Preface I do not have a formal education, and as such I do not have a comprehensive understanding of formatting, citations, footnotes, or existing political science and the scientific consensus on various political science-related subjects. This paper is self contained and based on my personal interpretation of the world’s understanding of terms such as Socialism and Capitalism, as well as the various more technical words that I might misuse hereafter. This is not an exact science but I sincerely appreciate any and all feedback or opposition to these ideas as a way to develop my personal understanding of the subjects. Ultimately I am using this preface as an opportunity to make a request for understanding, and good- faith arguments regarding my stances, to not bog down the collective responses with nitpicks regarding the formatting or language (unless my errors thereof are so egregious that understanding is questioned) used in this paper, and to instead focus your energy on correcting and critiquing the ideas I present within. Thank you Acknowledgments While I maintain the complete and total self-containment of this document as a means for expressing my personal understanding of the ideas within, much of that understanding is derived from the combined works of many other authors and scholars throughout history; including (but not limited to and in no particular order) Karl Marx, Michael Parenti, Mikhail Bakunin, Friedrich Engels, and Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov. I would suggest any reader to take a personal step into their collective works to further their own understanding of these complex topics, and I would implore the same reader to examine those works as similarly self-contained documents and to remain intellectually ignorant1 of the flawed men who penned them. Similarly, a large portion of my understanding is derived from internet culture at large, and that of memes, image macros, or small easily-understandable blocks of text. Due to the nature of the internet and all of it’s communications, it would be nigh impossible for me to individually credit every person who’s work has inspired me or led to further understanding of these topics. If you have ever made a meme to express your thoughts on society or simply spoke your mind on twitter, you have also contributed to this body of work. 1 Do not remain ignorant in such that you ignore or deny any potentially harmful actions taken by these individuals, but remain ignorant in that while examining their works and ideas you are not blinded by emotions relating to external factors The Current Global Ideological Hegemony and Potential Alternatives Introductory Statements The purpose of this paper is two-fold: 1. Broaden my own understanding of the world and our place in it as a global community 2. To allow any reader to properly grasp my personal understanding of socialism and capitalism, and to open a genuine dialogue among all readers about which system is preferable Before I start, I want to be clear that I am not writing this with the assumption I am infallibly correct. I will likely make a lot of mistakes in my ideas, or make some baseless assertions that are flat out wrong or simply widely disagreed upon. In those cases I want to know what mistakes I made, and correct them in following versions of this paper. This is a living document written based on my own interactions with the world and my personal understanding of it’s functions. To begin, there are some major assertions I want to make immediately (and in no particular order) that form the groundwork for this paper. • Every human being, regardless of birthright, national citizenship, skin color, culture, history, or personal decisions is deserving of basic dignities and the resources necessary for human life. ◦ Furthermore, it should be assumed that every human being, unless explicitly shown otherwise, has no intent to cause harm and is simply trying to make their own way in the world. • The driving force behind any individuals decision making is not well understood to an observer, but can generally be partially explained by looking to that individuals upbringing and experiences. • We as a society have not explicitly confirmed or ruled out any particular set of religious beliefs, and as such all reasonable religious beliefs have equal merit. • It is possible to organize a democratic system where those were voted into their position are able to be held infallibly accountable by those they represent ◦ I make no attempt to describe the intricacies of such a system, I am simply stating that this paper relies on the assumption that such a system is functionally possible. ◦ This is unique in that it being untrue would have no bearing on my criticisms of capitalism; it would simply invalidate a few portions of my praises for one particular ‘branch’ of socialism, but not socialism as a whole. • Capitalism, as to be described later, is the system that the majority of the world lives under. • Socialism, as to be described later, is one potential alternative to capitalism. The first step is to define what capitalism is and what socialism is. I am going to forego any existing formal definitions of the words and make some assertions of which I expect any reader to understand and agree with. If there is divisiveness over any of these assertions I will revise this paper in kind. Capitalism, for the purpose of this paper, will be defined as a global ideological hegemony2 with some distinct qualities • An individual’s relative comfort level3 in society is directly influenced by their personal accumulation/hoard of capital and/or wealth. ◦ As a direct result of this, most individuals are naturally driven to acquire more wealth in some way (Selling their personal labor, Stock Market, Land Ownership) • Any accumulated capital/wealth provides its owner with a certain amount of power, usually derived from political contributions, private property rights afforded to them by their local governments, or simple ability to pay people (via their aforementioned