Socialism vs Capitalism
80
SOCIALISM VS CAPITALISM
This Hub is the last of six in a series. Previous entries include: Define Socialism; Pros and Cons of Capitalism; Experiments in Socialism; How Socialism Works; and Socialism in America.
All nations that have fully implemented Socialism have experienced a drastic drop in their standard of living, marked by both a lack of goods and food. Each has seen the loss of civil rights, liberty, and freedom. All have witnessed the emergence of a savior figure. The people starve to death.
Socialism promises freedom and prosperity, but it delivers bondage and misery. Socialism means slavery; it assumes management of the lives of people; it accepts nothing less than complete control. Its conscious aim is to regulate the day-to-day affairs of a community. The very men who are most anxious to plan society, are also the most dangerous, as they are most intolerant of the plans of others. From the saintly and single-minded idealist to the fanatic is often but a step.
Socialism is a deliberate organization of the labors of society to achieve social goals. It wants to organize the whole of society and all its resources, and refuses to recognize autonomy of individuals. This is totalitarianism de facto.
A Socialist government must not allow itself to be fettered by democratic procedure. On the contrary, it must take vast powers to legislate its ideals by ordinance and decree. As Karl Mannheim wrote, “In a planned society more and more spheres of social life, and ultimately each and all of them, are subjected to state control.”
It is not so hard to plan the economic life of a family, and it is easy enough for a small community. As the size of the community to be planned increases, agreement as to desired ends decreases, and the necessity to use compulsion and force grows. In a small community, there is not much disparity among views as to what tasks are important and what standards are valued. The wider the net is thrown, the less people agree, and with less agreement on values and ends, coercion and force will be used by those in power. This is the reason America was supposed to have strong rights for individual states, and local control over schools and municipal concerns—away from the long arm of the central government.
It is well known that when small communities were in charge of their own affairs, there was no lack of people willing to help others. When asked to help people whose habits of life and ways of thinking are similar to our own, most people are willing to sacrifice.
When government takes control over the economy, it takes control of the means that determine our ends. The government then decides whose ends are to be served, which values are rated high or rated low—what men should believe in and strive for.
Under Socialism, the government decides what commodities and services shall be available and in what quantities, as well as directs their distribution among regions and groups. From there it can determine where people will live, whom they will live with, and where they will work. The loss of freedom I am describing here leads to hopelessness as people eventually come to realize they have no way to improve their lot in life except by government fiat.
Of all the Socialists who have come to power worldwide by decrying poverty, not one of them has ever increased productivity or abolished poverty—or even reduced poverty. This has caused a shift in strategy among Socialists from declaring that if only they were in charge there would be plenty to go around, to declaring if they were in charge everybody would have a more just piece of the pie, an equitable distribution of wealth. But any such plan must in reality also decide who gets what.
Political freedom is meaningless without economic freedom. Economic freedom is the foundation of all freedoms. Socialism promises freedom from want, but this can only be achieved by relieving the individual of the power—and necessity—of choice. The right of choice carries with it risk and responsibility.
It is rare to find strength of character among those not confident that they will make their own way in the world by their own efforts.
Socialism is not a good idea that went bad. It is a bad idea. It fails everywhere it is tried. Even countries such as China that hang on to the vestiges of Socialism have imported measures of Capitalism to progress economically.
Poland’s Solidarity Movement; Pope John Paul II; and the American president reviled by Socialists, Ronald Reagan, brought down the Iron Curtain erected by Socialists to enslave hundreds of millions of human beings. It should be obvious that a defining feature of Socialist governments is walls to keep people in—as opposed to the usual purpose of walls: to keep people out.
Socialism is a faulty philosophy based on unrealistic psychology. Human nature is not so easily refashioned. Private property is a permanent feature of human life and always has been, at least since farming began. Violence is the only way to enforce Socialism on people. Socialism must have unlimited state authority in order to make people give up their possessions and give up their private interests.
Socialism has caused enormous human suffering, and it always destroys that which it purports to be about: equality. The bureaucracy required to centrally plan and administer a Socialist State grabs power and will do anything to keep it, including mass murder. The enforcement of the equality of possessions leads to inequality of rights.
The collectivization of productive assets leads to their management by bureaucrats who are incompetent and unmotivated. Productivity always declines; technological innovation wanes; incentive is usually non-existent; working hard is often punished. Socialism turns every citizen into an employee of the state—dependent on the state for his or her very survival.
Property rights are the most effective control of state power; the recognition of the right of individuals to their belongings implicitly acknowledges that state power has limits. The goal of Socialism—the abolition of private property—leads to the loss of liberty. Socialism does not free men from exploitation as Marx said. Socialism is a form of slavery.
Utopias of Socialism cost 100 million people their lives in the 20th Century. Some Socialists simply shrug their shoulders and say you can’t make an omelette without breaking some eggs. Human beings are not eggs, and no omelette has emerged from the slaughter. The best people of these societies are the ones who were killed off. The populations were robbed of self-reliance, and the ability to make decisions (while awaiting orders). The work ethic and sense of responsibility goes away.
Capitalism has proven it can adjust to any crisis. Capitalism encourages criticism. The emergence of Capitalism caused the emergence of Democracy. Capitalism is about self-discipline and individual responsibility.
Socialism is the organization of society in which the decisions about how and what is produced, and who is to get what, are made by public authority instead of private companies and individuals. In America, people’s economic affairs are migrating from the private to the public sphere. Huge bureaucracies, sometimes outside even the control of democracy or politics, interfere with the processes of production and distribution. Private industry and trade are slowly being conquered by the state, leading to Socialism. But it isn’t called that dirty word in America. They now call it Liberalism.
The success of the business class in developing the productive powers of the United States and the incredible standard of living for all Americans—even the poor would not be considered poor in most of the world—has somehow undermined the very Capitalism that made it all possible.
American business was instrumental in the creation of the political system and intellectual class. Capitalism has been denigrated and watered down in the name of regulation and equality. Social Liberals desire greater equality in incomes, rarely defining how far down the road to absolute equality they are willing to travel. Many Americans bewail the salaries of Fortune 500 CEOs, but they think nothing of the even higher salaries earned by celebrities, athletes, and entertainers. Redistributive taxation is the weapon of equalization. Public control over labor and the money market are means to achieve their ends. Overregulation ignores the vast productive possibilities of Capitalism to lift all boats to a higher standard of living.
Socialists want a global government. It will mean that non-Americans will determine the economy of America. Few Americans are prepared to submit to international authority. To central plan the whole world’s affairs will be impossible. But that won’t keep Socialists from trying. The imposition of the will of a few upon the whole world, especially regarding the distribution of wealth, will require brute force of a magnitude never before seen.
In response to this, American Socialists like to claim that the people of Germany, Russia, China, and Cambodia were especially wicked. Each of these countries was ruled and brutalized by a small band of Socialists, who failed to perceive their actions as evil—they simply did what was necessary to achieve their goals. The nature of their task—to control the economic and social life of people with divergent ideals and values—made their murderous actions inevitable. Their intentions could only be realized through brute force that the recipients surely found highly immoral.
The idea of a one-world government—as a way to lasting peace—is viewed by some as the next great advance of civilization. But in the world today, wealthy and powerful nations are the object of envy and hatred from poor nations. An international government of Socialism would feel it had a duty to redistribute the world’s wealth from those who have earned it to those who have not, in the name of Class Warfare and Social Justice. They would want to equalize living standards around the world according to a master plan. This cannot be accomplished without massive violence—and a relative reduction of the aggregate living standards for the population of the world. We cannot prevent the abuse of power unless we limit power, even power proposed to be used for righteous ideals.
Surely, we have an obligation to assist the poor of the world to raise their standards of living through their own efforts. The world can contribute to these efforts by encouraging the Rule of Law, property rights, general order, freedom, liberty, Democracy, and Capitalism.
There is more beauty and decency found among free people, who are naturally more happy and content without the deadly blight of centralization. The key to freedom is Democracy, where men can understand and participate in decision-making; not Socialism with all of the important decisions made by an organization far removed from the common man. Democracy only works with a great measure of local self-government, which provides a school of political training for the people at large as well as their future leaders. It is only where responsibility can be learned and practiced in affairs with which most people are familiar, where it is the awareness of one’s neighbor rather than some theoretical knowledge of the needs of other people which guides action, that the ordinary man can take a real part in public affairs because they concern the world he knows. Where the scope of political measures becomes so large that the bureaucracy almost exclusively possesses the necessary knowledge, the creative impulses of the private person must flag.
This article was not written for any personal gain but only to explain the difference in the ultimate result for my heirs and those of my fellow citizens. A true explanation of what Socialism is creates hysterical reactions, generally malicious and disingenuous, among its true believers. Books have been written to make these explanations far better than I that were rejected by publishers not because the book would not have been successful, but because the publisher deemed it “unfit for publication” due to their own prejudices. This type of subtle censorship is typical of Socialists.
SOURCES AND OTHER HUBS
My research sources for this article are Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy by Joseph Schumpeter; The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich Hayek; and Communism by Richard Pipes.
I also have published Hubs entitled:
National Education Association
Below the comments box is a bonus commentary by C.S. Lewis about the dumbing down of education.
C S LEWIS ON EDUCATION
By C.S. Lewis in 1959
In my view there is a sense in which education ought to be democratic and another sense in which it ought not. It ought to be democratic in the sense of being available, without distinction of sex, color, class, race, or religion, to all who can and will diligently accept it. But once the young people are inside the school there must be no attempt to establish a factitious egalitarianism between the idlers and dunces on the one hand and the clever and industrious on the other. A modern nation needs a very large class of genuinely educated people and it is the primary function of schools and universities to supply them. To lower standards or disguise inequalities is fatal. If this sounds harsh, I would observe that the opposite policy is really devised to soothe the inferiority complex not of the idlers and dunces but of their parents. Our real problem is to see that they impede as little as possible the purposes for which school really exists.
The tendency in education which I was deploring has gone further in America than anywhere else. If I had been writing straight my article would have been an attack on the public schools of America.
What I want to fix your attention on is - the vast, overall movement towards the discrediting, and finally the elimination, of every kind of human excellence; moral, cultural, social, or intellectual. The moral is plain. Allow no preeminence among your subjects. Let no man live who is wiser or better or more famous or even handsomer than the mass. Cut them all down to a level: all slaves, all ciphers, all nobodies. All equals.
