|
|
In this great republic, when the workers were forced into unbearable toil without any consideration given to them, what did the politicians and leaders do? In a republic, the population elects the rulers. What did the rulers do once in office? The mistrusted government officials shook the hand of hypocrisy and brought corruption to an entirely new level. Corporations bought out representatives and senators. It was no longer a nation for the people and by the people. It was a nation for the rich and built on the sweat, blood, and tears of the people. The Capitalist economy became a haven for legalized slavers. The corporate interest was held over the public interest; this can be simplied as saying that more effort was put into being selfish than inhumane. Ayn Rand, the Capitalist philosopher, called selfishness a virtue. When we compete, she argued, then prices are lower and conditions improve. The leaders and rulers of the nation ascribe to this "virtue of selfishness" -- they imposed a rule that gave no consideration to the workers, they allowed their people to die in their factories, they betrayed the public interest, made ignoramuses of themselves, enforced brutality -- the politicians which abused and manipulated public interest only so that they could enrich themselves, cruel and unfeeling in their endeavors -- they were Capitalists, not Socialists. Heartlessness and brutality: these were the vices embraced by the government officials and businessmen who were concerned more with the amount of dollars they have than the amount of suffering inflicted on the common man.The Capitalists are fond of Social Darwinism. They will be quick to side with the Evolutionary Theory of Natural Selection. The strongest, quickest, and smartest will outlive others -- this is their prediction. They will even point to the wild and how animals are themselves competetive with each other and striving to survive. However, even Charles Darwin noted numerous times that animals have a kind of sympathy for each other. To quote Charles Darwin...
>>>>>>>>>>>
Many animals, however, certainly sympathise with each other's distress or danger. This is the case even with birds. Captain Stansbury found on a salt lake in Utah an old and completely blind pelican, which was very fat, and must have been well fed for a long time by his companions. Mr. Blyth, as he informs me, saw Indian crows feeding two or three of their companions which were blind; and I have heard of an analogous case with the domestic cock. We may, if we choose, call these actions instinctive; but such cases are much too rare for the development of any special instinct. I have myself seen a dog, who never passed a cat who lay sick in a basket, and was a great friend of his, without giving her a few licks with his tongue, the surest sign of kind feeling in a dog. [The Descent of Man, by Charles Darwin, chapter 4, part I.]
<<<<<<<<<<<
As seen within nature, even animals have a tendency to show compassion for each other. When an animal sees another animal suffering, there is a chance that it will offer its sympathies and aid that animal. This has been noted by many biologists and confirmed by many eye-witness accounts. However, when a Capitalist sees another suffering, he looks for a way to profit from it, and then claims that he is no worse than any animal.One of the largest vices of Capitalism is the eventual formation of monopolies. When a monopoly is in control of a certain product universally, either through legal or economical means, it not only abuses the worker but it abuses the consumer, as well. If a car company, for example, owns the steel mills to make its cars and owns the rubber plantations to make its tires, then the competitors are driven into the ground. The golden rule of Capitalism is that competition between companies creates better products at less costly prices. The competitors, however, know that they will profit more and they will progress better when there is no competition. With control of the resources to produce a certain product, such as a car, there can be no competition. A competitor in need of steel to make cars, and rubber to make tires, would not be sold such items from their competitor. In this scenario, only one business gains control of an industry and no matter what price he sets, there is no one to compete with him. A car industry may sell their car for $10,000 to $100,000, whether or not it only cost them less than one thousand. After all, when this car business is the only one operating, there will be no place else to obtain a car. In fact, not only can the price be unreasonable, but the condition of the car can also be unreasonable -- it may have a badly running engine or other failing functions. This possibility of a monopoly by businesses in industries has been practised by many entrepreneurs.
Communism falls prey to the same flaws of Capitalism. In a Capitalist system, the privilege to guide and control society, to mold the workers into machines themselves, is given to the businessmen. The employers hold no regard for the workers and slowly, the classes quickly seperate: the rich becoming richer and smaller; the poor becoming poorer and numerous. On the shoulders and backs of the workers, the politicians and the corporate leaders made themselves rich to unimaginable degrees. A Communist system, however, gives complete control and responsibility to the worker, making everyone equal. In a Communist economy, whether or not you work hard at your job or excessively, trying to accomplish the most for yourself and your society, you will earn the same meager wage. The corruption of both the Communist and Capitalist states is appalling, both falling victim to corrupt leaders; still, though, corruption is much more prevalent within Capitalist systems. The difference between a Communist and a Socialist state should not be difficult to see: in a Socialist economy, workers are paid the amount that they deserve for their work. Under Communism, the pay is horrendously low because the doctors receive as much pay as the janitors. Under Capitalism, the pay is horrendously low because the corporate leaders have no interest in paying workers anything more than a slave wage. Under Socialism, the pay is adequate, fair, and deserving.It is obvious that within a Capitalist economy, the rights of the workers are given no weight. To what justification do the workers have when it comes to guiding their own lives for themselves? It is the fact that the worker has built the foundation of every industry and that the worker is the backbone of every strong economy. It is the worker who created the products that make our lives easier, the worker who understands his creation, the worker who builds the things that society uses. Since it is the worker who makes the system produce what it produces, it is the worker who has the right to decide what system that is. Given the current stature of Capitalism, only a heartless tyrant or an unthinking fool would choose it over Socialism. As workers, those of us who foster production, create society, and make the things that make lives easier, we deserve the right to construct society according to our wishes. In this manner, it is obvious that we side with Socialism: the belief that every individual is deserving of the opportunity to better themselves in a fair economy, the belief that every individual has the right to safe working conditions and reasonable working hours, the belief that humaneness is our ultimate goal.
|
Tags
You must be logged in to add tags.
|
Writer Profile
Andy Carloff
Punkerslut (or Andy Carloff) has traveled all across the United States and has experienced American life in the urban centers, as a homeless squatter and as a blue-collar, working-class laborer. Since high school and early development, he has composed a variety of ideas on education, politics, and economy. His positions are ultra-leftist: politically an Anarchist, economically a Socialist, and culturally a Syndicalist. His writings are available through his website: http://www.punkerslut.com
|
Comments
socialism ian rae | Sep 15th, 2013
I understand your sentiments but to simply exchange private capitalism for state capitalism gets us nowhere democracy is simply the administration of things there is no need of money or exchange mechanisms within socialism just production for use.regards ian
You must be a TakingITGlobal member to post a comment. Sign up for free or login.
|
|
