Sarah, a Secular Humanist, and Mark, a Marxist, understandably propose the idea of a government controlled economy, and the redistribution of wealth to create "equality", as they both are proponents of interventionism, and thus applaud the economic system of Socialism. However, it is my opinion that the system of Socialism does not and will never be successful as an economic ideal, due to the major flaws that inhibit its success.
One key idea that refutes Socialism as a viable economic "solution" is the fact that a system controlled by corrupt human beings will be unable to provide the level of "equality" that is the selling point of Socialism. That being said, any economic system will have its flaws because of human beings will be unable to provide the level of "equality" that is the selling point of Socialism. That being said, any economic system will have its flaws because of human nature coming play, but the system of socialism will never lead to the perfect, equal, classless society that is the next step in our "natural evolution", as believed by proponents of government interventionism in the economy.
Additionally, the argument of Socialism, when broken down and analyzed, reveals WHY this system is faulty. When the government controls the means of production (as in a Socialist society), the people are therefore devoid of economic choices. Even if this may be intended for the best, if the population has no say, then equality is subsequently inhibited. Therefore, while promoting the promise of equality, which likely draws individuals to favor the system, Socialists are actually taking away liberty, which makes the definition of "equality" useless and devoid of meaning.
In a Socialist system, private property becomes obsolete, as everything is owned by everyone. This idea falls short of being an effective part of the system, because without privately owned property, there is no sense of self-worth in ownership. This idea also does nothing to promote true equality, because having a sense of personal pride is what drives fairness and liberty to be present, and ultimately drives an individual to have a strong work ethic.
One more key tenant of Socialism has to do with removing competition within business. The logic behind refuting this idea is similar to the idea of not having economic choice--if an individual is unable to have the choice of where to buy a product, or even what career to have in a Socialist society, then they do not experience equality, as they do not have a say in the matter.
Thus, these four ideas that are unique to Socialism prove, when analyzed against logical thinking, prove WHY Socialism falls short, in the scope of economic systems.
Michael Moore's opinion on this matter was very interesting to me, as he had some additional insight to provide, regarding Socialistic ideas. His main point throughout the video clip was that there is so much money in the hands of a small percentage of the wealthy population, and (essentially) spreading the wealth around would solve all of our problems. First of all, spreading the wealth around would not actually bring about equality, because so many people choose to "milk the system" anyway (like through welfare programs). The truth is, our money is not being managed well, and therefore trying to spread the wealth around will NEVER solve economic problems. Therefore, trying to create equality by "sharing the wealth" is illogical because it will never be a successful endeavour.
I have realized that Socialism oppresses the people that the system tries to protect from oppression, through a tainted definition of equality. The tenants of socialism promote "fairness", but actually inhibit liberty, which proves how ineffective the system really is. Therefore, I wholeheartedly agree that Socialism falls short of being a viable economic system.
No comments:
Post a Comment