The basic principle of the new education is to be that dunces and idlers must not be made to feel inferior to intelligent and industrious pupils. The differences between the pupils—they are obvious and nakedly individual differences—must be disguised. This can be done on various levels. At universities, examinations must be framed so that nearly all the students get good marks. Entrance examinations must be framed so that all, or nearly all, citizens can go to universities, whether they have any power (or wish) to profit by higher education or not. At schools, the children who are too stupid or lazy to learn languages and mathematics and elementary science can be set to doing the things that children used to do in their spare time. Let them, for example, make mud pies and call it modeling. But all the time there must be no faintest hint that they are inferior to the children who are at work. Whatever nonsense they are engaged in must use the phrase parity of esteem. Children who are fit to proceed to a higher class may be artificially kept back, because the others would get a trauma by being left behind. The bright pupil thus remains democratically fettered to his own age group throughout his school career, and a boy who would be capable of tackling Aeschylus or Dante sits listening to his coevals attempts to spell out A CAT SAT ON A MAT.
All incentives to learn and all penalties for not learning will vanish. The few who might want to learn will be prevented; who are they to overtop their fellows? And anyway the teachers or should I say, nurses? will be far too busy reassuring the dunces and patting them on the back to waste any time on real teaching.
Of course, this would not follow unless all education became state education. But it will. That is part of the same movement. Penal taxes, designed for that purpose, are liquidating the Middle Class, the class who were prepared to save and spend and make sacrifices in order to have their children privately educated. This was, after all, the social group which gave to the humans the overwhelming majority of their scientists, physicians, philosophers, theologians, poets, artists, composers, architects, jurists, and administrators. The removal of this class, besides linking up with the abolition of education, is, unfortunately, an inevitable effect of the spirit that says, "I'm as good as you."
vote upvote downshareprintflag
- Useful (4)
- Funny
- Awesome (1)
- Beautiful
- Interesting (1)
CommentsLoading...
James let me give the first answer to the doubter of your ideals and that answer is a RESOUNDING HELL YES!!!!!!!!
If we lose our fredom to socilism what is the use of living anyway? The anser to that question is THERE ISN'T ANY!!!!!!!
gatorgrad has been drinking the KOOL AID!!!!!!!!!!!!
James, as always, a very good hub!
gatorgrad2001 - you are delusional! You are against CEOs who earned their rights to be CEOs, well, I want to see how you would support government officials who would live like CEOs under socialism, and you would still live in misery. And you call it FAIR - people who don’t even deserve it, who don't earn it, live luxury life when you continue your poor existence and there is no way out of it? I lived in socialism - trust me - it is very far from fair!
I'm going to sit back and listen for a bit on this one. Firestorm ahead, guaranteed.
Gatorgrad, you make a good point (and, thanks for commenting, by the way), but I'm going to wait a tad before weighing in.
My comment(s), however, will have to do with the degree of Socialism's appeal (and yes, it's there, believe it or not) that is in all of us. While at first seemingly dichotomous, it won't quite the black-and-white issue it first would appear to be.
But, stay tuned.
James an excellent writing. Today some people believe they would have good life since socialism is good but communism is bad. It is false. Socialism is only first stage of communism. It is evil system. Even rich today think it is OK they are saved. But the communist will make all equally poor like it or not. All will be slaves. The socialist will also prescribe how many square foot person will live. It is already lined up by UN Habitat II-III especially made in China where even Mrs. Clinton was attending.
Hi, this was interesting. to see the differences in one place just goes to show, to me at least that, thankfully, we live in a society that is not bound up like the socialist countries. whatever our problems, we, as a people remain singular. thanks for the information. nell
Hi, sorry I missed the bottom of the page. you are so right. I am sick to death of seeing children in schools being held back, the intelligent ones are made to feel that they are in the wrong. and the lazy, or less inteligent are treated just as you say. Where is the push to make the lazy ones reach higher? they say that it is cruel to make a child feel stupid. I say that it is cruel to cushion them in the school room, and then when they hit the real world they are completely lost. And the frustration of the intelligent ones trying to get on is appalling. I have seen it in England and it drives me mad. the one main thing that gets my goat is the fact that at college or university, an intelligent person gets a degree for science or math, and standing next to him in the paper, grinning like an idiot, is someone who has got a degree in Media!!! oh whoopyda they can read the bloody paper! and learn how to be on tv! or even worse, a degree in so called Art, that is just a scribble on a piece of canvas, that they will never use. Even a monkey can paint! I am always screaming at the TV, stop wasting our money on stupid self centred degrees! if you want to waste your life studying media or simple art, pay for it!! (sorry for the rant!) ha ha cheers nell
Socialism is like a cancer, it grows in unhealthy bodies and if left unchecked will destroy that body, but like cancer it can be dealt with, not by cut, burn and poison, but by destroying the root cause of the cancer by encouraging healthy living.
Socialism is Christianity without Christ, but that's an impossible dream, for without Christ there can be no progress in a society.
The two do not mix, for one is a heart change to serve others like Christ did, and the other is a command to serve the state, at the expense of others.
John
James
Nicely done as usual.
My opinion is that we cannot judge Socialism and Capitalism today because there are no pure examples of either to compare.
We prefer Capitalism versus Socialism, but the Capitalism we prefer is history.
The continued increase in the size of government Federal,State and Local are increased the taxes. These taxes really adversely impact both macro and micro theories of Economics.
As small businesses are being absorbed by medium sized corporations, these medium sized corporations are being absorbed by large corporations that are being absorbed by mega corporations. Many of the mega corporations are multinational.
Anyway the explanation could take a whole hub, but the bottom line is that the whole business model has mutated to become a bad model for capitalism.
The GDP drops as the size of the government increases, and consumer purchase power decreases as taxes increase.
Remember, that this country was started over things like taxation without representation. Now we have taxation, taxation and more taxation with representation.
Taxation is the oommon denominator in this equation.
Reduce taxes by reducing the size of government.
The government paid for the infamous $500 screwdriver, now we the people pay more than that and don't get the driver.
As usual, well thought out and VERY well presented work by you. If only the regime in DC could not only read but UNDERSTAND the facts you have here...well, nothing. Barry already knows he is the smartest one EVER, and he really get a bit testy when anyone has the audacity to truly question him on anything!
I never realized you have this in series.Socialism in fact blocking the economic growth for most country and society!North Korea is one of the example which practice this in their society!Economic growth is the most reason ,why people need to live!
Impressive James. Excellent essay and I whole heartedly support your conclusions. Precisely put "Socialism is a form of slavery". Bravo!
As always, a great hub, James.
This part and I will quote you, James, "The idea of a one-world government—as a way to lasting peace—is viewed by some as the next great advance of civilization." is where we are heading, as I see it. Of course, I could be totally wrong. On the other hand, there is and there will always be Divine Order, whether we see it or not.
The angst for everyone, excluding the power brokers and players has created mass hysteria and now makes it easier for people to take whatever is offered them.
Capitalism is where America flourished and established itself as a global economic empire. But empires rise and fall, history proves it, and like all the beautiful myths and legends, the glory that once was America will be part of the History books.
A grim view, I know, but mankind has always survived.
Another great hub James. Socialism has always first murdered the resistance, then those related to the resistance, then those that they consider weak. Socialism never works because of the lack of incentive to work harder for a better life.
You are exactly right...it is a form of slavery....and guess who....gets to be the masters?
Let me clarify one point. I agree Socialism stinks, but we never have been a socialist state nor will we ever be. The extremist far right such as the author are convinced that we are headed in that direction when in fact ANYTHING that follows the fascism of Dubya has to be to the left because you can't get further right than the torturing, murderous, lying Bush war criminals. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and others should be prosecuted for war crimes including torture which the Geneva Convention explicitly bans UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. This country was run by criminals for eight years and they didn't even win the first election. It's too bad that the unemployed James Watkins is such a slave to the dogma of the free market which left him without a job. How much more slavishly obedient can you get than that?
gatorgrad2001— Thank you for being my first visitor! For the record, I lost more than a job. I lost my company at which I employed 144 people; and with it went everything else I had including my credit, since I have personally guaranteed millions of dollars in loans. You mention we are moving toward a more "fair" country. Who decides what is fair?
Yes, regardless of my personal circumstances I will always support Capitalism. What country has been the most Capitalist in the past 200 years? America. What is the wealthiest country in the world? America. Surely you can see the connection. Are the assets distributed equally? Of course not. Do people contribute equally; are they equally useful to their fellow citizens? Far from it.
It is not about me. I am no narcissist. It is about legacy, about posterity, about what kind of country are we going to leave those who come after us.
James. so much good stuff here,
I take this our of your article.
As Karl Mannheim wrote, “In a planned society more and more spheres of social life, and ultimately each and all of them, are subjected to state control.”
Are we moving in that direction with our Cradle to Grave
Socialist leadership?
It is well known that when small communities were in charge of their own affairs, there was no lack of people willing to help others.
This sounds more like the America I was raised in,,
--------------------------------------------------
Thanks for this hub
Interesting how quickly that devolved into name-calling, didn't it? Glad I waited.
Tom Whitworth— Thank you, brother, for the spirited defense. It is always great to hear your words of wisdom.
Wanderlust— Thank you for the kind compliment. Only those such as yourself who have lived under Socialism seem to really get it. You must shake your head at the poor misguided souls who buy into this theory with its dismal and murderous track record.
ArchDynamics— Hello my friend! :D
I will await your splendid commentary. Don't keep us in suspense!
Vladimir Uhri! It is great to see you here my friend. You have lived behind the Iron Curtain so I defer all judgement to you, brother. Yes, as you imply, Socialism is about complete control over the People. Not the American Way.
Nell Rose— You are surely welcome, my dear. I am glad that you enjoyed the article. Thank you for coming.
James, I'm sorry you lost your biz. I will tone it down to make the discussion more civil. I just wanted to say that I believe unfettered capitalism is far from ideal but that enlightened capitalism is a far better arrangement. In no case do I think socialism is a desireable system. I just think that you need to have reasoanble measures to prevent the excessed that lead to things like the housing meltdown, credit crunch and so on.
