Socialism: It’s Not What You Think
A misunderstood theory that, when implemented, always fails Socialism, now being embraced by millennials, has sparked discussion as to whether or not it is all it is made out to be. While many of its supporters claim to know exactly what Socialism entails, it appears as though many aspects of this economic system are disregarded. This economic system and political way of thinking has left its mark throughout the centuries. The inconsistencies found between what Socialism seems to promise and what it plays out to be are profound. Praised forits overarching promise to promote general welfare, socialism is appealing from afar. However, in past cases-studies these promises quickly vanished, leaving the unsustainable theory to fend for itself against the people who once supported it most. The fact of the matter is that society has a misconstrued idea of what socialism, in its purest form, embodies. Socialism failed in the 20thcentury, is currently failing in the 21stcentury, and will continue to fail for years to come. Here’s why. The logistics of “pure” socialism, explained To start, socialism was initially put forth by Karl Max (in The Communist Manifesto) as the first phase of communism. He described it as an economic system where the factors of production—land, capital, labor, and enterprise—are equally owned by everyone in society and are valued only for their usefulness to the people. Socialism aims to take into consideration both the needs of the individual as well as the needs of the greater society. Such social needs include security, transportation, health care, education, and caring for those who cannot contribute on their own, such as the elderly and young children (Amadeo, “Socialism’s Pros and Cons”). Similar to a command economy, socialism uses central planning to allocate resources (Amadeo, “5 Traits of a Command Economy”). The government creates its laws, regulations and rulings to enforce its central plan and to follow Marx’s mantra “From each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution” (Amadeo, “Socialism’s Pros and Cons”). The socialist system is characterized by social ownership (public, cooperative, or collective) and worker’s self-management (Amadeo, “5 Traits of a Command Economy”). For the state to be socialist, in its purest form, society must work collectively and equally, private property and the allocation of income must be socially controlled, and the means of production must be possessed and controlled by the state (“Socialism”). The overall goal of socialism is to transition society into a communist state that ultimately results in revolution and the total abolition of social classes, making each person equal in every way. Socialism: what it promises vs. what it delivers In accordance with its ideology, socialism promises to provide prosperity, equality, justice, and security to all, however it appears that these promises never make it to fruition. In fact, “pure” socialism has been shown to deliver widespread poverty, misery, division, and tyranny over society, as seen in Venezuela today. But why can’t socialism deliver what it promises? For starters, socialism is a system based on principles inconsistent with human nature. Its main defect is that it is a system that completely disregards incentives (Perry). The concepts of cooperation and collaboration are great in theory, but naturally, humans work best off competition and motivation. In such a centrally planned economy—where property is owned by the state and there are no market prices or profits— there is no reason nor motivation for any individual to work harder or longer than anyone else (Perry). Yes, socialism keeps its promise that everyone in society (besides government officials) is equal. Everyone is equally dependent on government supplies for survival, equally impoverished, and equally owns nothing. Doesn’t sound like the equality they were hoping for, now does it? Also, while everyone in society is said to be “equal”, the government is still superior. While the people of the state all use the same free healthcare, free education, free public transportation, etc., government officials and their families don’t. Seems peculiar that a system which is supposed to sustain equality for all, still has a division between the people and the government. To clarify, in Venezuela government officials have free limo services as their form of transportation, at home medical services as their form of free healthcare, and at home tutors and teachers for their children as their form of free education. They simply do not wish to intermix with the rest of society. The communities live low-income lives, while government officials and their loved ones live like royalty (Amadeo, “Socialism’s Pros and Cons”). Yet another flaw in the principles of socialism is that a government who owns all property, and allocates all goods to society, has a lot of power. Yes, hunger for power strikes again. While true socialism could be prosperous—assuming the government is determined to represent the wishes of the people—it is only natural that humans abuse such positions of power to benefit themselves (Amadeo, “Socialism’s Pros and Cons”). A government holding such immense power will almost always lead to corruption within the system and eventually, tyranny. Lastly, with tyranny comes censorship—strict control over politically “unacceptable” media—as well as a lack of freedom and human rights (Perry). A system which is intended to create equality, fairness, and justice for all in society, eventually brings the polar opposite. To compensate, it attempts to encourage patriotism and adoration for one’s country regardless of the despair and turmoil its citizens may be facing. This disillusionment can only survive for so long, and it eventually becomes clear that the reality of socialism isn’t as bright as it is made out to be. To put this into perspective, let’s look at how Venezuela is doing under Nicolás Maduro’s socialist dictatorship. It all started with Hugo Chavez, the elected president who promised to provide free healthcare, food, education, and equality. It all seemed to work during his time in power—mostly because Chavez was living on an oil mine which payed for all these programs—until it all crashed right as he passed his mess down to his vice president, Maduro. It wasn’t until Venezuela had run through all their oil, that the faulty principles of Socialism rose to the surface. Eventually running out of money, Venezuela fell victim to the injustices and the many other things a purely socialist government has to offer (Jasso). Today, the food the citizens had once been promised for their contribution to society no longer exists. Venezuela’s inflation rate has reached nearly 10 million percent, electricity and water have become a luxury, and medical supplies are nowhere to be found. While the people of Venezuela are dying each day, Maduro and other government officials are living just fine, eating just fine, and acting as if the country is in perfect shape (Cohen). Needless to say, the socialist system the people of Venezuela had all wished for didn’t work in their favor after all. Let us not forget that the exact same thing happened in Cuba under Fidel Castro’s socialist regime in the 20thcentury. Undergoing an almost identical crisis—widespread hunger, inflation, shortages of medical supplies etc.