|
InvisibleBlack -> RE: the new socialism (2/9/2010 11:41:34 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrMister
I do not mean to be disrespectful of others views (and hopefully no one will take it as such and be disrespectful of me here), but in an honest attempt to better understand, I wanted to ask the following to anyone who is a socialist, or believes in socialism;
Based upon the definition given above, why is socialism a better avenue for our government to take, as opposed to our government providing an environment that enables us to better take care of ourselves?
As I said, I do not intend to come across that you are evil, despicable, or whatever else, for believing what you do. I am just hoping to better understand your position.
I'll take a stab at this. Bear in mind that I'm not a socialist and I think that socialism is innately flawed as a system but in my understanding the theory goes like this:
Socialism, if done properly, is both more efficient and more fair. Why?
By it's very nature, capitalism is wasteful. While resources are allocated efficiently from an individual perspective, they are not allocated efficiently from a societal perspective. How so? Take a look at say, soda. Here in the United States there are probably twenty brands of cola. Three or four big nationwide brands and dozens of store-brands, regional brands, etc. As a people, do we need twenty types of cola or would, say, six do? It might be individually beneficial for your local grocery store to create their own brand of cola and market it regionally - they will make money doing so - but as a nation, those resources might be better expended somewhere else. Another example - advertising. Billions of dollars are spent in the U. S. on advertising. On trying to get you to buy one particular shaving cream or deoderant or whatever over another. These ads contain no real informational content about the product or its virtues and are purely attempts to sway you into buying one brand of gum (or whatever) over another. Those billions could easily be spent instead doing something productive or useful. It is individually useful for Coors to spent millions advertising that their beer is better than anyone else's but from a national standpoint, is it truly the best allocation of those funds?
By looking at the "big picture" and not just focusing on individual needs and desires, an overall better allocation of resources can be achieved which could result in higher productivity and a better standard of living across the whole of society.
Capitalism is also harsh. In a functional capitalist society, you are rewarded based on the perceived value of your productivity. If you create goods or services that are highly valued by others, you will become rich. If you do not, you will fail. If the perceived value of your input is zero, capitalism will select you out and you will starve to death. If you are, through chance or misfortune, injured or unable to produce and have not of your own volition been able to accrue sufficient resources to survive, you will be selected out and you will starve to death. This is an extreme view as capitalism does allow for altruism and charity - but a truly efficient market will punish inefficient elements and select out non-productive ones. While a socialist system doesn't require help for the less fortunate, obviously a commonly-owned pool of resources which are centrally managed would logically favor diverting some resources from the means of production to taking care of those who, through mishap or misfortune, were unable to support themselves.
There is also, in most socialist dogma (and I am using the term literally and not perjoratively) a sense that an innate problem of capitalism is that, over a period of time, it results in the accumulation and centralization of capital in a relatively few hands. These individuals are then able to exploit their control of the means of production or distribution to take unfair advantage of the system and benefit themselves far beyond the actual value of their productivity or inputs to society.
I think that about covers it. Feel free to correct me as I'm not a socialist - I'm a capitalist and so I'm sort of staring over the fence here and trying to describe what I see.
|
|
|
|
