- Joined
- Jun 10, 2014
- Messages
- 10,990
- Reaction score
- 13,078
- Points
- 113
I am particularly fortunate in that my youngest daughter, now 19 still wants to be a part of her parents' lives. She and her girlfriend (ya, that's right.) try to come over each evening to spend a few minutes with us, just hanging or chatting.
Anyway, my daughter's girlfriend is named Maria and she stopped by to pick some stuff up for Alli and visit with us for a bit. She asked my wife and I about socialism, communism and what the differences were between them. I pointed out that from a philosophical perspective, socialism is very attractive. Everyone chips in willingly to create a standard income base that everyone can live with and succeed. Some people will make more than that due to their jobs, education, experience etc. but ultimately everyone is guaranteed a basic level of income that keeps them happy and well.
I pointed out that Communism is essentially socialism on steroids. While socialism is government sanctioned and managed, the governments that utilize socialism are generally based in democracy. Leaders are elected and there are various checks and balances to maintain a stable, slow transition of change. Communism as a form of government employs the economic principles of socialism but pairs them with a dictatorial government structure. Communist countries are governed by a dictator or extremely small oligarchy that makes policy and compels the populace to adhere to that policy.
The fundamental problem with the socialism's economic premise is that everyone is guaranteed a base standard of living, regardless of what they do for work. In order to exceed this base, you must get an education, work in a profession that required additional skill or training or that is particularly in demand. This requires greater effort and investment. Unfortunately, the returns on this investment are minimal. As you earn more income, you are taxed accordingly in order to maintain or even elevate the base lifestyles of people "less fortunate" than you. Initially, this is acceptable. Despite the fact a person works exceedingly hard and has relatively little to show for it, that person still is able to enjoy the fruits of his or her labor and enjoy a life more comfortable and excessive than his or her peers. Over time, however this person begins to lose ambition. Furthermore, this persons children are born into a society that expects little of them. They enjoy a comfortable lifestyle, but they also see the toll that that lifestyle takes upon their parents, and as dependents it becomes easy to accept a less lavish lifestyle as long is it allows them to remain essentially dependents.
Over a few generations you have fewer and fewer people working hard to increase or even maintain the taxable income base necessary to support everyone at their current income level. Ultimately, this means you must drop the base level in order to sustain it. People comfortable with being dependents will accept this up to a point. But unfortunately reducing the base income for the populace does not actually solve your problem, rather it exacerbates it. You find yourself in a losing whirlpool spiraling down a drain as you struggle economically to generate enough taxable income with fewer and fewer people going out of their way to make significant incomes. This leads to fewer goods and services in the economy, which ultimately increases the cost of those services and goods. Unfortunately, as your revenue base is already waning, this leads to inflation and as the snowball rolls further and further you find that economically you are approaching a disastrous end. All of this is exacerbated by simply human nature. People will take as much as they can for as little as possible. As socialist countries are generally lead by elected officials, these leaders will go to extreme measures to stay in power as they are given free reign to the economic spoils of their populace. These leaders eventually become bloated, self-interested creatures of indulgence, thriving while their people starve but desperately refusing to enact changes as doing so would hurt their financial stability.
Communism, being based economically on socialism faces the same problems with the notable additional issue of dictatorial leadership. As the populace have no control over their government they become increasingly frustrated with the economic failings of the country as they have no ability whatsoever to remedy. This leads to dissent and the only way a Communist regime can manage dissent is to create a large and omnipresent military force. This serves two purposes. First it provides a means to control the populace and second it provides income for people who desperately need stability and support.
Anyway, my daughter's girlfriend is named Maria and she stopped by to pick some stuff up for Alli and visit with us for a bit. She asked my wife and I about socialism, communism and what the differences were between them. I pointed out that from a philosophical perspective, socialism is very attractive. Everyone chips in willingly to create a standard income base that everyone can live with and succeed. Some people will make more than that due to their jobs, education, experience etc. but ultimately everyone is guaranteed a basic level of income that keeps them happy and well.
I pointed out that Communism is essentially socialism on steroids. While socialism is government sanctioned and managed, the governments that utilize socialism are generally based in democracy. Leaders are elected and there are various checks and balances to maintain a stable, slow transition of change. Communism as a form of government employs the economic principles of socialism but pairs them with a dictatorial government structure. Communist countries are governed by a dictator or extremely small oligarchy that makes policy and compels the populace to adhere to that policy.
The fundamental problem with the socialism's economic premise is that everyone is guaranteed a base standard of living, regardless of what they do for work. In order to exceed this base, you must get an education, work in a profession that required additional skill or training or that is particularly in demand. This requires greater effort and investment. Unfortunately, the returns on this investment are minimal. As you earn more income, you are taxed accordingly in order to maintain or even elevate the base lifestyles of people "less fortunate" than you. Initially, this is acceptable. Despite the fact a person works exceedingly hard and has relatively little to show for it, that person still is able to enjoy the fruits of his or her labor and enjoy a life more comfortable and excessive than his or her peers. Over time, however this person begins to lose ambition. Furthermore, this persons children are born into a society that expects little of them. They enjoy a comfortable lifestyle, but they also see the toll that that lifestyle takes upon their parents, and as dependents it becomes easy to accept a less lavish lifestyle as long is it allows them to remain essentially dependents.
Over a few generations you have fewer and fewer people working hard to increase or even maintain the taxable income base necessary to support everyone at their current income level. Ultimately, this means you must drop the base level in order to sustain it. People comfortable with being dependents will accept this up to a point. But unfortunately reducing the base income for the populace does not actually solve your problem, rather it exacerbates it. You find yourself in a losing whirlpool spiraling down a drain as you struggle economically to generate enough taxable income with fewer and fewer people going out of their way to make significant incomes. This leads to fewer goods and services in the economy, which ultimately increases the cost of those services and goods. Unfortunately, as your revenue base is already waning, this leads to inflation and as the snowball rolls further and further you find that economically you are approaching a disastrous end. All of this is exacerbated by simply human nature. People will take as much as they can for as little as possible. As socialist countries are generally lead by elected officials, these leaders will go to extreme measures to stay in power as they are given free reign to the economic spoils of their populace. These leaders eventually become bloated, self-interested creatures of indulgence, thriving while their people starve but desperately refusing to enact changes as doing so would hurt their financial stability.
Communism, being based economically on socialism faces the same problems with the notable additional issue of dictatorial leadership. As the populace have no control over their government they become increasingly frustrated with the economic failings of the country as they have no ability whatsoever to remedy. This leads to dissent and the only way a Communist regime can manage dissent is to create a large and omnipresent military force. This serves two purposes. First it provides a means to control the populace and second it provides income for people who desperately need stability and support.
