This is one that I have had in my head for a while. I did some research to bolster my knowledge and facts and then did not do the post. So, I reacquainted myself with some more study and I am actually going to write something this time. This is NOT meant to be an all-encompassing intellectual discussion. There will be liberties taken with some of the terms and thoughts. These are my own. I would hope the spirit of the piece is recognized as being factual even if certain small aspects are simplified or otherwise changed. As long as they are civil, I welcome comments and discourse.
With the term "socialist" being thrown around so much these days, I wanted to address some facts and thoughts about socialism. First, realize that both socialism and communism can be an economic system and/or a system of government. Capitalism on the other hand is only an economic system. I am particularly going to address socialism as an economic system.
Let me start out by saying that on paper (or in theory if you would rather) both socialism (and communism for that matter) are very compelling and interesting and may offer the "best" government. They offer promise of eliminating need and poverty while balancing out the inequalities of wealth distribution, eliminating discrimination and exploitation of the worker. So, why not socialism? Unfortunately, because of people. There are aspects of people's characters, personalities and interactions that make socialism (and communism) unworkable.
First, what IS socialism? (remember, the economic system is what we are speaking of and defining)
Most experts agree there are from four to eight different types of socialism. I lean more towards the four (maybe five), with the other four being subsets of the first four or truly impossible to achieve.
My four:
The first is democratic socialism, The means of production - labor, land & property, entrepreneurship, and capital are all jointly and equally owned by the people. To state them more simply: 1) the output/work, 2) the factories, raw materials, and/or land, 3) the ideas of businesses (what to and how much to produce), and 4) the money to run the production. In this system, the government through central planning distributes/provides common goods and services like health care, infrastructure, housing, etc. Consumer goods are distributed by the free market. We actually have aspects of democratic socialism now as I am sure you thought about as you read that. This is the type of socialism that is practiced in most of the Scandinavian countries and other "western" countries that are considered socialist to one degree or another.
The second type is market socialism. The nuance here is that the consumer goods are distributed by the workers/people. Otherwise it is basically the same as above. This is slightly more "communist" in practice.
The third type is green socialism. This puts a priority on protection and care for natural resources. Special emphasis is on mass transit, with use of private transport very limited; use of locally sourced foods, a "livable wage" for all, and emphasis on sufficient basic needs vs wants and excess consumerism.
The fourth type is libertarian (and I add one that is sometimes separated here: revolutionary) socialism. This says that if capitalism is done away with, people will naturally gravitate to a socialist system. The details are more democratic in nature but include any aspects of socialism. I include revolutionary as it also says that the end of capitalism will cause people to naturally gravitate towards socialism, they just believe in taking capitalism down through revolution vs elections or other peaceful means.
So, I have stated that I think the socialism is a great idea on paper. So, let's go...right? Why not?
The issue as I mentioned at the outset is: PEOPLE. Not everyone has the same work ethic or drive. There are those that think they should be given more simply because they want more. When I have explained this to students, I always ask if they have ever done a group project. I ask them if there were those that were "dead wood" and expected the rest of the group to do the work. In every case, they said "yes". Even if their group was OK, they know of students that they were very glad were not in their group. I can ask working people if they have people they work with that take extra breaks, come in late, leave early, are always asking for help to finish their work, etc. Usually most people know of someone they have worked with like that. Socialism allows those type to "skate" through a bit more. (although things like the minimum wage have bastardized capitalism to where it does not function correctly sometimes either!. But, that is another post maybe)
Now, to be fair, aspects of socialism say goods will be distributed with people's contribution in mind. So, if you produced more, you get more of the common goods. But, this falls apart. Why? A person or committee has to decide who did the most work and who is due the most goods. This leads to favoritism, pay-offs, power trips, and other issues. So, the best workers with the highest output eventually quit working so hard. That means overall output goes down, which means what is available to share is more limited. This can lead to stealing, coercion, or other means of people trying to get what they think they are due.
The next aspect of socialism (and one tied very closely to the one above) that has arisen in every case where a country has become mostly or truly socialist is a large and powerful government. To insure that the central planning is carried out and the distribution of goods and services is "fair" requires power. The issue here is when power is centralized then the people wielding that power feel "special". Having "special" people is what socialism is supposed to eliminate. This lead to a "class" of people that have more power, therefore they can (and usually do) take more goods and/or money from the collective pot. This leads to abuses and dissatisfaction among the masses.
The last aspect of socialism that makes it less favorable is the suppression of entrepreneurship. Apple, FedEx, Google, and being fair; almost every business today started in the mind of an entrepreneur and was built off of that idea. Socialism uses more of a "hive mind" if you will which stifles creative types and has them conform to the group. This can lead to a stagnation of the economy and growth and lack of innovation.