James, there are people out there that want to control others. They want to take away their freedom of choice. These are wicked people. We have to teach them and show them their errors.
Keep on hubbing!
Thank you for another masterpiece and I mean that in every word. How, gaitorgrad, can state that there is no comparision? Surely anyone can see the difference between a Socialist state and what they call a Capitalist state. The fact that West Germany had to completely rebuilt East Germany. Also I want an answers from these sympathizers of Socialism, why do they stop people from leaving if it is that great? Another fine example if North Korea and South Korea. I think some needs their eyes tested.
Thought provoking HIUb James and filled with great wisdom. I do question the enormous sums of moneys paid out to people who run large corporations when the little guys gets little or nothing in return for all his effort.
I do appreciate the fact these people take on great responsibility and all but I still question the balance.
Blessings
Nell Rose— I loved your rant on education!! You told it like it is. I put the C.S. Lewis thing at the bottom because it is barely related to my topic. Actually, another Hubber sent it to me (a longer version that I truncated for brevity's sake) and I wanted to give her credit but I've erased the original email and I have forgotten which Hubber it was! Whooops! :D
aguasilver— John, I have to tell you that yours are the most profound remarks I have received on this subject. Wow! You told it like it is. Thank you, Brother.
James
Many good points as usual, James, and I too enjoyed Nell Rose's point. In Mensa we were always concerned at the Socialist bias in education that poured help and resources into under-achievers who were academically less able (which I endorse) but made no provision whatsoever to assist gifted children. Exposing their real agenda which is to bring everyone to the same standard, but allowing no-one to excel.
Elitism of the positive kind is a dirty word in the Socialst lexicon until they develop a brain tumour, when suddenly they clamour for the best neurosurgeon.
But surely the best evidence of Socialism's social redundancy was the Berlin Wall, and those like it. Any political system that has to shoot those trying to leave it clearly has nothing to offer.
In the end it is just a smokescreen behind which another group of elites hide. When Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin rid Russia of the Tsarist elite, they simply replaced it with their own, which was precisely the point Orwell was making in Animal Farm.
However, I do feel you may be confusing Capitalism with Free Enterprise, because although Free Enterprise does utilise some Capitalist principles, it does not bow down and worship Capital in quite the same way.
Another implicit confusion is between America's Founding Fathers and the Pilgrim Fathers. While the latter fled England where they were a persecuted religious minority in search of a land of freedom and tolerance, the former were a political mix guided by a Masonic elite, hence America's lingering love affair with slavery, which is wholly compatable with Capitalist principles as we still see today with corporations exporting jobs to low wage economies in the interest of profits and their shareholders.
As I have always maintained, the antidote to Socialism is not Capitalism but Christianity.
OpinionDuck— Thank you, OD. I am impressed with your keen insights into this topic. I agree with your words. We do have have examples of real Socialism (North Korea, Cuba) still with us today. We have examples of real Capitalism in the past, but not today. I especially enjoyed this line you wrote:
"The government paid for the infamous $500 screwdriver, now we the people pay more than that and don't get the driver."
SheriSapp— Thank you ever much for the gracious accolades. I am gratified to read your excellent comments. I appreciate your words of wisdom.
sord87— I am pleased that you discovered my articles. Your comments are excellent and I agree with you wholeheartedly, especially about North Korea. Thank you for sharing your insights with us.
tobey100— I truly appreciate your lovely laudations! Thank you for coming by and being so gracious. :D
msorensson— Always a pleasure to hear from you, my dear. Thank you for your compliments. Yes, there is an divine order, true. And yes, some see a down cycle in the economy as an opportunity to seize complete control over people, total power for the government over the governed. There is no question that Capitalism made America flourish but many are not taught the true history of the world. You may be right—America as the light of liberty to the world may be finished.
Tom Cornett— Thank you, Brother! Please allow me to quote you:
"Socialism has always first murdered the resistance, then those related to the resistance, then those that they consider weak. Socialism never works because of the lack of incentive to work harder for a better life. You are exactly right...it is a form of slavery."
gatorgrad2001— I am glad that you admit Socialism stinks. But then you brand me as "extreme far right." What does that mean to you? I believe in the political ideas of our Founding Fathers. Were they extreme far right?
Even the New York Times concluded that W did in fact win that first election. No legitimate body was called W and his sidekicks War Criminals. The Geneva Convention does not cover those who have not signed it, as the terrorists you sympathize with have not; nor have illegal combatants been treated less than they deserve under the Convention. You might want to read the thing. I have, many times.
greatAmerican— Coming from a true American Patriot, such as yourself, your words mean a lot to me, brother. Thank you for reading my piece and for offering up your wisdom.
ArchDynamics— Hey Scott! I always am glad to see your name on my pages. Not everybody is enlightened. But I'm working on them! :D
gatorgrad2001— I agree with your latest comments about "enlightened Capitalism." You make perfect sense. Thank you for reading my article and for your comments.
eovery— mmm . . . I had to savor your words. Yes, you are right. Thank you very much for coming to visit and leaving these choice morsels behind upon which we may ruminate.
James another great hub
I grew up in a world where the Iron Curtain was more than just a phrase; it represented the enslavement of millions of people against their will by one of the then two superpowers the U.S.S.R.
Well thanks to Ronald Regan and his reliance on Capitalism we out produced the U.S.S.R. on all fronts which eventually brought down the Iron Curtain and freed the millions previously enslaved.
Now I cannot believe our own government is attempting to install that same form of government tried over and over in the past in these United States of America.
The fatal flaw of Socialism is that it destroys the human spirit which shrinks the economic pie and when divided everyone is left with a much smaller piece and thus the standard of living continues to deteriorate year after year after year!
James
I am glad that you liked the line.
On North Korea and Cuba, aren't they more examples of Communism? Of course Communism is a form of Socialism but...
Another thought, that I had is that our government Fed, State and Local are just getting too big for their britches, and it will be pretty ugly when they pop and fall.
Living here in California is like being years ahead in the future. The pot belly of the California government looks like an eighteen month pregnancy.
:)
Have you ever read "Utopia"? Socialism is perhaps a rather nice idea in the abstract, but it just doesn't work. Why? Because people screw it up! One thing I'm curious about James. You didn't say anything about how America is not a true democracy? Also, we most definitely do have a class system here. Another hub perhaps?
James, you commented that "Socialists want a global government. It will mean that non-Americans will determine the economy of America. Few Americans are prepared to submit to international authority. To central plan the whole world’s affairs will be impossible. But that won’t keep Socialists from trying. The imposition of the will of a few upon the whole world, especially regarding the distribution of wealth, will require brute force of a magnitude never before seen."
That's a sound summation of the argument against Socialism. Part of the problem in America now is that most don't view Russia or China as enemies (which they really are). Yet, those who pioneered Socialism in these countries declared that a Socialist takeover of the world was inevitable; that the 'revolution' had only just begun.
That's a problem regards the external threats, but what we have here in America is a lazy, complacent and demanding population. We've already taken steps towards a world Socialist government and no one has fired a shot-not yet.
Hope you continue writing for a long while James. Your writing style is easy to read and yet thorough-a balance that's difficult to obtain.
Hello, hello,— I so enjoyed your outstanding comments. Instead of responding, I have to quote you here for some who don't read the other comments:
"Surely anyone can see the difference between a Socialist state and what they call a Capitalist state. The fact that West Germany had to completely rebuilt East Germany. Also I want an answers from these sympathizers of Socialism, why do they stop people from leaving if it is that great? Another fine example if North Korea and South Korea. I think some needs their eyes tested."
Free eye exam anyone? :D
"Quill"— It does seem out of balance. I know what you mean. But I never hear anybody question the salary of Oprah Winfrey, Alex Rodriguez, Tiger Woods, Chris Rock, Russell Crowe, Kobe Bryant, or Jim Carrey.
Just a couple things I would like to point out. I am a 22 year old college student that will be graduating next spring. It is my generation entering the society in this future decade.
People say my generation has had the world given to them on a plate. But I would like to disagree. Look at what we have ahead of us. Students going to grad school, gaining more debt in student loans, because there are no jobs available. We have seen the government take away from the need in our country to drive the defecit higher and try to deepen the pockets of the rich. The corporate world ran out country the past decade. The Capitalist Corporate World. Well we see where that got us. Then our governtment and our citizens have to bail them out. Isn't that a form of socialism? But your left wing was alright with that. I don't believe in a total socialist government, but there has to be regulation and seperation. There is no way a factory worker should be strugging to support his family. Being unable to afford health insurance, unable to afford college for his children, unable to find employment. While the CEO and board of directors are off at a spa for a week on the countries "bailout" dollars.
There is a reason why President Obama won the election overwhelmingly. The middle class spoke. The younger generation who saw their lives, and all the work they put into their eduaction fading, the chance of success leaving. It is us that are the future of our country. It is us that have to live our countries way of like for the next 60 years. So we want a chance. We cast our vote, we spoke out. Finally our government is helping our citizens. The people that make our country, the people that fight everyday to live a happy and successfull life.
Right wing was alright with that. Excuse my typo.
I AM NOT A SOCIALISM SYMPATHIZER!!! Just think Thomas More is excellent. Just had to clarify... :)
Pigs are us.
How to build a totalitarian socialist state or how to catch wild pigs.
You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come everyday to eat the free corn..When they are used to coming every day,you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming.When they get used to the fence,they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence.
They get used to that and start to eat again. You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side. The pigs, who are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat,you slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd.
Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom.They run around and around inside the fence,but they are caught.Soon they go back to eating the free corn.They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity.
This is exactly what is happening to America . The government keeps pushing us toward socialism and keeps spreading the free corn put in the form of programs such as supplemental income, Tax credit for unearned income, tobacco subsidies,Dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP),Welfare, medicine, drugs, etc..While we continually lose our freedoms -Just a little at a time. One should always remember:There is no such thing as a free lunch! Also, a politician will NEVER provide a service for you cheaper than you can do it yourself. Keep your eyes on the newly elected politicians who are about to slam the gate on America. "A government big enough to give you everything you want,Is big enough to take away everything you have" (Thomas Jefferson)
If I had to chose one over the other I'd go for Capitalism every single time but the thought of Capitalism without any controls fills me with dread. I don't know what caused your business to fail and of course it may have nothing to do with the current World Financial Crisis. I personally find it difficult to blame this crisis which is being paid for by all of us on anything else other than the greed produced by Capitalism. True and pure Capitalism would have let every insolvent financial institution across the world go under. My preferred version of Capitalism has controls and a caring side.
