Throughout the course of human history we have tried many governing styles or “isms”. We have learned that many of which sound like they would be a good idea but in practice ultimately fail for various economic conditions and social issues. As we continue I will list various isms as defined by Merriam Webster and discus the pros and cons of each and explain why they don’t work.
I will start with Marxism as it is seldom heard of and the most likely misunderstood. Marxism is,
the political, economic, and social principles and policies advocated by Marx; especially : a theory and practice of socialism including the labor theory of value, dialectical materialism, the class struggle, and dictatorship of the proletariat until the establishment of a classless society http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marxism.
As a form of government this “ism” is perhaps the most socially acceptable as it takes into account fairness and rewards for those that do more than others. It does end up falling into the category of some of the other “isms” in that the old adage holds true “absolute power corrupts absolutely” and groups of any scale are susceptible to this as well as individuals. Once there is a dictator in power in line with bringing the “classless society” into fruition, it stalls out there due to the fact that the man in power will have no desire to relinquish said power. We have seen this play out in other isms throughout history time and time again.
The “ism” that is more of a transitional idea that leads to other “isms” is the one that is most demonized, and altogether misused in American politics today and that is socialism.
Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. A system of society or group living in which there is no private property. A system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state. a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
This “ism” is representative of the “needs of the many” idea. That is, what is best for majority of the population should (and I stress that as things never work as they should) be best for the given society as a whole. Again, we fall into the moral hazard issue that plagues “ism” after “ism” and as socialistic ideas take hold, especially in a democracy, it begins to run out of control as the people want more and more and ultimately bankrupt the government. California is probably the best modern example of this although it is not a socialist government by definition it has adopted enough socialistic ideas that we are seeing the down fall of this “ism” as well.
The “ism” that is the evolved form of socialism and the direct opposite to our current “ism” is the idea that there should be no private property and everything should (stressed again) be distributed equitably by the state is, of course, communism. As an idea, it sounds like a good idea as it is based on fair distribution of resources. It also remains the only “ism” that I know of that lead to directly to war, not fought by soldiers but fought by ideas. Communism, as defined is
A theory advocating elimination of private property. A system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed. A doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. A totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production. A final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/communism.
We have seen it fail in Russia with the dissolution of the USSR in that what is equitable for most is not economical and leads to bankruptcy of the government, especially with the scarcity of resources, and that has a tendency to lead to unrest. There were two main factors that lead to the down fall of the USSR’s communism in that they were faced with said scarcity and the ongoing theme of the moral hazard present in all “isms”. We have seen that communism can and does hold on when there are abundant resources and when paired with another “ism” as we see today in China. As China is a communist country with abundant resources with a hint of our current “ism” has become one of the most powerful economies in the world but does exhibit favoritism as moral hazard rears its head.
Fascism, the most repugnant of all isms, often comes about as a result of the popularity of Marxist ideas and the desire for equality amongst the people. It does however, perfectly depict the moral hazard within Marxism and indeed all “isms” in that it is the point where the person in power refuses to give it up and becomes a dictator and the following definition in itself is the best argument against it.
Often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism.
Which brings us to our current “ism”, capitalism. Wherein, all most everything is privately owned and distributed in a supply/demand fashion. In other words you work for your capital and spend it as you see fit.
an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market . http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism.
This is by far the most economical in that demand driven desires are worked out and achieved in a more or less free market fashion. It has worked and at the moment continues to work but there are several issues that need to be addressed. The problem is that money walks, talks (at least it does now that the Supreme Court has ruled it a form of speech) and shits on those who don’t have it. What we have been seeing is that moneyed speech has been writing governmental legislation that benefits only those with it. Furthermore, we have been seeing the marginalization of the working class where the largest corporations have been seeking out ways to lower their bottom line any way possible. We have seen this in the efficiency of production where the automization of production lines eliminates the need for workers thus reducing costs. Unfortunately this has begun to lead to fewer and fewer people controlling more and more of the wealth. As this happens, the people without money, or at least less of it, are capable of buying less and less which in turn leads to them spending less and less. These issues would not be as much of a problem if the free market where allowed to act in such a way that it would rebalance, usually through deflation and less demand. However, the moneyed interests that have been, for lack of a better description, controlling government have been keeping inflation and wages at a somewhat steady rate while their profits rise nearly exponentially. Recently though, we have been seeing actions perpetrated by the federal reserve bank (the Fed) that have been pushing inflation higher and benefiting only the corporations in that when inflation rises commodities prices fall (lowering cost of goods sold) and funds are forced out of cash and into equities (stocks) boosting share prices and thus earnings.
As we have seen, no “ism” is perfect. This is probably due to the fact that people are fallible and somewhat greedy. Which is why I think that we need to try a new “ism”, either that or attempt to tweak the one we are currently using in such a way that avoids the pitfalls of each while using the benefits of all to make it the best possible. We do call ourselves a “melting pot” as in a combination of many peoples and beliefs. Maybe it is time to stop demonizing an idea because it is politically convenient and start melding together ideas instead of going elementary school and saying “I’m right, and your wrong”.
No comments:
Post a Comment