Variations on a theme: Government

First of all, we must correct a common error. Communism and Socialism are not interchangeable. In fact, socialism is liberal, while communism is conservative. Socialists believe that power must be made by as many people as possible for the benefit of the working class, while communists want as few people as possible to make these decisions, preferably only one, to make such decisions in the interest of the people. This alone defines the two as political opposites.

Further explored, you'll see that while communism was derived from socialist economic policy, it quickly distanced itself from mere economic reform to include political reform, something to which socialists do not  subscribe. Also, communism is progressively moving to the right and has far surpassed neo-conservatism. Communist theory was first known as Marxism, then changed to Maxist Leninism, and then Stalinism. By the time Stalin controlled the Soviet Union, his brand of communism was indeed nothing more than a totalitarian exploitation of his people made by one individual. This is conservatism at its worse; it is not socialism.

As such, one cannot use examples of Communist nations to discredit leftist economic policies. Quite frankly, these nations have been corrupted and rendered ineffectively harmful to its people due to its extreme right-wing ideology. How can one implement economic policies that gives power to as many people as possible when one has a political system that prevents the people from having power? Logically, it's impossible. As such, if one desires to adopt socialist policies to an economy, it must be done in a democracy.

In a democracy, there exists the potential for the working class to take an interest in the government and voice an opinion. Capitalism also exists. The most effective brand of socialism (and the only one I believe that will work) is a hybrid between socialism and capitalism. Socialism does not reject capitalism, unlike communism, although there is debate as to the extend that capitalism should play in an economy. I believe that if one creates restrictions for corporations that limits the extent of their influence, it will prevent the manipulation of the working class and ensure that their voice remains heard.

Now further prove this point, we will look at a few examples of the benefits that will result. First, if corporations have restricted influence, this leaves a void to be filled in terms of political influence. This void will be filled by those who are frustrated with the government and demand that their voice is heard. They are now impossible to ignore. With the frustrations that are voiced, there will inevitably be a demand for government help from those suffering in our society. A social safety net is its result. Universal health care was a past victory, as was free public education, unemployment insurance, and a declaration of our rights and freedoms. If groups had not voiced their frustrations in the past, these changes certainly would not presently exist. And if these groups had been allowed to be manipulated and overshadowed by a small and elite group of the powerful members of our society, as conservatives would prefer, they would never have been heard.

These are the changes made in the past. There are changes to be made for the future. For example, I believe the state should pay for the majority of undergraduate education an university for all those that wish to apply. This is common to socialist cultures, yet has yet to be implemented here. Instead of individual families setting aside a yearly amount of money for 17 years to pay for these future costs, they will instead pay an increase in taxes. If they are exactly the middle class, then this amount will be exactly what they pay now. If they are below, then it will be less. If they are above, it will be more. Tax rates would vary per the family's income and be used to pay for the majority of each student's education. With this government help, any student who wishes to go to university, and has the academic qualifications, may do so. A student will never be rejected for financial reasons. Now, the argument is often made that families are better suited for organizing this amount of money. This a perfectly valid argument, yet they fail to entertain the possibility that their income may suddenly collapse and find themselves unable to pay for these costs. They may be fired and unable to quickly find a replacement, or be incapacitated. Such a possibility is already tragic, why add the added torment of no longer being able to pay for your children's education? No, I say let the state worry about this. Let the state and your fellow tax payers support you in your time of need. We are an evolving society and I believe we have reached a level of social responsibility where our fellow citizens are not left helpless if injured- are not left neglected if voiceless.

Korea

In the past few days, we've heard of the escalating situation in Korea. Shells were fired in a civilian area, with four confirmed deaths and the injury of 18 others. Our knowledge of North Korea's irrational leader, Kim Jong-Il, we consider the worst possible outcome to be within the realm of possibility. But is it?

I certainly don't think so; nothing more will come of this conflict. Few would consider Kim Jong-Il reasonable, but I don't believe he's as crazy as everyone portrays him to be. By this I refer specifically to the fear of nuclear war that surfaces every instance his name is mentioned. His army is aging, as is he. Furthermore, he holds dear the theory of self-reliance promoted by father, all the while accepting large quantities of food, weapons, and funds from China. Additionally, the Nuclear Bomb test conducted by North Korea in 2006 was far too small to be considered successful, a fact largely ignored. Many analysts simply believe that the bomb malfunctioned, or that it wasn't even a nuclear weapon. Several media outlets even reported Kim Jong-Il as apologizing for the blast and promising there would be no more. I conclude that he is simply unstable, but afraid to the extent of inaction.

This even explains the attack this week. The KCNA, North Korea's state-run communications service blamed the South for "harming inter-Korean relations," and "challenging the desire of all Koreans." That, plus a slew of ham-fisted insults suggest that while showing a brave demeanour, they have no desire for war. They are afraid. In fact, the United States is sending a few ships to participate in the South Korea War-games as a deterrent against further attacks. If the Americans anticipated a violent North Korean response, would it send its ships to their border, where they can easily be destroyed if so desired by the North Koreans. If they are indeed destroyed, American Law dictates this is an act of aggression and the nation will declare war. They are aware that North Korea will not attack. They will appear unshaken and fearless, but be shaking on the inside.

The only factor that could cause a North Korean response is China. Without China, North Korea will fall within the month. They are a puppet state that provide the world a cause for alarm, distracting them from the abuses conducted in China. However, China will not allow a North Korean response. The common argument is that one side of the spectrum of the decision concerns China's economic benefit, the other is the benefit of the communist ideology. Indeed, trying to debate which is more important isn't easy. The reality however is that there is only one option. It will benefit the economy and the ideology to continue this peace- peace brings profit for China. As it grows stronger economically, the Communist ideology will grow stronger as well, due to the example China will provide as proof of its validity.

There is only one choice to make, and it's win-win. This choice excludes war. There will be peace in the region, although uncomfortable peace that borders tension. There will not be war however. Not tomorrow, not next week, month, year or decade.