RE: Alternatives to Capitalism and the Building of Resilience
The debate that will never stop... here we go!
First of all, the main attribute of communism is that there is no private property. Everything is owned by the state and there is no redistribution of wealth, because...well....there is no wealth. I am Romanian and my country has been a prisoner of communism for 45 years and I could see what it was like. Yes, you are right about the lack of freedom, but the redistribution of wealth is the definition of socialism, rather than communism.
Secondly, you said under communism the focus is on equality. I will have to disagree again. Intelectuals, political dissidents and rich people have all been discriminated against, imprisoned and treated as sh*t. Where is the equality in that?
When it comes to the social democratic system, again, there is no equality! I start a business, work hard to develop it, create jobs, etc and the state will penalize me through increased taxation and incentivize people who don't work hard, who don't create jobs through lower taxes and welfare. Now, I know there are disabled people, veterans etc who need welfare, but if you don't suffer from anything, go to work! You don't need welfare, that will always keep you poor.
Both communism and socialism are marxist theories, that have never been about equality, but only "mob rules" ideologies.
Lastly, you said capitalism is all about self-help and all that, but the economic system cannot facilitate it. A relaxed fiscal system and as few regulations as possible will always facilitate entrepreneurship. Free markets and reduced taxes & regulations will always incentivize people to start businesses and employ others. Also, a flat tax means everybody gives the same percentage of their wealth back to the state, and that my friend, is called equality.
My suggestion is that instead of being jealous on the rich for having money and trying to take their money as if it was ours, we should ask ourselves how we can help the poor become rich (or prosperous) as well .
Good day!
Hi extramile. Thanks for your reply and for your very good points.
My argument is basically an academic or theoretical one.
Let me address some of your points.
Firstly, I dispute that there is no wealth under a Communist system. By the late 1950s, the Soviet system elevated the USSR to world leaders in space exploration, military hardware, and in fact, in terms of GDP. So, to suggest that there is no wealth generated by a Communist system is quite simply wrong. But ... and this is the crunch of the matter ... from the 1960s onwards, the Soviet state changed quite dramatically attempting to expand it's empire. This was the start of the problems. Basically, they overspent their wealth and over-reached their power. 30 years later, it was all gone.
Your point about equality is a fair one. However, in terms of the 'design' of the system, this is philosophically what Communism is about.
Your point about the social democratic system is simply biased. You make the claim that there are many people who don't want to 'work hard'. The Scandinavian social democratic systems have generally had lower unemployment rates than the rest of Europe, so how do you explain this?
Your argument about capitalism is again biased because it is simply based on a free market argument. And a flat tax? Which country has a flat tax? None. I actually agree that a flat tax (based on a percentage) is a great idea, but so far, not a single capitalist country has implemented this. Why? Because it would penalise large corporations because they pay almost no tax in the current system.
On your final point - this is not an issue of jealousy. It is a matter of the support that a whole society actually provides for the corporate sector in terms of tax breaks for big business (which costs the taxpayer money), the consumption of the goods and services they produce by the consumers, and I could go on. Surely, the corporate sector should give back to the society that supports them.