2008 Woodie Awards
Socialism doesn't much work
An addition to the ongoing dialogue the Mac Weekly has seen in recent weeks regarding the relative merits of socialism versus capitalism.
By: Josh Schukman
Issue date: 4/6/07 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 3 next >
Last week, Andrew Ancheta wrote a great critique of an article published by Jeremiah Reedy, and Andrew, I greatly appreciate your opinion, and I thank you for framing it in such a way that allows ongoing discussion on the topic (because I really enjoy discussing this issue). Despite this, you made several points that I respectfully disagree with. I must say that I remain very skeptical of the arguments against capitalism-at least the arguments for a systemic shift (to something like socialism or nationalism). Yes, I agree (and I think we can all agree) that capitalism certainly has its disadvantages, but I do not agree that those disadvantages necessitate radical change. With that in mind, I'd like to critique several of the points made in your article.
First, to your point about the "vast concentrations of poverty" created by capitalism-agreed. There are vast concentrations of poverty under capitalism and I will not trivialize that. The fact that the U.S. can be so economically successful and still have such large concentrations of poverty is absolutely inexcusable. Despite this, I do not think that pooling all of our resources into a central body is the way to resolve this issue. Someone once said, "Capitalism is the unequal distribution of prosperity whereas socialism is the equal distribution of misery." For me, this is a fundamental point. Again, I do not want to trivialize poverty in the United States. It is indeed a pressing issue, but the majority of people who are impoverished by American standards still have cars, have electricity, have refrigerators, and have food-this is a totally different standard of poverty than that held by much of the rest of the world.
I think this is, in large part, due to advances that at this point only capitalism affords. If people and businesses are not provided incentives to grow, they will only do what is asked of them, nothing more. Thus, they do not prosper in such a way that they provide benefits for the whole of society. For example, the tremendous capital Apple has gained from iPod sales has allowed them to invest enormous sums of money into development of more powerful and advanced computing systems. These new technologies not only make computing more accessible to a greater number of people (by reducing the prices of "outdated" computers) but provide the technologies needed to conduct high level research and create powerful media. And why? Because they proved themselves the most capable and productive group of people for the job, not because some governmental agency assigned them to the task. This is just one example, but the point here is, the drive for capital is oftentimes the most effective way to force collective organizations and people to perform at a level that maximizes their contributions to society. Consequently, I believe we must do the work needed to alleviate and eventually eliminate poverty without sacrificing the prosperity afforded by capitalism.
First, to your point about the "vast concentrations of poverty" created by capitalism-agreed. There are vast concentrations of poverty under capitalism and I will not trivialize that. The fact that the U.S. can be so economically successful and still have such large concentrations of poverty is absolutely inexcusable. Despite this, I do not think that pooling all of our resources into a central body is the way to resolve this issue. Someone once said, "Capitalism is the unequal distribution of prosperity whereas socialism is the equal distribution of misery." For me, this is a fundamental point. Again, I do not want to trivialize poverty in the United States. It is indeed a pressing issue, but the majority of people who are impoverished by American standards still have cars, have electricity, have refrigerators, and have food-this is a totally different standard of poverty than that held by much of the rest of the world.
I think this is, in large part, due to advances that at this point only capitalism affords. If people and businesses are not provided incentives to grow, they will only do what is asked of them, nothing more. Thus, they do not prosper in such a way that they provide benefits for the whole of society. For example, the tremendous capital Apple has gained from iPod sales has allowed them to invest enormous sums of money into development of more powerful and advanced computing systems. These new technologies not only make computing more accessible to a greater number of people (by reducing the prices of "outdated" computers) but provide the technologies needed to conduct high level research and create powerful media. And why? Because they proved themselves the most capable and productive group of people for the job, not because some governmental agency assigned them to the task. This is just one example, but the point here is, the drive for capital is oftentimes the most effective way to force collective organizations and people to perform at a level that maximizes their contributions to society. Consequently, I believe we must do the work needed to alleviate and eventually eliminate poverty without sacrificing the prosperity afforded by capitalism.
Be the first to comment on this story