Amber:)
James,
Another great read and accurate to a fault. Gatordad is a fine addition to the readers and those who comment. Can you sense his frustration with the corruption I am sure we will all agree is rampant? Again it is the people that have made Capitalism less than it could be, not Capitalism itself. No other form of government can produce the technology, the spirit, the charity and tenacity than Capitalism. We strive to be more because here we still can. Let's hope that does not change. Gatordad is wrong about one thing, we can become a socialist country, as long as people believe it is not possible.
Allan McGregor— Well, as usual you have made some profound points here. As to your first point, Atlanta schools discontinued honors classes because the honors students were 98% white, bringing black parents & teachers to charge that there must be racism in there someplace. So, the smart kids have to sit there while the class does review after review of material they already know. How boring.
I am very impressed with what you wrote:
"Elitism of the positive kind is a dirty word in the Socialst lexicon until they develop a brain tumour, when suddenly they clamour for the best neurosurgeon.
But surely the best evidence of Socialism's social redundancy was the Berlin Wall, and those like it. Any political system that has to shoot those trying to leave it clearly has nothing to offer."
I surely do not "worship" capital. It is Free Enterprise and the Free Market to which I credit America's colossal advancements in the standard of living for all its people, and to people around the world who have been aided by America's charity and training, which cannot be discounted as it has been enormous. That is a major point: a successful society can afford to help millions of the less fortunate.
I do understand the Masonic connection but nonetheless, but in its 18th Century perspective, the Founding Fathers changed the world for the better more than any group of men ever anywhere in history.
As far as the export of jobs, I blame that squarely on labor unions. If every product we use was made by an American union worker, basic toasters would cost $150, and simple washing machines $1500. They would be priced out of the reach of the uneducated, unskilled person.
I love your last line, as it points out that no political/economic system can save a society with a collective sick heart:
"As I have always maintained, the antidote to Socialism is not Capitalism but Christianity."
A country can have government regulation without going off the deep end. America proved it for over 200 years. During that period, with all our capitalistic shortcomings, we managed to assist more needy nations than did anyone else and still achieved a higher average standard of living than anywhere else.
Let's pretend to divide our country into East and West America. Washington DC would fall geographically into the East side, so let's allow the current admin keep that half.
Let's move those preferring conservative capitalism to the West. America West will be governed by Romney or Paul or whoever is elected. Let the RIGHT take half the nation's debt with them. It would take time but eventually one half would be a N.Korea and the other a S.Korea (China/Taiwan, East/West Germany & etc.) and there'd be a North/South dividing line (wall). The citizens trying to escape their half of the country would be reminescent of the Manifest Destiny era, and the stampede if allowed to continue would be akin to the gold rush of the 1800s. The biggest inevitability would be the East trying expand their half westward at some point, but ther military won't be up to the task. Matter of fact, the East military would be unable to fend off an invading Kuwait if needed.
The ACLU would be crying about the individual's lack of rights in the East. A new and revitalized Acorn will run the prostitution industry.
The West would be home to Christian/Jewish and Muslim families wanting to be left to their faith and willing to work while those not intending to work would be the only migraters from West to East. This pathetic Welfare half would not be short in the fields of academia, but the evil corporations with their jobs would be in the West. We'll leave the unions in the East and see how that works out. These unions could work out any needed dominance in case the government overlooks anything in the East. I just hope I don't get left behind in the initial relocation. I'll miss the Great Lakes, but since I'll be able to watch what I want on TV, I'll see the landscape from time to time. I wish all you well that choose the East, and I'll continue to pray for your freedom and that things will improve for you.
Truly a piece of genius, sense so few even focus on subject such as this, thats why they can't see the bullets coming till after the fact. I wish you were a teacher, our youth truly need to understand what types of Goverments are present this day and age in the worlds social systems and how they are structured and what their long term histories have been logged, so they truly understand what effects might come from choosing the wrong one. One can not take this understanding lightly especially when leaders around the world are being forced to make decisions much faster today than a decade ago. Mankind is just around the corner of seeing Hper-MindFlash) thinking. a mode which can brings most unpredictabe results, as your Hub has so well deplicted was made from those who have ruled this planet in the past because they were born far ahead of thier time, compared to the masses. So if one want to have a family, which would live a long productive and healthy life, without fear. they might read your complete series.
James, a great hub and many feel that this Country is being lead into Socialism. The many "changes" that are going on in Washington are scaring the free America to death and that is why we see the Tea Parties. I don't understand how anyone cannot see that so much of the "change" is not good for America. Time is going to tell the story for all of us and I just hope it isn't too late for America. You have covered this subject well.
Your Occupation: Okay, this is the first time I knew you had anything to do with loans....Of course I haven't read all of your hubs, I am sure. I would ask what was the name of your Company but you might not want to tell me. Were you a Broker, Mortgage Company, Investor (Buying and selling loans) or what? I have worked for major Banks and I just wondering because I have been in mortgage forever, worked for Freddie, originations,underwriting, management etc. and I was working during the meltdown and saw some Lender go under and...it was not pretty for anyone. I saw the good, the bad and the ugly. In fact my latest full time job was at the end of 2007. Everything went wild from there...for everybody. The reason was not because the Companies were all bad, it was because the guidlines were laxed so that everybody, including FNMA,FHLMC, FHA, everybody could get a piece of the pie (subprime loans). The governing agencies are to blame actually for not overseeing what was happening with all the bad credit loans, high loan to values and people getting loans whether they qualified, could afford the home or not... Now they suffer the consequences.
Sorry, I just put the latter in .....when you said millions of dollars of loans...it triggered me....
James, your hub is enlightening. You have done a pretty good job of pointing out the negativities of the Socialist political form of government. This hub was very interesting and very specific in details in definning the many flaws of Socialism ,and you have shown logical results related to it. This information you have pointed out is important for everyone to know. Our freedom to examine, and to learn , and to determine what is always best for our country involves our ability to appreciate our unique individualities, which is something Socialism totally ignores. God Bless You.
An excellent hub James, per usual.
My thoughts in a nutshell: the antidote to Socialism AND Capitalism is Christianity.
Blessings and peace,
Forever His,
If anything will encourage politicians to improve their decision making it may be the advancements in informatiom sharing technologies. Overbearing governments in the past have gained power because citizens didn't actually understand what was going on until it was too late. A slight of hand here and there would go unnoticed. April of 2010 we're beginning too know every legislative vote, nearly before it's cast. FoxNews shows graphs of gov't spending almost realtime. Watchdog groups all over access these same databases. Instant news blogs, Twitter, Facebook, and realtime news sites like Collecta,OneRiot,and Scoopler are posting info as fast as you can watch it unfold.
Attempts to stifle transparency will get tougher on both sides of the aisle. If we like it or not, confidential info is on the way out and as technology advances it will become worse (or better). Politicians won't be able to push agendas without constituents knowing about it. One thing's for sure, if Socialism wins out, it won't be undercover of darkness. The spotlights are shining at all involved and if you're shy, you better stay out of the public office.
partisan patriot— Thank you! Your comments are right on. I especially liked this:
"The fatal flaw of Socialism is that it destroys the human spirit which shrinks the economic pie and when divided everyone is left with a much smaller piece and thus the standard of living continues to deteriorate year after year after year!"
Amen! That is a fact. Some people are simply too worried about what other people have.
OpinionDuck— I think North Korea and Cuba is what you get. Both started out as Socialist revolutions and all of these revolutions end up the same: Totalitarianism.
I know California is a mess. I love your description of it. The Feds are headed down that same path. There are some who want to create the ultimate crisis so they can cancel future elections.
Thank you for your excellent comments.
northweststarr— I don't recall reading "Utopia" but I recently read two extensive reviews of it. Yes, everybody sharing everything is a dream. It also sounds like something a five year old would believe in. When we grow up we should see the world as it is. People need to be motivated if we expect them to achieve great things. You are right that America is not a straight democracy; it is a republic. I love republics! Welcome to the Hub Pages Community!
He must be. He worries about the poor not getting health care. I mean...
Hxprof— Thank you very much for taking the time to read my article. I find your comments to be extraordinary. I agree totally with everything your wrote in your remarks here. I appreciate your kind compliments as well.
poups22— Congratulations on your upcoming graduation. That is quite an accomplishment. Yes, as you say, your generation will rule.
Do you know when it got so expensive to go to college? When the government got involved. Do you know when health care costs started to explode? When the government got involved. The big bailouts are a form of corporate Socialism and I was dead against them from the beginning. Of course there has to be regulation. What is the difference between the factory worker and the CEO? I mean, how did one get to be a CEO and the only end up a factory worker (not that there is anything wrong with it)? Should not people be paid what they are worth? Based on their usefulness to the world? Are not their labors worth what someone will willingly pay for them? If not, who decides?
The reasons Obama won are complicated. His skin color helped immensely. He had a very unattractive opponent. And yes, people wanted change.
Do you want to live in a country like North Korea? Do you not want Freedom and Liberty? Do you not want to be rewarded if you achieve great things in your life? Finally our government is helping people? Who are they helping? Are you saying the government didn't help any people in the past fifty years?
sup james this comment is directed at Nell Rose,I am currently in school studying visual comunications and video game design which covers the whole spectrum of media from computer animation to live video to video game design and on and on. media is not just about reading the math involved is just as advanced as computer science so my point is theres nothing "simple" about art or media in college.
I am not saying I want socialism but I am saying I want equality. I am a child of a middle class family. Father has worked his way up through the Paper Corporation back home. He makes a solid yearly income. But with the way the insurance premiums were rising who knows how long health insurace would have been available to them. There are just too many "Big Wigs" driving high end new cars, and taking huge vacations every year. With the base of the company not getting any compensation for the long hours and labor intensive projects they are working on. You say "Should not people be paid what they are worth? Based on their usefulness to the world?" are you saying that the base of the companies are not worth anything? I am sure if these people didn't show up everyday, ready to put in a hard days work there wouldn't be these oustanding bonus taken every year. That is the problem. I agree a CEO job is more stressfull and more important in some ways to the business,and they should have a high wage for what they have accomplished and what they mean to the company. But that does not mean they should get to take all the millions of dollars of bonuses given out each year. The labors deserve just as much of a cut of the profit bonus as the CEOs do.
