Political Ideologies: Socialism VS Capitalism

Throughout most of our lives, especially those who grew up experiencing the Cold War, have seen different philosophies and debates regarding two major ideologies: Capitalism and Socialism. Many of us have a black-and-white perspective regarding the two, whether you are against the capitalist ideology of free markets stepping on the working class, or despise the thought of everyone working towards one common goal that the government decides for you. All perspectives are valid in their own respective manner, however, society is usually not just Capitalist or Socialist. Take the United States for instance: government programs such as Social Security, public libraries, schools, welfare, and federal school aid are all funded through taxes. This is a socialist ideology to take a small sum from the many to disperse as a tool for those who need them. However, if you live in the United States you understand just how prevalent the free market is which is provided by Capitalism. I'd like to briefly break down both of these ideologies for those looking to learn more about it.

Insulin is one of the most expensive drugs in the U.S., however many people rely on this for their survival.

I'll start with Capitalism, which is more prevalent in the United States and less "taboo." Adam Smith, who was referred to as the "father of capitalism" had his own idea that

individuals should pursue their own self-interest, and to put yourself and your business ventures first should be enough to drive people to better their own lives. The government could step in, but they should have very little authority over what happens in daily life and trade. In modern America, we have patents and copyright to help aid the business owners in keeping others from stealing their ideas. However, these government aids tend to be used and abused by many. Take, for instance, pharmaceutical drugs whose patent expires soon. Many well-known pharma-elites have been able to renew the patent on their drug by changing one small ingredient or other factor in order to keep their drug exclusive and thus keeping a monopoly going (something that the government was supposed to aid in stopping.) There are ways to legally sway politicians into helping businesses which Adam Smith may have not intended when coining the Capitalist mentality, and that may be that big businesses can buy their way in and out of situations at their own discretion. Of course, not all businesses can afford this or get away with it. However, ideally, Capitalism and free markets are intended to erase class or caste systems that were prevalent in England during this time. Capitalism is not good nor bad, in my own eyes, but government interference is what makes or breaks this system.

Now moving on to Socialism, a rather sensitive topic when discussing politics in the United States. Not without reason, of course, as the Cold War can still be felt when discussing politics regarding China and Russia, two major power houses in the world, and who both practice Socialism/Communism heavily. At its basic understanding, Socialism is the ideology that the people own the means of production. What does that even mean? Well, in Socialism there are two types of people: the Bourgeois and the Proletariat. The Bourgeois are the people who own the companies and majority of profits while the Proletariats are the workers, whose working wages are determined by the business they work for. Socialism aims at eliminating the need for the Bourgeois and delivering the value of work to the common person. Historically, the government steps in to assist this endeavor and is supposed to dissipate as soon as the common goal is achieved, however the water muddies once power has been given to a select few. The government become the elite and may intent to use this as a way to provide full control over the common people. Many periods of starvation, government surveillance, and slaughtering of its own people has been recorded under Socialist/Communist reign, although this is not to say that these exact issues have happened under Capitalism as well. The goal of Socialism is to live without the need of government or the rich elite. Every person is to work for their keep and provided the necessary things to live and become successful. Base income, housing, clean water, food, medical assistance, and other basic needs ideally should be met under Socialism.

Now, the first colonies in North America settled by the English really struggled to stay afloat. The shortages of food, labor, and other factors caused populations to dissipate. The wealthy few who wanted a new life boarded ships to sail to new land, while many took to indentured servitude in order to reach a new life. Indentured servitude is basically the act of willingly signing over your own labor to another in order to pay off a debt when no monetary exchange can occur. So, the wealthy individuals tried not to work while the few whose trips were sponsored had to work. This, for the most part, really didn't work out. Most people were told to roll up their sleeves and get to work. Ideally, the colonists could have worked together towards a common goal, setting aside any status they had in the old world, and established a society which integrated with the already-established population on Native Americans in the area, who knew their way around the land, crops, and other abundant resources. Until the Colonists were to realize this, they were destined for failure. This, alone, can be seen as Socialism but was something that really worked out for American colonialism. Of course, the larger the colonies got, the less the wealthy needed to work as the labor was distributed to slaves instead. The wealthy few, again, owned the majority of the labor at little to no cost to them, enabling them to lengthen that wealth inequality tremendously. If there were a mixture of basic human rights, owning means of production, and a free market system in place, the United States would be an entirely different country than what it is today.

Supporting small businesses can be a great way to engage in a free market while creating healthy competition.

Most countries in the world practice with a mixed political structure in place, and many places succeed with a mix of both very well. For myself, I believe the government serves its people and not the interest of others, such as business owners or as a means of power and wealth. The businesses should be put in check, but instead of creating minimum wages and aiming to pay workers as little as possible, these businesses should be run by the majority of workers and should be dealt with accordingly. Unions are established for this reason, and many business owners seek to keep workers from forming such workplace communities. The government steps in to ensure that the workers may practice their right to do so without retaliation, but should do no more and no less. Of course, there are finer details to establish, and not everyone would agree with my perspective, but I believe a common goal for the common people should be to live in dignity and peace through their daily lives. No one who puts in their work should worry about going to bed hungry or if they will have a roof over their head at the end of the day.

What are your thoughts on this? I'd love to know!