So, socialism is an idea that sounds pretty darn good on paper. I personally believe (and there are facts to back this up where it has been tried) that people in general cannot make it work in practice. The larger the group of people involved, the less likely it is to work.
Again, civil comments are welcomed.
With the term "socialist" being thrown around so much these days, I wanted to address some facts and thoughts about socialism. First, realize that both socialism and communism can be an economic system and/or a system of government. Capitalism on the other hand is only an economic system. I am particularly going to address socialism as an economic system.
Let me start out by saying that on paper (or in theory if you would rather) both socialism (and communism for that matter) are very compelling and interesting and may offer the "best" government. They offer promise of eliminating need and poverty while balancing out the inequalities of wealth distribution, eliminating discrimination and exploitation of the worker. So, why not socialism? Unfortunately, because of people. There are aspects of people's characters, personalities and interactions that make socialism (and communism) unworkable.
First, what IS socialism? (remember, the economic system is what we are speaking of and defining)
Most experts agree there are from four to eight different types of socialism. I lean more towards the four (maybe five), with the other four being subsets of the first four or truly impossible to achieve.
My four:
The first is democratic socialism, The means of production - labor, land & property, entrepreneurship, and capital are all jointly and equally owned by the people. To state them more simply: 1) the output/work, 2) the factories, raw materials, and/or land, 3) the ideas of businesses (what to and how much to produce), and 4) the money to run the production. In this system, the government through central planning distributes/provides common goods and services like health care, infrastructure, housing, etc. Consumer goods are distributed by the free market. We actually have aspects of democratic socialism now as I am sure you thought about as you read that. This is the type of socialism that is practiced in most of the Scandinavian countries and other "western" countries that are considered socialist to one degree or another.
The second type is market socialism. The nuance here is that the consumer goods are distributed by the workers/people. Otherwise it is basically the same as above. This is slightly more "communist" in practice.
The third type is green socialism. This puts a priority on protection and care for natural resources. Special emphasis is on mass transit, with use of private transport very limited; use of locally sourced foods, a "livable wage" for all, and emphasis on sufficient basic needs vs wants and excess consumerism.
The fourth type is libertarian (and I add one that is sometimes separated here: revolutionary) socialism. This says that if capitalism is done away with, people will naturally gravitate to a socialist system. The details are more democratic in nature but include any aspects of socialism. I include revolutionary as it also says that the end of capitalism will cause people to naturally gravitate towards socialism, they just believe in taking capitalism down through revolution vs elections or other peaceful means.
So, I have stated that I think the socialism is a great idea on paper. So, let's go...right? Why not?
The issue as I mentioned at the outset is: PEOPLE. Not everyone has the same work ethic or drive. There are those that think they should be given more simply because they want more. When I have explained this to students, I always ask if they have ever done a group project. I ask them if there were those that were "dead wood" and expected the rest of the group to do the work. In every case, they said "yes". Even if their group was OK, they know of students that they were very glad were not in their group. I can ask working people if they have people they work with that take extra breaks, come in late, leave early, are always asking for help to finish their work, etc. Usually most people know of someone they have worked with like that. Socialism allows those type to "skate" through a bit more. (although things like the minimum wage have bastardized capitalism to where it does not function correctly sometimes either!. But, that is another post maybe)
Now, to be fair, aspects of socialism say goods will be distributed with people's contribution in mind. So, if you produced more, you get more of the common goods. But, this falls apart. Why? A person or committee has to decide who did the most work and who is due the most goods. This leads to favoritism, pay-offs, power trips, and other issues. So, the best workers with the highest output eventually quit working so hard. That means overall output goes down, which means what is available to share is more limited. This can lead to stealing, coercion, or other means of people trying to get what they think they are due.
The next aspect of socialism (and one tied very closely to the one above) that has arisen in every case where a country has become mostly or truly socialist is a large and powerful government. To insure that the central planning is carried out and the distribution of goods and services is "fair" requires power. The issue here is when power is centralized then the people wielding that power feel "special". Having "special" people is what socialism is supposed to eliminate. This lead to a "class" of people that have more power, therefore they can (and usually do) take more goods and/or money from the collective pot. This leads to abuses and dissatisfaction among the masses.
The last aspect of socialism that makes it less favorable is the suppression of entrepreneurship. Apple, FedEx, Google, and being fair; almost every business today started in the mind of an entrepreneur and was built off of that idea. Socialism uses more of a "hive mind" if you will which stifles creative types and has them conform to the group. This can lead to a stagnation of the economy and growth and lack of innovation.
So, socialism is an idea that sounds pretty darn good on paper. I personally believe (and there are facts to back this up where it has been tried) that people in general cannot make it work in practice. The larger the group of people involved, the less likely it is to work.
Again, civil comments are welcomed.
Comments