capital/wealth) to do nearly any task on their behalf. • Those with aforementioned undue power derived from their personal wealth will go to extreme lengths to protect their relative comfort level in society as well as that of their loved ones. With regards to Socialism, I am very aware of the variety of definitions attributed to it and how much division those different definitions cause in relevant communities. As such, I mean no disrespect to those who envision, favor, or have researched types of socialism that do not rely so heavily on the factors I list – I am simply conveying my thoughts on what I believe we as a species/global community are capable of. For the purposes of this paper socialism will be defined as a potential global ideological hegemony with some distinct qualities • An individuals relative comfort level in society is guaranteed by some central apparatus4 ◦ That central apparatus also ensures every individuals comfort level is equal to that of every other individual wherever possible. • Every individual who is capable of contributing to society will do so at the level they are capable of doing so • Any individual who attempts to bring harm to society or its inhabitants will be collectively and safely stopped by other individuals in society, treated with dignity and respect regardless of their actions, and brought to some central apparatus in order to ensure they do not attempt to bring harm to society in the future. • There exists some central apparatus with a coordinated team dedicated to allocating resources towards programs that improve the quality of life of the average citizen ◦ The decision of which programs receive what resources would be based on good-faith attempts to discern which would have the most profound and positive impact on society and the quality of life of individuals within that society ◦ Programs that improve the quality of life of the average citizen is not limited to any particular sect of research, development, or production. Lastly before I begin in earnest, I want to provide a personal thesis – When considering all factors, a world where all inhabitants live under socialism would be preferable (for the inhabitants) to a world where all inhabitants live under capitalism. 2 A global ideological hegemony is just a nicer way of saying an ideological framework that has more influence over the world than any other ideological framework 3 These terms to be expanded on later; see subsection titled “Background Information – Comfort” 4 These terms to be expanded on later; see subsection titled “Background Information – Central Apparatus” Background Information In this section you will find a variety of words or terms that I will use off and on throughout this paper, as well as my own personal definitions of those terms. They may not directly correlate to your personal understanding of the language but they do correlate with how those terms are used within this paper. As with all of my work, any assertions made are not final and are simply based on my understanding of the world. Comfort Some terms that I use frequently in the introductory statements and will continue to use frequently are “comfort,” “relative comfort,” and “relative comfort level.” These are very vague terms but I will use this subsection to explicitly define them for the purpose of this paper. • I use comfort to describe an individuals general satisfaction with their own life. • I use comfort level to mean an objective interpretation of all aspects of a persons life that collectively contribute to that individuals comfort • I use relative comfort level to refer to an individuals comfort level in relation to fellow members of their community or society. Property Throughout this paper I will reference various types of property frequently, and it is important to me that the reader have a clear understanding of what I mean when I refer to those distinct types of property. A common misconception regarding existing socialist thought is that there is no true distinction between different types of property. That may be true outside of this paper, but within this paper I will use the terms to refer to very specific and distinct concepts and ideas. Property, on it’s own, can be anything. My desk is my property. My land is my property. My bed is my property. My thoughts are my property. My ideas are my property. My business is my property. Property for the purpose of this paper is an object, idea, or some combination of any amount thereof that can be claimed by one individual or community as being owned by them. Property, as a concept, is a social construct. Personal Property refers to any property that an individual personally, regularly, and reasonably extracts some use out of in order to reasonably improve or maintain their relative comfort level in life. A toothbrush, personal computer, and a household are all examples of personal property. Many individuals in the ruling class of capitalist society have an excess5 of personal property. Private Property refers to any property that an individual or group is able to extract some profit out of, often at the expense of other individuals or groups outside of the group in control of that specific Private Property. • An example of private property is any corporation under capitalism. Amazon is private property. Owners of Amazon are able to extract profit at the expense of the laborers they employ (with the assumption that the majority of workers are not being compensated appropriately for their labor) 5 In this case an excess of personal property is considered having so much that it is actively detrimental to other members of society • Intellectual Property is a derivative of Private Property. It refers to property that is explicitly immaterial. The Star Wars Franchise is the intellectual property of Disney. This paper is my Intellectual Property. Codebases are the intellectual property of the developers who code them, or the corporation who employed those developers. Intellectual Property itself is a social construct as well, as ideas are