Socialism & Capitalism

.
It is clear that capitalism tends to create a wide division between income levels, whereas socialism tends to even the playing field for everyone.  People born into a capitalist system may start out with a far greater economic advantage than their peers.  And, no doubt, in a capitalist system there exist large corporations that wield much greater power than the average group of like-minded individuals.

However–

Is “evening the playing field for everyone” indeed fair?

If you work harder than your neighbor, should you not receive more of a return than he does?

If you budget your time more adequately, should you not be afforded a longer vacation?

If you choose to squander the resources of your community, should you not be ostracized for such behavior?

Or, less theoretical–

If a father and mother are financially savvy and amass a great amount of wealth, should they not be allowed to provide a comfortable living for their children (and possibly their children’s children)?

If a group of venture capitalists are successful in building a profitable company, should they not be allowed to exert more influence over the direction of their country’s economy?

If a person wastes his money on lavish items and spends himself into the poorhouse, should he not have to face the consequences of his own poor choices?

Those who would favor socialism over capitalism deny one basic fact of life– human nature.  Although working for the “greater good of society” is noble, it is inevitably the individual who wishes to be rewarded for his own hard work.

A socialist system in which the government provides its citizens with guaranteed employment, universal health care, and ample retirement benefits simply stagnates.  (Take France as a case study– its economy has been stagnant for years.)  The people who find themselves in such a situation work only as hard as they need to in order to get by, and no harder than that.  Why?  Because there is no incentive to work harder– there is no tangible reward for doing so.

Capitalism rewards hard work and punishes laziness.  Socialism forces the hard-working to carry the lazy.

Capitalism teaches that developing unique talents can lead to prosperity.  Socialism teaches that everyone is expected to do their assigned job for the betterment of the community.

Capitalism allows us to choose our place in society and to strive to achieve that goal.  Socialism does not recognize such choice, nor does it allow such upward mobility.

Unfortunately, it is easy to point to the “evils of capitalism” when we see poverty in our own backyard.  But remember where to place the blame.

We often forget that those “huge, impersonal corporations” usually provide the most inexpensive goods to their customers.  These large corporations generally pay better wages and offer a wider array of benefits to their workers.

(To those of you who like to pick on Walmart–  Remember that the aim of a company is to turn a profit, not to provide employees with a living wage.)

We often forget that the rich do not hide their money in their mattresses; they invest it.  They pour their earnings back into our economy, providing capital for the companies that serve us and creating jobs for those of us who want to work for those companies.  Yes, they’ll buy extravagant things like huge homes, flashy cars, and yachts, but they do keep the yacht-makers in business, do they not?

Too often we forget that it is our pessimism, our laziness, our poor choices, our refusal to learn from the past, and our general lack of awareness of our own potential that lead us to fail.

We must learn to rise above our own shortcomings if we are to come to grips with the cold reality that there is no happiness save that which we provide for ourselves.

Some of us do not know how to succeed– we must be open to criticism from those who offer to teach us.

Some of us are unwilling to succeed– we must be optimistic enough to see past the hardships that we all face when trying to break out on our own.

And unfortunately, there are those among us who do not possess any adequate means to succeed.  It is our duty as decent human beings to care for our friends and family who cannot care for themselves.

But no man is entitled to a comfortable living.

Despite what you’ve witnessed in other parts of the world, despite what you’ve been told by politicians in our country–  You are not entitled to job security.  You are not entitled to education.  You are not entitled to health care.  You are not entitled to steady retirement income.  As a matter of fact, you are not entitled to anything which you do not earn for yourself.

And, as an aside, everything that you have earned for yourself, you should be allowed to keep and/or distribute in any way you see fit.  The pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness is best served by a government which keeps its hands off of your hard-earned wealth.

Do not take for granted that you live in a country which gives you the chance to pursue the goals you set for yourself and also gives you leeway should you wish to change those goals later on.

Do not forget that socialism in its purest form (i.e. communism) only oppresses its constituents while breeding totalitarian government.  Its greatest experiment, the Soviet Union, was a colossal failure, and rightfully so.

And do not neglect the role of capitalism in the prosperity of America’s citizens and the growth of America as a dominant force in the world’s economy.

One final note–

Success doesn’t come easily.  It requires determination and persistence, and, for some of us, it requires a bit more courage than we’re used to.

But even more fundamental than that– Our success requires faith in a system which rewards the achievement of those who would pour their heart and soul into providing a better living for themselves.

God Bless capitalism, and God Bless the United States of America.

—————————————————————————————————-

See also:

“Free Markets / Socialism / Universal Health Care”, entry dated 8/10/07


14 Responses to “Socialism & Capitalism”

  1. matt Says:

    Ok, for the most part I agree with you. I believe in a lazzie fair, or free market. I would defintly consider myself capitilst if only out of fairness sake. But i have a question. Do you think we have an even playing field right now. To be an even playing field evryone has to start ou the same. Right mow thats not happening. My school is a very fine high school with great academic achievment. But how about schools that do not provide the same level of education? What about schools where the students are worried about risking there lives by showing up, schools with gangs and drugs and teachers who are underfunded? Is that really an even playing field. I think we should propose a federal based schooling system so that evryone will pool money into all the school sytems, making an even playing feild for the students. Then we can truly be the land of equal opputunity.

