Marx vs. Smith

“The world has never had a good definition of the word liberty, and the American people, just now, are much in want of one. We all declare for liberty, but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name– liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names– liberty and tyranny.”

The above quote, by then President Abraham Lincoln, I hope to use as both a poignant reminder, and literary device, to begin a discussion of both points of parity, and points of difference, between socialism, and capitalism, as a means of distributing raw materials, and or manufactured goods.

In this light, it seems in at least one respect, the capitalist, and the socialist share at least one proclivity, and that is that as both are benefited from the work of others, both strive to manage and contain the work of others, to further both their personal means, and their ideological ends.

On it’s surface, one might be tempted to say that the end of the capitalist is, relative to the socialist, self serving, but that would presuppose that the former would not see fit to use his or her gains to benefit hearth, and community, or even share said means with a perfect stranger, should need or want arise. It is a very rare person whom history has judged not to be in such company.

This is not to say that held power has not proved to more that what many, many, people could hold while sustaining even a tepid amount of grace, or as in so many instances, throughout times both past and present, while sustaining even the slightest shred of human decency.

I do not see where power delineates itself between the socialist, and the capitalist, and as such hold those seeking the same in either category, and for its own sake, as suspect, and both, or either, on the whole, as needing to mitigate tendencies toward depravity,

As our analysis begins, it seems the socialist has the metaphorical upper-hand in the area of management, as she or he strives to manage others, and their work, for not only their personal benefit, but also for the benefit of others, and if successful, others often unbeknownst to the worker in question.

I suggest our scenario must be tempered with another point of parity, and promise to return to address said position in relatively short order.

Perhaps, if our socialist, as conceived, is truly successful, we might even say that said ideologue has inspired our worker(s), toward more efficient labor, as more benefit is extracted from, and more directly, and for more people. Ironically, not differing entirely from the early days of American Industrialism, when it was hoped by many capitalists, that the “most goods,” could be manufactured for the most people.

However, I don’t think it’s fair or wise, to label our socialist as utterly altruistic, as self benefit, has been both sought, and at least within our theoretical construct, ensued.

It would also be difficult for me to argue that there is nothing noble in such an approach, as it may well be that we, as of yet, do not have the capacity to service all of our citizenry with the best of all we have technological access to, thus providing the evidentiary framework of the nobility of a system, and the people maintaining it, as the latter seem willing to accept less goods from said system, while in a position to acquire more, and in addition, provide relatively more, to those in want of both capacity, and what many consider necessities.

I have little doubt that many might seek to interject at this point with many varied, and valid arguments, which I by no means mean to dismiss out of hand; issues of property, and ownership, and individual rights, and how they seem inexorably linked under our present system of government, at least in so far as one has reached a somewhat arbitrarily set, age of majority.

It is chiefly for some sake of brevity that I continue unabated, though not necessarily unforlorn to take these matters up again, in the future.

A prominent difference between capitalism as practiced, and socialism as conceived, and in some instances, the tenets of which practiced even among us today. See: Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto, and his 10 planks of Communism, one of which is a heavy progressive income tax.

In my opinion, this difference renders down to an issue of “free will,” at least in so far as how each chooses to mitigate poverty, assumptions provided; argumentation as to effective policy, while acknowledged, will not be broached for the purpose(s) of this post.

The difference between choosing to spend earned resources on those less fortunate, or not, as opposed to having one’s wealth, and possibly even then, the lack thereof, taken under the threat of force, and or imprisonment, and moreover, in quantities disproportionate to most of our fellow citizenry, assumptions granted, presents itself to me, as contrary to the mantra of equality, as often perpetuated by those of us capitulating for the same, from an ideological perspective.

I previously promised some further tempering to my position, at one point, and as such, you shall have it.

There seems to me another very telling point of parity between capitalism, and socialism, and that lies in the fact that both, are inclined toward mandatory taxation, although admittedly toward often differing ends, however, this is not meant to gloss over the very stark difference that while both are not disinclined toward threat of force and or imprisonment toward seeking the necessary liquidity to sustain agendas, socialism seems quite content toward justifying disproportionate collection on the basis that the lion’s share of labor may have, and to be fair, often does account for the means by which the capitalist has obtained his/her profits, while discounting not only the efforts of, but also the risks taken, by the entrepreneur initially.

It should also be noted that while capitalism can at least, usually boast toward the reality that it’s laborers have been acquired of their own free will, socialism cannot necessarily do the same, especially if it should achieve it’s end goal, that being the communist state.

Toward that consideration it seems, as both are not recalictrant toward taking what was not earned by them for the purposes of serving their sometimes differing, sometimes similar agendas, perhaps we should begin to consider assessing both systems in terms of trading goods, and deciding ownership, with a strong focus toward the latter, as with it brings what I think I feel is, while a much more entangled web of illusion vs. reality, a scenario no less intriguing as well.

The agrument, if it is one, seems to be far less over whether freedom exists, but rather how much of an illusion of freedom should be maintained, and to what ends should “the government,” or any government play, if any, and where gathered resources should be spent, if anywhere.