Let me preface this post with the warning that I am not an economist and have very little interest in the economy generally speaking. However, it is such a hot button issue that I can't help but inform myself on it to a limited extent. That said, here's my view:
I am and remain an unabashed socialist. Further, I recognize that socialism does preclude some of the more lavish gains that capitalism can procure. Socialism, however, also precludes the possibility of abject poverty and prevents the phenomenon of consumerism and hysteria of "keeping up with the Joneses." Look at the standard of living index for the world: The top three countries are all social democracies (mind you, socialism is an economic system, not to be confused with the political systems of fascism or totalitarianism that have accompanied it in the past), Norway, Sweden and Luxembourgh.
When it comes to economics in practice, well...you can't have it both ways. It's either got to be capitalist (some government intervention allowed) or it has to be socialist. America today seems to think that it can tow the line between the two--well it won't work. The government assuming partial ownership in banks and lending firms is a huge step towards socialism. At the same time, however, they are allowing these companies to continue to reap their profits and CEO's continue to make exorbitant annual salaries...not so socialistic. Government regulation of banking and lending firms is one thing, government ownership without returns is quite another matter entirely.
That's my two cents. In other news: I honestly have thanked God every day for the past 9 days that we did not end up with the idiot Sarah Palin in the White House...we couldn't withstand a second George W. She does need to keep her damn mouth shut about Bill Ayers, however--it was a moot point then and is even more so now. Here's hoping she disappears into the Alaskan Wildnerness.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Dear Mystic,
If you really want to read something scary, look up Wikipedia's article 'Socialism'. Sweden, Norway . . . sure, maybe, on some levels . . . but they seem to be a stark minority in the ‘failed states’ that inhabit the article.
'Animal Farm', Mystic, 'Animal Farm' . . . you need to read it again so that you can better recognize the danger ahead.
Sure, you'll say that's not socialism, that totalitarianism, but show me in the book just where the two split . . . or did they?
Like Diogenes, I search not only for an honest man, but a wise and kind one, to lead . . . that won’t happen until the Savior comes I truly fear.
Have you read Orwell's articles? Not just his books, but his articles. There is a new collection of these articles with a foreword by the up and coming author Keith Gessen. Orwell openly advocated for Democratic Socialism, the same form of government/economic system possessed by the Scandinavian countries. It is so easy to misconstrue what Orwell wrote about. What he deplored was Soviet totalitarianism, not communism/socialism as a whole.
Let me ask you this: what exactly is the law of consecration if not an open exhortation to not just socialism but communism? How are we supposed to ever be able to achieve the ideal if we are not working towards it now? I do not by any means believe in mormon doctrine, but to me it seems one cannot preach an ideal if one is not working towards it. I have read a few speeches by David O. McKay in which he essentially advocated for church members to move towards a more socialistic mindset.
I certainly recognize the danger ahead in the American form of Capitalism as it is currently practiced. The accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few will continue to abound; maybe in a few years the top 5% of the population will control 90-95% of the wealth instead of a mere 80%. Sounds like a grand future to me. If America is this great moral country, as so many attest to in accepting the ridiculous doctrine of American Exceptionalism, shouldn't it be able to adopt socialism and carry it out to its utopian ideal as envisioned by Karl Marx? But perhaps, as an op-ed in the New York Times asserted today, we have reached the end of the "great American shopping spree" and it is time for us to accept and pay the debt that the absurd notion of Reagonomics has brought us. Perhaps, we have, as Marx foresaw, reached the period of late capitalism, the point of no return. After all, Marx did say that there was a natural progression towards communism and that capitalism was a crucial component of that progression. Where the Soviet Union and others failed was in their attempts to go directly from feudalistic/agrarian societies to communist while bypassing capitalism entirely. Make no doubt about it though, the world economic order will be forever changed as a result of this. I only hope that this entails an end to the accumulation of wealth, consumerism, materialism and greed.
Post a Comment