[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Socialism vs Capitalism



I hope that if there are any socialists among us,
they would get converted. At one time, I must
confess, I thought that there was something in
socialism. That was when I saw from close range
speculators making millions of dollars and the
richer traders making even more money than the
ones with lesser money. What is worse, they gambled
on commodities they never saw and made millions
in minutes while the people who produced these
commodities remained poor. Statements like "The rich
become richer" and "Middlemen make all the money"
seemed to hold water.
However, socialism has lots of flaws compared to
capitalism.

Should the above two points along with the third
point of "Imperialism" be the sole criterion for
rejecting an entire system? The above two points 
seem to be the only two major flaws. "Imperialism"
no longer is relevant. "Middlemen making all the
money" can easily be controlled by passing laws.
As for the rich getting richer, at least to me,
the only thing that seems unfair is the inheritance
of a lot of money. This too can be easily fixed.
There is no need to junk an entire system based on
two or three points.

The most obvious defect of socialism which we have 
all heard is that it encourages laziness.
Even if we assume that nobody is lazy, it can
be shown that it still hinders progress. Assume
that the government invests heavily in some 
equipment. Suppose the technology undergoes rapid
change in the next two years. The socialist
government still has to wait several years before
investing again. In a capitalist system, the new
technology would be available immediately. This 
is assuming no laziness in the socialist system.
Imagine how it would be with laziness being
encouraged.

Another point is why should the small entrepreneur
be banned? Doesn't each person have a right to
choose one's profession? Why should I take up only
a job that is available? Am I not entitled to try
and employ myself? It is not that such people do
not contribute to society. Even if they do not 
come up with anything innovative, they pay taxes.

Are all equal? The answer, whether we like it or
not is No. While all deserve equal rights, we cannot
claim to have equal talent. Just as Tendulkar is
better than all of us in cricket and some artists
and musicians are extremely talented, we should
learn to accept that some people are better than
others in their fields. Those who have the talent
to contribute more to the society deserve more
reward. There is no need to feel bad about this.
Hard work can definitely come close to real talent
even if it is not as good as it.

Should we define a minimum standard of living or
a maximum standard? Defining a maximum standard
is sadistic. That is what socialism does.

In India, anyone who doesn't call himself a socialist
is branded anti poor. What is worse, in the name of 
socialism, you can do anything. I hear that Medha
Patkar refused to speak to the private companies
involved in the Sardar Sarovar project regarding the
compensation to the displaced families. Do you think
that these companies cannot pay enough money. If she
was serious she would have at least held talks with
them instead of blocking progress. She seems to be
a person who desperately needs attention.

To change this, there is only one method I can think
of. We need to be agressive in presenting our views.
Being apolegetic about our own views will only give
credibility to those who want to dub all capitalists
anti poor. If we are agressive and at the same time
explain the advantages of a capitalist system, I am
sure it will be accepted. After all Germany and Korea
were divided into two with one part being socialist
and the other capitalist. The results are there for
all to see.

I wholeheartedly support Utkarsh's suggestion that
the word socialist be deleted from the preamble to 
the constitution. Not that it has any effect but
it will definitely make people sit up and think about
capitalism. So far, we haven't had anyone who had the
courage to openly support capitalism.

Foreign companies too are not bad. Why should we bother
about the ownership? Shouldn't we be more concerned
about the consumer? Isn't a foreign company which
employs people, produces better quality goods and earns
revenue for the country by way of exports beneficial
to the nation?

Words like ideology, social justice and equality
have been hijacked by the "JNU intellectuals". It
needs to be explained that these are not the
prerogerative of socialists alone and that capitalists
too care for the upliftment of the downtrodden.

Once a better environment is provided, subsidies too
can go without causing harm to anyone.

If you find any flaws in the system, I urge you to
come up with solutions instead of asking that the
whole system be scrapped. A system which preaches
hatred and violence should have no place.


-Arvind

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a posting to India_Policy Discussion list: india_policy@cine.net
Rules, Procedures, Archives:     http://www.indiaconsult.com/indiapolicy/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------