infinitely replicable. Public Property refers to any property that is collectively claimed and used by some community. Public Canadian Land is property (in the form of land) that is collectively claimed and used by the Canadian community. In the context of a global socialist society, Public Property would be property collectively claimed and used by the entire global community. An important aspect of Socialist Society relies on the complete abolition of Private Property due to it’s potential for abuse. Abolition of Private Property would consist of designating all existing “Private Property” as instead being personal or public property. Community/Society For the purpose of this paper, a community is a group of individuals who share one common arbitrary trait. Examples below: • The word “Canadian” refers to an individual within a community of people who hold Canadian citizenship. • The LGBTQ+ community is composed of individuals who consider themselves queer. • The African-American community is composed of individuals who were born and raised in the USA, and have more melanin in their skin than the average individual in the USA. There is no limitation on the size of the community or on the trait(s) they share. Two people sitting on a park bench could be considered a park bench community if they felt they sufficiently related to the idea. Every person on the planet is a part of the global community. This paper will also use the term “Global Community” relatively interchangeably with the word “Society.” Usually I will preface society with either Socialist or Capitalist, in which case I am referring to the global community under socialism or capitalism, respectively. Harm to Community and its Inhabitants Many consider ‘harm’ to have a very specific and rigid definition primarily based on physical ailments. I do not agree with that assertion, and as such I use it differently within this paper. I want to make a distinction between harm to an individual and harm to a community. • Harm to an individual can be defined as a reduction in their relative comfort level over some arbitrary period of time ◦ An example would be that punching someone in the face causes harm, because the person being punched will likely be in some amount of pain for an indeterminate amount of time ◦ Another example would be that evicting someone from their home causes harm, because the person being evicted would potentially struggle to find a new home for an indeterminate amount of time. • Harm to a community can be defined as a reduction in the overall comfort level of the individuals within that community over some arbitrary period of time ◦ An example would be that burning down a school house causes harm, because the children in that community will not receive as high of a quality of education for an indeterminate amount of time Throughout this paper I will often simply use the term “harm” to refer to one type of harm or another, but the context of the sentence should make it clear which I am referring to. Proceeding, when one type of harm is caused, the other type of harm will often be caused in kind. This creates a hard to stop cycle which I will refer to as the cycle of harm.6 Let us observe the cycle of harm • An individual is harmed • Due to misunderstanding of this harm and it’s nature, that individual’s personal harm continues and grows • When the harm reaches certain levels, the individual has reduced capacity to contribute to his community through no fault of his own • Due to less community contribution, the community as a whole is harmed. • With minimal collective understanding of that harm and it’s nature, the community’s harm continues and grows • When the harm reaches certain levels, the community has reduced capacity to care for each of it’s individuals, and more and more issues will “slip through the cracks” so-to-speak, causing harm to more individuals Finally I want to clarify that, at least for the purpose of this paper, harm is inherently negative, in such that the term only describes an overall negative quality. If one is ‘harmed’ in the short term but in the overall context of their life the aforementioned ‘harm’ results in an increase in relative comfort level, then harm is not the right way to describe that phenomenon. I do not know how to describe that phenomenon but I do not believe it to be ultimately relevant to this paper. Central Apparatus What I expect to be the most controversial aspect of this paper is not my insistence that socialism is better than capitalism (I think the paper as a whole will make that obvious), but my near obsession with the idea of central apparatuses performing specific functions in socialist society. A central apparatus, like many items in this section, is a very vague term that could mean a lot of different things in a lot of different contexts. It is one that I personally struggled to come up with a succinct and satisfactory definition for use in this paper – but here’s what I came up with. A central apparatus is a group or office of individuals dedicated to handling the administrative tasks of maintaining a community/society. One way to think about a central apparatus would be as a socialist equivalent to an existing arm of a national government that manages one aspect of that government’s role in society. A specific example of this from my country is the CRA, or the Canada Revenue Agency. The Canada Revenue Agency has offices, and employees, and all other aspects of a functional apparatus with the goal of ensuring the Canadian Government is receiving the tax money that they expect they should be receiving. Another way to think about a central apparatus would be to compare it to an existing western corporation operating under an explicitly capitalist government. A specific example would be that of Amazon – Amazon has managers, directors, laborers, 6 I know that this is not an original term but I do not know who first used it. I read it somewhere years ago. Thank you, whoever you are, it’s a good term technicians, and a variety of other types of employees