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.
No comments:
Post a Comment