Socialism & Capitalism in a Nutshell

15 May

I was musing the other day about “socialism” and in particular about why “socialists” so dislike “capitalists”. This dislike seems to me utterly illogical, for the following reasons.

  • Socialists in general are good, caring people who selflessly want to spread wealth around to alleviate the problems of the most vulnerable in society. Capitalists, on the other hand, are (as far as most socialists are concerned) mean, exploiting and money-grabbing and often heartless toffs; devoted mainly to grinding the noses of the poor into the dust while they selfishly amass great wealth for their personal use.

  • So, the chief desire of the socialist is to altruistically dole out welfare to the needy. However, it is (or should be) obvious that this most noble of aims cannot be fulfilled unless you actually have the money to dole out. (Many socialists do of course borrow it against future growth, but this is not the place to discuss “Alice in Wonderland”).

  • This of course is where the capitalists come in. Socialists – while being wonderful, caring and touchy-feely people – do not specialize in making money, only in dishing it out.

  • It is in fact “capitalists” (all in the rather – for socialists – odious private sector) who actually create the wealth that the socialists seek to redistribute to the deserving needy.

  • To restate this – just to make sure it is clear – socialists NEED the capitalists to CREATE the money that the former want to redistribute. I am not sure how many die-hard socialists will agree that they need capitalists – indeed, could not manage without them – but you can argue that one among yourselves.

  • If you agree with my theory about the capitalists being a necessary evil, then it further follows that the MORE money the latter create the MORE the socialists can take off them to redistribute.

  • And logically, if that is the case, it follows that socialists should do EVERYTHING they can to make it easy for capitalists to create wealth, since the more they create the more can be taken from them to do the touchy-feely, caring bit.

  • In other words, the successful capitalist is the socialists’ best friend, since without the former the latter would have no money, as is clearly shown in Cuba, where there are no capitalists and correspondingly no money, meaning that everyone is just about equally poor with little redistribution needed.

  • Of course, everything is a question of balance; you can have too much of either “ism”, just as you can die from drinking too much water. However, it would be nice if the socialists would sometimes accept that without people creating wealth they (the socialists) would have no justification for their existence, since they would have nowhere near enough of anyone else’s money to redistribute. I am hoping in particular that Mr Francois Hollande, President of France, will take this on board. In truth, however, this hope is tempered by realism.

    Much of the above falls into the category of “the bleedin’ obvious”, but I have always loved this saying of Talleyrand:

    “Cela va sans dire, mais cela va d’autant mieux en le disant.”


Dictionary definition

Leave a comment

Posted by on May 15, 2013 in Core Thought, Politics



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: