My wife and I, as I like to say, are communists in our marriage, or as she likes to say, we are French ("Oui, oui!" sounds like "We, we!"). I am not a communist or a capitalist beyond this context, though, for neither is inherently irrational or predatory in all of its forms. As rationalists, we realize that Soviet communism is not pure communism--it is not a classless society without the presence of a leading elite. The word communism has likewise been miunderstood to refer to any ideology/system that is not capitalistic, at least in some circles here in America. Because of this, socialism might be mistaken for communism. The former is about a system here factories and business-related land are not privately owned by an individual investor or an often oppressive upper class, but by the workers or community as a whole for the benefit of broader civilization. Communism entails the literal absence of any sort of true property altogether.
Socialism is indeed closer to communism in that it is more aimed, when applied correctly, at the genuine wellbeing of the general public than basic capitalism (albeit often in ways that are Biblically superogatory, or good but not obligatory), the latter of which is to varying degrees is about people conducting business and economic transactions without governmental intervention to, in many cases, primarily or exclusively benefit themselves. The goal of a capitalistic organization is more directly aimed at generating profit, and that goal might or might not be pursued by given individuals out of greed, which could lead the wealthy to avoid paying taxes or use their money to influence political decisions in their favor. Socialism would have wealthy businesspeople pay at least no less than the same proportion of taxes based upon income as everyone else, or be subject to progressive taxation that taxes the rich more heavily (though they still woud have plenty left over), and these proceeds would benefit the public as a whole. Again, the workers would have shared ownership of the means of production.
Yes, socialism is at the same time closer to capitalism in that socialism does not entail a classless society. There can still be people with miscellaneous amounts of wealth obtained through opportunity or labor, yet the wealthier citizens are not allowed to hoard as much because taxation does not fall harder on those who are least able to pay and who will suffer the most from paying taxes. People are still allowed to work and accumulate personal savings and make purchases from their wealth. Moreover, not everyone will have the same amount of belonings or money. The point is not that everyone is destitute and starving together or that everyone is forced by external state coercion to have an identical level of wealth. Private/personal property is permitted under socialism.
The means of production being owned by collective workers is not the same as true communism's void of personal property. This is what many conservatives misunderstand. While some people might advocate for socialism as an intermediate step towards communism, nothing about the concept of socialism requires that its system could only be implemented in such a way. Rather, elements of capitalism and communism are blended in socialism, yet all three can be implemented with irrationalistic motives or in hypocritical manners. Not even the Bible condemns any of these general frameworks as long as they are not set up or used in tyrranical ways (Deuteronomy 4:2).
With communism, the communal ownership must be voluntary by all. With capitalism, greed and disregard for reason, morality, and living things must not be present. With socialism, the public must be benefitted rather than the system being used to perpetuate classism and exploitation but with more subtlety. The last of these three options does distinctly incorporate aspects of the other two. Personal autonomy and freedom are still honored given that someone does not wield them to the economic devastation of society; money and the things money can buy are still allowed, just without greed being the driving force behind businesses tied to a somewhat financially or politically untouchable ruling class, one founded on wealth obtained largely through exploitation like underpayment and deception.
No comments:
Post a Comment