Wednesday, June 19, 2013

The Intoxications of Capitalism


Capitalism, for many reasons, is the tainted demon of the well-intentioned individual. It was put into use in order for fairness, and this is a quality that undoubtedly deserves credit. "It is unfair," the capitalists say, "for the individual who exerts the most labor to be paid less." Yes, this seems fair, I confess. But even this leaves some people unjustly burdened. What about the people who could work well under a certain set of conditions but, due to physical maladies, was not able. There needs to be a system that does not simply overlook these cases. Capitalism is so close to the flourishing code of economics but falls shortly due to the rise in corporate greed. So close; so intoxicating. 

Another dimension of capitalism's intoxication is that it speaks of overall fairness within a system of infinite corporate freedoms. The potential for a gaping difference between the rich and the poor is there at the start; once the wealthier corporations take precedence within the business sphere, the unfortunate small-buisness owner feels cheated. Rightly so: if individuals are robbed of the chance of success by those with infinite resources, there is truly a problem with the system; a disheartening feeling would overcome all who realized this fact. Freedom is so lustful that even the most inferior individuals are captivated by her sensuality.

Capitalism is not a perfect economic system by many factors such as these. I do think that the best model for economics will resemble Marx's idea of communism. However, the resemblance lies only in overall structure. Of course, there are many requirements that must be met before the communist system is developed into a moral model of economics. If these certain requirements are not met, there is no hope for the communism framework:

1). First and foremost, the leader must be completely and utterly selfless. Many people will object that this is entirely impossible. I do think it is possible. This might mean, in the end, electing a ruler who is not of notable heritage or prestige, but is emotionally and psychologically fit to rule in such a selfless manner. If this criterion fails, rulers like Stalin, Pol Pot, and Kim Jung Il are likely to result.

2). The beneficent ruler must live as a proletariat would live. He will not display his elevated status. This will show humility to the state.

3). The priority is not within the entirety of the nation, but as of a nation of individuals. It is not "all for one" it is "all for many."

4). In order to retain moral upstanding, it is necessary for the government to intervene in order to suppress an activity deemed "immoral." This inevitably means strict limits on the consumption of alcohol and drugs.

(More on this at some future time.)



No comments:

Post a Comment