Posted by
J.D. Roos on Tuesday, December 22, 2009 4:44:49 PM
Greed is evil.
At least, this is what all the rebellious protesters at the rallies for anything from "Let's make our earth green" to "Down with capitalist pigs" would shout in your face. At its base form, I would very much agree with this statement. Greed more often than not leads to the abuse of people, and most usually the "little guy". We see it every day in all forms. And yet, I cannot bring myself to agree with the solution to greed, as delineated by the Socialist/Communist belief system. Let me explain why.
At the base of each philosophy we find a marked difference.
Capitalism says that the individual in the pursuit of self interest will create products for those in the community to use at the price charged by the capitalist. This is for his own good, as he wants to amass wealth for himself. Yet, if there's another individual down the street who also wants to amass wealth, he does his research into the product and finds that not only can he make that first product better, he can also make it cheaper. Thus, we have the basic principle of the free market. Capitalism at its basic level acknowledges that we have a predisposition to look out for our own self-interests, and harnesses this. It delivers better products for a better price, not because it's mandated, but because the capitalist wants a part of the market share. Although we mostly believe that blind greed is evil, we have come to terms with the fact that we can't eliminate it from people and so use it for the benefit of society.
Socialism and the like's ideals say that each man should live for the good of the other, with the government being in charge of making sure everyone is taken care of, to varying degrees. The individual is appreciated only as much as he's able to contribute to the good of society, which is encapsulated by the apothegm: for the good of "the people". Thus, theoretically, everyone doesn't have to go without, since we're all sharing things. Greed magically disappears because we've put a check on "greedy" people, and used them to benefit society. It's an ideal society.
The difference between these philosophies are realism, and idealism.
As we covered before, Socialism is idealistic. It sounds good. There's something about the appeal of never feeling the threat of being financially vulnerable to loss or need. So, ideally, we'd all share things with those who are in need so that they too would be able to have enough. This ideal, however, is based upon the premise that every person is in fact basically good and that, as stated before, a political system can eliminate greed altogether.
You absolutely have to be completely generous and unassuming when it comes to greed. The benign government absolutely has to have no interest in favoring any group in the redistribution of wealth, and would objectively give to those who need it. And, those being assisted absolutely have to have no alternative to receiving assistance, and would otherwise be contributing to the utmost of their abilities to the "common pool". Otherwise, more has to be taken from those who are contributing, and the system implodes. So, in a utopia, we could very plausibly work under this system, and the Marxist saying "From each according to his ability, and to each according to his need" becomes the mantra for such a society.
And yet, such a society does not exist in human terms, nor will ever exist created from human endeavor. And because of the simple fact that humans, by nature, are prone to give in to greed, the idealistic becomes destructive. As noted by Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged, need is rewarded over ability, and effort is penalized to reward the needy in the socialist system. Those with ability hide it, since the fruits of their labor will only be used to reward those who are "in need". If on the other hand you can demonstrate that you are "needier" than your neighbor, you get more of the redistributed pie.
Alternatively, Capitalism is about the cold hard facts. It's realistic in its assumptions. It takes for granted that people are flawed and, given the opportunity to do so, most people will take advantage of a "free lunch". It also knows that there is no such thing as a "free lunch". So, it says you must work for everything you get, otherwise you won't get it. This is the result of failure to act. This sounds very cold and harsh. However, the reward of Capitalism is what allows it to continue to function. If you set up a successful business, you can create wealth for yourself, and no one will steal that from you; you've earned it. This creates a sense of pride in the using of ones own talents to gain one's living, and beyond this encourages the individual to further innovate because this innovation is rewarded. Yes, it's cold because it demands that one works to earn even the necessary items to survive. But it has taken into account the very fact that makes Socialism a parasitic society that will ultimately destroy itself: greed.
So, we've covered the basics. "But what about the title?", you might ask. Here's the main thrust of my argument for Capitalistic greed: it takes greed into account. Socialism on the other hand thinks that only if we destroy or penalize those who are successful can we actually eliminate greed. It denies that greed continues to exist.
We always hear "those greedy capitalists." And yet, we never hear "those greedy socialists", because in and of itself the idealism believes it can eliminate greed by taking from the greedy. This ignoring of the monster within humanity is what is scariest of all. It's the appointed self-righteousness that makes a socialist in power so frightening. He thinks that he can do no harm by harming only those who are successful. He points out the greed of the Enrons of today, and says, "look at those greedy capitalists and how they've destroyed the working man's retirement account." He then goes on to espouse more restrictions on companies to make sure it doesn't happen again, even going so far as to suggest that the government take over industry.
However, this same Socialist will applaud the movement of the radical left in socializing health care, and the "responsibility" which it promotes. He doesn't realize (or doesn't want to realize) that the books on such programs are cooked in much the same way as Enron's. Costs are hidden (for Medicare mainly) so that it looks like a great deal on the surface, but hidden costs are going to break "the working man", for whom this is all supposedly enacted. And so, we see the true colors of the Socialistic creed: Steal from the rich to gain control over the leftover poor.
The liberal reader may protest, but I dare any one of them to say that the government's blind ambition for greed for power will not do more harm than what an Enron did. Enron's greed was in fact deplorable. And yet, it was a company that ultimately failed in the Capitalist system because it could keep a charade going, but only for so long. Several thousand people were hurt from this, and lost their retirement. This is the beauty of Capitalism when it functions properly. The consumer can boycott the crooked company, or the government can come in and investigate. Yes, it may do harm, but this harm is limited by the fact that the entity is one of several players in the system.
Contrarily, look at the government. It's actions are eerily similar to Enron's, and yet how can a charade propagated by the government be checked? Who can come in and investigate cheating accounting schemes? The government is in fact responsible for its own investigation, and we see just how great this works in the private sector. Those within the company are most usually partial to the company. The end of this governmental pyramid scheme is going to have far worse results for far more people than any private company's worst malfeasance because of this fact.
Greed ultimately harms people in its worst forms. And yet, I would much prefer Capitalistic greed that does in fact harm some, but can be limited by the market as well as by the government, over the Socialistic greed that ultimately has no accountability in its lust for power over people. I can boycott the Wal-Marts of the world, but I cannot really boycott the U.S. government without serious consequences that may ultimately cost me my life. And so I say, "down with greedy Socialism".