A relentless and highly conspicuous war is going on today. Somewhat less disturbing, perhaps, but certainly no less conspicuous than the war on terror. Or maybe not: just as disturbing, albeit in a slightly different sort of way. Or maybe not, still: even more disturbing than the war on terror, for those who see the latter as a part of a larger picture. In fact this war has been going on since the beginning of history, but in the last couple of centuries it has been given a different name, and thus has gradually degenerated from a real confrontation to a virtual war of slogans. The name of the real thing is the historical struggle of the poor against the rich. The name of the increasingly bogus war is capitalism against socialism.
The terribly important subject of the rich and the poor is raised elsewhere in this section and dominates the Collective (Social) section. In the present entry, I am touching upon the subject of the post-Marxian remains of the struggle between capitalism and its alleged gravedigger.
The last sentence already contains a revealing clue. It seems that modern-day ideological capitalism has not outgrown its historical fear of socialism, as a revolutionary political movement pledged to challenge its very right to exist. And… guess what? It has found for itself a slick and downright self-righteous weapon of self-defense. Judging from the all-too-familiar rhetoric, it appears that, even today, capitalism intrepidly stands against socialism as the last bastion of individual human freedom against the enslaving predisposition of the big-brother State, known as statism.
Yes, this is a real and very ugly war, but, as my title says, it is not a war of substance, but a war of slogans, a war of ideological intolerance of concepts, rather than of realities. For, the fact is that there is no such thing as "capitalism" or "socialism" anywhere in existence on the face of the earth, and one cannot possibly expect a purely capitalist or a purely socialist state to spring up, out of a sudden. Uncle Sam is by no means some free market competitor, but an unapologetic control freak, promoting the Washington version of Statism in virtually every corner of our planet. In other words, Uncle Sam’s “free enterprise” has humongous shackles attached to it, both abroad and, unsurprisingly and necessarily, at home… At the other end of the spectrum stands North Korea, where the rascal socialism has ostensibly triumphed, with free housing, free education, free healthcare, and even free food distribution. However, North Korea is by no means the socialist norm, It is rather a ridiculous aberration. Being aware of how many of the nation’s impoverished citizens (a socialist no-no!) are starving to death, and having watched the latest dynastic transition of nominal leader title from Kim II to his patently inexperienced, young and immature son Kim III, to call this political joke “socialism” should be an insult to the socialist idea, no less.
The actual fact in the said war of slogans over capitalism and socialism is that neither exists as an economic, or political reality. It can be argued that America’s welfare system, which existed in the rather preposterous form of taking from the worker to feed the “idler” until quite recently, was a capitalist compromise with the inevitable socialist obligations of the State. The more recent efforts to push the care for the poor to private charities and the churches are going nowhere, as the State cannot possibly relinquish its social obligations, whereas to formally transfer them to the churches would effectively violate the legal principle of separation of Church and State.
In other words, in real life, there is no capitalism without socialism, and there is no socialism without some measure of capitalism. Which leaves us with ideological and ethical concepts to distinguish the one from the other. Is free healthcare good or bad? Is full employment (I mean 100% employment, not the bogus figures of 97%, or 90%, etc.) good or bad? For those who immediately identify capitalism with unemployment as a competitive stimulus, let me remind them that one of the pillars of classical capitalism J. M. Keynes was an ardent proponent of 100% employment. Indeed, he had many critics, who may have gained the upper hand in more recent times, yet nobody can accuse him of being a socialist, which only proves that the distinction between functioning capitalism and functioning socialism is often a matter of ideological dispute about the definitions, and not a defining principle at all.
To sum it all up, the ongoing bitter war between capitalism (mainly American capitalism) and socialism has little real substance, except on the ethical front. Which yet again raises the uncomfortable question posed as the title question of my Contradiction section, concerning the ethical compatibility of capitalism with the basic tenets of Christianity:
Where does religion fit in this?
The terribly important subject of the rich and the poor is raised elsewhere in this section and dominates the Collective (Social) section. In the present entry, I am touching upon the subject of the post-Marxian remains of the struggle between capitalism and its alleged gravedigger.
The last sentence already contains a revealing clue. It seems that modern-day ideological capitalism has not outgrown its historical fear of socialism, as a revolutionary political movement pledged to challenge its very right to exist. And… guess what? It has found for itself a slick and downright self-righteous weapon of self-defense. Judging from the all-too-familiar rhetoric, it appears that, even today, capitalism intrepidly stands against socialism as the last bastion of individual human freedom against the enslaving predisposition of the big-brother State, known as statism.
Yes, this is a real and very ugly war, but, as my title says, it is not a war of substance, but a war of slogans, a war of ideological intolerance of concepts, rather than of realities. For, the fact is that there is no such thing as "capitalism" or "socialism" anywhere in existence on the face of the earth, and one cannot possibly expect a purely capitalist or a purely socialist state to spring up, out of a sudden. Uncle Sam is by no means some free market competitor, but an unapologetic control freak, promoting the Washington version of Statism in virtually every corner of our planet. In other words, Uncle Sam’s “free enterprise” has humongous shackles attached to it, both abroad and, unsurprisingly and necessarily, at home… At the other end of the spectrum stands North Korea, where the rascal socialism has ostensibly triumphed, with free housing, free education, free healthcare, and even free food distribution. However, North Korea is by no means the socialist norm, It is rather a ridiculous aberration. Being aware of how many of the nation’s impoverished citizens (a socialist no-no!) are starving to death, and having watched the latest dynastic transition of nominal leader title from Kim II to his patently inexperienced, young and immature son Kim III, to call this political joke “socialism” should be an insult to the socialist idea, no less.
The actual fact in the said war of slogans over capitalism and socialism is that neither exists as an economic, or political reality. It can be argued that America’s welfare system, which existed in the rather preposterous form of taking from the worker to feed the “idler” until quite recently, was a capitalist compromise with the inevitable socialist obligations of the State. The more recent efforts to push the care for the poor to private charities and the churches are going nowhere, as the State cannot possibly relinquish its social obligations, whereas to formally transfer them to the churches would effectively violate the legal principle of separation of Church and State.
In other words, in real life, there is no capitalism without socialism, and there is no socialism without some measure of capitalism. Which leaves us with ideological and ethical concepts to distinguish the one from the other. Is free healthcare good or bad? Is full employment (I mean 100% employment, not the bogus figures of 97%, or 90%, etc.) good or bad? For those who immediately identify capitalism with unemployment as a competitive stimulus, let me remind them that one of the pillars of classical capitalism J. M. Keynes was an ardent proponent of 100% employment. Indeed, he had many critics, who may have gained the upper hand in more recent times, yet nobody can accuse him of being a socialist, which only proves that the distinction between functioning capitalism and functioning socialism is often a matter of ideological dispute about the definitions, and not a defining principle at all.
To sum it all up, the ongoing bitter war between capitalism (mainly American capitalism) and socialism has little real substance, except on the ethical front. Which yet again raises the uncomfortable question posed as the title question of my Contradiction section, concerning the ethical compatibility of capitalism with the basic tenets of Christianity:
Where does religion fit in this?
No comments:
Post a Comment