—to that of Venezuela today, the people of Cuba were forced to fend for themselves under a government system which was supposed to promote general welfare for all. Cubans and Venezuelans alike were both disillusioned by the beautiful ideas of socialism, and forced to face the consequences of its detrimental reality (Oppmann). The vast promises of socialism were too good to be true and resulted in corruption and tyranny driving these countries (as well as many others) to complete self-destruction. Now this may all seem awfully pessimistic. It may come off as though the issues described above are extreme cases, and it might still seem plausible that pure socialism is achievable (if it goes according to plan). Many politicians today propose that it is indeed possible to have a socialist state without the corruption, poverty, and the restrictions illustrated above. They may use examples of how well “socialism” is working in many countries today to back their claims. As one of The Hill’s opinion contributor clarifies, this is “because the word ‘socialism’ does not mean what our newfound socialists use it to mean” (Hohman). “But what about Denmark?” Many politicians and millennials today use Denmark as proof that socialism works. However, Denmark as well as many other countries (Norway, Sweden, Spain, Canada etc.) do not subscribe to the true definition of “socialism”. In fact, the majority of these countries use a different system called a mixed economy. None of the countries used as examples of socialism are 100% socialist. Most use a mixed economy—a system which combines characteristics of market, command, and traditional economies— typically consisting of a market economy and a socialist welfare system (Amadeo, “What Is a Mixed Economy?”). A mixed economy can incorporate socialism with capitalism, communism or even both (Amadeo, “Socialism’s Pros and Cons”). In accordance with the online economic publication The Balance’s economic model, a mixed economy emphasizes the following characteristics:
As stated above, a mixed economy uses both market economy features (1-3), as well as command economy features (4-5). Due to this, it has all the advantages that come from a market economy (incentives and private property), while still maintaining the advantages of a socialist command economy (government control over certain elements and puts the needs of the people first). This is why the idea of “socialism”, as it is used by millennials and politicians today, works. It is not true socialism, but rather a misuse of the word. The examples of the countries above that support socialism, are the combination of a socialist welfare state and free-market capitalism. While their governments provide health care, education, and pension’s, they also have successful private entities like those that exist in capitalist societies (Amadeo, “Socialism’s Pros and Cons”). As stated by Amy Fontinelle, in this type of mixed economy the “providers of goods and services enjoy private ownership of resources, while citizens take advantage of social-needs-oriented public services” (Fontinelle). These countries implement more social programs than countries like the US, but still abide by free-market capitalism, making them what many would call, the happy medium (Amadeo, “Socialism’s Pros and Cons”). While a mixed economy may work in these places, that is not to say that they will work everywhere. Population plays a big role in the ability for a certain system to function properly (Amadeo, “Socialism’s Pros and Cons”). A large country like the US could not possibly implement the same economic system as a country as small as Sweden or Denmark, without altering its structure to support the needs of the country’s population. That’s not to say that one system is better than the other, rather, this exemplifies that economic systems are never one size fits all. Denmark, Canada, and many other European countries have found it necessary to add more social programs to their systems. It is crucial to note that adding social programs does not mean that a country is socialist. This is a discrepancy that many people are not aware of/ do not take into account when freely using the word “socialism”. Pure socialism is defined as much more than simply providing free healthcare or free education. As described earlier on, it is the complete divorce from capitalism and all its attributes. Social programs are not socialism Although social programs may have elements attributable to socialist ideals, it is in no way necessary nor logical to convert to a purely socialist system in order to sustain these programs. Social programs such as social security, disability, welfare, and many other programs may play a role in socialism, but they are also typically a part of other government’s systems as well. The idea that, in order for a country to provide more social programs to a community, it must convert to a socialist system is a misconception which stems from the fact that they have elements in common. Like socialism, social programs consist of the following:
Despite the similarities listed above, such programs can exist independently of socialism. To assume that we cannot have social programs without socialism is a fallacy. Having social programs is a necessary condition for socialism, but not sufficient reason to implement socialism. Many countries around the globe provide social programs while remaining capitalist. Moreover, as exemplified in countries like Sweden and Canada, countries with mixed economies provide social programs without eliminating the free-market and the right to private property. In today’s day, these two ideas are commonly (and incorrectly) intertwined with one another. The call for socialism as a means to guarantee that social programs will be implemented, demonstrates just how unaware society is of what socialism, by its true definition, consists of. Promoting the need for socialism, and promoting the need for an increase in social programs are two separate discussions that should not be mistaken for one another. Socialism is not the answer you’re looking for While socialism may be appealing from afar, it poses many dangers to individual liberties and overall prosperity when implemented in its purest form. Millennials and many others find socialism to be the only way to promote social justice, equality and benevolence in society. However, in accordance with cases like Venezuela, Cuba, and many others, it seems to deliver opposing results. In summation, socialism is not what you think. There are an array of underlying issues and consequences that come with socialism. The resurgence of this theory today has shed light on the fact that many people are unware and misinformed as to what socialism truly consists of. “Socialism” as it discussed today is not socialism, but rather a misuse of the word by those who actually embrace the mixed economy system and what it has to offer society. People protest daily for change in the world. Regardless of if they hope to see an increase in financial security for those in need, an increase in government spending for social programs, or equality overall, let it be known that, socialism is not the right answer.
0 Comments
|
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |