I was thinking about it, and why are Communism and Socialism bad?
I don’t know about other “Western” countries, but the US tends to view the two things in a very negative light. Communist even being a derogatory term, no doubt stemming from the Cold War where it likely meant something akin to traitor.
But what’s really so bad about it? We tend to crusade for Democracy, but Democracy has absolutely nothing to do with Communism or Socialism. It’s Capitalism which is the difference, and even a Capitalist state needs some form of socialism. Medicare, or universal healthcare as most wealthy nations have it, is a form of Socialism. It’s a very critical part of society, and it’s Socialism. In fact, so is Welfare. Actually, I think they’re moreso part of Communism than Socialism, albeit Communism is Socialism just taken a step further is it not?
So what’s so bad about Socialism and Communism, really?
From what I understand, the distinctions are: From each according to his ability, to each according to his deeds (socialism). From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs (communism).
People say, well, it just leads to the oppression of civil rights. Why do the governed get no say? Why would Democratic Communism not work? Remember: Democracy is a system of government, Communism & Socialism are economic policies – it just so happens that most Communist states end up ran by Dictators. I think that most people forget this.
I think a limited Communist state would work. A Democratic (or rather Geniocratic, as I’d prefer it) government, and a Capitalistic free market for the majority of the economy. Then, the top x% that make more than $y, that money would instead go back into the system and be dispersed among the rest or used for the Socialist/Communist programs such as welfare, healthcare, and education.
For instance, that whole “we are the 99%” movement for the redistribution of wealth of those with the top 1% of wealth that made surplus of $506,000 annually – because who needs more than that, really?
We have executives making $XXm+ a year, atheletes making $XXXm+ a year, celebrities and music artists making $Xm+ a year… these are clearly not the most important members of society, but rather just the top end of consumption. But the problem with a pure capitalistic state, in my opinion, is that without caps on wealth then the wealth of a nation just stagnates in the coffers of a small percentage of the wealthy while the rest of the nation state suffers.
So what I’d do is say… if your income is more than x% than the average annual income then any excess wealth will then be redistributed back into the population, in large part going to fund socialist programs (healthcare, welfare, education), but the remainder redistributed.
It could be done through taxes, where the wealthy get a very severe tax beyond a certain income, and the redistribution is done for others via a tax credit in a proportional equal amount depending on their reported income after the socialist programs.
It would be, basically, a more extreme version of our current system… just with caps and limiting of economic loopholes. I mean if you made $500,000 annually, I don’t think anyone would be able to say you were bad off… but you wouldn’t be so far above the rest of the population that you controlled a majority stake in the entire economy.
What do you think? I mean I’m not an economist, but it sounds good to me.