working in tandem to achieve the goal of building (in their words), “earth's most customer-centric company, […] a place where people can come to find and discover anything they might want to buy online.” A few factors define Central Apparatuses as they are referenced throughout this paper. Listed below are those factors, including comparisons to existing Government Programs or Capitalist Corporations. • A Central Apparatus has a primary goal ◦ The CRA’s primary goal is to collect taxes. Amazon’s primary goal is to build a customer- centric company. • A Central Apparatus would be held accountable to the public ◦ The practicality of this relies on the aforementioned democratic system in which those who are voted into their position are held accountable ◦ The CRA is not held accountable to the public directly, but to whatever governing body directs it’s funding and actions. • A Central Apparatus would be free to focus entirely on it’s primary goal ◦ A government program with the same primary goal has the potential to be burdened by excessive bureaucracy (due to dependence on other programs or related external factors), and a corporation has an incentive to veer away from it’s primary goal in search of higher profits. • A Central Apparatus would be functionally independent ◦ Inversely, a government program would need to answer to other government programs causing administrative delays, and a corporation would be held accountable to shareholders or the owners of the corporation Abstract Central Apparatus Another interesting quirk of the Central Apparatus is it’s malleable definition. The term as it is used in this paper can also apply to concepts with minimal physical presence and much more vague, confusing definitions. One such example is the internet. The internet operates as a Central Apparatus in a few ways, and is distinctly different from them in some others – though there are far more similarities than differences, so one could consider it an abstract central apparatus. A key distinction is that the internet is very much not a group or office of individuals. I do not personally know what the internet is from a technical standpoint, but I know it is not a group of individuals trading information. However, the internet still has a primary goal – to support human communication and transmission of information. The internet is free to focus on it’s primary goal – as presumably consisting of large blocks of code being run on computers the only thing that could stop the internet from focusing on its primary goal would be a lack of computers or malicious code. And the internet is functionally independent, simply existing within our society and requiring very little structural maintenance. Primary Central Apparatus A Primary Central Apparatus, in the context of socialist communities, is a government body. Every existing government (The US Government, the Canadian Government) is very similar in function to a Primary Central Apparatus. Artificial Divisiveness To begin, I want to be clear that I do not use the term “Artificial” as an attempt to invalidate the experience of the victims of this phenomenon. The harm caused by this is very real even if the root cause of the harm is simply a construct. There is significant work to be done in correcting that harm. Proceeding, Artificial Divisiveness can be defined as a rift of understanding between two distinct communities that is not based on real factors but instead based on misguided attempts to improve the comfort level of individuals within those two communities. Furthermore, oftentimes in the case of Artificial Divisiveness, one of the two communities is built off of the common trait of being adamantly opposed to the existence of the other community in question. These type of cases will be referred to as Unilateral Artificial Divisiveness. One example of Unilateral Artificial Divisiveness is that between the LGBTQ+7 community and the community of those who oppose the LGBTQ+ community. Let us dive further into this topic • The only common trait of the LGBTQ+ community (in this example) is they consider themselves to be queer individuals. • The only common trait of the community in opposition is that they oppose queer individuals having formed a community. • The trait of opposing queer individuals having formed a community is a trait that causes harm to other individuals • An individual in the opposing community has the potential to see that a trait they hold causes harm, and in turn drop that trait • In dropping that trait they are no longer a part of the opposing community, and there is no divide between that individual and the LGBTQ+ community • Once all members of the opposing community recognize and correct their harmful trait, the opposing community dissolves by nature of having no members left Similarly, let us examine an example of Artificial Divisiveness that is not unilateral. Consider “white people” to be a community, and “BIPOC8” to be the opposing community. • The only common trait of the white people community is that they have white skin. • The only common trait of the BIPOC community is that they do not have white skin.9 • Members of the BIPOC community grew up in a world where “white” is seen as the default, and many directly racist white individuals may have been a source of harm in their upbringing. ◦ Regardless if an individual was directly harmed by a white person or not, they would still be subconsciously aware that those who ignited generational trauma in the BIPOC community were white-skinned ◦ This could be the source of any potential natural, instinctual reactions when confronted suddenly with a white person, because the victimized individual may have unresolved trauma • Inversely, many white people do not have the education or understanding necessary to acknowledge the harm members of this implicit “white” community have caused to members of the BIPOC community 7 Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and associated 8 Black, Indigenous, People of Color 9 I understand many racialized individuals