As promised, I'm returning to the train of thought that I started here and here.
Capitalism, socialism, communism...
There are a lot of "labels" that get tossed around, especially on the political stage, but what do they mean? How can we differentiate them? Well, hopefully, you've taken some time to not only read my previous posts on this thought but also the article I referenced in them. If so, you'll recognize why I'm narrowing it down to individualism vs collectivism.
I think I've made it clear that I don't acknowledge individualism as a viable way for a society to exist. Ironically, now I want to explain how I also think collectivism isn't a viable way, either.
A popular axiom amongst conservatives is that everywhere socialism has ever been tried, it has failed. Another one is that the problem with socialism is that eventually, you run out of other peoples' money.
While those might sound trite to some, why are they true? The idea of collectivism is a noble principle; "From each according their abilities, to each according to their needs." If you're sick or weak, you shouldn't have to worry about your needs being met. Meanwhile, if you're perfectly healthy, you should have compassion for your fellow man and be sure to work hard enough to compensate for the weakest in the society.
But why hasn't that nobility born fruit? The Plymouth Plantation tried it and failed. The Communist Revolution in Russia tried it and failed. Even today, China, North Korea, and Cuba don't even exist as true collectivist societies.
Well, as I suggested in the previous post, it has to do with human nature. Simply put, when we produce something, we naturally think it's ours and when we're handed everything, we lose the desire to produce anything.
No comments:
Post a Comment