Our country is not going to end up like North Korea. We are not a true democracy. No country is. It is impossible to run a country that is as big and powerful as ours with a true democracy and we will never be a true socialist country either. We should be rewarded for what we do. At the level of CEO or President, but also at the level of machine tender or customer service rep. Everyone has a job to do. I believe everyone should be treated equaly and fairly. I don't believe a person making 30k a year should be turned down from health care because their company doesn't provide insurance and they can't afford it for their children and themselves. I don't believe a person that has cancer's health insurance provider can drop them because the expenses are getting too high. I don't believe that insurance companies should be able to raise premiums 125% over three years. We are still a free and liberating country. You can dream to become a professional baseball player or a physics genius. You can become whatever kind of person you want. No one is taking that away from you, but finally our country is making things come true for the people that deserve it too. Not just the Big Guns, but also those hard working middle americans. The people that just want to live a sustainable normal middle class life.
Thanks for the comment back I have just taken a greater interest in these political ideas. I hope to learn somethings. And as much as I believe in what I write, I respect everyone else's thoughts too.
poups22— Thank you for the correction. I was in a bit of hurry earlier. Let me read your first comment again . . .
Life is all about struggle. 99.9% of all people who have ever lived have struggled to make ends meet. In most of the world today people expect to struggle. I do understand your leftist leanings. After all, the old saying is: If you are a young Conservative you have no heart; if your are an old Liberal you have no brain.
Thank you very much for your fine comments.
northweststarr— Thank you for the clarification. I understand what you mean. More's book is by all accounts extraordinary reading.
franslovak— Your comments are fabulous! All I can do is thank you from the bottom of my heart for making them here; and urge everybody who comes to this page to scroll up and read these words of wisdom. Great stuff!
Amber Allen— The caring side of Capitalism comes in the form of charity. Some folks today will say, "But people won't give enough." Who says so? Were people starving to death in America in 1910? Each city and village felt obliged to care for their own poor. And remember people had a lot more to give because everybody kept 100% of their earnings, not 50% as today. I believe the insolvent institutions should have been allowed to fail. Nobody bailed out my business. There are many causes to the financial problems we face now. I go over some of them in my Hub:
http://hubpages.com/hub/Mortgage-Crisis-caused-Wor
Thank you Amber :-)
james
Robert— Hello my old friend! Thank you for the fine compliments. I really like what you wrote:
"No other form of government can produce the technology, the spirit, the charity and tenacity than Capitalism"
You know, one would think this would be common knowledge. But not with our educational system rife with leftists it's not. I appreciate your wise words, brother.
John B— It's always a pleasure to hear from you, my Brother. I love your commentary. I have to repeat your first paragraph:
"A country can have government regulation without going off the deep end. America proved it for over 200 years. During that period, with all our capitalistic shortcomings, we managed to assist more needy nations than did anyone else and still achieved a higher average standard of living than anywhere else."
As for the rest of your remarks, point well taken. The Socialist side would be horrible and they know it. They don't want to let the industrious achievers go. They need them to pilfer from. Thanks for great insights.
Amez— Wow! I cannot thank you enough for your laudatory accolades. I am gratified to read your words. I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to read my articles and for letting me read your acute insights.
Ictodd1947— Thank you. The problems in the mortgage industry have a lot to do with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And the Community Reinvestment Act. Of course, the Derivatives debacle never should have happened. Any lending institution should be prohibited from loaning money they cannot cover.
I was in the aviation business for 14 years and since my business was an LLC, I had to personally guarantee millions of dollars that my company borrowed for aircraft, shop equipment, etc.
Thank you for your readership and excellent comments.
stars439— Your comments are wise, Leon. Thank you for your continuing encouragement to me on HubPages. I really enjoyed reading your words on this page today.
RevLady— Well, I surely agree with your antidote, doctor. If we could change enough hearts this would be a different world. Thank you for all you do. God Bless.
James
John B— You have made a profound point, brother. No wonder Socialist countries demand control over the internet and media. It's the only way they can keep power. Except with stupid Americans who are simply way ill-informed. They can't help it. It is our leftist schools and universities that have ingrained this in some.
Obama is a Commie— I don't know anybody who doesn't worry about the plight of the poor. You don't have to be a Commie to care about people. You have to be a Commie to want to stifle freedom and liberty to expand state powers.
bill yon— Well said. I wish you all success. Yours is a growing field, to be sure. Thank you.
poups22— How are you going to achieve equality without Socialism? A man had two sons. His oldest son studied from the time he was a little boy. He was always researching on line, reading books, going to the library, writing. He got straight A grades all through school, garduated magna cum laude, earned a doctorate, married his high school sweetheart, they had five children. He invented something that benefited all mankind and employed 50,000 people. He save his money and invested it wisely. He and his wife were married 50 years. His little brother smoked pot all through high school. He never cracked open a book, never learned a skill, never learned a trade, didn't graduate, became an alcoholic, was married five times, had six bastard children, and ended up without work and flat broke.
How are you going to equalized them? There is only one way: to take from one brother and give to the other. To reward a wastrel and punish achievement. Now, what should happen is the older brother should help the other brother on his own volition. It should not be the government's job to confiscate his earnings to give them to someone else. Because if they do, I can damn guarantee you one thing: you will have millions more younger brothers and far less older brothers as you rob people of incentive, and reward sloth.
If someone is not being compensated what they are worth, would they not go to work elsewhere? If I can run that paper company just as well as anybody else and I will do it for $500,000 a year, but another equally qualified person wants $600,000, I should get the job. What someone will pay to have a task performed that someone else will accept to perform the task is what the task is worth, yes? If I will sweep the floor for $8 an hour and you demand $12, should I not get the job? If I do, what is the job worth? $8 an hour of course.
Regarding your complaint about insurance companies raising premiums: Do you know what the profit of the health insurance industry was last year? 4%. You can get that much with a Certificate of Deposit. The premiums go up because medical care costs go up. They go up, because the government impedes the free market in 800 ways—literally.
You wrote this:
"finally our country is making things come true for the people that deserve it too"
May I ask to whom you are referring? Who is FINALLY getting what they deserve today?
I surely respect your point of view. Don't get me wrong about that. You can't help what you've been taught. You are young. Think through these issues carefully. It is important. Thank you.
James - I enjoyed reading the comments and your retorts as much as I enjoyed the article. Interesting comments about the Geneva convention of which I wasn't aware.
James, Sorry I got off on Mortgage here but when you said loans...I thought Mortgage. The Subprime is what caused the mess which Fannie and Freddie did not start...I won't go further here and mess up your Socialist hub...I will just write a hub on the meltdown....
jvhirniak— Yes, I know what you mean. There have been a lot of excellent comments made. I appreciate you taking the time to read through this page. Thank you very much!
Ictodd1947,
The meltdown was about greed. That's what we hear time and again. While that is true, very few on Wall St actually realized it was becoming a house of cards. Michael Lewis, the author, is very knowledgeable(worked on Wall st) about the failure. The very few who began figuring it out weren't taken seriously, probably because the big dogs knew they would survive irregardless, and nearly to the person are still are extremely wealthy. Shame on those who bought the insurance policies betting on the failure and were selling to investors at the same time. They're despicable.
I'll read your hub on the meltdown if I see it. That whole tragedy is both revolting and fascinating.
Keep up the good work Jim!
I think the problem we have now in this country is the sense of inflated entitlement: people believe they deserve things (jobs, benefits) that most Americans had to work hard to keep 30 years ago.
Ictodd1947— I will surely look forward to reading an insider's look at the mortgage meltdown. Thanks.
It is tiring defending those who have risen to the top of the barrel financially. So many want to point fingers at the successful. I guess I'd prefer to be one of those they point at, but most nearer the top have been smarter than I. That in itself doesn't make me despise them as some do. The wealthy are made up of good ppl and bad ppl just as it is in the ranks of the poor. The fact that my son and his wife each endured 12 years of higher education and created student loans that will go on forever to become doctors makes them bad. What it does do is place them in the newly established tax bracket starting at the end of this year. That'll teach them to try so hard. Maybe they can take comfort knowing that a few career couch-potatos will be able to upgrade their seating and get that new big screen they so richly deserve. A silver lining to every situation! Right?
Amen to all, socilaism is just a dream as it is just ideal state. Thank you, Maita
John B— I appreciate your comments directed to Ictodd1947. Yes, it was about greed, and foolishness. Well said. Revolting and yet fascinating. Indeed! Thank you for coming back with this timely addendum, brother.
I've got to say that this is the best hub that I have read in ages. I could not agree with your points more about the dangers of socialism. It is a slippery slope and we are slipping in American right now. Well done!
I have to admit that this hub article illustrates how Conservative American extremists use use Socialism as a demagogue cover. American Conservatives point the finger at people they deem are "Socialists" when in fact Conservative policies have been doing exactly what Russian Communism did to their citizenry, namely, giving wealth and power to a small minority while destroying the middle class and fooling the lower classes. Watkins has done a great job of showing the facts that the American Conservative movement calls everyone else "Commies" and "Socialists" when in fact the net effect of American Conservatives policies have been cleverly protecting a wealthy elite.
jvhirniak— You wrote: "the problem we have now in this country is the sense of inflated entitlement: people believe they deserve things (jobs, benefits) that most Americans had to work hard to keep 30 years ago"
I just had to retype that. :D
John B— You are surely right that there are good people and bad people in all ranks of life. The thing I don't want to see is achievement punished because this will lower the standard of living of all Americans in the aggregate. The USSR experiment proved that already. Thank you, brother, for your outstanding comments. Keep them coming. Don't stop making sense. :D
pretydarkhorse— I can always count on you to cut to the chase and simplify matters for us. Thank you very much, Maita. :-)
james
jeffwend— Thank you so much for your laudatory comments. I am grateful that you have graced my Hub with your presence.
Hi James - I expect that while the tired old left-right debate continues to rage, the arch-manipulators will continue to accrue more and more power and resources to their own control until world domination, as distinct from world government, will be achieved. It will not be socialist. What it will be is that most extreme projection of capitalism - fascism. It's time to stop arguing and start cooperating.
