Marx was very clear that socialism requires worker ownership over the means of production via democracy. Workers did not own or control the means of production in the USSR. There was no democracy in the USSR. Therefore, the USSR was not socialist.
Why is redistribution of wealth in Sweden not causing the bread lines and abject poverty seen in the Soviet Union during “communist” rule?
Additionally, with how broken the economy and human society/civilization is at this point, would trying something new and giving “providing the basic necessities of life” a chance really be the worst thing imaginable?
The picture comes from: 50 Pictures Everyone Should See | Smashing Picture.
I chose it because it reminds me of the work of Ingmar Bergman, the Swedish director.
I would challenge any economist, economics professor, or economics student to take a look at my model for High-Efficiency Capitalism and tell me it is not superior to current models associated with traditional capitalism. I think the models for traditional capitalism are inherently flawed. For example, I think Adam Smith’s model has inherent problems within it and he identified some of these himself in “The Wealth of Nations.” On top of this, the American system goes even further beyond these flawed models and has resulted in a lumbering hodgepodge of broken economics and inefficiency.
A New Economic Model for a New Age
Raymond Li BSc Pharm
High-Efficiency Capitalism is a simple concept. The first principle is that the basic necessities of life are guaranteed: food, shelter, water, electricity, and health. People will work hard just to do better than others on relative terms.
This economic model is far superior to either pure socialism or pure capitalism alone for various reasons. It is also not so much a compromise between the two as much as it is both systems at the same time.
1) Ethical Reasons:
a) It is frankly not ethical for people to be homeless and starving when society is able to provide for them.
b) No matter how wicked people are, as human organisms we all deserve the basic necessities of life.
2) Efficiency Reasons:
c) People want job security and even more decent individuals will block progress in technology and other sectors in order to maintain job security. For example, if I am a receptionist I might block phone automation in order to keep my job. If I was confident the basics of life were still guaranteed, I would allow this automation to occur. I could then live off the system until I find a new job. In our society today, jobs require far greater training and are far more standardized than in the past. Thus, there needs to be sufficient time for people to transition from one job to another.
d) Allowing greater automation and for people to transition to areas they are actually needed is far better for the economy overall.
e) People naturally want to work, to feel they are making a difference in the community, to feel they are useful, to look like they are not lazy, to look healthy, to be doing well relative to their peers and people in the community, to keep ahead or keep up with the group etc. All of these factors will drive people not only to work, but to do that which is actually of maximum value to society.
f) On top of this, people will work to have luxuries. Video games, jewellery, and fancy cars are not things the state will be providing for under this economic model. Market forces are still considered valuable to set prices for these non-essential commodities.
g) Competition can be of value when not overdone. When children play soccer, the competition drives them to do better; but no matter how poorly a child performs, they are still fed at the end of the day and still get to sleep indoors.
h) It frankly isn’t worth it to maintain a level of poverty in order to punish the lazy. Society hurts itself far more than it helps itself in the long run.
3) General Knowledge:
i) Ayn Rand only argued for individualism and detested weakness in men because she herself is incapable of standing alone and these views allowed her to find a stronger mating partner. Women such as Dickinson and Bronte who did not detest the weak to indulge the strong should be the true heroines among feminists.
j) Nobody argues for traditional capitalism with the intent of making the world a better place. People only argue for traditional capitalism because it is the ideology of the strong. Those who argue for traditional capitalism do so out of purely selfish pathology. Selfish individuals such as these still have a place in the economic model of High-Efficiency Capitalism because it is assumed that selfish individuals will still work hard to benefit themselves.
I will literally never stop harassing humanity until a basic social income and the basic necessities of life are guaranteed. What the hell did we industrialize and develop all of this technology for if we’re just going to use fear of poverty to force human beings to work mindlessly towards nothing anyway?
This is what you do: you vote for the parties and politicians that are genuinely interested in guaranteeing basic needs (food, water, shelter, health, and electricity) for the entire population. You don’t vote for the parties and politicians that do not have that as part of their campaign platform.
What would be best is if progressive taxation was exponentially increased in order to achieve that.
It doesn’t mean everyone has equal wealth. It doesn’t mean poor people are sitting around in Jacuzzi’s, sipping champagne, and listening to Chopin.
When looking at unemployment statistics, remember that many bloggers and full-time social activists would technically fall in the category of “unemployed.” Does this mean we are providing no service to humanity?
For me, I’m doing my work while living off my parents at the moment. I wouldn’t mind being subsidized by some type of monetary subsistence program that provides basic funding for those who are more interested in independent pursuits with no backing from any private organization or institution.
When thinking about giving other human beings a guaranteed minimum income, think of it as paying others to be different, independent and alone so that you don’t have to be.
Vincent van Gogh is the perfect example of someone who would have required the social assistance.