| | While the Donkeys and the Elephants for this upcoming election continually try to blame the world's problems on each other, an extreme question was raised in my head:
If capitalism was abolished, competitive wage-earning removed, and greedy capitalists no longer corrupting everything from energy production to food sources, would that bring us closer to a more sustainable socio-economic existence? If not, why?
This sounds like a rally cry to vote Democratic or that I just read the Manifesto, but not really: It's true, at least recently, that Democratic policy has created greater prosperity (Clinton admin., w/ a little help from a dot.com boom) relative to things like Reganomics or trickle down economics. After all, if someone were to give you wealth and then gave no ramifications for keeping it, wouldn't you keep it? Trickle down my ass...More recently: how about blatant goverment over-spending (Halliburton, Black Water) and that money landing in the pockets of the conservatives who made those decisions? Clever to disguse it all as a war on Terror.
Yet there are dangers on the left as well. Looking in that direction, we'll not only have government controlled health care and retirement, but also gov't controlled real-estate, food/energy production, and transportation. If the government is still elected and there is theoretically zero corruption, this might work. Also, since there will still be capitalistic competition to produce intellectual property and make a legal profit off of those ventures (i.e. inventions, books, music). But going any further left would put us deep into "Red" territory and certain unalienable rights will begin to be jeopardized, like freedom of speech in China (or the lack thereof). If wages were socialized, who is to say how much a doctor is to earn versus a fruit picker? Why do one versus the other, if you just get the same $$ anyways? If the goverment controlled production wouldn't the country just operate as one giant monoply then? Wouldn't corruption just get worse? Wouldn't it be even easier then for gov't officials to pluck money out of their own national-sized coffers, instead of trying to swindle it out of their customers and extort it from their wage-earners as Capitalists?
However, it seems corruption, incompetence, extortion, imitation, and adulteration are inherent in a capitalistic society as well. Look at Enron, Fanny and Freddie, or the Bear Stearns bail out...We all remember The Jungle from high school, right? (I just read that again.) Clearly, this societal system has it's flaws too: deceiving the ignorant with "unusable tenements...adulterated milk...potato-flour sausages" or more currently, partially hydrogenated soybean oil and high fructose corn syrup. Just look at any box of cereal, a can of anything...I don't need to cite any sources for this. And after the poor are malnutritioned for inflated prices and gouged for gasoline to get to work, the rich get richer.
Moreover, it seems that "the separation of church and state" is merely rhetoric. Why do you think the GOP is so chocked full of religious zealots? Palin wants intelligent design taught in school. Religion allows individuals to hope for an afterlife and therefore be complacent to mediocrity in this one. Those who tout religion in that party are the "haves" those who vote for them are the "have nots." Great way to reduce competition in a capitalistic society, grab voters by their moral balls (quite literally in the pro-life sense). To rob someone of their wages is a crime, to rob someone of thier consciousness on this earth, to blind them to the real problems of society is vile. By pitting voters against each other through the use of subjective concepts (abortion, gay marriage, creationism, etc...), the Republicans have generated a large following and larger wallets. I'm not even going to get into the votes they scare out of people thorugh the use of Terrorism.
Like so many things in the world, a balance is the best solution. Oddly enough, Chris Rock said it best with the comment that "no one is fully conservative or fully liberal." And that is probably the best way to operate a country as well. For instance: sometimes collective bargaining is required, like when there is no discernable difference in the labor force. In aviation, the unions have created a seniority based pay-scale, but at least there is progression. Also, that particular industry is now attempting to subsidize itself on the backs of pilots who can do no other productive labor as oppose to simply passing on the cost to its consumers. Without unions, pilots will become the modern Jurgis Rudkus. On the antithesis, sometimes collective bargaining is not good: like in the utilities where top wage-earners are no longer able to keep up with modern technology and therefore are hugely unproductive. We all know the saying: "Unions protect the lazy people." Therefore, balance. If government was just laissez faire enough to prevent corporate corruption, I think this balance would strike itself because unions will simply form where they are needed, like back in the meat-packing days of Chicago.
Perhaps a new social system called Socio-Capitalism is what we need. One that lets competition bring out the best in products, services, and people. Hopefully, it'll produce the next energy breakthrough. One that does not dabble in matters of religion, one that formulates mutually beneficial alliances instead of imperializes. Sounds idealistic, but this balance does have to start somewhere, right?
|
| | Posted 9/6/2008 2:13 PM - 24 Views - 0 eProps - 0 comments
- recommend
  - recs0
- share
- email
 - sent0
|
