Socialism and capitalism–the two philosophies couldn’t be more apart. At least, that’s the common refrain.
But it isn’t so. Not really.
Truth is, as they are practiced, at their core, they are nearly identical.
Each promises that someone else will do the work.
They both have immense bodies of propaganda designed to convince those who produce that the greater part of the wealth created by the producer’s production actually belongs to someone else.
Both deny that they are bound by the laws of exchange. Those same principles that say when I go to the grocery store, I leave behind something of value equal to what I receive. Yet both capitalists and communists espouse systems whereby someone gets but is no longer required to give.
The biggest difference is not philosophy, but numbers. How many not working will be supported by those who bust their butts?
There’s the difference.
The modern capitalist does a better job of hiding the lack of exchange than does the socialist, but that is necessary. The socialist, when successful, has enlisted large portions of the population–and there is a great power in those numbers.
The capitalist–not such big numbers. To compensate, the capitalist starts out by entering into exchange, giving an investment for a share. But as quickly as possible, that share becomes complete control and lasts forever.
I’ve written before about the reality of a company–it consists primarily of the knowledge and production of those doing the work. Though it’s not an even division, some know more and produce more, some know and do less, there is still a proportionate share of ownership created each and every day, created and maintained by that good, knowledgeable production.
Nothing folds up a company faster than having all those involved with production, along with all the knowledge of production, walk away.
What is the value of a share of nothing?
What is the value of a share of a company that consists of hardware, buildings and such, but has no one left who knows what goes on in those buildings? Well, what will the buildings and stuff bring at auction? It’s not even a company. Just some stuff that might be valuable to those with the knowledge to use it to make another company.
Yet the modern capitalist will claim that because of money lent years ago, or centuries ago, that the “company” belongs to the capitalist. If great-great grandpa put a hundred bucks into ATT, great-great grandson doesn’t need to produce anything. He gets to siphon the profit and wealth from those doing the work.
Siphon the profit and wealth. Does that remind you of something?
It ought to. That is the driver behind socialism, communism, feudalism and monarchies, and is also key to such simpleminded political structures as dictatorships and totalitarian states. Somebody wants a free ride and those of us creating products get to do the heavy lifting.
Socialism, having numbers on its side, doesn’t bother with any initial investment. You work, we take. Thank you very much. We’ll be back tomorrow for your next “contribution.”
Capitalism says, you work, we take–because there was at one point a contribution made to help enable the production. Where this morph’s over into a “you give, we take” scheme, is when time is entered into the equation.
If I give you a hundred bucks so that you can buy tools to make doodads, then I should get something in return. Absolutely–that is simple and fair exchange.
But do I own the company years later when you’re producing millions of doodads and selling them for a bundle? Is all that profit mine for my hundred buck investment? Your years of work, your reinvestment into goods and equipment, your accumulation of knowledge, your daily creation–but my hundred bucks?
At some point, the exchange created by the initial investment has been made trivial by the investments of time, effort, knowledge and production of those doing the work. How does one know that such a condition exists? Just have the knowledge and production fail to show up on Monday.
It’s like Vito saying, “Keep the money. But you owe me ‘favors’ for the rest of your life. And then your kids owe me favors. And their kids owe me too. And the kids after that right on out to the end of time.”
An investment should be paid back, and an obligation exists until it is. But dollars of investment can’t create eternal obligation. Eternal obligation–that’s slavery.
That’s something for nothing.
So you see, at their hearts, as they are practiced, socialism and capitalism are blood brothers.
The real difference is: How many we have to carry on our backs.
The real question is: How does your back feel?