  2. Count Mazz Says:

    The current system of education is federally-based and, as is, it isn’t great. I believe the private sector can do better. (That goes for lots of other things as well.)

    We already pool our money into education when we pay our taxes. That’s enough. If anything, parents should be given vouchers from the government and be able to choose which private school to send their kids to. Competition between schools would strengthen the entire system.

    Handing money over to the government is not the answer. With government control, there’s no free-market incentive to make the system better. I say, either we leave things as they are or privatize.

  3. matt Says:

    Well actually its not. Its state based not federal. Also different areas or counties give different amounts of money to there local school through the local tax. It is not federilized so that all schools get the same amount of money IE: because i live in a wealthy town my school gets more money. I think that ought to be changed. Wouldnt privatizing the schools mean poor children couldnt go?

  4. Count Mazz Says:

    You’re right– my bad. Switch “federally-based” to “government-based” back there.

    I understand your point that the money isn’t distributed evenly. But I still say, in general, let the parents keep their tax money and use it to pay school tuition.

    Yes, I can see that poor people could be disadvantaged by a purely privatized system. I think using vouchers would be a sort of compromise. Maybe, let parents pay about as much as they do now for education but give them a choice of where to send their money.

  5. matt Says:

    Im sorry i feel a little stuoid for asking but i dont really understand how the voucher sytem works. Could you explain it to me?

  6. Count Mazz Says:

    Don’t feel stupid for asking. This blog is meant to be a presentation & exchange of ideas– something we can both learn from.

    My understanding of the voucher system is this– Families still spend whatever amount they’ve been spending on their children’s education to the government, but they’re allowed to put their money toward whichever school they choose (meaning they’d be free from districting and other rules).

    It’s like, you spend your money on a bunch of tickets at an amusement park and then you can choose which rides you want to go on. You’ve already put your money towards the system, but you still have a degree of choice.

  7. anonymous Says:

    Education is both state and federally regulated and run. While states certainly have the most say, the federal governemt has it’s influcences (No Child Left Behind) and both do contribute to funding.

    I work in the public education system, and believe me, vouchers are not the answer. What they will do is take money out of the struggling schools and give it to high performing schools – the ones who need it less. Then the lower performing schools – which are usually in low income areas to begin with – get even less money. It’s a vicous downward cycle. It works in much the same way as NCLB – an act which now forces schools to give standardized tests to students in ELA and math every year and if the students don’t get above a certain average, the federal governement pulls it’s money. Again, what will invariably wind up happening is that the schools that need the funding the most will be the ones who suffer.

    I agree with all of your points on capitalism except the right to an education – without that the next generation isn’t even given a chance. Children shouldn’t suffer for the sins of their parents. Everyone should have an equal opportunity to advance – it is what they do with the opportunity that will make the capitalist system work as well as it has in this country.

  8. Count Mazz Says:

    I agree that every child should have an equal opportunity to succeed– that they shouldn’t have to ’suffer for the sins of their parents’.

    I’m conflicted, though, because once you claim a right to something, you hand over the management of that right to the government, and the general result of doing so is winding up with a watered-down version of what you really want. That’s where the free market should take over, because most of the time it’ll do a better job.

    I can see how under-performing schools can get caught in a downward spiral. I don’t have an easy answer to that one. On the one hand, there are schools in bad areas with great teachers who could really just use more money. On the other hand, I’ll bet there are schools who just make poor use of their resources. Maybe the administration should be gutted. Maybe the teachers are just bad. Maybe the whole school should be flattened and the kids sent to school somewhere else.

    Even if No Child Left Behind isn’t structured well, there needs to be SOME kind of accountability. (If not standardized tests for the kids, maybe tests for the teachers?) The threat of pulling federal funding for poor performance seems like a pretty good motivator to me, but maybe there’s another way.

    Overall, we shouldn’t force parents to pay into a system which will ultimately fail to provide an adequate education for their children.

  9. anonymous Says:

    “The threat of pulling federal funding for poor performance seems like a pretty good motivator to me, but maybe there’s another way.”

    The only problem with that is sometimes you can’t blame teachers or administration…

    I don’t know how else to explain it but to say this –

    I teach in a high end school in Westchester – second highest on the payscale, one of the hardest schools to get a job in, etc…

    This past year I co-taught a class called math 2RA for kids who were a little behind and scheduled to take the math A regents in June instead of January.

    There were 16 kids and 3 teachers – and while I am new to the school, the two men I taught with are both established and amazing teachers.

    These kids had every opportunity – and yet, 7 of them still failed. They only needed 36 out of 84 points to get a 65, but some of them just can’t, or won’t do it.

    Now, luckily for my school, these kinds of kids are the minority. But in an already under funded school in a low income area those kids aren’t the minority. What do you do then?

    I guess that is the reason why I am so vehemently against the idea of taking funding away from those schools.

