Week 2 – Class and Inequalities
What makes society rich is different from what makes the individual rich.
The two main systems that were discussed in lecture are capitalism and socialism. Capitalism is seemingly a system that makes use of the devils within individuals to better the society. Socialism, however, is seemingly a system that makes use of the goodness within individuals to better other individuals.
Let me elaborate. Capitalism depends on the selfish greed of the individual to better himself, to gather and accumulate more, so that he can pour the accumulated resources back into the machinery that is the capitalist market, so that he can get even more of the same resources. Capitalism rewards those who have resources or talents to contribute. Those who are deviant enough to not contribute, or by natural selection that they are unable to contribute, will be left behind by the system of capitalism. It is each to his own, because the wealth that is accumulated at the end is distributed among the shareholders who had contributed in the first place. What about those who do not have resources or talents in the first place? What about those who are unable to contribute in anyway other than hard labour? These people will be used in the lowest rungs of the hierarchy. Capitalism is wealth built on the backs of those who can’t contribute for those who had contributed. Because of individuals’ greed, and some say need, for more wealth and resources, society is bettered. Technology will be advanced; more scientific breakthroughs recorded; the barriers on every frontier will be pushed back and eventually broken. All in the name of more for the individuals who contributed. If there were no incentive for the individual, there will be no spur for the individual to contribute and to better the society. Society is bettered at the expense of individuals, especially those at the lowest rungs.
Socialism, on the other hand, depends on the inherent good of the individual to contribute to the state, so that the state will redistribute the wealth equally to everyone in the society. Everyone works and gives what was earned to the state, regardless how much. All the wealth is pooled together, and redistributed to everyone equally. Anyone who is handicapped in terms of resources, talents, and can’t contribute much, will receive as much as those who had contributed more. Because each individual is concerned for his fellow man, and would work harder to help the society be bettered, for the sake of the fellow man and society. Ideally speaking. But this system is inherently flawed, for the donkey without a carrot dangling in front of it, will be a donkey that doesn’t work. And no matter how noble man is made out to be, the betterment of his fellow man will not be a big enough carrot to get him moving. The result will be that work will be slowed and delayed to the slowest man in the system, because no one will want to give more and take back less. At the end, all will be fair because all would have given equally, and taken back equally. Society is bettered, because the fellow man is cared for and all will stand equal, albeit at the lowest rung together.
And there is talk about the third way, a compromise between the two systems. A compromise between a system that takes advantage of the weaker man, and one that lowers man and productivity for the sake of equality. I can’t wait to see how that will work out.
*I realize that I haven’t offered any solution. But the main point of my discussion is to point out the inherent flaws of both systems and its inability to make both man and society rich, not to offer a solution. Just in case it wasn’t clear enough.