relate to their respective communities in a variety of ways. For the purpose of this paper and the simplicity of expression we will assume a grand BIPOC community where that is the only common trait. This does not invalidate the existences of similar communities with more common traits ◦ When a white person who lacks this understanding is the target of an emotional, instinctual reaction from a member of the BIPOC community, they may similarly lash out emotionally in response • These two concepts ignite the cycle of harm within both communities and ignite a similar cycle of violence between the two. Direct Comparisons In this section I will directly compare various facets of life under capitalism as we experience it to those same facets of life under socialism as I describe it. Resource Allocation Under Capitalism, resources are allocated based on the whim of those who control the resources. In some cases, governments control a huge portion of resources and those governments are in turn controlled by the politicians running said government. Said politicians themselves are manipulated by their own individual desire to keep their own job and as such are at risk of being bribed into mismanaging the resources they are in control of. In other cases, individual people control a huge portion of resources. A monetary estimation of Jeff Bezos’ wealth at the time of writing is $190,000,000,000 USD. Not all (or even a sizable portion of) this wealth exists in cash, but much of it exists as other various froms of personal and private property. Under Capitalism, Jeff Bezos is solely in charge of how all of those resources are allocated, and oftentimes they can be shown to be allocated to the cause of improving Jeff Bezos’ life. While this is not inherently bad, I believe it is fair to say that his life is not in need of further improvement. Inversely, under socialism those same resources would be allocated by some central apparatus with the goal of allocating them as efficiently as possible. In the case of overall society it is likely that they would be allocated by a prime central apparatus; one which is managed by a democratic system devised in such a way to ensure accountability. Luxuries For the purpose of this paper, luxuries will be defined as any item, experience, or component of an individuals life that is in no way necessary to that individuals survival or ability to thrive in their environment. These can be anything from extravagant mansions, yachts, and jets to simple things like Netflix and a cold beer. A commonly held stance is that luxuries under socialism will not exist due to some combination of factors. While that may or may not be true for other definitions of socialism, I believe it is distinctly untrue when considering the definition of socialism I provided in the introduction to this paper. The first obvious note to make is that there is nothing within my list of qualities of socialism that excludes the existence of luxuries – their production would fall under programs that improve the quality of life of the average citizen. Second, I find the entirety of that notion is derived from a misunderstanding of the worlds productive forces10. People under capitalism every day go to jobs in order to produce, maintain, develop, or otherwise put their personal labor into the goal of luxuries being made available to the public, and there is nothing about Socialism, centrally planned or otherwise, that is antithetical to that process. In fact, I would argue that socialism (at least the centrally planned variant thereof) is explicitly beneficial to the process of dedicating personal labor into the goal of luxuries being made available. Let us examine: • There exists a Central Apparatus to allocate resources towards improving comfort • This Central Apparatus notices a surplus of resources after all individuals have their basic and advanced needs met • It is noted that luxuries improve comfort of individuals • Those surplus resources are allocated to programs that produce luxuries Inversely, under capitalism as it stands, all luxuries are produced via private corporations. To examine: • Someone has extra money, and wants to make more money • This person notices that there is money to be made in selling luxuries • This person starts a business dedicated to producing and selling luxuries • This, in turn, brings in money. ◦ This money has multiple ways of being spent, and one way of looking at those ways is a dichotomy. It can or can’t be spent on producing more luxuries ◦ Some, but not all, of the money is spent on producing more luxuries • Resources are inherently being mismanaged towards the production of luxuries in order for one person to produce for wealth for themselves. Within the context of this paper, individuals under socialism inherently produce more and better luxuries than individuals under capitalism. Power/Government As far as I am aware every country in the world has some type of government. These governments are composed of various different ideas but a common one, and one that is seen as extremely important, is that of democracy. Democracy, within this paper, represents the idea of “power to the people,” realized in a governmental setting. This is usually expressed by some kind of national voting system to elect representatives to some kind of parliament. As mentioned in my introductory statements, it is to be accepted that it is feasible to organize such a system where those representatives are held accountable, no matter what scale they are elected. Under capitalist systems, due to simple nature of everyone needing to earn money to survive, the role of representing society in parliament must be considered a job. If it were not a job, nobody would do it, as they would not be able to sacrifice what little time is available to them in order to simply represent society. As the act of representing society is a job, it can be expected that the individual holding that job will do whatever is possible to keep that job. It can not be assumed that they will consider their