Capitalism, Socialism, and Green Shampoo
Suppose I live in a land where every man has a large collection of blue frock coats, in all sizes. Moreover, each has access to more of these self-same coats at no expense whatsoever. Does it behoove me then, upon leaving the meeting-house, to search among the coat racks until I find my own, or rather to simply take the first I find of my size?
Or suppose that everyone has access to a limitless supply of a green shampoo. Each has many bottles stored on their own, and the stocked warehouse is free access to all. Am I then required to always take my own to the showers? Or can I simply use the bottle left here by someone else?
So we observe that Capitalism is necessarily based in identity and individuality. It is individualism that declares my right to place my name upon my bottle of green shampoo, though no different from the other 3 score bottles on the shelf. But it is Capitalism that puts the green shampoo in a purple bottle, which then displays my name. It is the creed of Capitalism that says I have right to have a red frock coat, even when all other coats in the meeting-house are blue. It is mine, and all men know it, because it is different.
Socialism then, requires a loss of identity and individuality. Uniforms are prescribed, all the same color and style, so none is better than the other. None is different from the other. In the fabulous endless supply of all things, all men share all things as common, for all have access to all. IF there IS is limitless supply of like things, does personal property still exist?
Is Socialism the ideal? For there is no such thing as "stealing" from a warehouse, if everyone has free access to it. What is more, one will not steal "another's property," if all men have limitless supplies of the same. It must be admitted that Socialism has some very distinct advantages.
Or is it possible that the ideal of Socialism is a mare's nest, or perhaps even a Trojan horse? -- That is to say, perhaps its boasting is empty, or perhaps the good-looking gift is full of that which, in the end, will destroy us.
When supply is endless and blank in form, what happens to the soul of man? Is it possible that the result of socialism is the destruction of the essence of mankind? Is the effect of socialism to destroy what it means to be a person?
Perhaps Socialism necessarily makes one less than a person, because he is not different.
Technorati Tags: Capitalism, Socialism, Property, Economics
Suppose I live in a land where every man has a large collection of blue frock coats, in all sizes. Moreover, each has access to more of these self-same coats at no expense whatsoever. Does it behoove me then, upon leaving the meeting-house, to search among the coat racks until I find my own, or rather to simply take the first I find of my size?
Or suppose that everyone has access to a limitless supply of a green shampoo. Each has many bottles stored on their own, and the stocked warehouse is free access to all. Am I then required to always take my own to the showers? Or can I simply use the bottle left here by someone else?
So we observe that Capitalism is necessarily based in identity and individuality. It is individualism that declares my right to place my name upon my bottle of green shampoo, though no different from the other 3 score bottles on the shelf. But it is Capitalism that puts the green shampoo in a purple bottle, which then displays my name. It is the creed of Capitalism that says I have right to have a red frock coat, even when all other coats in the meeting-house are blue. It is mine, and all men know it, because it is different.
Socialism then, requires a loss of identity and individuality. Uniforms are prescribed, all the same color and style, so none is better than the other. None is different from the other. In the fabulous endless supply of all things, all men share all things as common, for all have access to all. IF there IS is limitless supply of like things, does personal property still exist?
Is Socialism the ideal? For there is no such thing as "stealing" from a warehouse, if everyone has free access to it. What is more, one will not steal "another's property," if all men have limitless supplies of the same. It must be admitted that Socialism has some very distinct advantages.
Or is it possible that the ideal of Socialism is a mare's nest, or perhaps even a Trojan horse? -- That is to say, perhaps its boasting is empty, or perhaps the good-looking gift is full of that which, in the end, will destroy us.
When supply is endless and blank in form, what happens to the soul of man? Is it possible that the result of socialism is the destruction of the essence of mankind? Is the effect of socialism to destroy what it means to be a person?
Perhaps Socialism necessarily makes one less than a person, because he is not different.
Technorati Tags: Capitalism, Socialism, Property, Economics
No comments:
Post a Comment