Ben Zoltak— Hey Ben. Thanks for coming by to visit. You lefties sure love that word: extremist. What does that word mean, Ben? I am sure you know that there is an enormous middle class in America, larger than in any other nation on earth, and there was none, zero, in the USSR. Therefore, I am puzzled by your assertion on that point.
the largest middle class in the world is in India their middle class is three hundred million,about the same size as our nation,just thought I would point that out.
Paraglider— It's nice to hear from you again, my friend. I am all for cooperating if half the folks can stop thinking about what other people have. It could be that all this is a distraction, as you seem to imply. But I must point out that fascists are not at all capitalists. Hitler and Mussolini are clearly on record that they hated capitalism and they central planned their countries. There was no free market there. Thanks for the comments.
bill yon— That is a great point Bill. You are right, of course. I should have said largest percentage of any population in a middle class, not the most number of people. Thanks for the piercing gaze.
Excellent hub James with some terrific points!
And I especially like the piece by C S Lewis.
If we don't recognize the under-achievers (slackers) and cull them out of higher education then how do we properly acknowledge the achievements of the over-achievers? That kind of education system relates so closely to Socialism in the end result that it frightens me.
And nice job of responding to your detractors.
boba020682— It's funny you should come by today. Just last night I went to your profile page to see if you had written anything yet.
The goal of Socialists is for EVERYBODY to receive exactly the same education. That is "fairness" and "Social Justice." The fact that it dumbs down the nation and lowers our national achievement is not considered to be important.
Thank you for reading my article and responding.
This was a great explanation of socialism. I too believe that our "leaders" are trying to lead our contry into that direction. It's very scary!
rls8994— Thank you for the laudatory remarks. I hope we reverse course, and soon. I appreciate this visitation. It's nice to see you. :-)
Just noticed I spelled country wrong...sorry. I hope and pray we see a reverse soon too. Doesn't look good right now. Nice to see you also!
rls8994— Who knew that there were 8994 rls?
Excellent observations. Excellent and thought provoking hub.
The number one lesson animals teach their young is to fend for themselves.
Humans could learn from that, because socialism strips away those principles completely, and people are left with no incentive whatsoever to create their own destny!
Once again, I stand in awe over the wisdom of our founding fathers!
magnoliazz— Me too! I too am in awe of the Founding Fathers. More so all the time. I love your comments here. Each word is perfect. Thank you!
Yeah, that's alot of rls. Who are all those people?? :)
rls8994— I don't know. But I suppose an investigation is in order. :-)
Awesome hub as usual!! Socialism is a bane, creates dependence and denounce accountabilty to one's own self!! If you get your food without a report card, you will more often than not become worthless!! It also supports the rogue worker without rhyme or reason!!
I will end this comment with an invaluable quote from Winston Churchill: DISADVANTAGE OF CAPITALISM IS INEQUAL DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH .. ADVANTAGE OF SOCIALISM IS EQUAL DISTRIBUTION OF POVERTY!!
dreamreachout— Thank you so much! :D
Yes, you are right that Socialism creates dependence and denigrates accountability. I just love everything word you wrote; especially the quote from the great Churchill.
I applaud you for this hub. The cry for 'equality' is one without any sensible foundation. Nobody CAN be equal (in the manner which socialism purports) to a person who is clearly NOT their equal. I remember back when i was a student nurse, my tutor always reminded us to "treat our equals equally and our unequals unequally". That has stayed with me more than perhaps anything else she said. To a socialist, it no doubt smacks of 'bigotry' or 'injustice' etc. But the truth of it is far different. When we treat everybody the exact same way, irrelevant of who they are or what has shaped and influenced them, or what their personal capacities are for differing things we serve up the most cruel injustice their could be to humanity as a whole. Yet when we treat people according to who they ARE (as such treating our equals equally and our unequals unequally) we are raising humanity and living according to true justice.
A concise study of the history of China (even without looking at the other communist countries) ought to be sufficient to liberate people to defend their inequalities. Britain (i am a Brit in the USA) has taken a dangerous road and is far further down it than the USA at this point. At every turn the state is 'dictating' to the people. I prefer to consider these issues in terms of 'justice' rather than 'equality'. Equality seekers have a tendency to overlook justice. And in the end they are not doing themselves any favors at all. It never ceases to amaze me how readily people are to hand over their entire living to the state for pig swill! (Sorry if that is too strong a statement for some......but it is about the weakest term i could think of! LOL)
hemustincrease— I hope you noticed the box of C.S. Lewis below the comments. I rarely put anything down there but it was an afterthought.
Thank you very much for taking the time to read my article. Your comments are extraordinary. I agree with everything you wrote. You are a wise soul. Thanks again for your contributions to this page.
Oh wow! No i did not see them. LOL Good to be in cohorts with the likes of C S Lewis. :)
He certainly saw it coming then. Lets hope and pray the tides will turn sooner rather than later. And pretty much everything stands on the shoulders of education. It sets the tone for the entire next generation.
hemustincrease— Maybe I should move that section. I don't think many see it there—though my last sentence does provide a clue. :)
As you stated so wonderfully: "everything stands on the shoulders of education. It sets the tone for the entire next generation.:
Yes. Indeed.
After browsing down the comments there is not much left to say. Great Hub though, and I am completely on board with allowing people the avenues with which to succeed - and liberals are all about slavery, not success for anyone.
my 2 cents
- Harlan
Harlan Colt-- Thank you, Harlan, for your gracious comments. I am glad we are in agreeance. Did you notice the bonus section below the comments by C.S. Lewis about social engineering through state education? Most people have missed that. It is the only time I have had words below the comments. I thought the Hub would be too long otherwise.
James
OH MAN! Your 6 hub series about socialism has a lot of good info in it. A person would need to re-read some of it and take notes to really get the most out of it.
MysteryPlanet— Thank you ever much for the laudations. I am well gratified to read your warm words. I appreciate the encouragement.
My immediate response to your first line is, What about Norway? http://www.inc.com/magazine/20110201/in-norway-sta
I have to read this carefully, as I have not considered myself socialist. You might! I am going to mull this over.
Storytellersrus— Thank you for coming over to read my article. You ask a very good question. I appreciate the link to that impressive article. I will try to answer while also being as brief as possible.
Firstly, Norway is NOT a Socialist country. The author of that article is drastically mistaken. If I may quote from the article: 'This is socialism, the sort of thing your average American CEO has nightmares about. But not Dalmo—and not most Norwegians. "The capitalist system functions well," Dalmo says. "But I'm a socialist in my bones."'
That is nonsense. Dalmo is rich and owns his own company! Under Socialism, the State owns all property, all companies.
Norway is offically "a constitutional monarchy with a representative parliament." It is known as "a capitalist welfare state."
Cuba, China, North Korea, and the USSR are or were Socialist States. Never Norway.
Socialism is a system in which ownership of assets, and the control over the means of production, are completely owned and controlled by the government. The central governmental authority takes over the economic affairs of society from the private sphere. Socialism is inimical to democracy.
Socialism requires a central planning board to decide how much work each person will do at what occupation.
In Norway, the world's highest per-capita income entrepreneurs fork over millions of dollars in taxes. Under Socialism there are no taxes—all wealth and income already belongs to the state.
The article says: "In 2009, Nordlaks pulled in $62 million in profits on revenue of $207 million, making Berg, the sole owner, a very rich man."
There are NO profits under Socialism and NO entrepreneurs. All is owned by the State. There are NO rich men in business—unless they are part of the political elite.
Norway has only five million people on lots of land and they are nearly all white Norwegians—a very homogenized society. There is no "amazing cultural diversity" as the article says. That is a joke. A Japanese restaurant doesn't mean your are culturally diverse.
Norway is a very rich country because of huge oil and natural gas production. Norway is the world’s number-two oil producer.
I've been becoming deeply interested in this subject lately. I came into as a blank slate who before had little to no interest in politics. But the more I see the injustice in the world the more I want to know about the causes and what can be done about it.
I have never read anything that convinces me that Capitalism is the answer. The basic premise of it is that greedy people go out and do anything that they can to earn money. This often includes doing so at the expense of others, cheating, lying and a whole number of other negative tactics.
You can boil it down to basics.
When someone is looking for a job, they send in a CV which twists the truth to make the applicant sound more appealing. They turn up wearing a suit whether or not it is something that they would normally wear and they answer questions with the responses that the employer wants to hear.
An honest person who went through the process in an honest way admitting flaws and so on would not land the job compared to the liar, despite the possibility of being more qualified.
This pattern follows all the way to the top.
The society we live in tries to teach us that 'greed is good', which is completely the opposite of any good natured person.
It certainly is not the Christian way.
Your article describes Socialism as a regime which takes everything from people and turns them into slaves. You use Nazi Germany, U.S.S.R and Korea as examples.
We all know these models did not work, but that was not due to socialism. What happened was that the dictators took everything and left the people with nothing. In other words, the country became socialist while its leader was the ultimate capitalist, having tricked the nation into giving up all their belongings to him.
Real socialism would not have a dictator at the head.
Having said that, I do not believe that Socialism is the answer either.
It can not work simply due to human nature of greed.
What is required is a balance of the two. A system which allows those at the bottom to live without fear of poverty or even homelessness and death, while in the meantime allowing individuals to remain productive and be able to reap the rewards of doing do.
Any system that thinks letting people die on the streets is fine is clearly doing something wrong.
Monkey-_— Thank you for reading my article and responding. If you have never read anything that convinces you of the virtuous results of Capitalism, I would suggest my sister Hub to this one, which you can find here:
http://james-a-watkins.hubpages.com/hub/Capitalism
What is injustice in your view?
I disagree with your concept of Capitalism as "greed" and "lying and cheating."
Capitalism is based on ambition—not the same thing as greed. Greed is bad but ambition is good.
And as for lying and cheating, there are laws for that. Unlawful gain is wrong and should be prosecuted. Lawful gain—without limit, in my view—is good for it raises all boats.
One example of lawful gain being good is Steve Jobs and Apple. He started out not wealthy at all. His genius made him six billion dollars. Bad? No! Look at the tens of thousands of people he created employment for. And look at how his products enriched the lives of a a hundred million people!