personal morals when considering the threat of losing their job. This represents a point of failure in capitalist democracy: It’s always a job, and people will go to great lengths to keep their job. 10 The combined efforts of labor and the means to perform said labor (as defined by Karl Marx) Continuing this line of thought, under Capitalism many individuals gradually will acquire and hoard more and more wealth/capital. As previously mentioned, this accumulation of wealth and capital leads to more power over society. One facet of this power manifests as control over people’s jobs in a variety of ways. The capitalist has full control over the jobs of people they personally employ, by nature of being their employer. The capitalist may even find control over jobs of people with no direct relation to them, by simple means of spending their acquired wealth. Let us examine a potential example of that process: • Tom has a job where he goes to meetings and talks about things. • Jeff, a very wealthy man, does not like that Tom is in that job. Jeff thinks Tom should work for him instead and Jeff’s son should have Tom’s job. • Jeff talks to Tom’s boss and offers them a million dollars to find any reason to fire Tom and hire Jeff’s son. That example was, of course, radically simplified, but the concept is extremely clear. In actuality the entire process is obfuscated and confused to cover tracks, in such a way that the capitalist will receive no backlash for their actions. Another well understood example of this phenomenon is the concept of “union busting.” Simply put, under capitalism there is a constant risk that those who claim to represent the population are actually representing the interests of a wealthy elite who’s interests will rarely align with that of the average person. Under socialism, that risk would be eliminated due to the simple fact that there is no wealthy elite. Similarly, there would be no individual or small group position with extreme influence or power over the collective society. I personally would consider the Central Apparatus in charge of allocating resources to be the one with the most influence/power, but even their relatively disproportionate power would presumably be kept in check by whatever system could be devised to hold those in democratically elected positions accountable. Religion Many individuals with deeply held religious beliefs assert that socialism is inherently predatory toward their particular religious beliefs or religious beliefs in general. As with every item in this section, within the context of this paper that assertion is untrue. To begin, Socialism has no intrinsic factors that lead to reasonable religious beliefs of any kind being suppressed. Similarly, Socialism as an ideological system is capable of efficiently determining whether a religious belief is harmful to a community (and therefore all members of a community including the members of said religious sect) or if it’s presence is neutral or overall positive to society. Inversely, as capitalism is an inherently profit-driven system, religious beliefs that are profitable will slowly but naturally take control over the conversation and quietly suppress unprofitable faiths by simple process of them not producing enough money to survive. Diving in further: • Those with extreme wealth notice members of large religious communities will spend significant amouints of money in the pursuit of spreading their faith • It stands to reason that if this religious community gets larger, there are more deeply religious individuals who will spend large amounts of money in pursuit of spreading or practicing that faith • One with extreme wealth then has the means to produce luxuries or other products specifically targetted at members of these profitable religious communities. • In turn, more luxuries and products in general are now available and marketed towards the existing members of that religious community • Those who are not already a part of that religious community will eventually come to notice the luxuries and products marketed towards that religious community ◦ Some of these products will also of course make their way into the general public by nature of being things that people like; some other products will stay firmly within the religious community by nature of it’s significance to said community • The hyper specific products and luxuries that remain within the religious community will catch the eye of any individual with a similar desire for that type of product, or simply a very similar set of personal religious beliefs. • This will lead to that individual approaching the religious community in question, potentially learning more, and potentially fully joining that religious community • In joining that religious community, the individual in question begins a slow but sure process of suppressing their personal religious beliefs in favor of those endorsed by their new found community • This process naturally suppresses new and unique religious beliefs around the world Art and Culture A common criticism of socialist thought is that it inherently suppresses art, artists, and the natural growth of human culture. Within the context of this paper that is strictly untrue, as evidenced by lack of anything within the definition of socialism that suppresses those things. On the contrary I assert that the existing capitalist hegemony suppresses art, artists, and culture by nature of being a profit driven system. To elaborate, every individual in society needs to generate some kind of income for themselves in order to maintain their relative comfort level. Many individuals are naturally talented at producing art. Some individuals who are naturally talented at producing art will be inclined to use those skills in order to generate some kind of income. All so far seems acceptable, as it implies the development of the artists skills will come with their art- related job. However, due to the internet and computer technology, all art is now infinitely replicable and malleable, to such an extent that