to date. Nothing about a capitalist economy asks us to do much over and above our basic animal instincts - just do it smarter, better, faster, and more.
However capitalism suffers a natural problem: The more successful someone is, by definition, the more power they have to influence the economy itself. That economy rewards those who find the best way to do something whether or not 'best' means healthy, friendly, or constructive. This means there is a slow pooling of resources in the hands of a few who are then perversely motivated to do whatever it takes to maximize further gain even if those gains come with social costs or even long term economic costs that might prove disastrous to the society. Pollution, exploitative labor practice, theft, even murder are all on the table if Capitalism is left completely unregulated.
The United States has been faced with the consequence of under-regulation of business time and time again. The Great Depression is best known example, giving birth to the 'administrative state' where government stepped in to create organizational safety nets after unregulated capitalism nearly destroyed the nation. But since then, we've really struggled with knowing where the 'sweet spot' is as to how much regulation and control the government should exert over private enterprise.
So here's what I'm going to try to do starting tomorrow.
First, I'm going to talk a little bit about what kind of Capitalism we have and what role the government plays in our private enterprise.
Second, we'll talk about socialism: What makes it different, and why is it Americans can't seem to differentiate between a Socialist and a Marxist.
Third, I'm going to make fun of the Tea Party and Libertarians using what we cover in prior. This should prove fun for most of us because really both groups have no idea what they're asking for and seem to have a borderline sociopathic misunderstanding of what role government must play in economics in a modern world economy.
Sound fun? See you tomorrow then!
Comments
Post a Comment