As to the rest of your comments, I must quote myself from this very article:
"ALL! nations that have fully implemented Socialism have experienced a drastic drop in their standard of living, marked by both a lack of goods and food. Each has seen the loss of civil rights, liberty, and freedom."
That is ALL. Without exception.
"Of all the Socialists who have come to power worldwide by decrying poverty, NOT ONE of them has ever increased productivity or abolished poverty—or even reduced poverty."
NOT ONE!
"Socialism is not a good idea that went bad. It is a bad idea. It fails everywhere it is tried."
EVERYWHERE IT HAS BEEN TRIED!
"a defining feature of Socialist governments is walls to keep people in—as opposed to the usual purpose of walls: to keep people out."
WALLS TO KEEP PEOPLE IN!
I could go on, but I think this is enough for you to try to rebut in one sitting.
Injustice in my view is people taking as much as they can for themselves while leaving others to die or live in poverty when it can be easily avoided.
There may be laws against lying and cheating, but they don't seem to work when politicians make their living from doing both of those things.
As I said. In the countries where it has been supposedly adopted in modern times, it really hasn't.
A dictator is the ultimate capitalist. Of course people are going to driven to poverty and want to escape when everything is taken from them.
The ideals of socialism is that everyone shares. That includes the leaders.
Monkey-_— I do appreciate what you are saying. As a political philosophy on paper, your ideas show a big heart and a loving soul. If only they matched up with the actual world we live in.
When I was about ten years old, I had this big idea: Why not just take all the food, clothes, houses, cars, toys, land, and everything else in the world and divide it up equally among all people?
I didn't think about the fact that the dividing up requires someone to be in charge of the dividing up. Have you not noticed that when the U.S. sends a million pounds of wheat to some African country, it gets stolen by some militia the minute it hits the dock there. Why? Because controlling that food is power and men love power everywhere, always.
As I said in the article above:
"Socialism promises freedom and prosperity, but it delivers bondage and misery. Socialism means slavery; it assumes management of the lives of people; it accepts nothing less than complete control. Its conscious aim is to regulate the day-to-day affairs of a community. The very men who are most anxious to plan society, are also the most dangerous, as they are most intolerant of the plans of others."
In the first colony of the Pilgrims, they first tried communism. The leader told the people: "Let's all work hard this year. We'll plant, water, and harvest crops together; the men will hunt for food for all of us. The women will make butter and clothes for all of us. Whatever we all produce, we will put it in a big old communal pile and we will share in it equally."
There is your socialist dream right there. It has been tried in tiny hippie communes of ten people, and in whole nations like the USSR—and in every size community in between.
So what do you think happened, my wild-eyed idealist friend? They went hungry and cold and many of them starved to death. You know why if you know anything about people. Many of them "acted" like they were working (when somebody was watching). They all hoped that "others" would produce enough for all of them even if they only did as little as possible.
The next year, the leader had a new plan. He gave each family a plot of ten acres. He told them: "You do not have to share anything. Whatever you produce is yours. But you are not getting anything you did not produce yourself."
How do you think that turned out? They produced so much of everything that not one person died, nor was hungry, nor was cold. They gave away a ton of food to keep it from spoiling.
America was born.
That's why I said before that Socialism isn't the answer either.
I realise that human nature is greed and laziness and we need some motivation.
I see Capitalism and Socialism as two extremes. The real answer lies somewhere in the middle.
Some sort of system where people are free to produce and be rewarded for doing so, while those who fall behind are not left to die.
In your hub, Pros and Cons of Capitalism, you even say that someone who works hard at a skill becomes obsolete when new technology replaces them. They lose their livelihood and everything that they worked for. How does the ambition and hard work that Capitalism supposedly encourages reward them then? People are fooled into believing that Capitalism means that hard work will be rewarded where the world around me tells a different story.
You even say that the Capitalist system relies on there being a class of people who suffer so that the few may prosper.
People may say things like 'Life isn't fair' and that the world is cruel, but that is only because that is the way the human race makes it.
I can see no justification for letting people suffer.
Monkey-_— I do not know anybody who thinks people ought to suffer. That is what charity is for; that is what family is for; that is what community is for. I don't anybody has ever "been left to die" in the United States.
There is constructive destruction in capitalism but when that happens it is all about 1) When you were doing well were you as smart as a squirrel? (Did you save any acorns for winter, which inevitably comes to all creatures?) 2) Are you able to adapt to your changing environment? (Which is necessary for all organismsto thrive.) 3) Have you lived your life in such a way that you are beloved and repected by your family and neighbors? (If so, will they really leave you in the street to die?)
I do not believe I said what you say I said, "that the Capitalist system relies on there being a class of people who suffer so that the few may prosper"
Where did I say that? That is not what I believe. Here is what I believe:
I believe that under socialism 95 of 100 people in a community will have the same income, let's say $10,000 a year. The 5 percent who run things will have much more.
I believe that under capitalism, all 100 people will have more than $10,000 a year because the whole community will be twice or three times or five times as prosperous. Yes, some people will make $20K, some $30K, some $40K, some $50K—according to their usefulness to everybody else. And yes, some smart aleck with probably make $250K because he invents Windows or the I-Phone or Google.
The point is that the lowest earnings on BOTH scales is $10,000. The difference is that under capitalism some will be envious and covetous and that can be fed upon by the evil pushers of socialism. Not the focus on what you have—the focus becomes what other people have. Because anybody who thinks the unskilled, uneducated poor will have MORE stuff under socialism is nuts. That has never happened in human history. It goes against fundamental human nature. Because under socialism, EVERYBODY stops trying—as the old Soviet saying goes, "They pretend to pay us and we pretend to work."
It is not an accident that Google, Windows, the I-Phone etc etc etc were invented by Americans and not North Koreans.
James I've noticed that you write particularly well. So for the sake of equality and tolerance, I'm going to have to ask you to dumb it down a little because you are making the rest of us writers feel inferior.
Keep up the good work, but don't do too good. Let's just shoot for average.......;)
In the UK minimum wage is around £800 a month, which is barely enough to survive on.
These people may be working hard for up to 40 hours a week to earn this pittance, most of which goes to landlords, bills or mortgages, then the essentials like food, leaving them with pennies to enjoy for themselves.
Capitalism encourages people to gain as much for themselves, often meaning not paying others what they are worth in order to keep more money. If the theory is that people are meant to get what the are worth, it doesn't work in practice.
You say what something is worth is equal to what someone is willing to pay plus what someone is willing to sell for. Haggling doesnt exist in western civilisations so this doesn't happen. People pay what the greedy companies make them because they have no other choice. The best they can do is find the cheapest prices or bargains.
I think you are missing my point that Socialism is not the answer, but society does need to adopt more from that system. Things like free education, the NHS and so on are great things that people need and would not exist under a completely capitalist regime.
We need more in place to protect people from homelessness, to allow the unemployed enough to live on and to allow those who do work full time more reward for doing so.
Onusonus— I'm sorry, my friend. I was not trying to be iniquitous or intolerant. Thank you for bring it to my attention. I will work on toning things down a bit.
I haven't been taking the lessons learned by Harrison Bergeron to heart as I should. I wrote about that here:
http://james-a-watkins.hubpages.com/hub/Harrison-B
James :D
As you should! Artificial inferiority is what makes socialism work. Now if you will excuse me I have to go rub two sticks together to make fire for dinner time.
Monkey-_— There is no doubt that all through recorded time, people have had to struggle to survive. Struggle, it could be argued, is an inescapable feature of life, even for bugs and birds.
As you say: "Capitalism encourages people to gain as much for themselves, often meaning not paying others what they are worth in order to keep more money"
As to the first part of what you say, what if those people motivated by the capitalist system, who let's say live in a town of 10,000 souls, invent something great, like a new communications system that saves every single person in the whole world many hours of their lives? Now they have already benefitted everybody, even outside their own community. Now, what if the riches they obtain—without which they probably would never have had the motivation to do what they did in the first place—are then used to build a new library, civic center, school, and a beautiful park for the 10,000 people in the town they are from? Is this not good? Because this is the reality of the end product of capitalism if you understand how to trace it from its beginnings among the Dutch and English and then the Americans.
As to the second part of your sentence: What is labor worth?
If I need my floor swept at my little grocery store, and I run an ad in the local newspaper, and three people show up who are willing to sweep the floor; if all three are equally qualified to sweep my floor; BUT if one wants $15 an hour to sweep, one wants $12, and one wants $9—what is a man worth per hour to sweep my floor?
You claim that "Haggling doesnt exist in western civilisations so this doesn't happen. People pay what the greedy companies make them because they have no other choice."
Look, I have no expertise when it comes to the UK labor market, BUT I have been involved for decades in the U.S. labor market both as an employer and an employee. I can tell you that over here people have plenty of choices.
I owned an aviation company for 14 years (It went under two years ago and that is why I am now completely broke and I owe millions of debt I can never repay—but that is besides the point). I employed 150 people. For skilled people, it was an employees market. For people who had learned to be a skilled aircraft mechanic or aircraft pilot, I had to outbid my competitors. There were 10 jobs for every 9 applicants. I paid the highest wages in the industry, by the way, which is why I had the best shop. Other companies tried to raid my best people all the time. Now you are right for the unskilled jobs—janitor, errand boy, floor sweeper, night watchman, aircraft fueler, and various apprentices, it was the opposite. I had more applicants than I had positions.
What is wrong with that picture to you? Is that not how it should be? If one guy spent $40,000 and three years of his time to become certified as an aircraft mechanic or pilot SHOULD he not be more in demand and therefore command a much higher wage than a person that was nothing more than a living breathing person with no particular skills or education or training to offer?
I haggled with every person I hired for all posts in regard to their wages. And if we found the "sweet spot" where my willingness to pay equalled their willingness to work for that pay met; they came to work for me.
Onusonus— God bless you brother! I love your wise and discerning remarks.
People may have had to struggle throughout the centuries but that is no reason why future generations should be forced to. A great legacy is one the improves the lives of people. If you do not want lifes comforts maybe you should live as the Amish do.
If a rich man builds a new school or park with his money isn't that a socialist move? Isn't he giving away what he rightfully earned? What capital can he gain from giving away so much? Capitalism might have given that individual the wealth, but it didn't encourage him to part with it. He could easily have kept it for himself.
