Is this Philosophy? [View all]

This was written in response to a post in the democratic primary forum. That's where it died. I am re-posting it here. I spent a some time writing it. Maybe it belongs here, maybe it can inspire some thought. Or we can just let it RIP.

In our 2020 federal governmental elections it looks like we may have to deal with three major eco-political systems: Capitalism, Socialism and Communism. If you think "what the heck is he talking about", please hear me out.

Capitalism is defined (searched it's meaning on Bing) as "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state."

Socialism is defined (searched it's meaning on Bing) as "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." And I believe that definition must have come from a capitalist, since the wording seems to deny or downplay the existence of socialism. So I like to edit it to the format of the definition of capitalism.

Socialism is a political and economic system which advocates that a country's means of production, distribution, and exchange are controlled by the country's government, rather than by private owners for profit. (as edited by Huin)

Communism is defined (also as searched as "meaning of " on Bing) as "a political theory[ or system, as edited] derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs." If we apply this to our country we would be more correct to further edit out the words "class war and leading to". As edited, communism becomes defined as "a political system derived from Karl Marx, advocating a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs."

Though these systems are distinct and different from each other, it seems to me that capitalism and socialism can be merged and co-exist to the benefit of most people in our nation. Conservatives forces clearly advocate and support a capitalist system in our country. On the other hand, retired people, like myself, rely on the existence of Social Security and Medicare. I also know someone with pre-existing conditions who was saved from financial ruin as a result of the Affordable Care Act.

In our country there maybe 15% to 20% extreme right wing capitalists who will not accept a merged concept of capitalism and socialism for the benefit of the vast majority of people in our country. Also, believe it or not, there may be 15% to 20% of the population on the very left wing who see capitalism as a deadly enemy. To them, it means fight them or be destroyed by them.

If we disregard for the moment these Right- and Left-wingers, we are left with about 60% of American voters who would wholeheartedly accept the peaceful coexistence of capitalism with a moderate form of socialism in our country. Sixty percent of votes constitute a landslide victory for any party. Any one of our two parties can have the opportunity in the 2020 election to become that party of choice. Under Trump, I doubt whether the direction of Republicans as a whole will change. Though as time marches on there may be a few candidates to see the light.

Let's digress for a moment. Humans consider themselves as being different from most animals than merely in shape and form. Some believe that our difference lies in the fact that we can reason rather than use our basic instincts. And there may be something to that. But even with reason it may be like physical strength: Use it or lose it. Another distinction over most animals is that humans have become masters in the use of tools. We use golf carts to avoid having to walk to the next challenge on the golf course. We use cars to avoid having to walk to the grocery store or to school and we use computers and the internet; and airplanes to visit faraway places. And we use weapons to kill our enemies.

Besides all this there is in my mind one thing which predominantly distinguishes humans from animals. We love to possess property of various forms. Some live for the life of the rich and famous. Others may be happy to spend half a day to shine and clean the used car which they just bought at a year's end sale. Property is what most live for and how much depends often on how much are we willing to work for or to sacrifice for. But whatever it is that we have collected, it is ours, we try to protect it. After all, that property represents who we are and what we have achieved up to that point in our lives.

Putting this little interjection aside and returning to the main thread, the Democratic Party has an enormous opportunity, if its leadership will just take the helm and steer in the right direction. I believe that when candidates advocate to tax wealth, even if the tax is imposed only on the wealthiest and only as a small amount like a percent or two, it sounds good but spells doom. A tax on wealth is a tax on what most people consider the basis of their existence. It represents their lives' achievement. If I were wealthy, though I am not, I would certainly be worried. But I am still concerned for another reason. If I were a multi-billionaire and might become subject to a tax on what I have, I would pack up my marbles and move. I would not stay in a country that attacks my very existence, my pride, my everything. If I left early enough I might not even lose on sales of real property. There are any number of civilized countries in the Western world that would love to welcome me and my wealth as a new citizen.

But what happens to the country without the wealth of those that have left? Real estate is a fickle thing. Its worth is determined by what someone is willing and able to pay. Sure, publicly traded companies may continue to exist. But credit and trade will suffer. Those candidates who advocate a wealth tax may be blinded by the immediate opportunity to fund social projects without taking on added debt. However, the tax does not create wealth. The money to pay the tax is probably already invested in a wealth creating project and would merely be re-routed. What happens when all billionaires have flown the coup? The nation as a whole will be poorer for it. Those who enjoyed those programs will then believe they have rights to them and they will revolt when those freebees go away. Sure we can always print money but that ultimately will not be worth the ink used for printing it.

I worked with a colleague who had come to this country from Germany. He had grown up in Berlin during the run-away inflation in the early 1920s. The inflation devastated many and is attributed to be a cause for the rise of Hitler's murderous empire. My colleague's dad got paid twice a day and had to buy groceries during lunch because he could no longer afford them later with the money he earned that morning.

I have heard of a maxim in political science which says that if people had to choose between a dictatorship and chaos they would choose a dictatorship. This year will be a challenge to all of us.