Ever since the Cold War, the world is often seen through the eyes of either Communism or Capitalism. Even today there's still a lot of discussion about the flaws of one and the brilliance of the other. I thought I would write about my thoughts on the matter since, upon review of my previous posts, I haven't written anything even semi-serious for a while. If you're not into this I suggest the reader go search for my review of Speed Grapher.
There is Capitalism and there is Socialism. I don't say Communism outright but we'll get to that. I'll try to keep it simple because this shit gets old real fast. Capitalism is characterized mainly by two things: private property and the free market. In a Capitalist system, people have the right to own property, even the means of production, and produce goods and services for profit in a free market. Depending on the government, state intervention in the free market is minimal, adopting a laissez-faire policy and stepping in to enforce fairness among competitors and prevent monopolies. The market is driven by supply and demand.
Socialism, you could say, is the "opposite" of Capitalism but that's not entirely accurate. Socialism is characterized by collective ownership and allocation of resources. That does not mean to say nobody owns anything, its just that the means of production belongs to the government and resources are distributed based on merit or contribution. Socialism, as an economic theory, should not be confused with Communism, Marxism or Maoism or what have you. Socialism is a feature of the latter theories. One can be a Socialist and not be a Marxist. It is possible, in fact, for a country to be Democratic and be Socialist. Socialism just means that the state owns. How that state is run exactly is another story.
I prefer Capitalism to be honest. There are several reasons why I choose so and many of them take into consideration the experience of being raised in the Philippines and observing and studying the culture. But as my favorite teacher in Political Science taught me, to better understand a political philosophy, even that of your own, it is important to first discuss human nature. so I have to write about that first.
I believe men are essentially equal and have innate rights. Man has a right to to be free and to live as he pleases. However, the problem is obvious. If man has a right live as he pleases then what is there to stop him from causing harm to another? That is where government comes in. People establish government as a means to settle disputes between one another to the effect that all men live within their rights and not trample on the rights of another. John Locke basically.
But what of property? Let's say, a man plants a mango tree and through his care and effort it grows big and bears a fruit. Is it his mango tree? Of course it is. His labour produced his property. I believe that property is a natural right. Does another man then, have the right to come in and take a mango? The thought is offensive. To put it differently, if a man builds his house by the river, can anyone just go inside?
The role of government is to regulate property to the end that there is no conflict between individuals and everyone's rights are protected. Government should not be the one to determine who will own what and how much for the simple reason that man is the master and not the slave of the state. The right to freedom and property are innate. Some may believe otherwise but this is my own. What I'm basically saying is that man owning property and producing what he wants to produce is his natural right as a free person and that the state exists to protect him and his property from others.
What about goods and services? The rule is that if there's a demand, somebody is bound to cater to it. The man who owns the many mango trees can hire people to help him harvest it but he has to give payment in exchange. Physical labor too has a value and payment for services is a way to approximate how mach that labor is worth. If a man agrees to help harvest the mangoes in exchange for five sacks to himself cannot blame another who agrees to do so for only three. Naturally, the cost of the service would shrink to the lowest one is willing to do it for against the overall desirability and ease of doing the service itself. If they can go no lower than a price of two sacks because one sack wouldn't be worth the effort, then that's how much the help to harvest the mangoes cost. The value of a thing is determined by how much one is willing to buy it or sell it for.
If my explanations seem simplistic then that's because life doesn't need to be complicated.
So why don't I agree with Communism? It's not that I hate it. Theoretically, people could decide by themselves, to ditch Capitalism and agree to form a Socialist government. There's nothing wrong with that actually. Human beings are intelligent and if they desire Socialism then who's to stop them? The problem that I have is that in my opinion, it won't work and is dangerous.
While many view the world in terms of Capitalism versus Socialism or worse, Capitalism versus Communism, I view it as man versus X. What is X? X is the force which seeks to dominate man. At first X was nature; beasts and the wilds. Man, of course, banded with others for protection but where societies rose, so did conflict between man and man. Thus, man formed a government and granted it power to settle disputes and rule over them to protect them from each other. But when you grant something power, its kind of a big deal. As societies grew so did the government and its power until you had the kings, the tyrants, the dictators and the fascists. The deal now is man versus the state.
Keep this statement in mind, "Nothing is perfect."
Living here in the Philippines, a government that's quite western as far as Asia is concerned, taught me many things. It taught me never to trust government. The importance of understanding our relationship with government has never been so dire. Ultimately, its not about Communism, as many leftists and rallyists would say, but about our inefficient government plagued with corruption and incompetence. Assuming you have a Socialist state of mind and are living in a country like the Philippines, ask yourself this; "Am I willing to give the Philippine government control of my property?" That's what Socialism would mean. That's what Communism, Marxism, Maoism, Rocky Road and all flavors of Socialism would ultimately boil down to. I, for one, don't want the government to decide who owns what, how much one gets or whatever. That's too much power. In a country where political connections can get you places even farther than your actual ability, it would be beyond ironic to see such government distribute goods based on how much it thinks you deserve. You think our patronage plagued system would even know what merit is in the first place?
Which is why I am pro Capitalist. If we are a truly Democratic Republic that respects our right to life and freedom then it should also include property. Our system of Capitalism is a bulwark to massive government abuse. Even now, the system of Capitalism is under assault in this country. You have crony Capitalism, the unholy marriage between bureaucrat and businessman, colluding together to violate fair competition. You have the bureaucracy in general which seems to hate success and taxes it accordingly. You have a weak justice system undermining property rights and slowing everybody down. Since when did squatters have rights to enforce against legal land owners? Then you have senators who, when they're not busy "solving problems" by inflating the government with new offices and dividing provinces to make even more positions, are funding "projects" to their favorite underlings and making the Filipino pay it with his earnings, his labor!
Whenever there is poverty, it is usually blamed on corporate fat cats and Capitalism. Well, that's partially true given the cronyism but know this; the government DOES NOT produce the wealth of this country and DOES NOT have the right to "distribute" a wealth it DOES NOT own. It is the small businesses, the traders, the workers and etc. Through their labor, wealth is produced and they did it all by themselves. Nobody ever told some guy to build a chain of successful malls or a chain of fast food places. No bureaucrat demanded that there should be Internet and cell phone service providers. Its when people are left alone to live their lives and make names for themselves, free from the intrusion of people who don't know what they're doing, that there's progress.
In summation, I believe a Capitalist system, with its freedom, competition and innovation, is more conducive to economic progress than Socialism, which although pretty on paper, tends to give too much power to government.
OK, quota filled.
No comments:
Post a Comment