das kapitalism
i've been simultaneously reading adam smith's wealth of nations, milton friedman's capitalism and freedom, the communist manifesto and the magazine the economist's current take on contemporary macro-economics in the form of a compilation of writings simply called economics.
i remember as a teenager that many of my peers had a kind of positive, romantic idea of what communism was, without knowing what it really was. this was the 80s after all and kids always go against whatever established paradigm is current, the paradigm of that time being preppy republicanism brought on by the likes of ronald reagan and margaret thatcher. i was never attracted to marx, partly because i am not an intellectual and also because it was quite evident that communism was a failure from the early on. i had been taught a bit about marx, lenin and the bolshevik revolution in high school and was aware of how far communism had strayed from it's original intention of emancipation into a reality of total state control of every aspect of life.
while marx may have attempted to appeal to all workers of the world, workers who at the time were largely uneducated, the fact that mostly ultra-educated ivy-league intellectuals payed any serious attention to him was enough to make me look past him. i was quite poor, never made it to college and had no time for intellectual pondering, i was too busy trying to survive. the books i did read were "black power" books from used bookstores from the likes of huey p. newton, eldridge cleaver and malcom x. these books were written in plain english for people who were poor. one of them, i can't remember who, ridiculed what he called the "coffeehouse intellectuals" - referring to all the trust-funded intellectual ponderers sipping cappuccinos and discussing marx, mao, lenin, stalin and whatever other flavor of communism that was available for discourse. that term has stuck with me to this day as a source of amusement.
anyway, in an effort to better understand the world in which i am forced to participate in, in the manner that i do, i have been reading up on the various, er i mean 2 available systems of governing that modern man has explored to any extent. while they respectively have endless variations and ultimately differ in meaning from one person to the next, i will use the terms capitalism and communism for the sake of discussion. i will not discuss socialism as as the word "socialism" is vague and has been corrupted into a 4 letter word by likening it to communism by certain folks, who now corrupt the word "liberal", a word which their lord and saviour - milton friedman - champion of globalization and free market capitalism defined himself as. for me, socialism is a balance between communism and capitalism, but the fact that the soviet union called itself a socialist republic has more weight than my puny interpretation.
now, onto the 2 views, the capitalist side of the fence "believes" that man can only achieve what is called "freedom" through a form of government that is limited in power and emasculated enough to do no harm to the people which it is not allowed to govern. with little to no government interference in the affairs of it's people, the individual is free to govern his/her self in any way that they see fit. the market will define and decide policy, not government. this is the basic idea behind capitalism. sounds perfectly logical.
communism, for lack of a better word/term believed that it was capitalism itself and it's "division of labor" that enslaved the people in a system where there was no escape for those on the bottom. it held that this idea of the "division of labor" and the "freedom" that it granted, actually alienated humanity. it also believed that the capitalist system created the poverty that it needed as cheap labor that comes with it to keep those who owned the factories and therefore their livelihoods on top. poverty and alienation were equal to enslavement. this seems perfectly logical as well.
i have no doubt of the sincerity of both karl marx and adam smith in their quest for the emancipation of humanity. i believe wholeheartedly that both their hearts were in the right place. but, while both of these philosophical theories look picture perfect on paper, there is one problem - they are just theories. and a theory is rarely a reality.
adam smith theorized that man was not greedy and with his system a man would only take as much as he needs, not hoarding wealth and assets, but allowing others to take as much as they needed as it was in one man's "mutual interest" for his fellow man to succeed, thus giving each man more opportunity to achieve more of their "mutual" or "individual interest" together. we all know that this is not correct. mankind is greedy. given the unhindered right to be greedy, one will attempt to sieze as much power as possible as, in his mind, it is in his "individual interest" to be on top. corporations are a special version of greed. a company has all the rights of an individual, rights which include little to no governmental interference it it's affairs, even at the expense of the people. global warming is a good example of this. sans the government's ability to govern or regulate, the "right to freedom" by these corporations potentially puts the entire population in harm's way. in the capitalist system in which we live, individuals who are not able to achieve wealth are left behind. the system that was to liberate now enslaves.
communism believed that siezing the factories from the rich, redistributing the wealth and "educating" the masses with a massive system of associated localized bureaus and government would make them achieve a sort of utopia collectively. the problem with utopia is that my utopia is not yours. perpetual famine in the early days of the soviet union forced a retreat from this utopian ideal and a major rethink and re-tooling of soviet communism into a system that left behind it's revolutionary roots for a highly centralized system. what good is utopia when i cannot eat or feed my family? after lenin's death, germany's wermacht created the need for totally centralized power under a supreme leader - joseph stalin. the rest is history. forced collectivization does not work. a giant government that decides what role a person will fill in a society, without any concern for that individual's wishes vanquishes that individual's right to "freedom". i want to be an artist, but i am told i must be a farmer or work in the factory, for the good of the people. simply because this person is not poor and has as much wealth as the next person does not make him/her free.
in reality, they were both right and wrong. communism, with it's absolute power stifles and is potentially harmful to an individual's "freedom" and capitalism creates a version of enslavement through poverty, poverty that it needs to exist to perpetuate itself, which stifles "freedom". money is freedom in this system. those who have no or little money are less "free" than those who have tremendous money. capitalism's individual "freedom" is nothing more than alienation and "communism" with it's forced collectivization is flawed.
reality dictates that any system of government does not work. capitalism works for some, communism worked for some. monarchy worked for some as did feudalism. no system works for everyone. capitalism claims to be the most democratic as anyone can be a millionaire, but in capitalism, the only reason why one person is a millionaire is because that millionaire made his/her millions at the expense of those who cannot be millionaires. for every millionaire there must be thousands of people who are not. imagine in capitalism if everyone was a millionaire. if that was the case, then a million dollars would be worth nothing. capitalism denies being a system of government, but it most certainly is. companies and people of wealth simply replace the bureaucrats and governors. so what are our options? anarchy? what is anarchy? no government with rule by collective? ask an anarchist what anarchy is. you will get a different answer from everyone who claims to be an anarchist.
i am not a pessimist or fatalist in any way, shape or form. i am simply being objective. neither system works. capitalism didn't outlive communism because it is better, it just had smarter leaders. and here it sits.
more related goodies:
the big 3
further evidence of the decline
armageddon
the financial catastrophe is now approaching new york
how to be a zillionaire
everyone can be a millionaire
food and gas prices defy theory
food and gas prices defy economic theory.
the economy stupid
master magician, george bush does it again.
money as weapon
there is a new world war brewing, one that will be fought with money.
subsidized confusion
a look into the hypocrisy of free-market capitalism and it's position on government intervention
no way, jose!
america's refusal to regulate it's marketplace and the consequences for the rest of the world
capitalism and friedman
milton friedman was one of the most influential folks of the 20th century. capitalism and freedom is the bible of capitalist liberation.
socal in trouble
more on the coming water troubles in the southwest.
death in the southland
southern california is in for a big surprise when the water runs out.
buy, buy, buy
how capitalism and environmentalism are incompatible.
subsidies vs. tax breaks
how the united states gets away with subsidizing companies and/or industries through generous tax breaks.