I do agree that skilled workers should recieve proportionally more than unskilled, but on the other hand some unskilled work takes more effort and longer hours so these people should be well rewarded too.
You may have paid your workers the best rates but that just goes to show how they chase the money. If one of your rivals offered them more, no doubt they would have gone to them. They had no loyalty to you, just the money you could offer.
Maybe you made personal friends of some of them, but I still would think they would take the road to more wages if they had a chance. When profit is the goal, good human virtues are forgotten.
Now you say you are broke and owe millions. It sounds like you ran your business well and did the best for your people, yet the Capitalist system has failed you personally through no wrong-doing on your part.
It seems mad to me that you still defend it.
Monkey-_— I am not convinced that the "struggle" that is survival in this world will ever end.
You wrote: "A great legacy is one the improves the lives of people."
Well, I certainly agree with you. Part of this is the fact that most past generations of Americans have been focused on posterity. Surely the "Greatest Generation" of Americans, that withstood the Great Depression and fought in World War Two, qualify under this standard. But since the Sixties, a cultural revolution took place in the West that had wonderful ideals but in the end produced a certain nihilistic narcissism that pays no heed to future generations.
You ask: "If a rich man builds a new school or park with his money isn't that a socialist move? Isn't he giving away what he rightfully earned?"
The answer to the latter question is undoubtedly yes. But is it socialism? Absolutely not! Socialism is forced philanthropy. Not voluntary giving, which is a whole nother animal my friend.
You wrote: "Capitalism might have given that individual the wealth, but it didn't encourage him to part with it. He could easily have kept it for himself."
Actually, philanthropy is embedded in Capitalism. The chief difference is that a person sharp enough to create enormous wealth, is also sharp enough to chose wisely WHAT charities or public projects do the most good. Socialism means that a government bureaucrat who has never made an honest dollar in his life decides who gets the largess. And this then becomes a political issue, meaning that those with access to political power get the largess.
You wrote: "They had no loyalty to you, just the money you could offer."
Well, this is only partly true. Few people quit working for a company that has been good to them—and sharp managers know this—even if they are offered a few more dollars.
You wrote— "When profit is the goal, good human virtues are forgotten."
That is not true. What is profit? Profit in any company can be from a negative to maybe 50 percent. The average company in America has a net profit of 7.5 percent. If a company is profitable above average it means this: They made the most out of their resources. Is that not a good thing?
You say: "the Capitalist system has failed you personally through no wrong-doing on your part."
No, that is not true. I did run a great company but bad decisions on my part eventually proved our undoing. This is too long a story to fully recount here but suffice to say I made long-term gambles—and any business is a gamble—that killed me in the end.
Look at it this way: At the turn of the 20th century, millions of people made horse-buggies, and millions of people shoed horses. The automobile killed their industry. A Socialist government would have propped up horse-buggy makers and horse-shoers with money from taxes. But if they did, they would have been taking money away from those who started the automobile industry. The losers under this system would be financed by the winners. Is that really fair and just?
The struggle may never end, but that doesn't mean we as a race shouldn't try and make it easier.
It's important to educate people about the values of benefitting society so that we can avoid selfishness whatever the cause.
The rich man who gives to charity may have the choice of where he sends his money, but he also has the choice to keep it.
Capitalism encourages him to keep it, or to invest it in another profit boosting scheme. Giving it away is counterproductive to what Capitalism is about. Charity has no place in either ambition or profit.
Only good nature would make him give it away with no return for himself.
The only possible reasons Capitalism would cause someone to give to charity is that they might recieve good public reputation or use it as an excuse to show off their wealth.
You wrote: "Well, this is only partly true. Few people quit working for a company that has been good to them—and sharp managers know this—even if they are offered a few more dollars."
I'm not sure how true this is. Take sports players for example. They grow up, join their hometowns team and play for town pride. Then they are offered a place in a higher league team with more money and loyalty is forgotten.
Not only does this show people to chase money, but it also shows how groups with money will not allow groups without money to make any for themselves. That talented player may have brought the local team more success, but as he has left for his own greed, the team stays behind and loses out.
No doubt it is the same in business, as people are headhunted and bought by the bigger industries.
Making the most of resources is something that does not have to be related to the chase of profits. It could be done for its own sake.
In regards to the horse buggies and the car industry. I do not believe that the horse industry should be held up. But the people should. Maybe they could be offered jobs in the car industry. If not then they should have a safety net. It is not their fault that society and technology moved on. They spent their lives learning a trade and becoming good at it. They worked to earn their living and it should not be taken from them.
You seem to be forgetting that I am not in favour of Socialism as a system either. My argument is for a middle ground which takes the best of both.
I realise that Capitalism has its good points with its ability to encourage people, but I strongly feel that the good people who are forced into poverty by it are being treated unfairly.
Monkey-_— You wrote: "Capitalism encourages him [a rich man] to keep it, or to invest it in another profit boosting scheme."
Great! We should all WANT him to invest in another "profit-making scheme." Rich men invested in Apple, General Motors, and Microsoft; and virtually every other worthwhile "scheme" that has benefitted mankind. Who is apt to know more about what "schemes" will work, a successful business man or a government bureaucrat? Do you know anyone who ever bought a Russian car?
You write: "Giving it away is counterproductive to what Capitalism is about."
That is simply not so. Capitalist nations far and away are the most generous of all nations in history. What country has given more to charity around the globe more than ALL other countries combined? The one that is the most capitalist: America.
You say: "The only possible reasons Capitalism would cause someone to give to charity is that they might recieve good public reputation or use it as an excuse to show off their wealth."
No doubt that goes on but wealthy Christians also have given billions of dollars to charities anonymously.
You make a good point about sports players. If they become free agents, there are so few of them, and so few teams, that an auction basically develops around them. But people who work everyday jobs do not have that experience.
In an ideal world what you said might be true: "Making the most of resources is something that does not have to be related to the chase of profits. It could be done for its own sake."
But in the real world it is not true. Who is apt to make the most out of his resources, a man who has his whole life savings wrapped up in a business or a government bureaucrat whose personal livelihood will be in no way affected by the success or failure of an enterprise?
In fact, bureaurats are often rewarded for failure and punished for success. If a bureaucracy is founded to, say, clean up Lake Erie and five years later it is so clean you could drink right out of it, what happens? The bureaucrat is no longer needed! But what if a bureaucracy fails to solve the problem it was created to solve, what happens? Think carefully about it! Usually, it gets an INCREASED budget.
You seem to think that profit is a dirty word. It is not. As I noted earlier, the average corporation makes a profit of 7.5%. So what? The investment required to start that corporation could have been put into a Certificate of Deposit with a bank and drawn maybe 3.5% interest with NO risk! And most corporations lose money the first several years while investors get nothing. Many investment never pan out. But when they do, why shouldn't the people who bankrolled the project get a 7.5% return on their money?
*Sigh* the usual American fear mongering, slavery this new world order that. Failing to mention offcourse that only capitalist countries like America have had real slavery also failing to mention the way those within socialist systems felt ie just three years before its collapse national studies conducted independently found 78 percent of the USSR's popululation wanted the union to remain unchanged and only 8 percent wanted a free market return. In america 46.5 percent recently polled that they supported a socialist future...
Josak— Thank you for visiting my Hub. I appreciate your remarks.
Fear mongering? Can you dispute the truth of my words:
"All nations that have fully implemented Socialism have experienced a drastic drop in their standard of living, marked by both a lack of goods and food. Each has seen the loss of civil rights, liberty, and freedom."
That is the absolute truth. Only an insane person would wish such a thing on his fellow citizens—or a person motivated by envy and covetousness. Or the power hungry perhaps who want to run the socialist system.
You are wrong about slavery. Slavery was a worldwide institution. Where was it first abolished? In Europe and America. Instead of wrongly blaming the West for inventing slavery you should be thanking it for ending slavery.
It is true that a majority of Russians regretted losing their empire, gained by subjugating hundreds of millions of people from other nations. I think any lost empire laments its loss.
36 % of Americans have a "positive view" of socialism. They are mostly godless libertines. Most of them have no idea what socialism even is in reality. Considering that our ublic schools have preached the virtues of socialism for forty years that number is not large.
Good article. You do seem to focus on the extremes and any extreme is very bad. In Africa you have pure Capitalism (whatever you earn you keep - no taxes) but that doesn't work so well either.
There is a balance somewhere between socialism and capitalism that is ideal.
homehubber— Thank you. I know that Africa is a mess. Its experiments with Marxism have not worked out well either.
I very much appreciate your comments. Thank you for reading my article. Welcome to HubPages!
This is an excellent comparison. It is true and tight.
You stated, "Social Liberals desire greater equality in incomes, rarely defining how far down the road to absolute equality they are willing to travel."
It looks like they want to ride all the way to the end of the line.They are supposed to be for workers, but they don't share profits in their own enterprises.There are more billionaires in Moscow than New york City.
WD Curry 111— Thank you very much for taking the time to read my article. If you like this Hub, I think you will be interested in my book I am now working on finishing. It is about socialism somewhat but also much more, including New Age religion and the New World Order. :)
I appreciate the visit and your excellent comments.
This has got to be the most politically convincing article I have read yet! True, I am a bit biased to your writing :), but if I didn't agree with you I would certainly say so! I have a much better grasp at what exactly Socialism and Capitalism achieve in the end by reading this and where I actually have stood and do stand! I love C.S Lewis, thanks for adding his writing to your Hub, it was a great idea, and I agree with what he said as well! Stay Blessed my friend!
Kebennett1— You are welcome. I humbly accept your high praise indeed, my friend, even if you might be "biased" in my favor. :-)
I had almost forgotten that I tagged the C.S. Lewis essay on education onto the end of this Hub. Thanks for reminding me. I might have another use for that.
I always appreciate your visits. Thank you for the blessings.
gatorgrad2001 2 years ago
For someone who lost his job and is out of work you certainly have a lot of faith in capitalism. We aren't a socialist country and never will be. We are moving toward being a more FAIR society; Right now you have CEO's making millions and millions while others such as yourself don't even have a job. I am shocked that you support such a patently inequitable system. If you never get a job again will you still adore capitalism?