there are less and less available jobs for artists. Artists who wish to use their skills in some way will often take what they can get (largely via asset design for other artists’ large projects or very small independent studios), and other artists will simply accept that they will not be allowed to make art for this world during working hours, and will instead strive to reduce how many hours they must spend at work. In either case, significantly much less art than possible is being produced, and the natural developmentof culture is slowed because of it. Examining art similarly under socialism produces wildly different end results. Under socialist society individual artists already have their basic needs met, and thus do not have to consider how to work their passion for art into a “job,” instead only doing the amount of work necessary of every individual contributor to maintain society. This opens up an incredible amount of free time the artist now has to dedicate to their personal art on whatever level they can muster. This naturally develops said art which in turn develops that artist’s local culture. Climate For the purpose of this paper, assume the current scientific consensus on climate change is accurate. If you do not consider it accurate and the very assertion is problematic to you, this section is not relevant to you as it would have no bearing on society. Proceeding, climate change as I understand it is expected to reveal extremely disastrous effects within the next 50-100 years. Rapid increases in extreme weather events, rapid increase in the scale of said extreme weather events, and mass displacement of populations as a result. It is my understanding that at this point it is less a matter of stopping this entirely but mitigating the extent of the damages. The specifics of the matter are not particularly relevant to this paper. What is relevant to this paper is the urgency to begin responding to these possibilities, which, under capitalism, currently only exist as non-profit organizations relying on spontaneous random generosity of individuals or government programs (which can be shown to be unreliable). While these non-profits are well and good and have produced promising results, it is important to note that capitalism does not inherently support the means to efficiently identify this type of problem before it gets out of hand. Socialism, on the other hand, does inherently support the means to identify this type of problem: • The collective society is dedicated to making life better • It is noticed that climate devastation will make life worse • Resources are allocated with the purpose of avoiding climate devastation Infrastructure Currently, most capitalist infrastructure is built for profit. There is a large emphasis on personal transportation in many of the “more capitalist” parts of the world (North America), and that directly translates to more money being spent. Fuel for a car, the car itself, maintenance on roads, building of roads, traffic control during construction near or of roads. Similarly, this profit-driven infrastructure leads to a suppression of related science that could have led to improvements in society.11 Even in cases the infrastructure is not built for profit, there is still some level of heed paid to the monetary cost of the development of said infrastructure, which manifests in the form of extracting money from those who make use of said infrastructure. This is not an inherently flawed process but it does result in harm. • An individual requires money to exist happily in society • That individual must spend that money on the use of existing infrastructure, reducing available money for other necessities • The reduction in available money can cause stress or anxiety • The reduction in available money can lead to decline in health (via reduced capacity for acquisition of food or other health related products) Inversely, infrastructure as built up under socialist society would simply be available to use for everyone. The maintenance would be done by nature of whatever system is devised to ensure necessary work gets done. Law Enforcement In Capitalist society, Law Enforcement is mostly comprised of federal, state, provincial, county, municipal, or otherwise local police departments. Many socialists or otherwise progressive thinking individuals often call for abolition of police departments, and this is misunderstood to mean abolition of law enforcement.12 I do not know if it is true among general socialists in the world today but within this 11 A famous example of this phenomenon is large oil and coal companies suppressing research that showed signs of climate change as far back as the 1920s. 12 This exchange is a great example of Artificial Divisiveness paper the police departments mentioned are not intrinsically linked to the concept of law enforcement within a community. In many individual police departments, particularly the largest of them in the world (RCMP, NYPD, the like), it can be shown that harmful actions are taken at all levels of the organization in a variety of ways. From basic, low level officers committing violence against minority individuals, all the way to commissioners ignoring systemic issues within the system they personally oversee. It is incredibly hard to see connections between capitalist society and these particular instances of harm13, so I will refrain from attempting to make that connection in this paper. What is important to note is that under capitalism there are no well-funded, dedicated options in reducing the harm derived from these police departments. Under Socialism, that type of Police Department would not necessarily exist at all; should it exist and be seen to cause significant harm there would immediately be a central apparatus with the purpose of examining and reforming or eliminating it as a means to reduce the harm it brings. Education It is very easy to recognize the importance of education to the future of society, so I will not go into depth on that subject. It is less easy to see a connection