    Oh – and this is an FYI – every teacher in NYS that got certified after Feb 2004 is required to be a “life long learner”. Certification is only valid for 5 years to renew it you have to prove that you have done 175 hours of professional development and/or graduate level classes. So there is a system – here at least – to make sure teachers are at the top of their profession.

  10. Count Mazz Says:

    (1) If the kids won’t learn the material, there’s no amount of government funding that will help them. They should fail and have to face the consequences. That’s part of why I originally said we don’t have a ‘right’ to an education– we have to earn it.

    (2) For those who can’t learn the material– Well, I’m somewhat stuck there, because I can’t account for all the reasons why a student can’t pass. What I can say on principle is this, though– that it is not the responsibility of one taxpayer to make sure that another taxpayer’s kid passes his classes. It’d be righteous for others to come to the aid of a failing student and help him get on his feet. Using state & federal dollars to fund everyone’s education is a way of forcing that to be the case, though, and that’s crooked.

    (3) It sounds like you guys are put through a pretty good gauntlet in order to become teachers and stay where you are. I know New York can be pretty stringent in its teaching requirements. Perhaps other states should raise the bar.

  11. clay Says:

    2 quick comments

    I do believe fully that the hard working should be rewarded while lazy people reap what they sew…. but that is not always the way it happens and I can’t say that I know it is a far majority of the way it happens… quite often certain people keep getting beat down rather than rise above…. now am I saying they are not accountable for their choices/actions that may have put them in a position to fail… no… I am a full believer that every situation good/bad that you find yourself in is the fault/betterment of that individual… even if someone else is doing something to you… well you put yourself in the situation to have that person do something to you…

    other comment… though it was only an example (at the top)… “having enough money to take care of their children and their children’s children”… though I believe the right is fully present, as a personal opinion, those are the generations that are lost but still have the resources not to fail… they don’t have to work for anything nearly as hard and thus do not know the value of choice and punishment…

  12. Count Mazz Says:

    The overarching theme here is personal responsibility. Sure, some people are born into wealth while others are born into poverty. Sure, good luck or bad luck can change a person’s life on a dime. And some people “get beat down” repeatedly, like you said. Now, other people can provide momentary assistance (which is certainly the moral thing to for a friend or family member), but ultimately it is the individual who must pull himself up from whatever situation he finds himself in, regardless of the particulars of how he got there to begin with. Repetitive charity will only go so far.

    And I agree that a person who is given something without having earned it does not fully appreciate that which he is given. That’s part of the tightrope you walk when you’re a parent– You want your child to succeed, but you don’t want to hand him his success. You want to help your child through failure & disappointment, but you also want him to be able to overcome hardship on his own. Tricky.

    Too many Americans have grown up expecting to be babied– Expecting that somebody, somewhere will take care of them whenever they face difficulty in their lives. Hence their predilection for socialism.

    I see this kind of thing among many of the sons and daughters of Baby Boomers– They want to be able to enjoy their iPods, plasma screens, xbox 360s, Razr phones, and whatever else has been paid for by mom & dad, but when it comes time for them to move out of the house, pay the bills, and provide for themselves, they flounder around at home for several years, because they haven’t learned to work for the standard of living to which they’re accustomed. That is not the product of our country’s economy or the nature of capitalism; it is a product of (a) poor parenting and (b) ignorance on the part of the child as to how the world actually works.

    People need to take a close look at their own behavior before they blame the system.

  13. LEE Says:

    Bull. Success has just as much to do with luck as hard work. Being in the right place at the right time. I dare to say if you born to poor sharecroppers your chance of being successful is somewhat less than being born to say Donald Trump’s family. I love to read peoples viewpoints, when they, obviously were born with the silver spoon. Look, most of the wealthy people I know didn’t come from poor schools or crime ridden neighborhoods. If you think being wealthy is some kind of natural occurrence then let’s stop people inheriting money and let them succeed on their “wits” and “hard work”. Not their Grandpappies. If you believe that it’s o.k. in a society, for only some to get privileges like education and health care, then start building castles and canons, because if history proves anything, it’s that the people not as intelligent or as hard working as you, will want what you have. That’s natural selection

  14. Count Mazz Says:

    Success is overwhelmingly a product of hard work rather than luck. To think otherwise is “bull.” How many successful people are simply lucky? Or, even if that actually happens, how long does such luck last?

    I’ll grant that those who are not born into wealth need to work harder to attain the same level of success as those who are born into wealth. However, those who are born into wealth still need to work hard to maintain their wealth, or they’re not going to remain wealthy very long. And the fact remains that somebody had to have originally earned the wealth that was born-into.

    I’ll try to ignore the “silver spoon” comment because you do not know who you are talking to.

    “Stop people inheriting money.” You’re telling me that parents can’t work hard to provide a better life for their kids than they had and/or that parents can’t choose to hand things down to their children when they die. Please. Did you think that one through? Do you really believe that families can’t do with their property as they please?

    And yes, if you haven’t earned your education, if you haven’t earned your health care, then you don’t deserve it, whether you come from wealth or not. The alternative is to say that you’re entitled to these things, and that those who have worked to provide their own should now contribute to yours. That’s about as communist as it gets.

Comments are closed.