behind overall quality of education and the ideological system of which that education falls under. I will attempt to display that connection. Under capitalist society, all institutions are built with the monetary cost in mind. School systems and general educational apparatuses are no exception to this. As such, the most cost effective method of education will naturally become mainstream. The very act of trying to make education cost-effective is, in my eyes, quite harmful. It reduces the importance of education to be beneath that of the importance of saving money. Let us examine in more detail; • Building schools, paying teachers, and buying supplies all costs money • Having less schools, less teachers, and less supplies will cost less money • Having less schools, less teachers, and less supplies will result in either less children being able to attain that education or lower quality of education for each individual child • Individual children receiving lesser or no education is harmful to those children and by extension any community they are a part of. To examine the primary alternative, Problem Solving The final and most important topic I will dive into within this section is the general concept of how societal problems are dealt with under capitalist society and how they would hypothetically be dealt with under socialist society as described in this paper. To begin, under capitalist society societal problems are, at large, not dealt with. They are let to slowly linger and, in a way, “work themselves out,” by nature of incremental change through unnecessarily bureaucratic governments. This process is slow and results in the victims of these societal problems being harmed repeatedly until their harm is resolved by the individual or by the system. Inversely, under socialist society these same 13 Though I maintain it is present societal problems would be periodically and routinely dealt with as they came up, in such a way that benefits the collective society the most. Let us examine this process further. • A societal problem is noticed in a socialist community • A central apparatus is immediately formed to examine this problem and find solutions • Once a reasonable solution is found, said central apparatus takes the next steps to enact said solution This process can also be referenced if the reader has any further questions about how socialism is inherently better than capitalism. Conclusions In summary, based on explicit definitions provided within this paper as well as intricate examination of a variety of potentially related external factors, socialism is better for the inhabitants of a community than capitalism. Explicit Definitions I often have extreme anxiety related to my words and ideas being misinterpreted. As such I want to lay out explicit definitions for some of the terms I used that I considered to be vague or with potential for misinterpretation. If you believe you understood my paper (ie had no questions about the ideas presented) then this section is not necessary. A list is below. Resources A resource, for the purpose of this paper, is an object, concept, or idea that can be used towards accomplishing a goal. Examples of resources are: • Wood ◦ It can be burnt to create heat, or shaped to create furniture • Energy ◦ It can be harnessed in a variety of ways to produce a variety of results • Labor ◦ It can be dedicated towards the production of food • Currency ◦ It can be exchanged for goods and services in communities where it is recognized. There is no limitation on the nature of the resource or it’s potential purposes. Further, there are distinct types of resources, being Renewable, Limited, and Manufactured. Renewable resources are resources that the use of which does not inherently dilute the future availability of that resource. An example is wood, as trees can be grown indefinitely assuming a functional ecosystem. Limited resources are resources that the use of which does inherently dilute the future availability of that resource. An example is carbon in our ecosystem. Once it is removed it is incredibly difficult to get it back in. Artificial resources are resources that exist primarily as a social construct, and as such can be dismissed if the basis for it’s existence is also dismissed. An example is the US Dollar. The US Dollar is backed only by the promise of fulfillment by the US Government, and in such a case that the US Government ceases to exist as does the US Dollar. Both Limited and Renewable resources can be examples of Artificial resources. Reasonable Religious Beliefs Religious Beliefs, for the purpose of this paper, are personally held beliefs relating to spirituality, life after death, and the origins of the universe. To expand, reasonable beliefs are religious beliefs that do not interfere with the lives of other individuals in the community. It is also important to note that actions taken in the eye line of someone does not constitute an interference (eg You are not interfering with my life if I see you praying or see your religious shrines). An interference is only such when it directly detracts from the relative comfort of the other individual. Law Enforcement Laws are rules put in place my local governments for the purpose of protecting the people. Enforcement is the act of ensuring those laws are being followed, and stopping anyone who is breaking those laws. Health For the purpose of this paper, I divide “health” into three distinct categories: Physical, Mental, and Emotional. Health on its own refers to some combination of these three types of health. Physical Health refers to the state of an individual’s bodily organs and functions excluding that of mental processes. Mental Health refers to the state of an individual’s mental processes and whether or not they are functioning as expected Emotional Health refers to the state of an individual’s understanding of their own emotions and how to properly respond to them without causing harm.
Enter the password to open this PDF file:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-